CC RES 2002-070 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND FINDINGS
REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN
CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215,
GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, VARIANCE NO. 489, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND RELATED USES TO BE
KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT
WHEREAS, a formal application was filed by Destination Development Corporation (the
"Developer") requesting approval of conditional use permits, grading permits, a coastal development
permit and a tentative parcel map (collectively the"discretionary permits") and a general plan amendment
to allow construction of a 550-room resort hotel and conference center, 32 private villas, and a 9-hole golf
course on 103.5 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 64.9 acres of land
generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto
(the" Initial Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Project has since been revised to eliminate the portion of the
Project that called for the use of 64.9 acres of publicly-owned land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne
Boulevard, commonly known as Upper Point Vicente Area ("UPVA"), and a 1.4 acre strip of land owned
by CIGNA, so that the entire development will be located entirely on 102.1 acres of privately-owned land
generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South (the "Revised Project"), which formerly was occupied
by Marineland (the"Project site"); and
WHEREAS, the City analyzed the Initial Project's potential impacts on the environment in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et
seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated
with respect thereto, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the
Initial Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Initial Project
might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and
governmental services, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology
and soils, hydrology and water quality, land-use and planning, noise, public services, recreation,
transportation, and utilities and service systems; and
WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered
the preparation of an environmental impact report (the "EIR")for the Initial Project in accordance with the
provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of the EIR from July
20, 2000, through September 4, 2000, for an extended 45-day comment period in order to receive written
comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the
Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other
responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section
15082(a); and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the City Council conducted a
duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to
the Initial Project and the CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested
agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the scoping session was noticed by publication in the local press, by mailing
to all residents within a 500-foot radius of the Initial Project and by posting at City Hall, Hesse Park, and
the Ladera Linda Community Center and was attended by the applicant, representatives of various
agencies, and members of the general public; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those
certain technical appendices (the"Appendices"), was completed on February 2, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State
Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between February 6, 2001, and April 6, 2001, for an
expanded 60-day comment period pursuant to Guidelines Section 15087(c); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23,
2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence
regarding the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on April 10,
2001, April 14, 2001, April 24, 2001, May 17, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 10, 2001, and July 24, 2001, at
which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding
the Initial Project and the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process, the City received over 30
hours of public testimony and more than 300 written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and
the adequacy of the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and
additions to the DEIR in response to the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary
revisions to the DEIR in July 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the
public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the responses to comments and the revisions to the DEIR,
City staff concluded that the revised material in the biological resources analysis (Section 5.3 of the
DEIR) constituted new information requiring recirculation of the biological resources analysis of the DEIR
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, the City recirculated the Revised Biological Resources Analysis to the public,
the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between August 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, for
a shortened 30-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(c) and 15105(a)
(the"Second Public Review and Comment Period").
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further held duly noticed public hearings on
August 14, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project, the DEIR, and the
Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 2 of 48
WHEREAS, during the Second Public Review and Comment Period, the City received
several hours of testimony and fifteen written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the
adequacy of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and
additions to the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, where appropriate, in response to the comments
received during the Second Public Review and Comment Period; and
WHEREAS, the City completed the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological
Resources Analysis on September 24, 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies
and the public at least ten (10) days prior to considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (the
"FEIR"); and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
meeting to consider the FEIR and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 28,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216, GRADING PERMIT NO.
2229, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2230, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND GOLF COURSE TO BE KNOWN AS THE
LONG POINT RESORT;"and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider, among other things, certification of the FEIR for the Initial Project and adopted Resolution No.
2002-34 certifying the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the October 9, 2001, Planning Commission hearing, the
Developer revised the Initial Project and submitted the Revised Project to the City for consideration, and
submitted Variance Application No. 489 to allow the construction of a pool facility within the City's
designated coastal setback line, which pool facility was part of the Initial Project and included in the
analysis of the Initial Project in the FEIR;
WHEREAS, City Staff has determined that while the Revised Project did require some
minor changes and additions to the previously certified FEIR, the Revised Project did not require the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the FEIR because the Revised Project, which will be
developed on fewer acres of land than the Initial Project and will be located on a site that was previously
developed and used for the Marineland facility, will not introduce new significant environmental effects or
substantially increase the severity of the effects that previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR;
furthermore, there are no changed circumstances or new information, which was not known at the time
the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the
FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Addendum to the FEIR(the"Addendum"); and
WHEREAS, the City completed preparation of the Addendum, together with all related
technical studies, on June 11, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, City Staff distributed the Addendum to the City Council
and made the Addendum available to the public; and
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 3 of 48
WHEREAS, On June 18, 2002, July 16, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 28, 2002, the
City Council held duly noticed public hearings to consider the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the FEIR, the Addendum and the project
applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR") consists of five volumes,
as more particularly described in Section 1 of Resolution No. 2002-34. The City Council previously
certified the completeness and adequacy of the FEIR on May 7, 2002.
Section 2. The Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum") consists of a single volume
dated June 11, 2002. The City Council received the Addendum on June 18, 2002, when it also was
made available to the public. The City Council has reviewed the Revised Project at duly noticed public
meetings on June 18, 2002, July 16, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 28, 2002 (collectively the
"Hearings"), at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City
Council. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the Hearings on the Revised Project was provided in
accordance with applicable law.
Section 3. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and
evidence set forth in the FEIR (some of which have been restated in the Addendum) and the Addendum
and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The
documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Resolution is based are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours with the Director of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement,who serves as the custodian of these records.
Section 4. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of
the Final EIR and the Addendum prior to deciding whether to approve the Revised Project, pursuant to
Guidelines Section 15084(e). The City Council hereby finds that the Addendum, in conjunction with the
FEIR, reflects the independent judgment of the City and the City Council. The City Council further finds
that, based upon the record before the City Council, the Revised Project does not require the preparation
of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to previously certified FEIR because: (i)the Revised Project will not
introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the effects that
previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR; (ii) there are no changed circumstances or new
information, which was not known at the time the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of
a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City
Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports and in the evidence
presented in written and oral testimony at the Hearings, does not constitute new information requiring a
subsequent or supplement EIR or re-circulation of the FEIR under CEQA. None of the information
presented to the City Council at the Hearings indicates that the public has deprived of a meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Revised Project or a feasible
mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. All feasible mitigation
measures suggested in the FEIR and incorporated into the Addendum have been considered by the City
Council, and the City Council will incorporate such mitigation measures into the Revised Project as
conditions of approval of the Revised Project. No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
have been identified.
Section 5. The City Council finds that the City Council has received staff reports and
written and oral testimony regarding the adequacy of the Addendum, and that the City Council has
reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to taking any action on the Revised
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 4 of 48
Project. The City Council hereby certifies that the Addendum together with the previously-certified FEIR
have been completed in compliance with CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15164.
Section 6. Based upon the Initial Study, the FEIR, the Addendum, and the record before
the City Council, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Objectionable Odors, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials and Population and Housing. Explanations for why the City Council determined that
the Revised Project will have no impact or will cause a less than a significant impact to the foregoing
resources are contained in the Initial Study (included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR) and in Section 10.0
of the FEIR in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Section 15128.
Section 7. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council,
the City Council finds that the Revised Project, as mitigated, will not cause significant environmental
impacts in the areas of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology,
Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources,
Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational
Facilities. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are fully discussed in
the "Statement of Findings and Facts In Support of Findings" set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, Section 5.0 of the FEIR, the Revised Biological Resources
Analysis, and the Initial Study(included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR).
Section 8. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council,
the City Council finds that the Revised Project will create significant unavoidable impacts in the impact
categories of Air Quality (short-term air pollutants and long-term operational impacts) and Noise (long-
term impacts). These significant impacts are further described in the"Statement of Findings and Facts In
Support of Findings" set forth in Exhibit A, and in Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the
Addendum. The construction-related significant impacts to Air Quality arising from the Revised Project
are associated with construction equipment and grading activities and will be temporary in nature, while
the operational significant impacts to Air Quality will be long term in nature. The long-term significant
impacts to Noise are attributable to Project-related traffic. Although the Revised Project's individual
contribution will not be significant, the existing ambient noise levels exceed State standards; when
Project-generated and cumulative vehicular noise are combined, the result will cause a significant and
unavoidable noise impact on a cumulative level. All feasible mitigation measures have been considered,
and changes or alterations will be required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project that will
substantially lessen the level of significance of the significant environmental impacts identified but will not
reduce them below a level of significance. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into,
the Revised Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are
contained in Exhibit A. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 5.0 of the
FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum.
Section 9. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council,
the City Council finds that the Revised Project's cumulative impacts, with the exception of the impacts to
Noise and Air. Quality, are not significant. Further explanation for this determination may be found in
Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum.
Section 10. Section 7.0 of the FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered,
a reasonable range of alternatives to the Revised Project, which might fulfill the basic objectives of the
Revised Project. These alternatives include "Alternative 7.1 - No Development Alternative," "Alternative
7.2 - No Project Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 - With Coast Guard Site Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 -
Relocate Practice Facility- Option `A'Alternative,""Alternative 7.5 - Relocate Practice Facility- Option `B'
Alternative," "Alternative 7.6 - No Resort Villas - Option `A'Alternative," "Alternative 7.7 - No Resort Villas
- Option `B' Alternative," "Alternative 7.8 - Program of Utilization Alternative," "Alternative 7.9 - Point
Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative," and "Alternative 7.10 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement and
Existing Entitlement Alternative." With respect the each of the Revised Project Alternatives analyzed in
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 5 of 48
the FEIR, the City Council hereby makes the findings set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council expressly
finds that each of the alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic
objectives of the Revised Project or will do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
The City Council further finds that the Revised Project, as proposed, minimizes any adverse
environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set
forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, or set forth in the FEIR, the
City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the each of the
alternatives identified in the FEIR, and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good
faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR, and that all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the FEIR and the City Council's ultimate decision
on the Revised Project.
Section 11. For the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as "significant and
unavoidable," namely in the impact areas of Air Quality and Noise, a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, has been
prepared. The mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and the Addendum and set forth in Exhibit C,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be imposed as conditions of approval of
the Revised Project. The "Mitigation Monitoring Program" which is discussed in the FEIR and the
Addendum and presented in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, has
been approved.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES: Clark, Ferraro, Gardiner, Stern, and Mayor McTaggart
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT: None
or Of:
Mayo" fa
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Jo Purcell, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palo Verdes, do hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2002-70 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a
regular meeting thereof held on August 28, 2002.
. 4 /
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 6 of 48
EXHIBIT A
Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Of Findings
Article I. Introduction.
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the
environment that will occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects on the environment.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public
agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
c. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report.'
Pursuant the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes the environmental
findings set forth in this statement with regard to the potentially significant environmental effects in
connection with the proposed construction of a 400-room resort hotel and conference center, 50 resort
casita units (multiple-keyed for a maximum of 150 overnight accommodations), 32 privately-owned villas,
and a golf practice facility on 102.1 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South to
be known as the"Long Point Resort" (the"Revised Project"). The Revised Project is more fully described
below and in Section 4.0 of the Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum"). These findings are based
upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its
contents including, without limitation, the Initial Study, the DEIR, the Appendices, the Responses to
Comments on the DEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis and the Responses to Comments on
the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, the Addendum, and staff and consultants' reports prepared
and presented to the City Council.
Article II. Project Description.
The Revised Project encompasses approximately 102.1 acres in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, California. The Revised Project site includes privately owned land formerly occupied by
Marineland, generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South (the"Project site").
