The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20170516 I - Park In-Lieu Fee 30389 PVDERANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: 05/16/2017 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar Consideration and possible action to accept the Parkland Dedication (Quimby) Fee for Vesting Final Parcel Map No. 73817. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Accept the Parkland Dedication (Quimby) Fee for Vesting Final Parcel Map No. 73817 in the amount of $39,200 (Case No. SUB2015-00001). FISCAL IMPACT: Accepting these fees will increase the balance of the City's Parkland Dedication (Quimby) Fee fund accordingly. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 338-300-0000-3907 ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Associate PlannerR_ REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development,4 APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Managerl�pollj ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No 73817 Conditions of Approval (Resolution Nos. 2016-09 and 2016-10) (page A-1) B. RPVMC Section 16.20.100 (page B-1) C. Buyer's Settlement Statement (page C-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 2016-09 (Mitigated Negative Declaration) and 2016-10 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and Grading Permit) approving a lot split and the development of two residential structures on a vacant lot located at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East (Attachment A). On February 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Vesting Final Parcel Map No. 73817 to the Community Development Department for approval. Approval of the Final Map is contingent on the applicant demonstrating that all of the Conditions of Approval have been met. Both Staff and the City Engineer have completed an initial review of the Final Map and, with the completion of minor corrections, it is in substantial compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval. Condition No. 31 of Resolution No. 2016-10 requires the 1 applicant to pay the Parkland Dedication (Quimby) Fee prior to recordation of the Final Map, the calculation and acceptance of which is the matter presented to the City Council this evening. Pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Municipal Code (Attachment B), as a condition of approval of a tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. Because there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the parcel map was conditioned so that the subdivider, in lieu of dedicating land, shall pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication. The amount of the Quimby Fee is based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated. The fair market value of land shall be determined by the City Council using one of four methods: 1) the assessed market valuation established by the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor, if the land has been assessed within the last calendar year; 2) the sale price of land if sold within the last five years plus the inflation rate and any contingencies at the time of sale; 3) the sale of comparable properties within the last year; or 4) a land appraisal prepared by a member of the appraisal institute. On April 7, 2017, the applicant submitted a copy of the Buyer's Settlement Statement with the recent sale price of the property (Attachment C). The subject lot sold for $1,400,000 on February 13, 2017. Since the purchase was made in the past few months, Staff used the final purchase price in determining fair market value. With this, Staff calculated the per -acre value of the 1.00 -acre property at $1,400,000. Therefore, the calculation of the Quimby Fee is as follows: Market Value of the Subject Property (per acre) multiplied by: Parkland Dedication requirement' multiplied by: Number of dwelling units: equals: $1,400,000/acre 0.0140 acre per dwelling unit 2 dwelling units $39,200 Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Quimby Fee for Vesting Final Parcel Map No. 73817 in the amount of $39,200. This fee must be paid before the Final Map can be approved for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Pursuant to the Section 16.20.100(D) of the Subdivision Code, the City's Parkland Dedication requirement is 0.0140 acre/unit for subdivisions having a density of less than 6.1 dwelling units/acre. 2 ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative action is available for the City Council's consideration: Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed Quimby Fee calculation and continue this item to a future agenda. 3 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 73817 AND GRADING PERMIT AT 30389 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (SUB2015-00001, ZON2015-00187 & ZON2016-00314). WHEREAS, on April 10, 2015, applications were submitted for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and Grading Permit for 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East; and, WHEREAS, based on a preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on May 8, 2015. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information by Staff and the City Engineer, Staff deemed the project complete on June 2, 2016; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (" CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Grading Permit was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a minimum comment period of 20 -days, commencing on June 30, 2016, and concluding on July 20, 2016. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 26, 2016, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law, and there is no substantial evidence, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed, that the approval of Case No. SUB2015-00001, ZON2015-00187 & ZON2016-00314 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: There are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and, therefore, the proposed project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711. 2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Resolution No. 2016-09 Page 1 of 2 A-1 Section 3: The attached proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration finds that there are no impacts or less than significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, recreation, utilities and service systems, and mandatory findings of significance. Section 4: With the imposition of mitigation measures that address potential impacts upon aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, noise, public services, and transportation/traffic in the community and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study and Staff Report, the Planning Commission has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and also finds that the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto complies with CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to allow the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit to accommodate a lot split for the future residential development on an existing vacant parcel located at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East. PASSED, CERTIFIED AND ADOPTED this 261' day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson and Vice Chairman Cruikshank NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley and Chairman Tomblin a*,', John C uikshank Vice airman Ara Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-09 Page 2 of 2 A-2 Exhibit "A" City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Project title: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817, Grading Permit, and Environmental Assessment/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Planning Case Nos. SUB2013-00001, ZON2015-00187) 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5231 4. Project location: 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East APN 7566-002-018 City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Douglas Maupin (Maupin Development, Inc.) 23505 Crenshaw Blvd. #208 Torrance, CA 90505 6. General plan designation: Residential (<=1 d.u./acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RS -2) 9. Description of project: The proposed project involves a request to subdivide an existing vacant 43,610ft2 lot at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East (PUDE) (APN: 7566-002-018) into two separate parcels for the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. As proposed, Parcel No. 1 will be 21,675ft2 in area and will be improved with a 5,390ft2 two-story residence 01203.00051302184.1 Page 1 of 32 A-3 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 with 1,719 cubic yards of grading consisting of 1,348yd3 cut and 371 yd3 cubic yards of fill. Parcel No. 2 will be 21,925ft2 in area and will be improved with a 7,616ft2 three-story residence with 1,817yd3 of grading consisting of 1,270yd3 of cut and 547yd3 of fill. The proposed project does not qualify for a Class 15 Exemption (15315. Minor Land Divisions) as the parcel has an average slope greater than 20%, thus an Initial Study is required. The project involves a Grading Permit request to allow earth movement to accommodate the proposed residences. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040.D.4 of the RPVMC, since more than 1,000 cubic yards is proposed, the proposed grading, which includes the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis, is considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing. 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a vacant 43,610ft2 roughly rectangular shaped upsloping lot located on the west side of PVDE, near the intersection of Diamonte Lane and PVDE. The site is bounded by detached, single-family residences to the north, south and west, and across PVDE to the east. The land use and zoning designations for the site are Residential, <=1 d.u./acre and RS -2, respectively. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 2 of 32 Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property is an upsloping lot accessible from PVDE. North Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. South Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. East Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. West Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 2 of 32 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Figure 1: Aerial of project location west of PVDE, 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 3 of 32 A-5 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Fissure 2: Site plan showing the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and the proposed residential development on each lot. •� ^ � NlMNn1 ILLlMN14NW. ,yila'. xrG wsr,Nx'b NYTx 1(YO 1 A, ' '' %§$1 .. r �� F"�'" I"�°� ��1L�I� Y y• i I II�� 1� � y �� , +� I Dp • i� i t�� /Y�g1 +rp�•rt�s'vouNnAr r \I J �jTI ''NEW ORI':,• i� a ��. i Y_l r'. �' � �.,:� _ li\� I � miiw Na;,. r ••FFFF I ( I�81 � I ' i 1 e 1'`� < I -: ;1 rI m :`,�YYeN«,.\ow �'", I ) it ' � ;�'• '1 {/�� f 1" r,nuw\w`.0 }, `>t---._ •r- _�_�`� •: �\ •fftln I'�• '. y��- .�i >`,�_�-. �m Nc�G. lw �r fwa 1'1\C< VI! _- p � ! - r .',, ♦`... �` �1111UIIL M OVERALL SITE PLAN 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 4 of 32 Wo Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Figure 3: Floor plans of the Lot 1 proposed residence 01203.0005/302184.1 L .MFLooR PIAn ----------------- t ----------------------- ----- ----------- .A i. 14C., IT 17 Page 5 of 32 A-7 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Fissure 4: Elevation plans of the Lot 1 proposed residence W]TONTI ELEVATION _L------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M"EM)FIEVAMN - - - - - — ----- - - - ----- - - - - - - - - -- - . ...... ....... A .. . . ...... �11 i io NONTH RIGHT) ELEVATION 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 6 of 32 a Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Figure 5: Floor plans of the Lot 2 proposed residence UPPED f IOOH RAN 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 7 of 32 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Figure 6: Elevation plans of the Lot 2 proposed residence e�ttrpgmarwttw 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 8 of 32 A-10 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic 11Agriculture and Forestry a Air Quality Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils 1-1 Hazards and Hazardous Material 1-1 Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources F1 Public Services 1-1 Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: F1 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F7X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier OR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed ro.ect, othing further is required. Signature: % Date: A 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 9 of 32 A-11 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Printed Name: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: . Issuag And Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No `information Soarces Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1, AESTHETICS. Would the 'ro ect ro ct: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 1 on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, 1 and historical buildings, within a state scenic highways? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 1 site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would 8 adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a), b) Less than Significant Impact: The term "vista" is defined as a confined view in the City's General Plan, which is usually directed toward a terminal or dominant element or feature. Each vista has, in simplest terms, a viewing station, an object or objects to be seen, and an intermediate ground. PVDE, which is identified as a vehicular corridor with views of San Pedro, the Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors as well as the Pacific Ocean, has several vistas directed primarily towards the east. As the scenic views are towards the east and the subject site is located on the west side of PVDE, while the two proposed residences will be visible from the street, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Additionally, the proposed lot split and residential development of the two new lots would not substantially damage scenic resources including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway, as none of these items are located on the subject lot. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the proposed project will cause a less than significant impact to scenic vistas and resources. