CC SR 20221115 G - PSA with GLA for Portuguese Bend Mitigation Project
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to award a professional services agreement to Geo-
Logic Associates, Inc. for support services associated with the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Mitigation Project.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Award a professional services agreement to Geo-Logic, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $74,088, for on-call technical, design, grant application, and other related
support services associated with the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation
Project’s Environmental Impact Report; and,
(2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract, in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approving the professional Services agreement will result in
expenditures up to $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2022 -23.
Amount Budgeted: $535,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 330-400-8304-8005
(CIP – PB Landslide Remediation/Engineering Services)
ORIGINATED BY: Ron Dragoo, P.E., Principal Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Professional Services Agreement with Geo-Logic (page A-1)
B. Proposal from Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (page B-1)
C. December 18, 2018 Staff Report (page C-1)
D. December 17, 2019 Staff Report (page D-1)
BACKGROUND:
On December 18, 2018, the City Council approved the award of a professional services
agreement (PSA) for design services associated with the Portuguese Bend Landslide
1
Mitigation (PBLM) Project to Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, a Geo-Logic Company,
(Attachment C).
On December 17, 2019, following several meetings with staff, including meetings with the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) and other community stakeholders,
staff presented to the City Council the proposed design drawings, hydrolo gic analysis,
and geotechnical analysis associated with the PBLM Project. After considering
information presented that evening including public testimony, City Council accepted the
proposed plan (Attachment D).
During development of the EIR, the project designer, Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA),
provided support under City Manager authorized agreements not exceeding $25,000 per
fiscal year. GLA has assisted staff in developing exhibits, providing analysis, and
responding to questions from the environmental consultant when needed. GLA has also
assisted during the City’s recent grant application efforts and is continuing to do so.
DISCUSSION:
The Public Works Department’s relies on consultants’ services to assist with certain
design and technical support required during the development of the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) or grant applications for the PBLM Project. Therefore, the City uses
a consultant through a PSA that has on-call provisions, to provide the professional
services needed. This is consistent with Public Works’ historic practice of using consultant
services to augment City Staff and provide support services.
GLA has helped staff perform analysis and provide information associated with the EIR
and grant applications, including the $23M application under the FEMA Disaster
Mitigation BRIC (Building, Resiliency, Infrastructure, and Community) Grant program.
Establishing an on-call agreement with GLA is needed to continue the technical work
necessary to complete the EIR and grant applications. GLA is a preferred choice for these
services because they are the designer of record for the project and have the
qualifications and historical knowledge needed to respond to and develop information
quickly and efficiently. This on-call contract reduces the time required to solicit, review,
evaluate, and qualify proposals, and then to negotiate fees, establish contract terms, and
award a contract for each individual work assignment associated with support of the EIR
and grant applications.
Task Order Procedure
As Staff identifies the need for additional technical, design, grant application, and other
on-call support services, staff will issue a request with a description of the work to be
performed and a schedule for completion based on the project budget. When a request
for services is issued, GLA will prepare a task proposal documenting the scope of work,
fee to perform the work (based on previously agreed-upon rates), and schedule for
completion. The Contract Officer will then approve, modify, or reject the proposal, and
2
issue a Notice to Proceed when a written agreement has been reached on the task
proposal. The task shall be performed at a cost not exceeding the task budget.
A to date project budget summary is provided below.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The attached PSA is based on the latest template approved by the City Council at its
November 1, 2022 meeting (Attachment A).
CONCLUSION:
City Council is being asked to approve a PSA with GLA to provide professional support
services for the EIR and grant applications through an on-call task order process.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not approve the PSA with GLA and provide additional direction to Staff.
2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
8304 - Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation
Fund Budget Notes
330 483,139.83
220 292,300.00
330 1,075,000.00
330 (85,760.00)
330 535,000.00
2,299,679.83
Project Costs:Project Budget Committed
Expenditures as
of 11/07/2022 Balance Notes
Professional/Technical Services 220 265,718.50 86,295.60 179,422.90 -
Contingency 220 26,581.50 26,581.50 - -
Professional/Technical Services 330 977,342.83 54,203.33 776,263.50 146,876.00
Contingency 330 40,304.00 33,104.00 7,200.00 -
Engineering Design Services 330 989,733.00 266,000.00 - 723,733.00
Total Project Costs 2,299,679.83 466,184.43 962,886.40 870,609.00
Project Total -$ 466,184.43$ 962,886.40$ 870,609.00$
8001
8005
Original Budget FY22-23
8001
8001
8001
Description
Project Budget Summary
Revised Budget FY18-19
Original Budget FY19-20
Original Budget FY21-22
Reallocated to CIP Project 8708 - Alta Mira Canyon
3
01203.0001/835369.1 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
A-1
01203.0001/835369.1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made
and entered into on November 15, 2022, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES,
INC., a California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to,
individually or collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Consultant, following submission of a proposal for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
B. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
C. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services”, as stated in the Proposal, attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required
hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose
intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean
those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work
under similar circumstances.
A-2
01203.0001/835369.1 2
1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s Proposal which shall be incorporated
herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency
between the terms of such Proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall
govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and
any Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”)
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Consultant
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Consultant shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $200 (two hundred dollars) for each calendar
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor.
A-3
01203.0001/835369.1 3
(d) Payroll Records. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subconsultant to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within 60 (sixty) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of
its subconsultants shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Consultant acknowledges that 8 (eight) hours labor
constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Consultant shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit $25 (twenty-five dollars) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Consultant or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than 8 (eight) hours in any one calendar day and 40 (forty) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of 8
(eight) hours per day, and 40 (forty) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1½
(one and one half) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Consultant certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract.”
Consultant’s Authorized Initials ________
(i) Consultant’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Consultant shall be responsible for such
A-4
01203.0001/835369.1 4
subcontractor's compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract
with any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to take all
actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wag es. Consultant shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are ne cessary
for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer in the form of a Change Order.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
A-5
01203.0001/835369.1 5
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written Change Order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to 15% of the Contract
Sum; or, in the time to perform of up to 90 (ninety) days, may be approved by the Contract
Officer through a written Change Order. Any greater increases, taken either separately or
cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by Consultant
that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in the Scope of
Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to be provided
pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than Consultant
anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation therefor. City
may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other Consultants. No claims
for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the procedures
established in this Section are followed.
If in the performance of the contract scope, the Consultant becomes aware of material defects in
the scope, duration or span of the contract or the Consultant becomes aware of extenuating
circumstance that will or could prevent the completion of the contract, on time or on budget, the
Consultant shall inform the Contracting Officer of an anticipated Change Order. This proposed
change order will stipulate, the facts surrounding the issue, proposed solutions, proposed costs
and proposed schedule impacts.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed $74,088 (Seventy-Four Thousand Eighty-Eight Dollars) (the
“Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved pursuant to Section 1.9.
A-6
01203.0001/835369.1 6
2.2 Method of Compensation.
(a) The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon
completion; (ii) payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of
the services; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as specified
in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, and (b) the Contract Sum is not exceeded; or (iv) such other methods
as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
(b) A retention of 10% shall be held from each payment as a contract retention to be
paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory and timely completion of services. This
retention shall not apply for on-call agreements for continuous services or for agreements for
scheduled routine maintenance of City property or City facilities.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice, using the City template,
or in a format acceptable to the City, for all work performed and expenses incurred during the
preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of Finance. By submitting an invoice for
payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying compliance with all provisions of the
Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all necessary and actual expenses by the
following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel, materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-
contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be detailed by such categories. Consultant
shall not invoice City for any duplicate services performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
A-7
01203.0001/835369.1 7
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer through a Change
Order, but not exceeding 60 (sixty) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within 10 (ten) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term & Extended Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding 1 year
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
“D”). The City may, in its discretion, extend the Term by one (1) additional one (1) year
extended term by giving advance written notice thereof thirty (30) prior calendar days prior to
the expiration of the Term.
A-8
01203.0001/835369.1 8
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
Neven Matsovic__ _ Principal____________
(Name) (Title)
Alan Witthoeft____ ____Senior Engineer_____
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only the personnel included in the Proposal to perform services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consultant shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of
Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this
Agreement. Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors,
if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any
such performance. City shall have the right to approve or reject any proposed replacement
personnel, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
A-9
01203.0001/835369.1 9
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Ron Dragoo, Principal Engineer or such person as may be
designated by the Director of Public Works. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure
that the Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and
the Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer.
Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the
approval of the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in
writing by the City Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to
carry out the terms of this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode
or means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein,
except as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge,
supervision or control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing
their number, compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required
herein as an independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly
independent contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant
shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are
agents or employees of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed
to be a partner of Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any
joint enterprise with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City; all subcontractors included
in the Proposal are deemed approved. In addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein
may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation
of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or ot herwise, without the prior written approval of
City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons
acting in concert of more than 25% (twenty five percent) of the present ownership and/or control
of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such
unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No
approved transfer shall release the Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability
hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to com mencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
A-10
01203.0001/835369.1 10
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
A-11
01203.0001/835369.1 11
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination
of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or
be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
City has the right but not the duty to obtain and continuously maintain the insurance it deems
necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will
withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City
may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subconsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
A-12
01203.0001/835369.1 12
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits
of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a 30 (thirty) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a 10 (ten) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subconsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insu rance required by
giving the Consultant 90 (ninety) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
A-13
01203.0001/835369.1 13
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims
or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or
indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence,
except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
A-14
01203.0001/835369.1 14
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost
of work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant
agrees that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that
may or will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein
or, if Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant
shall promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”)
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any
use, reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of
A-15
01203.0001/835369.1 15
uncompleted documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the
City’s sole risk and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties
shall not extend to such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such
documents for its own use. Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein.
All subcontractors shall provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared
by them, and in the event Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify
City for all damages resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents
and materials that may qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such
documents and materials are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary”
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
A-16
01203.0001/835369.1 16
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is 15 (fifteen) days, but may be extended, though not reduced, if
circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the City shall hold
all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the invoices. In the
alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the outstanding
invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City may take
necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part of the City
to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of the City’s
legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
A-17
01203.0001/835369.1 17
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 (thirty) days’ written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. Upon receipt of any notice of
termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as may be
specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for
all services rendered prior to the effective date of the notice of termination and for any services
authorized by the Contract Officer thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation
or such as may be approved by the Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the
event of termination without cause pursuant to this Section, the City need not provide the
Consultant with the opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.8 Termination for Default of Party.
If termination is due to the failure of the other Party to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement:
(a) City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
(b) Consultant may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, terminate the
Agreement upon written notice to the City‘s Contract Officer. Consultant shall be entitled to
payment for all work performed up to the date of termination.
A-18
01203.0001/835369.1 18
7.9 Attorneys’ Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the
terms of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
A-19
01203.0001/835369.1 19
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this
Agreement, and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of
unauthorized aliens, Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such
liabilities or sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred by City.
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either
party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and
either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City
Manager and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in
the case of the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of
this Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship
of this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
A-20
01203.0001/835369.1 20
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
“financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
“remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration,
or other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
A-21
01203.0001/835369.1 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
David L. Bradley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Teresa Takaoka, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC., a California
corporation
By:
Name: Gary Lass
Title: CEO
By:
Name: James L. Kelsey
Title: Senior Vice President
Address: 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
A-22
01203.0001/835369.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
A-23
01203.0001/835369.1
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2022 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
A-24
01203.0001/835369.1 A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following services on the Portuguese Bend Landslide
Mitigation Project (the “Project”):
Task 1 - Technical and Design Support for Preparation of the EIR
Scope of services includes evaluations and design revision in support of relocation of
work areas within newly-established project boundaries, relocation of the currently
established stockpile areas to meet the environmental requirements, re-alignment of
access routes, relocation of hydrauger initiation points, preliminary design of hydrauger
ancillary facilities, including design of groundwater conveyance and storage facilities.
Other services may include similar revisions of flow paths, crack infill locations, and
more. Services will be on as-needed basis and may include technical support,
collaboration with the Environmental Study / CEQA review team and City
representatives, as needed.
Task 2 - Technical Support for Grant Application
Consultant has prepared a summary statement of site investigation, engineering
evaluation, recommended mitigation measures, expected impacts of the improvements,
and controls of the improvement success for the Project) in the City. This information is
provided to support the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)/FEMA
BRIC-application. The Cycle 2 of the application will start soon and similar input from
Consultant and extensive involvement of its senior personnel will be required.
Services shall include processing of the existing information, revision of the existing
information, gathering and processing of supplemental information, and response to the
teams’ requests. Special requirements include filling-in project-specific spreadsheets for
uploading at the FEMA grant application web site
Task 3 – On-Going Technical Support for the Project
The Project is ongoing. Involvement of Geotechnical engineer for the project is required
by the City and its subcontractors, including LSA, Chambers, and Hout. Consultant will
participate in meetings over an extended period (3 months or longer), and will assist the
City in implementing revisions to drawings and plans that will be required to
accommodate direction by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and other agencies.
Substantial revisions will entail engineering calculations and senior peer review.
Scope of this task includes overall project management and coordination, participation in
internal and external meetings, and interaction with Infrastructure Management Advisory
Committee (IMAC) and those in attendance at IMAC meetings.
A-25
01203.0001/835369.1 A-2
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible
work products to the City:
A. Not applicable
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering
the following status reports:
A. Status reports as requested by the Contract Officer.
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be
revised by the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found
satisfactory and accepted by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. Personnel as determined at the discretion of the Consultant.
A-26
01203.0001/835369.1 B-1
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text indicated in bold italics, deleted text indicated in strikethrough.
I. Section 1.1 “Scope of Services” is amended to read:
“1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services”, as stated in the Proposal, attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein
as the “services” or “work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this
Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and
facilities necessary to properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough,
competent, and professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services
contemplated herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its
ability, experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it
shall follow the highest ordinary professional standards in performing the work and services
required hereunder and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the
purpose intended. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards”
shall mean those standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing
similar work under similar circumstances.”
II. Section 1.7 “Care of Work” is amended to read:
“1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to furnish
continuous protection to the work services, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work services by
City, except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.”
III. Section 5.2 “ General Insurance Requirements” subsection (a) is amended to read:
“(a) Proof of insurance
Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage
required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation.
Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to
commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City
at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.”
A-27
01203.0001/835369.1 C-1
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the following tasks at the following rates:
Task 1 - Technical and Design Support for Preparation of the EIR ($17,074)
• Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 4 hrs @ 135/hr = $540.
• CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 30 hrs@ $143/hr = $4,290.
• Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 8 hrs @ $150/hr = $1,200.
• Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 4 hrs @
$227/hr = $908.
• Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 36 hrs @$276/hr = $9,936.
• Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $200.
Task 2 - Technical Support for Grant Application ($29,068)
• Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 80 hrs @ 135/hr = $10,800.
• CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 40 hrs@ $143/hr = $5,720.
• Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 12 hrs @ $150/hr = $1,800.
• Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 8 hrs @
$227/hr = $1,816.
• Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 32 hrs @$276/hr = $8,832.
• Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $100.
Task 3 – On-Going Technical Support for the PBLM Project ($27,946)
• Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 40 hrs @ 135/hr = $5,400.
• CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 40 hrs@ $143/hr = $5,720.
• Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 16 hrs @ $150/hr = $2,400.
• Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 12 hrs @
$227/hr = $2,724.
• Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 42 hrs @$276/hr = $11,592.
• Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $110.
II. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.9.
III. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
A-28
01203.0001/835369.1 C-2
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials,
and travel properly charged to the Services.
IV. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
V. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
A-29
01203.0001/835369.1 C-3
EXHIBIT " C- 1"
2022 FEE SCHEDULE
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Staff Professional I ...................................................................................................................... $135.00/Hour
Staff Professional II ....................................................................................................................... 150.00/Hour
Staff Professional III ...................................................................................................................... 160.00/H our
Project Professional I .................................................................................................................... 177.00/Hour
Project Professional II ................................................................................................................... 192.00/Hour
Project Professional III .................................................................................................................. 206.00/Hour
Senior Professional I ..................................................................................................................... 227.00/Hour
Supervising Professional/Senior Professional II ............................................................................ 254.00/Hour
Principal Professional I ................................................................................................................. 276.00/Hour
Principal Professional II ................................................................................................................ 317.00/Hour
Court Appearance (Expert Witness, Deposition, etc.; four-hour minimum) ............................ 2 x HourlyRate
FIELD/LABORATORY STAFF
Technician I ................................................................................................................................... 104.00/Hour
Technician II .................................................................................................................................. 112.00/Hour
Technician III (or Minimum Prevailing Wage) ............................................................................... 124.00/Hour
Technician IV ................................................................................................................................ 150.00/Hou r
Laboratory Manager ..................................................................................................................... 165.00/Hour
Principal Technician ...................................................................................................................... 190.00/Hour
CADD/GIS
CADD/GIS/Database Manager I .................................................................................................... 108.00/Hour
CADD/GIS/Database Manager II ................................................................................................... 130.00/Hour
CADD Designer .............................................................................................................................. 143.00/Hour
GIS Specialist ................................................................................................................................. 175.00/Hour
SUPPORT STAFF
Administrative Assistant I ............................................................................................................... 95.00/Hour
Administrative Assistant II ............................................................................................................ 120.00/Hour
Technical Editor ............................................................................................................................ 120.00/Hour
Senior Technical Editor ................................................................................................................. 150.00/Hour
*Overtime Premium is 35% of PERSONNEL CHARGE
EQUIPMENT CHARGES
BAT Permeameter .......................................................................................................................... 200.00/Day
Compaction Testing Equipment & Supplies ..................................................................................... 50.00/Day
Peel & Shear Strength Apparatus (FML Seams) ......................................................................... 900.00/Month
Portable Laboratory (8’ x 32’ trailer) with equipment ................................................................ 1,200/Month
Portable Laboratory (mobilization / demobilization) .......................................................................... 1,500.00
ReMi/Refraction Seismograph ........................................................................................................ 600.00/Day
Sealed Single Ring Infiltrometer (SSRI) .............................................................. 200.00/Day or 750.00/Month
Sealed Double Ring Infiltrometer (SDRI) ..................................................................................... Call for Quote
Slope Inclinometer.......................................................................................................................... 250.00/Day
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Reconnaissance ....................................................................... 130.00/Day
EXPENSES
Vehicle Use for Field Services ............................................................................... 15.00/Hour or 350.00/week
Soil Sampling Equipment & Drilling Supplies .................................................................................... 5.00/Hour
Groundwater Sampling Equipment and Supplies ........................................................................... 15.00/Hour
Per Diem ............................................................................ Lesser of (Cost +15%) or (Local Government Rate)
Outside Services (Consultants, Surveys, Chemical lab Tests, etc.)................................................... Cost + 15%
Reimbursables (Maps, Photos, Permits, Expendable Supplies, etc.) ............................................... Cost + 15%
Outside Equipment (Drill Rig, Backhoe, Monitoring Equipment, etc.) ............................................ Cost + 15%
A-30
01203.0001/835369.1 D-1
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Schedules will be developed for each task as on-call work is requested by the City’s
Contract Officer.
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. Not applicable.
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2. Any further extensions require City Council approval.
A-31
3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210 • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • T 714.465.8240 • www.geo-logic.com
October 27, 2022
GLA Proposal No. SO19.1251.PR
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Department of Public Works
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Attention: Mr. Ron Dragoo, PE
PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL SERVICES
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE IMPROVEMENTS
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Dragoo:
GENERAL
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA) is pleased to provide this proposal for on-call consulting
services and technical support for ongoing Grant application (Cycles 1 and 2), for support in
preparation and revision of the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and for related
services that are part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ongoing support
to the City.
Scope of services includes interpretation and revision of information related to the planned City
of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV) Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation (PBLM) project.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 - Technical and Design Support for Preparation of the EIR
Scope of services includes evaluations and design revision in support of relocation of work
areas within newly-established project boundaries, relocation of the currently established
stockpile areas to meet the environmental requirements, re-alignment of access routes, re-
location of hydrauger initiation points, preliminary design of hydrauger ancillary facilities,
including design of groundwater conveyance and storage facilities. Other anticipated services
may include similar revisions of flow paths, crack infill locations, and more. Therefore, like so
far, the proposed services will be on as-needed basis and may include technical support,
collaboration with the Environmental Study / CEQA review team and City representatives.
B-1
Proposal No. SO19.1251.PR | On-Call Services | City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2
October 2022
Task 2 - Technical Support for Grant Application
GLA has prepared a summary statement of site investigation, engineering evaluation,
recommended mitigation measures, expected impacts of the improvements, and controls of
the improvement success for the PBLMP) in the City. This information is provided to support
the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)/FEMA BRIC-application. The Cycle 2 of
the application will start soon and similar input from GLA and extensive involvement of its
senior personnel will be required.
Scope of services includes processing of the existing information, revision of the existing
information, gathering and processing of supplemental information, and response to the teams’
requests. Special requirements include filling-in project-specific spreadsheets for uploading at
the FEMA grant application web site.
Task 3 – On-Going Technical Support for the PBLM Project
The PBLM) project is ongoing. Involvement of Geotechnical engineer for the project is required
by the City and its subcontractors, including LSA, Chambers, and Hout. We anticipate
participation in meetings over an extended period (3 months or longer) and implementing
required revisions to drawings and plans that will be required to accommodate specific
requirements of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and other agencies. Substantial
revisions will require engineering calculations and senior peer review.
Scope of this task includes overall project management and coordination, and participation in
internal and external meetings. And interaction with public (IMAC).
FEE ESTIMATE
Our consulting services will be provided on a time-and-materials basis. Hourly rates for GLA
personnel will be based on GLA’s 2022/23 Schedule of Fees which is attached. Subconsultant,
subcontractor, and other project expenses, if any incurred, will be billed with a 15 percent
markup added.
Based on the scope of services described above, our total estimated fee for the proposed Tasks
1 – 3 is $74,088.A per-task breakdown of this cost estimate is as follows:
Task 1 - Technical and Design Support for Preparation of the EIR ($17,074)
Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 4 hrs @ 135/hr = $540.
CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 30 hrs @ $143/hr = $4,290.
Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 8 hrs @ $150/hr = $1,200.
B-2
Proposal No. SO19.1251.PR | On-Call Services | City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3
October 2022
Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 4 hrs @
$227/hr = 908.
Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communuicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 36 hrs @ $276/hr = $9,936.
Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $200.
Task 2 - Technical Support for Grant Application ($29,068)
Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 80 hrs @ 135/hr = $10,800.
CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 40 hrs @ $143/hr = $5,720.
Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 12 hrs @ $150/hr = $1,800.
Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 8 hrs @
$227/hr = $1,816.
Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communuicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 32 hrs @ $276/hr = $8,832.
Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $100.
Task 3 – On-Going Technical Support for the PBLM Project ($27,946)
Staff Engineer I (data processing and analysis): 40 hrs @ 135/hr = $5,400.
CADD Designer (drafting and graphical support): 40 hrs @ $143/hr = $5,720.
Staff Engineer II (data collection and analysis): 16 hrs @ $150/hr = $2,400.
Senior Engineer (develop detailed scope for Staff Engineer and Designer): 12 hrs @
$227/hr = $2,724.
Principal (develop overall scope/ technical leadership, communuicate with the Team;
Senior Review and coordination; Project Management): 42 hrs @ $276/hr = $11,592.
Miscellaneous expenses (mileage, FedEx, etc.): $110.
This cost estimate does not include regulatory interface or responses to regulatory comments.
We are ready, however, to provide this service on a time-and-materials basis at additional fee.
GLA will notify the City when 75% of the budget is expended.
B-3
Proposal No. SO19.1251.PR | On-Call Services | City of Rancho Palos Verdes 4
October 2022
SCHEDULE
GLA is ready to begin working on this important project upon receipt of a formal notice to
proceed.
CLOSURE
GLA appreciates the opportunity to provide this proposal for this project, and we look forward
to working with you. Sincerely,
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.
Neven Matasovic, PhD., PE, GE
Principal
714.465.8240 / nmatasovic@geo-logic.com
Attachment: GLA 2022/23 Schedule of Fees
B-4
Attachment
GLA 2022/23 Schedule of Fees
B-5
Schedule 2022 SoCal Effective Through 09/30/22
2022 FEE SCHEDULE
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
Staff Professional I ...................................................................................................................... $135.00/Hour
Staff Professional II ....................................................................................................................... 150.00/Hour
Staff Professional III ...................................................................................................................... 160.00/Hour
Project Professional I .................................................................................................................... 177.00/Hour
Project Professional II ................................................................................................................... 192.00/Hour
Project Professional III .................................................................................................................. 206.00/Hour
Senior Professional I ..................................................................................................................... 227.00/Hour
Supervising Professional/Senior Professional II ............................................................................ 254.00/Hour
Principal Professional I ................................................................................................................. 276.00/Hour
Principal Professional II ................................................................................................................ 317.00/Hour
Court Appearance (Expert Witness, Deposition, etc.; four-hour minimum) ............................ 2 x HourlyRate
FIELD/LABORATORY STAFF
Technician I ................................................................................................................................... 104.00/Hour
Technician II .................................................................................................................................. 112.00/Hour
Technician III (or Minimum Prevailing Wage) ............................................................................... 124.00/Hour
Technician IV ................................................................................................................................ 150.00/Hour
Laboratory Manager ..................................................................................................................... 165.00/Hour
Principal Technician ...................................................................................................................... 190.00/Hour
CADD/GIS
CADD/GIS/Database Manager I .................................................................................................... 108.00/Hour
CADD/GIS/Database Manager II ................................................................................................... 130.00/Hour
CADD Designer .............................................................................................................................. 143.00/Hour
GIS Specialist ................................................................................................................................. 175.00/Hour
SUPPORT STAFF
Administrative Assistant I ............................................................................................................... 95.00/Hour
Administrative Assistant II ............................................................................................................ 120.00/Hour
Technical Editor ............................................................................................................................ 120.00/Hour
Senior Technical Editor ................................................................................................................. 150.00/Hour
*Overtime Premium is 35% of PERSONNEL CHARGE
EQUIPMENT CHARGES
BAT Permeameter .......................................................................................................................... 200.00/Day
Compaction Testing Equipment & Supplies ..................................................................................... 50.00/Day
Peel & Shear Strength Apparatus (FML Seams) ......................................................................... 900.00/Month
Portable Laboratory (8’ x 32’ trailer) with equipment ................................................................ 1,200/Month
Portable Laboratory (mobilization / demobilization) .......................................................................... 1,500.00
ReMi/Refraction Seismograph ........................................................................................................ 600.00/Day
Sealed Single Ring Infiltrometer (SSRI) .............................................................. 200.00/Day or 750.00/Month
Sealed Double Ring Infiltrometer (SDRI) ..................................................................................... Call for Quote
Slope Inclinometer.......................................................................................................................... 250.00/Day
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (Drone) Reconnaissance ....................................................................... 130.00/Day
EXPENSES
Vehicle Use for Field Services ............................................................................... 15.00/Hour or 350.00/week
Soil Sampling Equipment & Drilling Supplies .................................................................................... 5.00/Hour
Groundwater Sampling Equipment and Supplies ........................................................................... 15.00/Hour
Per Diem ............................................................................ Lesser of (Cost +15%) or (Local Government Rate)
Outside Services (Consultants, Surveys, Chemical lab Tests, etc.)................................................... Cost + 15%
Reimbursables (Maps, Photos, Permits, Expendable Supplies, etc.) ............................................... Cost + 15%
Outside Equipment (Drill Rig, Backhoe, Monitoring Equipment, etc.) ............................................ Cost + 15%
<continued on next page>
B-6
Schedule 2022 SoCal Effective Through 09/30/22
PERMITS, FEES AND BONDS
The costs of all permits, fees, and performance bonds required by government agencies are to be paid by
the Client, unless stated otherwise in an accompanying proposal.
INSURANCE
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. carries workers' compensation, comprehensive general liability and automobile
with policy limits normally acceptable to most clients. The cost for this insurance is covered by the fees
listed in this schedule. Cost of any special insurance required by the Client, including increases in policy
limits, adding additional insured parties and waivers of subrogation, are charged at cost plus 15%. Unless
otherwise stated, such charges are in addition to the estimated or maximum charges stated in any
accompanying proposal.
TERMS
Payment is due upon presentation of invoice and is past due thirty (30) days from invoice date. Past due
accounts are subject to a finance charge of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month, or the
maximum rate allowed by law.
PROPOSAL PERIOD
Unless otherwise stated, a proposal accompanying this schedule is effective for sixty (60) days. If
authorization to proceed is not received within this period, Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. reserves the right to
renegotiate the fee.
B-7
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/18/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to award a Professional Services Agreement to
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. for design services associated with the
Portuguese Bend Landslide mediation work.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Award a Professional Services Agreement to Daniel B. Stephens & Associates,
Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $479,918;
(2) Authorize the City Manager or Director of Finance to execute changes to this
agreement, and a not to exceed contingency of $40,000 to accommodate
unforeseen requirements; and,
(3) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services
Agreement, contingent on the City Attorney’s approval of the Agreement as to
form.
FISC AL IMPACT: The recommended action will result in a total authorized
expenditure of up to $519,918. This is a new project and funding for this Capital
Improvement design is not included in the approved FY18-19 budget. An additional
appropriation of $519,918 is requested.
Amount Budgeted: $0
Additional Appropriation: $519,918
Account Number(s): 330-400-xxxx-xxxx
ORIGINATED BY: Ron Dragoo, PE, Principal/City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
Agreement for Professional Services (page A-1)
Request for Proposals (page B-1)
Proposal – Daniel B. Stephens (page C-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City Council approved the update to the Portuguese Bend Feasibility Study at its
August 7, 2018, meeting. The City Council Subcommittee for the Landslide Feasibility
Study Update reviewed and edited the Request for Proposals (RFP) document for
Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design for improvements in the Portuguese Bend
C-1
Landslide to include Drainage and Dewatering (hydro-augers). The RFP document
(Attachment B) was released October 11, 2018. Several consultants were directly
contacted by Staff and the RFP was published on the City’s website in an extended
effort to solicit qualified consultants to submit proposals for the proposed project.
The RFP document asked consultants to provide proposals to the City for their services
including:
• Perform a hydrology study of the watershed including specific hydrologic and
engineering analysis of the watershed to identify as to where, what quantity, how,
and to what extent the stormwater runs off and/or infiltrates into the landslide and
becomes part of the groundwater in the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex;
• Perform engineering analysis, evaluation, and designs for the lower portion of the
Portuguese Bend Landslide that would convey the drainage runoff to the ocean
directly;
• Design groundwater extraction horizontal drains (hydro-augers) for the lower
area of the landslide, including a cost benefit analysis for the hydro-augers and
any alternatives; and,
• Analyze and design repair plans if sealing fractures in the landslide area between
Palos Verdes Drive South and Burma Road is determined to be needed.
Two proposals were received by the November 12, 2018, submittal deadline. Both
proposals were reviewed and Daniel B. Stephens (Attachment C) was determined to be
the most qualified for the project and required process, including public input and
reviews. Following this determination, Staff entered into negotiations for the fee and to
further refine and narrow the final scope of work for the project.
If this Professional Services Agreement (Attachment A) is approved, the work will only
include: (1) the design of the drainage system at the bottom portion of the landslide
located to the south of Burma Road; (2) the design of any necessary fracture infill in
this area; (3) the design of the underground hydro-augers at the bottom of the slide;
and, (4) the hydrology/hydraulic analysis in the canyons. Any design work to potentially
line any or all of the canyons north of Burma Road is not included in this proposal.
Environmental review work associated with any part of the designs that will be
developed will be undertaken following City Council approval of the designs. As the
Consultant develops engineering designs, they will meet with Staff and applicable
State/Federal agencies as well as the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC) and the City Council Subcommittee to review those designs. A community
outreach meeting will follow to solicit comments on the initial conceptual design of
mitigation efforts, and a 30-day public comment period will be provided to review
proposed design concepts and siting of proposed designed improvements.
Modifications to the design and locations, if needed, will be completed prior to
proceeding with the ensuing design of the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation
Project. A final public outreach meeting will be conducted and the review and plan
update process repeated prior to bringing the final design plans to the City Council for
review and approval.
C-2
Based on their clear understanding of project constraints, local geology, movement and
general characteristics of the landslide, along with the results of the negotiations
associated with project scope and cost, Staff is recommending approval of the
Professional Services Agreement with Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. to perform
design services for this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Discuss and provide recommendations on other options that may be
appropriate.
C-3
CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
By and Between
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
and
DANIEL B. STEPHENS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
C-4
AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND
DANIEL B. STEPHENS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT SERVICES (herein “Agreement”) is made and
entered into this 18th day of December, 2018 by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
California municipal corporation (“City”) and Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., a
California corporation (“Consultant”). City and Consultant may be referred to, individually or
collectively, as “Party” or “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City has sought, by issuance of a Request for Proposals or Invitation for Bids, the
performance of the services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Consultant, following submission of a proposal or bid for the performance of the
services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement, was selected by the
City to perform those services.
C. Pursuant to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Municipal Code, City has authority
to enter into and execute this Agreement.
D. The Parties desire to formalize the selection of Consultant for performance of
those services defined and described particularly in Article 1 of this Agreement and desire that
the terms of that performance be as particularly defined and described herein.
OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made by
the Parties and contained herein and other consideration, the value and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. SERVICES OF CONSULTANT
1.1 Scope of Services.
In compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Consultant shall
provide those services specified in the “Scope of Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference, which may be referred to herein as the “services” or
“work” hereunder. As a material inducement to the City entering into this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, experience, and facilities necessary to
properly perform the services required under this Agreement in a thorough, competent, and
professional manner, and is experienced in performing the work and services contemplated
herein. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability,
experience and talent, perform all services described herein. Consultant covenants that it shall
follow the highest professional standards in performing the work and services required hereunder
and that all materials will be both of good quality as well as fit for the purpose intended. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “highest professional standards” shall mean those
C-5
standards of practice recognized by one or more first-class firms performing similar work under
similar circumstances.
1.2 Consultant’s Proposal.
The Scope of Service shall include the Consultant’s scope of work or bid which shall be
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any
inconsistency between the terms of such proposal and this Agreement, the terms of this
Agreement shall govern.
1.3 Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall keep itself informed concerning, and shall render all services hereunder
in accordance with, all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules, and regulations of the City and any
Federal, State or local governmental entity having jurisdiction in effect at the time service is
rendered.
1.4 California Labor Law.
If the Scope of Services includes any “public work” or “maintenance work,” as those
terms are defined in California Labor Code section 1720 et seq. and California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq., and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more,
Consultant shall pay prevailing wages for such work and comply with the requirements in
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq. and 1810 et seq., and all other applicable laws,
including the following requirements:
(a) Public Work. The Parties acknowledge that some or all of the work to be
performed under this Agreement is a “public work” as defined in Labor Code Section 1720 and
that this Agreement is therefore subject to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code relating to public works contracts
and the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”)
implementing such statutes. The work performed under this Agreement is subject to compliance
monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor shall post job site notices, as prescribed by
regulation.
(b) Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall pay prevailing wages to the extent
required by Labor Code Section 1771. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the
prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any
interested party on request. By initiating any work under this Agreement, Contractor
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) determination of
the prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Contractor shall post a copy of the same at each job
site where work is performed under this Agreement.
(c) Penalty for Failure to Pay Prevailing Wages. Contractor shall comply with
and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment
of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. The
Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar
C-6
day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the
DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to
this Agreement by Contractor or by any subcontractor.
(d) Payroll Records. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the
provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Contractor and each subcontractor to:
keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as
specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as
provided by Section 1776; and inform the City of the location of the records.
(e) Apprentices. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by the provisions
of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations Title 8,
Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment of apprentices on public works projects.
Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all
apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Contractor shall
provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program.
Within sixty (60) days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor and each of
its subcontractors shall submit to the City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice
hours performed under this Agreement.
(f) Eight-Hour Work Day. Contractor acknowledges that eight (8) hours labor
constitutes a legal day’s work. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code
Section 1810.
(g) Penalties for Excess Hours. Contractor shall comply with and be bound by
the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess
hours. The Contractor shall, as a penalty to the City, forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25) for each
worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by the Contractor or by any
subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work
more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week
in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1815, work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of
eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public
work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than one
and one-half (1½) times the basic rate of pay.
(h) Workers’ Compensation. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700
provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its
employees if it has employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code
Section 1861, Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of
this contract.”
C-7
Contractor’s Authorized Initials ________
(i) Contractor’s Responsibility for Subcontractors. For every subcontractor
who will perform work under this Agreement, Contractor shall be responsible for such
subcontractor’s compliance with Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720)
of the California Labor Code, and shall make such compliance a requirement in any contract with
any subcontractor for work under this Agreement. Contractor shall be required to take all actions
necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor’s compliance,
including without limitation, conducting a review of the certified payroll records of the
subcontractor on a periodic basis or upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to
pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Contractor shall diligently take
corrective action to halt or rectify any such failure by any subcontractor.
1.5 Licenses, Permits, Fees and Assessments.
Consultant shall obtain at its sole cost and expense such licenses, permits and approvals
as may be required by law for the performance of the services required by this Agreement.
Consultant shall have the sole obligation to pay for any fees, assessments and taxes, plus
applicable penalties and interest, which may be imposed by law and arise from or are necessary
for the Consultant’s performance of the services required by this Agreement, and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, employees or agents of City, against any
such fees, assessments, taxes, penalties or interest levied, assessed or imposed against City
hereunder.
1.6 Familiarity with Work.
By executing this Agreement, Consultant warrants that Consultant (i) has thoroughly
investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (ii) has carefully considered
how the services should be performed, and (iii) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and
restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. If the services involve
work upon any site, Consultant warrants that Consultant has or will investigate the site and is or
will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of services
hereunder. Should the Consultant discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will
materially affect the performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall immediately inform
the City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Consultant’s risk until written instructions
are received from the Contract Officer.
1.7 Care of Work.
The Consultant shall adopt reasonable methods during the life of the Agreement to
furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents,
plans, studies and/or other components thereof to prevent losses or damages, and shall be
responsible for all such damages, to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by City,
except such losses or damages as may be caused by City’s own negligence.
1.8 Further Responsibilities of Parties.
C-8
Both parties agree to use reasonable care and diligence to perform their respective
obligations under this Agreement. Both parties agree to act in good faith to execute all
instruments, prepare all documents and take all actions as may be reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Agreement. Unless hereafter specified, neither party shall be responsible
for the service of the other.
1.9 Additional Services.
City shall have the right at any time during the performance of the services, without
invalidating this Agreement, to order extra work beyond that specified in the Scope of Services
or make changes by altering, adding to or deducting from said work. No such extra work may be
undertaken unless a written order is first given by the Contract Officer to the Consultant,
incorporating therein any adjustment in (i) the Contract Sum for the actual costs of the extra
work, and/or (ii) the time to perform this Agreement, which said adjustments are subject to the
written approval of the Consultant. Any increase in compensation of up to ten percent (10%) of
the Contract Sum or $25,000, whichever is less; or, in the time to perform of up to one hundred
eighty (180) days, may be approved by the Contract Officer. Any greater increases, taken either
separately or cumulatively, must be approved by the City Council. It is expressly understood by
Consultant that the provisions of this Section shall not apply to services specifically set forth in
the Scope of Services. Consultant hereby acknowledges that it accepts the risk that the services to
be provided pursuant to the Scope of Services may be more costly or time consuming than
Consultant anticipates and that Consultant shall not be entitled to additional compensation
therefor. City may in its sole and absolute discretion have similar work done by other contractors.
No claims for an increase in the Contract Sum or time for performance shall be valid unless the
procedures established in this Section are followed.
1.10 Special Requirements.
Additional terms and conditions of this Agreement, if any, which are made a part hereof
are set forth in the “Special Requirements” attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated
herein by this reference. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of Exhibit “B” and any
other provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of Exhibit “B” shall govern.
ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.
2.1 Contract Sum.
Subject to any limitations set forth in this Agreement, City agrees to pay Consultant the
amounts specified in the “Schedule of Compensation” attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and
incorporated herein by this reference. The total compensation, including reimbursement for
actual expenses, shall not exceed Four Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred
Eighteen Dollars ($479,918) (the “Contract Sum”), unless additional compensation is approved
pursuant to Section 1.9.
/ / /
C-9
2.2 Method of Compensation.
The method of compensation may include: (i) a lump sum payment upon completion; (ii)
payment in accordance with specified tasks or the percentage of completion of the services, less
contract retention; (iii) payment for time and materials based upon the Consultant’s rates as
specified in the Schedule of Compensation, provided that (a) time estimates are provided for the
performance of sub tasks, (b) contract retention is maintained, and (c) the Contract Sum is not
exceeded; or (iv) such other methods as may be specified in the Schedule of Compensation.
2.3 Reimbursable Expenses.
Compensation may include reimbursement for actual and necessary expenditures for
reproduction costs, telephone expenses, and travel expenses approved by the Contract Officer in
advance, or actual subcontractor expenses of an approved subcontractor pursuant to Section 4.5,
and only if specified in the Schedule of Compensation. The Contract Sum shall include the
attendance of Consultant at all project meetings reasonably deemed necessary by the City.
Coordination of the performance of the work with City is a critical component of the services. If
Consultant is required to attend additional meetings to facilitate such coordination, Consultant
shall not be entitled to any additional compensation for attending said meetings.
2.4 Invoices.
Each month Consultant shall furnish to City an original invoice for all work performed
and expenses incurred during the preceding month in a form approved by City’s Director of
Finance. By submitting an invoice for payment under this Agreement, Consultant is certifying
compliance with all provisions of the Agreement. The invoice shall detail charges for all
necessary and actual expenses by the following categories: labor (by sub-category), travel,
materials, equipment, supplies, and sub-contractor contracts. Sub-contractor charges shall also be
detailed by such categories. Consultant shall not invoice City for any duplicate services
performed by more than one person.
City shall independently review each invoice submitted by the Consultant to determine
whether the work performed and expenses incurred are in compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement. Except as to any charges for work performed or expenses incurred by Consultant
which are disputed by City, or as provided in Section 7.3, City will use its best efforts to cause
Consultant to be paid within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Consultant’s correct and
undisputed invoice; however, Consultant acknowledges and agrees that due to City warrant run
procedures, the City cannot guarantee that payment will occur within this time period. In the
event any charges or expenses are disputed by City, the original invoice shall be returned by City
to Consultant for correction and resubmission. Review and payment by City for any invoice
provided by the Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any rights or remedies provided
herein or any applicable law.
2.5 Waiver.
Payment to Consultant for work performed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be
deemed to waive any defects in work performed by Consultant.
C-10
ARTICLE 3. PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
3.1 Time of Essence.
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
3.2 Schedule of Performance.
Consultant shall commence the services pursuant to this Agreement upon receipt of a
written notice to proceed and shall perform all services within the time period(s) established in
the “Schedule of Performance” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by this
reference. When requested by the Consultant, extensions to the time period(s) specified in the
Schedule of Performance may be approved in writing by the Contract Officer but not exceeding
one hundred eighty (180) days cumulatively.
3.3 Force Majeure.
The time period(s) specified in the Schedule of Performance for performance of the
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended because of any delays due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Consultant,
including, but not restricted to, acts of God or of the public enemy, unusually severe weather,
fires, earthquakes, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, riots, strikes, freight embargoes,
wars, litigation, and/or acts of any governmental agency, including the City, if the Consultant
shall within ten (10) days of the commencement of such delay notify the Contract Officer in
writing of the causes of the delay. The Contract Officer shall ascertain the facts and the extent of
delay, and extend the time for performing the services for the period of the enforced delay when
and if in the judgment of the Contract Officer such delay is justified. The Contract Officer’s
determination shall be final and conclusive upon the parties to this Agreement. In no event shall
Consultant be entitled to recover damages against the City for any delay in the performance of
this Agreement, however caused, Consultant’s sole remedy being extension of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section.
3.4 Term.
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Article 7 of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall continue in full force and effect until completion of the services but not exceeding one year
from the date hereof, except as otherwise provided in the Schedule of Performance (Exhibit
“D”). City, in its sole discretion, may extend the Term for one additional one-year term.
ARTICLE 4. COORDINATION OF WORK
4.1 Representatives and Personnel of Consultant.
The following principals of Consultant (“Principals”) are hereby designated as being the
principals and representatives of Consultant authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the
work specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith:
C-11
Stephen J. Cullen, Ph.D., PG Senior Vice President
(Name) (Title)
James A. Kelsey, P.G. President
(Name) (Title)
It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the
foregoing principals were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement.
Therefore, the foregoing principals shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for
directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the
services hereunder. All personnel of Consultant, and any authorized agents, shall at all times be
under the exclusive direction and control of the Principals. For purposes of this Agreement, the
foregoing Principals may not be replaced nor may their responsibilities be substantially reduced
by Consultant without the express written approval of City. Additionally, Consultant shall utilize
only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall make
every reasonable effort to maintain the stability and continuity of Consultant’s staff and
subcontractors, if any, assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement.
Consultant shall notify City of any changes in Consultant’s staff and subcontractors, if any,
assigned to perform the services required under this Agreement, prior to and during any such
performance.
4.2 Status of Consultant.
Consultant shall have no authority to bind City in any manner, or to incur any obligation,
debt or liability of any kind on behalf of or against City, whether by contract or otherwise, unless
such authority is expressly conferred under this Agreement or is otherwise expressly conferred in
writing by City. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or
any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officials, officers,
employees or agents of City. Neither Consultant, nor any of Consultant’s officers, employees or
agents, shall obtain any rights to retirement, health care or any other benefits which may
otherwise accrue to City’s employees. Consultant expressly waives any claim Consultant may
have to any such rights.
4.3 Contract Officer.
The Contract Officer shall be Elias Sassoon, Director of Public Works, Ron Dragoo,
Principal/City Engineer, or Nasser Razepoor, Senior Engineer, or such person as may be
designated by the City Manager. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to assure that the
Contract Officer is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services and the
Consultant shall refer any decisions which must be made by City to the Contract Officer. Unless
otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of
the Contract Officer. The Contract Officer shall have authority, if specified in writing by the City
Manager, to sign all documents on behalf of the City required hereunder to carry out the terms of
this Agreement.
4.4 Independent Consultant.
C-12
Neither the City nor any of its employees shall have any control over the manner, mode or
means by which Consultant, its agents or employees, perform the services required herein, except
as otherwise set forth herein. City shall have no voice in the selection, discharge, supervision or
control of Consultant’s employees, servants, representatives or agents, or in fixing their number,
compensation or hours of service. Consultant shall perform all services required herein as an
independent contractor of City and shall remain at all times as to City a wholly independent
contractor with only such obligations as are consistent with that role. Consultant shall not at any
time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees
of City. City shall not in any way or for any purpose become or be deemed to be a partner of
Consultant in its business or otherwise or a joint venturer or a member of any joint enterprise
with Consultant.
4.5 Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment.
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. In addition, neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed, hypothecated or
encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of creditors or otherwise,
without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder shall include the
transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty five percent
(25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into account on
a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any bankruptcy
proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the Consultant or
any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of City.
ARTICLE 5. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
5.1 Insurance Coverages.
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of
any services under this Agreement, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own
expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts
described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
(a) General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general
liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in
an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily
injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that
has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language
will not be accepted.
(b) Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile
insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury
and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with
Services to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-
C-13
owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each
accident.
(c) Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall
maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection
with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any
policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this
Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than
three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
(d) Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at
least $1,000,000).
(e) Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds
under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall include all of the requirements stated
herein.
(f) Additional Insurance. Policies of such other insurance, as may be required
in the Special Requirements in Exhibit “B”.
5.2 General Insurance Requirements.
(a) Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to
City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation
endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be
approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification
of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any
time.
(b) Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the
duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Services hereunder
by Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subConsultants.
(c) Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant shall be
primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required
to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of
primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be
endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-
contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall
be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
(d) City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required
under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced,
C-14
City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium
paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient
to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(e) Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance
company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance
or that is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an
assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger)
in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by
the City’s Risk Manager.
(f) Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured
pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or
appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow
Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to
waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery
against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of
its subConsultants.
(g) Enforcement of contract provisions (non-estoppel). Consultant
acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform
Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the
City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
(h) Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or
limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other
requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific
reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given
issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other
coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums
shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained
by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of
insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
(i) Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or
broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for
nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each
required coverage.
(j) Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be
endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers
shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any
excess/umbrella liability policies.
(k) Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages
required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting
endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
C-15
(l) Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for
all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of
liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
(m) Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to ensure that its subConsultants,
subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in
the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements
required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes
all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements
of this section. Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with Consultants,
subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
(n) Agency’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any
time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by
giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change
results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the City and Consultant may renegotiate
Consultant’s compensation.
(o) Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated,
lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these
specifications unless approved by City.
(p) Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely
notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance
under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required
liability policies.
(q) Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its
own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be
necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
5.3 Indemnification.
To the full extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) against, and will
hold and save them and each of them harmless from, any and all actions, either judicial,
administrative, arbitration or regulatory claims, damages to persons or property, losses, costs,
penalties, obligations, errors, omissions or liabilities whether actual or threatened (herein “claims
or liabilities”) that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising out of or in
connection with the negligent performance of the work, operations or activities provided herein
of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, or invitees, or any individual or
entity for which Consultant is legally liable (“indemnitors”), or arising from Consultant’s or
indemnitors’ reckless or willful misconduct, or arising from Consultant’s or indemnitors’
negligent performance of or failure to perform any term, provision, covenant or condition of this
Agreement, and in connection therewith:
C-16
(a) Consultant will defend any action or actions filed in connection with any
of said claims or liabilities and will pay all costs and expenses, including legal costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in connection therewith;
(b) Consultant will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the City, its
officers, agents or employees for any such claims or liabilities arising out of or in connection
with the negligent performance of or failure to perform such work, operations or activities of
Consultant hereunder; and Consultant agrees to save and hold the City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless therefrom;
(c) In the event the City, its officers, agents or employees is made a party to
any action or proceeding filed or prosecuted against Consultant for such damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the negligent performance of or failure to perform the work,
operation or activities of Consultant hereunder, Consultant agrees to pay to the City, its officers,
agents or employees, any and all costs and expenses incurred by the City, its officers, agents or
employees in such action or proceeding, including but not limited to, legal costs and attorneys’
fees.
Consultant shall incorporate similar indemnity agreements with its subcontractors and if
it fails to do so Consultant shall be fully responsible to indemnify City hereunder therefore, and
failure of City to monitor compliance with these provisions shall not be a waiver hereof. This
indemnification includes claims or liabilities arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or
omission, or reckless or willful misconduct of Consultant in the performance of professional
services hereunder. The provisions of this Section do not apply to claims or liabilities occurring
as a result of City’s sole negligence or willful acts or omissions, but, to the fullest extent
permitted by law, shall apply to claims and liabilities resulting in part from City’s negligence,
except that design professionals’ indemnity hereunder shall be limited to claims and liabilities
arising out of the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. The
indemnity obligation shall be binding on successors and assigns of Consultant and shall survive
termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 6. RECORDS, REPORTS, AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION
6.1 Records.
Consultant shall keep, and require subcontractors to keep, such ledgers, books of
accounts, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, reports, studies or other documents relating to the
disbursements charged to City and services performed hereunder (the “books and records”), as
shall be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement and enable the Contract
Officer to evaluate the performance of such services. Any and all such documents shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be complete
and detailed. The Contract Officer shall have full and free access to such books and records at all
times during normal business hours of City, including the right to inspect, copy, audit and make
records and transcripts from such records. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three
(3) years following completion of the services hereunder, and the City shall have access to such
records in the event any audit is required. In the event of dissolution of Consultant’s business,
custody of the books and records may be given to City, and access shall be provided by
Consultant’s successor in interest. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall fully
C-17
cooperate with the City in providing access to the books and records if a public records request is
made and disclosure is required by law including but not limited to the California Public Records
Act.
6.2 Reports.
Consultant shall periodically prepare and submit to the Contract Officer such reports
concerning the performance of the services required by this Agreement as the Contract Officer
shall require. Consultant hereby acknowledges that the City is greatly concerned about the cost of
work and services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. For this reason, Consultant agrees
that if Consultant becomes aware of any facts, circumstances, techniques, or events that may or
will materially increase or decrease the cost of the work or services contemplated herein or, if
Consultant is providing design services, the cost of the project being designed, Consultant shall
promptly notify the Contract Officer of said fact, circumstance, technique or event and the
estimated increased or decreased cost related thereto and, if Consultant is providing design
services, the estimated increased or decreased cost estimate for the project being designed.
6.3 Ownership of Documents.
All drawings, specifications, maps, designs, photographs, studies, surveys, data, notes,
computer files, reports, records, documents and other materials (the “documents and materials”)
prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents in the performance of this
Agreement shall be the property of City and shall be delivered to City upon request of the
Contract Officer or upon the termination of this Agreement, and Consultant shall have no claim
for further employment or additional compensation as a result of the exercise by City of its full
rights of ownership use, reuse, or assignment of the documents and materials hereunder. Any use,
reuse or assignment of such completed documents for other projects and/or use of uncompleted
documents without specific written authorization by the Consultant will be at the City’s sole risk
and without liability to Consultant, and Consultant’s guarantee and warranties shall not extend to
such use, reuse or assignment. Consultant may retain copies of such documents for its own use.
Consultant shall have the right to use the concepts embodied therein. All subcontractors shall
provide for assignment to City of any documents or materials prepared by them, and in the event
Consultant fails to secure such assignment, Consultant shall indemnify City for all damages
resulting therefrom. Moreover, Consultant with respect to any documents and materials that may
qualify as “works made for hire” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, such documents and materials
are hereby deemed “works made for hire” for the City.
6.4 Confidentiality and Release of Information.
(a) All information gained or work product produced by Consultant in
performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential, unless such information is in the
public domain or already known to Consultant. Consultant shall not release or disclose any such
information or work product to persons or entities other than City without prior written
authorization from the Contract Officer.
(b) Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not,
without prior written authorization from the Contract Officer or unless requested by the City
C-18
Attorney, voluntarily provide documents, declarations, letters of support, testimony at
depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed
under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary”
provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
(c) If Consultant, or any officer, employee, agent or subcontractor of
Consultant, provides any information or work product in violation of this Agreement, then City
shall have the right to reimbursement and indemnity from Consultant for any damages, costs and
fees, including attorney’s fees, caused by or incurred as a result of Consultant’s conduct.
(d) Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work
performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant or be
present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully
with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests
provided by Consultant. However, this right to review any such response does not imply or mean
the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
ARTICLE 7. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TERMINATION
7.1 California Law.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed both as to validity and to
performance of the parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions
concerning any dispute, claim or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be
instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or any other
appropriate court in such county, and Consultant covenants and agrees to submit to the personal
jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action. In the event of litigation in a U.S. District
Court, venue shall lie exclusively in the Central District of California, in the County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
7.2 Disputes; Default.
In the event that Consultant is in default under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall
not have any obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed
after the date of default. Instead, the City may give notice to Consultant of the default and the
reasons for the default. The notice shall include the timeframe in which Consultant may cure the
default. This timeframe is presumptively thirty (30) days, but may be extended, though not
reduced, if circumstances warrant. During the period of time that Consultant is in default, the
City shall hold all invoices and shall, when the default is cured, proceed with payment on the
invoices. In the alternative, the City may, in its sole discretion, elect to pay some or all of the
outstanding invoices during the period of default. If Consultant does not cure the default, the City
may take necessary steps to terminate this Agreement under this Article. Any failure on the part
of the City to give notice of the Consultant’s default shall not be deemed to result in a waiver of
the City’s legal rights or any rights arising out of any provision of this Agreement.
C-19
7.3 Retention of Funds.
Consultant hereby authorizes City to deduct from any amount payable to Consultant
(whether or not arising out of this Agreement) (i) any amounts the payment of which may be in
dispute hereunder or which are necessary to compensate City for any losses, costs, liabilities, or
damages suffered by City, and (ii) all amounts for which City may be liable to third parties, by
reason of Consultant’s acts or omissions in performing or failing to perform Consultant’s
obligation under this Agreement. In the event that any claim is made by a third party, the amount
or validity of which is disputed by Consultant, or any indebtedness shall exist which shall appear
to be the basis for a claim of lien, City may withhold from any payment due, without liability for
interest because of such withholding, an amount sufficient to cover such claim. The failure of
City to exercise such right to deduct or to withhold shall not, however, affect the obligations of
the Consultant to insure, indemnify, and protect City as elsewhere provided herein.
7.4 Waiver.
Waiver by any party to this Agreement of any term, condition, or covenant of this
Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant. Waiver by any
party of any breach of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other
provision or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement.
Acceptance by City of any work or services by Consultant shall not constitute a waiver of any of
the provisions of this Agreement. No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by
a non-defaulting party on any default shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a
waiver. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of
any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
7.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative.
Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this
Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party
of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or
different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the
other party.
7.6 Legal Action.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may take legal action, in law or in
equity, to cure, correct or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, to compel
specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain
any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any contrary
provision herein, Consultant shall file a statutory claim pursuant to Government Code Sections
905 et seq. and 910 et seq., in order to pursue a legal action under this Agreement.
7.7 Liquidated Damages.
Since the determination of actual damages for any delay in performance of this
Agreement would be extremely difficult or impractical to determine in the event of a breach of
C-20
this Agreement, the Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for and shall pay to the City the
sum of zero ($0.00) as liquidated damages for each working day of delay in the performance of
any service required hereunder. The City may withhold from any monies payable on account of
services performed by the Contractor any accrued liquidated damages.
7.8 Termination Prior to Expiration of Term.
This Section shall govern any termination of this Contract except as specifically provided
in the following Section for termination for cause. The City reserves the right to terminate this
Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days ’ written notice to Consultant,
except that where termination is due to the fault of the Consultant, the period of notice may be
such shorter time as may be determined by the Contract Officer. In addition, the Consultant
reserves the right to terminate this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60)
days ’ written notice to City, except that where termination is due to the fault of the City, the
period of notice may be such shorter time as the Consultant may determine. Upon receipt of any
notice of termination, Consultant shall immediately cease all services hereunder except such as
may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Except where the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered prior to the
effective date of the notice of termination and for any services authorized by the Contract Officer
thereafter in accordance with the Schedule of Compensation or such as may be approved by the
Contract Officer, except as provided in Section 7.3. In the event the Consultant has initiated
termination, the Consultant shall be entitled to compensation only for the reasonable value of the
work product actually produced hereunder. In the event of termination without cause pursuant to
this Section, the terminating party need not provide the non-terminating party with the
opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 7.2.
7.9 Termination for Default of Consultant.
If termination is due to the failure of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of Section 7.2, take over the work
and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise, and the Consultant shall be liable
to the extent that the total cost for completion of the services required hereunder exceeds the
compensation herein stipulated (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate
such damages), and City may withhold any payments to the Consultant for the purpose of set-off
or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated.
7.10 Attorneys’ Fees.
If either party to this Agreement is required to initiate or defend or made a party to any
action or proceeding in any way connected with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such
action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, whether legal or
equitable, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees shall include attorney’s
fees on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney’s fees shall be entitled to all other
reasonable costs for investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery and all other
necessary costs the court allows which are incurred in such litigation. All such fees shall be
deemed to have accrued on commencement of such action and shall be enforceable whether or
not such action is prosecuted to judgment.
C-21
ARTICLE 8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: NON-DISCRIMINATION
8.1 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees.
No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Consultant, or any
successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which
may become due to the Consultant or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms
of this Agreement.
8.2 Conflict of Interest.
Consultant covenants that neither it, nor any officer or principal of its firm, has or shall
acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner with the interests
of City or which would in any way hinder Consultant’s performance of services under this
Agreement. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person
having any such interest shall be employed by it as an officer, employee, agent or subcontractor
without the express written consent of the Contract Officer. Consultant agrees to at all times
avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of any conflicts of interest with the interests of City
in the performance of this Agreement.
No officer or employee of the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the
Agreement which affects her/his financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation,
partnership or association in which (s)he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any
State statute or regulation. The Consultant warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay
or give any third party any money or other consideration for obtaining this Agreement.
8.3 Covenant Against Discrimination.
Consultant covenants that, by and for itself, its heirs, executors, assigns, and all persons
claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of,
any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, gender, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other protected class in the performance of
this Agreement. Consultant shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed
and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, creed,
religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry or other
protected class.
8.4 Unauthorized Aliens.
Consultant hereby promises and agrees to comply with all of the provisions of the Federal
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., as amended, and in connection
therewith, shall not employ unauthorized aliens as defined therein. Should Consultant so employ
such unauthorized aliens for the performance of work and/or services covered by this Agreement,
and should any liability or sanctions be imposed against City for such use of unauthorized aliens,
Consultant hereby agrees to and shall reimburse City for the cost of all such liabilities or
sanctions imposed, together with any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by City.
C-22
ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
9.1 Notices.
Any notice, demand, request, document, consent, approval, or communication either party
desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing and either
served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class mail, in the case of the City, to the City Manager
and to the attention of the Contract Officer (with her/his name and City title), City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 and in the case of
the Consultant, to the person(s) at the address designated on the execution page of this
Agreement. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of
address in writing. Notice shall be deemed communicated at the time personally delivered or in
seventy-two (72) hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this Section.
9.2 Interpretation.
The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the
language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of
this Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply.
9.3 Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.
9.4 Integration; Amendment.
This Agreement including the attachments hereto is the entire, complete and exclusive
expression of the understanding of the parties. It is understood that there are no oral agreements
between the parties hereto affecting this Agreement and this Agreement supersedes and cancels
any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, if any, between
the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this Agreement. No amendment to or modification
of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and approved by the Consultant and by
the City Council. The parties agree that this requirement for written modifications cannot be
waived and that any attempted waiver shall be void.