The Revised Project is intended to be a multi-faceted destination resort. The cornerstone
of the Revised Project is a full-service hotel and conference center. The Revised Project includes a
resort hotel with 400 rooms in the main building and bungalows (which will be multiple-keyed for an
additional total of 150 overnight accommodations), 50 resort casita units (the casitas will be privately-
owned but will be included in the Revised Project's visitor-serving accommodations pool), 32 resort villas
(which will be privately-owned but will be included in the Revised Project's visitor-serving
Cal. Public Resources Code§21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15091
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 7 of 48
accommodations pool), a 68,000 square foot conference and meeting center, a 25,000 square-foot
full-service health spa and fitness center, a golf practice facility (which includes an 8,000 square-foot
clubhouse, a driving range and three practice holes) and related amenities. In addition to the resort and
conference center, the Revised Project will provide a habitat preserve (with both conserved and
enhanced habitat) and public open space and recreation facilities (including the public golf practice
facility, 100 parking spaces for use by the general public, two shoreline access ramps, public parks and
scenic overlooks, and a 3.0-mile series of public walkways, jogging paths, hiking trails and bike trails
linking visitor-serving areas of the Project site with public facilities within the surrounding area).
The Revised Project applications consist of requests for a conditional use permit to allow
construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, 32 privately-owned villas, and a golf
practice facility on the Project site (CUP 215), a grading permit to allow grading for subdivision, master
grading, and infrastructure improvements on the Project site (GRP No. 2229), a coastal development
permit to allow construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, villas, and golf facilities
on the Project site within Subregion 2 of the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CDP No. 166), a variance to
allow a reduction in the building setback requirement for construction of a proposed pool and public
restrooms seaward of the established building setback line (VAR No. 489), and a tentative parcel map to
allow the redefinition of land parcels on the Project site (TPM No. 26073) (collectively referred to herein
as the"discretionary approvals").
Article Ill. Project Objectives.
As set forth in Section 4.3 of the Addendum, the objectives that the Project applicant
seeks to achieve with this Revised Project(the"Project Objectives")are as follows:
• To establish a successful coastal resort that provides a mix of hotel and resort
accommodations, recreational amenities, health facilities, restaurants, meeting
rooms, and other related visitor-serving uses on the Project site (former
Marineland)as the core of a successful destination coastal resort;
• To provide a variety of hotel/resort accommodations that serve the needs of a
wide range of coastal visitors;
• To provide a high-quality, on-site golf experience as an integral part of the
destination resort, and ensure that the golf course and related practice and
teaching facilities are open to the general public;
• To provide for a variety of public open spaces, including natural and active open
space areas, trails, and general public recreation areas within the Revised
Project;
• To provide for expanded public coastal access, including (i) 100 off-street parking
spaces for use by the general public, (ii)vertical access from Palos Verdes Drive
South, through the proposed resort, to the shoreline, and (iii) continuous
horizontal access comprised of a bluff-top trail and scenic overlooks along the full
length of the coastal bluff;
• To design a destination coastal resort facility that is architecturally and visually
compatible with the surrounding landscape;
• To provide for implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails in all areas
adjacent to the resort;
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 8 of 48
• To protect sensitive coastal bluffs on the Project site, and limit the degradation of
marine resources on or adjacent to the Revised Project, that may occur with
increased public access and use of the area;
• To provide for a project that is financially feasible for the private sector to
develop, operate, and maintain on a sustainable basis and for the benefit of the
City, its residents and the surrounding community;
• To protect the ecological value of the off-shore marine areas through creation of
a conservation area adjacent to the Fisherman's Access Area that will include
protection of native vegetation, including a transitional planting area (ecotone)
between the bluff edge and the adjacent public park and provisions to direct
drainage and surface runoff away from the bluff;
• To improve water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff
management and Water Quality Management Plan;
• To provide for the redevelopment of the former Marineland site (the Project site)
with visitor serving uses that will attract new visitors to the area and provide
economic benefits to the City.
Article IV. Potential Environmental Effects Determined to be Insignificant.
The Initial Study prepared in connection with the Initial Project identified potentially
significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project in the following impact categories of
Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity,
Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services
and Utilities, and Recreational Facilities. Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum fully
analyzed these identified impact areas. Based on substantial evidence presented in the record of these
proceedings (including the FEIR, the Technical Appendices, the Initial Study, the Addendum and oral and
written evidence, including staff and consultant reports) the City Council finds that the record amply
demonstrates the Revised Project will have a less than significant impact in the areas discussed in this
Article IV.
A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare.
1. Potential Impacts
Section 5.1 of both the FEIR and the Addendum analyze the potential for significant
impacts to aesthetics in the form of both short-term and long-term impacts to views, potential loss of
visual resources or scenic vistas, alteration of the visual character of the site, creation of new sources of
light and glare, and increased urbanization of the Project site. Construction activities will temporarily
disrupt views across the Project site from surrounding properties and public rights-of-way, while full
implementation of the Revised Project will permanently alter the existing view from neighboring properties
and will clearly change the visual character of the site. Additionally, the Revised Project has the potential
to disrupt scenic vistas and views in recognized visual corridors. These views and vistas are visual
resources and help define and add visual character to the City. Finally, the Revised Project will add new
sources of light and glare to the environment and add to the overall urbanization of the area. These
potential impacts were fully analyzed in Section 5.1 of the FEIR and the Addendum.
2. Findings
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 9 of 48
The short-term nature of the construction-related impacts and compliance with applicable
City Codes will make the Revised Project's impacts less than significant in these areas.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
a. Short term impacts. Construction activities associated with implementing the Revised
Project will temporarily degrade the visual character of the Project site and disrupt views across the site
from surrounding areas. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic
will be visible. Soil will be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities will be staged at various
locations throughout the Project site. These impacts will be short-term and cease upon project
completion. These impacts will be considered as less than significant through compliance with Section
17.56.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code which regulates conduct of construction and
landscaping activities. Section 17.56.020 will require the installation of temporary fencing to screen the
construction activities from view. Further, construction-related impacts are not considered significant as
they are anticipated to be short-term and will cease upon project completion. The City Council finds that
the record demonstrates that any construction-related impacts to views are less than significant.
b. Visual Character. Implementation of the Revised Project will forever alter the visual
character of the site. However, the transformation of the site resulting from the proposed improvements
will not be considered a degradation to the visual character of the site or its surroundings. The existing
character of the site, that of an abandoned land use containing vast parking lots and dilapidated
structures over grown with weeds and unkempt vegetation, will be replaced with new buildings, a golf
practice facility, parking areas and landscaping throughout. Additionally, the Revised Project will
preserve and enhance the coastal bluff scrub along the rocky cliff face and will implement a conservation
district with a landscaping plan which is compatible with and complements the natural surrounding. The
Revised Project must comply with the specified development standards for each zoning district regarding
lot size, building height, lot coverage and parking, and project design, height and architecture will be
subject to review by the City to ensure conformance with applicable Development Codes, thus, reducing
any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Further, the Revised Project proposes no safety
netting of the golf practice facility, nor will any be required, and all utility lines will be placed underground
in accordance with the City's Development Code, thereby eliminating any potential for visual impacts.
Thus, the City Council finds that implementation of the Revised Project will aesthetically enhance the site,
and compliance with applicable Development Codes for each zoning district will reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
c. Scenic vistas and/or visual resources. The General Plan identifies two vistas within
the Project area, both oriented toward the former location of the Marineland Aquatic Park. The vistas,
which were directed toward the Marineland Tower as a structural focal point, no longer exist since the
Tower was removed after the closure of Marineland. Given the degraded condition of the remaining
facilities on the site, project implementation will have no impact on this vista. In fact, the proposed resort
hotel, while not the focal point referenced in the General Plan, likely will become a man-made focal point
on the Project site. In addition to the foregoing vistas and structural focal points, Palos Verdes Drive
South provides two vehicular view corridors of Point Fermin and Catalina Island, respectively, identified in
the General Plan. The Revised Project will not impact either view corridor. While the casitas and the
resort hotel will be visible, the development will not intrude on the overall panoramic view of the seacoast,
Pacific Ocean or Catalina Island. Additionally, the grade differential between the site and the road
ensures that project implementation will not impact views along this corridor. The Revised Project is
designed to lower the building pads for the resort villas, thereby further reducing any impacts along this
view corridor. Since the design, landscape, building height, and architecture of the Revised Project will
be subject to design review by the City, conformance with applicable Development Codes and height
restrictions will prevent any adverse impacts to scenic vistas or visual resources. Thus, no significant
impact is anticipated.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 10 of 48
d. Light/Glare. The Project site currently is primarily vacant, and surrounding land uses
are not affected by light or glare from the site. Implementation of the Revised Project will introduce a new
source of light and glare to the area. The Revised Project will include general nighttime building lighting,
security lighting, and landscape lighting. This lighting will be detectable from surrounding sites. This
impact will be reduced by the incorporation of both project design features and compliance with the
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. No lighting of the golf practice facility is proposed or
required. Section 17.56.040 of the Municipal Code, which regulates outdoor lighting for all non-residential
uses, requires a Lighting Plan detailing the location, height, number of lights, wattage, estimates of
maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines. Compliance with this provision will ensure
that any potential impacts are less than significant.
e. Urbanization. Project implementation will contribute to the growing urbanization of
Rancho Palos Verdes. Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the vicinity will
permanently alter the predominantly rural nature and appearance of the area through the loss of
undeveloped land. The security and street lighting associated with such development will introduce light
and glare potential, further urbanizing the area. Impacts are typically mitigated separately on a project-
by-project basis. However, cumulative impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with use of
building materials that are consistent with the general character of the area, landscaping design, and
proper lighting techniques to direct light on-site and away from adjacent properties. The Revised Project
will contribute to the cumulative loss of undeveloped land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
However, redevelopment of the Marineland site actually removes a blight condition by replacing it with a
manicured golf practice facility and resort complex. Additionally, the Revised Project will include a
conservation district which will protect and enhance the native vegetation and will implement a
landscaping plan which is compatible with the natural surroundings. Finally, the Revised Project has
been carefully designed to take advantage of the setting and minimize the physical impacts of a large
structure to this site. Thus, while the appearance of urbanization will be evident, it will be moderated due
to the inclusion of the natural areas and careful design. The Revised Project complies with applicable
zoning restrictions and a less than significant impact will occur in this regard.
B. Biological Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Section 5.3 of the FEIR, contained in Volume IV, and Section 5.3 of the Addendum
identify the potential for significant impacts to various special status species (both plant and wildlife), to
critical habitat areas, wildlife movement, local environmental policies, and overall biological resources.
Project implementation could potentially displace special status species and disturb critical habitat
necessary for the survival of sensitive species. Fencing, grading, and other improvements associated
with Project implementation could interfere with the movement of native or migratory wildlife species.
Further, the loss of undeveloped land has the potential to conflict with local habitat conservation plans.
Finally, the Revised Project may lead to the cumulative loss of the City's biological resources.
2. Finding
The analysis of this issue and substantial evidence contained in the record demonstrates
that the Revised Project's impacts will be less than significant in these areas.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Special status species. The conclusions set forth in the FEIR and the Addendum are
supported by reliable technical studies. These studies were conducted at appropriate times and
employed appropriate methodologies to correctly ascertain the presence or absence of special status
species on site and determine the project's potential impacts, if any. The FEIR and the Addendum
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 11 of 48
adequately demonstrate that Revised Project impacts will be less than significant. The Revised Project,
as designed, will avoid sensitive plant species. In fact, the Revised Project includes as a project design
feature a conservation district to protect and enhance the coastal bluff scrub on the Project site. A
focused study for the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly (conducted in Spring 2001) did not observe this species
on site; and Project Design Features of the Revised project, including implementation of the Water
Quality Management Plan and the establishment of a native plant buffer along the bluff edge have been
incorporated into the Revised Project to ensure the Revised Project will have no impact on the El
Segundo Blue butterfly. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any impacts to these species.
The Project site includes limited habitat suitable for the Western Spadefoot Toad, and implementation of
the Revised Project will not disturb this habitat. Accordingly, Revised Project impacts, if any, will not be
significant. The FEIR and Addendum demonstrate that the Revised Project will not impact any coastal
sage scrub habitat and, as already noted, will provide an ecotone buffer to protect the coastal bluff scrub
on the Project site. The only two threatened or endangered species identified as likely to occur on site
are the California brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. The Revised Project will not directly impact
roosting or breeding habitat for the pelican, since the rocky shore habitat on the Project site that is used
for roosting will not be impacted. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the California brown pelican.
