june 2, 2015 1 appeal of south shores church master plan certification venue: dana point city...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
June 2, 2015 1
Appeal of South Shores Church
Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council
Presented by co-appellant:
Todd Glen
23285 Pompeii Drive
Monarch Beach, CA 92629
Email: [email protected]
![Page 2: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
June 2, 2015 2
Reasons for AppealDe Novo Hearing JustificationDe Novo: As if never heard before.
LSA did not diligently review or respond adequately using industry standards per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regarding over 1,000 pages of stakeholder concerns.
Did not notify, fully inform, nor engage & update the appropriate Public Resource Trustee & Regulatory agencies.
Cumulative Impacts NOT mitigated below the level of Potentially Significant Negative Impacts per CEQA.
![Page 3: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
June 2, 2015 3
Stakeholder Concerns Ignored by LSA & Dana Point City Staff
Monarch Bay Villas (MBV) Pointe Monarch (PM) Corniche Sur Mer Monarch Bay Terrace Monarch Coast Apts. (MCA) Recreational Users of Salt Creek
Corridor Trail Ritz Point Unmitigated water quality and habitat
degradation impacts upon the biotic community in the PM restored jurisdictional coastal wetlands
![Page 4: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
June 2, 2015 4
Submitted Concerns Ignored Salt Creek Corridor noise level
issues unmitigated Street parking & vehicular noise
from parking structure Unstable, still active lateral and vertical movement Soil particulate migration not
adequately analyzed/mitigated Potential negative impacts of
highly invasive excavation not mitigated below levels of significance per CEQA. SSC won’t know true soil composition, actual conditions until too late---in progress
![Page 5: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
June 2, 2015 5
Size Matters: 75% Increase! Applicant reps repeatedly stated
“as an objective, no growth.” If Currently 42,545 sq. ft. to Alt. #2
proposed 71,129 sq. ft. = 75%, inadequately explained increase.
A more modest increase would achieve goals and objectives per CEQA prescriptions §15126.6
No reasonable alternative to 75% increase offered per CEQA in Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR.)
Only 1 true Alternative (Alt. #2) is offered; CEQA mandates a RANGE of alternatives (multiple).
![Page 6: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
June 2, 2015 6
Indemnification/Hold Harmless
DPPC did not require indemnification and/or bonding.
City Code § 9.675.100 provides authority for appropriate bonds.
Damage/destabilization to residences and surrounding ecological habitat: Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) communities (gnatcatcher), and adjacent properties’ slopes
Precedent Ignored: Dana Point Headlands Funicular
![Page 7: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
June 2, 2015 7
Offsite Parking Required Off-site Parking Management Plan NOT
a legally binding agreement. LOI (Letters Of Intent) only.
Laguna Niguel/County of Orange have jurisdiction, authority to grant such uses, NOT the City of Dana Point. Renewals NOT guaranteed
CUPs for off-site should have been ratified first, NOT after certification (ministerial, over-the-counter).
CUPs by other jurisdictions cannot be monitored for 100% compliance over a 10-year timeline–NO written instruments that are enforceable.
![Page 8: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
June 2, 2015 8
Seismic & Soil Analyses Criteria Building complex lost in major landslide next to
applicant’s project, NEVER rebuilt: Why not?
10 homes < 50 ft. from excavation
Computer model w/o onsite testing of crib wall construction (MBV)
“Potato chip-thin” protection NOT within Factor-of-Safety structural engineering standards
Lateral thrust = excessive pressure on crib wall of retention reservoir
Actual site soil conditions unknown until excavation underway. Over-the counter/as/built changes will be
allowed without stakeholder peer review.
![Page 9: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
June 2, 2015 9
Dual Level Parking Structure Bottom of ramp NOT significantly relocated to
the north
Unique/Site Specific Mitigation Analysis was NOT performed for upper level parking ramp
Existing south retaining wall under additional increased stress NOT fully evaluated
Seismic and significant rainfall events NOT fully addressed. Combined, they will
(a) Exacerbate potential lateral and down-gradient (migratory) movement &
(b) Amplify possible catastrophic structural damage upon MBV homes.
![Page 10: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Parking Structure Solution Reduce net footprint of the project by 5% total
sq. ft. Move both the Administration & Parking Structure elements approximately 15 feet further away from MBV.
Eliminating only 16 out of 364 spaces, the parking structure reduction will mitigate, i.e., lessen Migratory Noise, Air Quality, Thermal Heating and Lighting impacts on the MBV side.
Alt.# 2 has a surplus of 12 spaces; therefore a
5% reduced project footprint on the south side (MBV) will still allow compliance with the City codes, plus the goals and objectives as stated by applicant.
June 2, 2015
![Page 11: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
June 2, 2015 11
OCTA NOT Properly Informed, Notified, Included In Traffic & Parking Analyses
LSA analyses fatally flawed regarding OCTA, Traffic Circulation & Parking Mitigations in Final EIR SCH# 2009041129
FEIR: Ambiguously suggests future limiting/altering parking & traffic circulation on CV Parkway
City failed to properly inform and update OCTA, the regulatory agency that has jurisdictional and discretionary powers regarding CV Parkway OCTA relied upon information in the original Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
![Page 12: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
EIR Category Never Clearly IdentifiedCEQA Chapter 4.5 Article 2: Master EIR
§ 21157 (a) A master environmental impact report
may be prepared for any one of the following projects: (2) A project that consists of smaller
individual projects which will be carried out in phases.
(4) Projects which will be carried out or approved pursuant to a development agreement.
Though petitioned repeatedly by Clean Water Now, LSA/City never categorized or characterized the project as a Program EIR CEQA Chapter 3 Article 11, §15168
June 2, 2015
![Page 13: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
June 2, 2015 13
10-Year Phased Completion Timeline DPPC did NOT question or challenge pauses in
construction. Why are they necessary; why are they being allowed?
Funds to completion MUST be in place prior to excavation. This is a risky business venture.
Protracted build-out delays are unjustly burdensome, onerous, punish & significantly impact surrounding HOAs.
LSA/Applicant: Only 6 years total needed. Why is Applicant being given 10 years if they
have adequate funds for the entire Master Plan now?
SSC MUST guarantee funding for duration of project. Chapter 4.5 Article 2 §21157 (2) (D)
“A capital outlay or capital improvement program, or other scheduling or implementing device that governs the submission and approval of subsequent projects.”
![Page 14: June 2, 2015 1 Appeal of South Shores Church Master Plan Certification Venue: Dana Point City Council Presented by co-appellant: Todd Glen 23285 Pompeii](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022083008/56649ea15503460f94ba4f84/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
CEQA Article 9 §15126.6: EIR Alternatives “An EIR SHALL describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
It MUST consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.
The lead agency [City] is responsible for selecting a RANGE of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the [CEQA] rule of reason.”
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990)52 Cal.3d 553 and Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376).”
June 2, 2015