Loading...
CC SR 20230815 03 - PB Landslide Remediation Status CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/15/2023 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to receive a status update on the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a status report on the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project; and (2) Direct Staff to return to the City Council with professional services agreements to proceed with final engineering plans while determining if the project can be modified to reduce the footprint of the flow reduction area and drainage swales; maximize their ability to support native habitat; and relocate hydrauger batteries to areas that minimize impacts on native habitat. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director REVIEWED BY: Same as above APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project Draft EIR B. December 19, 2020 staff report C. December 17, 2019 staff report D. August 7, 2018 staff report BACKGROUND: Project History In spring 2017, the City Council appointed then-Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Duhovic and then- Council Member Ken Dyda to a subcommittee to identify possible solutions or strategies to remediate the Portuguese Bend Landslide (PBL). This subcommittee was formed to begin a collaborative process with community stakeholders and professional experts from D.B. Stephens & Associates on identifying possible engineering solutions to remediate 1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES the PBL. Additionally, to provide a forum for stakeholder involvement, the City Council convened a committee of concerned residents to chart a path toward significantly reducing movement of the PBL. A series of four public workshops were held to elicit the best ideas from the community, and to seek input on goals and possible solutions to remediate the PBL. Approximately 20-30 residents attended each of these workshops and participated in the process. Considering input at these workshops, the City commissioned the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) to identify and select a conceptual solution to significantly reduce landslide movement. On January 16, 2018, Staff presented the City Council with a draft Feasibility Study, and on June 18, 2018, a public workshop was conducted to provide residents with a summary of the Feasibility Study and answer their questions. On August 7, 2018, Staff presented the City Council with the Updated Feasibility Study (Attachment D). The City Council then authorized Staff to move forward with design of the PBL Remediation Project. On December 17, 2019, following meetings with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) and other community stakeholders, Staff presented to the City Council the proposed preliminary design for the PBL Remediation Project (Attachment C). After considering public testimony, the City Council accepted the proposed plan and directed Staff to proceed with preparing the environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On May 19, 2020, the City began work on preparation of environmental documents. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared, which concluded that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary to meet CEQA requirements. Environmental Impact Report The purpose of an EIR, which is an informational document, is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided. The City is the lead agency for the project and therefore has the authority for preparation of a Draft EIR and, after the comment/response process, consideration of certifying the Final EIR. The Draft EIR evaluates and mitigates a reasonable worst-case scenario of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. It is an informational document for the lead agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision makers regarding the potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. CEQA requires the lead agency to consider the information contained in the EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. Certification of an EIR does not render the project approved. On December 19, 2020, the City Council conducted a public hearing to receive public comments regarding the issues to be addressed in the EIR (Attachment B). As a result, the EIR was scoped to study the following based on the project description and objectives: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources 2 • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire The Draft EIR was completed and released on February 9, 2023 for public review and comment for a 64-day period through April 14, 2023 (Attachment A). CEQA requires a comment period of no less than 30 days and not longer than 60 days except under unusual circumstances. The City elected to give 60 days to allow maximum public participation. However, 60 days would have been the day following Easter and might have excluded some persons from commenting. Therefore, the City extended the comment period a few days beyond the 60 days. On March 21, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing to provide information about the Draft EIR and solicit public comments regarding issues and concerns with the document. The purpose of the public review of the Draft EIR is to evaluate the adequacy of the environmental analysis in terms of compliance with CEQA. The standards from which adequacy is judged, per CEQA guidelines, is that the EIR is prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision, which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among experts. In summary, EIRs are intended to provide an objective, factually supported, full-disclosure analysis of the environmental consequences associated