The peregrine falcon is known to occur in the vicinity and has a high potential to occur on the Project site.
Suitable foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon is present on the Project site; however, due to the small
size of the Revised Project, relative to the amount of available foraging habitat in the region, the potential
loss of foraging habitat for this species is not considered significant. Potentially suitable nesting habitat is
also present along the cliffs in the Project site. As previously noted, the cliff area will not be impacted by
the Revised Project; therefore, the Revised Project will not directly impact nesting habitat for the
peregrine falcon. Focused studies for the endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse concluded that this species
is neither present nor expect to occur on site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Finally, the Revised Project
will reduce foraging ground and potentially suitable roosting habitat for various bat species. While this
loss would contribute to the ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat for these species, the
Revised Project impacts are not considered significant, since these bat species are relatively common in
the project area. Indirect impacts associated with noise and increased human activity on site will not be
significant or cause a substantial reduction in common wildlife populations in the region.
b. Sensitive natural communities/habitats. The FEIR, the Addendum, and the technical
studies conclusively demonstrate that Revised Project impacts to annual grassland, agricultural areas,
and disturbed vegetation and developed areas will not be significant due to the abundance of these
habitats in the region and their low biological value. Impacts to mule fat scrub were also determined to be
insignificant because the relatively small area that will be disturbed, the fact that the Revised Project is
designed to avoid this habitat in onsite drainages and blue-line streams, and the fact that the Revised
Project will need permits from appropriate state and federal agencies to disturb any mule fat scrub
located in onsite drainages and blue-line streams. No loss of habitat, loss of wildlife, wildlife
displacement, or habitat fragmentation will result from Revised Project implementation. Indirect effects of
construction (the accumulation of dust on leaf surfaces) of the Revised Project on the native vegetation in
the immediate vicinity of the construction area is not considered significant, since it will not reduce plant
populations below self-sustaining levels and will be temporary in nature. Indirect noise impacts
attributable to the Project site will increase over current noise levels, and will become more constant;
however, this increase will not substantially reduce common wildlife populations in the region. Thus, no
significant to sensitive natural communities or habitats are anticipated.
c. Wildlife movement. The proposed development of the Project site will not impact
wildlife corridors or local travel routes. The Project site consists of disturbed, non-native vegetation and
was previously occupied by the Marineland facility. The Project site does not provide any major linkage
between habitat areas that would be disrupted by Revised Project implementation. The steep cliffs of the
Project site that are expected to provide a narrow linkage for wildlife east and west of the site will be
maintained as permanent open space and will not be impacted. In addition, the conservation district
proposed onsite and the newly created coastal bluff scrub areas are expected to provide for adequate
local movement on and offsite. Moreover, the ecotone buffer between the manicured lawns of the resort
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 12 of 48
facility and the existing coastal bluff scrub will prevent adverse impacts from invasive, non-native
vegetation. Any fencing erected on site will be designed to allow wildlife to pass through unimpeded.
Thus, the Revised Project will have no significant effects on wildlife movement.
d. Local policies and ordinances. There is currently no adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that includes the Project
site. Therefore, under CEQA, Revised Project implementation will have no impacts on adopted plans.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the City is currently in the process of adopting a NCCP. The
Revised Project is consistent with the three preserve alternatives currently under consideration. Thus,
Revised Project implementation will not foreclose the adoption of the NCCP.
e. Cumulative impacts. The Revised Project will not result in the loss of coastal sage
scrub or other native vegetation, nor the loss of wildlife habitat or the displacement of wildlife species in
the project area; therefore, the Revised Project will not have any adverse cumulative effect that are
significant. In the absence of an approved NCCP program, cumulative impacts to coastal sage scrub by
the Revised Project and recently approved projects will be mitigated to a level of less than significant
through compliance with the permitting process under the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"). If
the Revised Project disturbs any coastal sage scrub, the Revised Project will be required to obtain a
habitat "take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). Compliance with FESA and its
associated permitting process will ensure that cumulative impacts remain less than significant.
C. Cultural Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources.
2. Finding
Resources are evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis. The FEIR and the
Addendum demonstrate that the Revised Project has no cumulative impacts on the loss of cultural
resources.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
Potential impacts will be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts will be
conducted on a project-by-project basis. This will be especially true of those developments located in
areas considered to have a high sensitivity for cultural (archaeological, paleontological, and historical)
resources. Each incremental development will be required to comply with all applicable State and
Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In consideration
of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources will not be considered
significant.
D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
1. Potential Impacts
Section 5.5 of the FEIR and Section 5.5 of the Addendum identify the potential for
significant impacts resulting from faulting and seismicity (which includes ground rupture; ground shaking;
seismically induced ground failure or liquefaction; seismically induced compaction and ground lurching)
and from soil and slope instability and erosion caused by Revised Project grading and excavation.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 13 of 48
2. Finding
Analysis has concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Revised Project will
have a less than significant impact with regard to these hazards. Moreover, Revised Project compliance
with local and state building codes will ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
No active or potentially active faults are located within the Project site. Of the faults
located in the general Los Angeles area identified as active or which are considered potentially active,
none pass through the subject property. Therefore, the likelihood of fault-related ground rupture affecting
the site is negligible. The project area is not currently known to be located within an Alquist-Priolo Earth
Fault Zone. No subsurface conditions favorable to liquefaction or lateral spreading exist on the Project
site, nor is ground lurching expected to expose persons or structures to substantial risk. Further, the
Revised Project will be required to comply with numerous controls imposed by local and state building
and development codes. Accordingly, Revised Project implementation is anticipated to result in a less
than significant impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to potential substantial adverse
effects associated with seismic activity.
E. Land Use and Relevant Planning.
1. Potential Impacts
Section 5.7 of the FEIR and Section 5.7 of the Addendum identify the potential for the
Revised Project to divide an established community, conflict with the General Plan, conflicts with the
Coastal Specific Plan, and conflict with the Zoning Code.
2. Findings
Analysis has concluded that the Revised Project, through compliance with applicable
code requirements and approval of required permits, will have a less than significant impact on the land
use and planning policies of the City.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
a. Physical division of community. A major roadway, Palos Verdes Drive South abuts
the Project site. This roadway, as well as the spatial separation caused by local topography, create
"pockets" of development which function independent of one another. Overall, implementation of the
proposed Long Point Resort Project will not physically divide an established community, hence, will not
result in a significant land use impact in this regard.
b. General Plan. The Revised Project is consistent with all of the applicable goals and
policies in the General Plan. Implementation of the Revised Project will not conflict with the land use
plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. Thus, Revised Project
implementation will not have a significant effect on the General Plan.
c. Coastal Specific Plan. The Project site is located within and subject to the City's
Coastal Specific Plan. Based on the data provided in the FEIR and the Addendum, implementation of the
Revised Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan. However, the Revised Project is required to obtain a Conditional
Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit consistent with the CSP requirement. The Revised
Project's applications include both the required conditional use permit (CUP No. 216) and the coastal
development permit (CDP No. 166). With the City's review and approval of these applications, Revised
Project implementation will not have a significant effect on the Coastal Specific Plan.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 14 of 48
d. Zoning Ordinance. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of
the Municipal Code, identifies permitted and prohibited land uses according to the particular zoning
category. Based on the analysis provided in the FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project will not
conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code. However, the Revised Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for development of
the proposed resort/conference hotel, and golf practice facility proposed in the CR District of the Project
site and a variance to allow a reduction in the required building setback line in the coastal zone. With the
City's review and approval of these applications, Revised Project implementation will not result in a
significant impact with respect to compliance with the Development Code.
F. Marine Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Operation of the Revised Project may potentially result in long-term effects that could
impact marine biological resources.
2. Finding
Because the Revised Project incorporates a long-term Runoff Management Plan/Water
Quality Management Plan as a Project Design Feature, long-term water quality impacts will be minimized.
Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact will occur.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
The FEIR and its Technical Appendices and the Addendum amply demonstrate that the
Revised Project will not adversely impact marine resources. Reduced Salinity Impacts on Nearshore
Water Column and Benthic Marine Communities: due to the short duration of projected high-flow storm
water runoff events, water column and benthic near shore marine resources will not be significantly
impacted by storm water runoff that reduces ambient salinity levels. Additionally, nuisance flows will be
diverted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) to the nearest wastewater line and disposed
of through the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District system. Therefore, near shore water column and
benthic marine fishes will not be affected by any dry weather runoff from the Project site. Reduced
salinity as a result of storm water runoff events will have no significant effects on shorebirds and seabirds,
since they will forage in fresh and/or saltwater habitat or can move to areas unaffected by storm water
runoff. Reduced salinity as a result of storm water runoff events will have no significant effects on marine
mammals because pinniped food resources will not be affected by reduced salinities and cetaceans
transiting along the coast will not be physiologically or behaviorally affected. No adverse significant
impacts on sea grass beds, kelp beds, or Marine Managed Areas are anticipated as a result of Revised
Project urban runoff hydrology. The short duration of expected high flows and the high energy nature of
the coastal waters within the area will assist in the mixing process and will counteract the influence of the
storm water flow into the marine environment. Further, nuisance flows will be diverted during the dry
season (April 15 through October 15) to the nearest wastewater line and disposed of through the County
of Los Angeles Sanitation District system. Therefore, sensitive marine habitats will not be affected by any
dry weather runoff from the Project site. Finally, contaminants contained in urban runoff will have less
than significant impacts on shorebirds and seabirds. The level of contaminants expected to be contained
within the storm water discharge will be very low and will not significantly impact populations of shorebirds
or seabirds that may come in contact with the water through ingestion of water, their prey, or physical
contact. Shorebirds and seabirds do not concentrate their foraging within particular areas of the coastline,
further reducing the likelihood that they will be adversely affected.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 15 of 48
G. Public Health and Safety.
1. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Revised Project may impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan for the area.
2. Finding
Analysis in the FEIR has concluded that compliance with the City Development Code will
result in a less than significant impact to the emergency response plan.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
Two streets located adjacent to the project area are indicated as disaster routes: Palos
Verdes Drive South and Hawthorne Boulevard. Modifications to Hawthorne Boulevard are not proposed
as part of the Revised Project. However, Revised Project implementation will involve modifications to
Palos Verdes Drive South. The proposed access improvements are designed to facilitate adequate traffic
movement for peak hour conditions and will ensure adequate emergency condition vehicular movement
from the Hotel site and along the adjacent roadway network. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Revised
Project will not have a significant impact relative to the implementation or interference with emergency
response/evacuation plans. There are no areas depicted as evacuation routes on the project site.
H. Public Services and Utilities.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project implementation may result in significant effects to public services and
utilities, including significant physical impacts to existing school facilities, increased demand for library
service, generate additional wastewater, require expansion of existing sewer and water treatment
facilities, increase demand for potable water, generate increased solid waste, and increase demand for
utilities.
2. Finding
Analysis in the FEIR has concluded that Revised Project implementation will have a less
than significant impact on public services and utilities. Moreover, compliance with applicable city codes
and permitting requirements will ensure that any effects on public services and/or utilities will remain less
than significant.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
Since the Revised Project does not include residential units, Revised Project
implementation will not directly generate students. Any increased student population would result from
Revised Project employees who relocate to the City. This impact will not be significant and can be
absorbed by existing school facilities. The Revised Project will not generate significant library usage.
With a permit and payment of fees to offset the costs to construct an incremental expansion of the
existing sewerage system, the Revised Project will not have a significant impact on wastewater facilities.
Sufficient water supplies are available to adequate serve the Revised Project from existing resources.
