DISCLAIMER

The following City Council agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the City Council at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual City Council meeting. The City Council may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the City Council Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the Reception area at City Hall as well as the Palos Verdes public libraries.

...end of disclaimer...

This agenda has been prepared to provide for the orderly progression of City business. Detailed staff reports on specific items are posted in the hallway for public viewing. The City Council wants to hear your comments, however, to run the meeting efficiently, please observe the following rules when you participate in the meeting.

Please try to submit your REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL form to the City Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called at the appropriate time to make your remarks.

For the sake of efficiency, the City Council agenda is divided into several sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items which, unless a request has been received from the public, council or staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the City Council. If you wish to speak to any Consent Calendar item(s) you will be limited to three minutes.

Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed hearings. Although the normal time limit is three minutes for each speaker, the Mayor may grant additional time to a representative speaking for an entire group; however, this should not discourage anyone from addressing the City Council individually.

Regular Business: This section contains items of general business and you will be allowed three minutes to speak on any item.

Public Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda. If you have submitted a request to speak, you will be called by the City Clerk at the appropriate time and you may speak for up to three minutes. Please limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Public Comments. If action by the City Council is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda or referred to staff, as determined by Council.

Please make your remarks at the lectern microphone and direct your comments to the City Council and not to the staff or the public.

Conduct at the Council Meeting: The City Council has adopted a set of rules for conduct during City Council meetings. The following is an excerpt from those adopted Rules of Procedure:

Section 6.3The Mayor shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person(s) who commits the following acts at a regular or special meeting of the City Council:

1.Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Council or any member thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

2.A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting.

3.Disobedience of any lawful order of the Mayor which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Council.

4.Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL

JUNE 21, 2000

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
________________________________________________________________

6:00 P.M.REGULAR SESSION

CALL TO ORDER:

ROLL CALL:

FLAG SALUTE:

NEXT RESOL. NO. 2000-36

NEXT ORD. NO. 358

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

RECYCLE DRAWING:

APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR:

Recommendation: Approved the Minutes of May 16, June 6, and June 11, 2000.

Recommendation: Approve an amendment to the consulting services agreement with PMW Associates to modify the scope of services and compensation schedule.

Recommendation: Authorize the City Attorney to add the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the friend-of-the-court brief prepared by Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP for the California League of Cities.

Recommendation: Approve the contract to purchase a replacement photocopier from Oce-USA, Inc. for use in the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department.

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement for a 3-year contract for auditing services with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for an annual amount not to exceed $20,760 for FY 1999-00; $21,450 for FY 2000-01; and, $22,150 for FY 2001-02.

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for Hesse Park Playground Construction to Ryco Construction, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $27,772.00; plus authorize staff to spend an additional $2,228.00 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $30,000.00. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONFIRMING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

############

PUBLIC HEARING:

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000- __, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CERTIFYING A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO FEIR NO. 36 FOR REVISION L, (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING A REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541 FOR REVISION L, FOR THE REPAIR OF LANDSLIDE C AT OCEAN TRAILS.

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.

Recommendation: Approved the Minutes of May 16, June 6, and June 11, 2000.

Recommendation: Approve an amendment to the consulting services agreement with PMW Associates to modify the scope of services and compensation schedule.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE: JUNE 21, 2000

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PMW ASSOCIATES

RECOMMENDATION

Approve an amendment to the consulting services agreement with PMW Associates to modify the scope of services and compensation schedule.

BACKGROUND

In February 1997, the City Council authorized staff to enter into an agreement with PMW Associates to assist the City in evaluating various aspects of the Long Point/City proposed joint golf development and advise the City on developing and implementing affordable housing programs. PMW Associates has been providing valuable consulting services to the City on an as-needed basis over the last three years. Similar to other third party consultant contracts required to evaluate development proposals, the cost for PMW’s services to the City concerning the Long Point project has been paid by the property owner, York Long Point Associates, through a trust deposit account. The City has paid for the costs associated with the affordable housing programs.

DISCUSSION

In the three years that have elapsed since the agreement was first executed, PMW’s hourly rates have remained fixed by the current agreement. Although PMW increased its rates in January 2000 for its other clients by $10 per hour, the current agreement with Rancho Palos Verdes does not include any provision for periodic rate increases. In addition, the scope of service was originally limited to $35,000. However, there is a provision to allow this amount to be increased through an amendment to the agreement. Since February 1997, PMW has been paid slightly more than $200,400 for its services. Only a small portion of this amount (approximately $5,600) was related to the City’s affordable housing programs. The remaining costs were associated with the Long Point project and were paid for by the developer through a trust deposit account.

CONCLUSION

For the foreseeable future, the City will continue to require the professional services and expertise provided by PMW Associates. In April 2000, a substantially revised application package was submitted to the City for the Long Point/City golf course project. In addition, the City continues to work on developing affordable housing programs, such as the proposed Indian Ridgecrest Gardens senior housing project. Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to amend the existing consulting services agreement to allow the consultant a reasonable $10 per hour increase in fees. To avoid the need for minor amendments in the future, staff also recommends that, rather than including a specific amount in the agreement, the mileage reimbursement rate should be tied to the standard used by the Internal Revenue Service. Finally, staff recommends that the contract does not include a maximum amount of compensation due to the on-going and evolving nature of the Long Point project and the City’s affordable housing program.

ALTERNATIVES

1.Direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals to seek a new firm to provide consulting services to the City regarding the proposed Long Point/City joint golf course project.