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The current General Plan Land Use (-11 d.u./acre) and Zoning Map (RS -2) designations only allow for a single residential dwelling. The immediate neighborhood is surrounded with the same land use and zoning designation as the subject lot. Due to the size of the lot, the existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations allow a lot split to accommodate a residence on each of the proposed lots. The proposed residences are designed to be notched into the existing slope, which lowers the building pad elevation, thereby minimizing the visual appearance of the structures as viewed from neighboring properties. Additionally, because the subject lot is located between 20 and 60 feet lower than the adjacent residences to the west and north, any potential visual impact from the proposed development will be minimized. Regarding the adjacent residence to the south at 30411 PVDE, although the proposed roof ridge elevations of the structures on Lots 1 and 2 are 925' and 946.5', respectively, and the pad level of 30411 PVDE is at 915', the view impact to that property will be minimal, as their view is primarily directed to the east and south-east and the proposed homes are situated directly north and north-east of that residence. Moreover, the topography increases in elevation east of the subject lot, and thus already blocks any views which would potentially be taken from 30411 PVDE. Furthermore, the Planning Commission will make a determination that the proposed residences will be compatible with the homes in the immediate neighborhood as they are within the range of sizes, lot coverage, and property line setback distances, and have a similar architectural design to the other homes in the neighborhood, which will avoid a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 10 of 32 A-12 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 'issues;and,.Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Information Sources Significant- Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated and its surroundings. Also, in terms of short-term visual impacts, although construction vehicles, equipment and materials will be visible from the street during construction, they will be onsite for a limited time and with the recommended mitigation measure, screened with the City's required construction fencing, thus minimizing the potential for substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and result in a less than significant impact. AES -1: During the construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and materials are temporarily screened by fencing pursuant to the City's requirements as described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. AES -2: The Planning Commission shall find that the two new residences comply with the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis under the provisions of Section 17.02.030.8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Factors the Planning Commission shall consider in the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis include, but are not limited to, bulk and mass, architectural styles, open space and setbacks amongst the 20 closest homes in the neighborhood. AES -3: The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed residences conform to the RS -2 Zoning District (Single -Family Residential) Development Standards in terms of maximum lot coverage of 40%. AES -4: The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed building setbacks of the two new residences comply with the following setbacks for the RS -Zoning District: Front= 20'-0", Rear- 20'-0", Interior Sides= 10'- 011 . d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The project site is proposed to be improved with two single-family residences with attached garages. The project plans depict the use of decorative lighting on the exterior of the proposed residential structures, which is common for properties located within a residential zoning district. The lighting for the two proposed structures will be required to comply with the Municipal Code lighting restrictions per RPVDC §17.56.030 which regulate lighting intensity and direction. With respect to the creation of a new source of glare, the use of glass on both structures is primarily limited to windows and doors located on the first and second stories of the residences for ingress and egress purposes. The project plans indicate that the two proposed residential structures are designed in a Mediterranean style, which includes the use of stucco, stone accents, a concrete tile roof and decorative features. The design of the residential structures does not include the use of large areas of glass, which reduces the likelihood of creating a new source of glare. However, in order to ensure that light and glare impacts are reduced to less -than - signification levels and do not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, the following mitigation measures are recommended resulting in a less than significant impact: AES -5: The Planning Commission shall find that exterior illumination for the new residential structures complies with the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. AES -6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. AES -7: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the specifications for the glass type, color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 11 of 32 A-13 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issoend'Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Tfian ; No Inforrnation Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ll AGRICULTU.itE�ANDFQRESTR�I RESOURCES `In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects; lead "agencies`may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site AssessmentllAoda (1997)-zoMpared' by,tite California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use In assessing impacts on agriculture: and.farmland .In determining whether impacts to :forest resources, Including tlfnberland, are" sipniftcant environmental effects, lead agencies may rafer to Information compiled by"the Califomia ;Department ofi lorastr`y•arid Fire Protection regarding the state's Inventory of forest land, Anclydipiolhe 1=ore>xt and itanpe 111ssessment Project .and the .Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest •carbon :measurement methoidofo y provided In Purest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 1Nould #hie ro ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2 c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code 2 section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- 2 forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1,2 to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 12 of 32 A-14 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 issues and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than ,I:ess Than No informntinn Sources Significant Significant Significant ' Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Comments: a -a) No Impact: The existing land use and zoning designations for the subject site is residential. Thus, the proposed project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use. Additionally, the subject site does not have any agricultural use and the property is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, thus the proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. The proposed project does not involve any forest land, or timberland, and therefore is not in in conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8)).. Also, because no forest land exists on the subject property, the proposed project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use, and does not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use. In addition, the project site is zoned RS -2, which permits the growing of crops and/ or fruits on lots one acre or less for noncommercial purposes; however, as previously stated, no portion of the project vicinity is under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there would be no impact to agriculture caused by the proposed project. 111. AIRaQUALITX: Where available, the slgnificance criteria established by the applicable air" ailty ' ,manapernent.prais pollution control district may be relied upon 'd snake the following determinations. Would Ird Oct: a) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable 8 air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: a) -e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five -county region (6,745 square miles) in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies and the proposed project would be subject to SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 13 of 32 A-15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 issues'►rdZupooirti ng, " Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Inforrtration SourcesSignificant Significant Significant impact Impact with impact Mitigation Incorporated Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Additionally, the air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed project, which includes the subdivision of an existing residential lot into two new parcels, in conjunction with the construction of two new residential structures on those parcels, would be limited to the total amount of 3,536 cubic yards of grading on the subject site (1,719 cubic yards for Parcel No. 1 and 1,817 cubic yards for Parcel 2). As a result of proposed construction activities, limited short-term, construction -related air quality impacts upon sensitive receptors would occur. However, due to the temporary nature of the construction, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan nor violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), as the proposed project involves only site preparation (grading) and construction of two single family residences. Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 15.18.050 requires that construction projects with a square footage between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet are required to complete construction within a 24 -month time period. Additionally, mitigation measure N-2 in the "Noise" section of this document requires that during demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday. Furthermore, although the proposed project would be adjacent to other single-family residents, construction emissions are considered a temporary nuisance that would end following the construction completion. Although there are short-term air quality impacts as a result of the proposed construction, with the following mitigation measures, the proposed project will have less than significant impacts that will not conflict or obstruct the implementation of an air quality plan, violate any air quality standards, result in cumulatively considerable net increase in pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations, or create objectionable odors: AQ -1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. AQ -5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. AQ -6: Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. AQ -7: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 14 of 32 A-16 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues and Supporting Sources; Potentially'" Less Than Less Than No Information sourcesSignificant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated AQ -8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. AQ -9: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 1V., BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the roject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or 1,4 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US of Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1,4 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Department of Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 1,4 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident 4 or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological 1,4,8 resources, such as tree reservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community 4 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 15 of 32 A-17 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issules lnd supporting Sources ` Potentially Less Than Loss TH>'iri'' No Infofrnation Sources Significant Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation incorporated habitat conservation plan? Comments: a -f) Less Than Significant Impact: The project is located within a developed area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the subject site is a vacant property which has periodically been cleared of brush per Los Angeles County Fire Department regulations. Additionally, portions of the site have non-native trees or bare soil. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. The proposed project and immediate area is not located in or adjacent to the 2004 City Council -adopted NCCP habitat areas, and is not located in or adjacent to any existing or proposed Significant Ecological Area (SEA). As such the project is unlikely to have an adverse effect or conflict with federal protected wetlands, native wildlife nursey sites, biological resources such as habitat, sensitive natural communities or protected species identified as candidates or as sensitive or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Services. Additionally, the project site is not located within any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by other resource agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/ or the California Department of Fish and wildlife, etc. Lastly, the City does not have a tree preservation ordinance or policy, and the project site is not located within federally -protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and no special -status animals or habitats are known to exist on or directly adjacent to this property). Therefore, per the above discussion, there would be no impacts to habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, protected or protected species, as none exist on the sub'ect eroperty. W `CltL1"024, RE $f URGES Woulr!'*e Protect. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,7 historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,7 d archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 1,7 site or unique geological feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,7 formal cemeteries? Comments: a -d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: According to the City's Archeology Map, the project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre -historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Nevertheless, it is possible that subsurface cultural resources may exist on the project site and may potentially be disturbed during grading operations. Therefore, in order to reduce the cultural resources impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels, so that no substantial adverse change to archaeological resources, paleontological or geologic features, or the disturbance of buried human remains occurs, the following mitigation measure are 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 16 of 32 • Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated recommended: CUL -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any known archaeological sites on or within a half -mile radius of the subject property. Said information shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Director. CUL -2: If any archaeological sites are identified on or within a half -mile radius of the project site per Mitigation Measure CUL -1, then prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archaeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeolo ist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate miti ation measures. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or 6 based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, 6 including liquefaction? iv Landslides? 6 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 18 thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 17 of 32 A-19 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issuas anil Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No, Information Sources Significant ` Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Comments: a), c) Less than Significant Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999, and therefore the project will not expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving ground strong seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (San Pedro Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones, and thus the project should not cause instability and/or should not result in lateral spreading or subsidence. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, the impact caused by the proposed project should be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The project would involve a total of 3,536yd3 of grading. Specifically, the project is proposing 1,719 cubic yards of grading within Lot No. 1 of the project site, which involves 1,348yd3 cut and 371yd3 cubic yards of fill. On Lot No. 2 of the project site, the applicant is proposing 1,817yd3 of grading, which includes 1,270yd3 of cut and 547yd3 of fill. Soil erosion during construction will be controlled using conventional on-site methods. Further, prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the applicant will be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval. Additionally, the applicant is required to provide measures for consistency with Best Management Practice measures through the City's Building & Safety Division as required under mitigation measure HWQ-2. GS -1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Based on a review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation report proposed by the applicant and approved (in the planning stage) by the City Geologist, the subject site is located on expansive soil. However, grading (cut and fill) will be required on the site in order to construct the access driveway to both properties as well as to notch the structures into the slope. As such, the proposed grading and residential construction will be subject to review and approval by the City Geologist and the Building & Safety Division prior to commencing any construction. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS -2: Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a grading plan and geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Building Official and the City Geologist. e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: A septic system is proposed for each new lot, as there are no sewer lines available along that portion of PVDE. However, with incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS -3: Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed septic system for each new property shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Safety Division. Vil. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the 0ro ect: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b Conflict with an applicable plan, 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 18 of 32 A-20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 tssuesand"Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Infiorrr>iatlon "Sources Sionificant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? Comments: a) Less than Significant Impact: The approval of the proposed lot split allows for the development of two new residences on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497Tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (including the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built -out scenario would not be significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, the proposed residences will be required to be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Less than Significant Impact: California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger -car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80 -percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. VIII. MA R_DS AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS: 'ftutd.the" ro ect:"" a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 13 the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 13 accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, 13 or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 1,2, 8, 13 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 19 of 32 A-21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues antf Supporting Sources Potentially ` Less Than Less Than, No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport 1,2,8 J or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people 1,2, 8 J residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 1, 2, 17 J adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 1,2,12 J adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a -d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site as no hazardous materials are proposed to be transported, used onsite or disposed of as part of this project. Additionally, the project does not propose the use of any hazardous materials, and thus will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Additionally, the project site is not on the California Environmental Protection Agency's list (Cal/EPA) of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed lot split and two new single family residences, and therefore there would be less than significant impacts caused by the proposed project. e- f) No Impact: There are no airports located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or in close proximity of the subject site. The closest airport is the Torrance Airport, which is approximately 7.5 miles north of the project site. Additionally, although there is at least one heliport within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, there are none in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. g) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject site is surrounded by developed residential properties. The impact caused by two additional dwellings as a result of the proposed lot split is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Additionally, the proposed project is compatible with the Joint Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) was prepared in response to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000). The purpose of the plan is to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards. Furthermore, the applicants are not requesting to subdivide the property more than what the existing zoning allows for. Per the above discussion, the proposed lot subdivision and associated construction will cause less than significant impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, therefore, there would be less than significant impacts caused by the proposed project. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 20 of 32 A-22 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 :`.isspes�nitSupport�ng Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed design and construction of the two new residential structures and related site improvements will be reviewed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (Fire Prevention Division), as well as the City's Building & Safety Division to ensure the project's compliance with all applicable fire protection and suppression requirements. Additionally, the proposed project is bounded by a public street to the east and developed properties to the west, north and south. Since there are no wildlands in close proximity to the subject site, the proposed project should not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. IX. i�YDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the roject: a) Violate any water quality standard 8 or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level 8 � (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a 10 stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 10 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater 14 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade 20 water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on 15 a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 21 of 32 A-23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which 15 J would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including 11 d flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11 mudflow? Comments: a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The septic systems proposed on the two new lots will be subject to review and approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure that any wastewater produced by the development is disposed of properly. Additionally, prior to commencing any grading or construction, Building & Safety will review drainage plans to ensure that the proposed residential development complies all requirements for stormwater discharges. The proposed new development will be also required to apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs would be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. With the following mitigation measures in place, future development of the site resulting from the proposed land use and zone change for the lot split would cause less than significant impacts by not violating any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements: HWQ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. HWQ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City's Building Official an Erosion Control Plan that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission. The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City with sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking water at a pressure consistent with accepted standards. The subject site already allows for the development of one single dwelling unit and this proposed project consisting of a lot split would allow for the development of two residences on each of the proposed lots. Individual property owners are responsible to re-establish or obtain new water connections through CWSC. The potential reduction in permeability of the site as a result would not substantially impact the aquifer volume or the local groundwater table as 39.9% of Parcel 1 and 39.74% for Parcel 2 will be covered by an impervious surface. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts caused by the proposed project that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. c -f) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: There are no streams or rivers on or in close proximity of the subject site. Currently, rainfall and runoff from surrounding developed properties flow into the existing drainage system of catch basins located within the City's right-of-way on PVDE. As required by mitigation 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 22 of 32 A-24 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 1sltsues'alnid'Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Inforlmation Sources Significant ' Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated measure HWQ-1, the stormwater runoff as a result from the proposed development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department. Therefore, the increased volume of run-off resulting from an additional residential dwelling as a result of the proposed project would not cause flooding or exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system, would not substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and degrade water quality, and therefore results in less than significant impact g,h) No Impact: The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to their topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Additionally, FEMAs FIRM map (September 26, 2008) does not identify the subject property to be within any mapped flood hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map or would place within a 100 -year flood hazard area the proposed structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, therefore resulting in no impact. I) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, resulting in a less than significant impact. j) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no lakes within the vicinity of the project site and therefore, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Furthermore, although the subject site consists of slopes, it is not in an area that would be subject to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, resultin in a less than significant impact. ' SE AND LANNINO:. Would the . 'ro ect. a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, 1 2 8 specific plan, local coastal �I program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,4 d community conservation Ian? Comments: a -b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is located on an existing legal parcel bordered by PVDE to the east and existing developed lots to the west, north and south. The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for the property, like those of adjacent properties to the east, west, south and north of the project site allows for residential development. The Zoning designation of RS -2 also allows for the subject site to be subdivided into two separate lots. Additionally, the Planning Commission will review the proposed residential developments in terms of size, architectural style, building materials, and structure setbacks to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 23 of 32 A-25 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 -8sui es' and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Leas Than " No (nformation `sources' Sighificant Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated established community nor will it conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of the City. c) Less Than Significant Impact: There are no sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that were found on the subject site. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or the NCCP and thus result in a less than significant impact. A ;MINERAL'; RESOURCES. `;Would;the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated 8 on a local general plan, specific Ian or other land use Ian? Comments: a, b) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site, identified in the local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan. Additionally, the property records for the subject property do not indicate the presence of any mineral resource. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed project that would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan. XOOM. ISE. Wouid the ro ect result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in 1 J the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1,8 4 groundboume vibration or roundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1,8 d project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,8 4 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport 1,2 or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 24 of 32 A-26 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 is ued and ;support ng Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than ' No irrFormatloln 5'ources Significant ' Significant Significant ` Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working 1,2 in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a -d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed lot split will allow for the development of one residential structure on each of the new lots. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a potential development on the site. Potential construction noise and vibration from construction vehicles or tools could occur as close as 10' from the nearest residential buildings to the closest property lines of the subject lot. The Municipal Code limits construction hours in the City from lam to 6pm Monday through Friday and between 9am and 5pm on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted on Sunday or legal holidays, as defined in the Municipal Code. Given the temporary nature of the construction noise with the following mitigation measures, the short term noise impacts would be less than significant as it relates to exposing persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, to exposing persons to excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels, and to exposing persons to a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the project vicinity:: N-1: Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the perrnitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. N-3: The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. N-4: All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. e, f) No Impact: There are no airports located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or in close proximity of the subject site. The closest airport is the Torrance Airport, which is approximately 7.5 miles north of the project site. Additionally, although there is at least one heliport within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, there are none in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise and as such, no impact is caused by the proposed project. ' XIII: 'POPULATION AND HOUSING. "Would"the co ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 25 of 32 A-27 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject site currently allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposed project, two single-family dwellings would be allowed, resulting in a net increase of one household. The potential to induce substantial population growth may be indicated by the introduction of a project in an undeveloped area or the extension of major infrastructure. As the proposed lot split and two new residences will be located on an existing vacant lot surrounded by residentially -developed properties and will primarily be served by existing infrastructure, it is not considered substantial growth. Therefore, the population and housing impacts of the project are expected to be less than significant and will not induce substantial growth in an area directly or indirectly. b -c) No Impact: The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause the displacement of substantial numbers of people or require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere as a result. As such, the proposed project will have no im act. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, 10 in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i Fireprotection? 19 ii) Police protection? 19 d iii) Schools? 19 iv) Parks. 19 d v) Other public facilities? 19 Comments: a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project, which includes the subdivision of a developed residential lot into two new parcels in conjunction with the construction of two new residential structures on those parcels, will result in one additional household. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) identifies the 2014 average household size for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as 2.7. This small increase is not expected to place significant additional demands upon public safety services (i.e. fire and police) or other public services (i.e. parks, libraries, etc.). In addition, prior to permit issuance, the proposed project would be subject to Fire Prevention Division review and the payment of school fees to the Palos Verdes Peninsula School District PVPUSD would be required prior to construction. Furthermorepursuant to the City's 01203.00051302184.1 Page 26 of 32 • Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 lssues''and Supporting Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No lnfcrmation Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation incorporated Municipal Code Section 16.20.100, as a condition of approval for a parcel map, the applicant is required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project and that the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: PS -1: Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. XV. 'RECREATION. . a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact: Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project would allow for an additional dwelling, resulting in an increase of one household. The proposed project, which includes the subdivision of a single lot into two separate lots, each developed with a dwelling unit, would allow for a net increase of one household. An increase of one household is not significant and would not physically deteriorate any neighborhood or regional parks resulting in a less than significant impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact With mitigation measure PS -1 requiring dedication of land or fee in lieu for park and recreational purposes, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact to the use, expansion or services of existing arks.. XVL TRANSPORTATI N/TRAFFIC. 'Would 'the pro]sct: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b Conflict with an applicable 16 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 27 of 32 A-29 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 issues hand $upp0 ,.109 Sources Potentially Less Than Lies Than No lnformetion 66urce8 Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with impact Mitigation Incorporated congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: a, f) Less Than Significant Impact: The land use and zoning designation of the subject site already allows for residential development and has access via Palos Verdes Drive East, which is identified in the City's General Plan as an arterial street. Additionally, the City's Public Works Department will review and finalize curb cuts and other right-of-way improvements prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. As such, there would be less than significant impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit which would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. b) Less Than Significant Impact: According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6'" edition), the trip generation rate for an additional residential lot is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single-family residence, an additional dwelling unit as a result of the proposed project would cause a less than significant impact. c) No Impact: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The City's Public Works Department has completed a preliminary review of the proposed new driveway access and has no concerns other than requiring maintenance of vegetation adjacent to the driveway approach. However, a formal encroachment permit from the Public Works Department will be required prior to construction of the new driveway. Additionally, the proposed development will comply with the adopted Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. With said requirements incorporated as a mitigation measure, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 28 of 32 A-30 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues: and Supporting Sources ;PbWhtially ` Less Than ` Less Than No Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated T-1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any work or improvements in the public right of way, such as curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements. e) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Fire Department review and approval will be required prior to grading and/or building permit issuance to ensure adequate emergency access. With said requirement incorporated as a mitigation measure, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. T-2: Prior to a grading and/or building permit issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. XVII., UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:, a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or 4 expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause sicinificant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of 4 existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and 4 resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 4 capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with 4 sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 29 of 32 A-31 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00187 June 30, 2016 issues'and upporting SourcAs' potentially ` Less Than Less Than ' No information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a -c) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family residence. While a net increase one additional onsite septic system as a result of an additional dwelling unit will generate an increase in waste water, there would be a less -than -significant impact as a result of the proposed project because wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board would not be exceeded, the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would not be warranted, and the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities would not be warranted. d -e) Less Than Significant Impact: California Water Service Company (Cal Water) provides the existing City's water service with no need for expanded entitlements. Given that the proposed project will result in a net increase of one household, the increase in demand for water attributable to this project is expected to be minimal and of adequate capacity compared to the amount of water used in the Cal Water area. As such, the water supply impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. f -g) Less Than Significant Impact: As previously stated, an onsite septic system is included in the plans for each new lot, so most of the wastewater will be processed on-site. Additionally, the subject lots will not be served directly by a landfill. Additionally, for the development of the subject site, the property owner will be required to comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. Also, as previously stated in Mitigation Measure HWQ-3, prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building & Safety Division and the Public Works Department for stormwater discharges. XVIII. MANDATORY` FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 01203.00051302184.1 Page 30 of 32 A-32 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 Issues end Supporting Sources " Potentlally Less Than Less Than No Information Sources' Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated indirectly? Comments: a) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject site does not contain and is not located within close proximity to areas with protected habitat or species. Therefore, the proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed project involves a request to subdivide an existing lot into two separate parcels for the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot, which will result in a net increase of one new residence. While the cumulative effects of near -simultaneous development of up to two new homes may have significant adverse effects, with the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, these potential cumulative impacts will be reduced to less -than -significant levels. The recommended mitigation measures are listed in the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project. c) Less Than Significant Impact: There would be no substantial direct or indirect effects on human beings as no aspect of the proposed project has significant impacts on either the environment or human beings. !9 ; EARLtER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: None 20. SOURCE.REI=EREkCS 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ma 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 5/1/99 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Ma 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 31 of 32 A-33 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2015-00187 June 30, 2016 9 State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, U.S. Census Bureau 10 U.S. Geological Survey Ma 11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Torrance & San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1 2009 12 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Ma CAL FIRE 13 California Environmental Protection Agency's list Cal/EPA of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites 14 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, GIS Mapping 15 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map effective September 26, 2008 16 Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 6"' edition 17 2014 Joint Mitigation Hazards Plan 18 Applicant's preliminary geotechnical investigation report 19 Southern California Association of Governments -5t" Cycle RHNA Final Allocation Plan, 1/1/2014- 10/1/2021, retrieved from the SCAG website on June 10, 2016. 01203.0005/302184.1 Page 32 of 32 A-34 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817, Grading Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Planning Case Nos. SUB2015-00001, ZON2015-00187 & ZON2016-00314) Location: 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East (APN 7566-002-018) Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Douglas Maupin (Maupin Development, Inc.) Landowner: Douglas Maupin (Maupin Development, Inc.) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................................................................2 Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 2 Environmental Procedures....................................................................................................2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements........................................................................................ 2 Il. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program................................................................................ 3 Rolesand Responsibilities..................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures......................................................................................3 MitigationMonitoring Operations............................................................................................................3 Ill. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist................................................................................................5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table....................................................................................................6 Exhibit B - Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2016- I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East (APN 7566-002-018), located on the west side of Palos Verdes Drive East, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: The proposed project involves a request to subdivide an existing vacant 43,610ft2 lot at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East (PUDE) (APN: 7566-002-018) into two separate parcels for the development of one single-family dwelling unit on each lot. As proposed, Parcel No. 1 will be 21,682.72ft2 in area and will be improved with a 5,390ft2two-story residence with 1,719 cubic yards of grading consisting of 1,348yd3 cut and 371 yd3 cubic yards of fill. Parcel No. 2 will be 21,925.86ft2 in area and will be improved with a 7,616ft2 three-story residence with 1,817yd3 of grading consisting of 1,270yd3 of cut and 547yd3 of fill. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program." Exhibit B - Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2016- A-36 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre -grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director with advice from Staff or another City department, is Exhibit B - Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2016- A-37 responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Community Development Director would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements. Exhibit B - Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2016- • III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on July 26, 2016. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. Exhibit B - Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2016- A-39 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 1. AESTHETICS AES -1: During the construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and Community materials are temporarily screened by fencing Construction During construction Property Owner / Development pursuant to the City's requirements as applicant. Department described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. AES -2: The Planning Commission shall find that the two new residences comply with the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis under the provisions of Section 17.02.030.13 (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Factors the Planning Prior to Building &Safety Community Community Planning Commission shall consider in the Review permit issuance Development Development City's Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis Department Department include, but are not limited to, bulk and mass, architectural styles, open space and setbacks amongst the 20 closest homes in the neighborhood. AES -3: The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed residences conform to the Planning Prior to Building & Safety Community Community RS -2 Zoning District (Single -Family Review permit issuance Development Development Residential) Development Standards in terms Department Department of maximum lot coverage of 40%. AES -4: The Planning Commission shall find that the proposed building setbacks of the two Community Community new residences comply with the following Planning Prior to Building & Safety Development Development setbacks for the RS -Zoning District: Front= Review permit issuance Department Department 20'-0", Rear= 20'-0", Interior Sides= 10'-0". Exhibit B - Page 6 Resolution No. 2016- Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION AES -6: The Planning Commission shall find that exterior illumination for the new residential structures complies with the Planning Prior to Building & Safety Community Community provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Review permit issuance Development Development Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Department Department Palos Verdes Municipal Code. AES -6: Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed Planning Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Community toward or results in direct illumination of a Review permit issuance applicant. Development parcel of property or properties other than that Department upon which such light source is physically located. AES -7: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the specifications for the glass type, Community color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the Planning Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development review and approval by the Community Review permit issuance applicant. Department Development Director. 2. AIR QUALITY AQ -1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be Community continuously stabilized by being kept wet, Construction Duringconstruction Property Owner / Development treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or applicant Department covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. Exhibit B - Page 7 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program A-41 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION AQ -2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water Community shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent Construction Duringconstruction Property Owner / Development emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions applicant Department from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction Community vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to Construction Duringconstruction Property Owner / Development prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being applicant Department released or tracked off site. AQ -4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being Property Owner / Community tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if Construction During construction applicant Development tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be Department responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. AQ -5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off- site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other Community openings in cargo compartments, and loads Construction During construction Property Owner / Development are either: covered with tarps; wetted and applicant Department loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. Exhibit B - Page 8 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION AQ -6: Prior to issuance of a grading and/or Community building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development obtained from the Public Works Department. permit issuance applicant. Department AQ -7: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's Community satisfaction that dust generated by grading Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development activities shall comply with the South Coast Air permit issuance applicant. Department Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. AQ -8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds Property Owner / Community gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 Construction During construction applicant Development mph. To assure compliance with this measure, Department grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. AQ -9: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction Property Owner / Community equipment shall be kept in proper operating Construction During construction applicant Development condition, including proper engine tuning and Department exhaust controls stems. 3. CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL -1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Community Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development known archaeological sites on or within a half- permit issuance applicant. Department mile radius of the subject property. Said information shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Director. Exhibit B - Page 9 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program A-43 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION CUL -2: If any archaeological sites are identified on or within a half -mile radius of the project site per Mitigation Measure CUL -1, then prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archaeologist to monitor Property Owner / Community grading and excavation. In the event Construction Prior to and during grading applicant. Development undetected buried cultural resources are Department encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate miti ation measures. 4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS -1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, Community the applicant shall be required to submit an Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for permit issuance applicant Department approval. GS -2: Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner / Community grading plan and geotechnical report shall be Plan Check permit issuance applicant Development prepared for review and approval by the Department Building Official and the City Geologist. GS -3: Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed septic Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner / Community system for each new property shall be Plan Check permit issuance applicant Development reviewed and approved by the Building & Department Safety Division. 5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner / Community and/or building permit for new construction, Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development theapplicant shall submit and obtain approval Department Exhibit B - Page 10 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program � i i MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. HWQ-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City's Building Official an Erosion Control Plan that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner / Community and run-off control during construction Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development activities to protect the water quality. Department Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. 6. NOISE N-1: Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Community Saturday, with no construction activity Construction During construction Property Owner / Development permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays applicant. Department specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the Community adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Construction Property Owner / Development Monday through Friday and before 9AM on During construction applicant. Department Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. Exhibit B - Page 11 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program A-45 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. N-3: The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise During construction Property Owner / Community insulating features during construction to Construction applicant. Development reduce source noise levels. Department N-4: All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no Community additional noise, due to worn or improperly Construction During construction Property Owner / Development maintained parts is generated during applicant. Department construction. 7. PUBLIC SERVICES PS -1: Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at Community the option of the City, for park and recreational Planning Prior to approval of Final Property Owner / Development purposes at the time and according to the Review Parcel Map applicant. Department standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 8. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC T-1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain an Community encroachment permit from the Director of Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner/ Development Public Works for any work or improvements in permit issuance applicant. Department the public right of way, such as curb cuts, dum sters, temporary improvements and/or Exhibit B - Page 12 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION permanent improvements. T-2: Prior to a grading and/or building permit Community issuance, Fire Department review will be Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development required to ensure adequate emergency permit issuance applicant Department access. Exhibit B - Page 13 Resolution No. 2016 - Mitigation Monitoring Program A-47 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VESTING PARCEL MAP NO. 73817 AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING VACANT LOT AT 30389 PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST (PVDE) INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS AND TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT. PARCEL NO. 1 WILL BE 21,682.72FT2 IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 5,390FT2 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,719 CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING. PARCEL NO. 2 WILL BE 21,925FT2 IN AREA AND IMPROVED WITH A 7,616FT2 THREE- STORY RESIDENCE WITH 1,817YD3 OF RELATED GRADING (CASE NOS. SUB2015-00001, ZON2015-00187 & ZON2016-00314). WHEREAS, on April 10, 2015, applications were submitted for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and a Grading Permit for 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East; and, WHEREAS, based on a preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on May 8, 2015. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information by Staff and the City Engineer, Staff deemed the project complete on June 2, 2016; and, WHEREAS, on June 30, 2016, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Grading Permit was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a minimum comment period of 20 -days, commencing on June 30, 2016, and concluding on July 20, 2016. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (" CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2016-09 certifying the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration by finding that the City prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures as cited in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 26, 2016, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project involves Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and a Grading Permit to approve the subdivision of an existing vacant lot into two separate lots for the Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 1 of 17 FTIM115 development of two single-family residences. More specifically, the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 43,610ft2 lot into two separate lots. Lot 1 is proposed to be 21,682.72ft2 in size with a residence of 5,390ft2, and 1,719yd3 of associated grading. Lot 2 is proposed to be 21,925.86ft2 in size with a residence of 7,616ft2, and 1,817yd3 of associated grading. Section 2: Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. More specifically, the subject parcel is located within the General Plan land use designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (51 d.u./acre). All new residential lots within the :51 d.u./acre density range must maintain a minimum lot size of 20,000ft2, which is also the minimum lot size required for properties in the RS -2 zoning district. Additionally, Lots 1 and 2 will be 21,682.72ft2 and 21,925.86ft2 in size, respectively, which is consistent with the :51 d.u./acre General Plan land use designation. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Less than one dwelling unit per acre" (51 d.u./acre). More specifically, the General Plan requires new lots to comply with the lot dimensions listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district. The subject parcel is located within the RS -2 zone district. Based on the existing zoning, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code. Specifically, code requires that new lots within the RS -2 zone district are at least 20,000ft2 in size, and have a minimum lot width 90' and a minimum lot depth of 120'. Lot 1 is proposed to be 21,682.72ft2 with a width of 175.08 and a depth of 125.56 and Lot 2 is proposed to be 21,925.86 ft2 with a width of 170.08 and a depth of 130.45, thus meeting the minimum lot dimension requirements. Additionally, both Lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from PVDE, with an easement over the driveway on Lot 1 to allow ingress and egress, fire access and utilities for Lot 2. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code as stated above. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds 6,600ft2, which is the minimum required for a RS -2 zoning district. Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.D of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC), the contiguous lot area is the gross lot area less slopes steeper than thirty-five (35) percent and the required setback areas. Based on the applicant's plans (attached), the size of the contiguous lot area on each of the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a single-family residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -2 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from PVDE and utilities are available for connection from existing lines in the public street right-of- way. Additionally, the City Engineer has conceptually approved the location of septic systems for each of the two proposed lots and other required utilities are available for connection from existing lines within the public right-of-way on Palos Verdes Drive East. Additionally, access will be provided from Palos Verdes Drive East, with an easement over Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. D. The design of the subdivision for the proposed improvements will not cause substantial Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 2 of 17 "II • environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. More specifically, in regards to significant impacts to the environment, the Mitigated Negative Declaration certified by the Planning Commission under P.C. Resolution No. 2016-09, the Commission determined that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment as it relates to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems and mandatory findings of significance in the CEQA guidelines. However, the proposed development on the parcels may potentially impact aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and transportation/traffic in the community unless mitigation measures are adopted. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration with appropriate mitigation measures was certified and adopted by the Planning Commission thereby finding that these potential impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, the proposed project consists of a split of an existing residential lot that will not cause serious public health problems. Furthermore, the proposed development of the vacant parcel will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed and conditionally approved the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map. Furthermore, prior to grading and building permits being issued by the Building & Safety Division, the geotechnical reports will need to be approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. In addition to the requirements mentioned above, the applicant will be required to improve the vacant lot to sustain residential development, which will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. As for drainage, Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the applicant mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property to any adjacent properties. Staff has incorporated conditions that require the applicant to address all drainage flow concerns prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed development. Further, the placement of the proposed ingress/egress was approved by the City's contracted Engineer consultant for access to the lots. With regards to utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a street (PUDE) that will permit connection to existing public water lines, etc., that currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. With regards to wastewater, each of the new lots is proposed to have an onsite septic system, the location and design of which will be reviewed by the Building & Safety Division. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing or proposed public easements on the subject lot. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 3 of 17 A-50 Section 3: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow a total of 3,536 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of two residences of each of the proposed lots at 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East is warranted because the Planning Commission finds that: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the existing subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning map. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing vacant lot to accommodate the future development of each lot. The requested Grading Permit is to allow a total of 3,536yd3 of earth movement consisting of 1,719yd3of grading for Lot 1 and 1,817yd3 of grading for Lot 2. Specifically, for Lot 1, 589yd3 of cut and 11 yd3 of fill (599yd3 total) is proposed under the building, while 759yd3 of cut and 360yd3 of fill (1,119yd3 total) is proposed for the driveway and patio areas. The remaining 977yd3 of cut will be exported off site. For Lot 2, 581 yd3 of cut and 54yd3 of fill (635yd3 total) is proposed under the building, while 689yd3 of cut and 493yd3 of fill (1,182yd3 total) is proposed for the driveway and patio areas. The remaining 723yd3 of cut for Lot 2 will be exported off site. A total of 1,700yd3 will be exported off site for both Lots 1 and 2. Additionally, the maximum height of cut on both proposed properties is 11.22', while the maximum height of fill is 5.18'. Because the subject lot is an upsloping lot with an average slope of 22.6%, a combination of cut and fill with some associated retaining walls allow the structures to be notched into the slope. Furthermore, the amounts of grading proposed for the driveway is necessary to construct an access driveway which meets Fire Department specifications (width, slope, etc.) while minimizing the need for taller retaining walls along the driveway. Given the above discussion, the proposed grading is consistent with the primary residential use permitted for the subject lots and the grading quantities are necessary to integrate the development into the existing slopes to minimize impacts to surrounding properties while meeting Code and Fire Department regulations. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. The requested grading for the proposed subdivision is to accommodate two new residences within the City's permitted height requirements of 16'/30' for an upslope lot. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 1 will be 16' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 29' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The ridgeline of the structure on Lot 2 will be 15.66' above the highest existing grade adjacent to the structure, and 30' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure. The requested grading is to notch the proposed residences into the slope to minimize its visual appearance. As a result, although improvements will be visible from the street level (PVDE), by notching the structure into the slope, the grading will minimize the visual impact of the structures from the neighboring properties. Additionally, the RPVDC states that on sloping lots, structures may have building envelope of up to 16' on the upper side and 30' on the lower side, by right. As stated above, this view finding does not apply when grading is utilized to lower the finished grade under the building footprint, as proposed in the applicant's grading design. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. More specifically, although the proposed grading is not limited to the footprint of the structure, a front yard/pool area, and driveway, the additional grading beyond this areas is intended to prepare the site for construction of Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 4 of 17 A-51 the residential structures as well as the ingress/egress/fire access driveways, while minimizing the need for additional and/or taller retaining walls. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. More specifically, the proposed grading is designed to minimize the disturbance of natural and finished contours by limiting the earth movement to the areas of the lot that will accommodate notching the proposed residences into the slope to mimic the existing contours of the site. As designed, the grading extends beyond the footprint of the structures on both lots to support improvements ancillary to the proposed residences, as well as the driveway. Additionally, the proposed re-contoured slopes on both lots generally follow the existing contours of the property and result in finished contours that appear reasonably natural, sloping up from the front of the properties to the driveway and structures. Thus, the Planning Commission believes that the amount of grading beyond that required to accommodate the proposed residence has been minimized. E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The proposed structures are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the proposed structure sizes will not be out of scale because the proposed structures on Lots 1 and 2 are within the range of structure sizes for the neighborhood. As for the number of stories, although the proposed residence on Lot 2 is proposed to be three stories, the majority of the lower level will be completely below ground, with only north-east corner of this level (garage) exposed to the adjacent grade (driveway), thereby minimizing the visual impact of this additional story. Additionally, the closest point of the proposed structure on Lot 1 will be located approximately 64' away from the front property line, and the closest point of the structure on Lot 2 will be located approximately 166' from the front property line. Furthermore, various design features and articulations are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the new structure. Lastly, the proposed fagade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence is similar to and thus compatible with the existing neighborhood character. F. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. However, the proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and therefore this criterion does not apply. G. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. However, the proposed project does not involve modifications to streets or other public infrastructure. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the proposed project. H. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because the proposed grading area does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 5 of 17 A-52 The grading conforms to grading standards related to maximum finished slopes, driveways and no grading on slopes over 35% steepness. The existing topographical conditions make the proposed grading and depth of cut reasonable and necessary to develop the subject lot. The grading does not conform to standards detailed under 17.76.040(E)(9)(c) for creating a cut not exceeding 5' depth. However, the Planning Commission may make a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. Because the subject lot is an upsloping lot with an average slope of 22.6%, a combination of cut and fill with some associated retaining walls will allow the structures to be located on the property. Cuts up to 11.5' are proposed in order to notch the proposed residential developments into the existing slope in order to minimize its visual appearance. As a result, although improvements will be visible from the street level (PVDE), by notching the structure into the slope, the grading will minimize the visual impact of the structures from the neighboring properties. Additionally, fill up to 5.18' is also proposed to create a level driveway to serve both lots that meets the Fire Department and RPVDC requirements. Specifically, RPVDC Section 17.76.040.E.9.f.i requires that driveways do not exceed twenty percent slope except for one length up to 10 linear feet which may have a slope up to 22%. As such, the Planning Commission believes that the existing topographical conditions make the proposed grading and depth of cut reasonable and necessary to develop the subject lot in accordance with the Fire Department and RPVDC standards. K. There is no proposed grading on slopes over 50% steepness. L. The proposed driveway does not exceed 20% slope and slopes of only up to 33% are proposed adjacent to the driveway. Driveways which exceed twenty percent slope shall not be permitted except that one length, not at the point of access, of not more than ten linear feet may have a slope of up to twenty-two percent; Slopes not greater than sixty-seven percent may be permitted adjacent to driveways; M. Because both Lots 1 and 2 are sloping lots that ascend from the street of access, allowing two small retaining walls up to 3' high along the driveway on Lot 1, and two small downslope retaining walls up to 2.5' high, as well as small retaining walls up to 3.0' along the driveway on Lot 2, will help to minimize the amount of grading that is required, thus ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area. If the project did not include these several smaller retaining walls, additional grading would likely be needed for the construction of a single taller wall on each lot, resulting in potential adverse visual impacts from PVDE and additional disturbance to the site. Also, if the 9' retaining wall at the rear of Lot 2 was not included in the proposed project, additional grading would have likely been required over the remaining portions of the slope to adequately blend the proposed building pad for Lot 2 into the existing slope. Further, granting approval to allow several smaller retaining walls on Lots 1 and 2 would not constitute granting of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other neighboring properties because many of the lots in the immediate neighborhood are steeply sloped either up or down from the street, and have been developed with residences and a similar types and numbers of retaining walls, often larger in height. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 6 of 17 A-53 Finally, staff is directed to send a notice of decision to the applicant and all owners of property adjacent to the applicant property. Therefore, the findings of Development Code Section 17.76.040 (E) can be met. Section 4: The proposed balconies do not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences because each proposed balcony will have essentially the same view as the proposed "by -right" second and third -story windows on Lots 1 and 2. The second and third -story windows are located within the "by -right" height envelope of 16'/30' and therefore privacy impacts' are not assessed as part of this project. Section 5: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought, is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, August 10, 2016. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on August 10, 2016. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 and a Grading Permit, to allow the division of the existing 43,61 Oft' lot into two separate lots and a Grading, Permit for the development of two new single- family residences, with Lot 1 being 21,682.72ft2 in size with a residence of 5,390ft2, and 1,719yd3 of associated grading and Lot 2 being 21,925.86ft2 in size with a residence of 7,616ft2, and 1,817yd3 of associated grading, in compliance with the Conditions of Approval as shown in attached Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26" day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, James, Leon, Nelson, and Vice Chairman Cruikshank NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bradley and Chairman Tomblin Ara Mil ian Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission U'�_ John uikshank Vice Pairman Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 7 of 17 A-54 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 73817, Grading Permit Case Nos. SUB2015-00001, ZON2016-00187 & ZON2016-00314 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East General Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 3. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, substantial changes to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 5. The proposed project shall comply with the Planning Commission -adopted Mitigation Measures associated with the certified and adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the adopted Mitigation Measures stated in the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, or recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City Department, the stricter standard shall apply. 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 9. This approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and Grading Permit expires 24 Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 8 of 17 A-55 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.12.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Commission in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay for the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by any outside consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such services (e.g. City Engineer, City Attorney, geotechnical consultants, biologist, etc.). The applicant shall adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within two weeks of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed. 11. All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of plan check submittal or site inspection request. 12. The silhouette frames shall be removed within seven (7) days of a Planning Commission approval. 13. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 14. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 15. During the construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall ensure that all onsite vehicles, equipment and materials are temporarily screened by fencing pursuant to the City's requirements as described in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. 16. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 17. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 9 of 17 A-56 construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 18. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. 19. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. Approval of Vestina Tentative Parcel Map No. 73817 20. The approval of this Vesting Tentative Parcel Map allows the existing 43,610 square foot vacant lot to be subdivided into two separate lots for the development of two single- family residences. The two approved lots shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -2 Zoning District. Lot 1 shall contain a lot area of 21,682.72ft2and measure 175.08' in width and 125.56' in depth; while Lot 2 shall contain a lot area of 21,925.86ft2 and measure 170.08' in width and 130.45' in depth. 21. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 22. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. 23. In accordance with the provisions of Fish and Wildlife Code §711.4 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §753.5, the applicant shall submit a check payable to the County of Los Angeles in the amount of $2,210.25 for the Fish and Wildlife Environmental Filing Fee. This check shall be submitted to the City within five (5) business days of Planning Commission approval of this project. If required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map 73817 24. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 10 of 17 A-57 or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 25. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 26. All existing and proposed easements, including the proposed driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot 1, shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 27. All proposed easement documents, including the driveway easement and any utility easements over Lot 1, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of the final map. 28. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 29. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. 30. The final parcel map shall indicate the relocation of the pool/spa/patio area on Lot 2, out of the 5' easement of George R. and Patricia Anne Hillsinger for storm drain, water line and gas line. The revised location of the pool/spa/patio area shall match the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission on July 26, 2016. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map 73817 31. Prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 32. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 33. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance 99- 0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map 72999 34. The applicant shall supply the City with the map within five (5) calendar days Angeles County Recorder's Office. one mylar (if applicable) and five (5) copies of after the final map has been filed with the Los 35. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit for the lots created and approved herein, the applicant shall obtain addresses for each of the new lots from the City. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 11 of 17 • Grading Permit 36. This approval shall allow the construction of two new residences with a total of 3,536yd3 of grading (combined cut and fill) and a total of 1,700 yd of export as specifically described below, after the recordation of the Final Vesting Parcel Map No. 73817 with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office: Lot 1 A. A 5,390ft2 split-level (two story) residence and an attached three -car garage consisting of 2,067ft2 on the first floor, 2,638ft2 on the second floor, and a 685ft2 attached garage. B. The height of the residence will be 16', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 104') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 120'); and an overall height of 29' as measured from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 91') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 120'). C. 1,719 cubic yards of related grading consisting of: 1. 1,348yd3 cut (589yd3 under the building and 759yd3 for driveway and patio areas); 2. 371 yd cubic yards of fill (11 yd3 under the building and 360yd3 for driveway and patio areas); 3. 977yd3 of export; and, 4. Retaining walls consisting of a retaining wall up to 3' in height at the north-west side of the driveway; a retaining wall up to 2' in height at the south-west side of the driveway; a retaining wall up to 3.5' in height which extends off the south-east corner of the residence; a retaining wall up to 4'-6" in height with a 3'-6" tall guardrail on top (combined wall height of 8') at the east side of the patio area; a retaining wall up to 3' in height with a 5' tall fence on top (combined wall height of 8') at the east side of the pool area; and a retaining wall up to 8' in height which runs along the west (rear) of the residence and wraps around the north, and south sides of the residence. D. Swimming pool and spa at north side of the residence. E. Two air-conditioning units and pool equipment at west side (rear) of residence. F. Built-in barbeque at patio/pool area north of the residence. G. New fire hydrant between the property line and driveway. Lot 2 A. A 7,616ft2 split-level (three-story) residence and an attached three -car garage consisting of 3,051ft2 on the first floor, 2,174ft2 on the second floor, 263ft2 basement, a 1,035ft2 attached garage, and a 1,063ft2 storage area (off the garage level). B. The height of the residence on Lot No. 2 is proposed to be 15.7', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev.130.8') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1465); and an overall height of 30' as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 1165) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1465). C. 1,817 cubic yards of related grading consisting of: Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 12 of 17 A-59 1. 1,270yd3 cut (581 yd under the building and 689yd3 for driveway and patio areas) 2. 547yd3 cubic yards of fill (54yd3 under the building and 493yd3 for driveway and patio areas. 3. 723yd3 of export 4. Retaining walls consisting of two retaining walls, one up to 3' in height and the other up to 2' in height at the south-west side of the driveway; two retaining walls at the north-east corner of the driveway hammerhead, one up to 2'-6" tall and the other up to 2' tall; two retaining walls at the north side of the residence (proposed garden area) up to 2'-9" in height; a retaining wall up to 4'-6" in height with a 3'-6" tall guardrail on top (combined wall height of 8') at the east side of the terrace at the east facade of the residence; a retaining wall up to 2'-6" in height with a 3'-6" tall guardrail on top (combined wall height of 6') at the east side of the pool area; a retaining wall up to 5' in height at the south side of the pool area; a retaining wall up to 3.8' tall at the residence entry stairs; planters, each up to 3.3' in height at the residence entry; an upslope retaining wall up to 11' in height which runs along the west (rear) of the residence and partially wraps around the north side of the residence. D. Swimming pool and spa at south side of the residence. E. Two air-conditioning units and pool equipment at west side (rear) of residence. F. Built-in barbeque at patio/pool area south of the residence. 37. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved residences on Lots 1 and 2, as approved herein, shall maintain the following setbacks for newly created lots in the RS -2 zoning district: Front yard setback — 20' minimum Interior side yard setbacks — 10' minimum per side / 20' minimum total of both sides Rear yard setback — 20' minimum BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE STRUCTURES ON BOTH LOTS 1 AND 2 PRIOR TO FOUNDATION FORMS INSPECTION FOR EACH LOT. 38. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the south and south-west facing windows in the master bathroom bathtub alcove on the upper level of the residence on Lot 2 shall be translucent glass (obscured to let light through but not images). These two windows shall not be replaced with clear glass without amending this condition at a duly noticed public hearing with the Planning Commission. 39. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, a 7' high maximum freestanding wall shall be constructed along the northern property line of the property located at 30411 Palos Verdes Drive East, along the length of the pool and spa area on Lot 2. The freestanding wall shall not be located in any easements without the easement holder's authorization and shall not extend into the front yard setback for Lot 2. 