Compliance with the requirements of AB 939 will ensure that the Revised Project does not have a
significant impact on solid waste generation. Additionally, the Project site is adequately served by
existing utilities. Accordingly, Revised Project implementation will not have a significant impact on public
services and utilities.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 16 of 48
Article V. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Determined to be Reduced to a Level
of Insignificance.
The FEIR and the Addendum identified potentially significant environmental impacts of
the Revised Project in the following impact categories of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land
Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and
Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational Facilities. Except as discussed in Article VI below,
measures were identified that will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts are discussed below. The City
Council finds, based on substantial evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, that the
mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible and, with the exception of the impacts identified in
Article V below, will reduce the Revised Project's impacts to a level of insignificance. The City Council
adopts all of the mitigation measures described in the FEIR as conditions of approval of the Revised
Project and incorporates those mitigation measures into the Revised Project.
A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project implementation may have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
or resource identified in the Coastal Specific Plan.
2. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project,
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
The Coastal Specific Plan restricts building heights in established visual corridors to
protect views from Palos Verdes Drive to significant landforms and ocean edges. The Revised Project
will potentially impact two identified view corridors (the view toward Point Fermin and the view toward
Catalina Island). These impacts are considered significant. The Coastal Specific Plan restricts building
heights within the view corridors to 16 feet. The Revised Project, as proposed, will lower the building
pads for the villas thereby reducing the impact of these structures to the identified view corridors. In
addition, the FEIR identified three mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 5.1-4a, 5.1-4b, and 5.1-4c)
to reduce this impact below a level of significance. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in
the FEIR and the conditions of approval imposed by the City Council restricting the finished heights of the
proposed buildings will reduce any impacts below a level of significance.
B. Biological Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project implementation may have significant effects on identified special status
species (both plant and wildlife) and may impact sensitive natural communities that serve as habitat for
these sensitive species.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 17 of 48
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Special status species. The Project site includes several plant and wildlife species
which are identified as special status. Implementation of the Revised Project could result in significant
and irreversible impacts to these species. However, several focused studies were performed as part of
the environmental review process. These studies identified mitigation measures, which, once
implemented, will reduce the Revised Project's potential impacts on special status species to a level of
insignificance. These measures include seed collection and reestablishment for special status plants,
avoidance and/or federal take permits for special status wildlife. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices
demonstrate that the Revised Project's potentially significant effects on special status species will be
reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the following mitigation measures identified
in the FEIR(Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1f):
1. A pre-construction survey for the island green dudleya shall be conducted during the
peak flowering period prior to Grading Permit Issuance (approximately April through
June), by the Project biologist. The limits of each impacted dudleya location shall be
clearly marked with lath and brightly colored flagging.
If any of the dudleya is located in the impact area, the loss of the dudleya shall be
mitigated by seed and corm collection, and revegetation into a suitable mitigation site in
the undeveloped portion of the Project site or at an off-site location. A qualified biologist
shall be selected by the Applicant, subject to the approval of City staff, to prepare and
implement a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program. The Special Status Plant
Mitigation Program shall be prepared and implemented prior to disturbance of the
dudleya. The detailed mitigation program shall include the following requirements:
• The existing locations of dudleya shall be monitored every two weeks by the
Project biologist to determine when the seeds are ready for collection. A
qualified seed collector shall collect all of the seeds from the plants to be
impacted when the seeds are ripe.
• Following the seed collection, the corms shall be dug up, cleaned, and stored by
a qualified nursery or institution with appropriate storage facilities. The top 12
inches of topsoil from the dudleya locations shall be scraped, stockpiled, and
used at the selected mitigation site.
• This mitigation shall be conducted concurrent with the coastal sage scrub and
coastal bluff scrub mitigation. The site shall be located in dedicated open space
on the Project site or at an offsite mitigation site. The selected site should not
attempt to enhance existing populations.
• The dudleya mitigation site shall be prepared for seeding as described in the
Special Status Plant Mitigation Program.
• The topsoil shall be re-spread in the selected location as approved by the Project
biologist. Approximately 60 percent of the seeds and corms shall be
spread/placed in the fall following soil preparation. Forty percent of the seed and
corms shall be kept in storage for subsequent seeding, if necessary.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 18 of 48
• The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall include detailed descriptions of
maintenance appropriate for the site, monitoring requirements, and annual report
requirements. In addition, the Project biologist shall have the authority to
suspend any operation on the Project site which is, in the Project biologist's
opinion and confirmed by the City, not consistent with the Special Status Plant
Mitigation Program. Any disputes regarding the consistency of an action with the
Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be resolved by the Applicant and
the Project biologist.
• The performance criteria developed in the Special Status Plant Mitigation
Program shall include requirements for a minimum of 60 percent germination of
the number of plants impacted. The performance criteria should also include
percent cover, density, and seed production requirements. These criteria shall
be developed by the Project biologist following habitat analysis of an existing
high-quality dudleya habitat. This information shall be recorded by a qualified
biologist.
• If the germination goal of 60 percent is not achieved following the first season,
remediation measures shall be implemented prior to seeding with the remaining
40 percent of seed. Remedial measures shall include at a minimum: soils
testing, control of invasive species, soil amendments, and physical disturbance
(to provide scarification of the seed) of the planted areas by raking or similar
actions. Additional mitigation measures may be suggested as determined
appropriate by the Project biologist.
• Potential seed sources from additional donor sites shall also be identified in case
it becomes necessary to collect additional seed for use on the site following
performance of remedial measures.
2. Pre-construction special status plant surveys shall be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of aphanisma, south coast saltscale, Catalina crossosoma, Santa
Catalina Island desert-thorn, and Lyon's pentachaeta. The focused surveys for these
species shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period (spring) prior to
Demolition Permit Issuance. In the event any of these species are found to be present
on the Project site, then a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be developed in
consultation with the appropriate resource agencies if the status of the species and the
size of the population warrant a finding of significance. The Special Status Plant
Mitigation Program shall be developed and implemented prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified botanist and shall be subject to
review by the City. The program shall include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or
purchase of off-site populations as appropriate and feasible. The program shall also
include the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 a as appropriate for the
species being addressed.
3. No more than seven days prior to commencement of demolition activities, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a survey to determine whether Cooper's hawk, burrowing owl,
northern harrier, white-tailed kite, prairie falcon, and peregrine falcon, or other raptor
species, are nesting in or adjacent to the impact area. In the event nesting is not
occurring, construction work may proceed. In the event an active nest is present,
construction work shall be prohibited within 300 feet of the nest (or as otherwise
determined by the Project biologist) until fledglings have left the nest. Results of the
surveys shall be provided to USFWS, CDFG, and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 19 of 48
b. Sensitive natural communities/habitats. A total of 102.1 acres of native and non-
native vegetation types, including developed areas, will be impacted by the Revised Project. The majority
of this area (95.4 acres) has previously been disturbed or developed. However, impacts to certain
sensitive natural communities would be considered significant because of the value of these communities
to identified sensitive status species. These communities include the coastal bluff scrub and riparian
habitat within jurisdictional drainages. As fully detailed in Section 5.3 of the Addendum, the Revised
Project includes as a project design feature a proposed conservation district which will preserve 6.7 acres
of existing coastal bluff scrub habitat and add a 1.2-acre enhancement area to ensure the continued
vitality of this sensitive habitat for the El Segundo Blue butterfly. The FEIR has identified mitigation
measures (e.g., Mitigation Measures 5.3-2b and 5.3-2c — which will ensure that the Revised Project
avoids any affect to the coastal bluff scrub area. Implementation of this mitigation and complete
avoidance will reduce Revised Project impacts to this habitat type to less than significant levels. In light
of the identified measures and the extensive habitat protection and enhancement features proposed by
the Revised Project, the Revised Project's impact on sensitive habitats is considered less than significant.
Finally, the jurisdictional delineation prepared for the Project site and Revised Project
determined that there are three drainages on the Project site that will be considered jurisdictional under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Project
site contains 0.19 acre of waters considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
none of which, however, includes wetlands as defined by Section 404. Impacts to these three drainages
will require a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. If impacts to the drainages cannot be
avoided or minimized, compensation through either on-site or off-site habitat creation must be provided.
Because the areas impacted are all unvegetated, ephemeral drainage channels, a mitigation ratio of 1:1
is considered appropriate. Additionally, the Project site contains 0.20 acre of waters considered
jurisdictional under Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code that is regulated by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The Revised Project will impact 0.18 acre of CDFG jurisdictional waters in
the three drainages. Impacts to these three drainages will require obtaining a Section 1603 Streambed
Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. If impacts to these three drainages cannot be avoided or
minimized, compensation through either on-site or off-site habitat creation must be provided. Because
these impacts are all to unvegetated ephemeral drainage channels, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is considered
appropriate. Mitigation Measure 5.3-2g sets forth the measures that have been identified to reduce this
potential impact to less than significant.
c. Indirect impacts. The Revised Project may result in indirect impacts from increased
noise, dust and urban pollutants, lighting, human activity, and introduction of non-native species, both
during construction and operation of the Revised Project. Edge effects occur where development,
including roads, takes place adjacent to natural open space areas. Edge effects threaten the ecological
integrity, recreational experience, aesthetic quality, public investment, and safety operations of preserved
natural areas. When development is configured in a manner that creates a high ratio of development
next to natural open space, there is an increase in the potential impacts caused by human use (indirect
impacts). These indirect effects will be reduced to levels of insignificance through implementation of the
specified mitigation requiring: (1) avoidance of active nests, (2) avoidance of preserve areas, and (3)
restricting human activities near the coastal bluff scrub habitat along the cliffs. Implementation of a
transitional area along the boundary of developed land uses will provide a natural noise buffer and reduce
impacts to special status species that nest or roost along cliffs and the rocky shore of the proposed open
space areas on the Project site. This impact will be potentially significant. Implementation of the
proposed conservation district included as a project design feature will introduce a transitional area along
the boundary of developed land uses that will reduce this impact to less than significant by providing a
natural noise buffer. Dust impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation
of specified mitigation that requires the Applicant apply for coverage under the State Water Resources
Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity and
comply with all of the provisions of the permit, including the development of a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (which includes provisions for the implementation of Best Management Practices and
erosion control measures). The introduction of non-native plants and species will be controlled through
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 20 of 48
mitigation measures requiring natural buffer zones and transitional areas with non-invasive plants species
and limited irrigation. Finally, lighting impacts will be controlled through implementation of the specified
mitigation requiring that a lighting plan be prepared which directs lighting away from sensitive biological
resources will reduce this impact to less than significant.
Human Activity. The increase in human activity (i.e., noise, foot traffic) will pose the
largest indirect disturbance on or adjacent to the Project site. Human disturbance could disrupt normal
foraging and breeding behavior of wildlife remaining in these and adjacent areas diminishing the value of
these preserved open space habitat areas, particularly with activity on the golf practice facility.
Implementation of the specified mitigation measures will reduce this impact to less than significant.
C. Cultural Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Revised Project may cause a significant impact to archaeological
and/or historical resource on-site and may disturb human remains.
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
that avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Archaeological/historical resources.
The Project site includes one historical resource of local significance — 6621 Beachview
Drive (the Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex). The Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex is not eligible for listing in
the California Register, and thus does not qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. The FEIR
and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project's potentially significant effects on
archaeological and historical resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation
of the Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 a through 5.4-1j identified in the FEIR.