9.5 Severability.
In the event that any one or more of the phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or
sections contained in this Agreement shall be declared invalid or unenforceable by a valid
judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall
not affect any of the remaining phrases, sentences, clauses, paragraphs, or sections of this
Agreement which are hereby declared as severable and shall be interpreted to carry out the intent
of the parties hereunder unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives
either party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.
/ / /
C-23
9.6 Warranty & Representation of Non-Collusion.
No official, officer, or employee of City has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in
this Agreement, nor shall any official, officer, or employee of City participate in any decision
relating to this Agreement which may affect his/her financial interest or the financial interest of
any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly interested, or
in violation of any corporation, partnership, or association in which (s)he is directly or indirectly
interested, or in violation of any State or municipal statute or regulation. The determination of
“financial interest” shall be consistent with State law and shall not include interests found to be
“remote” or “noninterests” pursuant to Government Code Sections 1091 or 1091.5. Consultant
warrants and represents that it has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, to any third party
including, but not limited to, any City official, officer, or employee, any money, consideration, or
other thing of value as a result or consequence of obtaining or being awarded any agreement.
Consultant further warrants and represents that (s)he/it has not engaged in any act(s),
omission(s), or other conduct or collusion that would result in the payment of any money,
consideration, or other thing of value to any third party including, but not limited to, any City
official, officer, or employee, as a result of consequence of obtaining or being awarded any
agreement. Consultant is aware of and understands that any such act(s), omission(s) or other
conduct resulting in such payment of money, consideration, or other thing of value will render
this Agreement void and of no force or effect.
Consultant’s Authorized Initials _______
9.7 Corporate Authority.
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such
party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally
bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) that entering into this Agreement does not
violate any provision of any other Agreement to which said party is bound. This Agreement shall
be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
C-24
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
the date and year first-above written.
CITY:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, a
municipal corporation
Jerry V. Duhovic, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
William W. Wynder, City Attorney
CONSULTANT:
___________________________________
By:
Name: James A. Kelsey, P.G.
Title: President
By:
Name: Stephen J. Cullen, Ph.D.
Title: Senior Vice President
Address: 3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Two corporate officer signatures required when Consultant is a corporation, with one signature required
from each of the following groups: 1) Chairman of the Board, President or any Vice President; and 2)
Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer. CONSULTANT’S
SIGNATURES SHALL BE DULY NOTARIZED, AND APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR
OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
C-25
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2018 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
C-26
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
On __________, 2018 before me, ________________, personally appeared ________________, proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _____________________________________
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could
prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
INDIVIDUAL
CORPORATE OFFICER
_______________________________
TITLE(S)
PARTNER(S) LIMITED
GENERAL
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER_______________________________
______________________________________
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
(NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES))
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
NUMBER OF PAGES
___________________________________
DATE OF DOCUMENT
___________________________________
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
C-27
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
I. Consultant will perform the following Services: Consultant will complete a
hydrology study of the watershed, including a specific hydrologic information
and engineering analysis of the Canyons to identify where, what quantity, how,
and to what extent the stormwater infiltrates into the groundwater in the
Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex. Based on a the hydrology study and
resultant water balance analysis, Consultant will develop the engineering
analysis required to evaluate, and provide a design for, the lower portion of the
Portuguese Bend Landslide in order to convey the drainage runoff to the ocean
directly, and Consultant will provide the design and placement location to bring
about the quantity of groundwater extraction through horizontal drains (hydro-
augers) for the lower area of the landslide to achieve the design goals.
Summary of the Tasks:
• Review existing records and field inventory with design team.
• Perform Hydrology analysis and the water balance for the entire watershed.
• Determine areas that require fracture in-filling located south of Burma Road.
• Design of the Hydro-Augers, determine their placement, drainage design and
perform a cost-benefit analysis specific to proposed improvements.
• Provide utility identification and coordination for proposed construction activities.
• Develop construction plan sheets based on engineering design.
• Develop the Engineer’s Estimate and estimated project cost and construction
schedule.
• Develop the Technical Specifications and applicable Special Provisions.
• Develop the Bid document package.
• Attend monthly meetings with regulatory agency interaction and answer questions
or requests for information (RFI) through the project bidding process).
• Develop all final project deliverables and as-built drawings.
• Perform all project Surveying.
• Provide updates for the City’s website specific to design services and public
outreach meetings.
• Attend meetings including project kickoff meeting, three City Council Meetings,
two public outreach meetings.
Services by Task
A. TASK A: Project kick-off meeting
1. Key members of Consultant’s project team will meet with City staff to
outline the drainage and dewatering design project in detail before major
tasks commence. Consultant will present its proposed WBS and project
schedule along with a summary of the major tasks and its approach to each
task and subtask. The lines of communication between team members, the
C-28
City and community, and other stakeholders will also be discussed. Data
needs from the City and major deliverables will be outlined in order to
achieve a common understanding regarding the overall project as well as
proposed methodologies, engineering technologies, and dewatering/
drainage and landslide mitigation goals.
B. TASK B: Review Existing Records/Field Inventory
1. Consultant has already comprehensively reviewed the key reports in the
City’s document library during document compilation and review during
the Portuguese Bend Feasibility Study Update (“FS Update”, found here:
http://www.rpvca.gov/documentcenter/view/12275) preparation. The key
documents and data will be further incorporated into new work as needed
in Consultant’s planning and design tasks to be completed for the
proposed scope of work. Consultant will work with City staff to further
identify any additional documents to add to the library as needed.
C. TASK C: Develop Project Hydrology Analysis
Consultant will collect critical field data in order to perform an accurate and
meaningful Water Balance to support project design. Therefore, the Hydrologic
Analysis will include field data collection (Task C1) to prepare an optimized
Water Balance to summarize available data and estimate the sources of
groundwater in the Red Zone area (Task C2). The Hydrologic Analysis will focus
on the Portuguese Canyon/Paint Brush Canyon Drainage Basin or subwatershed
(“Hydrologic Analysis Area”) as shown on the figure below. (See following
page.)
C-29
C-30
D. TASK C1. Field Data Collection
Field data collection will consist of the following activities:
1. Streambed survey. Consultant will conduct a field survey for the
streambeds in Portuguese Canyon, Ishibashi Canyon, and Paintbrush
Canyon and associated tributaries (“the Canyons”). The purpose of the
field survey is to identify areas of flat or impounded topography where
surface water may be subject to enhanced infiltration and groundwater
recharge and to characterize other properties of the streambeds that govern
groundwater recharge.
2. Synoptic streamflow discharge survey. Following a wet-weather event,
Consultant will collect streamflow discharge data at several locations
along the Canyons. This data will be used to identify sections of the
Canyons where streamflow may recharge to groundwater and to estimate
groundwater recharge. If flow in the measured reach of the stream has
decreased from upstream to downstream, the decrease may be attributed to
streamflow recharging groundwater. This type of survey is commonly
referred to as a “seepage run.” Field methods will be consistent with U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) techniques and will utilize staff gauges and
volumetric gauges (Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 2008). The timing of the
utility of this task is contingent on a suitable wet-weather event occurring
during the project period.
3. Surface water conveyance survey. Stormwater flowing through the
Canyons is currently routed to the Pacific Ocean through an existing storm
drain network constructed in the Red Zone area (figure shown on next
page). The surface conveyances will be visually surveyed to evaluate their
current location, condition, and current ability to transmit estimated peak
streamflow.
4. Groundwater well inspection survey. Information provided by the City
indicates that up to 20 dewatering wells have been constructed and
installed within the Hydrologic Analysis Area during previous mitigation
efforts. Except for four recent wells installed in 2016, no information
could be located that documents the well construction details, purpose of
each well (monitoring or dewatering), date of installation, well temporal
monitoring data, or the current status of the well, and the FS Update
recognized this limitation as a data gap that should be aggressively
addressed moving forward. Consultant will perform a well inspection
survey of wells in the Hydrologic Analysis Area, including, as appropriate,
down-hole video surveys and measurement of depth-to-groundwater,
wellhead elevation, well depth and diameter, and well screened interval.
Consultant will also perform limited aquifer testing of existing wells (e.g.,
slug tests) as a basis for estimating hydraulic aquifer properties.
C-31
5. Irrigation Practices Survey. Within the Hydrologic Analysis Area,
landscape irrigation occurs within the Rolling Hills neighborhood and
adjacent City neighborhoods as well as within the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve. Consultant will perform a visual field survey of landscape
irrigation practices, including irrigated areas, landscape vegetation (e.g.,
turf versus ornamentals), irrigation system, and the presence or absence of
overspray runoff to impervious surfaces that results in irrigation water
flow to the stormwater system. The irrigation practices survey will serve as
a basis for irrigation rate estimation for the water balance, described
below. Site access for Rolling Hills will be obtained by City.
E. TASK C2. Water Balance/Groundwater source assessment
1. Data collected under Task C1, described above, will be used in
conjunction with data collected from previous studies to develop an
optimized Water Balance of the Hydrologic Analysis Area. Within the
Hydrologic Analysis Area, a supplemental water balance will also be
conducted for the area of greatest land movement within the Portuguese
Landslide Complex (“Red Zone “) (figure below, see next page) to identify
significant sources of groundwater recharge and support design of the
dewatering system.
C-32
")
")
Rancho Palos Verdes
")
")
")
Rolling Hills Hydrologic
Analysis Area1
C-33
2. The Water Balance will consist of the following components:
a. Aquifer characterization and groundwater flow assessment.
Groundwater flow direction and volumetric flux will be estimated
based on the areal extent, thickness, and other physical
characteristics of the shallow aquifer underlying the Red Zone area
and canyons. To support this analysis, a groundwater elevation
map will be developed for the Hydrologic Analysis Area, and
cross-sections presented in the FS Update Appendix C will be
updated to project groundwater elevation throughout the upper
Canyon areas.
b. Groundwater data will be obtained from data collected under Task
C1, from previous studies as summarized in the FS Update, and if
available from the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) Program and State Water Resources
Control Board GeoTracker website.
c. Groundwater elevation maps will be used to generate contours of
groundwater elevation and resulting estimated horizontal flow
paths. Groundwater underflow into the Red Zone and groundwater
outflow to the Pacific Ocean will be estimated.
d. Watershed modeling/groundwater recharge from precipitation and
irrigation. Groundwater recharge by precipitation occurs aerially
throughout the Hydrologic Analysis Area, and is also focused
within sections of the streams during wet-weather flow. Consultant
will employ the Distributed Parameter Watershed Model (DPWM)
developed by Consultant for this purpose. Parameterization of the
DPWM will be completed with publically available data and data
collected in Task C1. The widely-used Parameter-elevation
Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) will be used
to generate precipitation rates that account for orographic effects
on a daily time step. Additional climactic data (e.g., wind speed,
temperature) will be accessed from local meteorological stations.
Vegetation data will be obtained from the USGS Gap Analysis
Program (GAP), and soils data will be obtained from the USDA
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) and State Soil Geographic
(STATSGO) databases.
e. Irrigation rates will be estimated based on water-delivery records
(if available), the irrigation practices survey conducted under Task
C1, and literature references for irrigation rates in Southern
California (e.g., Costello and Jones, 2014). Irrigated areas will be
estimated based on the irrigation practices survey and review of
aerial photography.
C-34
f. DPWM results will be documented in a series of maps and
diagrams that document model input data (e.g., topography, soils,
vegetation) and model simulated runoff volumes and deep
percolation to groundwater.
3. Septic system recharge. For domestic water users that use individual septic
systems, some of the household-consumed water is eventually recharged to
groundwater. The presence of septic systems within the Hydrologic
Analysis Area will be determined by comparison of the location of
residences and sewer infrastructure (e.g., FS Update Figure 7) in
consultation with appropriate City staff; it is assumed that septic systems
are present where residences are present and sewer pipes are absent. The
recharge rate for individual septic systems will be assumed to be 147.5
gallons per day (gpd) assuming 50 gpd per person based on a study of
septic system recharge within southern California (Hantzche and
Finnemore, 1992), and an average population of 2.95 persons per
household in California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Alternatively, water
delivery records may be used if available to estimate domestic water usage
per household.
4. Change in groundwater storage. As reported in the FS Update,
groundwater levels have historically increased in this area due to increase
in the rate of groundwater recharge caused by the disruption of drainage
patterns and the opening of fissures and cracks following the onset of land
movement. Newly collected groundwater level data under Task C1, above,
will be compared to historical groundwater-level data reported in the FS
Update to estimate the change in groundwater storage over time.
5. ·Identification of Key Sources of Groundwater. Significant sources of
groundwater recharge to the Red Zone will be determined from the results
of the Water Balance. Groundwater recharge from all sources (e.g.,
irrigation, septic systems, precipitation) will be summarized in table and
graphical form. The results of the Water Balance will be used to provide
input on mitigation measures to reduce groundwater recharge. In addition,
DPWM will be used to support engineering design of the system
dewatering components.
F. TASK D. Fracture Sealing (In-filling)
As noted in historical reports for the Portuguese Bend area, stormwater has for
years flowed out of lower Portuguese, Ishibashi, and Paintbrush Canyons and
recharged directly into subsurface groundwater in the landslide head scarp area
south of lower Burma Road. Groundwater recharge in the head scarp area
promotes slope instability in the Portuguese Bend “Red Zone” area of greatest
displacement. Sealing this surface fracture area is key to preventing future
stormwater flow into the head scarp and additional lubrication of the slide plane
failure surface.
C-35
1. This task consists of the following subtasks:
a. Field Survey
b. Evaluate Sealing Options
2. Consultant has already conducted a preliminary field survey of the fracture
areas while visiting the property on several dates in 2018. In addition,
Consultant obtained a high-resolution topographic map from the City that
shows landslide area topography with 1-foot elevation contours. The
topographic map shows several fractures in the landslide head scarp area.
Consultant imported the map into our GIS. Consultant will utilize the GIS
system to systematically identify key existing fractures before a
supplemental field survey is planned and completed. The GIS work and
sitewalk will be completed to inventory the fractures that need to be
targeted for sealing. A list of fractures will be prepared that itemizes each
fracture area and approximates the length, depth, and width of the fracture
that needs to be sealed. A map will be produced showing each fracture and
the existing habitat at each location. Total fracture volume can then be
estimated in order to develop an overall approach to the task and specify
the appropriate equipment and fracture sealant.
Several options will be evaluated for fracture sealing that include a variety
of equipment, materials, and methods. Various sealing media will be
considered such as fill soil, bentonite clay, or soil-cements. Sealant
delivery options are anticipated to include simple mixing and pumping as
well as mobile long-reach grout rigs. Each option will be presented as a
line item in a detailed table that presents a technology summary,
advantages, disadvantages, effectiveness, estimated longevity, costs, and
other factors, such as potential habitat impacts. The table of options will
be presented to the city and community for discussion and evaluation that
will ultimately lead to selecting the best option.
G. TASK E: City Council Meetings
Consultant’s anticipated agenda for each meeting:
1. Meeting 1: A preliminary draft schematic design for drainage and
dewatering will be presented to the City Council for review and approval
prior to proceeding beyond 30% design.
2. Meeting 2: A draft revised pre-construction design incorporating City
Council and City staff direction will be presented to the City Council for
further review and approval.
C-36
3. Meeting 3: A final 100% construction-ready design will be presented to
the City Council. Consultant will prepare PowerPoint files for each
meeting for overhead presentation to the City Council and public meeting
attendees. Each PowerPoint presentation will summarize the completed
work to date and illustrate the proposed engineering options for review,
discussion, and approval. Consultant will prepare and distribute meeting
minutes highlighting action items.
H. TASK F. Public Outreach Meetings
Consultant has planned and budgeted for two community outreach meetings, if
desired by the City. The meetings are anticipated to be completed at important
design milestones. Consultant will receive public comments, including after the
30-day comment period, and prepare a response-to-comments (RTC) document to
form the basis for continued discussion and interaction with the community as
final designs are selected and approved. The City Council will review and approve
the RTC document. Two meetings are anticipated for this Project:
1. Meeting 1: Present and discuss draft proposed plans and receive and
discuss community feedback.
2. Meeting 2: Present and discuss final construction-ready design and receive
and discuss community feedback. Consultant will prepare electronic
presentations using Powerpoint for each meeting for overhead
presentation. Each presentation will summarize the completed work to-
date and illustrate the proposed draft and final engineering options for
review, discussion, and approval. Consultant will prepare and distribute
meeting minutes highlighting action items.
I. TASK G: Hydro Augers
1. Design of Hydro-Auger System – Conceptual. In addition to reduction of
infiltration, this task includes the following goals:
a. Reduce artesian pressures below the basal failure surface
b. Reduce steady-state seepage (groundwater flow).
Both goals will be achieved by designing and installing a system of
hydro-augers. The first set of hydro-augers will be advanced below
the postulated basal failure surface to relieve the artesian pressure
within the bottom portion of the slide. These hydro-augers will not
be significantly affected (i.e., sheared-off, as would likely happen
for conventional vertical pumping wells drilled through the base of
the landslide) by the current relatively large movement of the
sliding mass (presently, on the order of 8 ft/yr). Following the
initial mitigation stage to achieve artesian pressure relief and
C-37
reduced infiltration, additional hydro-augers will be installed (with
penetration into the sliding mass) to lower the groundwater
elevation, reduce steady-state seepage forces, and improve the
redundancy and overall longer-term performance of the dewatering
system. To enhance drainage/relief of artesian water pressure, a
“casing perforating device” may be used. This device is a
perforating gun to provide effective flow communication between
a cased wellbore and formation water.
2. Design of Hydro-Auger System - Technical
Consultant’s preliminary design of the proposed hydro-auger system will
be based upon the existing information in the FS Update. However,
Consultant may pro pose supplemental subsurface investigation, if
Consultant finds that such information would fill needed data gaps and
benefit the project, (i.e., would reduce the number and length of hydro-
augers). This approach is further described in the “Value
Engineering/Monitoring Success” section of this task.
The proposed hydro-auger system will be designed based upon the results
of engineering evaluations, including 3-D seepage and slope stability
analyses. These engineering evaluations will build upon the previous work
by the Consultant that was conducted as a component of the FS Update, as
follows:
a. Expand the 3-D slope stability model (depicted in figure above)
with SVSLOPE (https://soilvision. com/product/svslope) of the site
to include additional areas affected by landsliding that require
mitigation or otherwise influence landsliding, as necessary. The
original 3-D slope stability was built as a component of the FS
Update
b. Refine and update the groundwater elevation surface based upon
the results of the Water Balance Study described above
c. Apply steady-state seepage and artesian pressure modeling options
to more accurately represent the observed phenomena using the
program SVFLUX which directly interacts with SVSLOPE
(https://soilvision.com/products/ svoffice-ge/svflux-ge). For the FS
Update, the 3-D slope stability model included only the manually-
entered, best estimate of the piezometric surface, and it only
indirectly considered artesian pressure
d. Calibrate the model with updated piezometric surface using output
from the Hydrology Analysis as available, steady-state seepage,
and artesian pressure to match the observed conditions (i.e., Factor
of Safety (FS) ? 1.0 (sliding); up to 8 feet per year of measured
C-38
gross displacement) and validate the results using a 2D analysis of
a critical cross section)
e. Evaluate the effect of “low infiltration” (e.g., using the results of
the Water Balance, calculate how long will it take to increase FS to
1.25 and 1.5 and hence mitigate displacements
f. Evaluate the following parameters of the hydro-auger system: (i)
location of hydro-augers; (ii) number of hydro-augers; (iii) spatial
orientation of hydro-augers; (iv) length of hydro-augers; and (v)
diameter of hydro-augers. This evaluation will be an iterative
process that also includes cost and time considerations. As
discussed in the RFP, concurrence by the City will be sought for
each “critical” step of this process
Upon completion of Step 6, Consultant will develop an implementation
schedule (i.e., Gant Chart), design drawings, and technical specifications,
and will develop a bid package. Relevant calculations will be submitted
electronically (e.g., PDF) with the drawing and specification package, as
requested by the City. The constructability and standard detail
requirements will be developed in consultation with our proposed drilling
subcontractor, Directed Technologies Drilling (DTD).
Consultant will also evaluate vertical groundwater extraction wells in this
task. Vertical extraction wells are a traditional and effective groundwater
extraction technology where installed in appropriate subsurface conditions.
However, vertical wells in the Portuguese Bend landslide complex haven
proven to be problematic given continual slope failure and land
displacement. As a result, as discussed in the FS Update, vertical wells are
anticipated to be more cost-effective if installed later in the mitigation
program once some slope stability has been achieved with other means,
such as hydro-augers. A vertical wells plan, if appropriate, will include
design, placement, and cost estimates.
3. Value Engineering/Monitoring the Success
Consultant’s preliminary design of the proposed hydro-auger system will
be based upon existing information provided by the City. It will be
developed at a level suitable for development of a bid package.
Implementation of the hydro-auger installation will be designed to occur in
phases, as discussed in the FS Update. This will allow for review of
additional information gathered during each phase of installation, and
potential adjustment of the design (if it benefits the project). For example,
during the first phase of the implementation, hydro-auger boreholes will be
logged, sampled, and tested, and flow out of the holes will be recorded.
This is valuable information that will be processed, evaluated, and input
C-39
into our 3-D model of the site. The model will be re-run, and the number
and length of hydro-augers might be adjusted accordingly.
Additional information that will benefit the project includes:
• Current (at the onset of the project/3-D modeling) information
on groundwater elevation, flow direction, and artesian pressure
along the basal failure surface
• Information on the basal shear surface (more accurate elevation
contours within the area affected by landsliding)
• Information on landslide movement (monument survey)
As discussed in the FS Update, information on file, for all three items
listed above, is (or will be) dated, and may not be accurate at the level that
would most benefit the project. Therefore, during the implementation
phase of this project, Consultant may propose to advance and instrument
up to three boreholes. The boreholes will be advanced within the bottom
third of the landslide mass and will extend beyond the postulated basal
failure surface. They will be instrumented with: (a) vibrating wire
piezometer; and (b) Time Domain Reflectometers (tilt meters).
Representative soil samples for laboratory testing (saturated hydraulic
conductivity below and above failure plane) will be recovered as well.
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Consultant will complete a cost-benefit analysis regarding hydro-
auger design, installation, and maintenance compared to the
ongoing maintenance cost associated with maintaining Palos
Verdes Drive South. The cost/benefit analysis will compare the
routine costs and benefits of periodic roadway assessment and
repair with the key issues related to the advantages and potential
disadvantages of hydro-augers including long-term and short-term
costs, slope stability, and short-term and long-term benefits. The
analysis will consist of a series of order-of-magnitude costing
tables and a summary table summarizing and scoring the pros and
cons of each option. Given the compromised nature of the current
roadway, the analysis would not be complete without considering
complete roadway collapse and repair due to an episodic slope
failure event. Consultant’s cost-benefit analysis will also consider
this scenario.
J. TASK H: Utility Coordination
Consultant will contact and coordinate with the appropriate public utilities
to ensure that utility lines and infrastructure are fully identified and
C-40
protected during upcoming design planning for construction work.
Consultant has already identified several utility line locations during
property area site walks and using the City GIS layers.
Sewer lines, storm lines, and potable water lines in the landslide complex
are already input to the GIS system that Consultant prepared for the FS
Update and are ready for use during design document preparation.
K. TASK I: Prepare construction plans
Based on the results of our engineering evaluations, Consultant will prepare a set
of full-size construction plans (scaled 22 inches x 34 inches) for the proposed
remedial measures. Key features to be included in the construction plan
correspond to the expanded sheet titles, as outlined below:
1. Title sheet, showing site vicinity map
2. Construction notes sheet
3. Existing conditions, including site topography, existing utilities, and
pertinent site features, such as channel alignments, and fractures
4. Drainage plan showing limits of lined channel installation and fracture
infilling (i.e., fracture locations and planned equipment layout)
5. Groundwater extraction plan, showing tentative hydro-auger installation
plan and section views as well as locations of vertical extraction wells, if
any, included in the design; hydro-auger installation plan will show entry
and exit pit locations, diameter, alignment, and confirmatory geotechnical
borings for the proposed drains; Drains to be installed first (the first phase)
will be clearly labelled
6. Monitoring plan showing locations of instrumentation for evaluating
effectiveness of the remedial measures; instrumentation will include
existing and proposed survey control points, TDRs, and vibrating wire
piezometers
7. Erosion control plan, showing locations and types of temporary (i.e., in-
place during construction and, potentially, removed at the end of
construction) and permanent (i.e., to remain post-construction) erosion
control BMPs
8. Grading plan for provision of laydown areas, equipment access, and
working platforms for installation of remedial measures
9. Detail sheets for surface water and erosion control, including fracture infi
lling, geosynthetics design for channel lining, and temporary and
permanent erosion control BMPs
C-41
10. Detail sheets for the first phase of hydro-auger installation and
development
11. Detail sheets for the first phase instrumentation design and installation
12. Construction plans will be submitted to the City in electronic (AutoCAD)
format for review and comment at the 30%, 60%, and 90% design
completion stages. At the 30% design stage, Consultant will also perform
internal peer review of the designs for constructability of the proposed
features. Consultant will incorporate City comments and deliver an
electronic copy of the bid-ready plan set at the 100% design stage.
L. TASK K. Prepare Engineer’s Estimate
Consultant will develop an engineer’s estimate for the proposed remedial work
during preparation of the 60% design construction plans, including construction
quantities and construction quality assurance program costs. This will be an order-
of-magnitude cost estimate for planning purposes and will be developed based on
a combination of Consultant in-house cost data for recent similar construction
projects, publicly available data (e.g., Caltrans, FHWA), and discussions with the
Consultant team subcontractors.
M. TASK L. Prepare technical specifications and applicable special provisions
1. At the 30% completion stage, Consultant will outline Technical
Specifications and will complete their development at 90% design stage.
Work will also include construction quality control guidance for the
proposed remedial work. Key features to be addressed in our specifications
package include:
a. Geosynthetics material and installation guidance for channel lining
b. Material type and delivery method for fracture infill
c. Pipe material and installation method for horizontal drainage
d. Drilling fluid management for directional drilling
e. Instrumentation installation and monitoring procedures
f. Earthworks for incidental grading
g. Applicable APWA Green Book guidance
h. Erosion control measures, including typical BMPs, guidance based
on NPDES permit requirements, and guidance based on provisions
of the Clean Water Act
C-42
i. Recommended inspection and maintenance regimen for hydro-
augers, channel lining, and fracture infill
2. Per City requirements, technical specifications will be submitted in hard
copy and electronic formats. At the 90% completion stage, Technical
Specifications will be provided in electronic format (Microsoft Word).
Revised specifications will be submitted in hard copy and electronic
formats at the 100% design stage.
N. TASK M. Prepare Bid Document Package
Upon the City’s acceptance of the 100% design stage plans and specifications,
Consultant will provide support to the City for development of a bid package. The
City will provide an example Bid Document Package and will provide front-end
Technical Specifications (including the format for the Notice to Bidders, Table of
Contents, General Provisions, Special Provisions, and format for Bid and Contract
sections). Consultant will develop Special Provisions by combining project-
specific special provisions with the City’s Special Provisions. Project Plan Sheets
will be referenced in the Bid Documents as an attachment. The assembled Bid
Document Package will be provided to the City in electronic format (i.e., PDF,
Microsoft Word, and AutoCAD, as appropriate).
O. TASK N: Attend meetings and answer RFIs
For this task, Consultant will be available to attend monthly meetings with the
City and the Ad-hoc Committee during design plan preparation to provide project
activity updates and to receive and discuss City input, review, and comment.
Consultant will also attend meetings at the City offices during the pre-bid and pre-
construction phases of the project to coordinate with the City staff and prospective
bidders regarding bid questions, clarifications, and requirements. Consultant will
respond to Requests for Information (RFIs) during the bidding and construction
phases of the project as needed. A total of four (4) meetings at the City are
estimated for this task.
P. TASK O: Final Deliverables & As-Builts
Consultant’s deliverable for the pre-bid phase will include bid-ready plans,
specifications, and a bid package provided to the City in hard copy and electronic
formats, as applicable. At the end of the construction, (i.e., in the implementation
phase, not as a part of this design-phase scope of work), Consultant will
commission an “As-Built” survey of the constructed improvements and submit
full-size (i.e., 22 inches x 34 inches) drawings electronically in AutoCAD and
PDF formats.
Q. TASK P: Estimated Construction Project Schedule
C-43
Consultant will prepare an itemized overall project construction schedule as part
of the overall deliverables. The schedule will be built in MS Project and converted
to a suitable format for the City if needed such as pdf. The draft schedule will be
reviewed by City staff and comment will be incorporated into the draft before a
final schedule is prepared.
R. TASK Q: Project Surveying
DBS&A has teamed with McGee Surveying Consulting for this task. After
incorporating earlier surveys that started in 1994, McGee Surveying has
completed the City’s annual GPS surveys of the landslide complex monuments
since 2007 to document land movement on an annual basis in the Portuguese
Bend area. The annual McGee Surveying reports form the basis for quantification
of overall land displacement and definition of the “Red Zone” area of greatest
land movement in the landslide complex. Consultant and McGee Surveying will
ensure that any future work is conducted consistent with the methodology of the
past work, consistent with the California Professional Land Surveyor’s Act, while
protecting and maintaining the established survey monuments in the area. All
reports as appropriate will be submitted to Los Angeles County to be recorded.
Relevant surveying details will be incorporated into draft and final drainage and
dewatering design plans as needed.
II. As part of the Services, Consultant will prepare and deliver the following tangible work
products to the City:
A. Design plans, 30%, 90% and Final plans for construction including but not limited
to city boiler plate, general provisions, special provisions, technical provisions,
bid table and bid package
B. Project construction schedule
C. Project cost estimate
D. Responses to RFIs
E. Post construction As-built drawings
III. In addition to the requirements of Section 6.2, during performance of the Services,
Consultant will keep the City appraised of the status of performance by delivering the
following status reports:
A. Consultant will work with City staff throughout the project to prepare and submit
documents, images, and maps, meeting notes, progress reporting,
communications, event timelines, etc., suitable for upload to the City website for
public review. Website updates can be generated at any time upon City request.
However, Consultant will prepare the website updates on at least a monthly basis
for the duration of the project including submittals after public meetings and
outreach events.
C-44
B. Project status meeting summary reports (monthly)
C. Updated design project schedule
IV. All work product is subject to review and acceptance by the City, and must be revised by
the Consultant without additional charge to the City until found satisfactory and accepted
by City.
V. Consultant will utilize the following personnel to accomplish the Services:
A. S. Cullen, Principal Professional II
B. N. Matasovic, Principal Professional I
C. M. Yacyshyn, Principal Professional I
D. J. Dodge, Principal Professional I
E. J. Russell, Senior Professional I
F. G. Schnaar, Senior Professional I
G. M. Vincent, Project Professional III
H. A. Witthoeft, Project Professional III
I. Staff Professional III
J. R. Faye, Seniro Technical Editor
K. Cadd/Gis/Data Base II
L. Technician III
C-45
EXHIBIT “B”
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
(Superseding Contract Boilerplate)
Added text is indicated in bold underline, and deleted text is indicated in strikethrough.
I. Section 4.5, Prohibition Against Subcontracting or Assignment, is amended to tread:
The experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Consultant, its principals and
employees were a substantial inducement for the City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore,
Consultant shall not contract with any other entity to perform in whole or in part the services
required hereunder without the express written approval of the City. Subconsultants Drilled
Technologies Drilling, Inc. and McGee Surveying Consulting are deemed approved. In
addition, neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be transferred, assigned, conveyed,
hypothecated or encumbered voluntarily or by operation of law, whether for the benefit of
creditors or otherwise, without the prior written approval of City. Transfers restricted hereunder
shall include the transfer to any person or group of persons acting in concert of more than twenty
five percent (25%) of the present ownership and/or control of Consultant, taking all transfers into
account on a cumulative basis. In the event of any such unapproved transfer, including any
bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement shall be void. No approved transfer shall release the
Consultant or any surety of Consultant of any liability hereunder without the express consent of
City.
II. Section 7.7., Liquidated Damages, is deleted in its entirety.
C-46
EXHIBIT “C”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
I. Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with the bid schedule attached
herewith as Exhibit “C-.”
II. A retention of ten percent (10%) shall be held from each payment as a contract
retention to be paid as part of the final payment upon satisfactory completion of
services.
NOT APPLICABLE
III. Within the budgeted amounts for each Task, and with the approval of the Contract
Officer, funds may be shifted from one Task subbudget to another so long as the
Contract Sum is not exceeded per Section 2.1, unless Additional Services are
approved per Section 1.9.
IV. The City will compensate Consultant for the Services performed upon submission of
a valid invoice. Each invoice is to include:
A. Line items for all personnel describing the work performed, the number of hours
worked, and the hourly rate.
B. Line items for all materials and equipment properly charged to the Services.
C. Line items for all other approved reimbursable expenses claimed, with supporting
documentation.
D. Line items for all approved subcontractor labor, supplies, equipment, materials,
and travel properly charged to the Services.
V. The total compensation for the Services shall not exceed the Contract Sum as
provided in Section 2.1 of this Agreement.
VI. The Consultant’s billing rates for all personnel are attached as Exhibit C-1.
NOT APPLICABLE
C-47
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION BY TASK
C-48
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Project Kickoff (1)/City Council (3)/Public Outreach (2) Meetings
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 36 $ 9,000.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 24 5,376.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 60 12,240.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00 4 512.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Project Assistant II Staff Hour 85.00
Subtotal: 124 $ 27,128.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Miles mi $ 0.56 750 $ 420.00
0.56
Subtotal:$ 420.00
Total Direct Cost 27,548.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 27,548.00
TOTAL $ 27,548.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-49
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Review Existing Records/Field Inventory with Design Team
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ $250.00 1 $ 250.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour $224.00 1 224.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour $204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour $204.00 2 408.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour $204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour $204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour $173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour $173.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour $161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour $135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour $128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour $110.00
Technician III Staff Hour $97.00
Subtotal: 4 $ 882.00
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 882.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 882.00
TOTAL $ 882.00
NOTES:
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-50
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Hydrology Analysis/Water Balance (entire Watershed)
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 50 $ 12,500.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 60 12,240.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00 200 40,800.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00 350 47,250.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00 4 512.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00 72 7,920.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00 40 3,880.00
Subtotal: 776 $ 125,102.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Contingency 1.00 1,000 1,000.00
Miles-OC-RPV 0.56 300 168.00
misc equip/mtrls/vendor 8,500.00 1 8,500.00
Subtotal:$ 9,668.00
Total Direct Cost 134,770.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 134,770.00
TOTAL $ 134,770.00
NOTES:
November 12, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-51
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Fracture In-Filling (south of Burma Road)
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 8 $ 2,000.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 8 1,792.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 12 2,448.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00 8 1,080.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 44 $ 8,704.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 8,704.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 8,704.00
TOTAL $ 8,704.00
NOTES:
November 12, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-52
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Hydro-Augers/Design/Cost-Benefit Analysis/Alternatives
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 175 39,200.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 24 4,896.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 40 8,160.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 50 8,650.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 496 85,808.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 785 $ 146,714.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
DTD N/C
Design services
Software LS 9,500.00 1 9,500.00
Subtotal:$ 9,500.00
Total Direct Cost 156,214.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 156,214.00
TOTAL $ 156,214.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-53
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Utility Coordination
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 2 408.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 2 346.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 4 $ 754.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 754.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 754.00
TOTAL $ 754.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-54
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Construction Plans (Sheets) based on Engineering Design
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 76 17,024.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 16 3,264.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 20 4,080.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 32 5,536.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 180 31,140.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 324 $ 61,044.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
copy service estim 2,500.00 1 2,500.00
Subtotal:$ 2,500.00
Total Direct Cost 63,544.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 63,544.00
TOTAL $ 63,544.00
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-55
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Engineer's Estimate
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 12 2,688.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 32 5,536.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 60 $ 11,240.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Misc Consumables LS 500.00 1 500.00
Subtotal:$ 500.00
Total Direct Cost 11,740.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 11,740.00
TOTAL $ 11,740.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-56
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Technical Specifications and Applicable Special Provisions
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 16 3,584.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 40 6,920.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 72 $ 13,520.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Misc Consumables LS 500.00 1 500.00
Subtotal:$ 500.00
Total Direct Cost 14,020.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 14,020.00
TOTAL $ 14,020.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-57
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Bid Document Package
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 12 2,688.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 4 692.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 28 4,844.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 52 $ 9,856.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Misc Consumables LS 500.00 1 $ 500.00
Subtotal:$ 500.00
Total Direct Cost 10,356.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 10,356.00
TOTAL $ 10,356.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-58
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Attend Monthly Meetings with Regulatory Interaction/Answer Questions RFI (Pre-bid)
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 12 $ 3,000.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 30 6,720.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 30 6,120.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 72 $ 15,840.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 15,840.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 15,840.00
TOTAL $ 15,840.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-59
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Final Deliverables and As-Builts
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 8 $ 2,000.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 20 4,480.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00 4 816.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00 12 2,076.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 52 8,996.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 100 $ 19,184.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 19,184.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 19,184.00
TOTAL $ 19,184.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-60
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Estimated Project Cost and Construction Schedule
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 8 1,792.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 8 1,384.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 16 $ 3,176.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 3,176.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 3,176.00
TOTAL $ 3,176.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-61
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Project Surveying
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 $
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 2 408.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00 2 346.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 4 $ 754.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
McGee estim 1,500.00 1 1,500.00
Subtotal:$ 1,500.00
Total Direct Cost 2,254.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 2,254.00
TOTAL $ 2,254.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-62
Client Name: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Date:
Project Name: Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design Estimator:
Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
Project Number: pending Project Manager:
Terms:per agreement Prepared by:
Approved by:
Updating City Website Materials
SERVICES UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
Principal Professional II S. Cullen Hour $ 250.00 12 $ 3,000.00
Principal Professional I N. Matasovic Hour 224.00 4 896.00
Principal Professional I M. Yacyshyn Hour 204.00
Principal Professional I J. Dodge Hour 204.00 20 4,080.00
Senior Professional I J. Russell Hour 204.00
Senior Professional I G. Schnaar Hour 204.00
Project Professional III M.Vincent Hour 173.00
Project Professional III A.Witthoeft Hour 173.00
Project Professional I Staff Hour 161.00
Staff Professional III DC/HE/PK Hour 135.00 20 2,700.00
Senior Technical Editor R.Faye Hour 128.00 2 256.00
CADD/GIS/Data Base II Staff Hour 110.00
Technician III Staff Hour 97.00
Subtotal: 58 $ 10,932.00
EXPENSES MARKUP UNIT UNIT FEE QUANTITY COST
$$
Subtotal:$ 0.00
Total Direct Cost 10,932.00
Markup on third party services 0.00
SUBTOTAL $ 10,932.00
TOTAL $ 10,932.00
NOTES:
December 6, 2018
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Dodge/Cullen/Matasovic
Cost Estimate
D a n i e l B . S t e p h e n s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c .
C-63
EXHIBIT “D”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
I. Consultant shall perform all Services timely in accordance with the schedule
attached hereto as Exhibit “D-1.”
II. Consultant shall deliver the following tangible work products to the City by the
following dates.
A. See Exhibit “D-1”
III. The Contract Officer may approve extensions for performance of the services in
accordance with Section 3.2.
C-64
EXHIBIT D-1
SCHEDULE OF WORK
C-65
an Vicente Creek Mill Site Restoration Project
33
www.dbstephens.comengineeringhydrologygeoscienceDBS&ADaniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Engineering Analysis, Evaluation, and Design for Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering (Hydro-augers)
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
ID Task Name Duration
1 Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and
Dewatering
164 days
2 Kickoff Meeting 0 days
3 Hydrology Analysis 150 days
4 Planning 15 days
5 Field Work (QSE)15 days
6 Water Balance 60 days
7 Reporting 60 days
8 Environmental Studies (CEQA)45 days
9 Geotechnical Engineering 160 days
10 Fracture In-Filling 60 days
11 Field Survey 15 days
12 Design Options 45 days
13 Cost/Benefit Analysis 60 days
14 Engineer's Estimates 157 days
15 30%30 days
16 60%45 days
17 90%35 days
18 Public Comment Period 30 days
19 100%20 days
20 Utility Coordination 15 days
21 Final Deliverables/Construction
Plans/Technical Specifications/Bid Document
43 days
22 Meetings 160 days
23 Monthly Meeting 0 days
24 City Council Meeting #1 0 days
25 Monthly Meeting 0 days
26 Public Outreach #1 0 days
27 Monthly Meeting 0 days
28 City Council Meeting #2 0 days
29 Monthly Meeting 0 days
30 Public Outreach #2 0 days
31 City Council Meeting #3 0 days
32 Pre-Bid Meeting 0 days
33 Pre-Construction Meeting 0 days
1/17
2/4
3/5
4/3
5/1
5/22
6/4
6/27
7/17
8/6
9/5
9/30
January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019
Task Milestone
Estimated Project Schedule‐Portuguese Bend Landslide Drainage and Dewatering
2018_11_07 DRAFT RPV Sched.mpp Page 1 of 1
Wed 11/7/18
C-66
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 12/17/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to accept and file the design drawings and hydrologic
analysis associated with Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Accept and file the design drawings and hydrologic analysis associated with
Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project;
(2) Authorize Staff to proceed with preparing the environmental document pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project including
requesting and receiving proposals as needed; and,
(3) Authorize Staff to identify funding opportunities for construction from county,
state, and federal agencies to augment local funds for consideration by the City
Council at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT: The recommended action, if approved, will require funding for the
preparation of the environmental document since this is a new
project and funding for this Capital Improvement construction is not
included in the approved Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget. The cost to
prepare the environmental document is unknown at this time and
an additional appropriation will be brought to the City Council at a
later date when costs are identified as part of the professional
services agreement for the environmental consultant.
Amount Budgeted: $0
Additional Appropriation: $0
Account Number(s): 330-400-8304-8001 (CIP – Portuguese Bend Landslide/Professional Services)
ORIGINATED BY: Nasser Razepoor, PE, Associate Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, Interim City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Geotechnical Evaluation Report (page A-1)
B. Project Construction Cost Estimate (page B-1)
C. Background – August 7, 2019 City Council Staff Report (page C-1)
D-1
D. NCCP/HCP - Acreage (page D-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On January 16, 2018, after a series of public workshops, Staff presented the City
Council with a draft copy of a feasibility study for extensive work to stabilize the
Portuguese Bend Landslide complex. The City Council received and filed the feasibility
study on August 7, 2018 as summarized in the attached staff report (Attachment C). On
December 18, 2018, the City Council approved the award of a professional services
agreement to Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. for design services associated with
the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project. The scope of work included
hydrologic analysis, evaluation, and design for drainage and dewatering (hydraugers)
improvements in the Portuguese Bend Landslide area.
The design consultant has completed the hydrologic analysis and design drawings
associated with the project. Prior to completing the analysis and drawings, the City held
two public outreach meetings, which took place on May 29, 2019 and October 7, 2019.
At those meetings, the design consultant provided information regarding the hydrologic
analysis, water balance, and mitigation design. The consultant also participated in
discussions with residents and answered their questions. Staff reviewed the design
drawings and hydrologic analysis with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
(PVPLC), Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC) Landflow
Subcommittee, City Council subcommittee and interested members of the community to
receive input and comments for consideration in the project design.
The submitted report consists of the hydrology study, which includes the water balance
analysis and engineering plans recommending certain improvements intended to
significantly reduce land movement associated with the landslide. These proposed
improvements are categorized in three design components to occur in phases which
are: Phase I, the repair of existing ground fractures; Phase II, the installation of surface
drainage improvements; and Phase III, the installation of below-grade hydraugers. The
effectiveness of the each phase will be examined to determine whether to proceed with
next phase of the project. The following is a summary for each design component of
the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project:
1. Design Components
Phase 1 - Repair of the Existing Fractures
Surface fractures (also known as fissures) in the Portuguese Bend area are the result of
land movement. These existing fractures are a few feet wide and some are as deep as
150 feet. The fractures intercept stormwater runoff where this water discharges into the
ground. The proposed mitigation improvements include filling these fractures with slurry
material that is easily placed in them. The slurry consists of 95-97% fly ash and 3-5%
cement. Fly ash is a fine powder that is a byproduct of burning pulverized coal in electric
D-2
power-generating plants. It is inert and its use has been proven to be very safe in these
applications.
This will be the first phase of the project and is intended to eliminate storm runoff from
easily becoming part of the groundwater and is an important component in efforts to
minimize landslide-related ground movement. This construction of this phase could be
completed in approximately four months.
Phase II - Surface Drainage Improvements
The surface drainage improvements include the refurbishment of existing swales and
pipes, and construction of a reduction flow area, which essentially serves as a detention
basin near the bottom of the hill landward of Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS)
(Attachment A - Appendix A). In summary, over the years, the existing swales have
eroded and the drainage pipes have clogged, resulting in inadequate performance. In
some areas, sections of the drainage pipes have been disconnected, displaced or are
missing. Further, as a direct result of landslide movement and land displacement, a few
low areas have formed. During rainfall events, stormwater runoff is trapped in these
areas. Since there is no outlet, the collected stormwater runoff creates ponds and
eventually, the water percolates into the ground and exasperates the landslide.
Over the years, Staff has learned that there is a direct correlation between water
percolating into the ground and landslide movements. In the case of the Abalone Cove
area, the installation of dewatering wells combined with the construction of a sanitary
sewer system to remove existing septic tanks, thereby minimizing the amount of water
seeping into ground, resulted in land movement in the area slowing significantly.
Therefore, a big component of this landslide mitigation project is to significantly reduce
surface water from percolating into the ground by establishing a functioning and
maintainable network of pipes and surface swales so that positive drainage can be
established.
The project will no longer result in stormwater ponding because runoff will be conveyed
through newly establish/refurbished pipes and swales to the ocean in a controlled
manner. The area where ponding most often occurs is just north of PVDS because the
roadway acts as a dam with respect to the stormwater runoff after a significant rainfall
event. It should be noted that the capacity of the existing 60-inch steel pipe under PVDS
is fairly limited, and 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 100-year rainfall event. The construction
of four pipes would be a significant and costly undertaking. Thus, in order to minimize
costs, a flow reduction area (also known as a detention basin) is proposed to allow
stormwater runoff to be detained and released at a gradual rate through a controlled
outlet mechanism into the existing single, 60-inch diameter pipe under PVDS. A
Bentoliner blanket will be installed under this area to alleviate any water percolation.
D-3
As part of this design, the existing pipe under Burma Road, which is completely clogged
and is no longer functioning properly, will be replaced with a new 36-inch pipe.
Additionally, the existing eroded surface swales will be repaired and in the areas where
runoff velocity is excessive, the swales will be lined with a GeoWeb material, which will
be filled with gravel and/or rock depending on the velocity of runoff. This will alleviate
erosion of these newly-repaired swales. It should be noted that no concrete will be used
in this stabilization method for strengthening the swales.
The design of this project was conducted with continuous public input. Surface swales
were modified to soften the impacts brought forward through the public input process
that are more in line with the surrounding setting of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
Specifically, the original design of the swales was m odified and the use of natural
energy dissipaters has been incorporated into the design in favor of concrete armament.
Controlling the runoff and minimizing infiltration is required as a step toward lessening
ground movement associated with groundwater in this landslide. Similar to filling
fractures, the installation of the surface drainage features is an important design
component to minimize landslide-related ground movement. Accordingly, Staff
recommends installing the swales, pipes and flow reduction area as Phase II of the
project. This phase will follow sealing the fractures as a continuation of efforts to
successfully manage runoff, minimize infiltration, and convey cleaner water with less
velocity (and consequently, less erosion) to the ocean. Construction of this phase could
be completed in approximately 10 months.
Phase III - Below-Grade Hydraugers
Hydraugers, to be constructed below grade, are designed to alleviate artesian water
pressure underground in the Portuguese Bend Landslide area. Their function is similar
to vertical dewatering wells, but they are installed horizontally, beneath the active
movement zone of the landslide. The City’s consultant believes that vertical dewatering
wells are not sustainable in this area because of the land movement. The landslide is
active, with annual movement measured in feet, and consequently, vertical dewatering
wells shear quickly due to the land movement. Until this land movement is minimized,
vertical wells will continue to shear. The high rate of land movement in Portuguese
Bend has resulted in the rapid failure of vertical wells in the areas that will be targeted
with hydraugers.
The exact length, location and number of hydraugers that will be installed is unknown at
the moment, but generally are expected to run up to 1,200 feet in length and are
generally grouped in sets of 5 hydraugers per area. Moreover, the exact parameters for
accessing and staging the hydraugers will be determined during the environmental
review phase of the project, but the staging area measures approximately 100’ by 100’.
The general location of the hydraugers is shown on the plans, but these locations can
change somewhat to accommodate a minimized impact to the habitat located in the
City’s open space. The number of hydraugers to be installed will also be determined
during construction. The consultant is recommending beginning, as a pilot program, the
D-4
hydrauger installation at location A2 (Attachment A – see Appendix A, Drawing No.11)
to intercept groundwater as it enters the landslide. The actual number of hydraugers
installed at this single location will depend on production of the first well. If the initial
hydrauger produces significant dewatering flow, perhaps all 5 hydraugers at this initial
location will be installed. The City’s consultant will evaluate information obtained during
the installation and guide the contractor to obtain favorable results on subsequent
hydraugers at this location. Accordingly, the exact number of hydraugers planned to be
installed is not easily determined. This process will be very dynamic and may require
modifications to previously assumed installation locations. That said, typical to most
environmental documents, a worst case scenario of total buildout will be examined to
estimate the scope of potential impacts.
This third phase of construction involves the installation of the hydraugers which will
follow the installation of surface drainage features. This phase of the project will only
proceed after an examination of Phases I and II to determine if further groundwater
removal is warranted to reduce land movement.
Based on the above, Staff recommends the City Council accept and file the design
drawings and hydrologic analysis associated with Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation
Project.
2. Environmental Document
The CEQA process must occur prior to commencing any work. Thus, if the City Council
accepts the design as described above, this essentially would be the defined project
description to be studied in the environmental document pursuant to CEQA. In order to
complete the CEQA process, a request for proposals (RFP) will be issued to
environmental consultants to prepare the appropriate environmental document. The City
Council will be asked to enter into a professional services agreement with the selected
consulting firm. Costs associated with preparing the environmental document will not be
known until proposals are received, at which time, the City Council will be asked to
appropriate the funds.
As part of the CEQA process, the public and other government agencies will be
engaged including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) and the California Coastal
Commission. Furthermore, through this process, project modifications may be needed
prior to obtaining the required permits. Lastly, the preparation of the environmental
document may take approximately one year.
3. Funding Options
A cost estimate (Attachment B) was prepared including all components of this design as
though they would be installed through a single project. However, it is recommended to
complete the various components of the project based on phases, as described above,
to evaluate the effectiveness of each phase prior to proceeding with the next phase, if
D-5
warranted. The estimated costs associated with the proposed mitigation improvements
are itemized below based on either lump sum (LS) or each (Ea.) unit:
Improvement Unit Cost
Phase I
Fracture infilling LS $500,000
Subtotal $500,000
Phase II
New 36” pipe below Burma Road (trenchless installation) LS $500,000
Refurbishment of existing 60” pipe below PVDS LS $250,000
New surface swales, flow reduction area and incidental
drainage items
LS $2,750,000
Subtotal $3,500,000
Phase III
Horizontally-drilled hydraugers Ea. $350,000
Directionally-drilled hydraugers Ea. $500,000
The costs shown above are presented in order of the construction phasing
recommended by the consultant. A cost estimate was prepared including all
components of this design, which totals $21,000,000 (Attachment B). However, the
installation of all hydroaugers may not occur if Phases I and II prove to be effective
thereby significantly reducing the overall cost of the project.
In order to reduce costs borne by the City for this project which serves as a regional
benefit, Staff will continue to work with the City’s grant funding consultant in an effort to
locate and apply for grant funding that may be eligible for this project. Staff also believes
funding may be available from county, state, and federal agencies that could be used
for this project, as well as the following agencies and utilities who are impacted by the
current landslide movement:
Cal Water
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison
Rep. Ted Lieu is aware of the need for this project. Staff will continue to work with his
office to secure any funding that may be or become available.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Septic Systems in the City of Rolling Hills
D-6
According to the Portuguese Bend Feasibility Report, water from Rolling Hills’
residential septic system discharge may contribute, but is not exactly known, to pore
pressure above the landslide slip surface, but the impact below the landslide slip
surface is likely negligible due to the presence of the low hydraulic conductivity
Portuguese Tuff.
The City Manager’s office has been working with the Landslide Subcommittee (Mayor
Cruikshank and Councilman Dyda) and the City of Rolling Hills to address the issue of
groundwater generated through septic systems in their city. As a result of meetings
between representatives of the two city councils, Rolling Hills has agreed to fund half of
a feasibility study to determine if a connection between the septic systems in Rolling
Hills and the Abalone Cove Sewer System would be possible. Staff has retained a
consulting firm, NV5, to conduct the feasibility study and prepare the associated report.
Completion of this report is anticipated in February 2020.
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP)
On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted the final NCCP/HCP, which, among
other things, streamlines permitting for City projects, including the Portuguese Bend
Landslide Mitigation Project. The City is in the process of obtaining permits from the
Wildlife Agencies and anticipates permit approval in February 2020.
The NCCP/HCP permit allows habitat loss to occur for City projects (Attachment D).
The City project categories that may be covered under the Council-adopted NCCP/HCP
pertaining to Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation Project are: Dewatering W ells,
Landslide Abatement Measures, Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas, and Utility
Maintenance and Repair. According to Daniel B. Stephens, an initial estimate of the
work area to be impacted by the project consists of approximately 15.8 acres of coastal
sage scrub, 16.9 acres of grassland, and 5.7 acres of unrestricted vegetation/land
(developed, disturbed, etc.). Of these estimates, the following acreages are within the
Palos Verdes Nature Preserve: 11.9 acres of coastal sage scrub, 2.9 acres of
grassland, and 1.8 acres of unrestricted area. The initial estimates fall with the City’s
habitat loss allowances under the NCCP/HCP and will be further refined during the
preparation of the environmental document. City projects are subject to the Habitat
Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures defined in Section 5.5 of the NCCP/HCP.
Timeline
The following flow chart has been prepared to visually describe the basic steps involved
prior to commencing project construction. The project is currently at the end of Step 3,
the design phase of the project (highlighted in yellow).
D-7
If the City Council accepts the project design, the next step will be to complete the
environmental document pursuant to CEQA (Step 4) as described earlier in the staff
report, which may generally take approximately one year. Upon completing the
environmental document, the design will be finalized and brought back to the City
Council for final approval along with the environmental document (Step 5). Funding
sources will be required to build these improvements (Step 6) and once identified, the
project phasing can be established and solicitation for contractors’ proposals for
construction will begin (Step 7).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative action is available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Discuss and provide recommendations on other options that may be
appropriate.
2. Direct Staff not to proceed with the Portuguese Bend Landslide Mitigation
Project.
D-8
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEX MITIGATION MEASURES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
PREPARED BY:
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.
3150 Bristol Street, Suite 210
Costa Mesa, California 92626
714.465-8240
D-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... iii
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Locations and Limits of Evaluation .................................................................. 1
1.1 “Preferred” Mitigation Options based on Feasibility Study ................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................ 2
2.0 Background and Selected Site Conditions ................................................................... 3
2.1 Selected Geologic Features ..................................................................................... 3
2.2 Landslide Reactivation Sequence and Ongoing Displacement Rate ...................... 4
2.3 Groundwater Recharge ........................................................................................... 4
2.4 Note on Artesian Groundwater Conditions ............................................................ 5
2.4.1 General ........................................................................................................ 5
2.4.2 Evidence of Artesian Pressure within the PBLC .......................................... 6
3.0 Conceptual Model for Engineering Evaluation ............................................................. 7
3.1 General .................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Basis for the Conceptual Model and a Note on Data Gaps .................................... 7
3.3 Subslides and Basal Rupture Surface ...................................................................... 8
3.4 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 8
3.5 Site Constraints ....................................................................................................... 9
4.0 Geotechnical Evaluations ........................................................................................... 9
4.1 General .................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Factor of Safety Values for Back-Analysis ............................................................. 10
4.3 Basal Rupture Surface – Shear Strength Evaluation ............................................. 11
4.4 Evaluation of Displacement Rate with Static Factor of Safety ............................. 11
4.5 Evaluation of Dewatering Effect on Displacement Rate ....................................... 12
5.0 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Phased Implementation .................................... 13
5.1 General .................................................................................................................. 13
5.2 Permitting ............................................................................................................. 14
5.3 Preparatory Field Work ......................................................................................... 14
5.4 Construction Phase I - Surface Fracture Infilling................................................... 15
5.5 Construction Phase II – Surface Water Improvements ........................................ 15
5.6 Construction Phase III – Groundwater Mitigation Drains .................................... 16
5.6.1 Sub-Phase III-A – Confirmatory Exploration and Instrumentation ........... 16
5.6.2 Sub-Phase III-B –Up-Gradient “Interceptor” Drains ................................. 16
5.6.3 Sub-Phase III-C – Down-Gradient “Relief” Drains ..................................... 17
5.7 Maintenance and Future Construction Phases .................................................... 17
6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................ 17
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 19
D-10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Aerial Photography with Landslide Limits
Figure 2 – Topography with Landslide Limits
Figure 3 – Geology Map
Figure 4 – Landslide Reactivation Sequence
Figure 5 – Measured Horizontal Displacement 2015-2017
Figure 6 – Data Points
Figure 7A – Active Basal Rupture Contour Map
Figure 7B – Ancient Basal Rupture Contour Map
Figure 8 – Groundwater Contour Map
Figure 9 – Isopach Map, Active Basal Rupture vs. Groundwater
Figure 10 – Approximate Areas of Restriction
Figure 11 - Mobilized Shear Strength versus Factor Of Safety
Figure 12 – Cross-Section A-A’
Figure 13 – Cross-Section B-B’
Figure 14 - Cross-Section C-C’
Figure 15 - Cross-Section D-D’
Figure 16 - Shear Strength Evaluation Schematic
Figure 17 - Back-Calculated versus Leighton (2000) Shear Strength
Figure 18 - Displacement Rate versus Estimated Factor of Safety
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Plan Set for Proposed Mitigation
Appendix B - Slope Stability Computer Program Output
Appendix C - Hydrology / Hydraulics Calculation Outputs
Appendix D – “Order-of-Magnitude” Cost Estimate
D-11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has been prepared by Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA). It serves as a basis for
development of proposed mitigation measures for a landslide complex within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes (City) commonly referred to as the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
(PBLC). The PBLC is a relatively large (approximately 239 acres, with dimensions approximately
0.9 miles in the east-west direction x 0.8 miles in the north-south direction) active landslide
complex, with ground movement varying across the site but ranging up to approximately 11
feet per year.
GLA developed a conceptual model of the PBLC site to be used for evaluation of proposed
mitigation options. The conceptual model which provides the basis for GLA’s evaluations is
based upon the results of past environmental, geologic, hydrogeologic, and geotechnical
engineering work performed within and beyond the PBLC and a Feasibility Study by DBS&A
(2018). In accordance with City direction and GLA’s approved scope of services, no additional
site-specific subsurface exploration was performed for this study.
Based on the results of GLA’s evaluations, we proposed a mitigation approach to address the
ongoing landslide movement. We note that development of the proposed mitigation approach
considered various site constraints (e.g., minimization of surface impacts to the extent
practicable, cost-effectiveness, support of the public, permitting, etc.), as well as observed
ongoing movement of nearby, “successfully” mitigated landslides (e.g., Abalone Cove
landslide). Given these factors, the objective of the proposed mitigation approach is to reduce
the movement rate of the PBLC, not to “stabilize” the landslide (i.e., in GLA’s opinion, a
mitigation design which achieved commonly accepted geotechnical stability criteria would be
infeasible, as it would not satisfy the various site constraints).
The mitigation measures proposed in this report are, in order of currently envisioned
construction phasing: (i) infilling of existing surface fractures to reduce infiltration; (ii)
construction of surface water improvements to reduce ponding and convey storm water to the
ocean; and (iii) installation of hydrauger arrays to lower hydrostatic and piezometric surfaces.
These mitigation measures should be preceded by permitting and pre-construction preparatory
field work. Long-term maintenance should be conducted, and additional mitigation measures
(i.e., vertical dewatering wells) should be considered in the event that PBLC movement is
slowed significantly.
We note that seismic loading was not considered in the evaluations discussed here. There is an
existing risk that a seismic event may accelerate PBLC movement significantly and/or may cause
rapid failure of a significant portion of the PBLC. The mitigation measures proposed in this
report, if implemented, would not eliminate this risk but might conceivably reduce the risk by a
small amount relative to the existing condition.
D-12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared by Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA), in accordance with our
proposal to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California (City), dated November 12, 2018. The
work was approved by City Purchase Order 20190286 dated January 21, 2019.
The scope of services documented in this report includes engineering evaluations required for
development of plans (enclosed herewith as Appendix A) and specifications for the proposed
Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex (PBLC) tentative mitigation measures. This report further
presents preliminary recommendations for phased implementation of the mitigation measures
and for post-implementation monitoring.
The conclusions, recommendations, plans, and specifications attached to this report should not
be extrapolated to other areas of this site or used for other projects, at the site or at others,
without GLA review, concurrence, and written approval.
1.1 Site Locations and Limits of Evaluation
The site considered in this report is the PBLC, an existing active landslide complex located on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The approximate
location of the PBLC footprint, as well as approximate limits of subslides (i.e., relatively
coherent component masses within the PBLC), are shown in Figures 1 and 2 (superimposed on
aerial photograph and topographic map, respectively). Also shown in Figures 1 and 2, and
consistently throughout this report, are the approximate limits of this project.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the PBLC is irregularly shaped in plan view but generally resembles
an acute triangle, widening from north to south. For reference, the PBLC has approximate
dimensions on the order of 0.9 miles wide (east-west direction, i.e., generally across movement
direction) x 0.8 miles long (north-south direction, i.e., generally along movement direction), has
a plan area of approximately 239 acres, and contains a volume on the order of approximately
38 million cubic yards of earth materials.
