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 Drive Monarch Beach, CA 92629 Email: tvglen@cox.net

2. June 2, 2015 2 Reasons for Appeal De Novo Hearing Justification De 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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).

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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 10

11. 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)

12. EIR Category Never Clearly Identified CEQA 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 12

13. 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.”

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 14