2.Terminate the current contract with PMW and do not engage the services of a consultant for the proposed joint golf course project or the City’s affordable housing programs at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT

Depending on if the City continues to participate in the proposed joint golf course project to fruition, staff believes the cost of the consultant may run between an additional $100,000 to $200,000. The cost to the City would be a minimal amount of staff time to provide direction and feedback to the consultant. All direct costs associated with the proposed Long Point project would continue to be paid for by the developer through the trust deposit account established for this purpose. The City would continue to pay all costs associated with the development of the City’s affordable housing programs.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments
Amendment No. 1 to Consulting Services Agreement with PMW Associates
Letter from PMW Associates dated June 6, 2000
Exhibit "B" from the February 1997 Agreement with PMW Associates

Recommendation: Authorize the City Attorney to add the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the friend-of-the-court brief prepared by Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP for the California League of Cities.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS

FROM:CITY MANAGER

DATE:JUNE 21, 2000

SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR AMICUS SUPPORT FOR ERAF REIMBURSEMENT

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the City Attorney to add the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the friend-of-the –court brief prepared by Burke, Williams & Sorenson, LLP for the California League of Cities.

BACKGROUND

As the City Council knows, the trial court in the County of Sonoma, et al. v. California Department of Finance, et al. case decided that the State legislation that authorized the ERAF property tax shift constituted a reimbursable state mandate under Section XIII B 6 of the California Constitution. The State has appealed the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeal.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

The League of Cities has asked the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen to prepare an amicus brief. If the City of Rancho Palos Verdes wishes to add its name to the brief we must respond by Thursday, June 22, 2000. A letter from Burke, Williams & Sorenson further explaining the matter is attached.

Respectfully submitted:
Les Evans, City Manager

Attachment: Burke, Williams & Sorenson letter of June 2, 2000

Recommendation: Approve the contract to purchase a replacement photocopier from Oce-USA, Inc. for use in the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER

DATE:JUNE 21, 2000

SUBJECT:CONTRACT TO PURCHASE REPLACEMENT PHOTOCOPIER

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the contract to purchase a replacement photocopier from Oce-USA, Inc. for use in the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department.

DISCUSSION

In 1999, a staff committee was formed to select the new photocopiers for City Hall. Staff met with five different photocopier vendors to discuss the City’s copying needs: Konica, Lanier, Minolta, Oce and Xerox. All of the copiers considered use digital technology that provides better copy quality and fewer maintenance problems than the analog technology previously purchased by the City. Based on staff’s initial preferences among the various photocopiers, bids were received from Konica, Oce and Xerox. After further analysis, staff selected an Oce machine to be purchased for the Planning Department in FY 00-01 due to the outstanding copy quality, long anticipated lifetime, seven-year warranty, low operating costs, availability and reliability of maintenance service and most importantly the features of the machine. In addition, as part of the adoption of the FY 00-01 Budget, the Council increased the budget for this machine from $22,765 to $30,475 in order to purchase the faster model (65 pages per minute) to accommodate the Planning Department’s need to produce multiple agenda packets in a single week.

FISCAL IMPACT

Approval of the contract will result in no fiscal impact because the funds to purchase the copier for the Planning Department are included in the adopted FY 00-01 Budget as part of the Equipment Replacement Fund. The existing photocopier in the Planning Department is fully depreciated and will be donated to a charitable organization.

The maintenance costs for the Planning Department’s existing analog photocopier is approximately $625 per month. The City is currently paying $ 703 per month for the maintenance of the two Oce copiers purchased last year for Administration and the Recreation & Parks Department. The addition of the new machine for the Planning Department will increase the monthly cost of this contract by approximately $495 for a new total of $1,198 per month. The new maintenance contract for the three Oce machines will result in significant monthly savings for the City because:

1.The maintenance cost for the new copier is $130 lower than the current cost to maintain the old analog copier.

2.The contract is fixed for five years and the monthly cost cannot increase during that time.

3.All parts and supplies, except paper, are included in the monthly cost.

Respectfully submitted:
Carolynn Petru, Assistant City Manager

Reviewed,
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement for a 3-year contract for auditing services with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for an annual amount not to exceed $20,760 for FY 1999-00; $21,450 for FY 2000-01; and, $22,150 for FY 2001-02.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR

DATE: JUNE 21, 2000

SUBJECT: AWARD THREE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR AUDIT

SERVICES

Staff Coordinator: Matt Burton, Accounting Manager

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement for a 3-year contract for auditing services with Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP for an annual amount not to exceed $20,760 for FY 1999-00, $21,450 for FY 2000-01 and $22,150 for FY 2001-02.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY:

On April 18, 2000, the City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to interested certified public accounting firms for services associated with the audit of the City’s financial statements. At that time, staff stated that it is prudent and common practice for Cities to change auditors periodically. Staff also felt that while the performance of Diehl, Evans and Company, LLP (the City’s auditor for the past seven years) was satisfactory, some cost savings could possibly be achieved by issuing an RFP. A copy of the RFP was sent to approximately 20 certified public accounting firms serving the Southern California area with governmental auditing experience.

ANALYSIS:

The City received six responses to the RFP (with bid proposals) from prospective auditing firms. The firms, and their respective bids, are summarized in the chart below.

Staff recently completed a review of the proposals submitted. Each of the proposals contained the following: firm qualifications and experience, resumes of the staff expected to be assigned to the engagement, a list of other government clients (including references), a discussion of the firm’s audit approach, and a summary of fees. Based on this information, staff identified four firms (the first four listed in the above summary) who appeared to best meet the requirements of the City.

Separate interviews were conducted with representatives from each of these four firms. The interview process consisted of a brief firm introduction, followed by a description of each firm’s qualifications and characteristics. Each firm was then asked seven questions developed by staff to help gain an understanding of the experience, qualifications and overall audit approach of the prospective firms. The same questions were asked of each firm. Based on staff’s evaluation of their proposal, replies to reference inquiries, and the results of these interviews, staff recommends the selection of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP to perform the City’s audit for the fiscal years 1999-00, 2000-01, and 2001-02.