We note that the PBLC has several adjacent or nearby landslides, some of which are also shown
for reference in Figures 1 and 2 (i.e., Abalone Cove, Klondike Canyon, Beach Club, and Flying
Triangle Landslides). We also note that a portion of the PBLC may be situated above (i.e.,
underlain by) a portion of another “ancient” landslide complex. The existence of this ancient
landslide complex was postulated Leighton (2000), suggesting that multiple, nested landslides
may be present at the site and in its vicinity.
The assessment and/or mitigation of nearby landslides and potentially underlying landslides is
outside the scope of this project.
1.1 “Preferred” Mitigation Options based on Feasibility Study
DBS&A (2018) prepared a Feasibility Study (FS), which presented five “preferred” options to
mitigate the ongoing PBLC movement. Note that the objective of the proposed mitigation is to
reduce the movement rate of the PBLC, not to “stabilize” the landslide (i.e., in GLA’s opinion, a
D-13
mitigation design which achieved commonly accepted geotechnical stability criteria would be
infeasible, as it would not satisfy various site constraints, including environmental restrictions
and budget for implementation). In general, these “preferred” options proposed to slow the
landslide movement by: (i) lowering the piezometric surfaces and artesian pressure within and
below the landslide complex; and (ii) reducing groundwater (including artesian pressure)
recharge from stormwater and septic system infiltration. The five “preferred” options outlined
in the DBS&A (2018) FS are as follows:
1. Seal Surface Fractures - Relatively large surface fractures would be mapped and infilled
before the rainy season each year using a long-reach pumping truck, conventional
pumping rig, or other method.
2. Directional Subsurface Drains - Directional drains for groundwater removal would be
installed in a phased manner using a drill rig capable of performing directional drilling to
maintain the drain alignments below the landslide slip surface. This technique would
provide for longer service life for the drains because drains that cross the landslide slip
surface would be quickly compromised by landslide movement.
3. Flexible Liner System and Components - The canyon liner would be used to reduce
stormwater infiltration and percolation to groundwater along Portuguese, Paint Brush,
and Ishibashi Canyons.
4. Groundwater Extraction Wells - Supplemental groundwater extraction wells would be
installed in the project area. Groundwater monitoring wells will also need to be
installed to routinely monitor groundwater levels in the PBLC area.
5. Centralized Sewer System - Approximately 2 miles of new subsurface sewer lines and
associated manholes and junctions would be installed in the Portuguese Bend
neighborhood east of lower Altamira Canyon and west of lower Portuguese Canyon.
The new sewer line installation would be coordinated with private lateral installation
and connection, as well as septic system removal in both neighborhoods.
Of these five “preferred” options proposed in the FS, this report includes evaluation and/or
preliminary construction plans and specifications for items 1, 2, and 3. Item 4 might be
addressed in a future phase of work (e.g., long-term maintenance and monitoring plan). Item
5, in our opinion, is not predominantly a geotechnical concern.
1.2 Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to document engineering evaluations for the predominantly
geotechnical “preferred” mitigation measures (i.e., items 1, 2, and 3 above) and to convey
construction plans and specifications.
D-14
2.0 BACKGROUND AND SELECTED SITE CONDITIONS
Instability and ongoing movement of the PBLC are generally attributable to several factors,
including: (i) the geology of the site and vicinity; (ii) natural groundwater conditions above and
below the PBLC slip surface; and (iii) and human-modified surface and groundwater conditions.
Selected background information regarding these factors is provided here for reference.
2.1 Selected Geologic Features
Geology of the PBLC has been studied since the first reported landslide movement in 1956.
Approximately 500 (or, potentially, more) maps, reports, technical papers and technical
presentations are on-file with the City. A map showing the surficial geology of the PBLC site as
interpreted by GLA is enclosed as Figure 3. This surficial geologic map is generally based on that
prepared by Dibble (1999) with modification based on interpreted landslide limits by Leighton
(2000). Site geologic conditions are summarized in the FS by DBS&A (2018) and are
paraphrased below.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula extends along the southwest-dipping Palos Verdes fault (Douglas,
2013). It is generally elevated due to uplift and formation of a doubly plunging Wilmington
anticline. The PBLC is located on the southern flank of the fold, which generally slopes
downward in a southwesterly direction toward the Pacific Ocean. The head of the PBLC is
located near the crest of the anticline, and the PBLC movement direction generally follows the
downward slope of the anticline in the seaward direction because the landslide slip surface
follows a weak layer within the sedimentary stratigraphic section.
The sedimentary rocks that form the Palos Verdes Peninsula include the Catalina Schist,
Monterey Formation, marine terrace deposits, alluvium, and landslide deposits. Mesozoic-age
Catalina Schist generally forms the core of the anticline (Ehlig, 1992) and is not known to be
involved in subsurface movement. Miocene-age marine sediments of the Monterey Formation,
containing mudstone, shale, chert, and altered volcaniclastic sediments, overlie the schist
(Conrad and Ehlig, 1983; Douglas, 2013).
According to Conrad and Ehlig (1983), the Monterey Formation may be classified into three
members, the stratigraphically lowermost and oldest of which is referred to as the Altamira
Shale. Douglas (2013) further subdivides the lowermost member (i.e., Altamira Shale) into
lower tuffaceous shales and upper cherty and phosphatic lithofacies. The tuffaceous shales in
the lower portion of the Altamira Shale member contain volcanic ash-derived bentonite beds,
which form the slip surfaces of many of the landslides on the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Ehlig,
1992; Douglas, 2013), including the PBLC (i.e., much of the PBLC basal rupture surface lies
within these tuffaceous shale zones). The Portuguese Tuff is one of the most laterally
continuous and thickest of the bentonite beds in the Altamira Shale. In addition to having a low
internal shear strength, the bentonite beds are also have a very slow hydraulic conductivity
which may act as an aquitard, resulting in confined groundwater. There is some evidence of
artesian conditions underlying the landslide slip surface which result when the pore pressure
results in a potentiometric surface that is higher than the local ground elevation. This can result
in groundwater flowing on the ground surface if the aquitard is compromised.
D-15
There is also some evidence of east-west trending anticlinal folding and north-south trending
faulting within the footprint of the PBLC. The anticlinal features, which trend approximately
perpendicular to the PBLC direction of movement, result in undulations of the basal rupture
surface of the PBLC, and facilitate propagation of tension cracks toward the ground surface as
the landslide moves across these undulations.
2.2 Landslide Reactivation Sequence and Ongoing Displacement Rate
Reportedly, the PBLC was dormant for some span of time until reactivated in August 1956
(Ehlig / BYA, 1997). The reactivation sequence, illustrated in Figure 4, reportedly occurred in
relatively discrete stages, as follows: (i) initial triggering near the northeast portion of the PBLC
(area “A”) during construction of the Crenshaw Boulevard extension (now called the Burma
Road); (ii) propagation down-slope (area “B”); (iii) triggering of the central portion of the PBLC
and propagation up-slope (areas “C” and “D,” respectively); and (iv) triggering of the
westernmost portion of the PBLC.
Since its reactivation in 1956, the PBLC has continued to move at various rates within relatively
discrete blocks. Figure 5 illustrates the lateral displacement as measured at GPS monuments in
and around the PBLC footprint. The displacement magnitudes (listed beside vectors) and
directions (directions of vectors) shown correspond to a period of approximately two years
from October 2015 to October 2017. The displacement vectors of largest movement during
this time interval are color-coded red.
Due to the relatively high displacement rate of the PBLC, GPS monuments are occasionally
obliterated and replaced; the period of 2015 to 2017 was selected because several replacement
GPS monuments were installed in 2015 and because 2017 was the most recent survey event
available at the time of our evaluation.
As shown in Figure 5, measured displacements rates within the PBLC range significantly higher
than those within the adjacent landslide terrains. Lateral displacements measured during the
monitoring period are as high as approximately 22 feet within the seaward subslide area,
corresponding to an annualized velocity of approximately 11 feet per year.
2.3 Groundwater Recharge
One factor which contributes significantly to the PBLC instability is persistent elevated
groundwater pore pressure above and below the basal rupture surface. The recharge is
attributed predominantly to five sources:
• Disrupted and/or poorly defined flow of natural channels, including Portuguese Canyon,
Ishibashi Canyon, and Paint Brush Canyon, which apparently terminate and/or change
slope relatively abruptly near the limits of the PBLC. These three canyons drain onto the
active landslide terrain within the upgradient graben which results from extension when
the landslide pulls away from the stable terrain upslope. This water is likely to remain
above the landslide slip surface because the low permeability Portuguese Tuff is
continuous in the area of the upslope graben.
D-16
• Ponding of water upstream of constructed embankments, including at locations of
broken and/or sediment-clogged stormwater conveyance structures (e.g., impaired pipe
and/or culvert for Portuguese Canyon along Burma Road, ponded water north of Palos
Verdes Drive South, apparently undersized and frequently disconnected drainage pipe
along Palos Verdes Drive South, etc.). Many of the storm water conveyances have been
damaged as the upslope graben has grown in response to continued movement of the
landslide. This water is unlikely to penetrate through the Portuguese Tuff due to the
relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the bentonite clay.
• Infiltration of stormwater into open fractures, where surface expressions of cracking
have developed due to differential subslide displacement. Water entering open
fractures within the landslide terrain is likely to remain above the landslide slip surface
due to the presence of the relatively low permeability Portuguese Tuff.
• Percolation from residential septic systems. According to Vonder Linden and Lindvall
(1982) there were approximately 156 residential dwellings located in the active PBLC
when movement was initiated in 1956. This number was reduced to approximately 29
by 1969 and approximately 22 by 1982. The impact of water from residential septic
system discharge on pore pressure above the landslide slip surface is unknown, but the
impact below the landslide slip surface is likely negligible due to the presence of the low
hydraulic conductivity Portuguese Tuff.
• Infiltration of stormwater into up-gradient depressions and grabens. Areas up-gradient
of the PBLC which are candidate sites for groundwater infiltration include the Valley
View Graben. This feature is located east of Crenshaw Boulevard and north of the
ancient landslide complex which includes the PBLC (Dibblee, 1999). The Valley View
Graben and similar extensional features upslope of the larger, ancient landslide may be
allowing for infiltration of surface water, precipitation, and irrigation return from
residential watering that infiltrates to bedrock stratigraphically lower than the
Portuguese Tuff.
2.4 Note on Artesian Groundwater Conditions
2.4.1 General
Groundwater within the void spaces of sediment or rock that has a direct connection to the
atmosphere (i.e., pressure is atmospheric at the top surface of the water) is commonly referred
to as having an “unconfined” or “hydrostatic” condition. When groundwater in the voids in
rock or soil underlies a low conductivity, confining layer such as solid rock or clay and enters the
aquifer from an area of higher elevation, the groundwater may be pressurized more than the
“unconfined” or “hydrostatic” condition. This pressurized condition is commonly referred to as
“confined” or “artesian.” We note that, for the purposes of this report, the terms “artesian”
and “confined” are used interchangeably, although the term “artesian” sometimes is
considered as denoting a flowing condition (i.e., piezometric surface higher than ground
surface).
D-17
Structurally, the Palos Verdes Peninsula is a double plunging dome structure which is elongated
in the northwest-southeast direction with smaller anticlinal and synclinal fold axes
superimposed over the main structure. This results in bedding planes which predominantly
plunge in the downslope direction. The presence of low strength, bentonite bedding planes
dipping downslope has resulted in numerous landslides. However, this structure also can act as
a barrier to groundwater flow because of the low conductivity characteristics of the bentonite
clay. Water percolating into bedrock that is stratigraphically below the bentonite clay beds may
be trapped stratigraphically below the slide plane resulting in an artesian or confined
groundwater condition. The Valley View Graben which overlies the ancient landslide complex
that includes the active PBLC is a closed depression that may have formed from movement of
the ancient landslide complex. Given that the Valley View Graben appears to be formed by
extension it may expose bedrock stratigraphically below the Portuguese Tuff and be a conduit
for groundwater infiltration resulting in artesian groundwater conditions under the PBLC is
likely a significant contributor to instability.
2.4.2 Evidence of Artesian Pressure within the PBLC
Available reports of artesian pressure within the PBLC footprint and in the vicinity of the site
include the following (emphasis added):
• Ehlig (1992) – “only one boring” within the PBLC footprint “has encountered artesian
pressure” within the easterly portion of the seaward subslide, “about 200 feet inland from
the beach in 1957;” the source of the water is possibly attributable to infiltration from up-
gradient septic systems; “in 1981, artesian water was encountered 700 feet further east at
the toe of the Klondike Canyon landslide;” “artesian pressure may occur locally near the
beach but there is no evidence of artesian pressure affecting movement of the slide;”
• Ehlig / BYA (1997) – of three piezometer installations within the northeasterly portion of the
PBLC, measurements from two suggest that upward flow across the basal rupture surface is
“negligible,” while the remaining location showed approximately 10 feet of artesian
pressure head above the corresponding hydrostatic condition;
• Leighton (2000) – the relatively fast rate of movement of the seaward subslide is “in part
due to the episodic excess pore water pressure below the rupture surface” and “in part due
to the continual wave erosion of the toe of the active landslide” (i.e., apparently, artesian
pressure is more significant in the southerly portion of the PBLC than elsewhere, but it is
not necessarily the only or the most important factor affecting stability);
• Hill et al. (2007), citing Ehlig / BYA (1997) – restates that Ehlig / BYA (1997) investigated the
potential for flow across the basal rupture surface by installing three multi-stage pneumatic
piezometers; two instruments in the northern portion of the landslide measured a higher
piezometric level above the rupture surface than below, suggesting negligible downward
flow across the surface; the remaining piezometer measured approximately ten feet of
hydraulic head beneath the rupture surface and none above;
D-18
• Douglas (2013) – makes several mentions of artesian, pressurized, and/or confined flow
below the PBLC basal rupture surface as an important contributing factor to the ongoing
instability and displacement, but does not provide evidence to support such claims;
• RPV (2019) – one groundwater extraction well, of seven installed, located in the
northeasterly portion of the PBLC encountered artesian groundwater conditions at a depth
of approximately 400 feet below ground surface (i.e., at a level significantly below the basal
rupture surface); water reportedly flowed from the well for approximately six days, and,
afterward, remained at approximately the level of the surrounding ground surface.
3.0 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR ENGINEERING EVALUATION
3.1 General
To provide a basis for stability evaluation of the PBLC, GLA developed a conceptual model of the
site. The model is exclusively developed based on previous work performed by others (e.g.,
Ehlig / BYA, 1997; Leighton, 2000) and considers information provided by the City on the
direction and intensity of landslide movement, as presented in Figure 5. In accordance with
City direction and GLA’s approved scope of services, GLA has not performed additional field
investigation to evaluate the accuracy of the interpretations by others.
Limited modification of the geologic and hydrogeologic information developed by others has
been performed. This modification was necessary in order to allow for input to three-
dimensional (3D) stability calculations. This includes a provision for artificially daylighting basal
rupture surface within the PBLC footprint, extrapolating groundwater elevation contours to
model domain limits, etc.).
Key elements of the conceptual model for engineering evaluations include interpretation of the
PBLC footprint within the project limits (including postulated daylight of block and complex
rupture surfaces), the elevation of the basal rupture surface, the elevation of the hydrostatic
groundwater table, and the elevation of the artesian piezometric surface. These elements are
presented in Figures 6 through 8.
3.2 Basis for the Conceptual Model and a Note on Data Gaps
Figure 6 shows approximate locations of selected test holes (i.e., borings, piezometers, wells,
etc.) previously advanced by others within and near PBLC, as reported by Ehlig / BYA (1997) and
Leighton (2000). As shown in the figure, numerous test holes were advanced within the PBLC
footprint during the period of 1956 through 1996. We understand that the active basal rupture
surface and the hydrostatic groundwater table locations developed by Leighton (2000), upon
which GLA’s conceptual model is substantially based, considers available geotechnical
information.
While numerous testing locations appear in Figure 6, for the purpose of stability evaluation and
development of remedial measures against landsliding, significant data gaps exist. These
presently include: (i) geotechnical information is limited within the western portion of the
PBLC, particularly within the Western Subslide area, and (ii) due to the significant movement of
D-19
the PBLC, site conditions at the boring locations may have changed significantly (i.e., while the
approximate boring locations shown in Figure 6 are fixed spatially, the ground into which the
borings were advanced has moved significantly, possibly on the order of one hundred feet in
the direction of movement shown in Figure 5).
The results of our preliminary evaluations suggest that artesian pressure is the most significant
contributor to the instability of the PBLC. However, GLA is not aware of any existing study
which characterizes the artesian piezometric surface in a quantitative manner (spatial
distribution of the intensity of artesian pressure). This is a significant data gap. Given that
addressing data gaps is outside the scope of this study (i.e., additional exploration and site
characterization have been excluded from the project scope), GLA relied on observational (i.e.,
qualitative) data and engineering judgment, as discussed below.
3.3 Subslides and Basal Rupture Surface
Leighton (2000) divided the PBLC into five subslides, designated as the Seaward, East-Central,
West-Central, Landward, and Westward Subslides. The conceptual PBLC geometry and the
associated subslide geometries in this study (Figures 1-10) were generated based on the
subslide boundaries and the basal rupture surface developed by Leighton (2000). GLA
subdivided one of the subslides (the Seaward Subslide) into two components. These
components are designated as the East Seaward and West Seaward Subslides (Figures 1-10).
Note that this division between East Seaward and West Seaward Subslides is conceptual and
does not necessarily reflect a judgement by GLA about materially different geological
conditions but, rather, was included to facilitate stability modeling.
Elevation contours of the assumed PBLC active basal rupture surface are shown in Figure 7. The
elevation contours are generally based on those developed by Leighton (2000) plan view figures
and cross-section P-P’. Modifications to the Leighton (2000) contours include: (i) addition of
assumed basal rupture surface contours within the Western Subslide area, (ii) adjustment of
discontinuous contours along East-Central / West-Central Subslide boundary, and (iii)
daylighting of the basal rupture surface around the PBLC perimeter.
3.4 Groundwater
Two groundwater surfaces were included in GLA’s conceptual model: (i) the hydrostatic
groundwater table; and (ii) the piezometric surface of the artesian groundwater. Contours of
hydrostatic groundwater table elevation are shown in Figure 8. These contours are based on
the groundwater table elevations developed by Leighton (2000), with modification to
extrapolate the contours to the model domain limits.
Quantitative information regarding artesian conditions are generally unknown at this time.
Where data exist, standpipe piezometers and/or wells in the area often cross over the
Portuguese Tuff, yielding a hybrid piezometric pressure condition. The artesian piezometric
surface elevation was assumed based on the one measurement in the northeasterly portion of
the PBLC reported by Ehlig / BYA (1997). Based on this measurement, the artesian piezometric
D-20
surface was assumed to be 10 feet above the hydrostatic groundwater table across the PBLC
footprint.
Figure 9 shows an interpretation of groundwater information at the site. It shows an isopach
map relating the anticipated height of the hydrostatic groundwater above the basal rupture
surface. This information may be used, for example, to identify target locations for vertical
dewatering wells during future phases of work, if any (e.g., highest priority dewatering well
locations could be placed in areas of highest hydrostatic water level above the basal rupture
surface).
3.5 Site Constraints
Figure 10 shows GLA’s understanding of potential environmental constraints on the project site.
In general, the categories of restricted site area are: (i) unrestricted (green), (ii) restricted
grassland (yellow), and (iii) restricted coastal sage scrub (red). It is GLA’s understanding that
construction may be performed freely (i.e., without restraint) in unrestricted areas, but that
proposed disturbance areas of grassland and coastal sage scrub are to be quantified and may
be subject to restrictions in the permitting stage.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS
4.1 General
Geotechnical evaluations were performed in support of development of landslide mitigation
measures. Note that the objective of the proposed mitigation is to reduce the movement rate
of the PBLC, not to “stabilize” the landslide (i.e., in GLA’s opinion, a mitigation design which
achieved commonly accepted geotechnical stability criteria would be infeasible, as it would not
satisfy various site constraints). The models used in these evaluations were based upon the
conceptual model of site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions discussed above. Selected
computer program outputs are enclosed as Appendix B.
To accommodate complex geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at the site, as well as the
observed pattern of ongoing landslide movement, the evaluations were performed in two
stages. The following was evaluated / established in the first stage:
• Delineate blocks within the PBLC that move quasi-independently;
• Assign a Factor of Safety (FS) for each quasi-independent block;
• Perform back-analysis to estimate shear strength along basal rupture surface of each quasi-
independent block.
• Based on assigned FS value and observed pattern of landslide movement, assign rate of
movement to each block.
This first stage of evaluation was performed to establish a baseline for forward analyses.
Evaluations for this stage were performed using relatively simple two-dimensional (2D) slope
D-21
stability analysis methods but with multiple cross-sections to address the relatively complex
geometry and groundwater flow conditions.
The forward analyses were performed using relatively advanced 3D slope stability evaluation
methods. The more detailed engineering model was required to allow for key remedial design
considerations, namely, number, length, orientation and diameter of hydraugers (relief wells
advanced by directional drilling). The material parameters (i.e., basal rupture surface shear
strength) used for this stage were evaluated in the first stage.
We note that seismic loading was not considered in the evaluations discussed here. There is an
existing risk that a seismic event may accelerate PBLC movement significantly and/or may cause
rapid failure of a significant portion of the PBLC. The mitigation measures proposed in this
report, if implemented, would not eliminate this risk but might conceivably reduce the risk by a
small amount relative to the existing condition.
4.2 Factor of Safety Values for Back-Analysis
For the actively moving PBLC, it was assumed that the FS varies across the site but is generally
within the range of FS = 1.0 to 1.15. For a “typical” landslide, FS = 1.0 is commonly interpreted
as “failure” (i.e., that the landslide mass is on the verge of moving or is anticipated to move by
several feet before stopping). In the case of the PBLC, the landslide has been moving over an
extended period of time; for such a condition, a FS value more than 1.0 is considered
appropriate. The assumed FS value and the geometry of the basal rupture surface are
commonly used for a back analysis approach to evaluate (residual) shear strength.
Given that this landslide complex is moving, GLA distinguishes two general failure mechanisms:
(i) “creep”-type; and (ii) “catastrophic”-type. The former (i.e., “creep”) generally involves
continuous deformation under sustained loading, while the loading is typically less than the
controlling strength of the resisting system (e.g., slope stability evaluation shows factor of
safety higher than 1). The latter (i.e., “catastrophic”) generally involves relatively rapid failure
under loading which reaches or exceeds the controlling strength of the resisting system (e.g.,
slope stability evaluation shows FS = 1.0).
As shown schematically in Figure 11, the FS estimated by slope stability evaluation may also be
considered in terms of the proportion of shear strength mobilized along the critical failure
surface. The proportion of mobilized shear strength ranges between zero (i.e., no loading
applied) and 1 (i.e., applied loading results in “catastrophic”-type failure). Commonly, a
stability criterion of FS ≥ 1.25 is used for temporary stability of slopes, suggesting that “creep”-
type deformation is uncommon when 80% or less of the available shear strength is mobilized.
Additionally, it might be assumed that, within the range for “creep”-type failure, the rate of
displacement increases with an increase in proportion of mobilized shear strength.
In light of the long-term, ongoing movement of the PBLC over a period of several decades, as
well as the characterization of the movement as creep/creeping/etc. by several previous
consultants (e.g., Ehlig / BYA, 1997; Leighton, 2000; Douglas, 2013) GLA categorizes the failure
D-22
mechanism of the PBLC observed to date as “creep”-type. This observation suggests that the
factor of safety assumed for back-analysis should be more than unity but less than
approximately 1.25. Based on the decreasing rates of movement from south to north (i.e.,
fastest nearest the coastline), it was assumed for back-analysis that the factor of safety
increases in the same direction, from approximately 1.05 for seaward subslides to
approximately 1.15 for the landward subslide.
4.3 Basal Rupture Surface – Shear Strength Evaluation
Back-analysis for shear strength evaluation of the basal rupture surface was performed for four
cross-sections through the PBLC, designated as cross-sections A-A’ through D-D’. Locations of
cross-sections are shown in plan view in Figures 2 through 10. Profile views of the sections are
shown in Figures 12 through 15.
GLA performed back-analysis using stability analysis software SLOPE/W (www.geo-slope.com).
In particular, GLA used the Morgenstern and Price (1965) limit equilibrium-based approach, as
implemented in SLOPE/W, for the evaluation. The landslide material was modeled as
“Crossbed Slide Debris” based on the material types presented by Leighton (2000), with a total
unit weight of 127 pounds per cubic foot, friction angle of 20 degrees, and cohesion of 600
pounds per square foot. The basal rupture surface was divided into up to three material types
at the subslide limits, as illustrated schematically in Figure 16. Material properties for basal
rupture surface included total unit weight of 127 pounds per cubic foot and zero cohesion.
Friction angles for the subslides were evaluated sequentially. Seaward subslides were
evaluated by back-calculation first; then central subslides, then landward subslide. The input
friction angle for a segment of basal rupture surface was varied in increments of 0.2 degrees
until the calculated factor of safety was within approximately 0.01 of the assumed factor of
safety value for that subslide.
The estimated friction angle values for the basal rupture surface ranged from approximately 5.2
degrees to 11.8 degrees, with averages of approximately 7.7 degrees, 7.2 degrees, and 8.3
degrees for seaward, central, and landward subslides, respectively. As shown in Figure 17, the
range of estimated values is comparable to the range of values estimated by Leighton (2000)
for the east-central subslide, west-central subslide, and Abalone Cove Landslide basal rupture
surfaces. This range is also in reasonable agreement with laboratory test results of drained
residual strength of remolded bentonite from the PBLC reported by Watry and Lade (2000).
4.4 Evaluation of Displacement Rate with Static Factor of Safety
GLA developed a conceptual relation between assumed factor of safety and landslide
movement rate (i.e., velocity). The purpose of this conceptual relation is to aid in prediction of
the effectiveness (i.e., reduction in movement rate) which might be expected for a particular
mitigation approach. We note that, due to factors including relatively complex mechanics of
the PBLC movement and relatively few data points, predictions based on this conceptual
relation should be assumed to have low accuracy and low precision and should not be relied
D-23
upon. Implementation of mitigation measures should be accompanied by instrumentation of
the PBLC to assess effectiveness in the field.
Figure 18 shows the conceptual landslide movement rate / factor of safety relation developed
for the site. Three each data points were generated cross-sections A-A’ through C-C’, and one
data point was generated for cross-section D-D’. One data point was generated for each
subslide traversed by a cross-section. Movement rates were estimated by selecting movement
vectors (Figure 5) near the cross-sections and averaging the magnitudes of the vectors within
each of the subslide footprints. Factor of safety values correspond to the assumed values used
in the back-analysis.
The “best estimate” line shown in Figure 18 represents the conceptual relation of movement
rate with estimated factor of safety. As shown in the figure, the predicted movement rate
approaches large values as the factor of safety approaches unity and asymptotically approaches
zero as the factor of safety increases. Based on this conceptual relation, GLA considers it
plausible that the movement rate can be reduced significantly if the factor of safety can be
increased to approximately 1.2 or more.
4.5 Evaluation of Dewatering Effect on Displacement Rate
As discussed in the DBS&A (2018) feasibility study, the preferred mitigation measures for the
PBLC movement generally involve modification of the site groundwater conditions. The site
modifications proposed here may be categorized generally as follows: (i) measures to reduce
surface water infiltration through surface cracks, surface depressions, and unlined channels;
and (ii) measures to relieve artesian pressure along the basal rupture surface. Proposed
mitigation measures are shown in the enclosed plan set (Appendix A).
GLA performed evaluations to assess the anticipated impacts of the proposed surface water
and groundwater modification measures on movement rate of the PBLC. Evaluations were
performed for cross-sections A-A’ through C-C’ through the PBLC using the slope stability
analysis software SLOPE/W (www.geo-slope.com). Note that lowering of the assumed
groundwater levels along cross-section D-D’ apparently would not provide a significant benefit
for slope stability, although additional exploration is warranted for cross-section D-D’ and the
western subslide area more broadly. GLA used the Morgenstern and Price (1965) limit
equilibrium-based approach, as implemented in SLOPE/W, for the evaluation. The material
properties used for the evaluation were as described in Section 4.2 (Shear Strength Evaluation)
of this report (i.e., landslide material was modeled as “Crossbed Slide Debris” based on
Leighton, 2000, and basal rupture surface segments were assigned shear strength based on
back-analysis).
Four scenarios were considered in the evaluation: (i) existing conditions, i.e., pre-mitigation; (ii)
lowered hydrostatic groundwater table only; (iii) lowered artesian piezometric surface only; and
(iv) lowered hydrostatic groundwater table and artesian piezometric surface. Results of the
evaluation are shown in Table 1. Note that factor of safety values listed in Table 1 are
estimated for the seaward subslides.
D-24
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED FACTOR OF SAFETY FOR SEAWARD SUBSLIDES PRE- AND POST- MITIGATION
Scenario Evaluated Cross-Section A-A’ Cross-Section B-B’ Cross-Section C-C’
1 - Existing Conditions
(pre-mitigation) 1.06 1.04 1.04
2 - Lowered Hydrostatic
Groundwater Table
Only
1.09 1.05 1.04
3 - Lowered Artesian
Piezometric Surface 1.16 1.10 1.13
4 - Lowered Hydrostatic
Groundwater Table
And Artesian
Piezometric Surface
1.25 1.11 1.13
Based on the estimated factor of safety values listed in Table 1, the following observations are
made:
• Lowering the hydrostatic groundwater table in isolation apparently does not have adverse
stability impacts and modestly increases factor of safety for one of three cross-sections
considered;
• Lowering the artesian piezometric surface in isolation apparently does not have adverse
stability impacts and increases factor of safety relatively significantly for three of three
cross-sections considered; and
• Lowering the hydrostatic groundwater table in addition to lowering the artesian
piezometric surface apparently does not have adverse stability impacts and results in
modest additional increase of factor of safety for two of three cross-sections considered.
Based on the estimated factor of safety values shown in Table 1, as well as the estimated
displacement rates shown in Figure 18, it is conceivable that implementation of the surface
water and groundwater mitigation measures could slow the movement of the PBLC to rates
ranging from less than 0.1 to approximately 0.6 feet per year, considerably slower than the
annualized rates of approximately 2 to 11 feet per year measured between 2015 and 2017.
Note that this finding suggests that, even if the proposed mitigation measures were
implemented, the PBLC would not be “stabilized” (i.e., would not meet commonly accepted
geotechnical design criteria) and would continue to move (although likely at a slower rate).
5.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES AND PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 General
Proposed mitigation measures are shown in the plan set enclosed as Appendix A. Supporting
hydrology and hydraulics calculations for the surface water components are enclosed as
D-25
Appendix C. A notional cost estimate for the proposed mitigation measures is enclosed as
Appendix D.
The sequence of the recommended mitigation measures has been organized in this report to
provide a phased-approach to construction and installation. The general sequence through
construction is anticipated be as follows: (i) permitting; (ii) preparatory field activities;
(iii) phased construction. The construction may be implemented in stages, which may be
awarded separately, if needed. At this time, GLA envisions the construction phasing as follows:
(i) surface fracture infilling; (ii) surface water improvements; and (iii) groundwater mitigation
improvements. Continuous field observation should be performed during construction under
the supervision of a California registered Geotechnical Engineer. Post-construction items are
anticipated to include long-term maintenance, landslide monitoring, and possible future
construction phases. Additional discussion on these items is provided below.
5.2 Permitting
The City should obtain all required permits before beginning construction activities. The City
should require the contractor to accommodate, to the extent practicable, all conditions of the
permits, environmental mitigation plans, and similar documents. The contractor should make
all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts to site flora and fauna.
At this time, we anticipate that the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy will be involved in
the permitting process and that the California Coastal Commission may become involved at
some point during permitting. Additional agencies which may assert jurisdiction (although GLA
is not aware of such a jurisdictional claim at this time) and/or may become involved during
permitting include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, California Department of Water Resources, and/or the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works.
5.3 Preparatory Field Work
We recommend that the City immediately increase the frequency of its landslide displacement
survey from approximately annual to approximately monthly. This increased frequency of
monitoring should be maintained through the end of construction. Monthly monitoring should
continue for approximately one year after construction, and the frequency should be
reevaluated at the end of this period. We anticipate that the data developed from the more
frequent monitoring program may be used to assess items including effectiveness of the
proposed mitigation measures and the seasonal variability of landslide movement.
The PBLC site is an active landslide and is moving. The topography and existing improvements
shown in the plans and figures should be considered approximate. We recommend that the
City require the contractor to perform a pre-construction topographic survey of the PBLC
footprint, with a margin of several hundred feet outside the PBLC limits. This survey should
include establishment of control points for the construction. We note that the topographic
information provided by the City, which GLA relied upon in evaluation and design, may differ
significantly from topography at the time of the future construction. The City should anticipate
D-26
that discrepancies are likely to be identified and that some redesign may be necessary to
accommodate these discrepancies.
Before the start of construction, the City should require the contractor to perform a pipe
condition survey for the existing 60-inch-diameter pipe below Palos Verdes Drive South. The
contractor should field verify the existing pipe’s location, flowline elevations, diameter,
functionality, structural integrity, and remaining useful life. The deliverable for the pipe
condition survey should be a report conveying findings as to these items, as well as
recommendations for retrofit and restoration, as necessary; the report should be prepared
under the supervision of a California registered Professional Engineer.
The City should require the contractor to provide access roads, working platforms, staging
areas, and other temporary site features as needed to perform the construction. The
contractor should establish these items in the field during the construction mobilization.
5.4 Construction Phase I - Surface Fracture Infilling
We anticipate surface fracture infilling will be performed during the first phase of construction.
For the purpose of estimating infill quantities, GLA evaluated lengths of visible fractures and
assumed regular (i.e., standardized) fracture width and depth. The City should require the
contractor to field verify fracture locations and dimensions. The identified fractures should be
infilled with a flowable/pumpable fly ash-based slurry.
After the initial fracture infilling event, the City should perform periodic observation to identify
fractures which may open in the future due to ongoing landslide movement. Fractures
identified during periodic observation should be infilled as part of post-construction
maintenance.
5.5 Construction Phase II – Surface Water Improvements
We anticipate surface water improvements will be installed during the second phase of
construction. Recommended surface water improvements, as shown in the enclosed plan set
(Appendix A) include the following:
• Engineered swales;
• Flow reduction area;
• Installation of new 36-inch-diameter pipe below Burma Road using trenchless
techniques;
• Removal and disposal of existing 36-inch-diameter plastic pipe south of Palos Verdes
Drive South and replacement with thick-walled fusion-welded plastic pipe;
• Refurbishment (i.e., cleanout, lining with smooth polymeric material, and structural
retrofit if needed) of existing 60-inch-diameter pipe below Palos Verdes Drive South.
D-27
5.6 Construction Phase III – Groundwater Mitigation Drains
We anticipate groundwater mitigation improvements will be installed during the third phase of
construction. Types and locations of recommended groundwater mitigation improvements are
shown in the enclosed plan set.
The groundwater mitigation program is planned to be implemented in three sub-phases, as
discussed below. The sub-phases generally consist of: (i) preparatory work and
instrumentation; (ii) installation of up-gradient drains using horizontal drilling; and (iii)
installation of down-gradient drains using directional drilling. The pace and sequence of
construction within each sub-phase is likely to require adjustment based on field observations
(i.e., field observations during construction should inform the work going forward so that
appropriate design and construction adjustments may be made).
5.6.1 Sub-Phase III-A – Confirmatory Exploration and Instrumentation
We anticipate that drain installation may pose safety hazards due to uncertainties associated
with the hydrostatic and artesian groundwater elevations. Before installing the hydraugers, the
City should require the contractor to perform a program of confirmatory subsurface exploration
to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions in the areas of proposed hydrauger installation.
The City should require the contractor to develop and submit a workplan for exploratory work.
Subsurface exploration should be performed under the supervision of a California registered
Geotechnical Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist. A report should be prepared
conveying findings of the exploration and providing recommendations for installation of
grouted conductor and/or surface casing with adequate capacity to prevent blowout and/or
other potential adverse events related to hydrauger installation, operation, and/or
maintenance.
We recommend that an instrumentation program also be performed during the confirmatory
exploration. The purpose of the instrumentation program is to assess the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures, particularly of the groundwater improvements. Anticipated effects of the
proposed mitigation measures include lowered hydrostatic groundwater surface, lowered
artesian piezometric surface, and reduced movement rate of the landslide; adequate
instrumentation should be installed so that these effects can be measured, if achieved. We
anticipate that instrumentation will include a combination of nested piezometers and survey
monuments installed at various locations, particularly around hydrauger arrays.
5.6.2 Sub-Phase III-B –Up-Gradient “Interceptor” Drains
The first stage of hydrauger installation is planned to focus on the two up-gradient drain arrays
(i.e., Arrays 2 and 3 in the enclosed plan set). Access to these locations is anticipated to be
more readily available for these locations, and the horizontal drilling technique is anticipated to
be simpler and significantly less expensive than with the directional technique. Additionally, as
a water wash is planned to be used for horizontal drilling, drain development is anticipated to
be simpler for these arrays than for directionally drilled arrays (for which bentonite-based
D-28
drilling fluid is anticipated to be used). Information collected during installation of the each
horizontal drain (e.g., soil conditions, pore water pressure, discharge rate, etc.) should be
recorded and may be used to adjust plans for subsequent drain installation.
5.6.3 Sub-Phase III-C – Down-Gradient “Relief” Drains
The second stage of hydrauger installation is planned to focus on the four down-gradient drain
arrays (i.e., Arrays 1 and 4 through 6 in the enclosed plan set). Due to access constraints and
relatively complicated installation, the City may choose to retain a specialty contractor for these
drains. Information collected during installation of each horizontal drain (e.g., soil conditions,
pore water pressure, discharge rate, etc.) should be recorded and may be used to adjust plans
for subsequent drain installation.
5.7 Maintenance and Future Construction Phases
The City should plan and implement a post-construction maintenance program to allow for
long-term functionality of the proposed improvements. Potential sources of maintenance
issues include build-up of silt and vegetation in the channels, pipes, and flow reduction area;
buildup of silt and mineral deposits in the subsurface wells; and continued landslide movement
(at a reduced but measurable rate). Potential periodic monitoring and maintenance operations
include field observation of the improvements, infilling of reopened and newly observed
fractures, silt removal from channels and flow reduction area by grading, and jetting of pipes
and drains.
In the event that the proposed mitigation measures are observed to slow the landslide
movement significantly (e.g., by approximately an order of magnitude), we recommend the City
consider additional dewatering to reduce movement rate further. In particular, we recommend
the City consider installation of vertical dewatering wells arranged in a grid pattern. The slowed
landslide movement would allow for longer design life of vertical wells penetrating the basal
rupture surface, as it would extend the time until landslide movement caused shearing (i.e.,
failure) of the well casing.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
In preparing the findings and professional opinions presented in this report, Geo-Logic
Associates (GLA) has endeavored to follow generally accepted principles and practices of the
engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professions in the area and at the time our
services were performed. This report and the enclosed plans and calculations were peer
reviewed internally in accordance with GLA’s peer review policy. No warranty, express or
implied, is provided.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on
information that has been provided to us. In the event that the general development concept
or general location and type of improvements are modified, our conclusions and
recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we are retained to review such changes
and to make any necessary additions or changes to our recommendations. To remain as the
D-29
project geotechnical engineer-of-record, GLA must be retained to provide geotechnical field
observation services during construction.
Subsurface exploration is necessarily confined to selected locations and conditions may, and
often do, vary between these locations. Should conditions different from those described in
this report be encountered during project development, GLA should be consulted to review the
conditions and determine whether our recommendations are still valid. Additional exploration,
testing, and analysis may be required for such evaluation.
Should persons concerned with this project observe geotechnical features or conditions at the
site or surrounding areas which are different from those described in this report, those
observations should be reported immediately to GLA for evaluation.
It is important that the information in this report be made known to the design professionals
involved with the project (if other than GLA), that our recommendations be incorporated into
project drawings and documents, and that the recommendations be carried out during
construction by the contractor and subcontractors. It is not the responsibility of GLA to notify
the design professionals and the project contractors and subcontractors.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are applicable only to
the specific project development on this specific site. These data should not be used for other
projects, sites or purposes unless they are reviewed by GLA or another qualified geotechnical
professional.
Geo-Logic Associates
Alan F. Witthoeft, PE, GE Mark W. Vincent, PG, CEG, CHg
Project Engineer III Senior Geologist
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Principal
nmatasovic@geo-logic.com / 714-465-8240
D-30
7.0 REFERENCES
Conrad, C.L. and Ehlig, P.L. (1983), “The Monterey Formation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula,
California - An Example of Sedimentation in a Tectonically Active Basin within the California
Continental Borderland,” In Cenozoic Marine Sedimentation, Pacific Margin, U.S.A., Pacific
Section, Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and Mineralogists (Larue, D.K. and Steel, R.J., eds.),
pp. 103 116.
DBS&A (2018), “Feasibility Study Update, Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex, Rancho Palos
Verdes, California,” Technical Report, Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa,
California (Project No. DB17.1171.00).
Douglas, R. (2013), “The Creepy (Slow Moving) Landslides of Portuguese Bend,” AEG Special
Publication No. 24, Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists, Los Angeles,
California.
Dibblee, T.W. (1999) “Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity Redondo Beach,
Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California,” Dibblee Geology
Center Map #DF-70 (eds. Ehrenspeck, H.E., Ehlig, P.L., and Bartlett, W.L., 1999; ed. Minch,
J.A., 2011).
Ehlig, P.L. (1992), “Evolution, mechanics and mitigation of the Portuguese Bend Landslide, Palos
Verdes Peninsula, California,” In AEG Special Publication No. 4, Association of
Environmental & Engineering Geologists, Los Angeles, California.
Ehlig / BYA (1997), “Feasibility of Stabilizing Portuguese Bend Landslide,” Technical Report,
Perry Ehlig, Consulting Engineering Geologist, South Pasadena, California, and Bing Yen &
Associates, Inc., Irvine, California (BYA Project No. G-940989).
Hill, C.A., Douglas, R.G., and Hammond, D.E. (2007), “A Hydrological Assessment of
Groundwater Sources in the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove Landslide Areas, California:
Implications for Landslide Movement,” In Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills,
California, A 60th Anniversary Revisit to Commemorate the 1946 Publication of U. S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, Book 103, pp. 271-292, Pacific Section SEPM
(Society for Sedimentary Geology), Walnut, California.
Leighton (2000), “Updated Feasibility Study for the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation
Project at Peacock Hill and Portuguese Bend, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California,”
Technical Report, Leighton and Associates, Inc., Irvine, California (Project No. 1881922-26).
Morgenstern, N.R. and Price, V.E. (1965), “The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces,”
Géotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 70-93.
RPV (2019), “Dewatering well,” Email Communication, Mr. James Flannigan to Dr. Neven
Matasovic, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California.
D-31
Vonder Linden, K. (1972), “An Analysis of the Portuguese Bend Landslide, Palos Verdes Hills,
California,” PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Vonder Linden, K. and Lindvall, C.E. (1982), “The Portuguese Bend Landslide,” In Landslides and
Landslide Abatement, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Southern California, Guidebook for the 78th
Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Anaheim, California (compiled by John
D. Cooper) pp. 49-56.
Watry, S. M., and Lade, P. V. (2000), “Residual Shear Strengths of Bentonites on Palos Verdes
Peninsula, California.” In Slope Stability 2000, pp. 323-342. ASCE.
D-32
FIGURES
D-33
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-34
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-35
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-36
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-37
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-38
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-39
TT'BFFCGGPYY'XX'CCWW'VV'UU'BBSS'AAWWBBVVUUTTSSTT'VIS'Z'D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AA'AD-40
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-41
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'WELL BYA-1 ARTESIAN PRESSUREHEAD 10 FEET ABOVE HYDROSTATICLEVEL (EHLIG/BYA,1997)APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ARTESIANPRESSURE REPORTEDLY ENCOUNTEREDAT DEPTH OF 400 FEET (RPV,2019)ARTESIAN PRESSURE REPORTEDLYENCOUNTERED (EHLIG,1992)3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-42
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'HEIGHT OF HYDROSTATIC GROUNDWATER TABLEABOVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-43
D
D'
C
A
C'
A'
B
B'3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWA'AD-44
MOBILIZED SHEAR STRENGTH VERSUS FACTOR OF SAFETY
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 11 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055.00
D-45
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWCROSS SECTION A-A'D-46
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWCROSS SECTION B-B'D-47
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWCROSS SECTION C-C'D-48
3150 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626geo-logic.com│657.218.4708ISSUED FOR REVIEWCROSS SECTION D-D'D-49
SHEAR STRENGTH EVALUATION SCHEMATIC
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 16 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055.00
Notes:
1. Schematic illustration. Not to scale.
2. Friction angles shown are averages for cross-sections A-A’ through D-D’ (as
applicable) as evaluated for each segment by back-calculation.
D-50
BACK-CALCULATED VERSUS LEIGHTON (2000) SHEAR STRENGTH
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 17 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055.00
D-51
DISPLACEMENT RATE VERSUS ESTIMATED FACTOR OF SAFETY
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 18 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055.00
D-52
APPENDICES
D-53
APPENDIX A
PLAN SET FOR PROPOSED MITIGATION
D-54
REV. NO.DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
TITLE SHEET
1
UTILITY COMPANY CONTACT INFORMATION PHONE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES (310) 544-5252
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (310) 783-1156
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (310) 687-2020
VERIZON (310) 793-4159
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY (310) 541-2438
COX COMMUNICATIONS (310) 551-5020 X30
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
(STORM DRAIN)(626) 458-3109
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
(SEWER)(626) 458-4357
SANITATION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (562) 699-7411 X1205
USA (800)227-2600
NOTICE: ACTUAL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BIDDING. LOCATION OF EXISTING
AND ABANDONED UTILITIES IS UNKNOWN OR FROM RECORD DATA ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY TO HIS SATISFACTION LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO BIDDING
AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT RECORDS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND INFORM THE ENGINEER IN CASE OF DISCREPANCIES.
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED
TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF ALL
PERSONS AND PROPERTY; THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.
THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN
WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE PRESENCE, LOCATION, AND MATERIAL OF ALL AFFECTED OR CONFLICTING UTILITIES AS NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION. UTILITY
VERIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION SHALL BE MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER SO AS TO ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVE PLANNING WITHOUT AFFECTING THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
MATERIALLY.
NOVEMBER, 2019
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEX MITIGATION MEASURES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
DRAWING INDEX:
GENERAL INFORMATION
• Grading Permit Application No. GR_____________________________ *
• Earthwork Volumes Cut (cy), Fill (cy) *
• Over Excavation/ Alluvial Removal & Compaction _______ (cy)*
• Export (cy), Export Location: __________ *
• Total Disturbed Area (Acres)*
• Total Proposed Landscape Area Square Feet *
PROPERTY INFORMATION
• Property Address ______________________________________ (If exist *)
• Record of Survey Book ___ Pages ____
• Property Owner ___________ *
• Assessors ID Number(s) __________________________________
BENCHMARK:
HORIZONTAL COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 83, CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE, ZONE 5, NAVD 88
NOT TO SCALE
NOT TO SCALE
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
1 TITLE SHEET
2 GENERAL NOTES
3 SURFACE WATER - CHANNELS
4 SURFACE WATER PROFILES
5 LINE A CROSS SECTIONS
6 CULVERT A-1 PROFILE
7 CULVERT A-2 PROFILE
8 FLOW REDUCTION AREA GRADING
9 LINES A-1 AND A-2 REMEDIAL GRADING
10A SURFACE WATER DETAILS
10B ENGINEERED SWALE DETAILS
11 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS
12 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 1
13 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 2
14 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 3
15 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 4
16 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 5
17 GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 6
18 HYDRAUGERS DETAILS- DIRECTIONAL
19 HYDRAUGER DETAILS- HORIZONTAL
20 FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATIONS
21 FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 1
22 FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 2
23 FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 3
24 ACCESS, STAGING, AND STOCKPILE LOCATIONS
D-55
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GENERAL NOTES
2
GENERAL NOTES
1. ALL WORKS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STANDARD
PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, & PROJECT SPECIAL
PROVISIONS, EACH OF THE MOST RECENT DATE.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AT LEAST TWO
WORKING DAYS (48 HOURS) PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, AT (310) 544-5252.
3. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO SURFACING OF STREETS.
THE INSTALLATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CROSSING EXISTING ARTERIAL
HIGHWAYS REQUIRES BORING OR JACKING, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.
4. TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SAFETY DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE 2012 EDITION OF
THE CALIFORNIA MUTCD, AND TO SATISFACTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES.
5. EXISTING PAVEMENT DISTURBED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERGROUND
INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND & RESTRIPED. A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES IS REQUIRED.
6. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ARRANGE FOR AND COORDINATE
THE RELOCATION OF ANY EXISTING UTILITIES DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTION OF EXISTING UTILITIES.
ANY DAMAGE TO SUCH FACILITIES CAUSED BY HIS WORK SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE
CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ADJACENT STREETS IN A NEAT, CLEAN, DUST FREE
AND SANITARY CONDITION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY'S INSPECTION. THE
ADJACENT STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN OF DEBRIS, WITH DUST AND OTHER
NUISANCES BEING CONTROLLED AT ALL TIMES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLEAN UP ON ADJACENT STREETS AFFECTED BY HIS
CONSTRUCTION. STOCKPILE OF MATERIALS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WA IS NOT
ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY INSPECTOR.
9. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE 560-C-3250.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED O.S.H.A. PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
OF UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.
11. WHEELCHAIR RAMPS, DRIVEWAY APRONS, CURBS, OR GUTTERS DISTURBED BY
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. A PERMIT
ISSUED BY THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES IS REQUIRED.
12. ALL SAWCUTS SHALL BE DONE BY THE WET-CUT METHOD, UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND ALL SLURRY SHALL BE VACUUM REMOVED.
13. NEW CONCRETE SHALL MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE IN COLOR, FINISH, AND TEXTURE,
TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
14. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS,
USES, AND PROVIDE POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE. EXACT LIMITS AND CONFIGURATION
OF WORK TO BE ADJUSTED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD.
15. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREIN HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED 2017. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
VERIFYING THE CORRECTNESS OF TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR HIS OWN
PURPOSES.
16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL CONSTRUCTION MARKINGS FROM THE PROJECT
BY POWER WASHING, INCLUDING THOSE PLACED FOR UTILITY LOCATING AND
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING. WASTE FROM POWER WASHING MUST BE DISCHARGED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES.
17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ACCESS ROADS, WORKING
PLATFORMS, STAGING AREAS, AND OTHER TEMPORARY SITE FEATURES AS NEEDED TO
PERFORM THE CONSTRUCTION.
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREVENTING DISCHARGE OF SEDIMENT,
CONTAMINATED WATER, DRILLING MUD AND OTHER CONTAMINANTS TO DRAINAGE
FEATURES AND/OR THE OCEAN.
19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCOMMODATE ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY PERMITS,
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PLANS, AND OTHER SIMILAR DOCUMENTS. ALL
REASONABLE EFFORTS SHALL BE MADE TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO SITE FLORA AND
FAUNA.
20. THE SITE IS AN ACTIVE LANDSLIDE AND IS MOVING. ALL LOCATIONS SHOWN IN THE
PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING AND
CORRECTING DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE NOTES:
1. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE DISCHARGE OF NON-STORMWATER FROM THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES.
2. ERODED SEDIMENTS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS MUST BE RETAINED ON-SITE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE VIA
SHEET FLOW, SWALES, AREA DRAINS, NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES OR WIND.
3. STOCKPILES OF EARTH AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED MATERIALS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BEING TRANSPORTED FROM THE
SITE BY THE FORCES OF WIND OR WATER.
4. FUELS, OILS, SOLVENTS, AND OTHER TOXIC MATERIALS MUST BE STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LISTING AND ARE NOT TO
CONTAMINATE THE SOIL AND SURFACE WATERS. ALL APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE WEATHER.
SPILLS MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSED OF IN A PROPER MANNER. SPILLS MAY NOT BE WASHED INTO THE
DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
5. EXCESS OR WASTE CONCRETE MAY NOT BE WASHED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY OR ANY OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PROVISIONS SHALL
BE MADE TO RETAIN CONCRETE WASTES ON-SITE UNTIL THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS SOLID WASTE.
6. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED SOLID WASTES MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT
CONTAMINATION OF RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WIND.
7. SEDIMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS MAY NOT BE TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
ROADWAYS MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT SEDIMENTS FROM BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY. ACCIDENTAL
DEPOSITIONS MUST BE SWEPT UP IMMEDIATELY AND MAY NOT BE WASHED DOWN BY RAIN OR OTHER MEANS.
8. ANY SLOPES WITH DISTURBED SOILS OR DENUDED OF VEGETATION MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT EROSION BY WIND AND WATER.
9.“I CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL ATTACHMENTS WERE PREPARED UNDER MY DIRECTION OR SUPERVISION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A SYSTEM DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT QUALIFIED PERSONNEL PROPERLY GATHER AND EVALUATE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED.
BASED ON MY INQUIRY OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO MANAGE THE SYSTEM OR THOSE PERSONS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
GATHERING THE INFORMATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IS TRUE, ACCURATE, AND
COMPLETE. I AM AWARE THAT SUBMITTING FALSE AND/ OR INACCURATE INFORMATION, FAILING TO UPDATE THE ESCP TO REFLECT
CURRENT CONDITIONS, OR FAILING TO PROPERLY AND/ OR ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENT THE ESCP MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF GRADING
AND/ OR OTHER PERMITS OR OTHER SANCTIONS PROVIDED BY LAW.”
PRINT NAME _____________________________________________
(OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER)
SIGNATURE ______________________________________________ DATE __________________
(OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER)
THE FOLLOWING BMPS AS OUTLINED IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CASQA CONSTRUCTION BMP ONLINE
HANDBOOK OR CALTRANS STORMWATER QUALITY HANDBOOKS (CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP MANUAL), MAY APPLY DURING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT (ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL)
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
BID ITEM UNIT QUANTITY
EARTHWORK
CUT C.Y.54,200
FILL C.Y.2,200
PROTECTIVE COVER SOIL C.Y.44,800
ENGINEERED SWALE/FLOW
REDUCTION AREA
TYPE 1 S.F.39,000
TYPE 2 S.F.84,100
TYPE 3 S.F.22,700
SHINGLED GCL S.F.491,700
GEOTEXTILE S.F.637,500
PIPE
NEW 60" THICK WALLED HDPE L.F. 990
REFURBISHED 60"L.F. 240
NEW 36" HDPE (TRENCHLESS)L.F. 380
NEW 36" HDPE L.F. 50
NEW 48" HDPE L.F. 50
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
PRE-CONSTRUCTION TO
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY EA.1
PRE-CONSTUCTION PIPE CONDITION
SURVEY WITH PE CERTIFICATION
EA. 1
EROSION CONTROL
BIODEGRADABLE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING
EA.1
HYDROSEEDING EA.1
HYDRAUGERS
BID ITEM UNIT QUANTITY
HORIZONTAL DRAINS L.F.12,000
DIRECTIONAL DRAINS L.F.24,000
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
CONFIRMATORY SUBSURFACE
EXPLORATION PROGRAM
EA. 1
PORE WATER PRESSURE
INSTRUMENTATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
EA.1
PRODUCED WATER ANALYTICAL
LABORATORY TESTING AND
TREATMENT PROGRAM
EA.1
FRACTURE INFILL
BID ITEM UNIT QUANTITY
FLOWABLE FLY ASH-BASED SLURRY C.Y.1,600
D-56
CULVERT A-2
SEE SHEET 7
CULVERT A-1
SEE SHEET 6
LINE A DRAINAGE
SEE SHEET 4
LINE A-1 DRAINAGE
SEE SHEET 4 & 9
LINE A-2 DRAINAGE
SEE SHEET 4 & 9
ENGINEERED SWALE
SEE SHEET 4 AND 8
FLOW REDUCTION
AREA GRADING
SEE SHEET 8
PORTUGUESE
CANYON
(NORTH WEST)
ISHIBASHI
CANYON
(NORTH CENTRAL)
PAINTBRUSH
CANYON
(NORTH EAST)
EXISTING CITY
PROJECT
(OUT OF SCOPE;
BY OTHERS)
EXISTING
ACCESS
POINT
EXISTING
PARKING
AREA
PROPOSED FLOW
REDUCTION AREA
LINE A DRAINAGE
SEE SHEET 4
LINES A-1
AND A-2
GRADING
SEE SHEET 9
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
SURFACE WATER - CHANNELS
3
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
COMPLEX (BASED ON LEIGHTON, 2000)
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SUBSLIDES OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (BASED LEIGHTON, 2000)
PROPOSED FLOWLINE MODIFICATIONS
PROPOSED CULVERT LOCATIONS
PROPOSED FLOW REDUCTION AREA
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED 2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
3. WHERE PROPOSED SWALES CROSS OR PARALLEL EXISTING TRAILS, MODIFY TO
MAINTAIN FULL TRAIL FUNCTIONALITY.
4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINATE AS NECESSARY WITH EXISTING CITY
PROJECT(S) WHICH MAY BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS
PROJECT.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRAIL
EXISTING ROAD
D-57
RPV-ALGN-DRNG-LINE A-1 RPV-ALGN-DRNG-LINE A-2
RPV-ALGN-DRNG-LINE A
PALOS VERDES
DRIVE SOUTH
REFURBISHED
EXISTING
60" CMP
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 1
SHINGLED GCL
BASIN LINING
LIMITS OF PROPOSED
FLOW REDUCTION AREA
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 2
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 2
PROPOSED
36" HDPE
60" HDPE
(DISPOSE EXISTING 36" HDPE)
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 3
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 1
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 3
WITH 10" ROCK ARMORING
AS SHOWN ON SHEET 7 33+07.64 LINE A=0+00.00 LINE A-2 36+28.96 LINE A=0+00.00 LINE A-1 0+00.00 LINE A-1=36+28.96 LINE A 0+00.00 LINE A-2=33+7.64 LINE AENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 3
WITH 10" ROCK ARMORING
ENGINEERED
SWALE
TYPE 2
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 3
WITH 10" ROCK ARMORING
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 2
ENGINEERED
SWALE
TYPE 2
UNLINED
UNLINED
UNLINED
THICK-WALLED
FUSION WELDED
CONTROL POINTS CONTROL POINTS
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
4
SURFACE WATER PROFILES
NOTE:
SEE SHEET 10B FOR ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 1, 2, AND 3 SECTIONS.
D-58
5
4
5
4
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
GEOCELL LIMITS
5
4
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
10
4
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
4
3
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
4
2.5
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
4
2.5
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
4
2.5
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
4
2.5
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
5
4
GEOCELL LIMITS
DISTURBANCE LIMITS
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
LINE A CROSS SECTIONS
5
NOTES:
1. AREA WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS TO BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED BEFORE GRADING.
2. UPPER 12-INCHES OF SUBGRADE TO BE COMPACTED TO 90% OR HIGHER MODIFIED
PROCTOR MAXIMUM DENSITY BEFORE RECEIVING FILL OR GEOCELL.
3. FILL TO BE COMPACTED TO 90% OR HIGHER MODIFIED PROCTOR MAXIMUM DENSITY.
4. AREAS OUTSIDE GEOCELL LIMITS BUT WITHIN DISTURBANCE LIMITS TO BE COVERED
WITH BIODEGRADABLE EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND HYDROSEEDED WITH NATIVE
VEGETATION AFTER GRADING.
5. SEEDS FOR NATIVE VEGETATION TO BE SOURCED FROM AND/OR APPROVED BY PALOS
VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY. CONTACT PVPLC AT (310) 541-7613.
D-59
PALOS VERDESDRIVE SOUTHREFURBISHED
EXISTING
60" CMP
PROPOSED 60" THICK W
A
L
L
E
D
HDPE (FUSION WELDED)
184.88 L.F. - SINGLE 60" CMP (EXISTING)
EXISTING GRADE
W.S.E.=160.0
PALOS VERDES
DRIVE SOUTH
HYRAULIC DATA
Q100=302 cfs
V= 21.3 ftps
HGL (Q100)
PROPOSED 60" THICK WALLED HDPE (FUSION WELDED)
NOTE: MAKE CONNECTION TO NEW PIPE
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 1
2' FREEBOARD
ABOVE W.S.E.
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
CULVERT A-1 PROFILE
6
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE
LOCATION, FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS, SIZE AND FUNCTIONALITY.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE FUNCTIONALITY OF
EXISTING PIPE TO A STATE EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF A NEW
SMOOTH-WALLED PLASTIC PIPE OF THE SAME NOMINAL DIAMETER.
3. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, DATED 2017.
4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE A "PIPE
CERTIFICATION REPORT" STAMPED BY CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER IF THE PIPE REQUIRES ANY REFURBISHMENT AND/OR
RESTORATION, THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR RETROFITTING/RESTORATION.
D-60
BURMA ROADS
W
A
L
E
10" ROCK ARMORING
EXISTING GRADE
W.S.E.=598.0
325.90 L.F. - SINGLE 36" HDPE (PROPOSED)
HYRAULIC DATA
Q100=306 cfs
V= 15.44 ftps
HGL (Q100)
BURMA ROAD
TYPE 3
ENGINEERED SWALE WITH
10" ROCK ARMORING
ENGINEERED SWALE
TYPE 1
2' FREEBOARD
ABOVE W.S.E.
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
CULVERT A-2 PROFILE
7
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE
LOCATION, FLOWLINE ELEVATIONS, SIZE AND FUNCTIONALITY.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO RESTORE FUNCTIONALITY OF
EXISTING PIPE TO A STATE EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF A NEW PIPE
OF THE SAME NOMINAL DIAMETER.
3. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES, DATED 2017.
4. INSTALLATION OF PIPE SHALL BE BY TRENCHLESS METHODS.
D-61
TYPE
1
1
8
0
1
7
2
1
7
2
1
8
0
1
7
0172180 172
17217417
4
174180 17418017
6
18
0
180176180
176174174176
178PROPOSED FLOW REDUCTION AREA
DISTURBED AREA: 10.1 AC
STORAGE VOLUME: 45 AC-FT
SPILLWAY
SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 10
EXISTING 60" PIPE
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED
GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
TYPE 2
ARMOR SLOPE TO ELEVATION 162
TYPE I
ENGINEERED SWALE
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
FLOW REDUCTION AREA GRADING
8
PROPOSED ENGINEERED SWALE TYPE
EXISTING 60" CULVERT LOCATION
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED
2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
3. FLOW REDUCTION AREA FLOOR SHOWN CORRESPONDS TO FINISHED GRADE
ELEVATIONS. FINISH GRADE INCLUDES GEOCELL AND 3-FT THICK PROTECTIVE
COVER SOIL, AS APPLICABLE, SEE DETAILS 4 & 5 ON SHEET 10.
4. AUTOCAD FILES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CONTRACTOR.
5. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED PERFORM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BEFORE
AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
6. WHERE PROPOSED SWALES CROSS OR PARALLEL EXISTING TRAILS, MODIFY TO
MAINTAIN FULL TRAIL FUNCTIONALITY.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
TYPE 3
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR170
168
EXISTING TRAIL
EXISTING ROAD
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-62
TYPE
3
UNLINED
TYP
E
2
U
N
L
I
N
E
D
TYPE
3
UNLINED
TYPE 2TYPE 1TYPE 2
LINE
A-2
DRAINAGE
LINE A-1
DRAINAGE
ARMOR BURMA ROAD
FOOTPRINT USING TYPE 2
ENGINEERED SWALE SECTIONTYPE 3REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
LINES A-1 AND A-2 REMEDIAL GRADING
9
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
(BASED ON LEIGHTON, 2000)
PROPOSED MODIFIED FLOWLINE AND ENGINEERED SWALE
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED
2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
3. "UNLINED" DENOTES NATURAL CHANNEL OR SHEET FLOW IN AREAS ANTICIPATED
TO BE INACCESSIBLE.
4. WHERE PROPOSED SWALES CROSS OR PARALLEL EXISTING TRAILS, MODIFY TO
MAINTAIN FULL TRAIL FUNCTIONALITY.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
TYPE 3
EXISTING TRAIL
EXISTING ROAD
KEY MAPKEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-63
2' MIN.
5' MIN.
PREPARED/ PROOF
ROLLED SUBGRADE
8oz/YD NON WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
GEOCELL GW30V WITH
6 IN GRAVEL INFILL
2' MIN.
ANCHOR TRENCH
GEOSYNTHETIC
CLAY LINER (GCL)
FLOW REDUCTION AREA
LINING TERMINATION
SECTION
N.T.S.
2
-10A
TENDON
DEADMAN
ANCHOR
1
VARIES
FLOW REDUCTION AREA FLOOR
SHINGLED GCL (PLAN VIEW)
DETAIL
N.T.S.
3
-10A
CROSS-ROLL
DIRECTION
ROLL
DIRECTION
PREDOMINANT
LANDSLIDE
MOVEMENT
DIRECTION
20' MIN OVERLAP
(ROLL DIRECTION)
3' MIN OVERLAP
(CROSS-ROLL
DIRECTION)
12' MIN.
ANCHOR TRENCH
SEE SECTION 2/10
FLOW REDUCTION AREA
SPILLWAY
SECTION
N.T.S.
4
-10
1
2
TRANSITION TO
TYPE 1 TO
ENGINEERED
SWALE
1x36" CORRUGATED HDPE
1x48" CORRUGATED HDPE
8' MAX.
1
2
2' MIN.
PIPE BOOT
UNDER GCL
PREPARED
SUBGRADE
COMPACTED
FILL
3' MIN.
SEE SECTION 2/10
TYPE 3
ENGINEERED
SWALE
FLOW REDUCTION
AREA
20' MIN.
20' MIN.
GRATE
GRATE
8oz/YD NON WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
SHINGLED GCL.
SEE DETAIL 3/10
3
PREPARED
SUBGRADE
B
B'
FL = 178
FL = 170
PROTECTIVE
COVER SOILC'
C
1
Z
T
W
H
d
ENGINEERED SWALE
SECTION
N.T.S.
1
-10A
FLOW REDUCTION AREA
GEOCELL TERMINATION
SECTION
N.T.S.
5
-10
1
VARIES
FLOW REDUCTION
AREA
20' MIN.
3
8oz/YD NON WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
GEOCELL GW40V WITH 4IN GRAVEL INFILL
GEOSYNTHETIC
CLAY LINER (GCL)
TENDON
SHINGLED GCL.
SEE DETAIL 3/10
PREPARED
SUBGRADE
PROTECTIVE
COVER SOIL
1
1
10'
2'
SECTION B-B'
N.T.S.
36" CORRUGATED HDPE
1x24" CORRUGATED HDPE
Q100 = 92 CFS
COMPACTED
FILL
FL = 180
FL = 178
48" CORRUGATED
HDPE
Q100 = 164 CFS
FL = 170
SPILLWAY
Q100 = 38 CFS
60" THICK-WALLED
HDPE PIPE
DRIVE POSTS
TO REFUSAL
EXISTING SURFACE
PIPE ANCHOR
SECTION
N.T.S.
6
-10
SECURE STRAP
SCROSS TOP
OF PIPE
NOTE: ANCHOR PIPE AT LENGTH
INTERVALS FOR
MANUFACTURER
RECOMMENDATION
1
1
10'
2'
SECTION C-C'
N.T.S.
2' MIN.2' MIN.
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
SURFACE WATER DETAILS
10A
GENERAL NOTES:
1. INSTALL GEOSYNTHETIC AND OTHER COMPONENTS PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
2. TOP OF COVER PROTECTIVE COVER SOIL LEVEL
CORRESPONDS TO PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ON SHEET 8.
NOTES:
1. PROTECTIVE COVER SOIL LAYER
SHALL BE PLACED OVER ALL
INSTALLED GCL PANELS BEFORE
THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY OF
GCL INSTALLATION.
2. PROTECTIVE COVER SOIL LAYER
SHALL BE PLACED BEFORE TRUCKS
OR EQUIPMENT MAY TRAVERSE
INSTALLED GCL PANELS.
3. LOW GROUND PRESSURE
EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED FOR
PROTECTIVE COVER SOIL
PLACEMENT AND FINAL GRADIGN
WITHIN GCL-LINED AREA.
CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
LINE A
STATION
START
STATION
END W H T d Z
GEOWEB
TYPE
12+08 16+38 5 4 21 3 2 1
25+50 32+08 5 4 21 3 2 2
32+08 33+08 5 4 21 3 2 3
33+08 36+29 10 4 26 3 2 3
36+29 37+40 4 2.5 14 1.5 2 3
37+40 45+00 4 2.5 14 1.5 2 1
45+00 58+00 4 2.5 14 1.5 2 2
58+00 60+00 4 2.5 14 1.5 2 3
LINE A1
STATION
START
STATION
END W H T d Z
GEOWEB
TYPE
0+00.00 1+50 2 3 14 2 2 3
4+13 6+63 2 3 14 2 2 2
LINE A2
STATION
START
STATION
END W H T d Z
GEOWEB
TYPE
0+00.00 1+50 2.5 3 14.5 2 2 3
3+47 6+73 2.5 3 14.5 2 2 2
NOTE:
SWALE HAUNCHES TO BE
ROUNDED. SEE SHEET 10B.
D-64
PREPARED SUBGRADE
8oz/YD NON WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
GEOWEB GW40V OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT,
6IN GRAVEL INFILL
TYPE 1
ENGINEERED SWALE
SECTION
N.T.S.
8
4,6,7,9,10B
6"
10A
PREPARED SUBGRADE
8oz/YD NON WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
GEOWEB GW30V OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT,
6IN GRAVEL INFILL
TYPE 2
ENGINEERED SWALE
SECTION
N.T.S.
9
4,6,7,9,10B
6"
10A
PREPARED SUBGRADE
8oz/YD NON WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
GEOWEB GW20V OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT,
8IN GRAVEL INFILL
TYPE 3
ENGINEERED SWALE
SECTION
N.T.S.
10
4,6,7,9,10B
8"
10" ROCK ARMORING
WHERE SHOW IN PLANS
10A
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
ENGINEERED SWALE DETAILS
10B
EXAMPLE ENGINEERED SWALE
ISOMETRIC/CUTAWAY VIEW
SECTION
N.T.S.
11
-10B
EXAMPLE
ELECTRIC PUMP
DETAIL
N.T.S.
13
-10B
EXAMPLE WATER STORAGE TANK
DETAIL
N.T.S.
14
-10B
GEOCELL
DETAIL
N.T.S.
7
-10B
EXAMPLE ENGINEERED SWALE
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
SECTION
N.T.S.
12
-10B
VEGETATION
GEOCELL WITH
GRAVEL INFILL
GEOTEXTILE
UNDER GEOCELL
PREPARED
SUBGRADE
TOPSOIL/
SILT DEPOSIT
D-65
A6A5
A1
A4
A6A5
A1
A4
A2
A3
EXISTING
ACCESS
POINT
EXISTING
PARKING
AREA
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS
11
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
COMPLEX (PBLC)
PROPOSED HYDRAUGER ARRAY LOCATION. BOX REPRESENTS
WORK LOCATION, RED LINE REPRESENT DIRECTION AND
LENGTH OF HYDRAUGERS. FILL COLOR DENOTES TYPE OF
PROPOSED HYDRAUGER.
DIRECTIONAL / GRAVITY FLOW
DIRECTIONAL / PUMP ASSISTED FLOW
HORIZONTAL / GRAVITY FLOW
TYPE OF HYDRAUGER
A6
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PERFORM PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFIRMATORY
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION TO VERIFY GROUNDWATER, SOIL, AND BEDROCK
CONDITIONS.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL GROUTED CONDUCTOR AND/OR
SURFACE CASING WITH ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO PREVENT BLOWOUT AND/OR
OTHER POTENTIAL ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO HYDRAUGER INSTALLATION,
OPERATION, AND/OR MAINTENANCE.
3. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED
2017.
4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
5. CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PUMPS AND ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS
FOR PUMP-ASSISTED DRAINS.
6. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PLUMBING CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING DRAINAGE LINES
AND/OR PROPOSED SWALES.
7. WHERE PROPOSED SWALES CROSS OR PARALLEL EXISTING TRAILS, MODIFY TO
MAINTAIN FULL TRAIL FUNCTIONALITY.
8. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO CAPTURE WATER PRODUCED FROM DRAINS
DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD; PERFORM ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TESTING OF
REPRESENTATIVE WATER SAMPLES; FURNISH AND INSTALL STORAGE, TREATMENT,
AND/OR PUMPING EQUIPMENT AS NEEDED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRAIL
EXISTING ROAD
D-66
A1
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. LIMIT OF PBLC
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 1
12
ARRAY 1 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 1 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 1 / DRAIN 5
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
DRAIN 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727364 6451771 50 BEGIN CURVE
2 1+26.57 1727461 6451852 29 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728283 6452542 29
DRAIN 3 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727364 6451771 50 BEGIN CURVE
2 2+32.79 1727597 6451771 -25 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728564 6451771 -25
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727364 6451771 50 BEGIN CURVE
2 2+11.02 1727526 6451635 -10 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728283 6450999 -10
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF PALOS
VERDES DRIVE SOUTH (PVDS)
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-67
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
A2
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF BURMA RD
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF BURMA RD
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF BURMA RD
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 2
13
ARRAY 2 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 2 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 2 / DRAIN 5
DRAIN 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730146 6451713 300
2 12+00 1730280 6452906 324
DRAIN 3 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730146 6451713 300
2 12+00 1731015 6452541 324
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730146 6451713 300
2 12+00 1731344 6451788 324
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINSS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF BURMA RD
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-68
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
A3
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. LIMIT OF PBLC APPROX. CL OF BURMA RD
APPROX. LIMIT OF PBLC APPROX. CL OF BURMA RD
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. LIMIT OF PBLCWORK LOCATION
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 3
14
ARRAY 3 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 3 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 3 / DRAIN 5
WELL 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730518 6451075 350
2 12+00 1731437 6451847 374
WELL 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730518 6451075 350
2 12+00 1731718 6451075 374
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1730518 6451075 350
2 12+00 1731437 6450304 374
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF BURMA RD
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-69
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
A4
WORK LOCATION
WORK LOCATION
WORK LOCATION
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 4
15
ARRAY 4 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 4 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 4 / DRAIN 5
DRAIN 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1728218 6448970 235 BEGIN CURVE
2 3+35.59 1728396 6449255 53 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728854 6449988 53
DRAIN 3 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1728218 6448970 235 BEGIN CURVE
2 3+35.59 1728537 6449074 53 END CURVE
3 12+00 1729359 6449341 53
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1728218 6448970 235 BEGIN CURVE
2 3+35.59 1728529 6448844 53 END CURVE
3 12+00 1729330 6448520 53
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF ROAD
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-70
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
A5
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. LIMIT OF PBLC
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 5
16
ARRAY 5 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 5 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 5 / DRAIN 5
DRAIN 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727147 6449217 8 BEGIN CURVE
2 1+37.58 1727279 6449257 -17 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728296 6449565 -17
DRAIN 3 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727147 6449217 8 BEGIN CURVE
2 1+58.63 1727293 6449155 -25 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728251 6448746 -25
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727147 6449217 8 BEGIN CURVE
2 1+32.38 1727207 6449099 -15 END CURVE
3 12+00 1727690 6448147 -15
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF PALOS
VERDES DRIVE SOUTH (PVDS)
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-71
DRAIN 1
DRAIN 2
DRAIN 3
DRAIN 4
DRAIN 5
A6
WORK LOCATION
WORK LOCATION
WORK LOCATION
APPROX. CL OF PVDS
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
GROUNDWATER- HYDRAUGERS- ARRAY 6
17
ARRAY 6 / DRAIN 1
ARRAY 6 / DRAIN 3
ARRAY 6 / DRAIN 5
DRAIN 1 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION
N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727142 6449664 11 BEGIN CURVE
2 2+16.21 1727189 6449875 -53 END CURVE
3 12+00 1727403 6450835 -53
DRAIN 3 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727142 6449664 11 BEGIN CURVE
2 2+09.02 1727308 6449791 -48 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728095 6450393 -48
DRAIN 5 COORDINATES TABLE
POINT STATION N E Z COMMENT
1 0+00 1727142 6449664 11 BEGIN CURVE
2 1+66.06 1727307 6449656 -25 END CURVE
3 12+00 1728340 6449609 -25
LEGEND
ACTIVE BASAL RUPTURE SURFACE
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
GROUNDWATER SURFACE
PROPOSED DRAIN
NOTES
1. FOR DRAINS 2 AND 4 COORDINATES, INTERPOLATE BETWEEN ADJACENT DRAINS.
2. MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS 400 FEET.
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE(CL) OF PALOS
VERDES DRIVE SOUTH (PVDS)
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-72
1
2
3
4R400.0 MINIMUM
DRILL RIG
WORKING
PLATFORM
1
SUMP TO CONTAIN DRILLING FLUIDS
AND CUTTINGS TO BE SIZED BY
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
ANGLE OF ATTACK PER PLAN BASED ON
LOCATION PER DESIGN ENGINEER
NEAT CEMENT GROUT ANNULAR SEAL
IN 12-INCH DIAM. BORE HOLE
8-INCH DIAM. LOW CARBON STEEL
CONDUCTOR CASING-DEPTH AND
LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE
THE START OF DRILLING BY ASSESSING
THE MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED
PIEZOMETRIC PRESSURE
DRILL RIG
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
HYDRAUGERS DETAILS- DIRECTIONAL
18
NOTES
CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE SUMP TO CONTAIN DRILLING FLUIDS AND
CUTTINGS. CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT WORKING PLATFORM TO
ACCOMMODATE DRILLING OPERATION. DIMENSIONS TO BE
DETERMINED BY DRILLING CONTRACTOR. WATER USED FOR DRILLING
AND DEVELOPED FROM THE DRILL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE
CONTRACTOR WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE PROJECT OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
ANGLE OF ATTACK FOR THE HYDRAUGER IS PER PLAN SHEET 11
THROUGH 17 PER THE ENGINEER. THE DEPTH AND LENGTH OF THE
CONDUCTOR CASING IS TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE THE START OF
DRILLING OPERATIONS TO WITHSTAND 2 TIMES THE MAXIMUM
ANTICIPATED HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE.
THE BOREHOLE FOR THE CONDUCTOR CASING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF
12-INCHES IN DIAMETER. THE CONDUCTOR CASING SHALL CONSIST OF
8-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40, LOW CARBON STEEL.
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PROFILE AND DIRECTION OF THE
HYDRAUGER CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN ON SHEET 11 THROUGH 17.
1
2
3
4
2
3
TYPICAL HYDRAUGER
DIRECTIONAL
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S
-
--18
SUMP AND CONDUCTOR CASING
DETAIL
N.T.S
-
--18
D-73
1
3
45
2
1
SUMP TO CONTAIN DRILLING FLUIDS
AND CUTTINGS TO BE SIZED BY
DRILLING CONTRACTOR
ANGLE OF ATTACK PER PLAN BASED ON
LOCATION PER DESIGN ENGINEER
NEAT CEMENT GROUT ANNULAR SEAL
IN 12-INCH DIAM. BORE HOLE
8-INCH DIAM. LOW CARBON STEEL
CONDUCTOR CASING-DEPTH AND
LENGTH TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE
THE START OF DRILLING BY ASSESSING
THE MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED
PIEZOMETRIC PRESSURE
2
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
HYDRAUGER DETAILS- HORIZONTAL
19
NOTES
CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATED SUMP TO CONTAIN DRILLING FLUIDS AND
CUTTING. DIMENSIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY DRILLING CONTRACTOR.
WATER USED FOR DRILLING AND DEVELOPED FROM THE DRILL SHALL BE
DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE PROJECT
OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
SUBCONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE AT SLOPE FACE, IF NECESSARY, AND
CONSTRUCT WORKING PLATFORM TO ACCOMMODATE DRILLING
OPERATION.
ANGLE OF ATTACK FOR THE HYDRAUGER IS PER PLAN SHEET 11
THROUGH 17 PER THE ENGINEER. THE DEPTH AND LENGTH OF THE
CONDUCTOR CASING IS TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE THE START OF
DRILLING OPERATIONS TO WITHSTAND 2 TIMES THE MAXIMUM
ANTICIPATED HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE.
THE BOREHOLE FOR THE CONDUCTOR CASING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF
12-INCHES IN DIAMETER. THE CONDUCTOR CASING SHALL CONSIST OF
8-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40, LOW CARBON STEEL.
CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE PROFILE AND DIRECTION OF THE
HYDRAUGER CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN ON SHEET 11 THROUGH 17.
1
2
3
4
5
4
TYPICAL HYDRAUGER
HORIZONTAL
CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
-
--19
SUMP AND CONDUCTOR CASING
DETAIL
N.T.S.
-
--19
D-74
SEE SHEET 21
SEE SHEET 23
SEE SHEET 22
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATIONS
20
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
(BASED ON LEIGHTON, 2000)
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SUBSLIDES OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE (BASED LEIGHTON, 2000)
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SURFACE FRACTURE
FRACTURE TOTAL
LOCATION NUMBER LENGTH (FT)VOLUME (1,2)
(C.Y.)
1 1,632 1,000
2 702 450
3 242 150
TOTAL 2,576 1,600
NOTES:
(1) ASSUMES FRACTURE WIDTH 1 FOOT AND DEPTH 15 FEET.
(2) CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL FRACTURE DIMENSIONS AND
LOCATIONS.
(3) CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL FRACTURES TO LEVEL OF ADJACENT GROUND
SURFACE.
(4) FRACTURE INFILL TO CONSIST OF FLOWABLE FLY ASH-BASED SLURRY OR
APPROVED ALTERNATIVE LOW-PERMEABILITY MATERIAL.
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED
2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING TRAIL
EXISTING ROAD
D-75
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 1
21
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
LOCATION 1
FRACTURE NUMBER
LENGTH
(FT)
VOLUME (1,2)
(C.Y.)
F1 198 -
F2 205 -
F3 217 -
F4 61 -
F5 108 -
F6 287 -
F7 213 -
F8 52 -
F9 191 -
F10 100 -
TOTAL (THIS SHEET)1,632 1,000
FRACTURE LOCATION
F8
NOTES:
(1) ASSUMES FRACTURE WIDTH 1 FOOT AND DEPTH 15 FEET.
(2) CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL FRACTURE DIMENSIONS AND
LOCATIONS.
(3) CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL FRACTURES TO LEVEL OF ADJACENT GROUND
SURFACE.
(4) FRACTURE INFILL TO CONSIST OF FLOWABLE FLY ASH-BASED SLURRY OR
APPROVED ALTERNATIVE LOW-PERMEABILITY MATERIAL.
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, DATED 2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS
SHOWN.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-76
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 2
22
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
LOCATION 2
FRACTURE NUMBER LENGTH (FT)VOLUME (1,2)
(C.Y.)
F1 66 -
F2 98 -
F3 74 -
F4 116 -
F5 99 -
F6 132 -
F7 117 -
TOTAL (THIS SHEET)702 450
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX
FRACTURE LOCATION
F8
NOTES:
(1) ASSUMES FRACTURE WIDTH 1 FOOT AND DEPTH 15 FEET.
(2) CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL FRACTURE DIMENSIONS AND
LOCATIONS.
(3) CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL FRACTURES TO LEVEL OF ADJACENT GROUND
SURFACE.
(4) FRACTURE INFILL TO CONSIST OF FLOWABLE FLY ASH-BASED SLURRY OR
APPROVED ALTERNATIVE LOW-PERMEABILITY MATERIAL.
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED 2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD
VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
EXISTING TRAIL
KEY MAPKEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
D-77
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
FRACTURE INFILLING LOCATION 3
23
F1
LOCATION 3
FRACTURE NUMBER LENGTH (FT)VOLUME (1,2)
(C.Y.)
F1 242 -
TOTAL (THIS SHEET)242 150
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE COMPLEX
FRACTURE LOCATION
F8
NOTES:
(1) ASSUMES FRACTURE WIDTH 1 FOOT AND DEPTH 15 FEET.
(2) CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL FRACTURE DIMENSIONS AND
LOCATIONS.
(3) CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL FRACTURES TO LEVEL OF ADJACENT GROUND
SURFACE.
(4) FRACTURE INFILL TO CONSIST OF FLOWABLE FLY ASH-BASED SLURRY OR
APPROVED ALTERNATIVE LOW-PERMEABILITY MATERIAL.
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
NOTES:
1. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
DATED 2017.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO
FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
EXISTING TRAIL
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
KEY MAP (NOT TO SCALE)
D-78
A5
A1
A4
A6
A5
A1
A4
A2
A3
EXISTING
ACCESS
POINT
STOCKPILE AREA
PRIMARY STAGING AREA
SECONDARY STAGING
AREA
ACCESS ROUTE
ACCESS ROUTE
ACCESS ROUTE
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
ACCESS, STAGING, AND STOCKPILE LOCATIONS
24
LEGEND
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 2 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHORELINE
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
COMPLEX (PBLC)
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SUBSLIDES OF PORTUGUESE BEND
LANDSLIDE
HYDRAUGER DIRECTIONAL / GRAVITY FLOW
HYDRAUGER DIRECTIONAL / PUMP ASSISTED FLOW
HYDRAUGER HORIZONTAL / GRAVITY FLOW
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PERFORM PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFIRMATION
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION TO VERIFY GROUNDWATER, SOIL, AND BEDROCK
CONDITIONS.
2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL GROUTED CONDUCTOR AND/OR
SURFACE CASING WITH ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO PREVENT BLOWOUT AND/OR
OTHER POTENTIAL ADVERSE EVENTS RELATED TO HYDRAUGER INSTALLATION,
OPERATION, AND/OR MAINTENANCE.
3. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DATED
2017.
4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO FIELD VERIFY ELEVATIONS SHOWN.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, 10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PRESERVE PROPERTY BOUNDARY
PLANNED ACCESS ROUTE
HYDRAUGER INSTALLATION WORK AREA (100'X100' TYPICAL)
100'
100'
D-79
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY COMPUTER PROGRAM
OUTPUT
D-80
Notes:
1.Not to scale.
2.Directions, dimensions, and locations are approximate.
3.“HS” denotes hydrostatic.
1-Back Analysis 2- Dewater HS Only
3- Dewater Artesian Only 4- Dewater HS &Artesian
STABILITY SOFTWARE OUTPUT – CROSS-SECTION A-A’
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 1 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055
D-81
Notes:
1.Not to scale.
2.Directions, dimensions, and locations are approximate.
3. “HS” denotes hydrostatic.
1-Back Analysis 2- Dewater HS Only
3- Dewater Artesian Only 4- Dewater HS &Artesian
STABILITY SOFTWARE OUTPUT – CROSS-SECTION B-B’
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 2 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055
D-82
Notes:
1.Not to scale.
2.Directions, dimensions, and locations are approximate.
3.“HS” denotes hydrostatic.
1-Back Analysis 2- Dewater HS Only
3- Dewater Artesian Only 4- Dewater HS &Artesian
STABILITY SOFTWARE OUTPUT – CROSS-SECTION C-C’
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE
DATE: November 2019
FIGURE NO 3 PROJECT NO. DB19.1055
D-83
APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGY / HYDRAULICS CALCULATION
OUTPUTS
D-84
December 9, 2019
Project No. DB19.1055.00
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Attention: Mr. Elias Sassoon
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS EVALUATION
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEX MITIGATION MEASURES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Sassoon:
INTRODUCTION
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA) is pleased to submit this letter and attachments (i.e., hydrology
map; hydrology and hydraulics computer program outputs) to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(City). The services documented here were performed in support of GLA’s Portuguese Bend
Landslide Complex (PBLC) mitigation design project.
GLA has provided to the City under separate cover the geotechnical design report and plan set
for proposed mitigation measures (GLA, 2019a,b). Key stormwater management features
shown in the GLA (2019b) plan set include the following:
• Proposed engineered swale, which is approximately trapezoidal in transverse cross-
section;
• Proposed “flow reduction area” (i.e., detention basin);
• Proposed 36-inch-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe below Burma Road
(near PBLC northern limit)
• Existing 60-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) below Palos Verdes Drive South
(PVDS), to be refurbished; and
• Proposed 60-inch-diameter thick-walled HDPE pipe south of PVDS.
In performing the services documented here and in the associated deliverables (i.e., GLA,
2019a,b), GLA relied upon information provided by the City. In particular, GLA relied upon City-
provided watershed topography dated 2017, existing pipe locations (including flowline
elevations), and existing pipe dimensions. Field verification (e.g., detailed topographic and pipe
D-85
condition surveys) was outside the approved scope of GLA’s services and was not performed in
the course of this project.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
GLA performed the following services under the supervision of a California registered
Professional Engineer:
• Hydrology Map Development: Based on the PBLC and surrounding area topography
provided by the City, GLA developed a hydrology map for use in hydraulics calculations.
The hydrology map shows estimated watershed limits, subdrainage limits, flowline
locations, and subdrainage parameters (i.e., area, average slope, flow path length, and
flow rate).
• Estimation of Design Flows: Using the hydrology map developed for the project, GLA
estimated design flows for the 100-year (return period) 24-hour (duration) design storm
event based on the methodology of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW, 2006) hydrology manual.
• Proportioning of Engineered Swale and Flow Reduction Area: Based on the City-
provided topography and information on existing pipes, and the estimated design flows,
GLA proportioned the proposed engineered swale and flow reduction area (i.e.,
detention basin) features.
• Evaluation of Ponding north of Burma Road: Per City request, the current construction
plan set calls for a new 36-inch-diameter pipe to be installed below Burma Road near
the northern limit of the PBLC. Based on GLA’s evaluation of design flows, such a pipe is
anticipated to be inadequate (i.e., not large enough) to accommodate the design storm
event without ponding in the existing basin-like feature north of Burma Road (i.e., at the
inlet of the proposed pipe). GLA performed a preliminary evaluation of the ponded
water volume at the proposed pipe inlet for the design storm event.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the PBLC mitigation design project, GLA performed hydrology and hydraulics
evaluations in support of design of proposed surface water management features. Based on
the results of these evaluations, it is GLA’s opinion that the proposed design features (with the
exception of the proposed pipe below Burma Road) can adequately accommodate the design
storm event, provided that the following recommendations are implemented:
• Before construction of the proposed surface water drainage features, a site-specific
topographic survey of the watershed including the PBLC should be performed under the
supervision of a California registered Professional Land Surveyor. The survey should
include field verification of all relevant drainage features (e.g., pipe locations and
flowline elevations). Results of this topographic survey should be used to update
D-86
hydrology and hydraulics calculations prepared by GLA, and the surface water design
(i.e., GLA, 2019b construction plan set) should be updated to reflect revised calculations.
• Before construction of the proposed PBLC mitigation measures, a detailed pipe
condition survey should be performed to evaluate feasibility of refurbishing and/or
augmenting the existing 60-inch-diameter pipe below PVDS. This pipe condition survey
should be performed under the supervision of a California registered Professional
Engineer and should include assessment of flowline elevations, obstructions, wall
integrity, remaining service life, structural design adequacy, feasibility of refurbishment,
retrofit requirements, etc. Results of this detailed pipe condition survey should be used
to update hydrology and hydraulics calculations prepared by GLA, and the surface water
design (i.e., GLA, 2019b construction plan set) should be updated to reflect the relevant
findings.
• Based on GLA’s evaluations, the proposed 36-inch-diameter pipe below Burma Road will
not provide adequate capacity to accommodate design storm flows without ponded
water north of Burma Road. GLA anticipates that the ponded water volume for the
design storm event will be on the order of approximately two acre-feet and that this
volume of ponded water will remain in place for less than one hour.
D-87
CLOSURE
This letter report is based on the data and analyses described herein. GLA should be notified of
any conditions that differ from those described herein since this may require a reevaluation of
the data, conclusions and recommendations presented. Any use of the recommendations and
conclusions contained in this report for other projects is strictly forbidden without GLA review
and approval
This letter report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
practices in southern California, and internally peer-reviewed in accordance with GLA’s peer
review policy, and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the
professional data presented in it.
This letter report has not been prepared for use by other parties and projects other than those
named or described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other
purposes.
Sincerely,
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.
Alan F. Witthoeft, PE, GE
Project Engineer III
FOR Courtney Barrett, PE, QSD, QISP
Senior Engineer
Attachments
Attachment 1: Hydrology Map
Attachment 2: Hydrology and Hydraulics Computer Program Outputs
D-88
REFERENCES
LACDPW (2006), “Hydrology Manual,” Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Water
Resources Division, 145 pp. (plus Appendices).
GLA (2019a), “DRAFT Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
Mitigation Measures, Rancho Palos Verdes, California,” Technical Report, Geo-Logic
Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa, California (Project No. DB19.1055.00).
GLA (2019b), “Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Mitigation Measures, City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, California, November, 2019,” Construction Plan Set, Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.,
Costa Mesa, California (Project No. DB19.1055.00).
D-89
ATTACHMENT 1
Hydrology Map
D-90
A1
20.29
L=1,000'
S
=
2
3
.
0
5
%
A2
26.53
A3
28.74
A4
23.54
A5
36.82
A6
18.18
A10
20.51
A9
32.71
A8
11.98
A7
17.75
A11
19.12
A16
19.02
A15
26.73
A14
16.47 A13
24.53
A12
21.36
A17
71.89
A18
52.15
A19
29.25
E1
15.61
D1
16.70
C1
41.43
B2
20.13
B3
15.78
B1
19.15
Q
=
6
1
.
1
9
c
f
s
L=1,155' S=15.71%Q=73.93cfs
L=93
0'
S
=
2
0.
6
4
%
Q
=
8
6.
5
5
C
F
S
L=742' S=
1
1
.
6
2
%
Q=70.89CF
S
L=1,427' S=16.94%Q=95.66CFSL
=
8
3
9
'
S
=
3
.
5
7%Q=
4
7
.
2
2C
FS L=1,438' S=16.76%Q=49.66CFSL=729'
S
=
2
0.09
%
Q=6
7.83
C
F
S
L=1,
4
4
0'
S
=1
7.
84
%
Q=84.99
C
F
S
L=579'
S=22.28%
Q=39.62C
F
S
L=1,
0
1
3'
S
=
2
3.
8
4
%
Q=53.
5
6
C
F
S
L=1,301'
S
=
9
.
6
1
%
Q
=
5
5
.
7
5
C
F
S
L=994' S=20.12
%
Q=73.97
C
F
S
L=1,1
9
6'
S
=
2
0.
4
0
%
Q
=
4
5.
9
0
C
F
S
L=140
0'
S
=
1
5
.
7
8
%
Q
=
6
9
.
5
4
C
F
S
L=1,0
6
4'
S
=
2
6
.
3
1
%
Q
=
5
7
.
2
7
C
F
S
L=2,326' S=5.33
%
Q=144.19
CF
S
L=1,210' S=12.89% Q=63.72CFSL=1,072' S=17.72% Q=39.07CFSL=1,845' S=15.55% Q=75.59CFSL=2,444' S=9.39% Q=78.40CFSL=1,5
8
3'
S
=
1
1.
5
9
%
Q
=
3
7.
9
2
C
F
S
L=2,629' S=15.99%Q=25.1
8
C
F
SL=1,415' S=3.39%Q=47.38CFSL=786' S=19.34%
Q=40.40CFS
1350
1225.0
1300.0
1275.0
1044.5
863.0
671.0
584.8
315.0
285.0
526.0
672.5
929.5
1058.5
1025.0
781.0
560.0
280.0
156.0
287.0
190.0
200.0
152.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
420.5
383.5
385.5
556.8
B4
7.01
150.0
0.0 L=438'S=34.24
%
Q=14.0
CF
S
EXISTING CITY PROJECT
(OUT OF SCOPE; BY OTHERS)
REV. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY
3150 BRISTOL STREET
SUITE 210
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
(714) 465-8240
www.geo-logic.com
DWG NO.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION-PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE MITIGATION
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
FINAL-REV 1
HYDROLOGY
1
LEGEND
10 FT ELEVATION CONTOUR
PROPOSED CULVERT LOCATIONS
HYDROLOGY DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
HYDROLOGY SUB-DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
HYDROLOGY SUB-AREA
SUBDRAINAGE PATH LENGTH
SUBDRAINAGE PATH AVERAGE SLOPES
L
SUBDRAINAGE CONTRIBUTION TO SUBAREA FLOWQ
1350 FLOWLINE SPOT ELEVATION
A11
19.12
SUBDRAINAGE DESIGNATION AND AREA IN ACRES
SUBAREA A
SUBAREA B
SUBAREA C
SUBAREA D
SUBAREA E
D-91
ATTACHMENT 2
Hydrology and Hydraulics Computer Program
Outputs
D-92
Autodesk® Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2016 - Version 13.2.147 (Build 0) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************* Project Description ******************* File Name ................. RPV Hydrology MOD.SPF Description ............... C:\Users\cbarrett\Documents\Rancho Palos Verdes\XRPV-HYDRO- EXIST.dwg
**************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ................. cfs Subbasin Hydrograph Method. SCS TR-55 Time of Concentration...... SCS TR-55 Link Routing Method ....... Kinematic Wave Storage Node Exfiltration.. None Starting Date ............. NOV-01-2019 00:00:00 Ending Date ............... NOV-02-2019 00:00:00 Report Time Step ........... 00:05:00
************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ....... 4 Number of subbasins ........ 8 Number of nodes ............ 13 Number of links ............ 13
**************** Raingage Summary **************** Gage Data Data Recording ID Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------
min
100-YR 100-YR CUMULATIVE 6.00 10-YR 10-YR CUMULATIVE 6.00 2-YR 2-YR CUMULATIVE 6.00 50-YR 50-YR CUMULATIVE 6.00
****************
Subbasin Summary **************** Subbasin Total Peak Rate
Area Factor ID acres
------------------------------------------ {Site 1}.A12-16 208.70 484.00 {Site 1}.A1-4 171.20 484.00 {Site 1}.A-17 76.00 484.00 {Site 1}.A18 51.46 484.00 {Site 1}.A19 6.00 484.00 {Site 1}.A20 7.27 484.00 {Site 1}.A5-6 67.80 484.00
{Site 1}.A7-11 174.40 484.00
************
Node Summary ************ Node Element Invert Maximum Ponded External ID Type Elevation Elev. Area Inflow
ft ft ft²
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BURMA_PIPE_INLET JUNCTION 584.80 587.80 0.00
D-93
BURMA_PIPE_OUTLET JUNCTION 556.76 559.76 0.00 DK_BLUE_CHANNEL JUNCTION 120.00 122.00 0.00 JUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUEJUNCTION 278.00 281.50 0.00 JUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREENJUNCTION 285.00 288.50 0.00 LT_BLUE_INLET JUNCTION 458.00 460.00 0.00 LT_GREEN_INLET JUNCTION 475.00 477.00 0.00 OCEAN_OUTLET JUNCTION 0.00 3.00 0.00 ORIFICE_OUTLETS JUNCTION 166.10 170.10 0.00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_INLETJUNCTION 154.71 160.71 0.00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_OUTLETJUNCTION 150.44 156.44 0.00 WEIR_OUTLET JUNCTION 175.95 183.95 0.00 BASIN STORAGE 170.00 178.00 0.00
************ Link Summary ************ Link From Node To Node Element Length Slope Manning's ID Type ft % Roughness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36-IN-PIPE_BURMABURMA_PIPE_INLETBURMA_PIPE_OUTLETCONDUIT 325.9 8.6039 0.0130 60-IN_CMP_PALOS_VERDESPALOS_VERDE_PIPE_INLETPALOS_VERDE_PIPE_OUTLETCONDUIT 184.9 2.3096 0.0150 DK_GREEN JUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUEBASIN CHANNEL 904.5 11.3322 0.0300 DKBLUE PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_OUTLETDK_BLUE_CHANNEL CHANNEL 260.0 11.7072 0.0320 Link-20 WEIR_OUTLET ORIFICE_OUTLETS CHANNEL 13.8 71.8954 0.0130 LT_BLUE LT_BLUE_INLET JUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUECHANNEL 609.6 29.5290 0.0300 LT_GREEN LT_GREEN_INLET JUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREENCHANNEL 681.4 27.8834 0.0300 ORANGE JUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREENJUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUECHANNEL 320.7 2.1827 0.0300 PURPLE BURMA_PIPE_OUTLETJUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREENCHANNEL 1873.8 14.5028 0.0300 RED ORIFICE_OUTLETS PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_INLETCHANNEL 451.3 2.4597 0.0300 Outfall_36-INCH BASIN ORIFICE_OUTLETS ORIFICE Outfall_48-INCH BASIN ORIFICE_OUTLETS ORIFICE Spillway BASIN WEIR_OUTLET WEIR
********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Link Shape Depth/ Width No. of Cross Full Flow Design ID Diameter Barrels Sectional Hydraulic Flow Radius Capacity
ft cfs
Area
ft ft ft²
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ 36-IN-PIPE_BURMA CIRCULAR 0.75 195.64 60-IN_CMP_PALOS_VERDES CIRCULAR 1.25 343.03 DK_GREEN TRAPEZOIDAL 2.10 1244.71 DKBLUE TRAPEZOIDAL 1.34 385.92 Link-20 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.53 3092.49 LT_BLUE TRAPEZOIDAL 1.14 380.95 LT_GREEN TRAPEZOIDAL 1.10 333.74
3.00 3.00 1 7.07
5.00 5.00 1 19.63
3.50 20.00 1 45.50
2.00 14.00 1 20.00
2.00 14.00 1 24.00
2.00 10.50 1 13.00
2.00 10.00 1 12.00
D-94
ORANGE TRAPEZOIDAL 3.50 22.00 1 52.50 2.22 653.75 PURPLE TRAPEZOIDAL 2.00 12.00 1 16.00 1.24 347.62 RED TRAPEZOIDAL 3.00 17.00 1 33.00 1.79 378.20
************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity acre-ft inches ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 395.888 6.228 Surface Runoff ........... 20.004 0.315 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.000
************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-ft Mgallons ************************** --------- --------- External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 197.420 64.332 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.747 0.243 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000
****************************************** Composite Curve Number Computations Report ****************************************** --------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A12-16 --------------------------- Area Soil Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 13.73 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 94.39 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 108.12 73.56
-------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A1-4 -------------------------
Area Soil
Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 6.94 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 92.17 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 99.11 71.96
-------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A-17 -------------------------
Area Soil Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 0.69 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 68.08 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 68.77 70.28
------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A18 ------------------------
Area Soil
Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 6.84 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 44.62 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 51.46 73.72
------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A19
D-95
------------------------
Area Soil Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 0.04 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 3.83 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 3.87 70.28
------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A20 ------------------------
Area Soil
Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 0.41 C 98.00 50 - 75% grass cover, Fair 6.86 A 49.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 7.27 51.79
-------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A5-6 -------------------------
Area Soil
Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 1.10 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 53.90 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 55.00 70.56
--------------------------
Subbasin {Site 1}.A7-11 --------------------------
Area Soil Soil/Surface Description (acres) Group CN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paved parking & roofs 8.17 C 98.00 Brush, Fair 93.90 C 70.00 Composite Area & Weighted CN 102.07 72.24
***************************************************
SCS TR-55 Time of Concentration Computations Report
***************************************************
Sheet Flow Equation ------------------- Tc = (0.007 * ((n * Lf)^0.8)) / ((P^0.5) * (Sf^0.4)) Where: Tc = Time of Concentration (hrs) n = Manning's Roughness Lf = Flow Length (ft) P = 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (inches) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) Shallow Concentrated Flow Equation ---------------------------------- V = 16.1345 * (Sf^0.5) (unpaved surface) V = 20.3282 * (Sf^0.5) (paved surface) V = 15.0 * (Sf^0.5) (grassed waterway surface) V = 10.0 * (Sf^0.5) (nearly bare & untilled surface) V = 9.0 * (Sf^0.5) (cultivated straight rows surface) V = 7.0 * (Sf^0.5) (short grass pasture surface) V = 5.0 * (Sf^0.5) (woodland surface) V = 2.5 * (Sf^0.5) (forest w/heavy litter surface) Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr) Where: Tc = Time of Concentration (hrs)
D-96
Lf = Flow Length (ft) V = Velocity (ft/sec) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) Channel Flow Equation --------------------- V = (1.49 * (R^(2/3)) * (Sf^0.5)) / n R = Aq / Wp Tc = (Lf / V) / (3600 sec/hr)
Where:
Tc = Time of Concentration (hrs) Lf = Flow Length (ft) R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) Aq = Flow Area (ft²) Wp = Wetted Perimeter (ft) V = Velocity (ft/sec) Sf = Slope (ft/ft) n = Manning's Roughness
--------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A12-16 --------------------------- Sheet Flow Computations ----------------------- Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 0.00
0.00
2.30 0.00 0.00
Manning's Roughness: 0.30 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 100.00 0.00 Slope (%): 16.80 0.00
2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30
Velocity (ft/sec): 0.19 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 8.59 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations --------------------------------------
Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 0.00 Unpaved
0.00
0.00
Flow Length (ft): 5283.20 0.00 Slope (%): 16.60 0.00
Surface Type: Bare & untilled Unpaved
Velocity (ft/sec): 4.07 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 21.63 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 30.22 ============================================================================================== ==
------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A1-4 ------------------------- Sheet Flow Computations -----------------------
D-97
Subarea C
0.00
0.00 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00
Subarea A Subarea B Manning's Roughness: 0.30 0.00 Flow Length (ft): 100.00 0.00 Slope (%): 17.60 0.00
2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30
Velocity (ft/sec): 0.20 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 8.43 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations -------------------------------------- Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 0.00
Unpaved
0.00
0.00
Flow Length (ft): 3817.00 0.00
Slope (%): 17.60 0.00
Surface Type: Grassed waterway Unpaved
Velocity (ft/sec): 6.29 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 10.11 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 18.54 ============================================================================================== ==
------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A-17 ------------------------- Sheet Flow Computations ----------------------- Subarea C Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 Manning's Roughness:
Flow Length (ft):
0.30
100.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 30.10 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30 2.30 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.25 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 6.80 0.00 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations --------------------------------------
Subarea C Flow Length (ft):
Subarea A
1882.60
Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 30.10 0.00 0.00 Surface Type: Unpaved Velocity (ft/sec):
Bare & untilled
5.49
Unpaved
0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 5.72 0.00
D-98
0.00 Channel Flow Computations ------------------------- Subarea C Subarea A Subarea B
Manning's Roughness: 0.30 0.00 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 478.00 0.00 0.00
Channel Slope (%): 13.00 0.00 0.00
Cross Section Area (ft²): 50.75 0.00 0.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 23.15 0.00 0.00
Velocity (ft/sec): 3.02 0.00 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 2.64 0.00 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 15.15 ============================================================================================== ==
------------------------ Subbasin {Site 1}.A18 ------------------------ Sheet Flow Computations ----------------------- Subarea C Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 Manning's Roughness:
Flow Length (ft):
0.35
100.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 9.40 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30 2.30 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.14 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 12.26 0.00 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations -------------------------------------- Subarea C Flow Length (ft):
Subarea A
2344.10
Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 9.40 0.00 0.00 Surface Type: Unpaved Velocity (ft/sec):
Grassed waterway
4.60
Unpaved
0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 8.49 0.00 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 20.75
============================================================================================== ==
D-99
------------------------ Subbasin {Site 1}.A19 ------------------------ Sheet Flow Computations ----------------------- Subarea C
0.00
0.00 0.00 2.30
0.00 0.00 Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations -------------------------------------- Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 0.00 Unpaved
0.00
0.00
Flow Length (ft): 352.70 0.00
Slope (%): 12.40 0.00
Surface Type: Grassed waterway Unpaved
Velocity (ft/sec): 5.28 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 1.11 0.00
Channel Flow Computations ------------------------- Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Manning's Roughness: 0.03 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 451.30 0.00
Channel Slope (%): 5.10 0.00
Cross Section Area (ft²): 36.00 0.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 19.42 0.00
Velocity (ft/sec): 16.93 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 0.44 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 11.26
============================================================================================== ==
------------------------ Subbasin {Site 1}.A20 ------------------------
Sheet Flow Computations -----------------------
Subarea C
Subarea A Subarea B
Manning's Roughness: 0.30 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 100.00 0.00
Slope (%): 12.40 0.00
2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30
Velocity (ft/sec): 0.17 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 9.70 0.00
D-100
0.00 Manning's Roughness:
Flow Length (ft):
0.30
100.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 15.70 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30 2.30 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.19 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 8.83 0.00 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations --------------------------------------
Subarea C Flow Length (ft):
Subarea A
860.50
Subarea B
0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 15.70 0.00 0.00 Surface Type: Unpaved Velocity (ft/sec):
Grassed waterway 5.94
Unpaved 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 2.41 0.00 0.00
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 11.24 ============================================================================================== ==
------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A5-6 ------------------------- Sheet Flow Computations ----------------------- Subarea C Subarea A Subarea B
0.00 Manning's Roughness:
Flow Length (ft):
0.30
100.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 20.70 0.00 0.00 2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30 2.30 Velocity (ft/sec): 0.21 0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 7.90 0.00 0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations -------------------------------------- Subarea C Flow Length (ft):
Subarea A 839.10
Subarea B 0.00 0.00 Slope (%): 20.70 0.00 0.00 Surface Type: Unpaved Velocity (ft/sec):
Grassed waterway
6.82
Unpaved
0.00 0.00 Computed Flow Time (minutes): 2.05 0.00 0.00
D-101
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 9.95
============================================================================================== ==
-------------------------- Subbasin {Site 1}.A7-11 -------------------------- Sheet Flow Computations -----------------------
Subarea C
0.00
0.00 0.00 2.30
0.00
0.00
Shallow Concentrated Flow Computations --------------------------------------
Subarea C
0.00
0.00 Unpaved
0.00
0.00
Subarea A Subarea B
Subarea A Subarea B
============================================================================================== == Total TOC (minutes): 19.56
============================================================================================== ==
*********************** Subbasin Runoff Summary *********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subbasin ID Total Total Precip Runoff in in
Peak Weighted Runoff Curve cfs Number
Time of Concentration days hh:mm:ss -------------------------------------------------------------------------- {Site 1}.A12-16 6.20 3.31 314.83 73.560 0 00:30:13 {Site 1}.A1-4 6.20 3.15 305.69 71.960 0 00:18:32 {Site 1}.A-17 6.20 2.99 137.08 70.280 0 00:15:09 {Site 1}.A18 6.20 3.33 93.63 73.720 0 00:20:45 {Site 1}.A19 6.20 2.99 11.74 70.280 0 00:11:15 {Site 1}.A20 6.20 1.38 4.55 51.790 0 00:11:14 {Site 1}.A5-6 6.20 3.02 137.69 70.560 0 00:09:57 {Site 1}.A7-11 6.20 3.18 307.77 72.240 0 00:19:33 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manning's Roughness: 0.30 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 100.00 0.00
Slope (%): 18.50 0.00
2 yr, 24 hr Rainfall (in): 2.30 2.30
Velocity (ft/sec): 0.20 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 8.26 0.00
Flow Length (ft): 4371.00 0.00
Slope (%): 18.50 0.00
Surface Type: Grassed waterway Unpaved
Velocity (ft/sec): 6.45 0.00
Computed Flow Time (minutes): 11.29 0.00
D-102
****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Node Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Total Total Retention ID Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Flooded Time Time Attained Attained Attained Volume Flooded ft ft ft days hh:mm acre-in minutes hh:mm:ss ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BURMA_PIPE_INLET 0.55 3.00 587.80 0 10:01 20.43 20 0:00:00 BURMA_PIPE_OUTLET 0.55 3.00 559.76 0 10:02 0 0 0:00:00 DK_BLUE_CHANNEL 1.51 2.00 122.00 0 05:55 0 0 0:00:00 JUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUE 0.72 3.37 281.37 0 10:10 0 0 0:00:00 JUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREEN 0.71 3.38 288.38 0 10:10 0 0 0:00:00 LT_BLUE_INLET 0.43 1.82 459.82 0 10:15 0 0 0:00:00 LT_GREEN_INLET 0.42 1.93 476.93 0 10:10 0 0 0:00:00 OCEAN_OUTLET 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0:00:00 ORIFICE_OUTLETS 1.18 2.66 168.76 0 10:55 0 0 0:00:00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_INLET 1.62 3.81 158.52 0 10:49 0 0 0:00:00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_OUTLET 1.54 3.81 154.25 0 10:49 0 0 0:00:00 WEIR_OUTLET 0.06 0.19 176.14 0 10:55 0 0 0:00:00 BASIN 1.80 7.04 177.04 0 10:55 0 0 0:00:00
***************** Node Flow Summary *****************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURMA_PIPE_OUTLET JUNCTION 0.00 205.22 0 10:19 0.00
DK_BLUE_CHANNEL JUNCTION 0.00 318.66 JUNCTION_ORANGE-DK_GREEN_LT_BLUE JUNCTION 0.00 0 10:49 883.73 0.00 0 10:10 0.00 JUNCTION_PURPLE-ORANGE-LT_GREEN JUNCTION 136.99 LT_BLUE_INLET JUNCTION 312.28 312.28 608.13 0 10:15 0 10:10 0.00 0.00
LT_GREEN_INLET JUNCTION 307.37 307.37 0 10:10 0.00 OCEAN_OUTLET JUNCTION 4.31 4.31 0 10:05 0.00 ORIFICE_OUTLETS JUNCTION 0.00 294.54 0 10:55 0.00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_INLET JUNCTION 103.12 318.67 0 10:49 0.00 PALOS_VERDE_PIPE_OUTLET JUNCTION 0.00 318.66 0 10:49 0.00 WEIR_OUTLET JUNCTION 0.00 37.92 0 10:55 0.00
BASIN STORAGE 132.45 1008.84 0 10:11 0.00
******************** Storage Node Summary ********************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Storage Node ID Maximum Maximum Time of Max Average Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max. Total
Ponded Ponded Exfiltration Exfiltration Exfiltrated Ponded Ponded Ponded Storage Node
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Outflow Rate Rate Volume
1000 ft³ (%) days hh:mm 1000 ft³ (%) cfs cfm hh:mm:ss 1000 ft³
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Node Element Maximum Peak Time of Maximum Time of Peak
ID Type Lateral Inflow Peak Inflow Flooding Flooding
Inflow Occurrence Overflow Occurrence
cfs cfs days hh:mm cfs days hh:mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BURMA_PIPE_INLET JUNCTION 305.53 305.53 0 10:10 107.99 0 10:10
D-103
BASIN 1591.794 83 0 10:55 266.848 14 294.54 0.00 0:00:00 0.000
***************** Link Flow Summary *****************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Link ID Element Time of Maximum Length Peak Flow Design Ratio of Ratio of Total Reported Type Peak Flow Velocity Factor during Flow Maximum Maximum Time Condition Occurrence Attained Analysis Capacity /Design Flow Surcharged
Flow Depth minutes
days hh:mm ft/sec cfs cfs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 36-IN-PIPE_BURMA CONDUIT 0 10:19 31.93 1.00 205.22 195.64 1.05 1.00 18 SURCHARGED 60-IN_CMP_PALOS_VERDES CONDUIT 0 10:49 19.83 1.00 318.66 343.03 0.93 0.76 0 Calculated DK_GREEN CHANNEL 0 10:11 25.02 1.00 882.92 1244.71 0.71 0.85 0 Calculated DKBLUE CHANNEL 0 10:49 18.30 1.00 318.66 385.92 0.83 0.91 0 Calculated Link-20 CHANNEL 0 10:55 26.09 1.00 37.92 3092.49 0.01 0.07 0 Calculated LT_BLUE CHANNEL 0 10:15 27.86 1.00 312.13 380.95 0.82 0.91 0 Calculated LT_GREEN CHANNEL 0 10:10 27.28 1.00 306.33 333.74 0.92 0.96 0 Calculated ORANGE CHANNEL 0 10:10 12.22 1.00 607.18 653.75 0.93 0.96 0 Calculated PURPLE CHANNEL 0 10:21 19.16 1.00 200.64 347.62 0.58 0.76 0 Calculated RED CHANNEL 0 10:56 10.73 1.00 294.54 378.20 0.78 0.89 0 Calculated Outfall_36-INCH ORIFICE 0 10:55 92.38 Outfall_48-INCH ORIFICE 0 10:55 164.24
Spillway WEIR 0 10:55 37.92
0.00
******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. WARNING 002 : Max/rim elevation (depth) increased to account for connecting conduit height dimensions for Node WEIR_OUTLET. Analysis began on: Thu Nov 07 16:44:52 2019 Analysis ended on: Thu Nov 07 16:44:54 2019 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02
D-104
APPENDIX D
“ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE” COST ESTIMATE
D-105
December 9, 2019
Project No. DB19.1055.00
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Attention: Mr. Elias Sassoon
“ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE”-LEVEL COST ESTIMATE
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEX MITIGATION MEASURES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Sassoon:
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA) is pleased to submit this “order-of-magnitude”-level cost
estimate to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City). The information presented here was
prepared in support of GLA’s Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex (PBLC) mitigation design
project.
GLA has provided to the City under separate cover the geotechnical design report and plan set
for proposed mitigation measures (GLA, 2019a,b). Key features of the mitigation design, as
shown in the GLA (2019b) plan set, include the following:
• Proposed 36-inch-diameter high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe to be installed below
Burma Road (near PBLC northern limit) using trenchless techniques;
• Existing 60-inch-diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) below Palos Verdes Drive South
(PVDS), to be refurbished;
• Various proposed stormwater management features, including engineered swales,
“flow reduction area” (i.e., detention basin), new 60-inch-diameter thick-walled HDPE
pipe from PVDS to the ocean, and other incidental items (e.g., energy dissipator, trail
armoring, etc.);
• Two proposed arrays of hydraugers (five hydraugers per array) in the northerly portion
of the site to be installed by horizontal drilling; and
• Four proposed arrays of hydraugers (five hydraugers per array) in the southerly and
central portions of the site to be installed by directional drilling.
At City request, GLA prepared an “order-of-magnitude”-level cost estimate for the proposed
construction. Cost figures were developed based on our experience with similar projects (i.e.,
previous projects in the southern California region including elements similar to those included
D-106
in the PBLC mitigation design), discussions with the City, and discussions with contractors. An
itemized list of estimated costs is provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Itemized “order-of-magnitude”-level cost estimate.
Cost Item Number Unit Unit Cost Cost
New 36" Pipe below Burma Road
(Trenchless Installation) 1 Ea. $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Refurbishment of Existing 60" Pipe
below Palos Verdes Drive South 1 Ea. $ 250,000 $ 250,000
New Swales, Flow Reduction Area,
and Incidental Drainage Items 1 Ea. $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000
Horizontally Drilled Hydraugers 10 Ea. $ 350,000 $ 3,500,000
Directionally Drilled Hydraugers 20 Ea. $ 500,000 $ 10,000,000
Fracture Infilling 1 Ea. $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Subtotal $ 17,500,000
“Contingency” (20 percent of subtotal) $ 3,500,000
Total $ 21,000,000
Note that actual bids and/or construction costs may depart significantly from this “order-of-
magnitude”-level estimate. Bid and construction costs may be significantly influenced by
numerous factors, including but not limited to (in no particular order) fluctuations in material
costs, regional and/or local economic conditions, seasonal fluctuations in cost and/or
availability, permit conditions, labor market conditions, and/or prevailing wage requirements.
We recommend that, after the permitting process but before the bidding process, the City
prepare an updated cost estimate. This updated cost estimate should reflect the changes made
to the design during the permitting process.
D-107
CLOSURE
This letter report is based on the data and analyses described herein. GLA should be notified of
any conditions that differ from those described herein since this may require a reevaluation of
the data, conclusions and recommendations presented. Any use of the recommendations and
conclusions contained in this report for other projects is strictly forbidden without GLA review
and approval
This letter report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering
practices in southern California, and internally peer-reviewed in accordance with GLA’s peer
review policy, and makes no other warranties, either expressed or implied, as to the
professional data presented in it.
This letter report has not been prepared for use by other parties and projects other than those
named or described above. It may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other
purposes.
Sincerely,
Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.
Alan F. Witthoeft, PE, GE
Project Engineer III
Neven Matasovic, PhD, PE, GE
Principal
nmatasovic@geo-logic.com / 714-465-8240
D-108
REFERENCES
GLA (2019a), “DRAFT Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex
Mitigation Measures, Rancho Palos Verdes, California,” Technical Report, Geo-Logic
Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa, California (Project No. DB19.1055.00).
GLA (2019b), “Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex Mitigation Measures, City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, California, November, 2019,” Construction Plan Set, Geo-Logic Associates, Inc.,
Costa Mesa, California (Project No. DB19.1055.00).
D-109
Table 1. Itemized "order-of-magnitude"-level cost estimate.
Cost Item Number Unit Unit Cost Cost
New 36" Pipe below Burma Road 1 Ea . $ 500,000 $ 500,000 (Trenchless Installation)
Refurbishment of Existing 60" Pipe 1 Ea . $ 250,000 $ 250,000 below Palos Verdes Drive South
New Swales, Flow Reduction Area, 1 Ea . $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 and Incidental Drainage Items
Horizontally Drilled Hydraugers 10 Ea . $ 350,000 $ 3,500,000
Directionally Drilled Hydraugers 20 Ea . $ 500,000 $ 10,000,000
Fracture Infilling 1 Ea . $ 500,000 $ 500,000
Subtotal $ 17,500,000
"Contingency" (20 percent of subtotal) $ 3,500,000
Total $ 21,000,000
Note that actual bids and/or construction costs may depart significantly from this "order-of-
magnitude"-level estimate. Bid and construction costs may be significantly influenced by
numerous factors, including but not limited to (in no particular order} fluctuations in material
costs, regional and/or local economic conditions, seasonal fluctuations in cost and/or
availability, permit conditions, labor market conditions, and/or prevailing wage requirements.
We recommend that, after the permitting process but before the bidding process, the City
prepare an updated cost estimate. This updated cost estimate should reflect the changes made
to the design during the permitting process.
DB19 .1055.00 I "Order-of-Magnitude" Cost Estimate for PBLC Mitigation, Rancho Palos Verdes, California
November 2019
D-110
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/07/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to receive the Update to the Feasibility Study to
remediate the Portuguese Bend Landslide, and to provide direction to begin
implementing recommendations from the Feasibility Study.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file the Feasibility Study Update;
(2) Appropriate $260,000 and authorize Staff to develop a Request for Proposals for
an engineering analysis, evaluation, and design for the lower portion of the
landslide that would convey the drainage runoff to the ocean directly; as well as
design of groundwater extraction horizontal drains (hydro-augers) for this lower
area of the landslide;
(3) Appropriate $150,000 and authorize Staff to develop a Request for Proposals for
performing a hydrologic study and engineering analysis of the canyons to identify
where, how, and to what extent the stormwater infiltrates into the groundwater in
the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex; and
(4) Authorize the City Council to appoint a subcommittee to work with the City
Manager and City Attorney in negotiating with the City of Rolling Hills to address
and resolve the runoff as well as sanitary sewer effluent for septic tanks and
private treatment systems which are contributing to landslide movement from the
City of Rolling Hills.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for these recommendations have not been included in the
FY18-19 budget.