with a proposed project that has the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts. Preliminary Engineering The Draft EIR was prepared using the Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (GLA) 2018 Updated Feasibility Study and preliminary design accepted by the City Council in 2019. Both the Updated Feasibility Study and preliminary design were completed based upon geological, hydrogeological, and geotechnical information available from previous site -specific studies. Project (preliminary) engineering is at the 35-60% design level and supports the Draft EIR. 3 The project components, which are a series of mitigation measures intended to significantly slow down land movement by removing water and preventing its re-entry, the primary contributor to the landslide, can be collectively constructed all at once or be phased depending on factors, such as funding availability , are summarized as follows: • Infill surface fractures (fissures) to prevent storm water runoff from easily becoming part of groundwater. • Install surface drainage systems, including natural swales, to convey storm water runoff to the ocean and prevent it from becoming part of the groundwater. • Install hydraugers to extract underground artesian water and reduce pressure to slow down landslide movement. Final engineering will progress the preliminary design to a stage where construction bids can be solicited. Final engineering will require a range of expertise including but not limited to surveying, environmental science, civil engineering, geotechnical engineering, landscape architecture and irrigation design, and construction engineering. DISCUSSION: Draft EIR Comments The City received 45 comment letters on the Draft EIR, each of which covered a variety of topics. The comments included letters from federal agencies, state agencies, various organizations, interested parties, and the general public. Some comment themes were not relevant to the EIR process. For example, comments about funding, increasing the scope and coverage area of the project, and treating and re-using water extracted by hydraugers. Other comments questioned the original basis of design from the Updated Feasibility Study and preliminary design accepted by the City Council, and asked for addition al analysis and information. Some comments urged the City to engage to a greater extent with stakeholders including the PVPLC and affected homeowners. Comments were interpreted, grouped into themes, and summarized below to provide insight into the main comment points. Comments related to funding and expanding the scope have been excluded from this list. Funding is excluded because it is not part of identifying a project’s significant effects on the environment. In other words, the availability of funding or lack thereof does not change the environmental impact the way a design element’s presence or absence would. Funding is determined by the City Council as it relates to assigning resources for the City’s various activities and projects and may be influenced by the availability of grants or other revenue sources. Expanding the scope of the project to the Abalone Cove Landslide and the Klondike Canyon Landslide is also not part of identifying the project’s significant effects on the environment. CEQA does not require that the scope of a project be expanded to address 4 additional needs of a population as the development of a larger scope or additional project is separate from the environmental clearance process. With the exclusions noted above, below are the m ain themes of comments: • Native Plants and Habitat o Explain if the proposed drainage swales will remove water from the project area canyons and how that will impact adjacent mature coastal sage scrub. o Provide evidence that proposed plantings would be viable including plant establishment period. • Hydraugers: o Quantify the contributory reduction in land movement expected for each hydrauger battery. Explain the methodology and assumptions. o Describe the similarities and differences between hydrauger batteries at the White Point Landslide in San Pedro and the hydrauger batteries proposed for this project. o Report on the effectiveness of hydrauger batteries in at the White Point Landslide in San Pedro. o Justify the location of each hydrauger battery and explain why it is the optimal location to achieve the project goals; describe other locations that were considered and why they were not selected. o Explain why hydrauger batteries will not cause landscape deforma tion including in and outside of the landslide area. o Analyze if additional pipes drilled from hydrauger battery location A6 could replace hydrauger battery A5. o Quantify the total water expected to be produced by each hydrauger battery. o Describe the minimum water quality criteria for discharge of water to the ocean and explain the process for disposing of water that does not meet minimum water quality criteria. • Surface Water Drainage o Quantify the contributory reduction in land movement expected for the surface drainage swales. Explain the methodology and assumptions. o Demonstrate that the surface drainage swales and flow reduction area are sized to accommodate a 100-year storm and that they are neither over- sized, nor under-sized. Explain the effect of extreme weather events on the surface drainage system. o Demonstrate that the geographic scope of the hydrologic and hydraulic study includes the entire watershed needed for the project. o Show how the surface water flow in the area enters the proposed surface drainage system, to the detention basin, and to the pipe under Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS). Show how the existing drainage flows do not flow to other