During the course of the interviews, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. (VTD) exhibited a thorough understanding of governmental auditing practices while presenting themselves in a professional manner. Specifically, VTD appeared knowledgeable and prepared for the forthcoming requirement to implement GASB 34. Implementation of GASB 34 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is required no later than the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. The requirements of GASB 34 will drastically change the presentation of the financial information included in the CAFR of the City. Staff has contacted several cities in Southern California who currently use VTD as their auditors. The feedback received from these reference checks has been positive.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $28,950 is included for auditing services in the FY 2000-01 budgets for the City, Redevelopment Agency and Improvement Authority. If Council agrees with staff’s recommendation, a maximum of $20,760 will be expended resulting in budget savings of approximately $8,200.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis McLean
Finance Director

Reviewed:
Les Evans
City Manager

Recommendation: (1) Award a contract for Hesse Park Playground Construction to Ryco Construction, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $27,772.00; plus authorize staff to spend an additional $2,228.00 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $30,000.00. (2) Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

DATE:JUNE 20, 2000

SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HESSE PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT

Staff Coordinator:Dean Allison, Director of Public Works

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award a contract for Hesse Park Playground Equipment Construction to Ryco Construction Company for an amount not to exceed $27,772.00; plus authorize staff to spend an additional $2,228.00 for possible extra work, for a total authorization of $30,000.00.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND

The adopted FY 1999-2000 budget includes funding for the installation of new playground equipment at Hesse Park.

The construction will consist of the installation of new play equipment and picnic tables. This project has been properly advertised and sealed bids were received and opened at 10:00 AM Wednesday, June 7, 2000. Three bids for construction were received ranging in price from a low of $27,772.00 to a high of $38,998.00. Bid results are as follows:

ANALYSIS

Staff has reviewed the bids for construction and determined that there are no apparent irregularities in the bid documents. Background references for Ryco Construction have been contacted and have responded with positive feedback. References have indicated that Ryco Construction has a history of completing projects on time and within budget. The City has utilized Ryco Construction on previous projects, including ADA playground walkway improvements at Eastview and Ladera Linda and Median Landscaping on Hawthorne, and has been satisfied with the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Ryco Construction Company, Inc. is the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the construction of this project and should be awarded the contract for the construction of Hesse Park Playground Equipment. The bid is within budget and is within 12% of the Engineer’s estimated cost of construction.

FISCAL IMPACT

The recommended actions authorize expenditures within the Capital Improvement Program budget. ISTEA funds were approved by CTC at their September 30, 1999 meeting for reimbursement of costs associated with this project. The breakdown of funding and local match as defined by Caltrans is as follows:

Respectfully submitted,
Dean Allison
Director of Public Works

Reviewed,
Les Evans
City Manager

Attachment:Professional Services Agreement

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONFIRMING THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGE, INJURY, OR DEATH WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.

TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM:CITY ATTORNEY

DATE:JUNE 20, 2000

SUBJECT:RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FILE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGE, INJURY OR DEATH ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. ____ authorizing the City Manager to file a Claim for Damage, Injury or Death with the United States of America on Behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

As the Council knows, the City operates the Point Vicente Interpretive Center on a parcel of land currently leased from the County of Los Angeles and generally located at 31501 Palos Verdes Drive West (hereinafter the "PVIC Site"). During construction activities conducted in August of 1999, the City discovered contaminants in the soil at the PVIC Site. The Department of Defense previously owned the PVIC Site and operated a small arms range at the location. The Department of Defense abandoned the small arms range without remediation. The contaminants discovered at the PVIC Site consist of lead and other potentially hazardous substances consistent with use of the PVIC Site as a small arms range by the military.

The City Council has discussed the contamination of the PVIC Site at several duly noticed public meetings and previously authorized and directed the City Manager to file a Claim for Damage, Injury or Death with the U.S. Army Claims Service (hereinafter the "Army") on behalf of the City. The City Manager filed the appropriate claim with the Army on or about January 31, 2000. However, the Army rejected the City’s Claim on the grounds that it failed to state an amount certain in damages. The Army also asserted that the City has not provided written evidence that the City Manager was authorized to file the Claim on behalf of the City.

The City has subsequently ascertained that the total damages will not exceed $3,200,000 and is in the process of refilling its claim with the Army. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. ____ officially memorializing the City Manager’s authority to file the claim on behalf of the City.

CONCLUSION:

The City Council should adopt Resolution No. ____ confirming the continuing authority of the City Manager to file the Claim for Damage, Injury or Death on behalf of the City and his continuing authority to take any additional actions necessary to ensure that the claim filed with respect to the contamination of the PVIC Site is duly processed.

Respectfully submitted,
Carol W. Lynch, City Attorney

Reviewed:
Les Evans, City Manager

Recommendation: ADOPT RESOL. NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.

############

PUBLIC HEARING:

Recommendation: (1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000- __, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CERTIFYING A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO FEIR NO. 36 FOR REVISION L, (2) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING A REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT NO. 1541 FOR REVISION L, FOR THE REPAIR OF LANDSLIDE C AT OCEAN TRAILS.

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY

COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 21, 2000

SUBJECT: REVISION "L" TO THE OCEAN TRAILS PROJECT –

REPAIR OF LANDSLIDE C (OCEAN TRAILS LP)

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2000-__, certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to EIR No. 36 for Revision L, and Resolution No. 2000-__, approving a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 for Revision L, and Resolution No. 2000-__, approving a revision to Grading Permit No. 1541 for Revision L, to the Ocean Trails Project for the repair of Landslide C.

BACKGROUND

On June 2, 1999, a major landslide (Landslide C) impacted approximately 17 acres of the Ocean Trails site, including a large portion of the Ocean Trails golf course (mainly the 18^th hole), public trails, sensitive habitat, and Ocean Trails Park. The slide created a deep graben; a horseshoe shaped depression approximately 50 feet below the original surface elevation. Additionally, the landslide created an extensive series of cracks and fissures, some going down as much as 90 feet throughout the slide area. Since Landslide C was re-activated, security fencing has been placed around the slide area, trails that previously traversed the slide area have been closed, two trails that led to the beach have been closed, and the beach below the slide area has been closed.