Amount Budgeted: $0
Additional Appropriation: $410,000
Account Number(s): 330-400-8304-8001
ORIGINATED BY: Ron Dragoo, PE, Principal/City Engineer
Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. January 16, 2018, Staff Report Feasibility Study Update (page A-1)
B. Final Feasibility Study Update (page B-1)
D-111
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City Council’s Subcommittee conducted its most recent public workshop regarding
the Feasibility Study (FS) Update on June 28, 2018, where the consultant, D.B.
Stephens & Associates (DBS&A), provided a summary of the FS and answered
residents’ questions. The remedies presented included subsurface dewatering,
stormwater control, engineered slope stabilization measures, and eliminating septic
system discharge into the landslide.
A primary concern expressed by residents was that any work being conducted within
the preserve could negatively impact habitat and sensitive vegetation. Additionally, a
concern expressed at that meeting was that any of the proposed improvements should
be addressed one at a time and with continuing input from the community.
To that end, Staff recommends starting at the beginning of the list of proposed remedies
recommended in the FS. Upon the design of the new drainage system, the installation
of this system would eliminate any existing ponds which have been created over the
years due to land settlement and/or relocation of pipes/culverts. The installation of
horizontal groundwater extraction wells (hydro-augers) would provide passive
dewatering without the requirement of surface mounted equipment. The hydro-augers
would be installed in the face of the bluff at the ocean, and extend to a predetermined
position in the landslide to collect ground water. Engineering and data are required for
this option to be successful. Accordingly, Staff is requesting funds be appropriated to
allow this work to begin ($260,000). Once a budget is available, Staff will draft an RFP
to obtain the engineering support needed to establish the necessary data to allow
strategic placement of the directional subsurface drains at the bluff to begin the
dewatering process. Any recommendations to award a professional services contract
will be brought back to the City Council for approval prior to authorizing any work to
begin.
Additionally, Staff recommends the appropriation of $150,000 for a proposed study of
the canyons in the upper portion of the landslide to ascertain the extent of runoff from
these canyons contributing to the landslide. This information is needed prior to
performing any work that may facilitate minimizing percolation of runoff into the
landslide through the mass amounts of runoff that are transmitted through the natural
canyons during rain events.
Finally, Staff is recommending that the City Council appoint a subcommittee to work
with the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate with the City of Rolling Hills to
address and resolve the drainage that contributes to the ground water in the landslide,
as well as addressing the sanitary sewer effluent from septic tanks and private
treatment systems in the City of Rolling Hills that are contributing to landslide
movement.
If Staff’s recommendations are approved, a Subcommittee could begin working toward
negotiations with the City of Rolling Hills as soon as possible. Work on the RFPs would
D-112
also commence right away. This would enable the remedies recommended through the
FS to address the land movement in Portuguese Bend to be underway as early as this
fall.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the Draft FS, and provide City Staff and
DBS&A with direction in modifying the document.
2. Take no action.
D-113
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 01/16/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review and approve the Draft Feasibility Study to
remediate the Portuguese Bend Landslide.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review the Draft Feasibility Study and provide input on the Consultant’s
recommended landslide remediation measures; and,
(2) Direct Staff to finalize the Draft Feasibility Study for adoption at the February 6,
2018, meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: Expected construction costs to implement the Feasibility Study will
be determined at the time engineering plans are prepared and a Request for Proposals
is issued.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development
Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
Deborah Cullen, Director of Finance
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Feasibility Study (page A-1, available at
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11272)
B. Revised Conceptual Work Area Site Plan (page B-1)
C. Public Workshops Summary Notes (page C-1)
D. Section 5 of the Draft NCCP (page D-1)
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
In the spring of 2017, the City Council appointed Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Duhovic and
Council Member Ken Dyda to a subcommittee to identify possible solutions or strategies
to remediate the Portuguese Bend (PB) Landslide. This subcommittee was formed to
begin a collaborative process with community stakeholders and (possibly) with
professional experts.
D-114
In order to provide a forum for stakeholder involvement, the City Council convened a
Committee of concerned residents to chart a path towards achieving stabilization of the
PB Landslide. The Committee identified one of its top priorities as “a complete
characterization of the hydrology of the area.”
Public Workshops on Remediating the PB Landslide
A series of four (4) public workshops were held to elicit the best ideas of the community,
and to seek input on goals and possible solutions to remediate the PB Landslide. The
workshops were held in the evenings (6:00 PM) at Hesse Park, and public notification
was provided via the City’s website, the “Breaking News” listserv, and the City’s
Nextdoor and Facebook pages. Approximately 20 to 30 residents attended these
workshops and participated in the process. Each of the workshops focused on a
specific topic as summarized below (summary notes from each workshop are include as
Attachment C):
• Public Workshop No. 1 held on June 1, 2017 - Identifying Goals
At this first community workshop, a short introduction was provided by Council Member
Dyda and Mayor Pro Tem Duhovic, who outlined the process. During this workshop,
the following three (3) major goals were identified, along with potential solutions relating
to the landslide (also referred to as “landflow”) that might need to be considered in the
series of meetings to follow.
1. Control slide and control costs:
• Decrease the cost of ongoing road repair
• Decrease resident inconvenience
• Decrease cost of slowing slide
• Home stabilization
• Eliminate the danger of the City being “cut in 2” by the loss of the Palos
Verdes Drive South
• Retain Palos Verdes Drive South
• Restore ecology/geology (ocean & land)
• Preserve ocean life/tide pools
2. Legal protection
• Explore possible geological hazard abatement district to protect City from
costly and hazard-related damages
• Avoid a liability situation similar to Palos Verdes Estates landslide
• Understand legal protection upfront
3. Protect the integrity of the nature preserve
• Oceanic and Land Ecosystems
D-115
At this first workshop, the desired result was to structure a design-build Request for
Proposals (RFP) to solicit Federal funding for contracting companies to provide cost vs.
options for success in their responses, as well as the following:
1. Project study report by professional experts;
2. Create community consensus
• Public Workshop No. 2 held on June 20, 2017 – Surface and Subsurface W ater
Runoff
This public workshop focused on eliciting community input on major potential solutions
and actions to intercept water runoff from permeating the ground. The discussion that
ensued at this workshop was wide-ranging, and emphasized on the following:
1. The need to fully understand the hydrology of the watershed within the
Portuguese Bend area;
2. The need to re-establish and maintain an effective storm water control system;
3. The importance of capturing and controlling water runoff before it permeates into
the PB Landslide; and,
4. To minimize impacts to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
The attendees at this workshop listed their objectives and voted on what was of greatest
importance to them, as reflected in the attached summary notes.
• Public Workshop No. 3 held on June 29, 2017 - Surf-zone erosion
This public workshop began with an introduction by Councilmember Dyda and there
was a brief power point presentation given by Ray Mathys. The presentation centered
on building a buttress at the toe of the slide that would eventually, over time, stop the
movement, thereby eliminating the sediment from entering the ocean. Additionally,
there was discussion regarding wave action and reef barriers. Consensus of the
participating public focused on the following:
1. Hiring competent engineers to implement recommendations;
2. Early communication with relevant regulatory agencies (e.g., Coastal
Commission) regarding any remediation plans that impacts the City’s Coastal
Zone;
3. Use of road maintenance funds to underwrite the necessary technical work
needed to remediate the PB Landslide; and,
4. Conduct an assessment of the environmental impacts that remediation work
would have on the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve and ocean ecology
• Public Workshop No. 4 held on July 6, 2017 – Ground Water.
D-116
This public workshop focused on major actions that could be considered as a means of
addressing the PB Landslide. As with previous workshops, the public consensus
focused on the following:
1. Understanding the hydrology of the PB Landslide;
2. Understanding the occurrence of groundwater as it relates to the movement of
the PB Landslide; and,
3. Understanding and completing previous work of surface drainage
Pursuant to these workshops, the City Council subcommittee and attendees identified
that hiring a competent coastal engineer to perform a landslide remediation feasibility
study with a full hydrology study of the area was an important next step because expert
testimony and data are essential to moving on to the next step. A number of studies of
the PB Landslide have been conducted over the years, but none recently. Those
studies have generally indicated that slope stability could potentially be achieved
through some combination of surface water capture and infiltration control, groundwater
extraction/dewatering, mass regrading, reinforcement of the landslide toe, and shoreline
erosion control.
The City desires to develop a comprehensive program that will ultimately result in
stabilizing the extensive landslide complex that exists in the Portuguese Bend area. The
program that the City envisions will use information presently available to characterize,
as completely as possible, the hydrology of the landslide area. Using this
characterization, and at the direction of the City Council subcommittee and the public in
attendance at this past summer’s public workshops, Staff was directed to identify a
consultant that had the combination of specialized skills needed to assist the City with
remediating the PB Landslide.
A proposal was requested from the firm Daniel B. Stephens & Associates (DBS&A), Inc.
because they have expert staff and are highly qualified. Additionally, their staff had
attended the workshops prior to the engagement just to familiarize themselves with the
project. The DBS&A team offers a wealth of expertise and experience in conducting
hydrologic, geological, and engineering investigations and landslide stabilization
projects. They specifically built a team to provide the City with unique expertise in
groundwater hydrology, surface water hydrology, engineering geology, and
geotechnical engineering. The team has high-level technical credentials and credibility.
With this strong academic and applied science background, their staff has the ability to
make intelligent and expeditious decisions in the field and prepare clear and defensible
reports of findings and recommendations. The direction from the Subcommittee and
City Council was to develop practical, workable solutions to remediate the PB landslide
complex that will be well-received by the public and in the possible funding application
review process. Because sources impacting the PB Landslide extend beyond the City
limits, the direction given to Staff and DBS&A was to create a plan without being
restrained by jurisdictional boundaries.
D-117
PB Landslide Remediation Draft Feasibility Study
The specific purpose of the Draft Feasibility Study is to identify and select a conceptual
solution that will accomplish the following overall project goals:
• Provide the geotechnical conditions that reduce the risk of damage to public and
private property and would allow for the significant improvement of roadway
infrastructure, safety, and stability.
• Significantly reduce human health risk and improve safety in the City.
• Significantly reduce sediment deposition into the Pacific Ocean that is causing
unacceptable turbidity in the coastal and marine environment.
• Make all reasonable efforts to identify a remedy which will be consistent with the
NCCP and the Habitat Conservation Plan.
An Administrative Draft Feasibility Study (FS) was completed in December 2017 and
delivered to City Staff and the City Council subcommittee for review and input prior to
being released to the public. On December 22, 2017, the Draft FS was placed on the
City’s website for community review (Attachment A), and a listserv message was issued
announcing its availability and City Council’s review of the document at tonight’s
meeting.
The Draft Feasibility Study document follows the following format:
Section 1: Introduction, which includes project background, history, project purpose,
projection area definition, and community involvement.
Section 2: Summary of the relevant previous work.
Section 3: Physical characteristics of the project area, which includes topography,
watershed hydrology, soils, geology, ground water, and landslide
characteristics.
Section 4: Infrastructure concerns and appropriate environmental requirements,
remedial action objectives, broad classes of available technologies for
response actions to control movement of the Portuguese Bend Landslide
Complex (PBLC), detail discussion and analysis (presenting pros and cons)
and finally preferred alternatives including an estimate of the cost for
implementation of the selected remedy.
The Draft FS identifies the following general actions that could potentially remediate the
landslide:
• Stormwater control
• Subsurface dewatering
• Engineered slope stabilization measures
• Eliminate septic system discharge
D-118
To achieve these actions, the Draft FS considered common technologies available in the
industry to remediate the PB Landslide, including the following (a detailed description can
be found on Page 52 of the Draft FS):
• Repair Existing Corrugated Piping Systems
• Install Concrete Swales
• Install Linear and Channel Systems
• Seal Surface Fractures
• Groundwater Extraction Pits
• Groundwater Extraction Wells
• Directional Subsurface Drains
• Buttressing
• Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall
• Drilled Piers
• Centralized Sewer System
• Surf erosion/off-shore breakwater
The above list of technologies were screened and narrowed based on known
conditions. The following technology alternatives were retained for more detailed
evaluation:
• Concrete Channels
• Flexible Liner System and Components
• Seal Surface Fractures
• Groundwater Extraction Wells
• Directional Subsurface Drains
• Centralized Sewer System
The evaluation criteria used to analyze the above alternative technologies was based on
the following:
• Overall protection of human health and environment
• Compliance with applicable environmental rules and regulations
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
• Short-term Effectiveness
• Implement ability
• Cost
• State and Community Acceptance.
Based on the evaluation and discussions presented in the body of the study, the following
approach was selected as the Consultant’s preferred alternative remedy. The proposed
remedies that comprise the preferred alternative were identified based on the assumption
of the effects/impacts of a “100 year storm event”:
• Seal surface fractures.
D-119
• Directional subsurface drains.
• Surface drainage control using a flexible liner system and components.
• Ground water extraction wells.
• Centralized sewer system.
Staff seeks the City Council’s input on the Consultant’s recommended landslide
remediation measures prior to finalization of the Draft Feasibility Study for adoption.
Consistency with the Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat
Conservation Plan
On October 2, 2017, the City Council held a workshop to receive a status report on the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
That evening, the City Council was informed that, because of the relatively high
concentration of federally protected coastal sage scrub habitat in the City, and the
growing intensity of development pressures on these areas combined with the ability to
streamline the entitlement process for City projects (i.e., storm drain, road repairs, and
landslide remediation projects), in 1996, the City entered into a Planning Agreement to
develop an NCCP/HCP proposal that will encompass the entire City with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), referred to as the “Wildlife Agencies.” It was also reported that an important
objective of the NCCP/HCP is for the City to obtain State and Federal Permits from the
Wildlife Agencies for Covered Activities, which include City and private projects.
At that workshop, it was reported that over the past year, the City Council
Subcommittee has been exploring methods to remediate the landslide at Portuguese
Bend, and that the feasibility study was being prepared within the parameters of the
NCCP/HCP. Staff specifically reported that Section 5 of the NCCP/HCP (Attachment D)
identifies covered activities that are permitted to occur in the City, particularly landslide
remediation projects, as part of the City’s “take” permit for any potential loss of Coastal
Sage Scrub (CSS) and Grasslands, as called out in Table 5.1 as follows:
City Project Name
Total Habitat Loss
(Acres)
Habitat Loss In
Preserve (Acres)
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0 0
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
5. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 5.0 15.0 0 0
6. Misc. Drainage Improvements 20.0 60.0 6.6 20.0
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
8. *RPV Trails Plan Implementation 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 5.0 15.0 2.5 7.5
10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0 0
11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
D-120
City Project Name
Total Habitat Loss
(Acres)
Habitat Loss In
Preserve (Acres)
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
12. Upper Pt. Vicente 2.0 22.0 1.0 11.0
13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18 12.0 18
14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0
15. Unimproved City Park Projects 10.0 20.0 0 0
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
17. Other Miscellaneous City projects 20.0 60.0 10.0 30.0
**Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 120.5 318.7 62.5 155.8
Based on the above table, and the breadth and scope of the Draft FS, Staff has
determined that the proposed remediation technologies described in the previous
section of this Staff report adhere to the following Covered Activities that can occur in
the City pursuant to the current Draft NCCP/HCP (prepared in collaboration between
City Staff, Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy Staff, and the Wildlife Agencies)
that was presented to the Council in October 2017 (excerpt from the NCCP/HCP):
• 5.2.2 Dewatering Wells
The installation of dewatering wells by the City in areas affected by the Portuguese
Bend and Abalone Cove landslides has proven to be an effective method of slowing
down landslide movement by removing groundwater from the slide plane. It is
anticipated that new wells will be installed by the City in the future in or near areas of
existing CSS habitat and grassland throughout landslide areas. It is estimated a
maximum of 2.5 acres of CSS and 2.5 acres of non-native grassland will be impacted in
the Preserve. A point location for one gnatcatcher occurs in the project vicinity.
• 5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
When and where required, landslide abatement activities within the Preserve and
throughout the City are sometimes necessary by the City or other public agencies to
safeguard existing roads, trails and drainage systems. Such activities include, but are
not limited to (emphasis added), the installation and maintenance of groundwater
monitoring wells and GPS stations (with associated equipment such as pumps,
electrical connections, drainage pipes and access pathways) for the purpose of
monitoring landslide movement, the filling of fissures, the re-contouring of slide debris,
the creation and maintenance of emergency access roads, and geologic investigations
involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand (with allowance for
access of any necessary mechanical equipment). Where practicable, areas of
temporary CSS disturbance will be promptly re-vegetated with CSS habitat after
completion of abatement activities (see Section 6.0 of the Plan for details about the
restoration plan). It is estimated that such landslide abatement measures will result in
the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native
grassland. It is estimated that two-thirds of the impacts will occur within the Preserve.
D-121
Point locations for two gnatcatchers and one island green dudleya occur in areas
potentially subject to landslides.
• 5.2.4 Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas
The repair of existing drainage systems becomes necessary by the City in landslide
areas because of excessively heavy rainfall or damage by landslide movement. It is
anticipated that there will be a need to repair such drains on an as-needed basis. It is
estimated that such activity will result in the combined loss of a maximum of 10 acres of
CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that two-thirds of the
impacts will occur within the Preserve. Point locations for two gnatcatchers, two
aphanisma, one south coast saltscale, and one island green dudleya occur in areas
potentially subject to landslides.
• 5.2.14 Utility Maintenance and Repair
The installation, maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure facilities by
the City, other public agencies and/or utility companies, such as sewers, water, cable,
telephone, gas, power, and storm drains (emphasis added) will occur throughout the
City on an as-needed basis. Installation of new commercial antenna towers is not
allowed in the Preserve. The installation, maintenance, and repair of these activities are
anticipated to permanently impact up to 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of non-native
grassland throughout the life of the permits. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts
will occur within the Preserve.
To summarize, the Covered Activities described above include, but are not limited to,
the installation and maintenance of groundwater monitoring wells and GPS stations for
the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of fissures, the re-contouring
of slide debris, the creation and maintenance of emergency access roads, and geologic
investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand. Where
practicable, areas of temporary CSS disturbance will be promptly re-vegetated with
CSS habitat after completion of abatement activities. The NCCP/HCP provides details
for the provision of a maximum of 27.5 acres of CSS habitat and 52.5 acres of
grassland for activities and projects such as dewatering well, landslide abatement
measures, drainage repair, and utility maintenance and repair in landslide areas
(combined Preserve and non-Preserve properties), as detailed in the table below.
Available Habitat Loss for NCCP/HCP Covered Activities
Covered Activities
Total Habitat Loss (Acres) Total Habitat Loss
In Preserve (Acres)
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement
Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
D-122
Available Habitat Loss for NCCP/HCP Covered Activities
Covered Activities
Total Habitat Loss (Acres) Total Habitat Loss
In Preserve (Acres)
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in
Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
14. Utility Maintenance and
Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0
Total 27.5 52.5 17.4 32.3
To ensure that the remediation technologies proposed in the Draft FS adhere to the
habitat loss allowed for Covered Activities pursuant to the future permit that will be
issued to the City by the Wildlife Agencies after the NCCP/HCP is adopted by the City
Council, DBS&A prepared a revised conceptual plan delineating the proposed work
area over the surveyed Vegetation and Species maps included in the NCCP/HCP
(Attachment B). Expecting the surface drain work area within the City (the covered area
of the NCCP/HCP) that would divert water runoff to the ocean based on a “100-year
storm event” is approximately 65-feet in width, the following loss to CSS and Grassland
is expected to occur (unrestricted area is in other words disturbed area, such as roads,
development, etc.):
Proposed Project Work Areas
Work Description
Total Habitat Loss (Acres) In Preserve (Acres)
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland Unrestricted
Coastal
Sage Scrub Grassland Unrestricted
Upper Portuguese Channel 4.0 0 1.0 4.0 0 1.0
Ishibashi Channel 5.2 0 0 4.0 1.2 0
Paintbrush Channel 2.5 0.1 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.3
Lower Portuguese Channel 0.2 2.5 1.3 0.2 1.0 0.0
Central Channel 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3
East Channel 0.2 2.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2
Ocean Discharge 0 1.1 0 0 0 0
Surface Fracture Infilling 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0
Wells Permanent Work
Area 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01
Wells Temporary Work
Area 0.3 1.1 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Well Access Roads 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1
Horizontal Drains
Permanent Work Area 0.02 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0
Horizontal Drains
Temporary Work Area 0.2 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0
Sewer Mains (In roadways) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 13.6 10.0 5.7 11.6 4.8 2.0
D-123
With project implementation within the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve, there will be
approximately 5.8 acres of unused CSS loss and 27.5 acres of unused Grassland loss
available for future projects. As an added measure to ensure the City is able to conduct
projects in the future that may not have been captured in the Covered Activities
described in Table 5.1 of the NCCP/HCP, the following miscellaneous covered activity
is included in the current NCCP/HCP that provides the City with additional CSS and
Grassland loss, including within the Preserve:
• 5.2.17 Other Miscellaneous City Projects
It is foreseeable that during the life of this NCCP/HCP, the City will undertake a City
project similar in character and impacts to those listed in Table 5-1 that is not
specifically listed here as a Covered Project/Activity. Such projects shall be considered
Covered Projects provided the total loss of CSS habitat and non-native grassland for
said Miscellaneous City Projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres
of non-native grassland as identified in Table 5-1. It is estimated that one-half of the
impacts will occur within the Preserve.
Soon after the October 2, 2017, NCCP workshop, City Staff, the PVPLC Staff, the
Wildlife Agencies, and DBS&A Staff met to discuss the NCCP/HCP in relation to the
Draft FS, and that some preliminary draft editing occurred to Section 5 to reflect the
work described in the Draft FS. However, based on the above, Staff is of the opinion
that the work proposed in the Draft FS adheres to the parameters of the current
NCCP/HCP, and that no edits to the document are needed. The Covered Activities
described in the NCCP/HCP are intentionally written broadly to allow the City maximum
flexibility in conducting projects throughout the City, including landslide abatement
measures, originally envisioned by the City Council in 1996 when they signed on to
develop a NCCP/HCP.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Next Steps
If the Council adopts the Portuguese Bend Landslide Feasibility Study, the following
steps will need to occur before breaking ground (not in any particular order):
• Adoption of the NCCP/HCP and Permit issuance by the Wildlife Agencies
• Pre-Pilot Test Investigations and Pilot Testing/Reporting
• Preparation of Engineering Plans
• Identifying and Securing Funding Sources
• Hiring a Construction Contractor
• Obtaining Permits from Army Corps of Engineers for work within a blue-line
stream
• City Council Adoption of an Environmental Document pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act
• Obtaining a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission
D-124
• On-going Public Workshops
Public Notification
On December 22, 2017, a listserv was issued to “Breaking News” subscribers and a
message posted on the City’s Facebook and Nextdoor pages announcing the
availability of the Draft FS and tonight’s meeting.
Public Comments
Since the release of the Draft FS on December 22, 2017, the City has received 1 public
comment (Attachment E).
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify any issues of concern with the Draft FS, and provide City Staff and
DBS&A with direction in modifying the document.
2. Take no action
D-125
OceanDischarge
CentralChannel
EastChannelLower PortugueseChannel
IshibashiChannel
UpperPortugueseChannel
PaintbrushChannel
Narcissa
Forr
e
s
t
a
l
HightideNarcissaSea UrchinAvengerSpindrift For
re
s
ta
lKumquat
Be
n
d
i
g
oSchoonerSeascape
Thyme
Dau
n
t
l
e
s
s ValorFalc
o
n
h
e
a
d
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
AdmirableDauntlessClovetree
SchoonerD
a
u
n
t
l
e
s
s
PeppertreePlumtree
Cherry HillBeach
School Trail
Cher
r
y
H
i
l
l
Ya
c
h
t
H
a
r
b
o
r
Yach
t
Ha
rbo
r
Dau
n
t
l
e
s
sPeppertree
Spi
n
d
r
i
f
t
SpindriftPalo
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
Narc
i
s
s
a
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
sPeppertreePal
o
sVer
d
e
s PeppertreeCherryHill
Pa
l
o
s
Ve
r
d
e
s
Ci
n
n
a
m
o
n
Dauntl
e
s
s
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s
N
a
r
c
i
s
s
a
P
a
l
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
sLimetreeYacht
H
a
r
b
o
r
GanadoNarcissa
PeppertreeNarcissa
T
a
n
g
e
r
i
n
e
Cinnamon
Narcissa
Co
o
l
h
e
i
g
h
t
sPom
e
g
r
a
n
a
t
e
Sea WallLi
m
e
t
r
e
e
Main SailSe
a
W
a
l
l
S
t
a
l
w
a
r
t
Cinnamon
Cinnamon
A
d
m
i
r
a
b
l
e
Fig
t
r
e
eGinger RootE
x
u
l
t
a
n
tPeppertreePal
o
s
V
e
r
d
e
s PomegranateNarcis
s
a
Na
r
c
i
s
s
a
F
o
r
r
e
s
t
a
l
Van
d
e
r
l
i
p
Sweet
b
a
y
Palos Verde
s
Bur
m
a
550
490
800
85
0 1250350550
900
650
30011006501100400950800200
400
100750
501100
250250
20050400
300
100 10503001100
300400400
550750
400
200
200
350 350300
8005
5
0850
10030
0
50
100
950
300
200150 850
90
0
600200
1050
1
2
5
0
70
0
400400
200150600150
100 600600750
200 800700550
600
200
200 700750
2
5
0 1050300150400
1050
30
0
400150600500750
400
95
0
800
300 8506501000
250
300
550550250
1000850
650
750
1300
6001100
1000
250700
500
300
700
110
0
350
6502006
0
0400 1300
600
55050800 950950
850
900650400450 110035
0 1050550
500
200250
200
1350
5
5
0
800
150650
4501150 12001250550
55
0700250600250600 1300110010509507
5
0
115020010
5
0
850
1000300
600
300450
1004
0
0 700200
400
900
5006006501300450
550250
400
350 1000100
450
900
25095020065050200250600
150 65060055050065095050040
0
150
50700550125010005008501150 1200900
10075010501100900
450 700800300350
300750850800
350
PORTUGUESEBEND
M1
M4 P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
M5
P13
P14
P15
P16 P17
P18M6
P19 M7
P20
M8P21
P22 P23
P24
P25
M10
PRELIMINARY DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE
Figure 1
FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATEPORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE COMPLEXRevised Feasibility Study Work Areas Conceptual DesignDaniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc.01/05/2018 DB 17.1200
0 1000 2000 Feet
Explanation
PV Nature Preserve
Area of greatest land movement
Rolling Hills
Current drainage
Contour interval
Streets
Proposed Work Areas
Proposed Monitoring Well
Proposed Extraction Well
Subsurface horizontal drain work area
Surface fracture infilling area
Channel work area (65' width)
Surveyed Vegetation
Unrestricted Land
Restricted Land - CSS
Restricted Land - Grassland
Surveyed Species Name
Aphanisma
Astragalus Trichopodus
Bright Green Dudleya
California Gnatcatcher
Catalina Boxthorn
Catalina Crabapple Bush
Catalina Mariposa Lily
Coastal Cactus Wren
El Segundo Blue Butterfly
Eriogonum Parvifolium
Lotus Scoparius
Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
South Coast Saltscale
Wooly Seablight
N
J:\PROJECTS\DB17.1200 RPV FS\J GIS\MXD\FIG_FS_REVISED_DESIGN.MXDD-126
LANDSLIDE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
GOALS DEVELOPMENT
JUNE 1, 2017
The first meeting was held June 1, 2017, at Hesse Park and the main purpose ofthis meeting was
to identify goals that the community in attendance had input towards. A short introduction was
provided by Council Members Dyda and Duhovic which outlined the process and the major
aspects of the land flow that would need to be addressed in the series of meetings. The attendees
at this meeting identified the following goals that the subcommittee aligns with:
CONTROL SLIDE and CONTROL THE COSTS
• Decrease the cost of ongoing road repair
• Decrease resident inconvenience
• Decrease cost of slowing slide
• Home stabilization
• Eliminate the danger of City cut in 2, *Danger (loss ofthoroughfare)
• Retain PVDS
• Restore Ecology/Geology (Ocean & Land)
• Preserve ocean life/tide pools
LEGAL PROTECTION SECURED
• Explore possible geological hazard abatement district to protect city from costly and
hazard-related damages
• A void a PV Estates situation
• Understand legal protection upfront
PROTECT THE INTRGRITY OF THE NATURE PRESERVE
• Oceanic and Land Ecosystems
IDENTIFY PLAUSABLE POTENTIAL SOLUTION
1) Intercept & Direct water to ocean
2) Reduce effect on surfzone erosion
3) Restore Ecology/Geology (Ocean & Land)
• Preserve ocean life/tide pools
Desired Result
1. Structure a design-build RFP to solicit federal funding for contracting companies to
provide cost vs. options for success in their responses
a. Project study report by experts
b. Create community consensus
D-127
LandFiow Subcommittee Notes
June 20, 2017
Water Intercept-2nd Subcommittee Meeting
• Elicit community's input for major potential solutions/actions for key water intercept
actions that contribute to a strong, plausible RFP action plan
o Draft of mail possible actions
o Draft of potential data gaps that support any main actions
Order of Conversations -Facilitated by Romi Goldsmith
I. Gather
• What are your best ideas?
• What are your proposals for major actions that would slow the land flow and
deal with the water?
II. Select
• Vote by sticky dot
Ill. Assess
• Is this a speculative action? What's missing?
• Is this a grounded proposal? What's the grounding/evidence?
I. SUGGESTIONS GATHERED AND ATTENDEES CAST VOTES FOR TOP 4 IDEAS
1. Analysis of the water coming from the wellheads along Burma Road to
determine exactly where the water is coming from (VOTES=l)
2. Engineering and geographical analysis of water thing (VOTES=2)
• Where from?
• What to do?
3. When we address water thing (be) mindful of Nature Preserve and preserving
that (ex. Quail guzzler) (VOTES=3)
4. On the surface re-establish storm drain system (and maintain it/adjust yearly)
(VOTES=6)
• Steel tube under PVDS so water flow can go downhill into ocean
5. Draining line past road to ocean that will survive movement of slide
6. Full hydrology study of area (VOTES= 17)
• storm drainage master plan for water to go where we want it to be (not
where we want it to be)
• look at water/sewer/storm drain lines to make sure water tight (ex.
double-piped)
D-128
LandFiow Subcommittee Notes
June 20, 2017
7. JPL/NASA discusses/possible mediation techniques that gather data and
monitor ground movement; Join NASA and our effort-using most advanced
technology (VOTES=2)
8. Encouraging plants to survive to control water {ex. Sage scrub)
9. Lining the canyon {ex. _Alta Mira Canyon)
10. Weirs/Dams/Catch basins at the top
11. Re-vegetate watersheds (VOTES=2)
12. Between Alta Mira and slide
• another canyon-Artesian {this part of hydrology study and doing
something about it
• Kelvin Canyon stream not allowed to go into slide
• You can see water flow {surface, storm, underground water)
• Opening at the bottom of Alta Mira Canyon
13. Septic tanks Rollin Hills (VOTES=l)
• Get the amount of water on north side of Crest Road from Cal Water;
how much is being used 3.5 m gallons per year-south side homes
• Information-Paint brush canyon-water entering slide:
o Lemonade berry brush grows all over
o Catch basin other side Burma road-heavy rainfall makes the
catch basin exceed capabilities {6-8ft. deep silt); Grand Canyon-
8ft. wide/2-8ft. deep to 10ft. in places to landslide sink
u Kelvin Alta Mira Canyon /Klondike Canyon
14. Use French drains at various canyons and carry down to catch basins then to
the ocean (VOTES=4)
15. Explore possibility of replacing Rolling Hills {RH) septic and sewer system
(VOTES=2)
• Reaching out to RH {mutual benefit)
• Consider litigation
• What other water from RH?
o Trails?
o Street?
16. Surface water/fissures at top hill-hydrological study (VOTES=l)
17. Coffer dams at head of canyons (VOTES=3)
18. Evaluate whether water into Alta Mira shows up in PB
19. Put existing drainage system back and do the maintenance
20. Veteran Preserve restrictions within preserve
21. Understand slide moves in different ways
D-129
Land Flow Subcommittee Notes
June 20, 2017
22. Capture water before it gets into slide (VOTES=7)
23. Work with the Conservancy to do it right at front end (VOTES=2)
24. At toe of slide dig to bentonite layer to hold back weight of slide to make dam
(VOTES=l)
Other Notes
1. Full hydrology student by experts
• Whole and flow
• Line item to complete study
• Parallel with other actions (include drainage study we have)
2. Capture water before it gets into slide
3. Reestablish storm drain-piping so water can flow into ocean
• Speculative cost
4. Coordinate with Preserve/conservancy
• Grounded in terms of concept
DATA GAPS-Need more data for storm drain system
D-130
SURF ZONE-3R0 Subcommittee Meeting
LandFiow Subcommittee Notes
June 29, 2017
Councilmember Dyda introduced the topic for the evening "Oceanography"
Romi explained the order of the meeting.
INTRODUCTIONS
Ray Mathys PowerPoint presentation
Questions on presentation:
1. How deep is slide plane? Varies
2. Is the reef anchored: No
3. Does the bentonite extend below surf zone? No answer
• Robert Douglas's book discusses clay and movement can the experts talk about surf
action; wave actions is cutting the toe which keeps repeating and thus the slide moves;
also ground water lubricates the slide and the slide moves.
• What would shoreline look like if reefs were installed? 1} Dewatering and remove water
is the most important 2} keep water out then install reef to prevent soil from being
removed.
• Kelvin found a line to Army Corps report
• How does loading the toe of the slide work? Not well so far-no calculations performed
but F=ma is still true so when calculated the correct F (weight) placed at the toe of the
slide. The ma would be achieved to accomplish equilibrium.
D-131
LandFiow Subcommittee Notes
June 29, 2017
MAJOR ACTION PROPOSALS AND ATTENDEES CAST VOTES FOR TOP 4 IDEAS
1. Hire competent coastal engineers and implement recommendations (VOTES=7}
2. Artificial Reefs (VOTES=S}
3. Create a buttress on the land side of slide by removing bentonite based calculations-
then refill at compacted dirt (VOTES=4}
4. Data taken to identify the slide plain below ocean and how much of it has moved if
any (VOTES=2}
5. Hard copies of Army Corps so anyone can take a look and get strong financial costs;
initial capital as well as maintenance-engineer to update (VOTES=2}
6. 10-12 geographical data points located through slide and monitor them so we know-
with 4 (VOTES= 5}
7. Prevent dirt entering water by whatever means (VOTES=3}
8. Empower consultants to take advantage of knowledge on similar slide (VOTES=2}
9. Amen to #8
10. Make sure all outflows extended beyond rock into ocean
11. Where's the money coming from?
12. Spend money to actually slow it
13.Go back to graded road; maintained weekly to cut costs and put money towards
slowing the slide (VOTES=7}
14.Communicate with coastal commission and other relevant agencies sooner rather
than later (VOTES=S}
lS.Primary attention paid to water up there coming into PB area (VOTES=l}
16.City and all of us think if we value preventing silt into the coastline-do we care about
that? (VOTES=l}
17.What's ROI? PB Community, homes moving-71ncrease in value; ecology, road repair;
assistance in remediating problem; stabilizing sewer pipelines (VOTES=2}
18.Reports from internet-hardcopy and having reading room where we could go read
them (VOTES=3}
19.Assess the environment aspects preserve and ocean ecology; what fixing the slide
(+/-)impacts would do-and made available to the public (VOTES=7}
Requests to engineers:
Please don't use this as Greenfields study-start from scratch
D-132
LandFlow Subcommittee Notes
July 6, 2017
Questions/Requests
1.How much has been spent over the last 40 years?
a.Answer-Close to 45 million
2.Study on cost of bridge? Mo
3.Hydrology/Geotech Engineers
4.How to prioritize areas? Are engineers going to do that? Yes, “bang for buck”
5.Are we going to see as developed? Yes
What major actions do you propose about the land flow and the interior?
1.Low spots minimized
2.Natural Springs
3.Regular groundwater
4.Water into fissures comes also from drainage channels-How to do away with the
fissures?
5.More current study on ground water coming from up above (VOTES=6) related to
#28
6.Current geological study on current level of saturation
7.Number gallons of water from septic tanks ______ lines (than water imported for
use)
8.Land movement comes after rains; recognize this is biggest source of land
movement
9.4 ft./3ft drainage pipes: Go back to study that determined to put those in and then
decide not to maintain them (~1984)-related to #31 (VOTES=8)
10.Consider maintenance costs with all solutions (VOTES=3)
11.Like board survey on where water is in soil; how much water is absorbed into the
clay; how much is free water? (VOTES=9)
12.Infrastructural project that captures and treats our sources of water for re-use (not
chucking it all). Along with lines of city’s capturing storm water (VOTES=2)
13.Organized analysis what all of this is going to cost and potential maintenance-Macro
cost (VOTES=1)
14.Insight into debt service
15.How much income could we possibly capture from water re-use?
16.Project life cycle cost and potential revenue (VOTES=2)
17.Is getting rid of free water good enough? (Science on this?) That clay still provides
mechanism for slide to move? (VOTES=1)
18.Are we looking at clay as plastic medium-slick surface factor of clay?
19.Is Douglas 2013 study still valid?
20.Could we get a short reading list?
D-133
Land Flow Subcommittee Notes
July 6, 2017
21. Eliminate all septic systems that contribute (VOTES=2)
22. Pick a small area and do a complete hydrology study that you could expand
(VOTES=2)
23. Plans and specs-1984 relocation abatement project made available-what was
originally done; why it failed; and solutions different from those (VOTES=2)
24. Hydrology and drainage to protect roads, hiking trails, and area
• Spend some money even if it doesn't slow the slide: How much can we
afford?
25. Pick an area cover with a tarp and see what effects on surface area (VOTES=2)
26. There is a reading list (get to it from home page/PGB)-related to #20; request for the
link to emailed to #4 meeting attendees? (Yes, Deb)
27. Preserve the preserve (VOTES=7)
28. Stopping the water from homes and landscape up top-rainwater (VOTES=6)
29. Ongoing working relationship with other cities up top (above the slide)
30. Capture water before it come (from canyons) and french drains (VOTES=7)
31. Look at water feeding lsshibashi Lake-from Paintbrush Canyon; catch facility
(VOTES=lO)
32. Do something with 2 springs(VOTES=l)
• Analyze foot markers
• Traced from Rolling Hills
33. Is there more bang for the buck with certain water sources than others?
34. Is it possible to use series piezometers to protect public in dynamic areas?
(VOTES=4)
35. More rain at top than below
36. Different color dye injections at different points to see where water goes
37. Is water the only attributing factor? Or is road and traffic? If so, how much (weight)?
38. Could we set up dialogue for input/collaboration with Rolling Hills (VOTES=6)
39. French drain at bottom of Alta Mira Canyon and take a lot of water out of that area-
French drains; fairly inexpensive and ____ to determine bedrock first (ALL the
Canyons)
D-134
5.0 COVERED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
5.1 Summary of Covered Projects and Activities
This NCCP/HCP assumes incidental take coverage for 17 Covered City Projects and Activities (see Section
5.2), five private projects (see Section 5.3), and other specific activities in the Preserve (see Section 5.4),
provided that the projects and activities are consistent with the applicable Habitat Impact Avoidance and
Minimization Measures described in Section 5.5 of the NCCP/HCP. “Projects” are well-defined actions
that occur once in a discrete location whereas “Activities” are actions/operations that occur repeatedly in
one location or throughout the Plan Area. The City’s dedication and management to the Preserve of 1,123
acres, including the 499.9 acres of City Mitigation Lands, the management of 258.7 acres of Previous
Mitigation Lands, and 20.7 acres of PVPLC lands, is intended to provide the necessary mitigation for CSS
and grassland for Covered City and Miscellaneous Private Projects and Activities (both outside and inside
the Preserve). Any potential impacts to properties within the Plan Area that were previously acquired with
nontraditional section 6 HCP Land Acquisition grant funding (61.5 acres in Malaga Canyon) and funding
provided the State will be subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies to confirm consistency
with the section 6 grant program and requirements associated with other State funding. All Covered
Activities will be reviewed by the City to ensure their consistency with the NCCP/HCP. As they are
proposed, the projects will be forwarded to and may be reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies during the
applicable CEQA process (or other process) for consistency with this NCCP/HCP.
The Covered City Projects/Activities are proposed to occur inside and outside of the Preserve and are
anticipated to impact a maximum of 318.7 acres of non-native grassland and 120.5 acres of CSS. Of these
total impacts, it is estimated that 62.5 acres of the impacted CSS (52%) and 155.8 acres of the impacted
non-native grassland (49%) will occur within the Preserve. Included in the CSS loss are losses associated
with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be minimal. No
more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub
could be lost within the Preserve associated with Covered City Projects/Activities. The City will mitigate
these impacts by dedicating land to the City lands to the Preserve and providing restoration and management
funding for the Preserve (see Section 8.0). Of the 737 acres of CSS and associated vegetation communities
within the Preserve, a maximum of 62.5 acres (<9%) could be impacted by Covered City
Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 674.5 acres (92%) of CSS in the Preserve to be perpetually
conserved. Of the 470.9 acres of grassland within the Preserve, a maximum of 155.8 acres (33%) could be
impacted by Covered City Projects/Activities, leaving a minimum of 315.1 acres. Through Plan
implementation non-native grassland within the Preserve may be restored to native habitat. Impacts to
specific vegetation communities within and outside of the Preserve are described in individual project
descriptions (Section 5.2).
The Covered Private Projects are proposed to occur outside of the Preserve and are anticipated to impact a
maximum of 262.8 acres of grassland and 99.5 acres of CSS. These impacts as summarized below and will
be mitigated by each project proponent. Impacts to specific vegetation communities are described in
individual project descriptions (Section 5.3). The total loss of habitat associated with Covered Project and
D-135
Activities are quantified above. The effects of the habitat loss to the Covered Species are described in the
conservation analysis in Appendix B of the Plan.
Within the Coastal Zone, permissible impacts and mitigation to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
(ESHA), as defined in Appendix F, will not only be consistent with the NCCP/HCP, but will also be
consistent with the City’s most current LCP. Furthermore, any impacts to habitat or ESHA’s located in the
Coastal Zone will be mitigated within the Coastal Zone.
The NCCP/HCP area will be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404, and California Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 et seq. permit requirements if they are included within areas proposed for development.
5.2 Covered City Projects and Activities
The following proposed Covered City Projects are addressed by this NCCP/HCP (see summary on Table
5-1 and Figure 5-2) and will be encumbered by conservation easements which are to be recorded on City-
owned properties within the Preserve pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Plan. All mitigation for Covered City
Projects/Activities will occur within the Preserve.
5.2.1 Altamira Canyon Drainage Project
The City has identified the need for a project within the portion of Altamira Canyon that traverses the
Portuguese Bend landslide area to address drainage and erosion and to prevent water from percolating into
the landslide plane. The removal of the Canyon’s existing vegetation will result in the loss of 2.5 acres of
CSS habitat and 3 acres of non-native grassland. Point locations for one gnatcatcher and one PVB hostplant
occur in the project vicinity. Although this project is not being proposed at this time, it is likely that the
project will be actively pursued during the life of the NCCP/HCP.
5.2.2 Dewatering Wells
The installation of dewatering wells by the City in areas affected by the Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove
landslides has proven to be an effective method of slowing down landslide movement by removing
groundwater from the slide plane. It is anticipated that new wells will be installed by the City in the future
in or near areas of existing CSS habitat and grassland throughout landslide areas. It is estimated a maximum
of 2.5 acres of CSS and 2.5 acres of non-native grassland will be impacted in the Preserve. A point location
for one gnatcatcher occurs in the project vicinity.
5.2.3 Landslide Abatement Measures
When and where required, landslide abatement activities within the Preserve and throughout the City are
sometimes necessary by the City or other public agencies to safeguard existing roads, trails and drainage
systems. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the installation and maintenance of groundwater
monitoring wells and GPS stations (with associated equipment such as pumps, electrical connections,
drainage pipes and access pathways) for the purpose of monitoring landslide movement, the filling of
fissures, the re-contouring of slide debris, the creation and maintenance of emergency access roads, and
D-136
geologic investigations involving trenching or boring performed mechanically or by hand (with allowance
for access of any necessary mechanical equipment). Where practicable, areas of temporary CSS disturbance
will be promptly re-vegetated with CSS habitat after completion of abatement activities (see Section 6.0 of
the Plan for details about the restoration plan). It is estimated that such landslide abatement measures will
result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland.
It is estimated that two-thirds of the impacts will occur within the Preserve. Point locations for two
gnatcatchers and one island green dudleya occur in areas potentially subject to landslides.
15-1. Brush Management in Preserve for Fire Prevention Purposes
D-137
25-2. Locations of City Projects Covered by the NCCP/HCP
5.2.4 Miscellaneous Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas
The repair of existing drainage systems becomes necessary by the City in landslide areas because of
excessively heavy rainfall or damage by landslide movement. It is anticipated that there will be a need to
repair such drains on an as-needed basis. It is estimated that such activity will result in the combined loss
of a maximum of 10 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that two-
thirds of the impacts will occur within the Preserve. Point locations for two gnatcatchers, two aphanisma,
one south coast saltscale, and one island green dudleya occur in areas potentially subject to landslides.
5.2.5 Palos Verdes Drive East Drainage Improvement Project
Based on a comprehensive drainage study, the City has identified numerous drainage system deficiencies
in the eastern portion of the City along Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE). To address these drainage
deficiencies, the City proposes to carry out several drainage improvement projects over an extended period
of time. Although it is anticipated that most of the projects will occur within the existing improved street
D-138
right-of-way, some projects may necessitate work in the adjoining canyon areas. It is estimated that such
activity will result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat and 15 acres of non-native
grassland outside the Preserve. Point locations for Covered species are not currently known from the
proposed project area.
5.2.6 Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements
The City anticipates that there will be the need to perform regular maintenance, repairs and upgrades on
drainage systems in the City not located within the landslide areas or the Palos Verdes Drive East drainage
project area. It is anticipated that the repair and improvement of these drainage systems will be necessary
from time to time due to unexpected storm damage or due to the old age of the drainage systems. It is also
anticipated that some of the projects may necessitate the creation and/or maintenance of retention basins,
debris basins, and access roads. It is estimated that such activity could result in the combined loss of a
maximum of 20 acres of CSS habitat and 60 acres of grassland in the Plan area. Of this total, it is estimated
that 6.6 acres of CSS (33%) and 20 acres of grassland (33%) impacts will occur in the Preserve. Point
locations for three gnatcatchers, two cactus wrens, two PVB hostplants, one ESB hostplant, one aphanisma,
one island green dudleya and one woolly seablite occur in the vicinity of the proposed project(s).
5.2.7 Abalone Cove Beach Project
The City has identified a need to improve public access and beach amenities at the existing Abalone Cove
beach site. The project may involve the construction of a restroom/storage area, a gate house, parking lot,
and shade structures, as well as improving the access road that leads from Palos Verdes Drive South to the
beach and foot trails in the area. The grading associated with the proposed project may cause the loss of 1
acre of CSS habitat and 2 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve. Any CSS re-vegetation shall
be performed on site within the coastal zone of the Preserve. A point location for one island green dudleya
occurs in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although this project is not being proposed at this time, it is
possible that the project or a similar variation will be actively pursued during the life of this NCCP/HCP.
5.2.8 Rancho Palos Verdes Trails Plan Implementation
The City’s Trails Network Plan addresses existing and proposed trails outside and within the Preserve. The
portion of the Trails Network Plan that addresses trails within the Preserve is a part of the Public Use
Management Plan (PUMP), which is a Covered City Project described further in Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1
of this Plan. It is anticipated that implementation of the City’s Trails Network Plan, which includes the
Preserve Trails Plan component (see Sections 5.4.2 and 9.2.1.1), will result in the loss of some CSS and
grassland habitat. Although the establishment of new trails through CSS habitat will be avoided where
possible, it is anticipated that some trail maintenance, erosion repair, and re-routing for public safety reasons
may occur within habitat areas. Although it is anticipated that trail widening could occur as a result of trail
use over time, trails will be monitored for signs of widening, and managed to remedy the degradation (see
Section 9.2.2.2 of the Plan). It is estimated that such activities will result in the combined loss of a maximum
of 4 acres of CSS habitat and 10 acres of grassland. It is estimated that one-half of these impacts will occur
within the Preserve (2 acres of CSS habitat and 5 acres of grassland). Point locations for two PVB
D-139
hostplants, one ESB hostplant, one island green dudleya, and one woolly seablite occur in the vicinity of
the Preserve Trails Plan.
5.2.9 Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair
It is anticipated that the City will undertake a major stormwater project in the Lower San Ramon Canyon
to reverse the effects of erosion on the streambed in an attempt to reduce the active Tarapaca landslide from
blocking water flow. Geologic studies have identified a landslide in the canyon that has the potential to
create blockage of the stream flow. Blockage of the stream flow could cause water to percolate into the
adjacent South Shores landslide. The project will reduce the likelihood of reactivating the South Shores
landslide, which could result in the loss of the Switchbacks on Palos Verdes Drive East. It is estimated that
the project will result in the loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS and 15 acres of grassland. It is estimated
that one-half of the impacts will occur in the Preserve. One point location for one gnatcatcher occurs in the
project vicinity.
5.2.10 Lower Point Vicente
Pursuant to the City’s approved Vision Plan, the City may develop a public recreational/educational project
to augment the existing Point Vicente Interpretive Center located on a parcel of City-owned land referred
to as Lower Point Vicente. The property is located between the Point Vicente Lighthouse property owned
by the Coast Guard and the Oceanfront Estates residential development project. It is anticipated that
development of the site may result in a maximum loss of 1.5 acres of CSS and 11.2 acres of non-native
grassland outside of the Preserve. One point location for one ESB hostplant occurs in the vicinity of the
proposed project.
5.2.11 Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair
The City anticipates that due to continual landslide movement in the Portuguese Bend landslide area, there
will be a need to perform repair work on the portion of Palos Verdes Drive South that traverses the landslide,
including but not limited to relocating the roadway if necessary. It is anticipated that such road repair
activity may result in a maximum of 5 acres of CSS habitat loss and 15 acres of non-native grassland loss
within the Preserve. One point location for one PVB hostplant occurs in the vicinity of the proposed project.
5.2.12 Upper Point Vicente
As part of the City’s approved Vision Plan, the City is considering development of a
civic/cultural/community center at Upper Point Vicente Park. The project may result in a loss of 2 acres of
CSS and 22 acres of non-native grassland. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur within the
Preserve. Point locations for one gnatcatcher and one cactus wren occur in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
D-140
5.2.13 Preserve Fuel Modification
The City and PVPLC are required to perform annual fuel modification for fire prevention purposes within
the Preserve by the Weed Abatement Division of the Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural
Commissioner. The location and amount of fuel modification throughout the Preserve has been determined
by the Los Angeles Weed Abatement Division in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Fire Department
(see Figure 5-1) and is based on factors such as proximity of structures, steepness of slope, and fuel load.
The methods for carrying out the required fuel modification are described in Section 9.2.2 of the Plan. The
required City fuel modification is anticipated to result in a loss of 12 acres of CSS and 18 acres of non-
native grassland in the Preserve. Changes to fuel modification that would result in greater impacts than
depicted in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 would require additional review by the Wildlife Agencies and PVPLC,
potentially including amending the Plan pursuant to Section 6.8 of the Plan.
5.2.14 Utility Maintenance and Repair
The installation, maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure facilities by the City, other
public agencies and/or utility companies, such as sewers, water, cable, telephone, gas, power, and storm
drains will occur throughout the City on an as-needed basis. Installation of new commercial antenna towers
is not allowed in the Preserve. The installation, maintenance, and repair of these activities are anticipated
to permanently impact up to 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of non-native grassland throughout the life of
the permits. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will occur within the Preserve.
5.2.15 Unimproved City Park Projects
In addition to its developed parks, the City has a number of unimproved park sites that may be improved in
the future with recreational amenities. These unimproved parks sites include, but are not limited to, 17.5-
acre Grandview Park, 18.2-acre Lower Hesse Park, 4.7-acre Vanderlip Park, and 1-acre Martingale Park.
It is anticipated that development of these specific park facilities and any other unimproved City park
facilities will result in loss of a maximum of 10 acres of CSS habitat and 20 acres of non-native grassland
outside of the Preserve.
5.2.16 Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements
The City anticipates that there will be the need to perform regular maintenance, repairs, and upgrades on
the drainage system within the City-owned Malaga Canyon open space. It is anticipated that the repair and
improvement of these drainage systems will be necessary from time to time due to unexpected storm
damage or due to the old age of the drainage systems. It is also anticipated that some of the projects may
necessitate the creation and/or maintenance of retention basins, detention basins, debris basins, and access
roads. It is estimated that such activity could result in the combined loss of a maximum of 5 acres of CSS
habitat and 15 acres of non-native grassland within the Preserve. Any potential impacts will be offset to
ensure that the biological values of the properties are maintained consistent with the section 6 grant funding
used to acquire the property and will be subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies.
D-141
5.2.17 Other Miscellaneous City Projects
It is foreseeable that during the life of this NCCP/HCP the City will undertake a City project similar in
character and impacts to those listed in Table 5-1 that is not specifically listed here as a Covered
Project/Activity. Such projects shall be considered Covered Projects provided the total loss of CSS habitat
and non-native grassland for said Miscellaneous City Projects does not exceed 20 acres of CSS habitat and
60 acres of non-native grassland as identified in Table 5-1. It is estimated that one-half of the impacts will
occur within the Preserve.
15-1. Total Loss of Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities
City Project Name
Total Habitat Loss
(Acres)
Habitat Loss In
Preserve (Acres)
CSS Grassland CSS Grassland
1. Altamira Canyon Drainage Project 2.5 3 0 0
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
5. PVDE Drainage Improvement Project 5.0 15.0 0 0
6. Misc. Drainage Improvements 20.0 60.0 6.6 20.0
7. Abalone Cove Beach Project 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
8. *RPV Trails Plan Implementation 4.0 10.0 2.0 5.0
9. Lower San Ramon Canyon Repair 5.0 15.0 2.5 7.5
10. Lower Point Vicente 1.5 11.2 0 0
11. Palos Verdes Drive South Road Repair 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
12. Upper Pt. Vicente 2.0 22.0 1.0 11.0
13. Preserve Fuel Modification 12.0 18 12.0 18
14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5.0 10.0
15. Unimproved City Park Projects 10.0 20.0 0 0
16. Malaga Canyon Drainage Improvements 5.0 15.0 5.0 15.0
17. Other Miscellaneous City projects 20.0 60.0 10.0 30.0
**Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 120.5 318.7 62.5 155.8
*Part of the PUMP, a Covered City Project (see Section 9.2 of this Plan)
**Total habitat loss (CSS and Grassland) is 439.2 acres, of which 218.3 acres (50%) would occur in the Preserve. Included in the
CSS loss are losses associated with southern cactus scrub, saltbush scrub, and coastal bluff scrub which are expected to be minimal.
No more than 5 acres of southern cactus scrub, 2 acres of coastal bluff scrub, and 2 acres of saltbush scrub could be lost within the
Preserve associated with Covered City Projects and Activities.
5.3 Covered Private Projects and Activities
The following proposed Private Projects and Activities are covered (Covered Private Projects and
Activities) by this NCCP/HCP (see Table 5-2 and Figure 5-4 below).
5.3.1 Lower Filiorum Development
If any type of development project is approved on the 94.2-acre Lower Filorum property, also known as
the Point View property, the owner will be required as a condition of approval to dedicate to the Preserve
D-142
a minimum of 40 acres of the 94.22-acre property, including a minimum 300-foot-wide functional wildlife
corridor on the southern edge of the property connecting to the Abalone Cove portion of the Preserve, as
depicted in Figure 5-3, as mitigation for impacts to biological resources. Any required fuel modification for
the proposed project will not encroach into the area dedicated to the Preserve, including the 300-foot
wildlife corridor. The City will work with the landowner to prepare a development agreement which will
include a funding program for management and monitoring the lands to be dedicated to the Preserve.
The intent of the 40-acre dedication and 300-foot-wide minimum wildlife corridor required for this project
is to maintain a viable wildlife corridor through the Preserve after the proposed project is approved and
constructed. Based on a biology report prepared by NRC in 2003, the Point View property is comprised of
70 acres of non-native grassland, 2.5 acres of CSS, 9.4 acres of disturbed CSS, 6.9 acres of exotic woodland,
and 5.2 acres of disturbed vegetation. The minimum of 40 acres of dedicated Preserve shall include 1.5
acres to be provided as mitigation for previous brush clearing activities and 38.5 acres of mitigation for
CSS and grassland losses resulting from any future development of the 94.22-acre Lower Filiorum parcel.
The inclusion of Lower Filiorum acreage in the Preserve will be a condition of approval for any
development project subsequently approved for the Lower Filiorum property. If no approvals are obtained,
there will be no obligation on the part of present or future property owner to dedicate these lands to the
Preserve. Likewise, identifying these lands for potential inclusion in the Preserve in the text and maps of
this NCCP/HCP does not constitute approval of development on the Lower Filiorum property.
D-143
35-3. Potential Preserve for Lower Filiorum
D-144
45-4. Locations of Private Projects Covered by NCCP/HCP
5.3.2 Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading
Because of its proximity to the active Klondike Canyon Landslide, the homeowners association of the gated
residential community known as the Portuguese Bend Club may need to perform remedial grading on its
property to prevent damage to its roads and to residents’ homes. It is anticipated that the remedial grading
activity will take place on property owned by the association, located on the western end of the community,
or on the adjoining City-owned property. It is anticipated that the remedial grading activity will result in a
loss of 3 acres of CSS habitat and 10 acres of grassland. One point location for the cactus wren occurs in
the vicinity of this project. Mitigation for this Covered Private Project is addressed by the City conveying
and managing 1,123 acres to the Preserve. For the Private Projects to be covered under the City’s Plan,
vegetation removal shall be offset by the project applicant paying a Mitigation Fee into the City’s Habitat
Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a 0.5:1mitigation ratio for impacted non-
native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native grassland (as described in Section 2.2.1 of
the Plan) occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. This Covered Private Project may mitigate by one of the
following two methods: 1) Dedication of additional acreage to the Preserve that will add to the biological
D-145
function of the Preserve (the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies is required for acreage
to be dedicated to the Preserve) and the property owner must provide management funding for the additional
acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method; or 2) Payment of a Mitigation Fee to
the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund described in section 8.2.1.1 in an amount of $50,000 per acre for the
total mitigation acreage required (e.g., 3 acres of CSS impact = $150,000.00). The Mitigation Fee must be
paid to the City prior to the remedial grading taking place. The PVPLC and the City have determined that
$50,000 (in 2015 dollars) is the cost to restore and maintain 1 acre of native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation
Fee will be reviewed periodically, no less than every three years, by the City and, if necessary, adjusted to
account for inflation and/or higher than expected restoration and management costs.
5.3.3 Fuel Modification for Private Projects throughout the City
For new private development projects on vacant land in the City, all fuel modification required by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department and/or Los Angeles County Department of Agricultural Commissioner
as a result of such new projects will occur outside of the Preserve unless the City and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department and/or Agricultural Commissioner agree that no other options exist. For existing
private development, the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Department of
Agricultural Commissioner have reviewed the existing private development that abuts the Preserve and
have determined the amount of brush clearance needed within the Preserve to provide the code-required
fuel modification zone for the protection of existing structures outside the Preserve (see Figure 5-1).
In situations where fuel modification must occur in the Preserve, impacts are already addressed by the City
dedicating 1,402.4 acres to the Preserve. For the Private Projects to be covered under the City’s Plan,
vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the project applicant paying a
Mitigation Fee into the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund using a 2:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS, a
0.5:1mitigation ratio for impacted non-native grassland, and a 3:1 mitigation ratio for impacted native
grassland (as described in Section 2.2.1 of the Plan) occurring in areas greater than 0.3 acre. Removal of
cacti and other succulents within any required fuel clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to preserve
habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other Covered Species. The total Mitigation Fee payment required
is calculated by multiplying the total acreage impacted by the required ratio for each habitat type. The
Mitigation Fee payment shall be provided by the property owner benefiting from the fuel modification by
one of the following two methods: 1) Dedication of additional acreage to the Preserve that will add to the
biological function of the Preserve (the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies is required
for acreage to be dedicated to the Preserve) and the property owner must provide management funding for
the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method; or 2) Payment of a
Mitigation Fee to the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund described in section 8.2.1.1 in an amount of $50,000
per acre for the total mitigation acreage required (e.g., 3 acres of CSS impact = $150,000.00). The
Mitigation Fee must be paid to the City prior to the fuel modification taking place. The PVPLC and the
City have determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the cost to restore and maintain 1 acre of native
habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and if necessary adjusted to
account for inflation and/or higher than expected restoration and management costs.
D-146
The anticipated loss from fuel modification resulting from Covered Private Projects/Activities within the
Preserve is not expected to exceed 10 acres of CSS and 20 acres of grassland. Any loss of CSS beyond 10
acres and 20 acres of grassland is not a NCCP/HCP Covered Project/Activity.
5.3.4 Miscellaneous Private Projects Throughout the City Outside of the
Preserve
The City may issue a permit for any Private Project in the City which impacts CSS habitat and is not
specifically identified in this NCCP/HCP as a Covered Activity provided that the project impacts are located
outside of the Preserve and the impacts are mitigated by the project applicant as described in this section.
Impacts to CSS shall be mitigated by the project applicant using a 1:1 mitigation ratio for impacted CSS.
Because fire is a natural component of the CSS vegetation community, under normal circumstances natural
re-growth of habitat is expected, and any land that once had CSS will be considered CSS for the purposes
of this Covered Activity. The mitigation shall be provided by the project applicant by the payment of a
Mitigation Fee to the City’s Habitat Restoration Fund discussed in section 8.2.1.1 in the amount of $50,000
per acre based on the total mitigation acreage required. The Mitigation Fee must be paid to the City prior
to issuance of the grading or building permit, whichever comes first. The PVPLC and the City have
determined that $50,000 (in 2013 dollars) is the amount that is needed to restore and maintain 1 acre of
native habitat. The $50,000 Mitigation Fee will be reviewed annually by the City and, if necessary, adjusted
to account for inflation and/or higher-than-expected restoration and management costs.