40. The height of the residence on Lot No. 1 shall not exceed 16', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 104') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 120'); and an overall height of 29' as measured Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 13 of 17 from lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 91) to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 120'). The height of the residence on Lot No. 2 shall not exceed 15.7', as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev.130.8') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1465); and an overall height of 30' as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the structure (elev. 116.5') to the highest proposed roof ridgeline (elev. 1465). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER FOR BOTH LOTS 1 AND 2 PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION FOR EACH LOT. 41. A minimum 3 -car garage shall be provided and maintained for each proposed residence, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 42. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (37.4% proposed for Lot 1 and 36.8% proposed for Lot 2) for each lot. 43. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20 -foot front -yard setback areas for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall each not exceed 50% for each lot. Grading 44. New slopes shall not exceed 67% adjacent to the driveway and 35% elsewhere on the property. 45. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. 46. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. 47. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. 48. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 14 of 17 A-61 49. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. 50. Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a Haul Route Permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department. 51. The applicant shall be responsible for repairs to any public street that may be damaged during the grading and/or construction of any future development of the subject parcels. 52. Prior to any grading and/or building permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with Public Works Department requirements, including, but not limited to, landscaping and curb cuts to the Public Works Director's satisfaction. 53. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any work or improvements in the public right of way, such as curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements. 54. All vegetation adjacent to the driveway approach within the public right-of-way and on the subject property shall be maintained at a height such that the driver sight distance at the PVDE driveway intersection is not obstructed, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 55. Prior to building and/or grading permit issuance, the City Engineer under the discretion of the Community Development Director shall review the proposed driveway apron and driveway width to improve line -of -sight and ingress/egress onto Palos Verdes Drive East. 56. Prior to the certificate of occupancy, landscape plans for both properties shall be reviewed and the plants installed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 57. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. 58. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. 59. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 15 of 17 A-62 60. Prior to issuance of any grading permit and/or building permits for the properties, a grading plan and geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Building Official and the City Geologist. 61. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to submit an Erosion Control Plan to the Building Official for approval that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. 62. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits, the proposed septic system for each new property shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Safety Division. 63. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff into the existing storm drainage system. Lighting and Glare 64. All exterior illumination for the new residential structures on both Lots 1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code for each lot. 65. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located for each lot. 66. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the specifications for the glass type, color, and reflectivity shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director for each lot. Utilities 67. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. 68. Prior to a grading and/or building permit issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. 69. All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cultural Resources Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 16 of 17 A-63 70. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and/or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any known archaeological sites on or within a half -mile radius of the subject property. Said information shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Director. 71. If any archaeological sites are identified on or within a half -mile radius of the project site per Condition No. 65 above, then prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archaeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Resolution No. 2016-10 Page 17 of 17 FORM 16.20.100 - Park and recreation dedications and fees A. Intent. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any subdivisions exempted from dedication requirements by Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act. B. Requirements. As a condition of approval of a tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the city, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in this chapter. C. General Standard. It is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that four acres of property for each one thousand persons residing within this city be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. D. Formula for Dedication of Land. Where a park or recreational facility has been designated under the "Recreational Activity," section of the "Urban Environment Element" of the city's general plan, and is to be located, in whole or in part, within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for a local park sufficient in size and topography to serve the residents of the subdivision. The amount of land to be provided shall be determined pursuant to the following standards and formula: Amount of land to be provided = Parkland Acreage per DU x � r i Parkland Acreage per DU = Average Density per DU - The following table of population density is to be followed: Number of lots to be created 1,000 population park acreage standard Density of Dwelling Average Parkland Density/DU Acreage/DU Less than 6.1 DU/ac. 3.5 .0140 6.1 or more DU/ac. 2.8 .0112 DU = Dwelling unit ac. = Acre As Park acreage standard = 4 acres of property The amount of land to be provided shall be the parkland acreage per dwelling unit applied to the number of parcels (dwelling units) that will be created through the subject subdivision. In the event that a parcel is created where there is an existing dwelling unit, and the dwelling unit will remain on the newly created parcel, said parcel shall be exempt from the parkland acreage calculation. Dedication of the land shall be made in accordance with the procedures contained in subsection J of this section. E. Formula for Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication. General Formula. If there is no park or recreational facility designated in the general plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in subsection D of this section and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection G of this section. Fees in Lieu of Land. If the proposed subdivision is exempt under Government Code Section 66477 from dedication requirements but is subject to the requirement of fees in lieu of land or if the city council elects to require a fee in lieu of dedication, the subdivider shall pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in subsection D of this section and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of subsection G of this section. Use of Money. The money collected under this section shall be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision, including the purchase of necessary land and the improvement of such land for park or recreational purposes. Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee. The city may require the subdivider to both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu thereof in accordance with the following formula: When only a portion of the land to be subdivided is proposed in the general plan as the site for a local park, such portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes, and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to subsection D of this section. When a major part of the local park or recreational site has already been acquired by the city and only a small portion of land is needed from the subdivision to complete the site, such remaining portion shall be dedicated for local park purposes, and a fee computed pursuant to the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be paid for any additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to subsection D of this section. G. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of land dedication, the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated pursuant to subsection D of this section. The fee shall be paid pursuant to the provisions contained in subsection J of this section. The "fair market value" of the land at the time of filing the tentative tract or parcel map shall be determined by the city council using one of the following methods: 1. The assessed market valuation established by the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor, if the land has been assessed within the last calendar year; 2. The sale price of the land, if the land has been sold within the past five years, plus the inflation rate established by the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) for each year subsequent to the sale, plus any contingencies established at the sale which would increase the market value. Documentation of the price established in escrow and the escrow instructions which would affect the final sale price, if any, shall be submitted to the director by the developer; 3. The sale price of comparable properties in the area, taken from transactions that have completed escrow within the previous year; 4. An appraisal performed by a member of the appraisal institute (M.A.I.) appraiser, to be paid by the developer, if none of the above methods are applicable. H. Determination of Land or Fee. The city council shall determine whether land dedication, the payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be required. Whether the city council accepts land dedication or elects to require payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following: 1. Recreational element of the city's general plan; 2. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication; 3. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication; 4. The feasibility of dedication; 5. Availability of previously acquired park property. Only the payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions containing fifty parcels or less, or in condominium projects, stock cooperative projects, or community apartment projects containing fifty dwelling units or less. The determination of the city council as to whether land shall be dedicated or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive. Credit for Private Open Space. Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, partial credit, not to exceed fifty percent of the total land dedication required by this section, may be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof, if the city council finds that it is in the public interest to do so and that all the following standards are met: 1. That yards, court areas, setbacks and other open areas required to be maintained by the zoning and building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; 2. That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance or restrictions; 3. That the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenant, which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the city council or its successor; 4. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location; 5. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element of the general plan. Before credit is given, the city council shall make written findings that the above standards are met. Procedure. 1. At the time of approval of the tentative tract or parcel map, the city council upon the recommendation of the planning commission, shall determine pursuant to subsection H of this section, the land to be dedicated and/or fees to be paid by the subdivider. 2. At the time of the filing of the final tract or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay the fees as previously determined by the city council. Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the city council prior to approval of the final tract or parcel map and shall be recorded contemporaneously with the final tract or parcel map. (Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 269 § 1, 1991; Ord. 126 § 1 (part), 1980: Ord. 78 (part), 1975) Property Address Buyer: Address Seller: Address FirstAmerican Title Company 3858 West Carson Street, Suite 100 • Torrance, CA 90503 Office Phone: (310) 750-2141 Office Fax: (800) 767-3392 Seller's Settlement Statement 30389 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA GARDENA MAPLE LEAF LLC P.O. BOX 189, LOMITA, CA 90717 MAUPIN DEVELOPMENT INC. P.O. BOX 189W, LOMITA, CA 90717 File No: LTO -5385185 Officer: Joann Black/JB Estimated Settlement Date Disbursement Date: Print Date: 02/13/2017 02/10/2017, 3:59 PM Charge Description Seller Charge Seller Credit Consideration: Total Consideration 1,400,000.00 Prorations: County Taxes 01/01/17 to 02/13/17 $5,652.90/semi 1,331.92 Payoff(s) and Payment(s): JMC Mana ment Consultants Principal Balance to JMC Mana ment Consultants 900,000.00 Interest on Payoff Loan 02/01/17 to 02/11/17 @8.5% to JMC Managment Consultants 2,305.48 Title/Escrow Charges to: Endorsement to Provident Title Company to Provident Title Company 100.00 Transfer Tax to Provident Title Company to Provident Title Company 1,540.00 Recording estimate to Provident Title Company to Provident Title Company Escrow Fee Seller pays all to First American Title Company Cash (X To) ( From) Seller 100.00 2,700.00 491,922.60 Totals 1,400,000.00 1,400,000.00 Our wire instructions do not change. If you receive an email or other communication that appears to be from us and contains revised wiring instructions, you should consider it suspect and you must call our office at an independently verified phone number. Do not inquire with the sender. SELLER(S): MAUPIN DEVELOPMENT INC., a California corporation By: Name: Douglas Maupin Title: President Initials: Page 1 of 1 C-1