Since June 2, 1999, the developer has been working on a repair plan that would restore the area to a usable condition. The preparation of the proposed repair plan has been a very long and complicated process. It began shortly after June 2, 1999 with a geological investigation of the site to determine the geologic conditions of Landslide C and the immediate surrounding area. As part of the geological investigation, in addition to the 13 slope inclinometers and 28 ground water monitoring devices installed in and around the landslide, 26 large diameter borings were drilled (4 in the graben area, 6 within the main slide mass, and 16 upslope of the main headscarp of the active slide). The borings allowed geologists to be lowered into the holes and log the specific geologic conditions of the landslide and surrounding area. During this initial investigation period, the developer’s geologist, Converse Consultants, met almost on a weekly basis with the City’s geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, to present their investigation results and obtain agreement on the basic geologic conditions. Once the basic geologic conditions were established, Converse Consultants began preparation of the actual repair plan.

In addition to Cotton Shires’ review, City Staff enlisted the assistance of three other geologists (Dr. Bing Yen, Mr. Glenn Brown and Dr. Perry Ehlig) to act as a Peer Review Group. The Peer Review Group was charged with overseeing the geologic review by Cotton Shires and Converse Consultants. The Peer Review Group has met periodically and provided guidance to both Cotton Shires and Converse. Prior to his passing, Dr. Ehlig contributed significantly to the review of this project. Since his passing, Dr. Ehlig’s position on the Peer Review Group has been filled by Mr. Monte Ray.

Towards the end of 1999, the developer obtained approval for a Landslide Winterization Plan, which allowed the developer to conduct minor grading within the landslide area with the purpose of minimizing infiltration of water in the graben area by diverting surface runoff away from the graben area. The Winterization Plan also included the clearing and grubbing of vegetation, filling of cracks and fissures that were created by the landslide, and establishing a desilting basin to collect surface runoff and prevent transport of eroded materials to the beach and ocean. The developer also requested approval to install shear pins into the main landslide block as part of the proposed Winterization Plan. The Coastal Commission however, denied this request as they felt that the shear pin proposal was part of a final repair plan that should be addressed when the final repair plan is reviewed. The developer has completed the tasks that were approved to winterize the site.

In regards to the remainder of the Ocean Trails site, the developer has completed construction of the remainder of the golf course (however, final approval for release of occupancy has not been given by the City), has a temporary certificate of use and occupancy for most of the clubhouse, has completed grading for Tract 50667 (however, final approval to permit construction has not been granted by the City), obtained and recorded a Final Map for Tract 50667and therefore can sell lots in Tract 50667, and is currently grading Phase II which includes Tract 50666.

DISCUSSION

The proposed repair plan requires City Council certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 and approval of an amendment to Grading Permit No. 1541. Upon City Council approval of the proposed repair plan, the developer must also obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission. A public hearing before the California Coastal Commission has been tentatively set for July 11-14, 2000.

Below, following the Project Description, Staff has provided a discussion regarding the major issues pertaining to the project under the sub-headings of Environmental Analysis, Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and Grading Permit Amendment.

Project Description

The proposed landslide repair project involves approximately 17 acres of land adjacent to the coast in the southern part of the Ocean Trails site. As noted in the Background section above, this area was subjected to the re-activation of a known landslide (Landslide C) on June 2, 1999. The landslide damaged portions of the golf course (mainly the 18^th hole), sensitive habitat areas, a future City park, pedestrian and bike trails, and coastal access trails.

On March 17, 2000, the developer formally submitted a four-volume comprehensive geology report for the proposed repair plan. According to the report, the proposed project involves the permanent repair and stabilization of the ancient landslide that was re-activated on June 2, 1999. The proposed landslide repair project is intended to achieve the following:

• Provide a significant improvement in the stability of an area that now poses a concern to public safety and property.

• Reestablish Ocean Trails Park and public access bikeways along the bluff, and trails along the bluff and to the rocky beach area adjacent to the Ocean Trails development.

• Allow for habitat restoration and revegetation of the impacted areas on the landslide.

• Provide a stable area for reconstruction of the damaged part of the 18^th hole on the Ocean Trails Golf Course.

• Provide a stable area for reconstruction of the trails and paths that were damaged by the landslide.

• Provide a stable area for the construction of a new sewer pipeline to replace the damaged sewer pipeline in the landslide area.

Briefly, the proposed repair plan physically consists of the following:

• Improvement of the stability of Landslide C by installing about 100 reinforced shear pins into the main slide block (approximately 20 feet long and 3.5 feet diameter), with the top of the shear pins approximately nine feet above the bentonite clay layer. The purpose of the shear pins is to stabilize the main block portion of the slide, to allow construction work for the repair to proceed safely in the graben area, and to provide an additional stabilizing component for the public access trails and the habitat restoration areas.

It is important to note that, with the exception of removing some dangerous pinnacles created by the landslide, there will be no modifications to the natural bluff area located seaward of the main slide block. Similar to the condition of the bluff prior to the landslide, and similar to many of the bluff areas in the City and the State of California, the bluff area south of the main slide block is marginally stable and will likely move when subject to further disturbances (wave action, erosion, etc.), weathering or earthquake activity. If the seaward potion moves, it is expected that the proposed reinforced buttress will remain. However, it is important to note that the proposed reconstruction of the public trail that traverses the landslide area will either be supported by the geosynthetic-reinforced MSE buttress or the geosynthetic-reinforced fill. Thus, the proposed bluff top trail is not expected to be subject to significant future movements that might negate its use. On the other hand, the two trails that work their way from the blufftop trail to the beach will be located in areas of low stability as they are located in areas outside of the proposed repair. It is also important to note that Ocean Trails is required to maintain all public trails and parks throughout the project site. If any of the trails are damaged in the future, Ocean Trails would need to repair them to the City’s satisfaction.