There are 23.6 acres of exotic woodland, 22.6 acres of disturbed vegetation and 262.8 acres of grassland
located outside of the Preserve or Neutral Lands that will be impacted by potential development with no
mitigation required by individual property owners under this NCCP/HCP because the loss of such lands
would not affect any of the Covered Species. Furthermore, there are 99.5 acres of CSS habitat outside of
both the Preserve and Neutral Lands which include the 27.7 acres of CSS that would be impacted by the
other four specific private projects discussed in this Section 5.3 of the Plan. This would result in the potential
for a total of 71.8 acres of CSS habitat outside the Preserve and Neutral Lands to be lost as a result of these
miscellaneous private projects throughout the City. Since this CSS and grassland exist outside the Preserve
and Neutral Lands and is not targeted for conservation, this Plan is assumes that all of this habitat could be
lost over the life of this Plan as a result of miscellaneous private projects without affecting preserve design
and/or species persistence.
5.3.5 Plumtree Development
If a development project is approved on the 27-acre Plumtree property and the owner opts to rely on this
NCCP/HCP to mitigate any impacts to biological resources caused by the proposed development project,
all impacts to biological resources addressed under this Plan on the 27-acre Plumtree property will be
considered adequately mitigated by the conveyance of 30 acres of functional and connected habitat on the
Upper Filiorum property (190 total acres) in 2009, as described in Section 4.2.1 of the Plan, which has been
dedicated to the Preserve with the appropriate conservation easement (see Appendix G to this Plan). Any
required fuel modification for a proposed project on the Plumtree parcel will not encroach into the area
D-147
dedicated to the Preserve. Based on a biology report prepared by NRC on August 14, 2007, the 27-acre
Plumtree Parcel contains 19.7 acres of non-native grassland and 2.8 acres of disturbed CSS. In addition,
one pair of gnatcatchers was observed.
The donation of the 30-acre parcel by the property owner and its subsequent dedication to the Preserve as
mitigation for any future upland biological impacts does not constitute nor imply approval of any
subsequent development project on the Plumtree property by the City or determination of consistency with
the NCCP/HCP by the Wildlife Agencies.
25-2. Total Loss of Habitat by Privately Covered Projects and Activities
COVERED PRIVATE PROJECT
HABITAT LOSS (ACRES)
CSS GRASSLAND
1. Lower Filiorum Development 11.9 70.0
2. Portuguese Bend Club Remedial Grading 3.0 10.0
3. Fuel Modification for Private Projects 10.0 20.0
4. Miscellaneous Private Projects throughout the City 71.8 143.1
5. Plumtree Development 2.8 19.7
Total Acreage of Habitat Loss 99.5 262.8
5.4 Other Covered Activities
The following Covered Activities are expected to occur in the Preserve due to short- and long-term
operation and maintenance requirements or emergency situations conducted by the City, other public
agencies, or utility companies seeking Third-Party Participant status. These activities are not expected to
involve the permanent loss of habitat. All of these activities listed below may not occur without first
notifying the City. Any activity not identified below as a Covered Activity may not be initiated in the
Preserve without prior notification to the PVPLC and concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. The
following Covered Activities shall adhere to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for
Covered Activities outlined in Section 5.5 of the Plan as part of all operations and authorizations to precede
work, where applicable:
5.4.1 Operation and Maintenance
• Landslide abatement and monitoring activities that do not result in the loss of Covered Species
and/or habitat. The regular maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities and existing
access roads within the Preserve that does not result in the loss of Covered Species and/or
habitat.
• The maintenance of existing access roads in the Preserve provided there is no loss of Covered
Species and/or habitat.
• Geologic testing and monitoring for public health and safety reasons, provided there is no loss
of Covered Species and/or habitat.
D-148
• Installation, maintenance, and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) that are necessary
to serve the Covered Private Projects identified in Section 5.2 of the Plan provided there is no
loss of Covered Species and/or habitat.
• Maintenance and repair of utilities and related infrastructure(s) provided there is no loss of
Covered Species and/or habitat.
• The maintenance and repair of existing water quality basins, retention basins, detention basins,
and debris basins, provided there is no loss of Covered Species and/or habitat.
• Photography and filming, provided a City permit is obtained, no grading is involved, no new
access road or trails are created, and impacts to Covered Species and/or habitat are avoided.
• City and Los Angeles County law enforcement activities, including vehicular access.
5.4.2 Public Use
Public access to the Preserve is conditionally allowed for passive recreational purposes and to promote
understanding and appreciation of natural resources. Excessive or uncontrolled access; however, can result
in habitat degradation through trampling and erosion (e.g., along trails) and disruption of breeding and other
critical wildlife functions at certain times of the year. In order to balance the public’s passive recreational
needs with the protection of natural resources within the Preserve, a Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) has
been developed jointly by the City, the public, and PVPLC to address public access issues. The PUMP is a
proposed City-Covered Project incorporated into the Plan; therefore, it must be approved by the Wildlife
Agencies as part of the NCCP/HCP before the activities, including the Preserve Trails Plans, will be
allowed. The following public uses and activities are considered conditionally Covered Activities in the
Preserve if they conform to the PUMP:
• Public use and implementation of the Preserve Trails Plan (PTP) contained in the Wildlife
Agency-approved PUMP. Section 9.2.1.1 of this Plan provides the design criteria and
guidelines that will be used for the PTP.
• Closure of existing trails within the Preserve that are not included in the PTP, as approved by
the City Council and Wildlife Agencies.
• Passive recreational activities (e.g., horse riding, hiking, bicycling, wildlife viewing) as
described in the PUMP and approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies.
• Subject to the PUMP, the creation and maintenance of passive overlook or vista areas with
seating benches and trail markers may be located at key vista points near existing trails in the
Preserve, provided no existing habitat will be lost. The location of these overlooks shall be
located to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to biological resources. The location
of these overlooks will be approved by City Council.
• Installation and maintenance of benches, picnic tables, tie rails, portable toilets, and trash cans
within the Preserve and near Preserve boundaries, provided no existing habitat will be lost. The
location of these facilities shall be sited to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts to
D-149
habitat and Covered Species. Location of overlooks shall be reviewed for consistency with the
PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City Council prior to initiation of any implementation
work.
• Installation of trailhead signage/kiosks within the Preserve adjacent to existing roads or other
access ways and away from sensitive resource areas. The location of trailhead signage/kiosks
shall be reviewed for consistency with the PUMP and this Plan and approved by the City prior
to initiation of any implementation work.
• Operation and maintenance of the existing archery range in its current location and acreage
(approximately 8 acres) within the Preserve, provided the appropriate City permits are
maintained and the facility is not expanded.
• Operation of the existing agricultural use at Upper Point Vicente of approximately 5 acres in
size provided the appropriate City approval is maintained and all agricultural practices and
improvements remain consistent with this NCCP/HCP. No other agricultural activities are
allowed in the Preserve.
• Night use of the Preserve provided use is limited, controlled, monitored, and managed
consistent with the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve Night Hike Regulations. The City will issue
a permit for night use and any night use of the Preserve shall be consistent with the requirements
of this Plan. A summary of night use in the Preserve will be included in the Annual Report.
5.4.3 Preserve Management
Management of the Preserve in accordance with the provisions described in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the Plan
is a Covered Activity. Specific management Covered Activities anticipated to occur in the Preserve include
the following:
• Monitoring of Covered Species
• Vehicular access
• Habitat restoration
• Invasive species control
• Predator control
• Reintroduction of Covered Species
• Photo documentation
• Installation of signage
• Trail maintenance
• Maintenance of fire/fuel buffers
• Field research and studies designed to contribute to the long-term protection of habitats and
species and other basic research of habitats and species included in the Preserve.
D-150
5.5 Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures for
Covered Projects and Activities
The City will ensure implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures as enforceable
conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects and Activities
listed in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 of this Plan:
1. The City will review proposed plans for Covered Project and Activities within and abutting the
Preserve (e.g., access routes, staging areas) to ensure proposed Covered Activities are consistent
with this NCCP/HCP.
2. The City and its Preserve Habitat Manager (i.e., PVPLC) will ensure that access to the Preserve to
carry out Covered Activities is consistent with the approved Preserve Access Protocol (PAP) that
is required to be created pursuant to Section 6.5.2 of this Plan. When accessing the Preserve, utility
agencies and the City’s Public Works Department must take measures to avoid and minimize, to
the maximum extent possible, environmental damage, including damage to habitat and Covered
Species. Existing access roads in the Preserve should be used wherever practical. Any unavoidable
access routes outside existing roads or construction areas should be clearly marked. Any new roads,
trails, and utility corridors will be located in areas that avoid/minimize impacts to Covered Species,
habitat fragmentation and edge effects. The width of construction corridors and easements will be
minimized.
3. The City and/or responsible private project applicants will be responsible for ensuring that an
Erosion Control Plan is developed and implemented for any Covered Activities in the Preserve or
abutting the Preserve that might result in erosion as determined by the City. Potential erosion
control measures include siltation fencing, straw bales, sand bags, etc.
4. When stockpiling topsoil in the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, it will be placed
only in areas that minimize the damage to habitat. If fill or topsoil is imported into the Preserve,
the fill will be certified weed-free soil.
5. For any new development on vacant lots abutting the Preserve, construction staging areas will be
located at least 15 meters (50 feet) away from the Preserve boundary and natural drainages. No-
fueling zones will extend a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet) from all drainages and away
from the Preserve boundary.
6. Construction footprints for Covered Projects and Activities in the Preserve or abutting the Preserve
will be clearly defined with flagging and/or fencing and will be removed upon completion of the
Covered Activities.
7. Cut/fill slopes outside of fuel modification zones within the Preserve will be re-vegetated with
native species, or in the case of fuel modification zones, native plants recommended by Los Angeles
County for fuel modification zones. Impacts to cacti and other succulents within any required fuel
clearing areas shall be avoided/minimized to conserve habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other
Covered Species. Sidecasting of materials during trails, road, and utility construction and
maintenance within the Preserve will be avoided.
D-151
8. Where feasible and appropriate, dust generated by the construction for Covered Activities within
the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the Preserve will be controlled via watering of earthmoving
areas and non-paved roads and an off-highway speed limit restriction to 20 miles per hour (mph).
9. Any temporary safety or security night lighting for Covered Activities in the Preserve or on vacant
lots abutting the Preserve will be selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from all native
vegetative communities.
10. Prior to implementation of Covered Activities within the Preserve or on vacant lots abutting the
Preserve (see Section 5.6) that may impact Covered Species or their habitat, the City will provide
an education program to all personnel associated with project activities. The education program
will describe 1) the potential presence of Covered Species and their habitats, 2) the requirements
and boundaries of the project (e.g., areas delineated on maps and by flags or fencing), 3) the
importance of complying with avoidance and minimization measures, 4) environmentally
responsible construction practices, 5) identification of sensitive resource areas in the field, and 6)
problem reporting and resolution methods.
11. Any biologist used for the implementation of this NCCP/HCP, including implementing these
measures, will be subject to the Wildlife Agencies’ review and approval. The City will submit the
biologist’s name, address, telephone number, résumé, and three references (i.e., the names and
contact information of people familiar with the relevant qualifications of the proposed biologist) at
least 10 working days prior to initiating work. If the Wildlife Agencies do not respond within this
10-day period, the City will assume that the biologists are approved.
12. For bird species that are not federally listed or Covered by the NCCP/HCP, if vegetation clearing
must occur in the Preserve during the bird breeding season under the circumstances described in
Sections 5.6.9 and 5.6.10 below (defined here as February 15-August 31), a pre-construction nest
survey will be conducted and a 100-feet avoidance/exclusion zone or a buffer/barrier zone to
attenuate noise deemed appropriate by the Wildlife Agencies will be placed around all active nests
(i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. Further, no take of
Fully Protected Species is allowed under this Plan (see Section 1.2.2 of the Plan).
13. Covered Plant Species and cacti may be removed from impact areas and relocated to an adjacent
or suitable location within the Preserve, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. The City and
its Habitat Manager shall be notified at least ten (10) working days prior to impacts for potential
salvaging and relocation opportunities.
14. No new lighting shall be allowed in the Preserve except where essential for roadway, facility use,
and safety and security purposes. New light sources abutting the Preserve will be oriented
downward and away from habitat areas, and shielded, if necessary, so that the lighting does not
impact wildlife and native vegetation.
15. Construction surveys for herpetofauna shall be conducted prior to and during the first days of initial
grading in areas within the Preserve where significant populations are known to exist. The City, its
Preserve Habitat Manager, and the Wildlife Agencies shall be notified of all findings and relocation
efforts at least ten (10) working days after grading has occurred. Any relocation efforts shall also
be reported in the City’s Annual Report.
D-152
16. Pre-construction surveys for raptor during the breeding season (January 31-September 30), where
evidence of suitable nesting habitat is present, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no later
than four days prior to any project vegetation removal or grading activities within or on vacant lots
abutting the Preserve. If nesting raptors are present, a 500-foot avoidance/exclusion zone or a
buffer/barrier zone to prevent disturbance and attenuate noise will be placed around all active nests
(i.e., active nests with eggs or chicks) and monitored until the nestlings fledge or the nest fails. If
requested by the City or other entity, the qualified biologist may evaluate site conditions and
determine that nest-specific buffers which vary from the avoidance/exclusion zone above are
warranted based on topography, vegetation, type and duration of activity, and other factors. The
Wildlife Agencies, in coordination with the City and qualified biologist, will be notified of the
status of all raptor surveying and monitoring, including if less than 500-foot avoidance/exclusion
zone or buffer/barrier zone is proposed for the raptor species and what additional
measures/monitoring are necessary. No take of Fully Protected Species is allowed under this Plan
(see Section 1.2.2).
17. All project landscaping, erosion control and re-vegetation efforts within the Preserve shall use
locally collected native vegetation/landscaping to the extent practicable and avoid those species
listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section
5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). All project landscaping, erosion control and re-vegetation
efforts on vacant land abutting the Preserve are permitted to use non-native plants but shall be
prohibited from using those species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC)
Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section 5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan). This requirement shall be
incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed
with work.
18. Any proposed new or re-located trail within or abutting the Preserve shall comply with the
requirements of the approved PUMP and this Plan. The design criteria and guidelines in Section
9.2.1.1 of this Plan shall be used by the City and its Preserve Habitat Manager in implementing the
PUMP, including the Preserve Trail Plan component. These guidelines place an emphasis on
avoiding or minimizing impacts to CSS habitat and Covered Species, including: 1) providing a
25-foot setback to coastal bluffs; 2) using existing access roads wherever practical; 3) any new
trails, shall be located in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge effects (e.g., maximum
of 4 foot-wide in core areas); 4) seasonally rotating or limiting use to minimize degradation; and
5) providing a 30-foot upland buffer along major drainages.
19. For Covered Projects/Activities within the Preserve, the impact area (see Table 5-1, Total Loss of
Habitat by Covered City Projects and Activities) shall be located on the least sensitive portions of
the site as determined by existing site-specific biological and supporting information, and guided
by the following (in order of increasing sensitivity):
a) Areas devoid of vegetation, including developed areas, previously graded areas, disturbed and
ruderal areas, and active agricultural fields;
b) Areas of non-native vegetation, disturbed habitats, manufactured slopes, landscaped areas and
eucalyptus/exotic woodlands (provided impacts to nesting birds are avoided);
D-153
c) Areas of grasslands (excluding native grassland);
d) Areas containing coastal scrub and saltbush scrub communities and all wetlands, including
riparian scrub;
e) Areas containing southern cactus scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, cliff face, rock shore and
native grassland communities;
f) Occupied habitat for Covered Species and hostplants for the Covered butterfly Species; current
surveys will be conducted throughout potential Covered Species habitat prior to any Covered
Projects or Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization
measures; and,
g) Areas necessary to maintain the viability of wildlife corridors.
5.6 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Covered Species
The City will ensure implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures as enforceable
conditions in all permits, operations, and authorizations to proceed with the Covered Projects and Activities
listed in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 of this Plan. Species-specific conservation measures for covered species
are described in detail in Appendix B and summarized here. These measures are required to maintain permit
coverage for each species.
5.6.1 Aphanisma
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations (PVPLC 2013), and
the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities as part of
routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants
adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and seeding for aphanisma will be included in the
PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential aphanisma habitat prior to approving Covered
Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and minimization measures. If an existing
population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve
Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be
approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of aphanisma within the population.
Habitat restoration will include use of seed collected from the project site or from previously collected seed.
Impacts to newly discovered or established populations throughout the Plan Area will be offset with
equivalent habitat restoration. No more than two populations will be impacted unless additional populations
are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife
Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the species in the Preserve is
stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize
encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.2 South Coast Saltscale
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the existing fixed locations (PVPLC 2013), and
the Preserve Manager will evaluate potential habitat restoration or enhancement opportunities as part of
D-154
routine habitat management. Habitat restoration, including clearing of ice plant or other exotic plants
adjacent to populations, unauthorized trail closures, and seeding for south coast saltscale will be included
in the PHMP.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout potential south coast saltscale habitat prior to approving
Covered Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and to determine avoidance and minimization measures.
If an existing population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage
the Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration
plan, to be approved by the City and Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of south coast saltscale
within the population. Habitat restoration will include use of seed collected from the project site or from
previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations throughout the Plan Area
will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population will be impacted unless
additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City,
PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the
species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled
to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.3 Catalina Crossosoma
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve by the Preserve manager to monitor
trends in population dynamics. Potential for habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species will be
evaluated during routine habitat management. There are no Covered Projects/Activities with the potential
to impact existing populations. If the large population in the Forrestal Reserve expands into an existing
trail, routine trail maintenance as contemplated in the PUMP may require trimming or selective removal of
some Catalina crossosoma individuals, only to the extent that it will maintain the existing width of an
existing trail; impacts from the widening of an existing trail or a new trail would be subject to the conditions
below.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in potential Catalina crossosoma habitat prior to any Covered
Projects/Activities to assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization measures. If an existing
population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the Preserve
Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be
approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of Catalina crossosoma within
the population. Habitat restoration will include transplantation or use of seedlings propagated from
previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations throughout the Plan Area
will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population will be impacted unless
additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City,
PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the
species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted, and patrolled
to prevent/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
D-155
5.6.4 Island Green Dudleya
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within established locations to monitor trends in
population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species will be evaluated
during routine habitat management.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential island green dudleya habitat prior to any Covered
Project or Activity to assess occupancy, and to determine avoidance and minimization measures. If this
species is detected during surveys, impacts to this plant are expected to be avoided. Where avoidance of
island green dudleya is not feasible, the project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and work with
the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the City and
Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure the impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more
than 0.25 acre of occupied dudleya habitat will be impacted and no more than one impact per Reserve,
unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact, and the City,
PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the status of the
species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. The PVPLC has a successful propagation
program for this species at the PVPLC nursery, and this program will continue as part of the NCCP/HCP.
This species can be successfully planted in suitable habitat. Trails will be maintained, posted, and patrolled
to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.5 Santa Catalina Island Desert-Thorn
Surveys will continue to be conducted every 3 years within established locations to monitor trends in
population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species will be evaluated
during routine habitat management.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted within potential Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn habitat prior to
any Covered Project or Activity to assess occupancy, and to determine avoidance and minimization
measures. If this species is detected during surveys, impacts to this plant are expected to be avoided. If an
existing population will be impacted by Covered Projects/Activities, the project applicant will engage the
Preserve Manager and work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan,
to be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies that will ensure no net loss of Santa Catalina Island
desert-thorn within the population. Habitat restoration will include transplantation or use of seedlings
propagated from previously collected seed. Impacts to newly discovered or established populations
throughout the Plan Area will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more than one population
will be impacted, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the
impact, and the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that
the status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. The PVPLC has a successful
propagation program for this species at the PVPLC nursery, and this program will continue as part of the
NCCP/HCP. This species can be successfully planted in suitable habitat. Trails will be maintained, posted,
and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
D-156
5.6.6 Wooly Seablite
Surveys will continue to be conducted at fixed locations every 3 years within the Preserve by the Preserve
Manager to monitor trends in population dynamics, and potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit
this species will be evaluated during routine habitat management activities. Pre-project surveys will be
conducted within potential woolly seablite habitat for any Covered Project to assess occupancy and
determine avoidance and minimization measures. For Covered Projects/Activities, this species will be
avoided from areas to be impacted, if feasible. The project applicant will engage the Preserve Manager and
work with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare and implement a habitat restoration plan, to be approved by the
Wildlife Agencies, that will ensure the impacts will be offset with equivalent habitat restoration. No more
than 0.25 acre of occupied woolly seablite habitat will be impacted, and no more than one impact per
Reserve, unless additional populations are located or successfully established in advance of the impact,
and/or the City, PVPLC and Wildlife Agencies, through annual coordination meetings, document that the
status of the species in the Preserve is stable and adequately conserved. Trails will be maintained, posted
and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.7 El Segundo Blue Butterfly
Surveys will be conducted by the Preserve Manager every 3 years within the existing populations (Figure
2) to monitor trends in population dynamics. The Preserve Manager shall evaluate potential opportunities
to expand this species’ habitat. The host plant for this species will be included in the seed mix for restoration
(active planting) within the Preserve in suitable areas, particularly in areas similar to the existing known
ESB locations.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted throughout the project area in potential ESB habitat, defined by
presence of coast buckwheat, prior to any Covered Activity to assess occupancy and determine avoidance
and minimization measures. Occupied ESB habitat will be defined by the extent of host plants in an area
known to be occupied by ESB (i.e., any coast buckwheat within 50 feet of a shrub where ESB were
observed), and impacts to occupied habitat will be avoided if possible. Where ESB is detected and impacts
are unavoidable, the Wildlife Agencies will be provided the opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice)
to relocate any and all larvae, pupae, or adults. Survey data will be used to assess the distribution of ESB
within the host plant patch, and the City will work with the Wildlife Agencies to minimize impacts to ESB.
No more than 5% of any existing ESB occurrence polygon will be impacted. Impacts to newly discovered
or established occupied habitat patches will not exceed 10% of their distribution at the time of impact based
on a habitat evaluation conducted within 1 year of the anticipated impact. For any impact to occupied
habitat, host plants will be established onsite to offset the number of host plants lost during the project.
Trails will be maintained, posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat.
5.6.8 Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly
The PVPLC shall regularly evaluate potential opportunities to expand this subspecies’ habitat. The host
plant for this species will be included in the seed mix for restoration (active planting) within the Preserve
in suitable areas within coastal sage scrub and grassland habitat, particularly in historic areas. Pre-project
D-157
host plant surveys will be conducted in potential PVB habitat prior to any Covered Project/Activities to
assess occupancy and determine avoidance and minimization measures. If host plants are identified, a 5-
foot buffer around host plants will be avoided if feasible. If avoidance of host plants is not feasible, focused
PVB surveys will be conducted. If PVB is discovered during surveys, the Wildlife Agencies will be
provided the opportunity (with sufficient advanced notice) to relocate any and all larvae, pupae, or adults.
Occupied PVB host plants will be avoided when possible. Occupied habitat will be defined as host plants,
including a 5-foot buffer, within a 50-foot buffer around any PVB observation. Trails will be maintained,
posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied habitat. Because PVB host plants
readily establish in disturbed areas, they may become established in trails and dirt roads throughout the Plan
Area. Routine trail and road maintenance may impact host plants and potentially PVB individuals, and there
will be no additional restrictions placed on trail or road maintenance based on presence of PVB.
5.6.9 Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Surveys will be conducted every 3 years within the Preserve to monitor trends in population dynamics and
to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions to benefit this species. The Preserve Manager shall regularly
evaluate potential opportunities to expand and enhance gnatcatcher habitat, and the Plan will provide a net
increase in gnatcatcher habitat within the Preserve. Implementation of species-specific management actions
as part of the PHMP (e.g., invasive species removal) will also occur under the Plan.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential gnatcatcher habitat. Construction for
Covered Projects and Activities that may impact gnatcatchers will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding
season (February 15-August 31). If, due to an urgent or emergency public health or safety concern
determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must occur from February 15-August 31
within and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-project surveys will be conducted to
determine nesting activity. Survey results will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review. If nesting
activity is detected, then all construction activity must occur outside of a 300-foot buffer surrounding each
nest. Reductions in the nest buffer may be possible depending on site-specific factors (e.g., topography,
screening vegetation, ambient noise levels, etc.), in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Construction
noise levels should not exceed 60 dBA Leq within the 300-foot buffer zone unless authorized by the
Wildlife Agencies. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the
nest fails. Status of the nest will be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. If grubbing or other
construction related activities associated with Miscellaneous Drain Repair, Palos Verdes Drive South Road
Repair, or Alta Vicente Reserve (Upper Point Vicente) must occur from February 15-August 31 within
and/or adjacent to gnatcatcher habitat, gnatcatcher pre-project surveys will be conducted to determine
nesting activity. If nesting activity is detected, all construction activity must occur outside of a 50-foot
buffer surrounding each nest. Construction noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the 50-foot
buffer zone. The buffer zones and noise limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge or the nest
fails. Status of the nest will be monitored by a qualified biologist. A report will be submitted to Wildlife
Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the noise limits and nest buffers. Trails will be maintained,
posted, and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into suitable habitat.
D-158
5.6.10 Cactus Wren
Surveys will be conducted every 3 years by the Preserve Manager within the Preserve to monitor trends in
population dynamics and to evaluate potential habitat restoration actions that may benefit this species. The
Preserve Manager shall evaluate potential opportunities to expand and enhance cactus wren habitat, and the
expectation is that the Plan will increase cactus wren habitat within the Preserve. Implementation of species-
specific management actions as part of the PHMP (e.g., invasive species removal, cactus planting) will also
occur under the Plan, which will protect and enhance existing habitat.
Pre-project surveys will be conducted in areas that contain potential habitat for the cactus wren.
Construction or constructions related activities for Covered Projects and Activities that may impact cactus
wrens will be scheduled to avoid the bird breeding season (February 15-August 31) and to avoid or
minimize direct impacts to mature cactus (i.e., greater than 1 foot in height), and preferentially avoid the
most mature cactus in a particular stand). If, due to an urgent or emergency public health or safety concern
determined by the City and Wildlife Agencies, these activities must occur from February 15-August 31 and
within 100 feet of any coastal sage scrub and cactus wren pre-project surveys will be conducted to determine
nesting activity. Pre-project surveys will consist of 3 survey days over a one-week period, including one
survey within 3 days of construction. Survey results will be submitted to the City, PVPLC, and Wildlife
Agencies. If nesting activity is detected, then all construction activity must occur outside of a 100-foot
avoidance buffer/barrier zone to attenuate noise surrounding each nest. No birds shall be disturbed or taken.
Construction noise levels should not exceed 65 dBA Leq within the buffer zone. The buffer zones and noise
limits will be implemented until the nestlings fledge. The status of the nest will be monitored, and a report
with recommendations will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review prior to discontinuing the
noise limits and nest buffers.
Other measures in the Plan to conserve populations of cactus wren include the following:
• Trails will be posted and patrolled to avoid/minimize encroachment into occupied cactus wren
habitat;
• Locate new public access points and operational/maintenance activities to minimize/avoid areas
occupied by cactus wren and where large stands of mature cactus (at least 1-3 feet tall) exist within
the Preserve; and,
• Impacts to cacti and other succulents within any required fuel clearing areas shall be minimized to
maintain habitat for the coastal cactus wren and other species. Taller (1-3 feet) cactus that cannot
be avoided should be salvaged where feasible and transplanted to suitable areas within the Preserve.
D-159
5.7 Restrictions and Requirements for Projects/Activities Abutting
and Adjacent to the Preserve
5.7.1 Abutting Development Project Review
In reviewing a proposed new development project that will impact potential Covered Species habitat
abutting the Preserve, avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources and retention of native
habitats will be addressed as part of plan design review. The site design review process will consider the
locations of access and staging areas, fire and fuel modification zones, predator and exotic species control,
fencing, signage, lighting, increased stormwater and urban runoff, increased erosion, increased noise levels,
and public access to habitats supporting Covered Species in developing measures to avoid or minimize
impacts to biological resources. Avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or eliminate impacts to
biological resources will be incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City permits, operations, and
authorizations to proceed with work.
5.7.2 Fencing and Lighting
The following practices shall apply to new development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve:
Fencing, Barriers, and Edge Treatment
1. Fencing, barriers, or functional edge treatment will be required for all new projects developed on
existing vacant lots abutting the Preserve and shall be designed to prevent intrusion of domestic
animals into the Preserve. This requirement may be waived with written approval from the Wildlife
Agencies.
2. Prohibiting the use of gates, openings, or other entry means in project fencing, barriers and edge
treatment that would allow direct human access to the Preserve, which would degrade the natural
habitat. This requirement may be waived with written approval from the Wildlife Agencies.
Lighting
1. All light sources abutting the Preserve shall be designed and constructed to be oriented downward
and away from habitat areas and shielded, if necessary, to ensure there are no impacts to wildlife
and native vegetation.
2. Lighting in new developments on vacant lots abutting the Preserve shall be avoided and/or
minimized as appropriate through appropriate placement and shielding of light sources in
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for exterior lighting.
5.7.3 Equestrian Use
Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are parasitic, nonnative species in California that contribute to
the decline of many native bird species. This transient bird species originally followed bison herds and has
adapted to follow domestic European livestock. As a result, any new corral or equestrian facility within the
City that requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Large Domestic Animal Permit by the City and
D-160
is located within 500 feet of the Preserve must have a qualified biologist monitor for cowbirds for three years,
and every third year thereafter, to determine their presence. If cowbirds are present, a cowbird trapping program
and/or other effective measures will be funded and implemented by the applicant.
5.7.4 Landscaping
Landscaping can create conflicts with biological objectives of the Preserve by increasing the potential for
introduction of non-native and invasive plant species in natural areas. These non-native species can displace
native species in natural communities. Horticultural regimes can alter site conditions in the Preserve
adjacent to landscaping by increased runoff, fertilization, pesticides, and other factors, all of which promote
a shift from native to non-native flora. Additionally, the use of native cultivars not collected on site or in
the proximity of the site can create genetic contamination through hybridization. Therefore, the following
practices shall apply to all activities within the Preserve, including new development projects on vacant lots
abutting the Preserve, and shall be incorporated as enforceable conditions in all City permits, operations,
and authorizations to proceed with work.
1. Landscaping shall avoid those species listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC)
Invasive Plant Inventory (see Section 5.6.4 and Appendix D of the Plan).
2. Irrigation shall be designed and maintained to avoid overspray or runoff into the Preserve.
5.7.5 Stormwater and Urban Runoff
New development projects on vacant lots abutting the Preserve approved by the City will include mitigation
measures or other conditions, as appropriate, to reduce the likelihood that a flood would adversely impact
Covered Species and the conserved habitat. As a co-permittee of the RWQCB National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, the City is required to adopt a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP). The large majority of new development projects and significant redevelopment projects
must meet SUSMP requirements to reduce pollution and runoff flows. The City’s SUSMP includes a list
of recommended source control and structural treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs). Additionally,
City land use policies ensure that land use regulations and public improvements accommodate flood events
that approximate the rate, magnitude, and duration of natural flood flows.
D-161
Deborah Cullen
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Wednesday, January 03, 2018 5:55 PM
Deborah Cullen; David Pearce; Elias Sassoon; Irving Anaya; Ara Mihranian
traildoctor@cox.net
Re: Re: 2017 DRAFT Portuguese Bend Feasibility Study. Trails CRITERIA
The PositionPaper 07-04-12.pdf
Hello Dave, Elias, Irving, Ara and Debra,
Welcome back. Here's to a very sensible and productive 2018.
The ultimate objectives of "sustainable development" and being "safe" are unachievable. The
compromises that are made along the way are very important. Attached is the whole Position
Statement which The Western States Trail Foundation produced to introduce their TRAIL
DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. Page 2 is the stand-alone document
which the RPV City Council approved on November 7, 2012.
Page 1 describes why the criteria is needed in order to preserve/enhance trails in an environmentally
sensitive environment. WSTF makes the point that a sustainable trails network needs to be
engineered in conjunction with the water flow/capture engineering criteria provided in the Portuguese
Bend landslide RFP.
The Portuguese Bend Reserve Trails Plan is a hodge-podge of pre-existing utility access roads,
farming access roads and "social" trails. The Public Use Master Plan (PUMP) Committee as
managed by PVPLC was not permitted to make a trails network plan from "whole cloth". As a result,
more than 50 percent of the trails which existed when the property was purchased have been
eliminated. And, that is not represented in the CTP portion of the RPV Trails Network Plan.
Now is the time to negotiate which trails should ultimately become reality to which CRITERIA. I will
be happy to help. . .. S 31 0-377-8761
In a message dated 12/31/2017 11:57:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, DCullen@rpvca.gov writes:
Hello Sunshine,
Feel free to send your comments to me.
Deborah Cullen
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 29,2017, at 4:14PM, SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Cullen,
Happy New Year. Apparently you are the one who has been assigned the task
of making sense of the exercise called the Draft Portuguese Bend Feasibility
1 D-162
Study. While I totally support the City's interest in managing the PB Landflow,
as an active landslide resident for 40 years and an objector of the goal of
"sustainable development", I have to ask ... To whom should I send my input
about typo's, graphic inaccuracies, redundancies, historical inaccuracies,
missing community input and other relevant data?
Preparing a grant application is an expensive endeavor. You have access to the
bookkeeping/accounting for all of the City's previous grant opportunity inspired
projects. I would like to see this one turn out as a legitimate benefit to the
community.
Keeping with the advice of asking Staff only one question per email , I
repeat... To whom should I send my input?
SUNSHINE 310-377 -8761
In a message dated 12/22/2 017 2 :47:34 PM Pacific Standard Time ,
listserv@civicplus.com write s :
V iew th is in your browser
Click the following link to view the 2017 DRAFT Portuguese Bend Feasibil ity
Study.
If you have any questions plea se contact De borah Cullen , Director of Financ e at
3 10 54 4-5278 <Embedded 1514564038502. png> or Dcu llen@rpvca .go v.
*************************************************
T his message is bee n se nt by the C ity of Rancho Palos Verdes as pa rt of a "Notify
Me" Li stse rv e category you are s ig ned up for. Please do not press "re ply" whe n
respo ndi ng to t hi s message, it is a n unm onito red ema il ad dress. Yo u ca n make
cha nges to your subs c ription by visit ing http ://www.rpv ca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this mes sage because you are subscribed to Breaking News
on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe , click the following link:
Unsubscribe
2 D-163
WSTF _July 4, 2012 Page 1 of 3
Wlllll• ftABI ftWL rG1JIDAftDll
150 A Gum Lane • Auburn, California 95603 • (530) 823·7282 • FAX (530) 823·7901
•r::-:-:-:::----::---:-=-"':"':':'".., E-Mail: wstf@foothill.net • http://www.foothill.net/tev1s
Sf()llf()Q f()ll Till P~MOU$ TIVIS C:UP lot MlLU 0"1 I>IIY ~ll>t 0!1 fill KIITOlliC SCIIIIC WIJT&IIII STAnt POlll IXPI\lU IIAnONO\~ UCUIIliON TIIO\IL
Position Statement
July4, 2012
Direct questions to the above or
Bill Pieper cell (530) 570-4401
wfpader@wildblue.net
There are three "E"'s in the "tread lightly" truism for developing sustainable trails
through "to be improved" private property, rights of way (ROW) and nature
preserves. Of particular importance is the order in which the "E"'s are introduced.
Historically, the conversion of "social" trails into well maintained "public" trails has
been poorly implemented. This need not be so. In the long run, it is less expensive
to do it right at the onset of an opportunity.
First is Engineering. The first step in any design is an agreement of the objectives.
Start points (Point A) and destinations (Point B) must be established. The long term
criteria for the trail corridor must be established to be uniform between each Point A
and B. It is not feasible, nor appropriate, that every trail be ADA compliant.
Second is Education. Like Driver Education, every new trail user needs to be
taught trail use etiquette. It is a matter of safety. Simple things like those going
down hill should yield to those coming up appear to have been forgotten.
Third is Enforcement. Most of the time, "peer pressure" is effective and free. As
with paved roadways, trail user conflicts will occur whenever someone behaves
rudely, i.e. unsafely or not in the best interest of the community at large. Every legal
regulation effort to control human behavior such as banning a certain type of use,
will result in the expense of additional education (proliferation of signage), some sort
of penalty on the offender and the expense of expediting the punishment.
Given the rather universally agreed upon opinion that off-road circulation is a
desired public amenity, every agency should start with funding the Engineering up
front. It is even more cost effective when the engineering is designed in conjunction
with some other "public work".
Following is a suggestion of a trail development/maintenance criteria which if
universally adopted by everybody from the Secretary of Agriculture (National Forest
Service} and the Secretary of the Interior (Na.tional Parks Service) on down, would
save us all a lot of grief and money in the effort to have public access to trails.
When you can state exactly what you want, you have a chance of getting it.
Share it, adopt it by resolution or policy, use it, make it your "matrix" for the future.
D-164
WSTF July 4, 2012 Page 2 of 3
Thia Ia 1 concise model from which trail management authorities can choose and
assign to a master plan application, a minimal, ultimate objective and avoid repeated
environmental impact studies, reports etc. prior to when funding becomes available
for actual Engineering, improvement or repair of a trail.
TRAib DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA* of July 4, 2012
"TYPE" is numbered from easiest to most challenging.
TYPE GRADE PRISM•• TREAD•••
Average Maximum Distance+ Vertical Horizontal Minimum Width
1 3% 5% 30' 12' 8' 5'
2 5% 10% 100' 15' 12' 8'
3 5% 15% 100' 15' 10' 8'
4 10% 15%++ 100' 12' 8' 6'
5 10% 18%++ 100' 12' 6' 4'
6 10% 20%++ 100' 12' 5' 3'
7 15% 20%++ 100' 12' 4' 2'
These "guidelines" are based on the auumptlon that all "unpaved pathways"
are "multi-use trails" unless posted otherwise. The "TYPE" is assigned to
promote the creation of pathways and the ongoing accommodation of various trail
use needs from one destination to another.+++ For instance:
TYPE 1 -Wheelchairs. {ADA compliant.)
TYPE 2-Large emergency vehicles. {Fire Department compliant.)
TYPE 3 -Circulation by a large volume of various users and small
emergency vehicles. (Reduce user conflicts.)
TYPE 4 -Recreation by a large volume of various users.
TYPE 5 -Recreation by a lesser volume of various users.
TYPE 6 -Challenging or isolated recreation by a sparse volume.
TYPE 7-Habitat access recreation by a sparse volume.
Note: Unimproved roadsides and all roadsides in residential Equestrian Zones
should be maintained with at least a TYPE 6 "Prism". Any t)ardscape (such as a
driveway) that crosses a trail tread should have an anti-skid surface. Vertical
obstructions (such as. curbs and water bars) should be no more than six inches high.
Access to ADA compliant alternate routes should be provided.
* A criterion is a standard upon which a judgment or decision may be based.
** A trail "prism" is the area to be kept clear around the trail tread. Nothing
higher than six (6) inches should obstruct the prism for more than two (2) linear
feet along the trail. The trail tread need not be centered in the prism particularly
for "line of sighr, big old tree, and/or "safety triangle" considerations.
*** The trail tread is to be unobstructed and essentially level from side to side with
water drainage considerations.
+ There should be a level distance of at least eight (8) feet or a level turnout
before and after any instance where the trail tread reaches the maximum
grade for the maximum distance.
++ Grade can be steeper for short distances but from destination to destination,
it must meet the average for the trail TYPE. (User expectation signage.)
+++ A "destination" is a trailhead, vista point and/or a place where the trail TYPE
can change without leaving someone stuck and having to backtrack,
unintentionally. Identify them with GPS waypoints.
D-165
WSTF July 4, 2012 3 of 3
Environmental Considerations
Frpm the high mountain divide at Watson's Monument to
Hodgson's Cabin is an area that the United States Congress has set
aside as wilderness and has desig-
nated it the Granite Chief Wilder·
ness Area.
This special area, established by
the California Wilderness Act of Sep-
tember 1984, is managed to offer soli-
tude in a pristine and natura! setting.
Protection of this ecologically sensi-
tive area is of prime importance to all
who participate in the annual WSTF
Tevis Cup Ride.
Permission to cross the Granite
Chief Wilderness Area is granted
through a permit from the U.S. For-
est Service. In return, they receive im-
portant usage datu upon which to
base management decisions regard-
ing use of the area.
This cooperative arrangement
between the Western States Trail
Foundation and the U. S. Forest Ser-
vice insures that the world-famous
~Tevis event will continue to qualify as an acceptable activity
"" in the Granite Chief Wilderness Area for future years.
Some general rules of conduct for riders and support crews
should be kept in mind at all times when using the Granite Chief
Wilderness Area. They include:
Leave no trace of your visit.
That is, do not leave behind any lit-
ter or refuse whatsoever. It is every
rider's responsibility to keep the trail
as clean as it was found. Disturb
nothing.
Stay on the trail. Let other rid-
ers pass at wide spots on the trail if
at all possible. In this way, you will
be minimizing your impact on the
fragile ecosystem of the area.
Be as quiet as possible. Noise
also destroys the serenity of the area
and should be kept to an absolute
minimum.
No smoking. Absolutely no·
fires are permitted in the Granite
Chief Wilderness Area.
We are prh'ileged to be the stew-
ards of this magnificent trail and its
heritage. By following these simple
guidelines, we can all do our part to preserve and honor this special
place on the Western States Trail for future generations. D-166
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Site Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Overview and Problem Statement ....................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Regulatory Background ....................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 Recent Community Involvement ......................................................................... 8
1.2 Project Area Definition ................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Purpose and Overview ................................................................................................. 11
1.4 Document Organization ............................................................................................... 12
2. Summary of Previous Work ................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Historical Documents, 1957-1997 ................................................................................ 14
2.2 1997 Ehlig and Yen Feasibility Study ........................................................................... 17
2.3 2000 Leighton Feasibility Study ................................................................................... 20
3. Physical Characteristics of the PBLC Vicinity ...................................................................... 22
3.1 Topography ................................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Watershed Hydrology .................................................................................................. 24
3.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................. 26
3.4 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Landslide Characterization ........................................................................................... 31
3.6 Hydrogeology............................................................................................................... 34
3.6.1 Groundwater Recharge ..................................................................................... 35
3.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence .................................................................................. 38
3.6.3 Water Wells ...................................................................................................... 40
3.7 Geotechnical Modeling ................................................................................................ 41
4. Feasibility Study .................................................................................................................. 45
4.1 ARARs ......................................................................................................................... 45
4.1.1 Definitions ......................................................................................................... 45
4.1.2 Identified ARARs ............................................................................................... 46
4.2 Remedial Action Objective ........................................................................................... 47
4.3 General Response Actions .......................................................................................... 48
4.3.1 Subsurface Dewatering ..................................................................................... 49
4.3.2 Stormwater Control ........................................................................................... 49
4.3.3 Enineered Slope Stabilization Measures ........................................................... 51
4.3.4 Eliminate Septic System Discharge ................................................................... 51
4.3.5 Coastal Erosion Control .................................................................................... 52
4.4 Identification and Screening of Technology Alternatives .............................................. 52
4.4.1 Stormwater Control Option 1 – Repair Existing Corrugated Piping System ....... 52
4.4.1.1 Description ..........................................................................................52
4.4.1.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................53
4.4.2 Stormwater Control Option 2 – Install Concrete Channels ................................ 53
D-167
4.4.2.1 Description ..........................................................................................53
4.4.2.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................53
4.4.3 Stormwater Control Option 3 – Install Liner and Channel System ..................... 54
4.4.3.1 Description ..........................................................................................54
4.4.3.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................54
4.4.4 Stormwater Control Option 4 – Seal Surface Fractures ..................................... 55
4.4.4.1 Description ..........................................................................................55
4.4.4.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................55
4.4.5 Subsurface Dewatering Option 1 – Groundwater Extraction Pits ....................... 55
4.4.5.1 Description ..........................................................................................55
4.4.5.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................56
4.4.6 Subsurface Dewatering Option 2 – Groundwater Extraction Wells .................... 56
4.4.6.1 Description ..........................................................................................56
4.4.6.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................56
4.4.7 Subsurface Dewatering Option 3 – Directional Subsurface Drains .................... 57
4.4.7.1 Description ..........................................................................................57
4.4.7.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................57
4.4.8 Engineering Slope Stabilization - Buttressing (Engineered Fill) ......................... 58
4.4.8.1 Description ..........................................................................................58
4.4.8.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................59
4.4.9 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures - Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Wall ................................................................................................................... 59
4.4.9.1 Description ..........................................................................................59
4.4.9.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................60
4.4.10 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures – Drilled Piers (Caissons) ............... 60
4.4.10.1 Description ..........................................................................................60
4.4.10.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................60
4.4.11 Centralized Sewer System ................................................................................ 61
4.4.11.1 Description ..........................................................................................61
4.4.11.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................61
4.4.12 Coastal Erosion Control (Breakwater) ............................................................... 62
4.4.12.1 Description ..........................................................................................62
4.4.12.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................62
4.4.13 Summary of Retained Technologies ................................................................. 62
4.5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Technologies ............................................................... 62
4.5.1 Concrete Channels ........................................................................................... 63
4.5.2 Liner and Channel System ................................................................................ 64
4.5.3 Seal Surface Fractures ..................................................................................... 65
4.5.4 Groundwater Extraction Wells ........................................................................... 66
4.5.5 Directional Subsurface Drains ........................................................................... 67
4.5.6 Centralized Sewer System ................................................................................ 69
4.6 Preferred Options ........................................................................................................ 70
4.6.1 Description and Conceptual Design .................................................................. 70
D-168
4.6.1.1 Seal Surface Fractures........................................................................71
4.6.1.2 Directional Subsurface Drains .............................................................71
4.6.1.3 Liner and Channel System ..................................................................72
4.6.1.4 Groundwater Extraction Wells .............................................................73
4.6.1.5 Centralized Sewer System ..................................................................74
4.6.2 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................... 74
4.6.3 Pilot Testing ...................................................................................................... 75
4.6.4 Approximate Implementation Costs ................................................................... 75
4.6.4.1 Seal Surface Fractures........................................................................76
4.6.4.2 Directional Subsurface Drains .............................................................76
4.6.4.3 Liner and Channel System ..................................................................76
4.6.4.4 Groundwater Extraction and Monitoring Wells .....................................76
4.6.4.5 Centralized Sewer System ..................................................................77
4.6.4.6 Total Estimated Project Cost ...............................................................77
References ............................................................................................................................... 78
List of Figures
Figure
1 Regional Site Location
2 Aerial Photograph with Geographic Features
3 Landslide Subareas
4 Measured Horizontal Movement, 2013-2014
5 Watersheds
6 Topography
7 Major Utilities
8 Regional Geology
9 Stratigraphic Column, Monterey Formation
10 Onshore/Offshore Faults and Folds
D-169
11 Existing Dewatering Wells
12 Slope Stability Model
13 Modeled Increase in Factor of Safety with Decline in Groundwater Elevation
14 Conceptual Horizontal Drains, Extraction Wells, and Monitoring Wells
List of Tables
Table
1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
2 Screening Evaluation of Remedial Technologies
3 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
4 Approximate Order-of-Magnitude Costs for Preferred Alternatives
List of Appendices
Appendix
A USGS Landslide Types and Processes
B Custom Soil Resource Report for Los Angeles County, California, Southeastern
Part, Portuguese Bend
C Geotechnical Modeling Figures
D Conceptual Liner and Channel Specifications
D-170
Executive Summary
Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. has prepared this feasibility study (FS) update to address
remediation of ongoing land movement in the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex (PBLC)
using the results of past environmental, engineering, and hydrogeologic work completed to
address regional slope failure on the greater Palos Verdes Peninsula. This FS is an update to
efforts completed primarily in 1997 and 2000 that characterized the hydrogeologic and
geotechnical conditions driving landslide activity and proposed a variety of various approaches
and technologies to abate slope failure in the PBLC.
Earlier remedies focused, in part, on the removal of subsurface water (groundwater) and the
elimination of continued stormwater loading to groundwater in key areas. Some proposed
recommendations were implemented after the 1997 FS was drafted, including installation of
dewatering wells, mass regrading, and surface water infiltration control with an above-grade
piping system. However, land movement was largely unabated, and slope failure continues
today at rates of up to approximately 8 feet per year. Slope failure is continually managed by a
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City) maintenance program, with significant cost and effort to
maintain area utilities and the nearby roadway in a functional state. Additional measures,
including a major excavation for a buttress extending nearly half a mile along the coast, were
proposed in 2000, but were not implemented.
This FS focuses on implementing cost-effective technologies as options for the City to consider
regarding storm water control and groundwater extraction to achieve manageable and
sustainable land stability. Other geotechnical engineering solutions, such as buttresses, were
also considered with other options, but were screened out due largely to poor overall
implementability.
The FS remedies focus on the southern PBLC area mainly within the control of the City that is
subject to a relatively high level of land movement, where the surface water drainage currently
is not functioning properly, and where groundwater extraction is most needed. An engineering
analysis and evaluation of the existing stormwater drainage system of this area should be
completed to assist in the design and construction of an updated system to convey runoff to the
D-171
ocean and eliminate ponding areas which have been created over the years due to land
settlement. At the same time, efforts need to be made for design and installation of
groundwater extraction drains (horizontal drains or hydraugers). Hydrauger design and
installation can be tested and modified based on results obtained. These horizontal drains could
be installed, for example, into the coastal bluff and extend north under PVDS, and directly drain
into the ocean.
Further, it is recommended to perform an engineering analysis of the watershed including the
northern canyon areas (upper Portuguese, Ishibashi, and Paintbrush Canyons) to identify
where, how and to what extent stormwater infiltrates into groundwater in the PBLC.
Subsequently, efforts could be made for design and installation of an environmentally friendly
flexible liner system in the watershed canyons where the stormwater significantly infiltrates to
groundwater in the PBLC in an attempt to minimize this infiltration and allow the stormwater to
be discharged to the ocean in a controlled manner.
Further, it is recommended to identify existing surface fractures throughout the PBLC area and
install land surface fracture sealing with environmentally friendly material to minimize direct
uncontrolled stormwater infiltration which currently percolates into groundwater. These sealed
surface fractures in the PBLC should be checked and maintained annually prior to the rainy
season.
Sanitary sewer septic system effluent in the upslope areas has long been recognized as a
source of groundwater recharge in the PBLC area that needs to be eliminated. In addition to
the above options, it is recommended that the City consider working with its neighboring city,
Rolling Hills, to construct a centralized sanitary sewer system and a storm water drainage
system for the residential neighborhood at the top of the watershed above the Portuguese,
Ishibashi, and Paintbrush Canyon areas, as well as within the City’s Portuguese Bend
neighborhood.
Importantly, the remedy options identified can be implemented in accordance with the City’s
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). Several
D-172
stormwater control and groundwater extraction remedy elements, as envisioned, can be
designed to be largely integrated into the native habitat.
Estimated order-of-magnitude costs for implementation of the recommended remedies total
approximately $31.3 million, with additional operating, maintenance, and monitoring costs
totaling $22 million approximately over 30 years. Additional hydrogeologic and geotechnical
data will be collected as an integral step leading to final design and implementation. In addition,
remedy construction is proposed to be completed incrementally and iteratively starting with a
pilot test program for directional subsurface drains. Drain pilot testing costs (included in above
estimates) are estimated to total approximately $350,000 over about 12 to 18 months.
Stakeholder participation has been identified as a key pathway to project success and
community acceptance. It is recommended that public workshops be scheduled at various
stages of project implementation which could include the design phase, pre-construction, any
pilot testing implementation and post construction phases of the project.
D-173
1. Introduction
This report has been prepared by Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. (DBS&A) to present
the methods, results, and conclusions of the Portuguese Bend Landslide Complex (PBLC)
feasibility study (FS) update. This FS update has been completed to summarize the physical
characteristics of the PBLC and vicinity, and to systematically compile historical PBLC
investigation work, related vicinity geologic and hydrologic studies, previous efforts toward
achieving land movement stabilization, and regulatory drivers that will impact implementation of
PBLC stabilization measures. The currently available information has been presented and
analyzed in this FS update in order to identify techniques and technologies that can be
implemented to stabilize the PBLC. PBLC stabilization will be considered achieved when a
significant reduction in land displacement is recorded, as measured by the land survey
monitoring system currently in place or a successor land survey methodology.
The format of this FS broadly follows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) FS
format (U.S. EPA, 1988) developed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). That is, this document is a CERCLA-analogue FS.
The time-tested CERCLA FS approach is a systematic, methodical, and thorough concept-level
process widely accepted in the engineering industry to develop, analyze, and select cost
effective mitigation alternatives that can be accepted by federal, state, and local regulators and
community stakeholders.
This introductory section presents site background information, regulatory history, the purpose
and objectives of the FS, and a summary of community involvement opportunities.
1.1 Site Background
1.1.1 Overview and Problem Statement
The PBLC is located along the south central section of the Palos Verdes Peninsula within the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles County, California. The terminus of the active
landslide complex, and generally the southwest boundary of the PBLC, is the Pacific Ocean. In
D-174
this location, the shoreline runs in a generally northwest to southeast direction along the coastal
coves known as Portuguese Bend on the east and Smuggler’s Cove (Sacred Cove) and
Abalone Cove on the west (Figure 1). Two other prominent features on the coastline at the
terminus of the PBLC are Inspiration Point and the more westerly Portuguese Point. The
eastern border of the PBLC is formed by an approximate line that runs northward from western
Yacht Harbor Drive to the confluence of Ishibashi and Paintbrush Canyons. The northern
boundary of PBLC is a small distance south and subparallel to Burma Road, a trail that was
established along the path of the former proposed Crenshaw Boulevard extension.
Construction for the Crenshaw Boulevard extension was begun in the 1950s but was never
completed. The western boundary of PBLC is an approximate north-south line located a small
distance west of Peppertree Drive in a residential neighborhood. The western boundary
terminates south of Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) and west of Portuguese Point.
Ehlig (1992) describes PBLC as being divided into two parts. The main part is described as
moving towards Portuguese Bend (Figure 2). The western segment is described as moving into
Sacred Cove between Inspiration Point and Portuguese Point. The main landslide has an area
of about 190 acres and the western segment has an area of about 70 acres. Later, as reported
by Douglas (2013), the PBLC was further divided into several subslides: (1) inland, (2) eastern,
(3) central, (4) seaward, and (5) western subslides (Figure 3).
Douglas (2013) reports that the PBLC (along with the Abalone Cove landslide to the west of
PBLC) is a reactivated part of an approximate 2-square mile ancient landslide mass termed the
Altamira Landslide Complex on the overall south flank of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Douglas
(2013) states that the landslide mass is a composite of numerous slides ranging from small
slumps to large translational block slides that have occurred over the last approximately
800,000 years. Contrary to this view, Ehlig (1992) states that the slide originated about
120,000 years before present and was a megaslide that started moving as a unit but
fragmented as movement progressed. A guide to landslide terminology, such as earthflow or
landslide complex, is included as Appendix A for reference.
Regardless of the original movement of the larger landslide mass, in 1955, reactivation of the
PBLC was initiated when Los Angeles County was constructing an extension to Crenshaw
D-175
Boulevard with the goal of extending the road down the south side of the Palos Verdes Hills to
an intersection with PVDS. A relatively small landslide was triggered in 1956 during the road
construction, and approximately 160,000 cubic yards of material was removed and placed at the
head of the PBLC. MacKintosh and MacKintosh (1957) concluded that the sliding area had a
very low factor of safety (FOS) prior to movement in 1955, and that the immediate cause of
movement in 1956 and 1957 was the placement of approximately 3 million cubic feet of fill upon
which to build the Crenshaw Boulevard extension. Consistent with antecedent instability noted
by MacKintosh and MacKintosh (1957), Douglas (2013) reported that evidence of movement in
historical aerial photographs had been discovered as early as 1948, and slide damage to the
Portuguese Bend Club pier had been noticed as early as 1946. MacKintosh and MacKintosh
(1957) observed that the most rapidly moving portion of the slide, on the eastern side of the
slide, traveled about 22 feet in the seven months between September 17, 1956 and April 26,
1957.
Douglas (2013) reported at the time of Crenshaw Road extension project that houses in the
area were using septic waste systems that recycled household water into the subsurface, and
that the neighborhoods did not have storm drains. Both of these factors had been contributing
to groundwater recharge in the PBLC area by the time the road construction began. Douglas
(2013) also stated that Converse Consultants concluded that increased pore water pressure
that resulted from elevated groundwater levels was a significant causal factor.
Since the reactivation in 1956, the slide has moved at various rates. In general, the area of
greatest movement has stayed the same and is focused in the eastern and seaward subslide
areas as reported by Douglas (2013) and described above. Figure 4 presents a map of the
horizontal displacement that occurred between October 8, 2013 and September 19, 2014.
Horizontal displacement of over 8.5 feet per year was measured within the eastern and seaward
subslides.
Continued land movement in the PBLC area over the last several decades has resulted in
significant infrastructure damage to homes, utilities, and roadways. The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes has expended nearly 50 million dollars over the years repairing and maintaining the
D-176
damage and addressing the overall technical and administrative issues associated with
managing such a complex problem.
1.1.2 Regulatory Background
Historically, the primary driving force for conducting projects to stabilize the PBLC has not been
of regulatory origin. Preservation of infrastructure, preservation of private property, preservation
of open lands, preservation of the natural vegetation and recreational attributes of the Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve (Preserve), reduction in soil erosion losses, restoring the water clarity
in Portuguese Bend Cove, reduction in the cost of operation and maintenance of infrastructure,
and health and safety concerns related to maintenance of the integrity of the key road system,
the sewer system, and other infrastructure have been the leading drivers that have motivated
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and citizens to strive to achieve stabilization of the PBLC. As
a result, there is little in the record that involves regulatory action with respect to the PBLC.
Nonetheless, the following is a summary of applicable regulatory based actions taken relative to
historical PBLC projects that may influence future work in the PBLC.
In September 1987, the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (RDA) proposed a
grading and drainage project as part of a series of projects designed to contribute to the
stabilization of the PBLC. The project was examined on a general basis in previous
environmental impact reports (EIRs) prepared by the RDA. This particular EIR provided an
analysis of environmental impacts associated with grading, drainage, and relocation of PVDS.
The final proposed project incorporated alterations that mitigated non-significant short-term
negative impacts.
The Community Development Commission for the County of Los Angeles also completed a
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment and the project was
found to be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and did not require an
environmental impact statement (EIS). A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was made
stating that the project would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment (City
of Rancho Palos Verdes, 1987).
D-177
In 1988, a general investigation study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was
authorized by Public Law 99-662, Section 712 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, to study the feasibility of constructing shoreline erosion mitigation measures in order to
provide additional stabilization for the PBLC and adjacent landslide areas (USACE, 1998). The
authorization read that the Army was “. . . authorized to study the feasibility of constructing
shoreline erosion mitigation measures along the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline and in the City
of Rolling Hills, California for the purpose of providing additional stabilization for the Portuguese
Bend landslide area and adjacent landslide areas.”
The study focus was on controlling sedimentation and turbidity in the nearshore and offshore
zones that result from erosion at the shoreline, which impacts the marine species and habitat of
the area. Additional fish and wildlife enhancement studies were authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990, Section 116 which read “. . . investigative measures to
conserve fish and wildlife (as specific in Section 704 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1986), including measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of intertidal marine habitat.” The
reconnaissance study was initiated in October 1988 and completed in 1990, with a
recommendation to proceed to a feasibility study based on a plan to help stabilize the landslide.
However, a decision by the Assistant Secretary of the Army stated in a letter dated October 28,
1991 that “Landslide stabilization is outside the purview of the Army Civil Works program.” The
reconnaissance report was revised in 1992 to reflect that decision, and no further study was
recommended.
In anticipation of another proposed Portuguese Bend Grading Project located within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Area, an initial study was prepared in September 1994 in
accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as
amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended (California
Code of Regulation Section 15000 et seq.). The project site was comprised of three vacant
non-contiguous areas located on the eastern portion of the PBLC.
This report of the initial study complied with the rules, regulations, and procedures for
implementation of CEQA adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the Local CEQA
D-178
Guidelines). The project grading activity, specifically cutting and filling within the PBLC,
proposed the removal of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of earth material from a cut area
approximately 6.25 acres in size located in the southeastern portion of the PBLC. The project
also proposed redistribution of the 50,000 cubic yards of earth material to two previously
graded/disturbed fill areas. The reported purpose of the proposed project was to reduce driving
forces in an active portion of the PBLC by moving earth from a driving force area to a neutral
area of driving force (EDAW, 1994).
In accordance with Section 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes was designated as the lead agency, defined as the public agency that has the
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The project was funded by the
RDA and implemented by the City working for the RDA. After implementation of the initial
study, it was concluded that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because of mitigation measures
that were added to the project. As a result, a mitigated negative declaration was prepared.
Mitigations required as a component of the approved project included the following:
• Control of construction-generated dust
• Cessation of vehicular traffic when the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour (mph)
• Appropriate NOx emission controls on construction vehicles
• Minimization of footprint for construction vehicle routes
• Identification of optimum construction vehicle routes to avoid areas of sensitive
vegetation
• Preparation and review of erosion control plans by the Director of Public Works and a
qualified biologist to protect sensitive plant species and minimize disturbance to non-
sensitive plant species
• Post-construction re-establishment of vegetation
D-179
• Prohibition of grading/construction during the mating/breeding/nesting season for the
California gnatcatcher and the coastal cactus wren (mid-February through July)
• Limitation of construction hours to Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(noise control)
• Equipment of construction equipment with mufflers (noise control)
An extensive biological assessment of the Rancho Palos Verdes development area was
attached to the study that was based on a literature review and field surveys of the study area
and, in some cases, surrounding areas. It is noteworthy that the study concluded that the
proposed project would not impact the quality of existing recreational opportunities and that the
project was not located in an area of existing recreational use, or designated for recreational
activity. That conclusion may require re-evaluation to consider current uses of the area.