areas under PVDS. o Explain why fissures that are not in the swales or flow reduction area need to be filled. o Verify field conditions of the pipe under PVDS south including size and elevation. o Provide final engineering details of the surface drainage system including canyon transitions to the surface drainage system, swale slope details, geo- 5 liner details, planting details. Use the most habitat friendly designs, and in cases where the most habitat friendly designs cannot be used, demonstrate why. o Explain why native vegetation cannot serve the same purpose as a geo- liner. o Explain why avoiding soil compaction and using biodegradable matting is not acceptable. o Re-design the drainage swales for combined drainage and recreational trail use wherever possible. • Flow Reduction Basin o Quantify the contributory reduction in land movement expected for the flow reduction area. Explain the methodology and assumptions. o Provide an analysis showing pipe sizes and numbers that would be needed under PVDS to replace the flow reduction area to accommodate a 100-year storm. o Explain how long it takes for the proposed flow reduction area to drain for various storm sizes. o Describe any risk for landslide movement due to excess weight in the flow reduction area. • Fissure Infilling o Quantify the contributory reduction in land movement expected for the fissure infilling. Explain the methodology and assumptions. • Constructing Phasing o Explain why the project cannot be phased so that one hydrauger is installed first, its effectiveness is studied, and then additional hydraugers installed if needed, followed by the surface drainage system, if needed. • Construction Logistics and Trail Management o Provide details of impacts of possible recreational trail closures and associated impacts of closures through a detailed construction logistics plan, including details of staging, storage, and access (including width of access routes). o Provide a detailed trail use management plan to be implemented during construction, including planned trail closures or restrictions along with plans for signage, fencing, etc. o Explain why operating construction equipment on top of the landslide area will not accelerate landslide movement. • Maintenance Logistics and Trail Management o Provide a detailed maintenance logistics plan, including details of staging, storage, and access (including width of access routes). o Provide a detailed trail use management plan to be implemented during maintenance and operations, including planned trail closures or restrictions along with plans for signage, fencing, etc. o Provide a plan for filling fissures that may develop after construction completion. 6 • Other o Explain the contribution of uphill septic tanks and irrigation systems to the land movement. Stakeholder Meetings The City and its consultant team met with the following stakeholders to gain a better understanding of their Draft EIR comments: • PVPLC • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • California Department of Fish and Wildlife • Sierra Club • California Native Plant Society • Surfrider Foundation • Portuguese Bend Beach Club Homeowners Association Final Engineering Plans As a result of the reviewing all comments and considering input during stakeholder meetings, Staff recommends proceeding with final engineering plans while determining if modifications can be made to the project design. Specifically, the modifications that would be investigated are minimizing the size of the flow reduction area or eliminating it to the extent it is supportable by sound engineering judgement; reducing the footprint of the drainage swales and/or maximizing their ability to support native habitat to the extent feasible while also serving their function; relocating hydrauger batteries to areas that are more easily accessible and minimize impacts on native habitat while extracting the maximum amount of water practical; and providing the details of construction and maintenance logistics at an earlier stage than is typically done. This approach requires advancing final engineering to a 90% level prior to certifying the EIR. This will likely need to be done in a staged approach so that analysis results can be discussed with stakeholders, and possibly iterated. Estimated Timeline If acceptable to the City Council, the proposed next steps and anticipated schedule for this approach follows a tentative and very aggressive estimated timeline, that may be subject to change as the process develops: • Award professional services contracts for final engineering: September 2023 City Council meeting • Complete 90% plans and certify Final EIR September 2024 • Complete final engineering and permitting: September 2025 The City may consider including financial incentives in the final engineering and/or construction contracts by offering a specified additional payment amount for early completion of work by a certain amount of time. This may reduce the duration of final engineering and/or construction by a few months. 7 A significant driver of the schedule is discussions with stakeholders on potential modifications to the project design. If these discussions take an inordinate amount of time, the completion date of final engineering may be significantly longer than what is shown in the anticipated schedule. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Recent Landslide Movement In response to recent roadway damage observed on Palos Verdes Drive South and at the intersection of Dauntless Drive and Exultant Drive in the Seaview neighborhood, various utility line (gas and water) breaks, and other reported land movement, the City performed land surveying of a sample of representative points to better understand the rate of land movement. The results of the sampling of survey points showed that land movement has been significantly accelerating. Between October 2022 and May 2023 , land movement rates accelerated when compared to the prior several years. Land movement rates again accelerated between May 2023 and July 2023 when compared to the measurements encompassing the prior seven months. In summary, at a sampling of points in the Klondike Canyon Landslide and Abalone Cove Landslide; land movement rates increased by about 3 to 5-fold at most points when compared to the prior several years. Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant The proposed project is estimated to cost approximately $33 million. This cost was based on projections estimated in 2019. The estimate included contingencies and accounted for inflation to a projected construction start date. Concurrently with development of the Draft EIR, the City submitted an application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for a BRIC grant in the amount of $23.3 million, accounting for a non-federal match of $10 million to increase competitiveness of the application. Grant announcements are expected to be made any day now in August 2023. The grant program requires that the EIR be certified before grant funds are awarded. If awarded, the FEMA funds for construction are expected to become available in two to three years, assuming the EIR is certified. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Congressionally Directed Spending The City was selected to apply for a Fiscal Year 2023 FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) grant at the request of Senator Feinstein. Because the City already had a federal grant a pplication for the Portuguese Bend Landslide project in process, the CDS grant application could not be for the same project. Therefore, the CDS grant application was completed for the nearby Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) at Peppertree Drive Drainage Improvement project. The goal of the project is to reconstruct the existing failed drainage system in the area of PVDS and Peppertree Drive to convey water to the ocean rather than allow it to percolate into the ground and contribute to land movement. Grant a ward announcements are expected to be made by September 2023. 8 Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District and Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement District In the early 1980’s, the City formed two landslide abatement districts (also referred to as Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts (GHAD)), Abalone Cove (ACLAD) and Klondike Canyon (KCLAD), to manage and mitigate land movement within the boundaries of the district. Property owners within the district are assessed a fee to fund the management and mitigation efforts. The City owns property in both districts and are subject to the assessed fees as well. GHADs are considered governmental agencies and may be eligible for grants to assist financially on efforts to mitigate landslides. The City is collaborating and assisting ACLAD and KCLAD to identify potential grant opportunities, including FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and/or Building Resiliency Infrastructure Community (BRIC) grant, to help fund landslide mitigation measures. At this time, the City is collaborating with ACLAD on identifying which, if any, grant application may be pursued to assist in funding new dewatering wells and other new landslide mitigation measures with each respective district. Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) On November 19, 2019, the City Council adopted the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The NCCP/HCP is intended to, among other things, protect Citywide biological resources while streamlining the permitting process for habitat impacts resulting from approved covered projects. The NCCP/HCP permit allows habitat loss to occur for City projects. The City project categories that may be covered under the Council-adopted NCCP/HCP pertaining to PBL remediation project are: Dewatering Wells, Landslide Abatement Measures, Misc. Drainage Repair in Landslide Areas, and Utility Maintenance and Repair. 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 Final EIR. City projects are subject to the Habitat Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures defined in Section 5.5 of the NCCP/HCP. CONCLUSION: As a result of the reviewing all comments and considering input during stakeholder meetings, Staff recommends proceeding with final engineering while determining if modifications can be made to the project design. Specifically, the modifications that would be investigated are minimizing the size of the flow reduction area to the extent it is supportable by sound engineering judgement; reducing the footprint of the drainage swales and/or maximizing their ability to support native habitat to the extent feasible while also serving their function; relocating hydrauger batteries to areas that minimize impacts on native habitat while extracting the maximum amount of water practical; and providing the details of construction and maintenance logistics at an earlier stage than is typically done. 9 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Direct Staff to return with clarifications or additional information. 2. Direct Staff to address the Draft EIR comments based on the City Council accepted preliminary design and present the Final EIR for certification by the City Council without substantive modifications to the project, thereby deferring the preparation of final engineering until after the Final EIR is certified. 3. Take no action. 4. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 10