• Removal of approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of materials including the clay bentonite layer and overlying earth materials north of the geofabric buttress and stockpiling these materials in areas on the golf course approved for stockpiling by the City’s geologist. The removal of this material will be based upon a detailed construction plan to be submitted by the developer and reviewed by the City. The earth materials will be recompacted and replaced to create a stable landmass. Because it is anticipated that much of the earth material will be composed of rock, the developer is proposing the use of a rock crusher that will be used to replace the material, instead of exporting the rock and importing new soil. See the Environmental Analysis and Grading Permit Amendment sections below for a more detailed discussion of the use of a rock crusher.

• Build a geosynthetic-reinforced mechanically-stabilized-earth (MSE) buttress in the graben area.

• Removal of large, unstable rock masses and pinnacles that were created as a result of the June 2, 1999 landslide. Many fissured rock masses and pinnacles have fallen to the beach below during the past year. Others remain precariously perched along the top edge of the present sea cliff – they comprise a total area of approximately 6,400 square feet. These unstable rock masses and pinnacles pose a significant rockfall hazard to the lower beach areas. According to the Geotechnical Report (SEIR, Appendix C), it is anticipated that these unstable rock masses and pinnacles will eventually fail, but it cannot be predicted when. As such, these unstable rock masses will be removed as part of the project. The actual detailed method of removal will be determined through review of the detailed construction plans.

• Reconstruction of the clay cap and the installation of surface and subsurface drainage improvements to prevent the infiltration of surface water into the landslide prone area. Subsurface drainage will be controlled by the installation of an impervious geomembrane covering the entire excavation bottom and part of the excavated side slopes.

• Reconstruction of the golf course and golf course lake located north of the landslide area. Although the finished grade of the golf course will not be exactly the same as previously approved and constructed prior to the landslide, it will be in substantial compliance. Additionally, with the exception of removing some of the more dangerous pinnacles that could topple down to the beach below, since the proposed repair is located inland of the existing bluff face, the bluff will maintain in its relative natural looking state.

• Reconstruction of the trails which previously traversed the landslide area and reconstruction of the portion of Ocean Trails Park that was damaged by the landslide.

• Replacement of approximately 12.45 original acres of habitat that was impacted by the slide. The total mitigation to replace this habitat will be approximately 25.46 acres of new habitat – a portion to be replaced in the landslide area and a portion to be placed in Shoreline Park. A mitigation measure has been drafted that will require the developer to obtain approval of a revision to the existing Habitat Conservation Plan to address the details of the habitat restoration prior to the start of construction on the landslide repair. Staff anticipates the HCP Amendment to be brought before the Council on July 18, 2000.

Additional detail on specific items addressed above is contained in the DSEIR, or discussed below.

Environmental Analysis:

On June 1, 1992, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certified Environmental Impact Report No. 36 for the Ocean Trails project. This approval was in connection with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Conditional Use Permits Nos. 162 and 163, and Grading Permit No. 1541. It is important to note that, as part of the certification of EIR No. 36, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations because some of the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Ocean Trails project could not be eliminated or reduced to below a level of significance, even with the implementation of adopted mitigation measures. The two impacts that could not be mitigated were 1) the aesthetic impacts associated with the loss of open space on the site, and 2) the cumulative air quality impact associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions, motor vehicle emissions and emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use.

Not uncommon with a development project of this size, since the approval of the original project, the City has reviewed and approved of various amendments to the original Ocean Trails project. These amendments were minor enough to only require Addenda to EIR No. 36 in lieu of preparing a complete Supplement, such as is required for the proposed landslide repair.

On March 2, 2000, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental EIR (DSEIR) for the proposed repair of Landslide C at Ocean Trails. The NOP included a supporting Initial Study. The purpose of the NOP process is for the City to obtain information/comments on issues that agencies/persons feel need to be addressed in the preparation of the DSEIR. The NOP was released for a mandatory 30-day review period (March 2, 2000 to April 3, 2000). The City received twelve written responses to the NOP. A summary table listing the comments and the section of the DSEIR where these comments have been addressed is shown on page 1-2 of the DSEIR. Copies of the actual comment letters from the NOP are provided in Appendix B of the DSEIR.

Upon completing the NOP process, the City prepared a DSEIR for the proposed project. The DSEIR includes 7 sections – 1) Introduction, 2) Project Description, 3) Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation, 4) Discussion of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, 5) Alternatives to the Proposed Project, 6) Organizations/Persons Consulted and References, and 7) List of Preparers of the EIR. Two of the major sections of the DSEIR (Sections 3 and 4) both summarize and discuss in detail the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed repair project. According to Sections 3 and 4 of the DSEIR, the impacts of the proposed repair project related to geology (DSEIR, page 3-2, 4-3 and 4-16), air quality (DSEIR, page 3-3, 4-8 and 4-24), biological resources (DSEIR, page 3-4, 4-10 and 4-39), hazards (DSEIR, page 3-4, 4-11 and 4-55) and aesthetics (DSEIR, page 3-6, 4-14 and 4-63) can all be mitigated to below a level of significance (see respective noted pages in the DSEIR for detailed discussion on each impact). However, the short-term noise impacts of the proposed project are significant and adverse and cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level. Additionally the proposed project is anticipated to result in a significant adverse cumulative impact related to short term air quality. Below, Staff has provided a brief discussion of why these two impacts are significant and cannot be mitigated.

Noise: Under the proposed project, the landslide repair activities would be conducted outside of the existing Ocean Trails’ required time period for construction activities, which is between 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday and 7am to 5pm on Saturday. Specifically, the developer is requesting that construction hours be expanded to 7am to 8pm or until dusk, which ever comes first, on Monday through Saturday, and between 8am and 6pm on Sunday. The developer has requested to expand the hours of operation in order to complete the project sooner and subsequently be more prepared for the upcoming winter rains.