Another initial study to evaluate a proposed erosion control project was conducted in 1994
(EDAW, 1994). The proposed project consisted of the placement of three drainage inlets and a
48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) at the bottom of Portuguese Canyon, from PVDS to a
point in the canyon approximately 1,600 feet north of PVDS. Approximately 350 linear feet of
1211 CMP was to be placed on the surface and staked down at each joint or at intervals not to
exceed 15 feet.
The proposed project also involved minor grading and brush removal at the bottom of the
canyon, as necessary for installation of the drainage pipe and inlets. A finding was issued that,
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would
not be a significant effect because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. Preparation of a negative declaration was recommended
(EDAW, 1994).
Subsequent to the Secretary of the Army declining to participate in a landslide study, Congress
added funds for a feasibility study to develop a shore protection project that would provide for
restoration of the natural marine habitat at Rancho Palos Verdes. An agreement between the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the USACE to perform the study was signed in December
D-180
1994. The alternative selected as the proposed recommended plan in the feasibility study was
to construct a dike 400 feet offshore with natural removal of sediment deposits in the restoration
area by wave action.
1.1.3 Recent Community Involvement
The Landslide Subcommittee of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council organized and held a
series of public meetings on June 1, June 20, June 29, and July 6, 2017. The purpose of the
meetings was to invite the community to participate in creating and identifying goals for the
PBLC and to discuss the path forward in addressing the challenges faced by the community
with respect to the PBLC.
At the first public meeting, held on June 1, 2017, goals were identified that included the
following:
• Control of the PBLC and attendant costs
• Stabilize residences
• Retain use of PVDS
• Protect the integrity of the Preserve and preserve the marine ecology
• Restore the ecology of the ocean and land resources
• Explore the possible of a geological hazard abatement district (GHAD)
• Identify plausible potential solutions
• Provide the basis of a design-build proposal to solicit federal funding
The June 20, 2017 public meeting focused on potential solutions and/or actions for intercepting
water on the PBLC. The meeting discussions were wide-ranging, and emphasized (1) the need
to fully understand the hydrology of the watershed in which the PBLC is located, (2) the need to
re-establish and maintain an effective stormwater control system, (3) the importance of
capturing and controlling water before it gets into the PBLC, and (4) to minimize impacts to
Preserve land.
D-181
The June 29, 2017 public meeting addressed the effects of the PBLC on the surf zone.
Consensus of the participating public focused on (1) hiring competent engineers to implement
recommendations, (2) early communication with relevant regulatory agencies (e.g., Coastal
Commission) regarding any planned PBLC projects, (3) use of road maintenance funds to
underwrite the necessary technical work needed to slow the PBLC movement, and
(4) assessment of the environmental impacts to the Preserve land and ocean ecology plus
restoration of potentially damaged habitat to its original condition.
The July 6, 2017 meeting focused on major actions that could be considered as a means of
addressing the PBLC problem. As with a previous meeting, the public consensus focused on
understanding the hydrology of the PBLC, understanding the occurrence of groundwater as it
relates to the movement of the PBLC, and understanding and completing previous work on
surface drainage.
On October 17, 2017, a meeting was held between representatives of the City, DBS&A, the
PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies to discuss potential impacts of PBLC solutions within the
context of the City’s draft Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan
(NCCP/HCP). The City’s goal for the meeting was to develop a programmatic policy ensuring
that, while the probability for successfully resolving the PBLC problem was maximized, all
appropriate measures were being considered to minimize potential impacts to biological
resources within the Preserve.
1.2 Project Area Definition
This FS focuses on significantly reducing land movement in the defined Red Zone area (project
area) of the PBLC, where land movement has consistently been measured at the greatest rates.
As shown in Figure 2, in addition to PBLC, landslides in the southern Palos Verdes Peninsula
include the Abalone Cove, Portuguese Bend, Flying Triangle, Klondike Canyon, and most of the
Ancient Altamira Landslide. All of these landslides are located within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes except for the majority of the Flying Triangle Landslide, which is in Rolling Hills.
D-182
As described by Douglas (2013), two of the landslides, Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove,
are reactivated parts of a much larger and older slide mass that covers over 2 square miles and
extends from the crest of the peninsula, near Crest Road, to the shoreline. Douglas (2013)
named this ancient landslide mass the “Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex.”
Douglas (2013) reported that the Abalone landslide and surrounding area, including portions of
the ancient landslide complex, has been largely stabilized through the use of groundwater
dewatering using vertical wells. The Klondike and Flying Triangle Landslides are closely related
in space and time to the PBLC and Abalone Landslides, and are also part of the Ancient
Altamira Landslide Complex, but they are commonly considered separate failures (Douglas,
2013).
The PBLC project area within which land movement is being addressed by this FS is the area of
greatest movement within the PBLC. As shown in Figure 4, the area in which measured
horizontal movement has ranged from 1 foot, 10 inches to 8 feet, 7 inches is the area of
greatest PBLC movement (the Red Zone). As mapped, the Red Zone is approximately
86 acres in area. This Red Zone area comprises what Douglas (2013) delineated as the
eastern, central, and seaward landslide subareas of the PBLC, along with a small portion of the
western PBLC landslide subarea, south of PVDS to the ocean.
The total PBLC area is approximately 250 acres (101 hectares) in area. However, the area of
land on which conditions that contribute to landslide instability exist is much greater. Numerous
hydrologic, geologic, and engineering reports of the PBLC have concluded that controlling the
water that enters into and is stored in the PBLC subsurface is critical to achieving landslide
stabilization. Therefore, this FS considers that the selected landslide stabilization solution will
be implemented over an area larger than the PBLC or the Red Zone itself. Water can move into
the PBLC subsurface, where it contributes to instability, via three pathways.
The first pathway is via rainfall and stormwater that runs off and subsequently infiltrates and
percolates into the subsurface. W ater is also introduced into the subsurface through residential
use and disposal via onsite wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic systems), a second
pathway. The third pathway is via groundwater underflow. Groundwater underflow occurs
D-183
when groundwater that has percolated to the water table in one location migrates laterally to
another location. In the PBLC location, previous contouring of groundwater levels indicates that
groundwater is moving in the subsurface from upslope areas to the north of PBLC toward the
south.
As a result, the larger area that is being considered when targeting a PBLC landslide
stabilization solution is the watershed. A watershed is defined as the area of land bounded
peripherally by a divide and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water. For
example, in Portuguese Canyon, the watershed is defined as the land area from which all water
that drains will ultimately drain into Portuguese Canyon. Based on review of topographic and
drainage maps along with the use of field observations and aerial photographs, subsurface
water in the PBLC is being impacted by water from Portuguese, Ishibashi, and Paintbrush
Canyons. Figure 5 depicts the combined watershed boundary of the three canyons.
1.3 Purpose and Overview
This FS report has been prepared consistent with methodologies that have been developed
pursuant to CERCLA, also known as Superfund. Specifically, this FS was prepared using
methodologies presented in the Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (U.S. EPA, 1988). The CERCLA FS process is typically
used to abate the risk of exposure to toxic environmental contaminants. In this project, toxic
contamination is not an issue, and the criterion related to reduction of contaminant toxicity is
removed from consideration.
The resulting FS process represents a systematic methodology established for characterizing
the nature and extent of complex problems, evaluating potential remedial options, and selecting
the optimum remedial solution options for the City’s consideration. The overall goal of the FS
process is to gather sufficient information to make an informed management decision regarding
potential remedial actions, and to develop a comprehensive, reliable, restoration strategy that
satisfies community and regulatory requirements. The specific purpose of this FS is to identify
viable conceptual solution options that will accomplish the following project goals:
D-184
• Provide the geotechnical conditions that significantly reduce the risk of damage to public
and private property and would allow for the significant improvement of roadway
infrastructure, safety, and stability.
• Significantly reduce human health risk and improve safety in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.
• Significantly reduce sediment dispersal and deposition into the Pacific Ocean that is
causing unacceptable turbidity in the coastal and marine environment.
• Select remedy options that will be consistent with the Natural Communities NCCP/HCP,
specifically Section 4.1.2.
1.4 Document Organization
This FS document generally follows the methodology and organizational format of the CERCLA
feasibility study process (U.S. EPA, 1988). Section 1 presents an introduction that includes
project background, history, project purpose, projection area definition, and a description of
community involvement with the project. Section 2 provides a summary of the relevant previous
work related to the PBLC and vicinity that forms a foundation for moving forward toward remedy
selection and implementation options. Section 3 present a description of the physical
characteristics of the project area including topography, watershed hydrology, soils, geology,
groundwater, and landslide characteristics. Taken together, Sections 1 through 3 represent a
characterization of the current information and data available to use in defining the PBLC setting
and problem.
Using the information and data presented in Sections 1 through 3 as the basis, Section 4
presents the remedial FS section of the report. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 present the introduction
and purpose of the FS and the summary of infrastructure concerns related to the PBLC,
respectively. Section 4.3 presents the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) potentially governing remedy implementation. Section 4.4 establishes the remedial
action objectives (RAOs). Section 4.5 establishes general response actions (broad classes of
available technologies) to control movement of the PBLC. Section 4.6 identifies and screens
D-185
the identified technologies appropriate to achieve the RAOs. Section 4.7 provides a more
detailed discussion and analysis, presenting the pros and cons, of the technologies most
suitable to achieve RAOs. Finally, the preferred alternative options are identified in Section 4.8
as the most appropriate technology and methodology to address RAOs. An analysis of
remaining data gaps, the need for pilot testing, and an estimate of the cost of implementation of
the selected remedy are also presented.
D-186
2. Summary of Previous Work
As noted by Douglas (2013), numerous geologic, hydrogeologic, environmental, and
engineering studies have been completed and numerous reports have been produced by
several authors over the years since the PBLC was first recognized. Not all of the documents
have been digitally archived and some information has likely been permanently lost over the
years. However, some key documents are available that describe past efforts and designs for
land stabilization that are useful to review and form a foundation for moving forward toward a
solution. These documents, supplemental to those described in Section 1.1.2, are summarized
below.
2.1 Historical Documents, 1957-1997
In 1957, a report was written that described the ground movement of an approximately 200-acre
area of land extending from above a major body of fill on Crenshaw Boulevard southward to the
Pacific Ocean (MacKintosh, 1957). The report recommended that immediate emergency action
be undertaken “. . . to protect the large investment in homes, streets, sewers, communication
lines, and other utilities and improvements.” As of 1989, over 140 homes have been destroyed.
Of the residents that remain, home utilities and foundation structures must be maintained
continuously. It was also reported that over 10 million tons of mud and rock were deposited in
the ocean. Disruption of vital community transportation and utility transmission lines is
continuously threatened and millions of dollars have been spent to maintain community safety
and services.
Between March and August 1957, the County of Los Angeles and Palos Verdes Properties
installed a group of 22 reinforced concrete caisson “shear pins” across the active failure surface
in an effort to stabilize the PBLC. Each of these caissons was 4 feet in diameter, 20 feet in
length, and embedded 10 feet into the material underlying the “failure surface” as it was
understood at that time. The landslide reportedly slowed by approximately 65 percent (from
0.8 to 0.25 inch per day) following the installation of these shear pins. This reduced rate of
movement was only maintained for approximately five months. In early 1958, the landslide
abruptly returned to its pre-shear pin displacement rate of nearly 0.8 inch per day. Several
D-187
intact shear pins have since been displaced to, and deposited on, the shoreline by subsequent
landslide movement and wave action (Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
From the late 1950s through the mid-1980s a series of geologic and engineering studies were
conducted to understand and characterize various aspects of the PBLC and related landslide
complexes in the vicinity.
In 1972, Palos Verdes Properties provided financial support for a dissertation that analyzed the
reasons for the movement of the PBLC (Vonder Linden, 1972). The report stated that “If
movement were halted by eliminating infiltration of water, lowering the existing water table, and
regrading parts of the slide surface, the factor of safety thereby would be raised to a value of at
least unity.”
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973, and at that time the City took over
the maintenance of roads and utilities in the PBLC area within the City limits. It was reported
that approximately 20 percent of the City budget for street maintenance was spent for the
0.8± mile of PVDS through the landslide (Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
In September 1978, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
108U, which established the Landslide Moratorium Area in and around the PBLC. In February
1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 139U, which added the area known as Klondike
Canyon to the Landslide Moratorium Area.
In 1984, the City put a landslide stabilization plan of control (POC) into operation. In 1984, it
was reported that the PBLC was moving over 40 feet per year. The stabilization plan consisted
of installation of dewatering wells, major surface drainage, and regrading redistribution of
earthen mass. This initial effort has since been called Phase I (Ehlig and Yen, 1997). It was
reported that 5 years after initiation of the POC, the PBLC was moving less than 1 foot per year.
The RDA proposed a grading and drainage project in September 1987, as Phase II of the POC
intended to stabilize the PBLC (Ehlig and Yen, 1997). The grading portion performed in
January and March 1988 involved redistribution of 500,000 cubic yards of earth from areas
D-188
where the slide plane was steep to areas where the slide plane was relatively level so that the
weight of the landslide material acted as a resisting force rather than a driving force. Generally
speaking, the rate of slide movement responded positively to dewatering, regrading, and
surface drainage improvements in Phase I and II, but these were not ultimately able to stop the
slow movement. In fact, the rate of movement increased in subsequent years as earlier work
deteriorated.
Following a period of severe wave erosion and shoreline regression in early 1988, rock-filled
wire baskets (gabions) were installed along the western shoreline of the landslide in 1988 in an
attempt to reduce the rate of wave erosion. Although this temporarily abated the erosion, the
gabions were essentially destroyed within an 18- to 24-month period by the combination of
wave action, corrosion of the wire baskets, and landslide deformation (Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
In January 1989, the USACE held a public information workshop to present to the community a
study it was beginning in order to identify the federal interest in solutions to problems associated
with shoreline erosion mitigation measures and storm damage along the coast of Rancho Palos
Verdes, including consideration of how such a solution would contribute to landslide
stabilization. In June 1993, the Assistant City Manager of Rancho Palos Verdes wrote a
memorandum describing an upcoming workshop on the RDA’s interaction with the USACE on a
feasibility study for shoreline protection and marine environmental restoration. The discussions
centered on the need for shoreline protection, not landslide abatement.
Phase Ill grading was completed during August and September 1990. This phase of grading
involved the relocation of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil from the central uphill margin
of the landslide to the eastern portion of the failure immediately upslope of PVDS. Following
this unloading, perceptible movement of the Landward Zone appears to have stopped until the
heavy rainfall of January 1995. Between the completion of the 1990 Phase III grading and
1995, the rate of landslide movement gradually increased to approximately 0.25 inch per day
(Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
In 1991, Rancho Palos Verdes staff gave a presentation to the City Council on the progress of
the stabilization plan. The progress reported included the performance of extensive geologic
D-189
investigations using the services of 25 experts in the fields of geology and engineering. In
addition, $1.5 million had been spent to implement grading, dewatering wells had been installed,
and drainage structures had been constructed to control and convey water through the PBLC.
In September 1994, a consultant proposed a grading project to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
in which several areas of the PBLC slide area were identified as “cut” zones where 50,000 cubic
yards was to be removed, and other areas of lower elevation were identified as “fill” zones. As
with the earlier proposed grading project of 1987, the purpose was to reduce driving forces in an
active portion of the PBLC by moving earth from a driving force area to a neutral area of driving
force.
In 1997, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the USACE commissioned a study to determine
the impact of the PBLC on the ocean environment (Abbott Associates, 1997) that concluded
that 3,589,000 cubic yards of earth had entered into the ocean as a result of landsliding.
2.2 1997 Ehlig and Yen Feasibility Study
A preliminary geologic and geotechnical engineering report was jointly prepared by Perry Ehlig
(Ehlig) and Bing Yen & Associates, Inc. (BYA) which was presented to the City Council of
Rancho Palos Verdes in 1997. The report evaluated the feasibility of a POC developed in 1995
by Ehlig and BYA and amended it for the 1997 report. The POC was intended to minimize or
arrest the movement of the more rapidly moving portion (East-Central Subslide) of the PBLC
and if successful, would provide valuable insight on the feasibility of stabilizing the western
portion of the PBLC.
The scope of work of the study incorporated compilation and evaluation of the historical surface
and subsurface data to determine where additional exploration was needed to develop a
preliminary geotechnical model for analysis. The study also consisted of installation of
13 additional monitoring wells to characterize groundwater, drilling of 18 large-diameter, 8
rotary-wash, and 4 rotary-core boreholes for subsurface mapping of the slide plane(s), and
collection of slide plane samples for additional laboratory testing. Back calculation of the slide
behavior was performed on the slide model to calibrate the soil parameters and confirm the
D-190
validity of the model. Assessment of the proposed POC in mitigating the slide movement was
done using the model to identify primary and supplemental mitigation techniques and their
effectiveness. Based on the results of the POC assessment, conclusions and
recommendations were presented in a formal report.
Based on movement patterns, geologic, and/or geomorphic features, the PBLC was subdivided
into subslides. The subslides were classified on increasing displacement rates which include,
from the lowest to greatest rate of movement, the Landward, the West-Central, the East-
Central, and the Seaward subslides. The study estimates that for the period from 1956 to 1996,
rates of displacement range of the subslides range from 0.2 to more than 1.5 inches per day,
and that the higher rates are associated with periods of above-average rainfall.
The Ehlig/BYA POC recommended removal of approximately 450,000 cubic yards of slide plane
clay from the upper portions of the Landward and East-Central subslides of the PBLC. This
plan requires the excavation and removal of approximately 2.65 million cubic yards of landslide
materials. They estimate that roughly 100,000 cubic yards of the landslide materials would
consist of bentonitic (slide plane) clay, which could be used as a blanket fill to retard surface
water infiltration. The remainder of the removed materials would be exported off-site and
replaced with compacted fill.
The POC also included installation of subdrain systems in the removal areas, construction of
impervious drainage channels in selected canyons, installation of dewatering wells, and re-
establishment of surface drainage within the developed portion of Portuguese Canyon. The
study evaluated three scenarios where no reduction in groundwater levels occurred, lowering of
the groundwater level of 25 feet, and lowering of groundwater level of up to 35 feet south of the
regraded area. The increase in the factor of safety was estimated to range from 7 percent to
16 percent.
After discussing the benefits of dewatering and its positive effect on increasing the factor of
safety, the report stated:
D-191
However, engineering analysis also revealed that the Seaward subslide, exacerbated by its steep
and dilated bluff and erosion at its toe, will have a lower factor of safety than the regraded
northeast PBL. Hence, the Seaward subslide may move first and, consequently, pose the risk
that the EastCentral subslide may lose its lateral support towards the ocean. Engineering analysis
shows further that the reduction of lateral support will reduce the factor of safety of the East-
Central subslide to 1.04. This means that, while it appears to be theoretically feasible that the
proposed POC [plan of control] can improve the current state of stability in eastern PBL, the
margin of safety for the East-Central subslide (at a factor of safety of 1.04) is too small and the
East-Central subslide will have an intermittent slow movement and periodic acceleration following
heavy precipitation.
Thus, the authors indicate their opinion that the avoidance of the addition of water to the
subsurface in this area is critical. However, the authors stated that even in the best case, the
proposed POC would only be capable of improving the stability marginally and that the landslide
may still creep intermittently and be susceptible to reactivation. Conditions cited which could
contribute to reactivation of the landslide included shoreline erosion, successive years of above
average rainfall, lapses in the de-watering or surface drainage maintenance programs, and
continued movement of the Seaward and/or West-Central subslides. Thus the authors
evaluated supplemental stabilization measures that included (1) slide plane clay strength
enhancement, (2) the construction of a revetment along the shore line, and (3) a more extensive
dewatering program.
The evaluation indicated that the tests conducted for this report regarding slide plane clay
strength enhancement via lime injection were promising but not extensive, nor was the method
of field implementation proven. A pilot test was recommended. The construction of a revetment
along the shore line was assumed to be implemented in combination with strength reduction
due to slow movement. In this scenario, the revetment was deemed a successful approach, but
it was recognized that any construction in the vicinity of the existing shoreline would require
permits from federal and state regulating agencies, and that obtaining these permits might be a
long and costly process with uncertain outcome. Regarding supplemental dewatering, the
authors stated that the benefits of lowering the groundwater elevation would be theoretically
significant, particularly in the eastern portion of the landslide. However, to lower the water table
an average of more than 20 feet may not be feasible because of the high cost associated with
D-192
lowering groundwater within the low permeability material. At the time, the authors believed that
one could not practically expect to lower the water table an additional 20 feet below the October
1996 level across the PBLC as a whole (Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
Ehlig and Yen (1997) also reported on a global positioning system (GPS) satellite survey
network that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes established that showed that the eastern portion
of the slide moving about twice as fast as the western portion. The report stated that the rate
accelerates when groundwater rises and/or when the landward (northern) portion of the slide
exerts additional driving forces due to local slope failures or debris accumulations. Erosion of
the toe of the slide along the shore exacerbates the instability of the seaward portion of the
slide.
2.3 2000 Leighton Feasibility Study
In a report prepared for the Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend Company, Leighton and Associates
(Leighton) (2000) reviewed the 1997 POC (Ehlig and Yen, 1997) and recommended revisions.
The report was prepared for the proposed construction of an 18-hole golf course and related
facilities. The report presented a revised POC termed the Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend
(PVPB) POC. The PVPB POC included all but the lime injection aspects of the 1997 POC,
supplemented with a more extensive removal and capping of the landslide area, and extensive
shear keys, as well as additional subdrains, monitoring wells, and dewatering wells. Grading for
the property, including Peacock Hill and the active PBLC, was presented in a proposed grading
plan. The PVPB POC was planned in phases, sequenced to limit the probability of major
accelerations in the rate of landslide movement.
The scope of work for the study included determination of the subsurface geologic structure, the
ancient and active rupture surfaces, the gross stability of the site, and a groundwater analysis.
The work performed included review of past geological, geotechnical, and hydrogeological
reports and maps, aerial photograph analysis, and geologic mapping of the field area. Analyses
of GPS survey and monitoring well data were also completed for the study. Subsurface
exploration included drilling of 9 large-diameter and 11 continuous-core borings with downhole
wireline geophysical logging, in addition to logging of 3 exploratory trenches. All of the core
D-193
borings were converted to monitoring wells, and 4 additional monitoring wells were constructed
with nests of piezometers. Laboratory testing of slide plane materials was conducted to
establish chemical and physical properties for utilization in the slope stability analyses. Slope
stability analysis was performed of the present stability and to determine the impacts of the
proposed development, and the implementation of the proposed POC was also included.
Other remedial measures proposed by Leighton include construction of two additional large
shear keys to support buttresses of recompacted fill with subdrainage. The largest of the shear
keys was proposed to be constructed near the toe of the PBLC and a toe protection system
consisting of a riprap revetment was also recommended. An elaborate system of subdrainage
of horizontal wells would intercept subsurface flow below Paintbrush and Ishibashi Canyons and
direct flow to the ocean. Also, permeable drainage membranes, remedial grading, and
construction of a drainage culvert would reduce surface water infiltration and facilitate gravity
flow for the subdrainage system. Other remedial measures include more extensive capping of
the landslide area, a short sheet pile wall at the western Klondike Canyon landslide boundary
adjacent to the Beach Club, and construction of a dewatering pit to permit the development of a
system of hydroaugers.
The slope analysis conducted by Leighton estimates that the factor of safety for the most active
portions of the PBLC would increase by approximately 50 percent. The factor of safety for the
less active portions would increase by approximately 20 percent. They also conclude that the
slide movement of the active portions of the PBLC located east of Inspiration Point would be
arrested.
D-194
3. Physical Characteristics of the PBLC Vicinity
This section provides information describing PBLC area topography, hydrology, soils, geology,
and hydrogeology, as well as landslide characteristics.
3.1 Topography
The regional topography of the ancient Altamira Landslide Complex is mapped in the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro quadrangles (USGS,
1963 and 1964). More recently, the Los Angeles Region Imagery Acquisition Consortium (LAR-
IAC) developed a digital terrain model (DTM) using LiDAR and generated 2-foot and 5-foot
digital contour elevation for Los Angeles urban project areas and Catalina Island, which includes
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (circa 2015) (Figure 6). The PBLC is located in the southeast
portion of the larger and older Altamira Landslide Complex, is completely mapped within the
San Pedro, California quadrangle (USGS, 1964), and is part of the LAR-IAC DTM.
The Altamira landslide covers over 2 square miles extending from the crest of Palos Verdes
peninsula near Crest Road at elevations of approximately 1,200 feet above mean sea level (feet
msl) to the shoreline (Douglas 2013, Vonder Linden 1972). The perimeter of the Altamira
Landslide Complex is generally bounded by an unnamed canyon adjacent to Barkentine
Canyon to the west and the Klondike Canyon to the east and has the overall shape of a
rotational landslide. The Altamira Landslide Complex is characterized by rolling hills with
numerous gullies and canyons oriented generally perpendicular to the shoreline. Landward, the
head of the ancient landslide is the prominent Valley View Graben, which sharply declines in
elevation by 145 feet into a relatively flat surface of approximately 400 feet in width.
The extension zone of the Altamira Landslide covers over 50 percent of the area and has a
stepwise series of scarps and platforms with the major scarp dropping from 1,200 feet msl to the
first head at 900 feet msl. The head scarp of the landslide contains some of the steepest
slopes, with between 150 percent and 280 percent gradient. The last “platforms” are at
approximately 500 feet msl, where there begins a relatively flat surface in the central portion of
D-195
the ancient landslide, south of Narcissa Drive, that extends to the head of the Abalone Cove
Landslide.
The area of relatively flat terrain covers half a square mile in the central portion of the Altamira
Landslide Complex. This area is characterized by rolling hills with slope gradients generally
less than 60 percent. The Altamira Canyon cuts through this relatively gentle sloping surface
with elevations falling from 400 feet msl to approximately 250 feet msl over a distance of
100 feet. The Altamira Canyon is the longest canyon (8,800 feet) that extends from the crest of
the slide to the shoreline, just west of Inspiration Point.
Throughout the Altamira landslide there are a series of canyons that run parallel to each other
and range between 800 to 8,800 feet in length. From west to east there is the unnamed canyon
that bounds the landslide, as well as Vanderlip, Altamira, Kelvin, Portuguese, Ishibashi, Paint
Brush, and Klondike Canyons, with slope gradients that range between 100 percent and
280 percent.
Abalone Cove Landslide and the PBLC are generally within the compression zone or toe of
Altamira Canyon and are characterized by a hummocky topography with rounded hills and
some smooth valleys with a maximum elevation of 500 feet msl. On average, there is about
7 degrees dip in topography from the crest to the shoreline (Ehlig and Yen, 1997; Mackintosh,
1957). The crest of the PBLC is approximately 500 feet msl and the toe of the slide extends to
the shoreline. In this compression zone, PVDS runs generally east to west, parallel to the
shoreline. The elevation of PVDS ranges from approximately 160 to 220 feet msl and is about
800 feet from the shoreline.
Pronounced sea cliffs and narrow beaches are present at the shoreline. The most noticeable
features along the shoreline include two promontories that are present in the Western and
western Seaward subslide areas of the PBLC (Figure 3), the westerly Inspiration Point and the
easterly Portuguese Point with elevations up to 135 feet msl.
D-196
3.2 Watershed Hydrology
A watershed is defined as a region or area bound peripherally by a divide and draining
ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water. In this case, the bodies of water of
interest are the canyons that convey surface water, to one degree or another, through the area
of the PBLC. It is also of interest to characterize the areas from which stormwater drains and
ultimately runs off into the PBLC canyons. Water from those areas ultimately flows into the
PBLC canyons and, in turn, into the PBLC.
The PBLC receives water (both surface water and groundwater) from the watersheds of
Portuguese Canyon, Ishibashi Canyon, and Paintbrush Canyon. These canyons are generally
ephemeral, meaning that surface water does not flow through them throughout the year.
Rather, these canyons generally have flowing water when and after it rains and they convey
stormwater from the high ground in the watershed toward the Pacific Ocean. Collectively, they
are referred to herein as the PBLC Canyons. Klondike Canyon is considered herein separate
from the PBLC but, as described below, water from Klondike Canyon likely flows as underflow
across the watershed divide at the lower southwest end of the Klondike Canyon watershed.
Klondike Canyon is also an exception in that perennial water is observed flowing in the lower
reaches of Klondike Canyon. The PBLC Canyons are shown in Figure 5 with their collective
watershed boundaries.
The PBLC Canyons are located in what is identified as the “Ocean South South” (sic) drainage
area in the Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) (RBF Consulting, 2015), a part of the Santa Monica
Bay Watershed defined by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. The PBLC
Canyons are directly tributary to the Pacific Ocean. The PBLC Canyons have storm drain
systems located in their upper reaches that discharge into the canyons that, in turn, drain
ultimately into the ocean. The area of the Portuguese Bend watershed that drains into the
PBLC Canyons is approximately 627 acres.
Over significant reaches of these canyons, notably the portions which direct water to and
through the PBLC, the drainage systems consist mostly of canyon bottoms that are unimproved
open channels. The surface of the ground within much of the PBLC is generally hummocky,
D-197
irregular, and locally fissured due to the landslide activity. Previous drainage structures
constructed to control and convey stormwater runoff have failed. The MPD (RBF Consulting,
2015) found that the CMP structures were undersized for the calculated flow they would receive.
As a result, surface drainage within the landslide is generally poor and difficult to maintain.
Infiltration of the runoff conveyed through these canyons is a source of recharge for the
groundwater within the landslide (Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
As described in the MPD (RBF Consulting, 2015), Ocean South South has three major canyons:
Altamira Canyon, Portuguese Bend Canyon, and Paint Brush Canyon. While a part of the
delineated Ocean South South drainage area, surface water from Altamira Canyon does not
drain directly into PBLC like the other adjacent canyons and will not be discussed further herein.
Groundwater that originates from Altamira Canyon infiltration may, however, flow into the PBLC
area. Portuguese Canyon is located on the westerly side of the PBLC and generally forms the
boundary of two subslides termed by Ehlig and Yen (1997) as the West -Central and East-
Central slides. This boundary, and Portuguese Canyon, is defined by a near vertical fault that
extends in a north-south direction along the general alignment of Portuguese Canyon (Ehlig and
Yen, 1997). The upper reaches of Portuguese Canyon are steep and convey stormwater
quickly to the lower reaches where water moves more slowly in the low gradient terrain.
Smaller in size, Ishibashi Canyon, located east of Portuguese Canyon, drains into Paint Brush
Canyon which, in turn, drains into an undeveloped mountain-front alluvial fan area of the PBLC.
Paint Brush Canyon includes two debris basins in series upstream of the confluence of Ishibashi
and Paint Brush Canyons before discharging to the upper end of the PBLC, where evidence in
the field indicates that stormwater readily infiltrates.
Klondike Canyon is located east of Paintbrush Canyon and the PBLC. The area of the Klondike
Canyon W atershed is 680 acres and a smaller portion of that area drains into Klondike Canyon
itself. The southwest margin of the Klondike Canyon Watershed, where Klondike Canyon
stormwater empties into the Pacific Ocean, is within the mapped boundary of the PBLC.
Though it appears likely, based on its location relative to the PBLC boundary and the generally
low-lying surface terrain, it is unknown whether groundwater is moving from the lower Klondike
Canyon Watershed into the PBLC Watershed. This is a complicated area where the Klondike
D-198
Canyon Watershed abuts the PBLC Watershed and the Klondike Canyon Landslide abuts the
PBLC in an area of maximum PBLC movement.
As mentioned above, there are several swales and storm drains that drain the upper reaches of
the watershed into the PBLC Canyons and Klondike Canyon where the water is then conveyed
to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 7). The upper watershed areas contributing to water flow into the
PBLC and Klondike Canyon landslides are located within the City of Rolling Hills. This may
represent legal and/or jurisdictional access challenges with respect to the implementation of
landslide abatement solutions that involve stormwater control and conveyance. Of the
combined approximately 1,300-acre area of the PBLC and Klondike watersheds, approximately
360 acres (28 percent) lies within Rolling Hills. The balance of the watershed areas (940 acres,
or 72 percent) lies within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
There are currently no known stream gage data based on monitoring of either dry weather or
storm water flow in the canyons that convey water into the PBLC and the Klondike Canyon
Landslide. These canyons have a bottom generally 10 to 20 feet wide and fall 15 to 20 feet in a
100-foot run. A hydrologic study for this area is not within the scope of this study. Based on
information in the MPD, it is estimated that the 100-year storm runoff for each of the above
canyons would be approximately 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). This is not a rigorously
derived design value, but rather an estimate to provide a basis to establish the rough sizing and
feasibility of improvements being considered as part of a conceptual landslide stabilization
solution.
3.3 Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) SSURGO database (USDA, 2015) was used to
access information about the surficial soils at the PBLC (Appendix B). The SSURGO database
contains information about soil as collected by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) over the course of a century. The information is typically displayed in tables or as maps
and is available for most areas in the U.S. The information was gathered by walking over the
land and observing the soil. In many cases, soil samples were analyzed in laboratories. The
maps outline areas called map units. The map units describe soils and other components that
D-199
have unique properties, interpretations, and productivity. The information was collected at
scales ranging from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. More details were gathered at a scale of 1:12,000
than at a scale of 1:63,360. The mapping is intended for natural resource planning and
management by landowners, townships, and counties.
The soil survey information came from the Soil Survey of Los Angeles County, California,
Southeastern Part (CA 696), mapped at a scale of 1:24000, using aerial images dated May 25,
2010 to November 24, 2014.
The predominant soil unit symbol in the PBLC is 1168 with a mapping unit name of
Haploxerepts, 10 to 35 percent slopes. Rather than a typical association of soil series, the
name Haploxerepts refers to the soil taxonomic classification of surficial soils that predominantly
occur in the PBLC. Haploxerept soils typically occur at an elevation of 0 to 1,210 feet msl in an
annual precipitation zone that typically ranges from 13 to 17 inches. Mean annual temperature
typically ranges from 62 to 63 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). In this mapping unit, Haploxerept soils
make up about 90 percent of the landscape, with the minor component of 10 percent composed
of the Lunada soil that typically occurs on hillslopes.
Haploxerepts generally occur on landslides in mixed slide deposits derived mostly from
calcareous shale. The typical soil profile of a Haploxerept is as follows: 0 to 7 inches, loam; 7 to
20 inches loam with the incipient development of soil structure; 37 to 79 inches, channery loam.
A channery soil is a soil that is, by volume, more than 15 percent thin, flat fragments of
sandstone, shale, slate, limestone, or schist as much as 6 inches along the longest axis. A
loam is soil composed mostly of sand (particle size > 63 micrometers [µm]), silt (particle size >
2 µm), and a smaller amount of clay (particle size < 2 µm). By weight, its mineral composition is
about 40/40/20 percent concentration of sand/silt/clay, respectively. These proportions can vary
to a degree, however, and result in different types of loam soils: sandy loam, silty loam, clay
loam, sandy clay loam, silty clay loam, and loam, depending on which particle size
predominates.
Haploxerepts typically occur on slopes that range from 10 to 35 percent, are well drained
(internally), and have moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. Typical saturated
D-200
hydraulic conductivities (Ksat) of Haploxerepts range from 0.60 to 2 inches per hour. Depth to
first water is typically greater than 80 inches.
Soils are also typically classified as lying within a hydrologic soil group that, when considered
with land use, management practices, and hydrologic conditions, determine a soil’s associated
runoff curve number. Runoff curve numbers are used to estimate direct runoff from rainfall
(NRCS, 2007). Soils were originally assigned to hydrologic soil groups based on measured
rainfall, runoff, and infiltrometer data. As the initial work was done to establish these groupings,
assignment of soils to hydrologic soil groups has been based on the judgment of soil scientists.
Assignments are made based on comparison of the characteristics of unclassified soil profiles
with profiles of soils already placed into hydrologic soil groups. Most of the groupings are based
on the premise that soils found within a climatic region that are similar in depth to a restrictive
layer or water table, transmission rate of water, texture, structure, and degree of swelling when
saturated, will have similar runoff responses.
The Haploxerepts mapped at the PBLC are classified as falling within the characteristic of
Hydrologic Group B (NRCS, 2017). Soils in this group have moderately low runoff potential
when saturated, and water transmission through the soil is not impeded. Group B soils typically
have between 10 percent and 20 percent clay and 50 percent to 90 percent sand and have
loamy sand or sandy loam textures (USDA, 2015).
Douglas (2013) also characterized PBLC area soils as commonly comprising soils that are
“expansive” in character. Douglas states that weathering and erosion of the Altamira bedrock
produced a soil that is rich in clay minerals with distinctive properties. These clays have the
ability to absorb and expel water so that they can swell (expand) or shrink (contract). When it
rains, the clays in the soil absorb water, expand and become sticky. In the summer, they dry
out and the clays lose water and contract. In the dry months, the soils in the area develop
cracks, sometimes more than an inch across and up to a foot deep. In the rainy months, the
cracks disappear as the clays absorb water. In the process of wetting and drying, expansion
and contraction, the soils on the slopes respond to gravity and slowly migrate downslope. This
is called soil creep. Expansive soils can also be a problem for slabs or foundations or anything
that is placed in or on the ground without proper footing. Expansive soil movement is related to
D-201
rainfall patterns and can amount to tenths of an inch to inches per year (Douglas, 2013).
Douglas (2013) pointed out that in locations where GPS measurements indicate that land
displacement is minimal, there is the possibility that the slow movement is due to slope creep
from expansive soils.
In summary, surficial soils on the PBLC are generally loamy in texture with a proportion of sand,
silt, and clay of about 40/40/20 percent. They can take in and percolate water readily. They are
relatively deep and have a moderate to high water-holding capacity. They develop deep, wide
cracks during the dry summer and provide channels for later infiltration during the rainy season.
Once water has infiltrated and is stored in the soil profile, the presence of expansive clays
causes the soils to expand (or swell), closing the soil cracks. The cycle of expansion and
contraction is a source of soil creep. Without a pathway for surface water to runoff to the Pacific
Ocean, the infiltration of runoff water sourced from slopes higher on the PBLC readily occurs
and exceeds the storage capacity of surficial soils. The excess water then percolates into
underlying formations, beyond the reach of transpiring plants, where it potentially provides a
mechanism to facilitate more significant slide movements.
3.4 Geology
The PBLC is located on the northwest trending Palos Verdes Peninsula, which is formed on the
hanging wall of the southwest-dipping Palos Verdes fault (Douglas, 2013) (Figure 8). The
Peninsula is the result of uplift and formation of a doubly plunging anticline. The anticline plays
an important role in the presence of the PBLC, which is located on the southern flank of the fold.
The head of the landslide coincides with the crest of the anticline and the south limb is gently
inclined in the seaward direction. The sedimentary rocks that form the Peninsula include the
Mesozoic Catalina Schist, Monterey Formation, marine terrace deposits, alluvium, and landslide
deposits.
The oldest rocks of the Peninsula consist of Mesozoic Catalina Schist, which forms the core of
the anticline (Ehlig, 1992). Middle to Late Miocene marine sediments of the Monterey
Formation unconformably overlie the schist, and these sediments were deposited in an ocean
basin (Douglas, 2013). Widespread volcanism occurred in the early phase of deposition of the
D-202
Monterey Formation, which contributed volcaniclastic sediments to the Monterey Formation
(Conrad and Ehlig, 1987). Conrad and Ehlig (1987) subdivided the rocks of the Monterey
Formation into three main members, from lower to upper: the Altamira Shale, Valmonte
Diatomite, and Malaga Mudstone (Figure 9). In the Pliocene, the ocean basin was
subsequently folded into an anticline and uplifted what is now the Peninsula, producing an
island separated from the mainland by a shallow sea (Douglas, 2013). Erosion of the uplifted
island resulted in sedimentation of the shallow sea, forming a peninsula connected to the
mainland. Fluctuations of sea levels in the Pleistocene simultaneous with uplift resulted in
preservation of 13 marine terraces that circumscribe the Peninsula. Modern day sea level
produces near vertical sea cliffs almost 150 feet high and erodes the landslide toe at relatively
high rates.
The two upper members of the Monterey Formation are mostly composed of biogenic materials
such as diatomite, diatom-rich shale, and phosphate-rich mudstones. The Altamira Shale
member is further subdivided into lower and middle tuffaceous shale and upper cherty and
phosphatic lithofacies (Figure 9) (Douglas, 2013). The tuffaceous shale is rich in volcanic ash
that contains interbeds of clay and bentonite that are inherently weak. The bentonite beds are
the slip surfaces of most landslides in the peninsula (Ehlig, 1992; Douglas, 2013). The clay and
bentonite interbeds form aquitards or aquicludes that permit the buildup of pore water pressure.
Outcrops of the tuffaceous lithofacies in the ancient Altamira Landslide Complex are
predominantly composed of tuffaceous shales with interbeds of cherts, silty sandstone, and
intrusive basalt sills (Douglas, 2013).
The Altamira Shale member also contains beds of tuff turbidite, ash fall, and debris flow tuffs
that vary in thickness and are discontinuous over short distances (Douglas, 2013). Two
distinctive tuff units occur within the tuffaceous lithofacies including the Miraleste Tuff and the
Portuguese Tuff (Douglas, 2013). The Miraleste tuff is positioned in the upper part of the facies
and the Portuguese tuff occurs approximately 450 feet below the top of the tuffaceous facies.
The Portuguese Tuff ranges in thickness from approximately 20 to 60 feet with an average
thickness of approximately 50 to 60 feet in the PBLC (Leighton and Associates, 2000). The
variable thickness is the result of deposition on a hummocky sea floor interpreted to be caused
by a single eruptive event (Ehlig, 1992). Most of the tuff has been converted to montmorillonite
D-203
clay (bentonite) due to groundwater and heat (Douglas, 2013). The Portuguese Tuff functions
as a zone of low shear strength and as an aquiclude in the PBLC (Ehlig, 1992). In the upper
and middle portions of the PBLC, the landslide shear zone is positioned in a range
approximately 50 feet above the tuff to coinciding with the top of the tuff. In the lower portion of
the PBLC, the shear zone is positioned near the base of the tuff (Ehlig, 1992).
Several folds and faults occur in the PBLC and offshore areas, the largest of which are anticlinal
folds (Figure 10). All of the folds are asymmetric, east-west trending, and anticlinal. None of
the onshore folds are exposed at the surface but are identified with subsurface data. The folds
are significant in that they have influenced the direction of movement of the subslides of the
PBLC (Douglas, 2013). Ehlig and Yen (1997) described the western edge of the east central
subslide to be defined by a near vertical fault which extends in a north-south direction along the
general alignment of Portuguese Canyon. The canyon probably developed along the fault. The
fault is controlled by a discontinuity in the underlying bedrock structure.
All of the geologic structures were formed during uplift and folding of the Peninsula. The crests
of the anticline located at the head of the PBLC trends westward to Altamira Canyon where it
underlies the hills of “Peacock Flats.” This anticline retards seaward movement of the ancient
Altamira Landslide. Subsurface data reveal two flexural faults in the bedrock under the PBLC
that trend west to east (Douglas, 2013). One of the flexures coincides with the boundary of the
eastern and inland subslides (Figure 3). These flexures cause undulations in the slip zone of
the PBLC, which creates large tension cracks in the slide mass as it moves over them.
3.5 Landslide Characterization
The PBLC is the reactivated portion of a bowl-shaped area that encompasses approximately
2 square miles on the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex
(Figure 3). The Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex was first mapped by Woodring et al.
(1946). More recent studies have moved the head of the landslide northward to include the
Valley View graben (Douglas, 2013). There are differing hypotheses that postulate on the
initiation and evolution of the Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex. Jahns and Vonder Linden
(1972) believed that the Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex was the result of a series of semi-
D-204
independent slides that formed in three separate time intervals during the 500,000 years. The
oldest slides are located inland and the slides became progressively younger toward the coast.
Ehlig (1992) proposed that the Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex initiated as a megaslide that
moved as a simple translational glide block unit and, with continued displacement, the original
slide block became fragmented. Furthermore, he concluded that the megaslide occurred
sometime prior to 125,000 years ago and was no older than 200,000 years ago. Douglas
(2013) argued that the AALC contains terrace remnants that are older than 200,000 years and
therefore, its origin is older. He proposed that the upper block of landslide complex separated
from a paleo sea cliff dated at 780,000 years and initial movement began shortly after this date.
Douglas (2013) also believes that movement occurred in episodes with the oldest block at the
head and the youngest at the coast which is consistent with the Jahns and Vonder Linden
(1972) model. Given that borings drilled through the PBLC have determined that the ancient
rupture surface is mostly at or the near the top of the Portuguese Tuff and the rupture surface is
stratigraphically continuous, Leighton and Associates (2000) favor initial translational movement
as a single sheet that subsequently broke up into large blocks consistent with the Ehlig (1992)
model.
The active PBLC encompasses approximately 250 acres with a maximum width of 3,600 feet
and maximum head-to-toe length of approximately 4,200 feet (Douglas, 2013). The PBLC,
together with the Abalone Cove and Klondike Canyon Landslides are reactivated portions of the
Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex (Ehlig, 1992; Douglas, 2013). The western margin of the
PBLC is poorly defined and transitory with respect to the Abalone Cove Landslide, whereas the
east margin is well-defined. The internal structure of the landslide is established to be a series
of randomly oriented large blocks separated by fractures and grabens (Ehlig and Yen, 1997;
Leighton and Associates, 2000). Five large, semi-independent blocks or subslides were
identified by Ehlig (1992), including the Landward, East-Central, West-Central, and Seaward
subslides (Figure 3).
The Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD) is the first Geologic Hazard
Abatement District (GHAD) created (in 1981) under the Beverly Act of 1979 (SB1195). The
ACLAD is governed by a board of directors elected from property owners in the district area and
D-205
assesses property owners to pay for the construction and maintenance of abatement measures
in the Abalone Cove Landslide area, such as groundwater dewatering wells. The ACLAD
maintains an extensive dewatering well network in the area. The well network has reportedly
lowered water levels in the slide area up to a maximum of approximately 60 feet (Douglas,
2007) and helped to promote overall relative land stability in the ACLAD area.
Ehlig and Yen (1997) supplemented their subsurface exploration data set with data acquired
from previously drilled borings to construct a structure contour map of the basal rupture surface
in the PBLC. The contour map estimates and maps the elevation of the rupture surface for the
Landward, West-Central, and Seaward subslides. However, lack of subsurface data (data gap)
east of Portuguese Canyon permits only inferred mapping of the rupture surface in this area.
The undulating shape of the rupture surface is controlled by the structure of the underlying
bedrock. The dips of the rupture surface range from approximately 15 to 25 degrees beneath
the Landward subslide and flatten to less than 5 degrees in an anticlinal undulation along the
southern margin near the West-Central and East-Central subslide boundaries (Ehlig and Yen,
1997; Leighton and Associates, 2000).
One significant characteristic of the basal rupture surface is the trough shaped basin formed
along the eastern part of the East-Central subslide (Appendix C). The rupture surface steepens
to 17 degrees at the northern flank of the trough with the central portion of the trough positioned
just below sea level. The southern flank of the trough is gently inclined to the north and the
rupture surface rises back up above sea level. Ehlig and Yen (1997) reported that a near
vertical, north-south tear fault forms the boundary between the West-Central and East-Central
subslides. The rupture surface of the West-Central subslide is generally uniformly gently
dipping at approximately 7 degrees. An anticlinal undulation produces a 30 to 40 foot rise in the
rupture surface which produces a buttressing effect on the subslide as the mass must climb to
reach the crest of the fold (Leighton and Associates, 2000). The rupture surface of the Seaward
subslide generally dips 5 degrees seaward and accommodates rotation of the slide blocks as
wave erosion removes the toe of the active PBLC.
Geologic cross-sections presented by Ehlig and Yen (1997) show that the topography (as of
1995) was nearly parallel to the underlying active rupture surface. The sections indicate that the
D-206
thickness of the landslide mass is relatively uniform and averages approximately 100 feet above
the rupture surface. However, Douglas (2013) states that, in places, the landslide complex is
over 200 feet thick. Ehlig and Yen (1997) estimated that the total volume of PBLC mass is
approximately 40 million cubic yards. Subsurface data indicate that the rupture surface is
underlain by bedrock east of Portuguese Canyon and Ancient Altamira Landslide Complex
debris west of Portuguese Canyon (Leighton and Associates, 2000). As a result, there are
deeper slide and multiple slide planes present beneath the subslides located west of
Portuguese Canyon, which coincides with the West-Central and East-Central boundary.
Borings drilled by Ehlig and Yen, 1997 indicate that the Portuguese Tuff is at depth beneath the
rupture surface throughout the northern portion of the PBLC. The portion of strata that are
positioned between the rupture surface and the underlying Portuguese Tuff consists of relatively
stronger strata derived from Catalina Schist debris and siliceous biogenic material. The rupture
surface occurs along a sheared bentonite bed approximately 30 to 40 feet above the top of the
Portuguese Tuff in the PBLC except for the northernmost portion and at the coast (Ehlig and
Yen, 1997). The clay material of the rupture surface consists of both calcium-rich and sodium-
rich montmorillonite clay (Ehlig and Yen, 1997; Leighton and Associates, 2000). The sodium-
rich clay holds more water and is weaker than clay calcium-rich clay. Due to this fact, Ehlig and
Yen (1997) proposed a lime injection program to increase the amount of calcium cations in the
clay, which would strengthen the rupture surface clay. However, Leighton and Associates
(2000) determined that the rupture surface consists of a substantial amount of calcium-rich clay
and the lime injection may not yield desired stabilization results.
3.6 Hydrogeology
Studies of the PBLC have consistently concluded that water moving in the subsurface is a
significant contributing factor to the PBLC landslide instability. Subsurface water exists in the
pores of soils and unconsolidated sediments and in fractures that exist in both unconsolidated
sediments and hard rock. When water does not completely fill the pores that exist in soils, the
moisture condition is referred to as “unsaturated.” The balance of the pore space is filled with
soil vapor, which is typically in communication with the surface. When water completely fills the
pores spaces, the moisture condition is termed “saturated.” Like any other free water surface
D-207
(such as a pond or lake surface), a water table surface has a pore pressure, or static head, of
zero. The water pressure increases linearly with depth below the water table. Water pressure
can also build up as groundwater rises and encounters an overlying low-permeability zone that
“confines” the groundwater. In this case, water in a drilled borehole would rise up above the
level at which it was first encountered. If the water rose sufficiently high enough to encounter
the surface, the water pressure would be termed “artesian.”
Subsurface water includes water in soils that exists under conditions less than saturation above
a water table and water that exists under saturated conditions below a water table or below a
confining layer. Subsurface water is part of the continuous circulation of water between the
ocean, atmosphere, and land called the hydrologic cycle.
3.6.1 Groundwater Recharge
At the PBLC, water enters the subsurface by:
• Direct precipitation and infiltration through soils
• Drainage of surface water from locations upslope and subsequent infiltration and
percolation
• Percolation of water from private residential on-site wastewater treatment systems such
as septic systems
• Groundwater flow from upgradient locations, termed “underflow”
A preliminary groundwater balance was developed for a golf course project proposed for an
area in the east-southeastern PBLC (Leighton and Associates, 1998). The information available
to support this analysis was limited but deemed sufficient to provide a first order approximation
of the amount of water entering and leaving the proposed project site (the golf course project
was never completed).
Rainfall data from the Los Angeles County Fire Station at the top of the watershed on Crest
Road were used for the water balance calculations. Based on historical precipitation data for
D-208
the years 1947 to 1996, the average annual rainfall at the station was estimated to be
14.1 inches. This represents the amount of water (after deductions for the amounts that runoff,
evaporate, or transpire from plants) that can potentially infiltrate and percolate into the
subsurface of the PBLC. The area of the PBLC watershed is approximately 620 acres
(Section 6.2) (Figure 5). The resulting volume of water that falls on the PBLC watershed in an
average year is approximately 728 acre-feet of water (1.175 feet x 620 acres), the equivalent of
about 234 million gallons of water.
As calculated from the estimates presented in Leighton and Associates (1998), approximately
10 percent of the rain that fell on their proposed project area in an average rainfall year
recharges and becomes groundwater. Extrapolating that percentage to the case of the PBLC
area results in approximately 71.8 acre-feet, or 23.4 million gallons, of recharge. In addition,
Leighton and Associates (1998) also determined for their proposed project site that the average
annual rainfall of the 10 wettest years was 26.3 inches. In the 10 wettest years, Leighton and
Associates (1998) calculated that approximately 29 percent of the rain that fell recharged and
became groundwater. Using a wet-year rainfall of 26.3 inches for the PBLC, the recharge to
groundwater that results on the PBLC watershed area would be about 388 acre-feet, or
127 million gallons. These recharge estimates do not separate the rainfall water that infiltrates
and percolates directly from water that runs off from upgradient locations and subsequently
infiltrates and percolates into the Red Zone of the PBLC. Rather, these values represent
estimates of the recharge that occurs over the entire watershed. These recharge values are
likely conservative, and a more detailed analysis would likely reveal that the percentage of
rainfall that results in recharge is higher than estimated by Leighton and Associates. This is
because an important limitation of the method used by Leighton and Associates (1998) is the
assumption that rainfall stored within the soil is subject to evapotranspiration until the soil
moisture capacity is exceeded. However, existing conditions at Portuguese Bend include
desiccation cracks, fractures, and fissures caused by landslide movement that may permit water
to migrate beyond the depth of evapotranspiration before the soil reaches its moisture capacity.
This limitation in the method may result in an underestimate of groundwater recharge.
Leighton and Associates (1998) also estimated the contribution to groundwater recharge by
septic systems based on (1) the presence of 80 homes upslope of the project, (2) an estimated
D-209
annual indoor consumption of 1,350 cubic feet of water per month, and (3) the assumption that
all indoor water flowed to the septic system. The resulting contribution to subsurface water by
percolation from private septic systems was estimated to be about 30 acre-feet per year. Based
on the estimates for total project area recharge presented by Leighton and Associates (1998),
septic tanks contribute about 30 percent of the total groundwater recharge in dry years, and
about 7.2 percent of the total groundwater recharge in the 10 wettest years. While additional
study of the PBLC groundwater budget is merited to clarify the water budgets of both shallow
and deep groundwater, the preliminary water budget work suggests that there is a substantial
amount of recharge into the PBLC, particularly in wet years, and that groundwater recharge
from septic tanks can be significant in dry to average water years.
During periods of heavy rainfall, large quantities of runoff flow onto the landslide from the
tributary canyons. Field observation indicates that, although the water from these canyons was
conveyed across the landslide through a combination of natural and improved drainage
courses, it appears that significant sections of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) used for surface
drainage are broken and inoperable and that significant quantities of runoff infiltrate and
percolate into the ground within and around the periphery of the PBLC. Douglas (2013) stated
that “In Portuguese and Paint Brush Canyons, the lower reaches of the canyons have been
destroyed and 100 percent of the storm water from these canyon flows directly into the head of
the Portuguese Bend landslide.” Our field observations are consistent with this statement.
Leighton and Associates (1998) estimated the amount of recharge contributed by irrigation.
Because the northern border of their project area was at the upper end of the watershed, it
represented a no flow groundwater (and surface water) boundary in their analysis. In other
words, no water flowed south into the area from north of the boundary. As a result, all
groundwater flowing south into their proposed project site was the result of groundwater
recharge from areas between the north end of the study area (and watershed) and the project
site itself. The same is true for the PBLC. All groundwater inflow into the PBLC results from
recharge occurring upslope. Leighton and Associates (1998) estimated that up to 77 acre-feet
per year could be entering their project area from upslope irrigation recharge. Extrapolated to
the PBLC, and similar to septic tanks, irrigation return flow represents a significant source of
D-210
groundwater recharge to the PBLC. This component of recharge should be investigated further
in a water balance study developed to support the final design of a land stabilization solution.
3.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence
Groundwater generally occurs in two water-bearing zones at the Site. “Shallow” groundwater
typically flows above the bentonite layers (shear zones) that form the main slip or rupture zones
(failure surfaces) and is fed by general recharge, preferential recharge through local fractures,
recharge through the canyon bottoms, and recharge that occurs where the canyons dump storm
water onto alluvial fans, head slopes, sag ponds, and hummocky areas of the slide area.
Douglas (2013) reported that wells pumping from this layer respond quickly (days to weeks) to
major rain storms. A second water-bearing zone consisting of “deep” groundwater originates in
the upper part of the drainage basin and is largely confined to below the rupture zones. This
deep groundwater is confined and groundwater builds up pressure over time. Douglas (2013)
also reported that wells drilled deep enough often encounter pressurized groundwater zones
below the basal rupture surface.
Leighton and Associates (1998) reported that unconfined groundwater of the shallow water-
bearing zone occurs across the Site, and that it has historically been observed at depths
ranging from approximately 5 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs), at monitoring wells PBS-7,
B88-4, and B96-12, to approximately 90 to 110 feet bgs, at monitoring wells PBS-2, PBS-3, C-4,
C-5, and C-6. In general, the shallowest occurrences of groundwater have been observed in
the Landward subslide, above the heads of the East-Central and West-Central subslides. The
deepest occurrences of groundwater have been observed north of the active landslide area
(monitoring wells C-4 through C-6), and underlying the north-south trending topographic ridge
where monitoring wells PBS-2 through PBS-4 are located.
The horizontal hydraulic gradient of the unconfined groundwater of the shallow water-bearing
zone trends north to south and has a magnitude of approximately 0.10 foot of vertical head loss
per horizontal foot (Leighton and Associates, 1998), similar to the general site topographic
gradient. Experience indicates that, in general, horizontal groundwater hydraulic gradients
typically range from 0.01 to 0.00001. By comparison, the gradient at the PBLC is therefore
D-211
unusually high. High horizontal hydraulic gradients can be indicative of low-permeability
conditions, areas of intensive groundwater recharge, high topographic relief, and/or
groundwater extraction. Under homogeneous conditions, the direction of groundwater flow is
generally parallel to the direction of the hydraulic gradient, in this case north to south.
Appendix C shows the contoured piezometric surface of the water table at the site based on
interpolation of groundwater elevations measured in wells at the site.
The occurrence of groundwater in the deep water-bearing zone beneath the rupture zone is less
well understood and additional characterization of site deep groundwater is needed to facilitate
a clear understanding of the hydraulic forces that deep groundwater is exerting on PBLC land
stability. Ehlig and Yen (1997) reported that nested piezometers have been completed on the
PBLC at four locations, and that at each location pneumatic pressure transducer readings
indicate that groundwater occurs below the slide plane. Ehlig and Yen (1997) also reported that
vertical hydraulic head measurements indicate that a downward vertical gradient occurs within
the landslide mass and an even greater downward vertical gradient exists across the slide
plane. The presence of these downward vertical gradients at the lower end of the hillslope was
potentially attributed to increased groundwater recharge rates along the landscape of the
landslide, including the presence of extensional ground fractures.
Ehlig (1992) (as cited in Ehlig and Yen, 1997) reported on a well that was constructed and
screened at the toe of the Klondike Canyon landslide and yielded artesian groundwater flow.
The interpretation was given that slope stability analyses pertaining to the Seaward subslide
need to consider that confined groundwater conditions occur beneath the slide plane.
Ehlig and Yen (1997) generally concluded that groundwater occurrence beneath the site slide
rupture plane was consistent with groundwater recharge occurring at the upper end of the hill
slope and subsequent deeper migration beneath the slide plane towards the ocean.
Groundwater occurrence at the regional scale is shown in Appendix C. Crest Road located
north of the PBLC is approximately located at the topographic crest of the hill and is the
approximate location of the surface water and groundwater flow divide. Surface water and
groundwater that occurs north of Crest Road generally flows inland towards the Pacific Coast
D-212
Highway. Surface water and groundwater that occurs south of Crest Road generally flows
southward, through the PBLC, and toward the Pacific Ocean. Surface water that falls or flows
south of Crest Road has the opportunity to infiltrate and percolate into the subsurface of the
PBLC and become groundwater. This is the water that is the focus of concern regarding PBLC
land stability.
Leighton and Associates (2000) present a detailed cross-sectional view (UU-UU’) that traverses
through the main body of the PBLC from the upland area where the scarp of the slide headwall
is located to the Pacific Ocean. The relationship is shown between the existing surface
topography (existing grade), the interpreted water table (indicated by inverse triangles), and the
interpreted recent below-grade active failure surface of the PBLC, as interpreted in 1999. As
depicted, the water table surface is located above the interpreted active failure surface with a
gradient that roughly mimics the gradient of the surface topography. The area of greatest
thickness of the saturated zone within the PBLC was reported to be located inland (north) of
PVDS. The maximum interpreted saturated zone thickness is approximately 90 feet, and the
top of the saturated zone, at the point of maximum saturated zone thickness, was reported to be
located about 100 feet bgs (Leighton and Associates, 2000). Though additional work needs to
be accomplished to evaluate and delineate the specific occurrence of groundwater in the PBLC,
the previous work done to evaluate the occurrence of groundwater in the PBLC provides the
conceptual basis to evaluate and select technologies that can be used to stabilize land
movement.
3.6.3 Water Wells
Limited documented information is available on the number, construction details, and spatial
distribution of the water wells in the PBLC. Information provided by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes indicates that up to 20 water wells have been constructed and installed within the PBLC.
Except for four recent wells installed in 2016, no information could be located which documents
the well construction details, last surveyed location, purpose of well (monitoring or dewatering),
date of installation, well temporal monitoring data, or the current status of the well. That
limitation represents a significant data gap that should be aggressively addressed moving
forward. A map of currently known extraction well locations is presented as Figure 11.
D-213
A well inspection survey should be conducted, including well soundings and video survey where
necessary, in order to construct one consolidated, comprehensive database of site water well
information and to provide the basis to initiate a monitoring program moving forward. An
assessment should be prepared of the adequacy of the well network for spatial and temporal
monitoring of groundwater within the PBLC. Based on that assessment, the monitoring well
network should be augmented and a monitoring program initiated and maintained to provide
data that will guide and evaluate the performance of the selected program to stabilize the PBLC.
Regular, periodic well inspection surveys are also recommended to evaluate the impact of land
movement on the monitoring network and the need for monitoring network maintenance.
Ehlig and Yen (1997) report that groundwater elevations in the East-Central subslide area are
thought to have risen about 50 feet between the slide activation in 1956 and 1968. They
attributed the rise in groundwater elevations to an increase in the rate of groundwater recharge
within the landslide area caused by the disruption of drainage patterns and the opening of
fissures and cracks following the 1956 onset of movement. Water well elevation data presented
for four PBLC wells with close correlation of groundwater elevation increases to high rainfall
months indicate that groundwater recharge is occurring within a month of high rainfall events. In
other wells, particularly one located in the East-Central subslide area, the lag between rainfall
occurrence and water elevation response was longer, up to 5 months.
Changes in groundwater elevation with time and in relation to rainfall events vary depending
upon the well (Leighton and Associates, 2000). This suggests that multiple processes are
involved in the delivery and removal of groundwater from the site and highlights the need to
institute and formalize a monitoring program with the ability to record short and long term cyclic
events. Such a formalized monitoring program and the resulting database would facilitate the
collection, storage, and data interpretation critical to developing a detailed comprehensive
understanding of the mechanisms which control the stability of the PBLC.
3.7 Geotechnical Modeling
Slope stability evaluations of the PBLC have been performed in the past in support of
development of various remedial measures (e.g., Ehlig and Yen, 1997; Leighton, 2000). Past
D-214
studies, however, were subject to significant limitations. For example, prior models of the PBLC
were two-dimensional cross sections and hence could not capture the true three-dimensional
nature of the PBLC. Stability evaluations could not replicate the observed conditions. Attempts
were made to back-calculate shear strength parameters, but different results were obtained for
each two-dimensional cross section evaluated, further impeding development of viable remedial
measures.
Recently (over the past five years), significant advances have been made in three-dimensional
modeling of slope stability. It is now possible to develop a three-dimensional stability model of a
multi-acre site such as the PBLC based upon three-dimensional surfaces rather than two-
dimensional cross sections. Review of available studies as discussed Sections 2 and 3
indicates that, with reasonable data processing, available information is suitable and sufficient to
develop a preliminary 3D stability model of the PBLC using the following surfaces:
• Ground surface (topography)
• Groundwater elevation surface
• Basal shear plane surface
The ground surface topography of the PBLC was provided by the City (Section 2). The
groundwater surface map produced by Ehlig and Yen (1997) was selected as the most
comprehensive and representative for the modeling effort. Groundwater elevations were
laterally extrapolated to the perimeter of the model area (approximately 10 percent of the lateral
model area) based on the mapped water level data measured within the PBLC area. The 1997
basal rupture surface map also from Ehlig and Yen (1997) was selected as the most appropriate
basal shear plane map for the modeling effort. Basal rupture surface elevations were also
laterally extrapolated (approximately 10 percent of the lateral model area) based on mapped
data measured within the PBLC area.
An image of the preliminary three-dimensional stability model of the PBLC is shown in Figure
12. This model image was generated using SVSlope from SoilVision, Inc.
(https://www.soilvision.com/), which is the latest generation three-dimensional slope stability
evaluation program. Additional imagery from the modeling effort is provided in Appendix C,
D-215
including the approximate mapped limits of landsliding, several lateral cross-sections (A-A’ to
I-I’), and one transverse cross-section (1-1’). These images show that groundwater occurs
above the basal rupture surface within the PBLC. DBS&A performed the following preliminary
evaluations using the model software:
• Back-analysis of the PBLC
• Forward-analysis of the PBLC
The back-analysis was performed to estimate shear strength parameters along the basal failure
surface. Cohesion was set to zero, while friction angle was iterated until the calculated FOS
reached 1 (unity), which corresponds to the incipient failure of the landslide complex. An FOS
greater than 1.0 theoretically corresponds to the cessation of landsliding. Each model iteration
consumed approximately 3 hours of computational time. Back-analysis modeling indicates the
following:
• Back-calculated friction angle equals 6.7 degrees, which is within the range of values
reported in prior laboratory testing (Leighton, 2000).
• The direction of sliding (roughly north to south) is consistent with observations.
• The shape of the failure surface based on model calculations is consistent with
observations and interpretations (i.e., Ehlig and Yen, 1997).
Forward-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of groundwater elevation on the stability
of the PBLC. The results indicate a strong correlation in which the FOS increases with a
corresponding decrease in groundwater elevation (Figure 13):
• An elevation decline of 5 feet results in an increase in the FOS of approximately
3 percent (FOS increases from 1 to 1.03).
• An elevation decline of 40 feet results in an increase in the FOS of approximately
13 percent (FOS increases from 1 to 1.13).
D-216
Model limitations include the following:
• The 1997 groundwater elevation map may not be representative of current conditions; it
especially may not be representative of rainy periods that precede accelerated
landsliding.
• The steady-state seepage option within the three-dimensional stability model was not
used due to the lack of data and their interpretation.
• It was assumed that groundwater elevation (i.e., surface) is not affected by artesian
pressures, although there is historical evidence that the basal failure surface may be
subject to artesian pressure (Douglas, 2013).
• As noted above, the 1997 groundwater and basal failure surfaces were laterally
extended by extrapolation of existing data. Both groundwater elevation contour maps
and contour maps of the basal rupture surface can be improved and refined based upon
the results of supplemental investigation and data interpretation.
• The elevation of the groundwater surface that will exist upon implementation of proposed
remedial measures (Section 4.6) is not known at this point.
Importantly, the preliminary three-dimensional slope modeling confirms that a reasonable
reduction in the elevation of the groundwater surface (i.e., 10 to 20 feet) could result in a
significant reduction in land movement in the PBLC area (an increase in FOS up to
approximately 8 percent) (Figure 13).
D-217
4. Feasibility Study
The FS presented below consists of the following sections:
• ARARs
• Remedial Action Objective
• General Response Actions
• Identification and Screening of Technology Alternatives
• Detailed Analysis of Remedial Technologies
• Preferred Alternative
4.1 ARARs
In accordance with the CERCLA-analogous process for selecting an appropriate remedy being
implemented in this document, remedial actions must meet the requirements of relevant federal
environmental laws or more stringent state environmental laws referred to as ARARs. Remedial
alternative screening must include ARARs evaluation.
4.1.1 Definitions
As defined previously, ARARs is an acronym for Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. Applicable requirements are those “cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal
environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance. Only those
state standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner and that are more stringent than
federal requirements may be applicable” (CFR 300.5).
If a requirement is not applicable, it still may be relevant and appropriate and address issues at
the site such that their use is well suited to the particular site (U.S. EPA, 1991b). As
summarized by U.S. EPA, environmental laws and regulations can in part be broadly classified
into three categories:
D-218
• Laws and regulations that restrict activities at a given location
• Laws and regulations that control specific actions
There are therefore two types of ARARs:
• Location-Specific ARARs: Intended to protect unique or sensitive areas, such as
wetlands, riparian areas, historic places, and fragile ecosystems, and restrict or prohibit
activities that are potentially harmful to such areas.
• Action-Specific ARARs: Activity or technology based. These ARARs control remedial
activities involving the design or use of certain equipment or technology or regulate
discrete actions and are used in remedial technology alternatives screening.
To-be-considered criteria (TBCs) are also identified in addition to ARARs. TBCs are advisories,
guidance, policies, and/or proposed regulations or standards that might be applicable or
applicable in the future. Finally, local permitting requirements and ordinances are also
applicable when performing remedial actions.
4.1.2 Identified ARARs
ARARs are summarized in Table 1 and include:
1. 1961 California Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
2. 1968 California Anti-degradation Policy
3. 1969 California Porter-Cologne Act
4. 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
5. 1970 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
6. 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
7. 1973 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
8. 1973 USFWS Habitat Conservation Plans
9. 1993 USEPA Non-point Pollution (NPS) Management Guidance
10. 1995 SWRCB Water Quality Policy, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
D-219
11. 1998 California Coastal Zone Management Act
12. 2002 SWRCB Lake and Streambed Alteration Program 1602
13. 2004 SWRCB Water Quality Enforcement Policy, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
14. 2007 RWQCB Los Angeles Basin Plan
15. 2011 California NPS Pollution Control Policy
16. 2011 SWRCB NPDES Program
17. 2015 SWRCB 303(d) Listing Policy of 2004, amended 2015
18. 2015 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations (Cal-OSHA)
19. 2015 SWRCB/RWQCB 401 Water Quality Certifications and Wetlands Program
20. 2017 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Grading permit program
21. 1991 Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) (draft)
4.2 Remedial Action Objective
As discussed in Section 1.3, the specific purpose of this FS is to identify viable conceptual
solution options for the City’s consideration that will accomplish the following overall project
goals:
• Provide the geotechnical conditions that reduce the risk of damage to public and private
property and would allow for the significant improvement of roadway infrastructure,
safety, and stability.
• Significantly reduce human health risk and improve safety in the City.
• Significantly reduce sediment deposition into the Pacific Ocean that is causing
unacceptable turbidity in the coastal and marine environment.
• Select remedy options that will be consistent with the City’s NCCP/HCP, specifically
Section 4.1.2.
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) as defined by CERCLA and adapted for this FS are one or
more defined, specific project end-points or specific goals. The single RAO defined for the
Project Area is as follows:
D-220
• RAO1: Significantly reduce project area land movement
The project area is defined as the southeastern PBLC area (Red Zone) where land movement
has consistently been measured at the greatest rate. A significant reduction in land movement
in the project area would address each overall project goal. Infrastructure operation and
maintenance, including repair, redesign, and stabilization of PVDS, could be conducted with a
more regular, less frequent, and more cost-effective schedule. A stabilized roadway would
clearly be much safer for motorists and ensure the expedited transit of emergency vehicles as
necessary.
Infrastructure in the project area could also be upgraded, including sewer, water, and electrical
lines, with significantly reduced land movement. Once land movement is significantly reduced,
the coastal shore cliff would no longer be regularly driven into the surf zone by ongoing mass
movement upslope; thus, sediment turbidity in the coastal and marine environmental would be
decreased. In addition, the proposed remedy will stabilize the land within the City’s Palos
Verdes Nature Preserve. Further, remedy options will be identified consistent with the
NCCP/HCP.
4.3 General Response Actions
General response actions (GRAs) as defined by CERCLA and adapted for this FS describe
broad, general categories of technologies that will satisfy the RAO and provide a framework for
identifying specific remedial technologies for screening and detailed analysis. The GRAs
identified to address the RAO are:
• Subsurface dewatering
• Stormwater control
• Engineered slope stabilization measures
• Eliminate septic system discharge
D-221
4.3.1 Subsurface Dewatering
Preventing new water from entering the PBLC can be achieved by stormwater control and
extracting existing groundwater in the subsurface as much as possible to reduce soil saturation
and reduce continued landslide movement. Preliminary three-dimensional slope modeling
confirms that a reasonable reduction in the elevation of the groundwater surface of 5 to
15 percent would result in a significant reduction in land movement in the PBLC area
(Section 3.7). Subsurface dewatering through groundwater extraction should be conducted
where surface water infiltration and groundwater recharge has historically had the greatest
impact, such as in the head scarp area, the project area perimeter, and/or within the interior of
the project area. Groundwater extraction could be coupled with regional stormwater capture as
discussed below to optimize the effectiveness of the overall subsurface dewatering effort.
Subsurface dewatering is typically conducted with either or both horizontal and vertical
groundwater extraction wells. Horizontal groundwater extraction wells are also termed
horizontal drains, directional drains, hydraugers, or hydro-augers. In geotechnical engineering,
the term horizontal drains is typically used.
Vertical groundwater extraction wells are also termed pumping wells or dewatering wells.
Dewatering wells are installed using conventional well-drilling rigs using such drilling methods
as air or wet rotary tri-cone, auger, percussion, or sonic. Extraction well installation needs to be
designed and field-supervised by a licensed Professional Geologist, Engineering Geologist or
Geotechnical Engineer. Wells would be located based on an understanding of area
hydrogeology and stratigraphy.
4.3.2 Stormwater Control
Preventing stormwater infiltration is a key to reducing overall slope failure and ongoing surface
water loading to the project area. Stormwater originating upslope in Portuguese Canyon,
Paintbrush Canyon, and Ishibashi Canyon (east of Peacock Flat) has historically been flowing
directly into the head scarp of the PBLC just south of Burma Road where surface fractures are
present.
D-222
Stormwater infiltration also recharges groundwater, to varying degrees, in the upper, central,
and lower canyon areas, which then flows in the subsurface downgradient to the southeastern
PBLC area where land movement is the greatest. Stormwater with the potential to result in
significant recharge in these areas should be captured and/or controlled, and discharged to the
ocean to prevent future recharge to surface fractures and groundwater.
Stormwater discharge from lower Klondike Canyon also recharges groundwater in the vicinity of
the southeastern Red Zone near where land movement is typically occurring at the greatest
rate. Stormwater in lower Klondike Canyon should be captured and discharged to the ocean to
prevent further groundwater recharge to this area of the PBLC.
GRAs that are used to address stormwater control can include one or any combination of
surface water infrastructure such as box culverts, channels, gabions, drainage ditches,
subdrains, velocity or energy dissipation structures, sedimentation basins, pipes, and
drainways. Much of this type of regional drainage infrastructure is typically constructed with
concrete, supplemented with metal or plastic piping, and designed for gravity flow.
However, due to the sensitive surrounding flora and fauna, alternatively, geotextiles and
engineered composite materials, such as geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), can be used for
stormwater control where applicable in areas requiring substantial infiltration control. GCLs and
geotextiles can be used in constructed or restored wetlands environments or stream restoration
designs. Stormwater control GRAs also include segmented pre-fabricated channels that can be
specified, transported to a work area, and connected in series to form a streamway or channel
with controlled flow.
Surface water control measures also includes infilling of surface fractures on an annual basis as
a maintenance item before winter rains commence. Surface fractures in the PBLC head scarp
area can be filled in a number of ways, for example a grouting operation involving a long-reach
boom pumping truck delivering a slurried earthen filler material. The principal goal is to remove
preferential pathways through which rain or runoff water can rapidly percolate to the deep
subsurface past the zone of plant root uptake and subsequent transpiration.
D-223
4.3.3 Enineered Slope Stabilization Measures
Numerous engineering measures for slope stabilization are currently in use in California. The
feasibility of implementation regarding a specific engineering measure depends upon several
factors. For example, in some situations, an extent of landsliding, geologic and groundwater
conditions, the composition of the landslide mass, and/or the thickness of the landslide mass
may limit implementation of a certain measure, while in other cases, terrain, topography, the
cost of implementation and maintenance and/or environmental constraints may be a deciding
factor. Engineered slope stabilization measures that could be considered for PBLC include the
following:
• Buttressing (engineered fill)
• Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall
• Drilled piers (caissons)
4.3.4 Eliminate Septic System Discharge
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, septic tanks contribute a significant amount of groundwater
recharge in relatively dry water years. A centralized sewer system that eliminates septic tanks
in the PBLC area would significantly reduce future dry weather groundwater recharge. A
centralized sewer system is needed in portions of both the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
City Rolling Hills within the Portuguese Bend watershed (Figure 7).
The properties within the PBLC area between Peppertree Drive and PVDS currently use septic
tanks. A centralized sewer system would be beneficial in this neighborhood that is directly
adjacent to the northwest portion of the project area. Recharged groundwater in this
neighborhood flows downgradient directly into the project area.
The properties northeast of the PBLC area and south of Crest Road, primarily in the City of
Rolling Hills, currently use septic tanks. A centralized sewer system would be beneficial in this
neighborhood that is directly upgradient of the PBLC. Recharged groundwater in this
neighborhood eventually flows downgradient into the project area. It is recommended that the
D-224
City of Rancho Palos Verdes encourage the City of Rolling Hills to construct a centralized sewer
system.
4.3.5 Coastal Erosion Control
An offshore breakwater could be installed in Portuguese Bend east or southeast of Inspiration
Point to dissipate offshore wave energy and reduce coastal wave-cut bluff erosion. This option
was studied in detail by the USACE to address marine habitat restoration in an FS dated 2000
(USACE, 2000).
4.4 Identification and Screening of Technology Alternatives
This section describes technologies commonly used in industry to address the RAO. This
section also provides an initial screening of these technologies to identify and eliminate
technologies that have a sufficiently obvious flaw, based on known conditions, such that it can
be determined early on in the remedy selection process that the technology could not be
reasonably implemented. Technologies that are retained as the result of the analysis presented
in this section are then carried forward to the detailed analysis of technology alternatives. Prior
to implementation, the alternatives would require further engineering analysis, reports, and
project plans. Screened technologies discussed below are also compared to effectiveness,
implementability, and cost criteria in Table 2.
4.4.1 Stormwater Control Option 1 – Repair Existing Corrugated Piping System
4.4.1.1 Description
The existing CMP system in the PBLC area could be repaired to capture stormwater and direct
discharge to the ocean. The piping network was appropriately installed in the areas of greatest
stormwater flow along the axes of Paintbrush, Ishibashi, and Portuguese Canyons. The loose
piping segments could be re-connected and refurbished and/or replaced so that the overall
system would be reinstated in its original design. Repairing and refurbishing and/or replacing
the piping would be a relatively straight-forward task with readily available equipment and labor.
D-225
4.4.1.2 Screening Summary
The existing piping network has been out of maintenance for nearly 20 years. When originally
installed, the piping segments were relatively easily dismantled by continuing land movement in
the PBLC area. In addition, surface water flow in the PBLC was not fully captured by the piping
network since the upslope headworks were apparently under-designed. The piping diameter
may have been undersized as well. Also, the network likely did not cover enough area in the
PBLC. Though the original piping network was envisioned with the intention of capturing
stormwater and preventing groundwater recharge, it was installed as a preliminary engineering
solution. Resurrecting the former system does not address the design scale issues, and it
would not fully capture stormwater. If rebuilt, the metal piping would again be subject to
damage from ongoing land movement. A more substantially designed and flexible system is
needed for full stormwater capture and control. As a result, this option has been eliminated
from further consideration.
4.4.2 Stormwater Control Option 2 – Install Concrete Channels
4.4.2.1 Description
Traditionally, stormwater and flood control infrastructure is constructed with concrete channels
and associated metal or plastic piping. Stormwater flow is captured upslope and directed to
flood control basins where it infiltrates to groundwater or passes downgradient under gravity
flow to a supplemental basin or concrete channel or box culverts. Concrete channels and box
culverts are highly effective in capturing and directing stormwater flow and controlling design
floods of a pre-specified size and frequency. Concrete channels and culverts are an
established technology with available equipment, materials, and labor.
4.4.2.2 Screening Summary
Concrete channels and culverts are effective in geotechnically stable areas. However, where
there is land movement, concrete structures are prone to damage from tensional cracking,
shearing, subsidence, upheaval, and associated stresses. Once damaged, the channels would
no longer prevent groundwater infiltration. Routine maintenance and repair would not be cost-
effective in the long term. In addition, concrete structures do not typically allow for native habitat
to thrive nor do they receive widespread aesthetic acceptance. However, concrete structures
D-226
are highly effective and efficient on controlling flow and may be appropriate in some portion of
the PBLC area such as the canyons south of Burma Road, or in mid-canyon areas that are not
prone to land movement. As a result, this option has been retained for further consideration in
limited areas of the PBLC.
4.4.3 Stormwater Control Option 3 – Install Liner and Channel System
4.4.3.1 Description
A canyon liner system consisting of engineered flexible geotextile composite fabrics or GCLs
would allow for both stormwater infiltration control and habitat development within the PBLC and
Preserve properties. Some associated engineering components would also be needed in mid-
canyon high-flow or flow-convergence areas such as velocity dissipation structures, flow control
channeling, streambank stabilization, vegetated gabions, or subsurface piping. Portions of
Portuguese, Paintbrush, and Ishibashi Canyons would be lined to direct flow away from the
PBLC head scarp area and away from the Project Area. High-flow in the mid-canyon area near
Burma Road would be captured and directed by gravity flow into a single channel downgradient
that ultimately connects to piping under the PVDS that discharges into the ocean. The flexible
composite fabrics are not prone to damage from land movement. The mid-canyon flow control
structures would be installed where land movement is minimal and acceptable. Habitat could
be partially integrated into the design of the canyon liner system. This option could be installed
with readily available equipment, materials, and labor, and designed to comply with the
minimization measures set forth in the City’s NCCP/HCP.
4.4.3.2 Screening Summary
This option would effectively prevent stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge while
allowing for habitat establishment within the PBLC and Preserve properties. This technology is
readily available and could be cost-effectively installed and maintained, and could be designed
to comply with the minimization measures set forth in the City’s NCCP/HCP. Once installed, the
structures would be structurally flexible and not prone to damage from land movement. For
these reasons, this option has been retained for further consideration.
D-227
4.4.4 Stormwater Control Option 4 – Seal Surface Fractures
4.4.4.1 Description
This option involves using a long-reach boom truck and/or conventional pumping truck, or other
method, to deliver a slurried earthen material to major surface fractures in the PBLC head scarp
area and other key areas where surface water infiltration needs to be minimized. A survey of
fractures and fracture sealing would be conducted on an annual basis as a maintenance item
before winter rains commence.
4.4.4.2 Screening Summary
This option could be conducted with limited or no impacts to existing habitat, with staging placed
in disturbed areas, and would help reduce groundwater recharge in the project area and in the
head scarp area. This technology is readily available and could be implemented for reasonable
cost with industry standard equipment, materials, and labor. For these reasons, this option has
been retained for further consideration.
4.4.5 Subsurface Dewatering Option 1 – Groundwater Extraction Pits
4.4.5.1 Description
This option involves completing semi-permanent linear excavations of subsurface soils below
groundwater in order to facilitate groundwater extraction from low-permeability soils over the
long term. Excavations would be completed with a roughly rectangular configuration where
groundwater extraction is needed in the southeastern PBLC area within the project area.
Extraction pits are effective in relatively low permeability formations as they allow for slow
groundwater seepage into the pit and incremental extraction by automated pumping to the
surface. Typically, multiple long pits aligned in parallel would be needed to effectively dewater a
relatively large area. Groundwater extraction pits are typically installed where the depth to
groundwater is less than 25 feet below grade so that excavation engineering and groundwater
extraction is less complex. However, deeper pits are also possible.
D-228
4.4.5.2 Screening Summary
Groundwater extraction pits can be effective over the long term in low permeability formations
where groundwater extraction through traditional pumping wells is too problematic due to very
low well yields. However, multiple pits would likely be needed in the relatively large project area
and vicinity. Multiple aligned pits would be fairly disruptive to the existing properties.
Excavations are also inherently hazardous and require significant safety engineering during
design, implementation, oversight, and long-term maintenance. In addition, the depth to
groundwater in the PBLC area exceeds 50 feet below grade, further complicating this option
and significantly increasing the implementation cost. For these reasons, this option has been
eliminated from further consideration.
4.4.6 Subsurface Dewatering Option 2 – Groundwater Extraction Wells
4.4.6.1 Description
Vertical groundwater extraction wells are a proven and traditional technology for groundwater
dewatering. Typically, multiple wells are installed by drilling rig in a network pattern to
effectively extract groundwater from a design target area and depth. The radius-of-influence
(ROI) of each individual well is estimated from field measurements and coupled with the ROI
from adjacent wells so that the entire well network covers the target area with some ROI
overlap. Downhole electrical submersible pumps would deliver groundwater to the surface for
ultimate gravity flow or surface pump-assisted gravity flow to the ocean. Downhole pumps
require electrical power. Wells installed in key areas and depths can relieve subsurface
artesian pressure which can alleviate land movement.
4.4.6.2 Screening Summary
While extraction wells have been successful in the adjacent Abalone Cove area, extraction wells
have had limited success historically in the PBLC area due to low soil permeability, low well
yields, and pump clogging due to fine sediments and probable iron bacterial growth. Wells are
also prone to deformation or vertical shearing due to ongoing land movement. In addition, the
depth to groundwater in some portions of the PBLC exceeds 100 feet, which significantly
increases drilling, well installation, and operational costs.
D-229
However, extraction wells can be very effective if installed in an area of little or no land
movement or where groundwater is present in relatively high permeability soils. Wells would be
more effective in historically slide-prone areas once land movement is significantly reduced
through other technologies. Wells could effective if coupled with other technologies such as
stormwater control. In addition, extraction wells are one of the few cost-effective technologies
actually available for subsurface dewatering. Extraction wells also required a relatively low
surface footprint for implementation, and less for operation, this being compatible with habitat
conservation and aesthetic goals. For these reasons, this option is retained for further
consideration.
4.4.7 Subsurface Dewatering Option 3 – Directional Subsurface Drains
4.4.7.1 Description
Directional subsurface drains are also termed hydraugers, hydro-augers, horizontal wells, or
horizontal drains. This technology involves the installation of relatively long, linear well casing
inclined to grade and extending up to 1,500 feet in the subsurface where conditions allow. The
casing is slotted like a vertical well screen so that groundwater passively enters the screen slots
then flows under gravity to the wellhead where it is directed to a pipe to the ocean. Several
lengths of slotted well casing can be installed from one work area as multiple runs of separate
slotted casing are oriented in a radial fan-like pattern extending up and into subsurface soils.
Horizontal extraction wells could be installed at several locations in the project area and in the
greater PBLC area where subsurface groundwater needs to be extracted. Drain casing can
also be installed with relatively large outer casing covering smaller inner casing to help promote
longevity and stability of the drain in a subsurface environment prone to land movement.
4.4.7.2 Screening Summary
Directional drains have a number of advantages for the PBLC area. Numerous drains can be
installed from one work area, and the resulting infrastructure is below grade so that no surface
habitat is disturbed above the casing. No pumps or electrical components are needed as
groundwater passively enters the drains and flows under gravity to an exit point at the work
area. Several drains could be installed from the coastal bluff south of PVDS that would extend
beneath the road and into and under the project area and other key areas where groundwater
D-230
needs to be extracted. Additional drains could be installed further north at the base of the
slopes in the upper project area to extract groundwater in the mid-canyon areas. Drains could
be installed to cover nearly the entire project area subsurface if needed at a specified depth or,
perhaps, multiple depths. In addition, if aligned parallel with or sub-parallel to the primary
direction of regional land movement, drain casing would be less susceptible to shearing and
deformation due to land movement compared to vertical wells. As land movement eventually
slows due to dewatering, however, both wells and drains would be more stable over time.
The challenge would be where drains are needed at significant working depths such as depths
approaching 100 feet below grade or more. The drilling and casing installation work area
typically must be at the lowest point of elevation so that the casing can be inclined to grade to
enable gravity flow. For example, if groundwater extraction is required at a significant depth
below grade in relatively flat terrain, the work area must be designed within a temporary
excavation in order to achieve the appropriate geometry during installation. In some cases,
directional drilling from the surface can be used to help accommodate deeper casing depths.
Although working depth can complicate casing installation, this technology is cost effective, has
relatively little operation and maintenance, can cover large areas, and is highly effective in
groundwater dewatering. Moreover, minimal habitat loss would occur with this option, and like
vertical groundwater extraction wells, directional drains are one of the few cost-effective
technologies actually available for subsurface dewatering. For these reasons, this option is
retained for further consideration.
4.4.8 Engineering Slope Stabilization - Buttressing (Engineered Fill)
4.4.8.1 Description
Landslide mitigation by buttressing is probably the most commonly used method of landslide
stabilization in California. Depending on the size and shape of the landslide and borrow source
materials available, a relatively large buttress might be required. In some cases, especially
where space for construction of buttress fill is limited, other, complementary engineering
measures might be required. These measures might include soil (i.e., engineered fill)
reinforcement by means of geogrids and stabilization of temporary cuts for buttress fill
D-231
construction by soil nails or rock anchors. These measures allow for construction of buttress
fills with nearly vertical slopes and very steep temporary cuts required for construction of these
slopes. Leighton (2000) proposed a major buttress along the coastline south of PVDS that is
nearly half a mile across and a smaller buttress along the southern and northeastern perimeter
of the project area.
4.4.8.2 Screening Summary
Buttress fills, when properly sized, keyed, benched and constructed, in most cases, stabilize
landslides for an extended period of time. Slope movements, including lateral displacements,
settlement and creep are, in most cases, minimal.
Past studies (e.g., Leighton, 2000) considered construction of a very large buttress fill to
mitigate the PBLC. Based upon review of past studies and the results of preliminary evaluation
of slope stability using a three-dimensional model, it was confirmed that a relatively large
buttress fill would be required for the PBLC. Due to location and size constraints, such a
buttress fill would require keying below groundwater which, in turn, would require dewatering
during construction. Due to its relatively large size, a buttress fill would be significantly
disruptive to protected habitat and residents during construction and would likely not be
aesthetically acceptable after construction. Construction of a buttress would be burdensome
and disruptive to regional transportation for an extended period of time. For these reasons, this
option has been eliminated from further consideration.
4.4.9 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures - Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall
4.4.9.1 Description
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls (gravity earth-retaining walls) are a common and
effective technology when applied in the appropriate geotechnical setting. MSE walls have
been successfully applied to mitigate slope failure at numerous locations in California. An MSE
wall is basically surface soil stabilized with engineered components such as reinforcing
geotextiles, panels, or precast blocks installed downslope as a support or anchoring structure to
mitigate upslope land movement or to counter forces associated with an upslope containment
(such as from water storage). One of the primary advantages of MSE walls is that they can be
D-232
constructed as modular components in a relatively short period of time compared to other
technologies. MSE walls are commonly constructed in roadside slope stabilization projects, as
secondary tank containment, and in dams and levees.
4.4.9.2 Screening Summary
MSE walls are cost-effective and can be rapidly constructed to mitigate slope failure or counter
design forces upslope in appropriate environments such as where the rupture surface is
relatively shallow, and/or where substantial footings or keying to stable bedrock is not required.
At the PBLC, the depth to the basal rupture surface exceeds 60 feet in some areas. A surficial
MSE wall would not stabilize land movement originating at depth. Although MSE walls are
attractive from a cost perspective and are relatively simple to install, due to the depth to the
basal rupture surface at the PBLC, along with the relatively large PBLC area that requires
stabilization, MSE walls are not an appropriate alternative and will not be considered further.
4.4.10 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures – Drilled Piers (Caissons)
4.4.10.1 Description
Soil improvement techniques like piles, rock anchors, soil nails, and drilled piers (caissons), are
commonly used to stabilize slopes and/or to mitigate areas affected by landsliding. Given the
size of the area affected by landsliding, the only potentially feasible, soil-improvement based
slope mitigation option for the PBLC is mitigation with drilled piers. Drilled piers (caissons) are
constructed by drilling and installing vertical reinforcement bars surrounded by poured concrete.
Several rows of closely-spaced piers (typically separated by a distance equal to 1.5 to 3 pier-
diameters) are installed along the bottom third of sliding mass below the basal rupture surface.
Drilled piers must extend below the basal failure surface (the total depth depends on the
mechanical properties of the material below the basal failure surface). Drilled piers with
diameters of up to 8 feet and up to 60 feet long have been installed at various sites across
coastal California in the past, including the PBLC (Section 2.1).
4.4.10.2 Screening Summary
Drilled piers can be installed in areas where access is limited or where there is not enough room
to construct a properly keyed and benched engineered buttress. Preliminary evaluation,
D-233
consistent with past studies, indicates that numerous large diameter drilled piers would be
required for PBLC mitigation. In addition, the required caisson depth, advanced below the basal
failure surface, would be excessive (at many locations over 60 feet). Therefore, the cost of
implementation of this measure, and the associated disruption to the environment, traffic, and
residents, is a basis for elimination of this remedial measure from further consideration.
4.4.11 Centralized Sewer System
4.4.11.1 Description
As discussed in Section 4.5.2, septic tanks contribute a significant amount of groundwater
recharge in relatively dry water years. Septic tanks are located at properties in both the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rolling Hills. A centralized sewer system that eliminates
septic tanks in the PBLC area would significantly reduce future dry weather groundwater
recharge. Residential septic systems would be incrementally and systematically removed only
once a new centralized sewer is installed along streets in the target neighborhoods. The new
sewer system would be installed under the center or along the side of existing streets and
connected by laterals to each home within the network. Sewer line flow would ultimately be
directed to a centralized sewer treatment plant such as the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson, California. This option would
have to be fully evaluated in a separate engineering study to develop specific objectives, design
options, costs, and regulatory requirements for both the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the
City of Rolling Hills.
4.4.11.2 Screening Summary
This option would help reduce groundwater recharge in both the immediate vicinity of the
Project Area and in the upper canyon areas over the long term. This technology is readily
available and could be installed and maintained with industry standard equipment, materials,
and labor. For these reasons, this option has been retained for further consideration.
D-234
4.4.12 Coastal Erosion Control (Breakwater)
4.4.12.1 Description
An offshore breakwater installed in Portuguese Bend east or southeast of Inspiration Point
would dissipate offshore wave energy and reduce coastal bluff erosion. This engineered
structure would consist of a containment dike or similar feature. This option was studied in
detail by the USACE in their FS dated 2000 (USACE, 2000).
4.4.12.2 Screening Summary
While this option would reduce wave erosion along the bluff south of PVDS, overall landslide
mitigation would not be addressed. As a result, the landslide complex would continue to
advance generally towards the south after breakwater construction. For this reason, a
breakwater option has not been retained for further consideration.
4.4.13 Summary of Retained Technologies
The following technology alternatives have been retained for detailed evaluation, after
completion of the screening process:
• Stormwater Control – Concrete Channels
• Stormwater Control – Flexible Liner System and Components
• Stormwater Control – Seal Surface Fractures
• Subsurface Dewatering – Groundwater Extraction Wells
• Subsurface Dewatering – Directional Subsurface Drains
• Eliminate Septic System Discharge – Centralized Sewer System
The detailed analysis of each option is presented in the following section.
4.5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Technologies
The evaluation criteria that were used to conduct an analysis of the candidate alternative
technologies are listed below:
D-235
• Overall protection of human health and the environment
• Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• State and community acceptance
The options presented in this section are ranked and numerically scored for each evaluation
criteria (Table 3). The individual scores are summed to arrive at a total technology score. The
options that received the higher total scores and relative lowest cost were identified as a
preferred option for the City’s consideration. Approximate order-of-magnitude costs for each
option are included in Table 4.
4.5.1 Concrete Channels
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Concrete channels are
protective of human health but can impact the natural environment once constructed.
Construction permanently displaces otherwise native habitat and has an adverse impact
on the aesthetic value of the open Preserve land.
• Compliance with ARARs. This option would likely meet most of the requirements of the
identified ARARs. However, converting a blue line stream such as the upper canyon,
mid-canyon, or lower canyon areas into a concrete channel would likely not be a
permitted project.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Concrete channels would be effective and
permanent in the long term if built in areas with little to no land movement.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. Concrete channels would be effective in the short term if built
in areas with little to no land movement.
D-236
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor.
• Cost. This option does not involve specialty equipment, materials, or labor and is
routinely implemented for stormwater control in appropriate areas. As a result, the
option should not be cost-prohibitive.
• State and community acceptance. This option is likely unacceptable to the state and the
community because it would significantly alter the appearance of the Preserve properties
and permanently eliminate habitat acreage within the Preserve.
This option would be effective and could be installed for manageable costs. Over the longer
term, maintenance costs would be high to repair damage caused by land movement. However,
it would likely not be permitted within a native habitat area. In addition, it is not aesthetically
acceptable for placement within a preserve with protected habitat. As a result of the detailed
analysis of this option discussed above, it has been eliminated from further consideration.
4.5.2 Liner and Channel System
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Flexible material lining the
canyons, where appropriate, would be protective of human health and integrated into the
environment after construction. Engineered substrate could be incorporated into the
design to allow for acceptable habitat development within the lined stormwater channel
network.
• Compliance with ARARs. This option would likely meet most or all of the requirements
of the identified ARARs. It is anticipated that work within a blue line stream could be
permitted in part under a stream restoration program.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. This option would be effective and
permanent in the long term. The proposed materials are flexible and are not susceptible
to damage from land movement. The surface area can be planted with native vegetation
D-237
that can be designed to accommodate various root systems depending on the depth of
the top soil.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. This option would be effective and permanent in the short
term. If land movement occurs early in the program before longer term land movement
is significantly reduced, a flexible liner system is designed to withstand damage by
allowing some liner movement.
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor.
• Cost. This option does not involve specialty equipment, materials, or labor and is
routinely implemented for infiltration control in appropriate areas. As a result, the option
should not be cost-prohibitive.
• State and community acceptance. This option would likely be acceptable to the state
and to the community because it partially integrates habitat and stream restoration into a
design for stormwater capture and control.
4.5.3 Seal Surface Fractures
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Sealing surface fractures
each year in the PBLC head scarp and project area, where appropriate, would be
protective of human health and the environment as the contribution to overall land
movement due to stormwater infiltration would be reduced.
• Compliance with ARARs. This option would likely meet most or all of the requirements
of the identified ARARs.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. This option would be effective and
permanent in the long term. Additional sealing may be needed each year if additional
D-238
fractures are identified. Eventually as land movement is significantly reduced, the need
to continue fracture sealing would become increasingly reduced.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. This option would be effective and permanent in the short
term once sealing material is introduced into fractures.
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor. The staging area would take up
relatively minimal surface area with minimal impact to protected habitat.
• Cost. This option does not involve specialty equipment, materials, or labor and is
routinely implemented for infiltration control in appropriate areas. As a result, the option
should not be cost-prohibitive.
• State and community acceptance. This option would likely be acceptable to the state
and to the community because it does not significantly impact the surrounding surface
environment or habitat, and provided that the staging area is located where little to no
impact to protected habitat would occur.
4.5.4 Groundwater Extraction Wells
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Groundwater extraction wells
are protective of human health and the environment when properly designed, installed,
and maintained. This option would result in relatively minimal impacts to the native
habitat or open land.
• Compliance with ARARs. Well installation is routinely permitted and would meet
requirements of the identified ARARs.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Groundwater extraction wells have been
problematic over the long term in the PBLC area due to clogging and damage due to
land movement. Wells could be sustainable and permanent over the long term if the
D-239
clogging issue can be resolved through such measures as periodic sterilization with
oxidants and redevelopment. In addition, groundwater yield has been problematically
low in the PBLC area due to naturally occurring low permeability soils in the subsurface.
However, if installed in the appropriate area and at the appropriate depth where soils are
sufficiently permeable and where groundwater is present, extraction wells are highly
effective in removing subsurface groundwater.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. Wells are effective over the short term if installed and
maintained where groundwater is present in sufficiently permeable soils.
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor. This technology is one of the few
available for subsurface dewatering. However, low permeability soils can be problematic
in the subsurface at the PBLC.
• Cost. This option does not involve specialty equipment, materials, or labor and is
routinely implemented for infiltration control in appropriate areas. As a result, the option
should not be cost-prohibitive.
• State and community acceptance. This option would likely be acceptable to the state
and to the community because wells currently exist within the PBLC, and in adjacent
areas, and are installed and maintained within a relatively small area footprint.
4.5.5 Directional Subsurface Drains
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Horizontal groundwater
extraction wells are protective of human health and the environment because they are
installed nearly entirely in the subsurface. Installation can be conducted within a
relatively limited area footprint with relatively minimal impacts to the native habitat or
open land, and would not result in an adverse aesthetic value because the drains are
mostly located below the surface.
D-240
• Compliance with ARARs. Horizontal well installation is routinely permitted and would
meet requirements of the identified ARARs.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Horizontal groundwater extraction wells are
effective over the long term because they are essentially a passive technology with no
moving parts, relatively limited operation and maintenance, and are mostly underground
where the potential for damage from surface activities is eliminated. Groundwater
continues to be extracted as long as the well is not damaged from lateral land movement
transverse to the well casing. Horizontal wells can be installed with concentric casings
aligned parallel to prevailing land movement to help minimize damage from land
movement. As the wells remove groundwater land movement is anticipated to be
significantly reduced incrementally over time so that the potential for well damage is also
incrementally reduced. As with vertical wells, horizontal wells could be sustainable and
permanent over the long term if the clogging issue can be resolved through such
measures as periodic sterilization with oxidants and redevelopment.
If installed in the appropriate area and at the appropriate depth where soils are
sufficiently permeable and where groundwater is present, horizontal extraction wells are
highly effective in removing subsurface groundwater over the long-term. This
technology has not been implemented in the PBLC area before, although it is highly
effective when appropriately installed and monitored.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. Horizontal wells are also effective over the short term if
installed where groundwater is present. In some installations, groundwater flow into the
horizontal wells can take up to several months before discharge is observed.
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor. This technology is also one of the few
available for subsurface dewatering. However, low permeability soils can be problematic
in the subsurface at the PBLC.
D-241
• Cost. This option does not involve non-standard specialty equipment, materials, or labor
and is routinely implemented for groundwater extraction control in landslide repair or
landslide-prone areas. Multiple horizontal wells, directed out radially and extending up
to approximately 1,000 feet or more of lateral length, can be installed from one work
area. As a result, this option is highly cost-effective.
• State and community acceptance. This option would likely be acceptable to the state
and to the community because horizontal wells are mostly underground, out of sight, do
not impact habitat or open space, and are installed and maintained within a relatively
small area footprint. Only relatively minor surface piping would be associated with each
wellhead to direct captured groundwater by gravity flow to a nearby surface water
channel or pipe discharge to the ocean.
4.5.6 Centralized Sewer System
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. Centralized sewer systems
are protective of human health and the environment as they control and contain raw
sewage flow to regional treatment plants instead of directing the liquid flow into the
subsurface environment.
• Compliance with ARARs. This alternative would likely meet most or all of the
requirements of the identified ARARs. This option likely involves significant permitting
from multiple jurisdictions, however.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. This option would be effective and
permanent in the long term. Some periodic maintenance is required.
• Short-Term Effectiveness. This option would be effective and permanent in the short
term once constructed.
• Implementability. This option is standard technology that is easily implemented with
readily available equipment, materials, and labor.
D-242
• Cost. This option does not involve specialty equipment, materials or labor and is
routinely implemented in new developments and in retro-fit areas. This option involves
significant planning, permitting, design engineering, and construction work, and, as a
result, costs are relatively high. Moreover, permitting and construction would occur in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rolling Hills.
• State and community acceptance. This option would likely be acceptable to the state
due to the elimination of ongoing liquid infiltration that contributes to regional land
movement. While the community will understand and support cessation of land
movement, conversion costs from OWTS to city sewer will likely be an issue that would
need to be addressed by City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Rolling Hills.
4.6 Preferred Options
4.6.1 Description and Conceptual Design
Based on the evaluation and discussion presented in the previous sections, the following
preferred options have been identified for the City’s consideration:
• Seal Surface Fractures
• Directional Subsurface Drains
• Flexible Liner System and Components
• Groundwater Extraction Wells
• Centralized Sewer System
The sequence of the remedy options has been organized to correspond with an iterative
construction cycle or a phased-approach to overall design, construction and installation. That is,
sealing surface fractures a relatively straight-forward and cost-effective remedy that could be
readily implemented before other options are pursued or while other options are in design,
permitting, or construction. Second, directional drains are a conventional and cost-effective
solution that could be installed while the more complex stormwater control liner and channel
system would be in design, permitting, or construction. Directional drains would be installed in a
D-243
phased manner to allow for additional drains installed over time once earlier designs are
installed, pilot-tested, and assessed on its effectiveness.
Finally, after key fractures are sealed, directional subsurface drains are in place, and
stormwater control is in place, the remedy program may be supplemented with an expansion of
the existing groundwater extraction well network. Wells would be installed last in the sequence
so that potential well damage from ongoing land movement would be minimized as the earlier
components incrementally take effect.
The first three remedy options (sealing fractures, directional drains, and stormwater
liner/channel system) would be pilot-tested before full-scale design and construction to allow for
design refinement and adjustment as needed based on field conditions. Pilot testing is
discussed below in Section 4.6.3. Each remedy component is further described in the following
subsections.
4.6.1.1 Seal Surface Fractures
This technology consists of in-filling existing surface fractures on an annual basis primarily in the
vicinity of the project area (Red Zone) and in the PBLC head scarp area to reduce stormwater
infiltration to groundwater. Other areas of the PBLC such as south of PVDS or within the
interior of the slide area itself could also be included if appropriate. Relatively large fractures
would be infilled before the rainy winter season each year using a long -reach pumping truck,
conventional pumping rig, or other method. Surface fractures would be identified in advance
each fall through an on-site visual inspection survey, recent aerial photograph review, or
potentially, with photographic data collected with an aerial drone fly-over.
4.6.1.2 Directional Subsurface Drains
Directional drains have the potential to have a significant effect on lowering the groundwater
surface within the PBLC project area. Drains would be installed in a phased approach to target
groundwater removal in the southern project area where land movement has historically been
measured at the greatest rate. Drains could be installed at two or more locations at the
southern edge of the coastal bluff south of Palos Verdes Drive, for example, and would be
drilled radially approximately 1,200 to 1,500 feet northwest, north, and northeast extending
D-244
beneath PVDS (Figure 14). Drains in this area would be installed using a conventional, track-
mounted horizontal drilling rig that can safely and reliably access the rocky beach area. Other
drains could be installed north of the beach from low-lying areas south of PVDS. The drain
design would have to include infrastructure to collect and discharge groundwater flow from the
drains, such as piping runs to an ocean discharge location on the beach.
An engineering study would need to be prepared to support identification of exact drilling
locations and drain installation geometry. Additional data gaps related to this and other options
are discussed in Section 4.6.2.
4.6.1.3 Liner and Channel System
This technology consists of the following components (Appendix D):
• Canyon Liner
• Lapped Liner System
• Lapped Channel Liner Under-Drain System
• Native Vegetation
The ultimate goal of this technology is to minimize or eliminate stormwater infiltration and
percolation to groundwater in the Portuguese Bend watershed and in the PBLC Project Area.
The canyon liner would extend just north of the Burma Road Trail at an appropriate distance
upgradient into Portuguese, Paintbrush, and Ishibashi Canyons in order to capture and control
stormwater surface flow and direct it to the ocean (described below) (Appendix D). The canyon
liner system as envisioned would be an impervious layer with an underdrain and an armored
stone riprap surface in relatively high surface water flow segments. Lower Portuguese Canyon
in the northern Project Area would also be lined and the canyon liners can be vegetated to
blend into the native habitat. The depth of the top soil will determine the size of the feasible root
system supporting the native habitat. The subsurface liner material, such as engineered
geomembrane, could be expected to have a lifetime expectancy of at least several hundred
years (Benson, 2014).
D-245
The canyon liner would direct flow into a lower channel installed across the northern edge of the
PBLC area and leading under gravity flow to a road culvert under PVDS (Appendix D). Similar
to the canyon liner, the outlet channel would be installed with an underlying lapped geotextile
liner and surface rock armoring. The outlet channel could also be vegetated to blend into the
native habitat. Vegetation islands can be installed mid-stream where the overall design and
flow conditions allow.
This option would also include a drainage and engineering study to support a final design that
will promote surface water flow along the northern roadside of PVDS where storm water has
historically been ponding and infiltrating to groundwater in the Red Zone area.
Ultimately, additional areas in the adjacent watersheds could also be lined, such as eastern
Altamira Canyon or lower Klondike Canyon, where stormwater continues to infiltrate to
groundwater in the vicinity of the project area. The described liner and channel system is only a
conceptual design. A full engineering and hydrologic study would be needed to support final
design and sizing of the liner and channel system.
4.6.1.4 Groundwater Extraction Wells
Supplemental groundwater extraction wells would be installed in the project area once drains
and stormwater control are in place (Figure 14). Groundwater extraction wells would be
installed with conventional track-mounted or truck-mounted well drilling rigs using sonic drilling
methods. The sonic method is preferred since soil sampling and characterization can be
continually conducted while drilling commences, groundwater is readily observed, and well
installation can proceed without the potential for drilling-induced permeability reduction
associated with other methods such as mud rotary. Companion borings for geologic or
geotechnical investigation may also need to be completed in advance by other methods to
collect well design information such as geologic, stratigraphic, or hydrogeologic data.
Groundwater monitoring wells will also need to be installed to routinely monitor groundwater
levels in the PBLC area. At this conceptual stage of the overall project, based on the areal
extent of the PBLC area and historical well yields, it is estimated that approximately
25 extraction wells would be needed in the project area with a network of approximately 10 to
15 additional monitoring wells within and adjacent to the project area. The number, depth, and
D-246
design of the extraction and monitoring wells would be based on site-specific aquifer testing
conducted to determine well design parameters as well as overall hydrogeologic and
stratigraphic data based on historical work or supplemental site investigation.
4.6.1.5 Centralized Sewer System
Approximately 2 miles of new subsurface sewer lines and associated manholes and junctions
need to be installed in the Portuguese Bend neighborhood east of lower Altamira Canyon and
west of lower Portuguese Canyon. This area includes those roads generally southeast of
Peppertree Drive and north of Palos Verdes Drive South (Figure 7). In addition, approximately
1.5 miles of new subsurface sewer lines are needed in the upper Portuguese Canyon
Watershed. New sewer lines are needed in this area where upper Portuguese Canyon extends
north to the northern watershed boundary at Crest Road and where upper Ishibashi Canyon
splits into four sub-canyons that extend east-northeast to the northern watershed boundary.
Both upper Portuguese Canyon and upper Ishibashi Canyon are located within the City of
Rolling Hills. The new sewer line installation would need to be synchronized with private lateral
installation and connection as well as septic system removal in both neighborhoods. The new
lines would likely be connected to nearby exiting lines that direct sewage to the Los Angeles
County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) in Carson. New sewer line installation and
septic tank removal would have to be fully designed in a separate engineering study to develop
specific objectives, design options, costs, and regulatory requirements.
4.6.2 Data Gaps
In addition, the following final design input is needed, at a minimum, to develop a detailed scope
of work and engineering cost estimate for construction bidding for the City’s consideration:
• Hydrologic analysis and floodplain mapping
• Geologic, hydrogeologic, and stratigraphic characterization
Hydrologic analysis, floodplain mapping, and watershed modeling are needed to appropriately
characterize and specify the design flood for canyon lining and channel sizing engineering.
D-247
These data include stream flow measurements, flood frequency, rainfall data analysis, and
related tasks.
Geologic, hydrogeologic, and stratigraphic data are needed to understand subsurface
conditions before drain and well drilling commences. Historical data are also needed, if
available, including extraction well construction data, extraction well production records, boring
logs, a master soil boring and well location map, groundwater elevation data (historical and
current), and groundwater quality sampling data.
Data gap information is typically further specified in a data gap investigation work plan that
outlines the required information and how it can be collected before final design engineering
commences.
4.6.3 Pilot Testing
The remedy options selected by the City should be pilot tested before full-scale implementation.
Pilot testing should be completed to simulate full-scale implementation as much as possible
while obtaining the design data needed to scale-up and cost the remedy for complete
implementation. Pilot testing should be completed before full-scale implementation of the
canyon liner and collector channel system, the surface fracture sealing, and subsurface drain
remedy options. Pilot testing and associated baseline and performance monitoring is typically
specified and detailed in a separate plan. The pilot test plan could be combined with the data
gap investigation work plan discussed above.
4.6.4 Approximate Implementation Costs
The approximate order-of -magnitude costs (2018 dollars) associated with the preferred
alternative is provided in Table 4. Estimated costs are based on industry literature where
possible and from professional experience with similar projects.
D-248
4.6.4.1 Seal Surface Fractures
Pilot testing for a surface fracture sealing program is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.
Planning, permitting, construction and initial reporting for a full-scale program is estimated at
approximately $250,000. Operation and maintenance (O&M) (fracture sealing, monitoring, and
reporting each year thereafter) costs are estimated at approximately $50,000. Extended for
10 years (2018 dollars), O&M would cost approximately $625,000. The total cost for this option
is thus approximately $975,000.
4.6.4.2 Directional Subsurface Drains
Directional drains require a data gap investigation to characterize groundwater and identify the
appropriate stratigraphic zone for drain installation. Data gap investigation and pilot testing for a
drain program is estimated to cost approximately $656,000. Planning, permitting, construction
and reporting of a full-scale program of 10 drains extending 1,200 feet is estimated at
approximately $6.4 million. O&M (including monitoring and reporting each year thereafter) is
estimated at approximately $125,000. Extended for 30 years (2018 dollars) (without major
reconstruction) this component would cost approximately $11.7 million. Major reconstruction for
additional drains or replacement drains would be basically comparable to the initial program
cost rates and total costs.
4.6.4.3 Liner and Channel System
Pilot testing for a liner and channel system is estimated at approximately $512,000. Planning,
permitting, and construction of a full-scale program of lining the canyons (Portuguese,
Paintbrush, Ishibashi) with a perimeter channel and culvert directing flow to the ocean is
estimated to cost approximately $13.5 million. O&M (including monitoring and reporting each
year thereafter) is estimated at approximately $75,000. Extended for 30 years (2018 dollars)
(without major reconstruction) this component would cost approximately $16.8 million.
4.6.4.4 Groundwater Extraction and Monitoring Wells
Groundwater extraction wells require a data gap investigation to characterize groundwater and
identify the appropriate stratigraphic zone(s) for well installation. Data gap investigation and
pilot testing for supplemental groundwater extraction wells is estimated at approximately
$556,000 (supplemental to the drain data gap investigation). Planning, permitting, and
D-249
construction of a full-scale program (20 wells to 200 feet with 10 companion monitoring wells
[30 wells total]) is estimated to cost approximately $4 million. O&M (including monitoring and
reporting each year thereafter) is estimated at approximately $325,000. Extended for 30 years
(2018 dollars) (without major reconstruction) this component would cost approximately
$12 million.
4.6.4.5 Centralized Sewer System
Residential sewer costs are approximately $200 per linear foot overall including manholes and
related infrastructure. Approximately 1.5 miles of sewer line are needed in the Portuguese
Bend neighborhood and approximately 2 miles of sewer line are needed in the upper
Portuguese Bend watershed area (within the City of Rolling Hills) (total of approximately
18,480 feet). Planning, permitting, and construction of a full-scale program in both the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills is estimated to cost approximately $5 million. O&M
(including monitoring and reporting each year thereafter) is estimated at approximately $50,000.
Extended for 30 years (2018 dollars) (without major reconstruction) this component would cost
approximately $7 million.
4.6.4.6 Total Estimated Project Cost
The estimated order-of-magnitude cost for all components of the preferred remedy totals
$31.3 million for initial planning, permitting, data gap investigation, pilot testing, design, and
construction. With O&M, monitoring, and reporting extended for 30 years (2018 dollars)
(without major reconstruction) the estimated order-of-magnitude cost totals $53.5 million.
D-250
References
Benson, Craig H., 2014. Performance of Engineered Barriers: Lessons Learned. University of
Wisconsin Madison, 2014, accessed July 2018 at https://www.energy.gov/.
California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA). 2003. Stormwater best management
practice handbook: New development and redevelopment. January 2003.
Charles Abbot Associates, Inc., 1997. Portuguese Bend Shore Protection Feasibility Study,
Analysis of Landslide Material Loss. Prepared for City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Chesapeake Stormwater Network (CSN). Undated. Session 4: Retrofit costs, delivery and
maintenance. Workshop presentation available at <http://chesapeakestormwater.net/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2012/06/Session-4-Retrofit-Costs-Delivery-and-
Maintenance_060112.pdf>.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 1987. Draft Environmental Impact Report for a Grading, Drainage,
and Road Relocation Project, September, 1987.
Clary, J., M. Leisenring, A. Poresky, A. Earles, and J. Jones. 2011. BMP performance analysis
results for the International Stormwater BMP Database. American Society of Civil Engineers.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011, Palm Springs, California,
United States. May 22-26, 2011.
Douglas, Robert, 2007. Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District (ACLAD). Unpublished
presentation.
Douglas, Robert, 2013. The Creepy (Slow Moving) Landslides of Portuguese Bend. The
Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists, AEG Special Publication, v. 24, Los
Angeles, California.
D-251
EDAW, 1994a. Initial Study, Portuguese Bend Grading Project, Rancho Palos Verdes,
California. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, September 9, 1994.
EDAW, 1994b. Initial Study, Portuguese Canyon Erosion Control Project, Rancho Palos Verdes,
California. Lead Agency: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, August 5, 1994
Ehlig, Perry L., 1992. Evolution, mechanics and mitigation of the Portuguese Bend Landslide,
Palos Verdes Peninsula, California. In (Pipkin, Bernard W. and R. J. Proctor, eds.)
Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, Special Publication No. 4, Association
of Engineering Geologists, Southern California Section.
Ehlig, Perry L., and B.C. Yen, 1997. A Joint Preliminary Geology and Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation Report: Feasibility of Stabilizing Portuguese Bend Landslide, March 3, 1997.
Leighton and Associates, 2000. Updated feasibility study for the Portuguese Bend Landslide
remediation project at Peacock Hill and Portuguese Bend, City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
California. Project No. 1881922-26; prepared for Palos Verdes Portuguese Bend Company,
25200 La Paz Road, Suite 210, Laguna Hills, California 92653, January 19, 2000.
MacKintosh & MacKintosh, 1957. Report of Earth Movement, Portuguese Bend, California, April
26, 1957. MacKintosh & MacKintosh, Consulting Engineers, Los Angeles 4, Calilfornia.
Maestre, A., R. Pitt, and Center for Watershed Protection. 2005. The National Stormwater
Quality Database, Version 1.1, A compilation and analysis of NPDES stormwater monitoring
information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. September 4, 2005.
National Weather Service (NWS). 2015. Climate Prediction Center, Frequently asked questions
about El Niño and La Niña. Accessed June 4, 2015. <http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/
products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml>.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2007. Chapter 7: Hydrologic soil groups.
Part 630 Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook. 210–VI–NEH. May 2007.
D-252
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report for Los
Angeles County, California, Southeastern Part, Portuguese Bend. Downloaded from
<https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov> on November 6, 2017, PDF copy of report for
custom area on file with DBS&A.
RBF Consulting, 2015. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Master Plan of Drainage, Final Report.
Prepared for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department, June 5, 2015, by
RBF Consulting, a Michael Baker International company.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (RWQCB). 1994. Water quality
control plan for the San Diego Basin (9). As amended.
RWQCB, 2009. Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and Section 303(d) Integrated Report for the
San Diego Region, Staff Report. December 2009.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2004. Policy for implementation and
enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program: Guidance for developing an
integrated program for implementing and enforcing the “Plan for California’s Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program”. May 20, 2004.
SWRCB, 2013. Resolution No. 2013-0003: Adoption of an amendment to the policy for water
quality control for recycled water concerning monitoring requirements for constituents of
emerging concern. January 22, 2013.
SWRCB, 2015. State Water Boards bacterial objectives.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/bacterialobjectives/>. Last updated February 19, 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2000. Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County,
California, Draft Feasibility Report, Los Angeles District, June.
D-253
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1988. Guidance for conducting remedial
investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA (Interim final). EPA/540/G89/004,
October 1988.
Vonder Linden, Karl, 1972. An analysis of the Portuguese Bend Landslide, Palos Verdes Hills,
California, A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Geology, Stanford University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 271 pp.
URS, undated. Draft Report entitled, Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat
Conservation Plan. URS Project No. 27644296.08000, prepared for the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). 2015. International Stormwater BMP
Database. <http://www.bmpdatabase.org/>.
D-254
Estimated Work Area Acreage
City Project Space Available (from NCCP/HCP)
Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland
2. Dewatering Wells 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
3. Landslide Abatement Measures 5.0 15.0 3.3 9.9
4. Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas 10.0 15.0 6.6 9.9
14. Utility Maintenance and Repair 10.0 20.0 5 10
Total 27.5 52.5 17.4 32.3
Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland Unrestricted Coastal Sage Scrub Grassland Unrestricted
Burma Road Culvert Area (Portuguese Canyon)0.50 0 0 0.50 0 0
Burma Road Trail Armoring 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Burma Road to Peppertree Trail swales 0.67 0 0 0.67 0 0
Peppertree Trail Area (main swale)0.49 1.72 0.25 0.49 1.72 0.25
Flow Reduction Area (FRA)2.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00
FRA to PVDS swale and PVDS Culvert 0.07 0.11 0.11 0 0 0
PVDS to Ocean pipe/swale 0 0.34 0.08 0 0 0
Temporary Work/Staging Areas 0 1.00 0 0 0 0
Surface Fracture Infilling 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 0.2 0
Extraction Wells Permanent Work Area 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.01 0.01
Extraction Wells Temporary Work Area 0.3 1.1 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Extraction Well Access Roads (permanent)0.3 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1
Horizontal Drains (Hydraugers) Temporary Work Area
A1 0 0.50 0.50 0 0 0
A2 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
A3 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
A4 1.00 0 0 0 0 0
A5 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
A6 1.00 0 0 0 0 0
Horizontal Drains (Hydraugers) Permanent Work Area
A1 0 0.25 0.25 0 0 0
A2 0.50 0 0 0.50 0 0
A3 0.50 0 0 0.50 0 0
A4 0 0 0 0 0 0
A5 0.50 0 0 0.50 0 0
A6 0.50 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal 12.6 13.5 4.6 9.5 2.3 1.5
Contingency (25%) 3.2 3.4 1.1 2.4 0.6 0.4
Total 15.8 16.9 5.7 11.9 2.9 1.8
Notes:
Unrestricted: Developed, disturbed, and/or other available land.
Portuguese Bend Landslide Area
Estimated Project Work Areas
Total Habitat Loss (Acres)In Preserve (Acres)
Total Habitat Loss (Acres)Habitat Loss In Preserve (Acres)
D-255