Since the noise impacts are only related to construction, they are short term and will not occur after the completion of the proposed project, which is estimated at 6-8 months. According to the Noise Study (DSEIR, Appendix G), the maximum noise level at the nearest residence as a result of the construction activities would be approximately 59 dBA.

As noted, the developer is also proposing to operate a rock crushing facility on site near the landslide repair area. The rock crusher would be operated on the project site an average of four hours a day and a maximum of six hours a day, between the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday through Friday, and 7am to 5pm on Saturday. The developer is not requesting that the rock crusher be operated outside of the existing permissible operating hours for the Ocean Trails project. According to the DSEIR Noise Study, the maximum noise level of the rock crusher at the nearest residence would be approximately 58 dBA (DSEIR, page 4-62). Based upon the location of the facility, its large distance to existing nearby residential homes (1,600-2,300 feet), and limited time of operation, it is anticipated that there will not be a significant adverse impact related to the noise of the rock crusher.

Since there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the impacts of the proposed project related to construction noise occurring outside of the existing permissible hours of operation; this impact will require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. On February 2, 1999, the City Council approved a similar one-time expansion of construction hours for limited activities that included shaping of tees and greens, installation of irrigation and drainage, planting and construction of rock walls throughout the project site. This was permitted for a specified 1½-month period. At the time of approval, a condition was added that indicated, "If the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement determines that the construction activity occurring on Sundays…is causing an adverse impact to the public, then the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement can restrict the hours or eliminate the work from occurring on subsequent Sundays." As noted in the discussion under "Grading Permit Amendment" below, Staff recommends that similar language be applied to this project if the request for expanded hours is approved.

Since the construction activity will take place towards the southern end of the Ocean Trails site, some 1,600 to 2,300 feet away from the nearest residence, the potential impact is temporary (estimated at 6 months), and it would be advantageous for the developer to complete or be substantially underway before the winter rains begin, Staff recommends that these reasons support adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As such, Staff has included a Statement of Overriding Considerations in the attached Draft Resolution adopting the Final Supplemental EIR.

Air Quality: Similar to the project as originally approved under EIR No. 36, although the landslide repair project could be mitigated so that there will not be any short-term adverse impacts to air quality, since the proposed project will incrementally increase local air pollutant concentrations, it would add to the cumulative degradation of the regional air quality. Because there will be an unavoidable cumulative impact to air quality, a Statement of Overriding Considerations needs to be made. Based upon a public safety need to repair the landslide, and since the cumulative impacts are no different than the cumulative impacts from construction activity identified in the original EIR for the project, Staff recommends that the Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the cumulative air quality impacts as well as the noise impacts discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

The DSEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period from April 21, 2000 to June 5, 2000. During the circulation period, the City received 16 comments on the DSEIR. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has prepared and distributed responses to those comments at least 10 days prior to the public hearing scheduled for June 21, 2000. The "Response to Comments Report" is attached for the Council’s consideration as part of the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR). Only comments received during the DSEIR 45-day comment period have been incorporated into the "Response to Comments Report". Any additional comments received on this project will be forwarded to the City Council prior to the June 21^st public hearing. Following, is a brief discussion on the comments received and responses prepared to those comments. Please see the attached "Response to Comments Report" for the actual comment letters and formal responses.

Federal Agencies: No comments were received from any Federal Agencies.

State Agencies: Caltrans submitted a letter indicating no comment.

Regional and Local Agencies: The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Southern California Association of Governments, and the County of Los Angeles Fire Department all submitted letters that either needed no response or a very general response.

The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles submitted a letter noting the following: 1) a concern with the accuracy of the stability analysis and related shear strength parameters within the project geology report, 2) a concern of the temporary stockpile locations during project construction, 3) a concern with the monitoring program used during construction activity, 4) a concern regarding the proposed construction methods and relationship to the temporary pumping plant and force main, 5) the fact that the detection of fecal coliform is expected in water from some of the borings in the landslide area, and 6) responsibilities concerning the design and construction of the new sewer line through the landslide area. Converse Consultants has prepared, and Cotton Shires Associates has reviewed, a response to these comments which was incorporated into the "Response to Comments Report". Neither the comments nor responses warranted any changes to the DSEIR.

Written Comments Received from Groups and Organizations: A letter was received from the Ladera Linda Homeowners Association which noted two comments; 1) the reason for the failure of Landslide C should be known before the repair is approved, and 2) issues not related to the repair of Landslide C, such as the reassessment of landslides A and B and the rerouting of the sewer line need to be addressed at the June 21^st public hearing or at a subsequent hearing. In response, both Converse Consultants and Cotton Shires Associates verified that it is not necessary to know the cause of the landslide prior to the repair of the landslide since the proposed repair will eliminate or strengthen the bentonite layer in the repair area and will include surface and subsurface drainage features to intercept and re-direct water to the outside limits of the landslide regardless of the source of water. In response to the second comment, it was noted that these issues would be addressed prior to the final of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666.

Written Comments from Individuals: Of the ten letters received from individuals, 8 of them commented that all of the lakes on the Ocean Trails site should be replaced with natural brush. In the response, it was noted that the lakes serve a purpose for providing freshwater marsh habitat that provides water quality benefits by naturally treating runoff from the surrounding golf course, as well as providing nesting and foraging habitat for waterfowl and other birds.

A letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. Sax, who commented that the proposed rock crusher should only be used during permissible "weekday" hours and not on "weekends". They also requested that if it is determined that the rock crusher is extremely noisy, then it can be stopped by the City. The response provided indicated that, as discussed above, the rock crusher was not anticipated to cause a significant adverse impact. Additionally, as conditioned, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement has the ability to restrict the hours of operation of the rock crusher.

The final letter was received from Ms. Robey. She commented that the landslide be "cleaned up and stabilized, ending up with a canyon from the area that moved", and that the remainder of the golf course could be moved to the residential areas of Tract 50666. A response was provided that indicated that in absence of the support provided by the proposed repair, further progression of movement behind (north) of the landslide area is possible, and therefore this alternative is not feasible.

As noted above, the City established a Peer Review Group to review the work analyzed by Cotton Shires Associates. After their initial review of the Geotechnical Report submitted on March 17, 2000, which was included as Appendix C of the SEIR, the Peer Review Group submitted questions/issues that needed to be addressed by Converse Consultants. Subsequently, on June 12, 2000, Converse Consultants submitted their revised Geotechnical Report, dated June 9, 2000, addressing the Peer Review Group’s questions/issues. As such, the revised Geotechnical Report is now considered the revised Appendix C for the Final SEIR. There were no substantial changes to the Geotechnical Report or the proposed project that would require re-circulation of the SEIR. A summary of the revisions to the report has been attached to the FSEIR. Copies of the June 9, 2000 Geotechnical Report are available for review if desired.

As required by CEQA, the DSEIR also includes "Alternatives to the Proposed Project". The alternatives presented in the DSEIR include a "No Project Alternative" (as required by CEQA), and two build alternatives. In defining project alternatives, it is important to recognize that, besides the "No Project Alternative", CEQA only requires that "feasible" alternatives that attain most of the basic objectives of the project need to be evaluated. CEQA defines "feasible" as "…capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors." As an example, Ms. Robey’s recommended alternative was not considered in preparation of the DSEIR as it is not technically or economically feasible. Below is a brief description of each of the alternatives and some of the reasons why these alternatives were less desirable than the proposed project. A more detailed description can be found in Section 5.0 of the DSEIR.

No Project Alternative: Under this alternative, repair of the landslide would not occur and the existing post-landslide conditions would remain in place. This alternative would not be considered desirable as it would leave a dangerous area on the Ocean Trails site, it would not be possible to re-vegetate the area and invasive non-native species would dominate, it would not be possible to construct the required 5.2 acre Ocean Trails Park, and it would help make the Ocean Trails development economically unviable, which would lead to difficulties in completing the project amenities.

Alternative 1 – Full Removal: This alternative would call for the excavation of the entire landslide mass to below the upper bentonite layer, installation of an impervious barrier and a full drainage system, stockpiling of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of material, and recompaction and replacement of the material. This was not considered a desirable alternative as it would require more stockpiling area than available, it would destroy the natural sea cliff and bluff slopes resulting in significant landform alteration, it would cause financial hardship to the owner by moving the golf holes, and during construction the unrepaired landslide area could reactivate.

Alternative 2 – Seaward Removal: Instead of removing the landward portion of the landslide, this alternative would propose removing the seaward portion of the landslide. It would include the installation of approximately 400 shear pins in the landward portion, excavation of the seaward part to below the upper bentonite layer, installation of an impervious barrier and drainage system, and recompaction and replacement of the earth material. This was not considered a desirable alternative as it would involve removing the toe of the slide which could destabilize the landslide due to removal of its lateral support, there would be significant technical problems where the upper bentonite layer is below the sea level, it would alter the landform of the natural bluff, and would be extremely dangerous to construct.

Similar to the FEIR No. 36, this SEIR is intended to serve as an informational document that will provide information to public agency decision makers and the general public related to the proposed project, including information related to the project’s potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures intended to minimize or eliminate those potential environmental impacts. It is important to note that although the Supplement may identify potential impacts that cannot be entirely mitigated, the decision making body can still approve the project, through the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as was done in the original EIR.

The Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) includes the FEIR No. 36, prior Supplement, all prior addenda, this Staff Report, the Mitigation Monitoring Report (attached), Response to Comments Report (attached), the DSEIR with all appendices (distributed to the City Council on April 25, 2000 – not attached to this report), and the revised Geotechnical Report (Appendix C) dated June 9, 2000 (summary attached, but full geology report is not attached to this report). Staff has attached a cover sheet and introduction for the FSEIR noting its content.

Conditional Use Permit Amendment

Conditional Use Permit No. 163 requires that any significant changes in the development characteristics of the approved conceptual plan require approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Staff considers this to be a significant change as the configuration of the golf course and grading will change as a result of the landslide repair. In adopting or amending a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the following five findings:

1. That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood; and
2. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use;
3. That, in approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof; and
4. That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan; and
5. That if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 of this title, the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and
6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed [see attached Development Code Section 17.60.050(A)(6) for list].

Since the proposed use of the site will be the same as what was previously approved for the original project, the impacts related to construction are temporary, and the impacts related to construction are similar to what was previously approved for the original project, Staff feels that the proposed project and use is consistent with the findings noted above and the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit may be approved. No changes to existing Conditional Use Permit conditions are required as part of the amendment.

Grading Permit Amendment

The proposed project deviates from two existing conditions of approval found in Grading Permit No. 1541 for the Ocean Trails project. The first is in regards to construction hours. As noted earlier, the developer would like to expand the construction hours to 7am to 8pm or until dusk, which ever comes first, on Monday through Saturday, and between 8am and 6pm on Sunday. The existing condition states,

"The hours of operation for grading and construction activities shall be limited from Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm and Saturday, 7am to 5pm. No grading or construction activities shall be conducted on Sunday or legal holidays recognized by the City. No on-site maintenance of equipment or vehicles shall be permitted before or after the hours indicated. No truck or construction vehicle queuing shall occur before 7am."

As noted under the Environmental Analysis section above, the expanded hours of construction will cause significant adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as they are outside of the normal construction hours. However, as noted in the Noise Study (DSEIR, Appendix G), the project construction will result in a maximum noise level of only 59 dBA to the nearest residence which is approximately 1,600 to 2,300 feet away from the construction site. Additionally, the proposed repair project is temporary (approximate 6 month construction period), and the expanded hours are requested in order to speed up the construction process to prepare for the upcoming winter rains. For these reasons, Staff could support a revision to this condition that would allow the expansion of the construction hours for a temporary period. Staff would recommend that the condition be amended as follows (bold underline represents additional language):

The hours of operation for grading and construction activities shall be limited from Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm and Saturday, 7am to 5pm. No grading or construction activities shall be conducted on Sunday or legal holidays recognized by the City. However, the project proponent shall be allowed to conduct construction activity pertaining to the Landslide Repair from 7am to 8pm or until dusk, which ever comes first, on Monday through Saturday, and between 8am and 6pm on Sunday. No on-site maintenance of equipment or vehicles shall be permitted before or after the hours indicated. No truck or construction vehicle queuing shall occur before 7am. If it is determined by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the construction activity related to the Landslide Repair which is permitted outside of the normal construction hours, is causing an adverse impact to the public, then the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement can further restrict the construction hours of the landslide repair up to normal construction hours.

The second deviation from the existing conditions is in regards to the use of a rock crusher. The condition currently states, "The use of a rock crusher on the site is prohibited".

The developer would like to amend this condition to permit the use of a rock crusher during the current permissible construction hours – 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday, and 7am to 5pm on Saturday. According to the developer, it is anticipated that a large percentage of the material that will be excavated will be composed of rock in excess of 6" in diameter. During the construction process, the material that is excavated and stockpiled will eventually be needed as fill. The specifications for the needed fill dictate that it be from material that is less than 6" in diameter. Subsequently, there are two options: one, the developer could export all rock material in excess of 6" in diameter and then import the necessary fill, or two, utilize a rock crusher.

Based on the amount of estimated rock to crush, the developer is anticipating that the rock crusher will only be operated on an average of four hours a day with a maximum of six. The developer has indicated that, although only 4-6 hours of rock crushing is necessary, it is important to be able to conduct rock crushing during any of the construction hours as it is difficult to predict when exactly the rock crusher will be needed during the day. As noted in Appendix G, the rock crusher would be located in two different areas; the first is southwest and adjacent to the landslide area for a period of 1-2 months, the second is adjacent to and immediately northeast of the landslide area. For the reasons in support of the expanded hours of construction, Staff feels that the use of a rock crusher may also be permitted for a temporary period, while the landslide is being repaired. Although the DSEIR indicated that there would be no significant adverse noise or vibration impacts from the rock crusher, to consider the concerns expressed by Mr. and Mrs. Sax (see Environmental Analysis section above), and to monitor its use and potential impacts, Staff recommends the following change to the existing condition (bold underline represents additional language):

With the exception of using a rock crusher for the Landslide C repair during normal construction hours of 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday and 7am to 5pm on Saturday, the use of a rock crusher on the site is prohibited. If it is determined by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement that the use of a rock crusher related to the Landslide Repair is causing an adverse impact to the public, then the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement can require the developer to provide methods to reduce these impacts or can restrict the hours in which the rock crusher may be used to be more restrictive than the normal construction hours noted in the first sentence.

With these two amended conditions, Staff feels that construction noise and related impacts can be sufficiently monitored to reduce impacts to the surrounding residences.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Public notice of the June 21^st public hearing was sent to all property owners within a 500’ radius of the Ocean Trails site, to all Homeowner Associations in the immediate vicinity of the Ocean Trails site, the SEIR distribution list, and to all agencies/persons that submitted comments on the DSEIR and NOP. Staff has not received any additional correspondence pertaining to this project other than those received pertaining to review of the NOP and DSEIR.

CONCLUSION

Although the SEIR has identified a cumulative significant adverse impacts related to air quality and a significant adverse impact related to noise, as noted in the Environmental Analysis section, these impacts are temporary, the cumulative air quality impact is the same as the impact addressed in the original EIR, and implementation of the project with extended construction hours (noise impact) will assist in the preparation of the site from future winter rains. As such, Staff feels that a Statement of Overriding Considerations may be adopted and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report certified.

The proposed landslide repair project, as prepared by the developer’s geologist, has been reviewed and approved by the City’s geologist, Cotton Shires Associates, and supported by the City’s Peer Review Group. As noted above, Staff can support the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit for the change in the project’s development characteristics, and the Grading Permit for the change in hours of construction and use of a rock crusher.

For the reasons noted in this report, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__ certifying the FSEIR, adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__ approving Revision L to Conditional Use Permit No. 163, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2000-__ approving Revision L to Grading Permit No. 1541.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the staff recommendation, the City Council may also wish to consider the following alternatives:

1.Deny the applicant’s request.

2.Identify any issues of concern with the applicant’s request, provide Staff and/or the applicant with any direction, and continue the item to a date certain.

FISCAL IMPACT

There are no Fiscal Impacts to the City as a result of this decision. The developer is responsible for completing the proposed project, as well as maintaining the project (including trails and parks) after completion.

Respectfully submitted:
Joel Rojas, AICP. Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement

Reviewed,
Les Evans,City Manager

ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 2000-__, for Final Supplemental EIR to EIR No. 36
Includes Exhibit A – Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2000-__, for Revision L to CUP No. 163
Resolution No. 2000-__, for Revision L to Grading Permit No. 1541
Final Supplement to FEIR No. 36, which includes:
Cover sheet and Table of Contents (Attached)
Approval letter from Peer Review Group (Attached)
Approval letter from Cotton Shires (Attached)
Letter from Converse Consultants Regarding the Revised Geology Report (Attached)
Response to Comments Report (Attached)
DSEIR with Appendices and Attachment (Not attached)

RECESS:

PUBLIC COMMENTS: (at approximately 8:40 P.M.)

(This section of the agenda is for audience comments on items NOT on the agenda.)

ORAL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: (This section designated to oral reports from councilmembers who wish/need to report on Council assignments.)

ADJOURNMENT: Adjourn to a time and place certain only if you wish to meet prior to the next regular meeting.