In addition to the Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex, the Revised Project is located near
several other historical resources of local significance. These sites include Site CA-LAN-103 (Rock
Shelter and Shell Midden), Site 19-180589 (Base End Stations), Site 19-180591 (Nike Air Defense Site
LA-55-L), and Site 19-180593 (Documented Long Point Defense District. None of these sites are
currently registered as historical landmarks, or are any of these sites on the Project site for the Revised
Project. Site CA-LAN-103 would qualify as a historical resource under California Register Criterion 4
("information potential") if it contained intact archaeological deposits. However, the area has been
seriously disturbed by artifact hunters and scavengers. Implementation of the Revised Project will not
result in any significant impacts to these resources.
b. Paleontological resources. Grading could lead to the loss of valuable fossil resources
and limit scientific knowledge regarding the geologic past of the site and surrounding area. Of note is the
fact that grading associated with the Revised Project could unearth fossil resources which may not have
ever been discovered otherwise. The potential loss or destruction of fossil resources and the
concomitant loss of scientific knowledge is considered a significant impact under CEQA and mitigation
measures have been recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The FEIR and
Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project's potentially significant effects on
paleontological resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the
following mitigation measures identified in the FEIR(Mitigation Measures 5.4-2a through 5.4-2d):
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 21 of 48
1. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project developer shall provide a letter of
verification to the City Planning Department stating that a qualified paleontologist has
been retained to implement the monitoring program. The qualified paleontologist shall
attend the preconstruction meetings to consult with the excavation contractor. The
paleontologist's duties shall include monitoring, salvaging, preparation of collected
materials for storage at a scientific institution that houses paleontological collections and
preparation of a monitoring results report.
2. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site to inspect for fossils during
all excavation/grading activities. Monitoring shall be done full-time in those formations
with a high sensitivity rating, and shall be done half time in those formations with a
moderate sensitivity rating. The monitoring time may be increased or decreased at the
discretion of the paleontologist in consultation with City staff. Monitoring shall occur only
when excavation activities affect the geologic formation.
3. In the event that fossils are encountered during grading, the paleontologist shall have the
authority to divert or temporarily halt construction activities in the area of discovery to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. Because of the potential for recovery
of small fossil remains, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on-site.
4. Fossil remains collected during grading/construction activities shall be cleaned, sorted,
repaired, cataloged, and then (with the permission of the owner of the property where the
remains were collected) stored in a local scientific institution that houses paleontological
collections. The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for preparation of fossils to
a point of identification, and submittal of a letter of acceptance from a local qualified
curation facility. If the fossil collection is not accepted by a local qualified facility for
reasons other than inadequate preparation of specimens, the Project paleontologist shall
contact City staff to suggest an alternative disposition of the collection.
c. Burial sites. Human remains in a previously unknown burial site could potentially be
encountered during construction activities associated with the Revised Project. Any alterations to human
remains associated with Revised Project implementation will be considered a significant adverse impact.
However, implementation of the mitigation which details the appropriate actions necessary in the event
human remains are encountered will reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. The
FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project's potentially significant effects on
paleontological resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the
following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR(Mitigation Measures 5.4-3):
1. In the event human remains are discovered during grading/ construction activities, work
shall cease in the immediate area of the discovery and the Project Applicant shall comply
with the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native
American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the
Native American Heritage Commission to be the"most likely descendant".
D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project implementation may increase the number of people/structures exposed
to effects associated with seismically induced ground shaking or landslides, may result in substantial soil
erosion, may be located on expansive soils, may increase the number of people/structures exposed to
effects associated with landslides, or may be located on a geologic unit that is unstable or that may
become unstable.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 22 of 48
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Seismic ground shaking and landslides. Given the highly seismic character of the
Southern California Region, moderate to severe ground shaking can be expected within the project area
due to moderate to large earthquakes on the nearby Palos Verdes Fault or other nearby faults (i.e.
Compton Blind Thrust Fault). Therefore, impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking will
be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with
implementation of mitigation requiring that an engineering geologist to perform additional design-level
geotechnical studies, as well as prepare and submit a report for City approval, to provide the adequate
level of information to properly design and engineer the Revised Project. Impacts associated with ground
shaking will be further reduced through compliance with the City Development Code and the California
Building Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-2a and 5.5-2b identified in the FEIR will reduce
impacts below a level of significance. Strong earthquake-generated ground motions can worsen the
existing unstable slope conditions along the sea cliff/bluffs with in the Project site. The most common
types of earthquake induced landslides in terrain similar to that in the project area are soil slips, shallow
slumps, shallow slides within the marine terrace deposits, and rock falls on the sea cliff. Moreover,
existing landslides could be reactivated as the result of strong ground motion from future nearby
earthquakes. Therefore, impacts associated with seismically induced landslides will be considered
significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation
Mitigation Measure 5.5-7 identified in the FEIR.
b. Erosion. The existing artificial fill soils and marine terrace deposits blanketing much of
the Project site and capping the bluff are highly erodible. Adverse surface drainage could promote
accelerated soil erosion which could undermine proposed structures and lead to surficial slope failures on
either manufactured or natural slopes. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion will be considered
significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of
Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 (discussed above) requiring that additional design-level geotechnical studies be
performed assessing potential soil related constraints and hazards such as sea cliff erosion. In addition,
impacts associated with ground shaking will be reduced through compliance with the City Development
Code and the California Building Code.
c. Expansive soils. The soils, which occur on the Project site, have been classified with
a moderate to high potential for expansion. According to the geotechnical consultant for the Revised
Project ".... many of the surface (soil) materials within the Project area are expansive...". If adequate
measures are not taken to mitigate the impact of expansive soils during development, significant distress
in the form of cracking and/or differential uplift of concrete footings and floor slabs may result when the
soils become wet. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of specified
mitigation including placing a layer of relatively non-expansive soils beneath floor slabs and specialized
building footings. In addition, impacts associated with expansive soils will be further reduced through
compliance with the City Development Code and the California Building Code and implementation of
specified hydrological and drainage mitigation.
d. Landslides. Based on information currently available, portions of the development
adjacent to the existing landslides could be significantly impacted by renewed landslide movement
resulting from strong ground motion from nearby earthquakes, potential groundwater buildup within the
landslides, erosion at the toe of the bluff from storm generated waves, and ongoing natural erosion of the
bluffs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-7a and 5.5-7b identified in the FEIR reduce impacts
below a level of significance.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 23 of 48
e. Sea cliff retreat. Active sea cliff/bluff retreat may pose a significant impact to any form
or development within 50 to 75 feet of the current bluff top area. Reactivation or renewed landslides on
the sea cliff, and continual (albeit episodic)spalling of large blocks of bedrock along the sea cliffs, present
hazards which cannot be practically mitigated, except with an adequate setback from the top of the
actively eroding bluff. Moreover, numerous human contributions associated with anticipated construction
activities typically leads to increased area erosion through construction of storm drains, fences and
stairways, removal of plant/soil cover; oversteepening/ overloading of slopes; and both accidental and
purposeful release of water onto and into the marine terrace sands and bedrock. Based on this data,
impacts associated with sea cliff retreat will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be
reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation requiring compliance with the
building setback line and a comprehensive subsurface investigation at project design-level pursuant to
City review requirements.
E. Hydrology and Drainage.
1. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Revised Project may significantly alter drainage patterns that could
result in increased erosion potential and runoff and may result in long-term impacts to the quality of storm
water and urban runoff. Additionally, grading, excavation and other construction activities may impact
water quality.
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
that avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Drainage and runoff. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices and the Addendum
demonstrate that the Revised Project will significantly alter the drainage patterns on the Project site. This
impact could be potentially significant to erosion potential. However, the Revised Project proposes
design features (including proper bluff drainage and impact basin installation) which will likely improve
bluff stability and curb bluff erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.6-1 a and 5.6-1b, identified
in the FEIR,will further ensure that any potential impacts are reduced below a level of significance.
b. Water quality. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of
Intent (NOI) will be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to
construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the
construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP will be required to be available and implemented at
the construction site at all times. The SWPPP will outline the source control and/or treatment control
BMPs that will avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the "maximum extent
practicable." Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-2, identified in the FEIR, which requires the
project applicant to comply with all NPDES requirements, and implementation of source control and
treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will ensure that any water quality impacts are
reduced below a level of significance.
c. Stormwater quality. The Revised Project has the potential to significantly violate water
quality standards because of the pesticides associated with the golf practice facility and the increased
activity levels on the site. However, the Revised Project proposes a comprehensive Water Quality
Management Plan, including both Structural and Non-Structural BMPs. The Plan partially complies with
the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as required by the Los Angeles Regional Water
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 24 of 48
Quality Control Board. Additional mitigation is required and is proposed to ensure compliance with
SUSMP requirements and that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The additional
mitigation for water quality can be broken into three sub-categories: additional Standard BMPs; additional
treatment BMPs, and expansion of the proposed water quality monitoring and adaptive management
plan. Further, the FEIR has identified three additional mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 5.6-3a,
5.6-3b, and 5.6-3c). Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR will further ensure
that any long-term water quality impacts are reduced below a level of significance.
F. Marine Resources.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project Implementation may result in both short-term (construction) and long-
term (operational) impacts to marine resources.
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Grading impacts. The significant impacts of grading activities on intertidal marine
resources will be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation requiring the implementation of(1)
a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (2) Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified
within the State of California "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for
Construction Activity" and (3) preparation and implementation of a Construction Erosion Control Plan prior
to site construction. (Refer to the Construction Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan Section below for further details regarding these Plans.) These plans and documents will
identify dry season and wet season runoff control measures, source control, and or treatment controls
that will avoid and/or mitigate potential soil erosion, runoff pollutants, and other storm water constituents.
Less than significant grading effects on near-shore marine life are anticipated with the inclusion and
implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollutant Prevention. The FEIR and its
Technical Appendices demonstrate that implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.8-1 a through 5.8-1f
(identified in the FEIR)will reduce grading impacts to marine resources below a level of significance.
b. Long-term impacts. Revised Project implementation will involve long-term design
impacts that, if left unmitigated, could adversely affect shoreline and near shore marine resources.
Impacts associated with the operation of the Long Point Resort Project include (1) degradation of water
quality as a consequence of storm water and dry weather runoff from the Project site and a subsequent
degradation of marine habitat and (2)from the direct and indirect effects of increased tourism (visitor use)
to the local shoreline. These project-related impacts will be reduced below a level of significance with
implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the FEIR(Mitigation Measure 5.8-2).
c. Visitor use impacts. The Revised Project will result in increased visitor use of the
shoreline. This increase could lead to a significant and long-term reduction in the value of the intertidal
habitat. Intertidal marine resources in southern California are in a steady state of deterioration because
of unmanaged or under-managed policies which regulate these areas. However, implementation of the
following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5.8-3a through 5.8-3g) will
reduce impacts associated with visitor use to a less than significant level:
1. The intertidal resources of the Fisherman's Cove and east to the tip of Long Point shall
be actively managed on an on-going basis by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes/County of
Los Angeles and the Applicant to offset potentially significant impacts to intertidal marine
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 25 of 48
resources. This area shall be managed as part of Conservation Area 1-A in association
with the westerly bluffs below the bluff-top edge of the Project site. The area shall be
designated as a Habitat Reserve. Although recreational fishing for finfish is permitted,
the Habitat Reserve Designation shall restrict certain uses below the resort hotel
including commercial fishing, the collection of invertebrates, and the disturbances of
plants, birds, and other animal life.
2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the City and the Applicant shall work with a qualified
marine biologist to develop a Long-term Shoreline Resource Management Plan that
identifies and details the means by which visitor use of the rocky outcrops of the project
area shall be actively managed. At a minimum the plan shall implement monitoring and
enforcement of protected regulations herein: (1) signage; (2) enforcement of posted
regulations; (3) on-site naturalists or other personnel to enforce regulations and to cite
violators; (4) educational and docent programs; and (5) areas of restricted or no access.
This Plan shall be implemented prior to Occupancy Permit issuance.
3. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall develop an educational booklet
for hotel guests that provide ways to prevent ecological damage to the intertidal and
subtidal habitats.
4. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall develop an interpretive display at
the hotel/resort that informs visitors of the area's natural resources and provides
suggestions for minimizing damage to these resources.
5. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall post simple, but direct and
enforceable signage in multiple languages at all access points to the rocky intertidal
habitats from the residential and resort areas to advise the public of the area's ecological
value and to help prevent degradation of the intertidal habitat.
6. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant, under the guidance of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes shall provide training for and enforcement of the Habitat Reserve
shoreline on a daily basis during the summer and on weekends during the winter months
between Labor Day and Memorial Day. Enforcement personnel shall have the authority
to enforce local statutes and State of California laws regarding fishing limits and the
illegal take of marine plants and animals.
7. A qualified Marine Biologist shall conduct intertidal monitoring studies to document the
effects of visitor use and storm drain discharges on the Habitat Reserve intertidal and
marine life. In association with surveys being conducted to assess runoff effects on
marine life, the Visitor Use Monitoring Program shall include quarterly (four times/year)
monitoring surveys of beach and rocky intertidal habitat use and concurrent intertidal
biological resource surveys over a five-year post-construction monitoring period to
determine if the management program is effective at preventing degradation of the
intertidal communities. Methodology to be used shall be consistent with other long-term
intertidal monitoring programs within Southern California and shall be approved by the
California Department of Fish and Game.
Annual reports shall be prepared and the management plan's objectives shall be
evaluated and updated as necessary to ensure protection of the intertidal resources. If it
is determined through survey results that after the first five years the overall management
program is not effective in reducing the degradation of intertidal habitat, a written
assessment of the management plan shall be prepared by the assigned marine
biologist(s). This assessment shall prescribe alternative methods for improvement of
habitat quality and health. The assessment report/revised program shall be reviewed by
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 26 of 48
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prior to implementation of alternative methods. The
assessment/revised program shall be prepared and submitted for review prior to the
completion of the sixth year after implementation of the original Resource Management
Plan.
d. Cumulative impacts. The proposed Long Point Resort Project will have a long-term
cumulative impact on marine biological resources as a result of(i)the potential visitor increases in the use
of the rocky intertidal habitat at Long Point and Fisherman's Cove above the levels that presently exist
and (ii) the potential water quality degradation in the vicinity of Long Point and Fisherman's Cove.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measures 5.8-1, 5.8-2 and 5.8-3 (identified in the FEIR) will ensure that
cumulative effects are minimized. In addition, a more effective enforcement program for protecting
marine life along the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the city, county, and state levels will assist in preventing
a long-term cumulative degradation of shoreline marine life.
G. Noise.
1. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Revised Project may have significant short-term (construction) and
long-term (operation) noise impacts from grading and construction activities and long term operation of
the clubhouse, loading dock, mechanical equipment, parking lot, and maintenance activities.
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Construction noise. Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities
generally will be restricted to daytime hours since standards exempt construction noise if construction
activities are conducted in accordance with City Code requirements. These requirements limit
construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (construction is
prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays). Construction noise will last the duration of construction,
although it will be the most noticeable during the initial months of site intensive grading and building
construction. Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the construction site may experience excessive
noise levels resulting from construction activities. These impacts, however, are exempt as noted above
and will be short-term, ceasing upon completion of each grading/construction phase. Thus, construction
impacts are considered to be less than significant. Nevertheless, implementation of the following
mitigation measure identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measure 5.9-1) will further reduce impacts below a
level of significance:
1. During grading/construction activities, the contractor shall employ the following measures
to ensure that construction noise will not adversely affect adjacent sensitive uses.
Construction activities shall be periodically monitored by the City to ensure compliance
with applicable City Codes, including the limitation of construction hours to 7:00 am to
7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
• On-going inspection and maintenance of equipment.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 27 of 48
• Stationary equipment will be placed such that emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive noise receivers.
• Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from
the occupied dwellings adjacent to the Project site.
• Every effort shall be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources
and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
b. Operations noise. New stationary noise sources created by implementation of the
Revised Project include resort/golf uses and associated mechanical equipment and parking areas. New
stationary noise sources created by implementation of the Revised Project include resort/golf uses and
associated mechanical equipment and parking areas. The potential noise typically associated with
operation activities of resort uses will be generated by (i) Delivery/supply vehicles traveling on the site, to
and from loading areas; (ii) Activities at loading areas (maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and
clanging of equipment and P.A. systems); and (iii) Mechanical equipment (air conditioners, trash
compactors, emergency generators, etc.). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.9-3a and 5.9-3b
(identified in the FEIR)will reduce impacts below a level of significance.
H. Public Health and Safety.
1. Potential Impacts
Revised Project implementation may expose the public to significant health and safety
risks related to the use and disposal of hazardous materials, golf activities, introduction of fire ants to the
region,
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Hazardous materials. Revised Project implementation may expose people to
significant risks from potentially hazardous materials from both historical uses of the site (underground
storage tanks, lead paint, etc.) and from the introduction of chemicals and pesticides for use in
maintaining the golf practice facility and landscaped areas. The FEIR and Technical Appendices
demonstrate the implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation
Measures 5.10-1 a through 5.10-1k)will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance:
1. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II level investigation shall be conducted to
determine the characteristics and extent of the potential contamination (i.e., soil and
groundwater) associated with the concrete sump located in the former service station in
the Project site. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is
needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required.
2. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II level investigation shall be conducted to
determine the characteristics and extent of the potential contamination (i.e., soil and
groundwater) associated with the liquid contained within the vault of the former sky tower
on the Project site. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is
needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 28 of 48
3. Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, site-specific investigations shall be conducted to
determine the contents of the interior of all structures on the Project site. In the event
that hazardous materials are encountered, they shall be properly tested and then
properly disposed of prior to renovation/demolition activities.
4. If during demolition of any of the structures paint is separated from the building materials
(e.g., chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the
building material to determine its proper management. According to the Department of
Toxic Substances Control, if paint is not removed from the building material during
demolition (and is not chipping or peeling), the material could be disposed of as
construction debris (a non-hazardous waste). The landfill operator shall be contacted in
advance to determine any specific requirements they may have regarding the disposal of
lead-based paint materials.
5. Prior to the commencement of any remedial work and consistent with the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), building owners shall
conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of Asbestos Containing Materials
(ACMs). Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, areas shall be sampled as part of an
asbestos survey.
•
6. Any demolition of the existing building shall comply with State law, which requires a
contractor, where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of
ACMs, to be certified and that certain procedures regarding the removal of asbestos be
followed.
7. Soil sampling of the agricultural portion of the Project site shall be conducted to
determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides, prior to Grading
Permit issuance.
b. Golf safety. The proposed golf practice facility was routed using the standard method
for golf hole corridor widths identified in the Existing Conditions discussion. In connection with the
previously proposed 9-hole golf course (the Initial Project), a golf safety analysis was conducted to
confirm that the layout, routing and grading of the proposed golf practice facility will not create safety
concerns with respect to residential units, adjacent holes, streets, and pedestrian traffic. A hole by hole
analysis was conducted through which it was determined that in general, the golf practice facility as
designed will work well with respect to both safety and playability based on the aforementioned
standards. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that each hole within the golf practice facility is
consistent with the accepted standard lengths for each par. The recommendations set forth in that
analysis have been integrated into the design of the golf practice facility and a subsequent safety review
was conducted. Based on the analysis, Section 5.10 of the Addendum recommends one mitigation
measures (Mitigation 5.10-2a) requiring that certain modifications be incorporated into the design of the
practice facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.10-2a will ensure that any safety impacts form
golf activities will be reduced to a less than significant level.
c. Fire ants. The potential infestation of the Project site by fire ants is considered
potentially significant due to the resulting potentially serious medical threat to visitors of public and private
lands on and adjacent to the Project site. Implementation of the specified mitigation requiring the
inspection of all imported nursery stock/other items and the development of a management program, will
reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant impact.
I. Public Services and Utilities.
1. Potential Impacts
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 29 of 48
Implementation of the Revised Project may result in impacts to emergency services (fire
and police), increase demand for utility services, and increase of solid waste generation.
2. Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Finding
a. Fire and police services. Revised Project implementation will potentially impact the
Fire Department's level of service and will contribute to the need for construction of a new fire station.
Since the Revised Project is situated within the Consolidated Fire Protection District, the District will
receive property tax revenues from the property. According to the LACFD, this funding, which will be
used for staffing and equipment, will offset the costs associated with the increased demand for fire
protection services and new fire facilities associated with the Revised Project. Therefore, a less than
significant impact will occur in this regard. The LACSD anticipates that there will be an increase in the
number of calls for service, and patrol requirements as a result of Revised Project implementation. The
Revised Project along with existing conditions will contribute to the need for the City to increase their
contract for service with the LACSD by one deputy for 24-hours (equivalent to three additional shifts per
day). The Applicant will be required to pay their fair share portion of the funding associated with the
additional deputy. Payment by the Applicant of their fair share portion of the funding associated with the
additional deputy will reduce the Revised Project's impact to a less than significant level. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-2 (identified in the FEIR) will ensure the Revised Project has not
significant impacts on emergency services.
b. Utilities. The proposed development will require additional electric facilities to service
the site. SCE has stated that they stand ready to install electrical distribution facilities within the project
area. Upon notification from the Project Applicant and payment of advances, SCE will install an
underground distribution system within the development, as well as underground service laterals from the
distribution system to individual parcels. The developer will be responsible for providing and funding any
additional electric facilities required to service the Revised Project. Implementation of the Revised Project
will not result in a significant impact with respect to electric services, as it will not significantly impact
SCE's system capacity or ability to provide service. Additionally, since the required electrical distribution
facilities will occur within the Revised Project limits, implementation of the Revised Project will not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts.
c. Solid Waste. The Revised Project will generate an estimated 2,096 pounds of solid
waste per day. This projected increase in solid waste generation will increase the demand to provide
disposal service and will impact the capacities at the Puente Hills Landfills and South Gate Transfer
Station. Further, this increased solid waste generation will incrementally shorten the lifespan of the
Puente Hills Landfill. The Revised Project will be required to comply with the requirements of AB 939.
Additionally, implementation of the following mitigation measure (identified as Mitigation Measure 5.11-7
in the FEIR)will further reduce the Revised Project's solid waste impacts below a level of significance:
1. The Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department,
implement the following on an on-going basis:
• Grass cycle, use as mulch, or compost all green waste generated from the Golf
practice facility;
• Recycle all bottles, aluminum cans, glass, and food waste. The food waste
generated on-site may be used for composting efforts if the Project Applicant
desires; and
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 30 of 48
• Annual reports shall be prepared and submitted to the City Public Works
Department on the progress of the recycling program. This report shall include
the amount of tonnage which has been diverted to trash, recycling, composting
and grass cycling.
J. Traffic and Circulation.
1. Potential Impacts
Implementation of the Revised Project may cause significant increases in traffic, exceed
congestion management plan standards, create undue hazards and conflicts due to design, and provide
inadequate parking.
2. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
a. Increased traffic congestion at local intersections. The traffic study prepared in
connection with the FEIR analyzed the Revised Project's projected average daily trip (ADT) generation
and analyzed the Revised Project's impacts at 25 local intersections. A revised traffic study was
conducted in conjunction with the preparation of the Addendum. The traffic studies and the analysis set
forth in the FEIR and the Addendum concluded that the Revised Project would have a significant impact
at only three (3) study area intersections projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the
peak hours: Silver Spur Road (NS) at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW); Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos
Verdes Drive North (EW); and Western Avenue (NS) at 25th Street (EW). The FEIR and Traffic Study
conclude that the impacts to these intersections will be reduced to less than significant levels with
implementation of identified mitigation. This conclusion was independently reviewed by the City's Traffic
Committee. On June 26, 2001, the Traffic Committee concluded that the traffic analysis adequately
analyzed the Revised Project's potential traffic impacts and recommended that the City Council certify the
traffic portion of the FEIR and adopt each of the mitigation measures identified therein. The City Council
hereby finds that implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified as Mitigation Measures
5.12-1 a through 5.12-1 a in the FEIR) will reduce Revised Project traffic impacts below a level of
significance:
1. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, Palos Verdes Drive South, adjacent to the Project
site, shall be widened to its ultimate width as a 100-foot right-of-way.
2. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, a 150-foot minimum left turn pocket shall be
provided for vehicles traveling west on Palos Verdes Drive South and desiring to turn left
into the main access to the Project site.
3. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, a traffic signal shall be installed by the Project
Applicant at the Project Entrance(NS)at Palos Verdes Drive South (EW).
4. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for their
fair share of the following roadway improvements as detailed in Table 5.12-11, Project
Fair Share Contribution, or other such measure(s) as the City determines are necessary
to adequately mitigate the project's impacts on the intersection:
• Silver Spur Road (NS)at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW)
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 31 of 48
Re-stripe south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane and one
right turn lane and
Provide north leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right
turn lane
• Hawthorne Boulevard (NS)at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW)
Provide west leg with one left turn lane, one shared left/ through lane,
one through lane and one right turn lane
• Western Avenue (NS)at 25th Street(EW)
Provide east leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right
turn lane
• Silver Spur Road (NS)at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW)
Re-stripe south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane and one
right turn lane and
Provide north leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right
turn lane
• Hawthorne Boulevard (NS)at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW)
Provide west leg with one left turn lane, one shared left/ through lane,
one through lane and one right turn lane
• Western Avenue (NS)at 25th Street(EW)
Provide east leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right
turn lane
b. Congestion Management Plan. The following three (3) intersections are designated
as part of the Los Angeles County CMP arterial monitoring intersections and are affected by 50 or more
peak hour Revised Project trips (i) Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Sepulveda Boulevard (EW); (ii)
Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Pacific Coast Highway (EW); (iii) Gaffey Street (NS) at 9th Street (EW)
The FEIR demonstrates that the addition of Revised Project traffic at the three (3) CMP arterial monitoring
intersections will not be significant, after implementation of specified mitigation measures (Mitigation
Measure 5.12-12). The Revised Project will not add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either
the AM or PM peak hours along the I-110 Freeway and no further CMP analysis is required.
c. Internal circulation and design. The Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive
South (EW) intersection warrants careful consideration of a traffic signal due to the a.m. and p.m. peak
hour traffic volume forecast. Impacts to this intersection will be considered significant unless mitigated.
Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation requiring that a signal be installed at
this intersection. The level of service at the Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive South (EW)
intersection is LOS A in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, one Project entrance can
accommodate the forecast Revised Project traffic. There does not appear to be a need to provide two
separate access driveways onto Palos Verdes Drive. Implementation of the following mitigation
measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5.12-3a and 5.12-3b) will reduce the circulation
related impacts below a level of significance:
1. Sight distances at the Project entrances shall be further reviewed with respect to
standard Caltrans/City of Rancho Palos Verdes sight distance standards at the time of
preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.
2. Internal traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the Project.
d. Parking impacts. The Long Point Resort is projected to employ approximately 700
full-time equivalent employees (FTEE). These employees, however, will work staggered shifts, with a
maximum of approximately 100 actual employees on site at one time (with the exception of major
conferences, banquets, and/or meetings). The parking supply of 825 spaces will adequately serve both
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 32 of 48
the hotel patronage and employee parking on a regular business day. In addition, the Revised Project
provides 100 additional parking spaces for use by the general public. These parking spaces could be
utilized after public hours to accommodate hotel overflow. The traffic study and FEIR concluded that the
parking provided is more than adequate to meet the needs generated by the hotel. In addition,
implementation of the Mitigation Measure 5.12-4 restricting the use of public parking areas will reduce this
any potential parking impact to a less than significant level.
Article VI Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts.
A. Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance
The FEIR identified three impacts as potentially significant and unavoidable. Based on
the information provided in the FEIR and the record of decision, the City Council finds that each of these
impacts can be mitigated to some degree, but that such mitigation will not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance and further mitigation is infeasible. Therefore, as required by Section 21081 of CEQA, and
as shown below in more detail, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
FEIR. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project are described below, along with
measures that will partially mitigate the impacts.
Air Quality
1. Significant Impacts
Section 5.2 of the FEIR indicates the Revised Project will result in both temporary
(construction-related) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts which will remain significant even
after implementation of mitigation. Specifically, These impacts may result in the Revised Project
conflicting with the Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide with
respect to these emissions.
2. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project
which will substantially lessen but not completely mitigate the significant environmental effects identified
in the FEIR.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
Short-term air quality impacts. Short-term air quality impacts will occur during grading
and construction activities associated with implementation of the Revised Project. These temporary
impacts will include (i) fugitive dust (PM1o) emissions from clearing and grading activities on-site; (ii)
exhaust emissions (including CO, ROG, NOR, and PM1o) and potential odors from the construction
equipment used on-site as well as the vehicles used to transport materials to and from the site; (iii)off-site
air pollutant emissions at the power plant serving the site, while temporary power lines are needed to
operate construction equipment and provide lighting; and (iv) exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles
of the construction crew. Emissions associated with demolition and construction equipment within the
project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. Specifically, PM,o emissions
associated with Revised Project construction activities (the primary source of PM,o emissions on site) are
expected to exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds, even with implementation of the applicable dust
control provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Sections 17.56.020 and
17.76.040(G)(4)), limitations on construction hours, installation of temporary construction fencing, and
adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (which imposes watering requirements for inactive and perimeter areas,
track out requirements, etc.). The FEIR and its technical studies demonstrate that implementation of the
following mitigation measure will substantially reduce but not completely mitigate the PM-10 emissions:
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 33 of 48
1. In accordance with the City Development Code and SCAQMD Rules, the Project
Applicant shall incorporate the following measures during the construction phase of the
Revised Project to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD and City Public Works Director.
Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic field inspections by the SCAQMD
and City Public Works Director.
Grading:
• Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all
inactive construction areas (previously graded for ten days or more);
• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
• Enclose, cover, water two times daily or apply non-toxic soil binders in
accordance to manufacturer's specifications to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand,
dirt)with 5% or greater silt content;
• Water active sites at least three times daily;
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as
instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 mph; and
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance
between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the
requirements of the CVC Section 23114.
Paved Roads:
• Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public paved roads; and
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
Additional feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of
short-term construction NOx and PM10 emissions to less than significant levels. Thus, these impacts will
be significant and unavoidable.
Long-term operational impacts. Long-term air quality impacts will consist of mobile
source emissions generated from project-related traffic and stationary source emissions generated
directly from the natural gas consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the
Project site. Implementation of the Revised Project will create a significant and unavoidable individual
project impact from ROG, NOx and CO emissions. In addition, the Los Angeles Basin (the "Basin") is in
non-attainment for these same three pollutants. Since the Revised Project will exceed established
ROG/NOx, CO and PM10 thresholds, the Revised Project will also create a significant and unavoidable
cumulative impact to regional levels of these pollutants. The Revised Project is not anticipated to create
a significant localized emission of CO or create significant localized impacts to nearby sensitive receptors
in this regard.
Although the Revised Project will represent an incremental negative impact to air quality
in the Basin, of primary concern is that project-related impacts have been properly anticipated in the
regional air quality planning process and reduced whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess
the Revised Project's consistency with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (the "AQMP"). The
Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act
(the "CAA") for determining conformity of local projects, plans and programs with the SCAQMD AQMP.
To assist local governments in assessing projects, SCAG released the Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide ("RCPG"), in May 1995. The RCPG is a compilation of the summaries of Plans for the
Southern California Region. It establishes a broad set of goals for the region, and identifies strategies for
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 34 of 48
agencies at all levels to use in guiding their decision-making toward implementation of the proposals.
There are two main indicators of consistency. First, will the project under consideration result in an
increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new
violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified
in the AQMP; and second, will the project under consideration exceed the AQMP's assumptions for 2010
or increments based on the year of project build-out and phase.
The Revised Project will be consistent with the second of the two indicators. The existing
entitlements for the Project site, which were approved in 1991, will generate a projected total of 9,619
average daily trips (ADT). In contrast, the currently Revised Project will generate and estimated 6,263
ADT. Since the AQMP assumptions take into consideration the ADT for the existing entitlements, the
volume of ADT generated by the Revised Project will not exceed the ADT projected for the existing
entitlement. Thus, the Revised Project will not exceed the AQMP's assumptions and is, therefore,
consistent with the AQMP in this regard.
However, the Revised Project will result in an increase in the severity of existing air
quality violations. The Basin is presently in non-attainment for ROG, NO and CO emissions. The FEIR
and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that the mobile source and area emissions associated with the
Revised Project will generate pollutant emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds despite adherence to
applicable SCAQMD and local rules and regulations. This increase in the severity in an existing non-
attainment area will make the Revised Project inconsistent with first of the two indicators of consistency.
Revised Project implementation will, therefore, result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to
consistency with the AQMP.
Cumulative operational impacts. The annual short-term and long-term emissions
associated with the cumulative projects analyzed in the FEIR, will be dependent on the phasing of each
project. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations will help to lessen these impacts. However, the
build out, sale and occupancy of the dwelling units and other uses will be controlled by market demand.
Since the Basin is non-attainment for 03, CO and PM10 air quality standards (both State and Federal
standards), any additional emissions of ROG and NOx (precursors to 03), CO and PM10 will be
considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Additionally, it should be noted that
Cumulative Projects include development of a sensitive receptor adjacent to UPV (i.e., Montessori
School). However, traffic impacts under existing plus ambient growth plus the Revised Project plus other
development conditions will not create a significant localized emission of CO or create significant
localized impacts to the proposed school. The FEIR and its technical studies demonstrate that
implementation of the following mitigation measure will substantially reduce cumulative air quality
impacts, but not to a level of insignificance:
1. The Project shall comply with SCAQMD standards and Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code requirements.
Noise
1. Significant Impacts
Section 5.9 indicates project-generated traffic will result in significant and unavoidable
cumulative noise impacts along several roadways. The Revised Project will generate additional vehicular
traffic on local roadways, thereby resulting in noise level increases along these roadways. Furthermore,
implementation of the Revised Project, together with cumulative projects, will increase the ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Revised Project. Vehicular traffic from the Revised Project, coupled with
vehicular traffic from cumulative projects, will exacerbate current ambient noise levels which already
exceed State and local noise standards along local roadways. These impacts are expected to occur with
or without implementation of the Revised Project.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 35 of 48
2. Findings
Analysis has concluded that Revised Project implementation will contribute to a
significant and unavoidable noise impact along several roadways, and no feasible mitigation measures
were identified to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
3. Facts in Support of Findings
Revised Project implementation will result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways,
thereby increasing vehicular generated noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed residential uses.
These impacts will result from project-related vehicle travel, thereby contributing to future noise level
increases above standards along adjacent roadway segments. While the project-related increase, in and
of itself, will not create a "substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels," (the threshold
established by CEQA), the increase will further exacerbate the current (and anticipated Future 2010
Without Project) exceedance of noise standards for sensitive receptors located along several roadways.
Thus, the Revised Project traffic will contribute to a significant and unavoidable increase in cumulative
noise levels along local roadways. The Revised Project, and all cumulative projects analyzed in the
FEIR, must adhere to State and local noise standards. The FEIR and its technical appendices
demonstrate that this adherence will substantially reduce project-related noise impacts, but not to a level
of insignificance. Existing ambient noise levels already exceed these standards. Thus, although the
Revised Project's individual contribution will not be significant, the existing conditions, combined with
project-generated and cumulative vehicular noise will result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact
at a cumulative level. Additional feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance
of traffic-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, these impacts will remain significant
and unavoidable.
B. Additional Impacts Which May Not Be Fully Mitigated
The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied, and based
on the record before it, the City Council finds that all significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance except for temporary significant air quality impacts resulting from construction, long-term air
quality impacts related to project-related traffic and Revised Project operations, and long-term noise
impacts resulting from increased traffic on adjacent roadways. In the event that any other environmental
impact identified in the FEIR cannot, through full compliance with mitigation measures imposed herein, be
fully mitigated over time, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the record
and that the Statement of Overriding Considerations that is an exhibit to this Resolution applies with equal
force and effect to such impacts.
Article VII. Project Alternatives.
The alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic
objectives of the Revised Project or will do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth below or in the FEIR, the City Council finds that
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives
identified in the FEIR, and each is hereby rejected. The City Council also finds that the Initial Project, as
proposed, will result in unacceptable adverse impacts and, for any one of the reasons set forth below,
finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Initial Project, as
proposed, which is being rejected in favor of the Revised Project. The City Council further finds that a
good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR, and that all
reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the FEIR and the ultimate decision on
the Revised Project.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 36 of 48
CEQA requires agencies reviewing the environmental impacts of a project to consider a
range of reasonable alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), 14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15126(d)).
The range of alternatives considered in an FEIR should include those which can feasibly attain most of
the basic objectives of the project. As defined by CEQA, "feasible" means "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15365, 14 Cal. Code
of Reg. § 15365.)
The FEIR analyzed a total of ten alternatives to the Revised Project. The alternatives
considered were: "Alternative 7.1 - No Development Alternative," "Alternative 7.2 - No Project
Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 - With Coast Guard Site Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - Relocate Practice
Facility - Option `A' Alternative," "Alternative 7.5 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option `B' Alternative,"
"Alternative 7.6 - No Resort Villas B Option `A'Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - No Resort Villas - Option `B'
Alternative," "Alternative 7.8 - Program of Utilization Alternative," "Alternative 7.9 - Point Vicente Park
Enhancement Alternative," and "Alternative 7.10 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing
Entitlement Alternative."
The City Council has carefully considered the attributes and environmental impacts of all
of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR and has compared them with those of the Revised Project. As
required by CEQA, the City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various
environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons set forth below. The City Council further
finds that the Initial Project as proposed is also infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical,
social and other reasons set forth below. The Revised Project, as modified or conditioned by the City
Council, represents the combination of features that, in the City Council's opinion, best achieves the
Revised Project's objectives while minimizing environmental impacts. Each alternative analyzed in the
FEIR is discussed separately below.
A. Alternative 7.1 (No Development Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
Under the No Development Alternative, the Revised Project will not be constructed and
the Project site will remain in its current condition.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Because the No Development Alternative will not permit any development, it will result in
the least amount of environmental impacts compared to the Revised Project and the other alternatives.
However, the No Development Alternative will not fulfill any of the Revised Project's objectives (e.g.,
establishing a successful destination coastal resort, providing a high quality golf experience, providing
additional public trails and recreational facilities, as well as the additional objectives identified in Section
4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum) and will not provide the same benefits as the Revised Project
(i.e. creation of jobs, increased revenue to the city, removal of blight, etc.).
For any one of these reasons, the City Council has determined the No Development
Alternative to be infeasible.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 37 of 48
B. Alternative 7.2 (No Project Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
The"No Project"Alternative involves development of the Project site only based upon the
existing entitlements. In 1991, the City and the Coastal Commission approved a conditional use permit
and coastal development permit to allow development of 102.1 acres of land on the Project site. The
entitlements would permit development of a resort hotel and conference facility on consisting of a 400-
room hotel facility, 50 casitas, a golf practice facility (including an 8,000 square-foot clubhouse, a driving
range and three practice holes), a 30,000 square-foot conference center, rehabilitation of the Galley West
Restaurant, a 25,000 square-foot spa/fitness center, 8 tennis courts, and a 30,000 square foot country-
market/cafe.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
The No Project Alternative will be generally similar to the Revised Project, however, it will
result in a more intensified use of the Project site. Overall, this Alternative will involve more intensive
development (i.e., a five-story building of a larger scale and mass and more concentrated development
on the Project site) than the Revised Project. Implementation of this Alternative will fulfill the majority of
the objectives identified in Section 4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum, on the Project site.
However, the increased intensity of development on the Project site could potentially increase impacts to
the federally protected El Segundo Blue butterfly (which was observed on the Project site during focused
surveys in June 2001) and the sensitive coastal bluffs on the Project site. The City Council has
determined Alternative 7.2 (the No Project Alternative)to be infeasible and not environmentally superior.
C. Alternative 7.3 (With Coast Guard Site Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
This alternative will add to the Initial Project the approximately 3.9-acre site on UPV that
was retained by the U.S. Coast Guard when the federal government transferred ownership of the bulk of
UPV to the City in 1975 (refer to Exhibit 7-1, With Coast Guard Site Alternative of the FEIR). Existing
uses at this site include asphalt walkways, remnants of a World War II military battery and undeveloped
lands. Implementation of this alternative will increase the size of the Initial Project's use of UPV from 64.9
to 68.8 acres (an increase of approximately six percent). The additional acreage will be used to (i) add
approximately 1.8 acres of native habitat to the preserved/restored/created habitat currently proposed; (ii)
expand the proposed City Hall Park Expansion by approximately 0.9-; and (iii) add approximately 1.2
acres to the golf design.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all the objectives identified in Section 3.4
(Project Objectives) of the FEIR and will have impacts similar to the Initial Project as originally proposed.
However, during the public review and comment period on the DEIR, the Coast Guard indicated that
inclusion of its site was not an option and directed the City to cease further consideration of this
alternative. Moreover, this alternative proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas
than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, City Council has determined Alternative 7.3 (the With
Coast Guard Site Alternative)to be infeasible.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 38 of 48
D. Alternative 7.4 (Relocate Practice Facility—Option A Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
This alternative includes the same components as the Initial Project but relocates the
Initial Project's proposed golf practice facility and driving range to the undeveloped land located adjacent
to the City's Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC), on the Lower Point Vicente Area (LPVA) (refer to
Exhibit 7-2, Relocate Practice Facility-Option "A"Alternative of the FEIR). A portion of the approximately
nine acres vacated by relocation of the golf practice facility will be used for the creation of new habitat,
creating a larger conservation zone in the northern portion of UPV.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all the objectives identified in Section 4.3
(Project Objectives) of the Addendum and will have impacts similar to the Initial Project as proposed.
This Alternative will increase the habitat preserve area provided, but in exchange, requires the use of
additional public lands. Alternative 7.4 does not offer any substantial economic or environmental
improvements over the Revised Project as proposed, nor is the City Council receptive to the use of public
lands for the proposed resort. In fact, implementation of Alternative 7.4 would result in greater
environmental impacts than either the Initial Project or the Revised Project and would require the use of
public land. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that Alternative 7.4 is infeasible.
E. Alternative 7.5 (Relocate Practice Facility—Option B Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
The Relocate Practice Facility—Option "B"Alternative includes the same components as
the Initial Project but relocates the Initial Project's proposed golf practice facility and driving range to the
eastern portion of the Project site, between the Entry Road and Hole No. 9. The golf practice facility will
displace Golf Holes Nos. 7 and 8 in the Project site. The displaced golf holes will replace the golf practice
facility in UPV(refer to Exhibit 7-3, Relocate Practice Facility- Option"B"Alternative of the FEIR).
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of Alternative 7.5 will fulfill most of the objectives identified in Section 4.3
(Project Objectives) of the Addendum, but will result in greater environmental impacts than those
associated with the Revised Project as now proposed. While Alternative 7.5, would increase the habitat
preserve area provided, allow for the development of future recreational areas for the general public,
reduce golf safety concerns associated with locating the golf practice facility and driving range adjacent to
the residences at Villa Capri, and minimize the need for safety netting to protect said residences, it would
also require the use of public land and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas
than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that Alternative 7.5
to be infeasible and hereby rejects this alternative.
F. Alternative 7.6 (No Resort Villas—Option `A'Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 7.6 will be similar to the Initial Project but will exclude the Resort Villas
proposed for development in the northeastern portion of the Project site adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes
Drive South (refer to Exhibit 7-4, No Resort Villas - Option A Alternative, of the FEIR). Hole No. 5 of the
golf course will be relocated from UPV to the area vacated by the Resort Villas on the Project site and
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 39 of 48
renumbered. The area vacated by Hole No. 5 on UPV will be used to create additional new habitat,
thereby resulting in a larger conservation zone in the southeastern portion of the UPV. All other
components of the Initial Project will be retained.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of this alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in
Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) Addendum, with one exception — the absence of the villas removes a
type of resort unit. When compared to the Revised Project, this alternative will have greater impacts on
sensitive habitat because of the inclusion of UPV and slightly greater overall impacts due to the increased
intensity of development. When compared to the Revised Project, Alternative 7.6 reduces the variety of
visitor-serving units that will be available, thereby impacting the clientele the resort attracts reducing the
potential revenue benefits to the City from transient occupancy tax, and creates greater environmental
impacts. Moreover, this alternative proposes the use of public land and proposed more intense uses of
environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council
hereby finds that Alternative 7.6 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the Revised Project
applicant and determines that the No Resort Villas—Option `A'Alternative to be infeasible
G. Alternative 7.7 (No Resort Villas—Option `B'Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 7.7 will also exclude the Resort Villas proposed for development in the
northeastern portion of the Project site but will retain all other components of the Initial Project. Under
this alternative, the area vacated by the Resort Villas will be replaced by Hole No. 8. The area vacated
by Hole No. 8 will be replaced by the golf practice facility. A portion of the area vacated by the golf
practice facility will be replaced by Hole No. 3. The portion of UPV vacated by the golf practice facility not
used for Hole No. 3 will be used for the creation of new habitat, creating a larger conservation zone in the
northwestern portion of UPV.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all of the objectives identified in Section 4.3
(Project Objectives) of the Addendum, with one exception — the absence of the villas removes a type of
resort unit. When compared to the Revised Project, this alternative increases the impacts to biological
resources and public safety because it involves the use of UPV. It also reduces the variety of visitor-
serving units that will be available and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas
than proposed by the Revised Project. . As with Alternative 7.6, Alternative 7.7 adversely impacts the
clientele the resort attracts and reduces the potential revenue benefits to the City from transient
occupancy tax without any corresponding decrease in environmental impacts. Accordingly, the City
Council hereby finds that Alternative 7.7 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the Revised
Project applicant and determines that the No Resort Villas—Option `B'Alternative to be infeasible.
H. Alternative 7.8 (Program of Utilization Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
The Program of Utilization Alternative concentrates solely on the development of UPV
with recreational uses. UPV was transferred to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in October 1979 by the
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service"for public park and public recreation area
purposes". The Deed established a Program of Utilization (POU) for the transferred property. The POU
provides for the development of both active and passive recreational uses on the property. The
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 40 of 48
recreational uses identified in the POU are detailed in Table 5.7-1 (Program of Utilization) of the FEIR,
and illustrated in Exhibit 5.7-4 (Program of Utilization Conceptual Plan) of the FEIR. None of the
components associated with the Revised Project or the Initial Project will be developed.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
This alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPV only, as the Marineland site is not
subject to the POU. Thus, none of the impacts associated with development of the Initial Project site will
occur with this alternative. However, this alternative results in a more intensive development of UPV than
does the Revised Project and would not preclude concurrent development of the Revised Project. The
increased use of UPV for active recreational activities is less compatible with the preservation of sensitive
habitat areas and wildlife than the either the Initial Project's proposed golf activities or the Revised
Project's complete elimination of UPV and will result in greater impacts on UPV than associated with the
Revised Project. Moreover, implementation of this alternative will not fulfill the basic Project objectives
identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum. Accordingly, the City Council has
determined Alternative 7.8 (the Program of Utilization Alternative)to be infeasible and not environmentally
superior.
I. Alternative 7.9 (Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
The Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative was presented by the Save Our
Coastline II (SOC II) citizens group. This Alternative focuses only on the development of UPV, utilizing
the areas by the City Hall for active recreation and gradually merging into more passive recreation areas
near the bluffs (refer to Exhibit 7-6, Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative, of the FEIR). The
majority of the land will be preserved or restored as native habitat with the participation of community
groups. A series of trails will be designed to provide access to areas for views of the coastline and ocean
or for more social activities. Landscaping to enhance the City Hall and conceal the maintenance yard will
be provided. This Alternative will not include any of the components associated with either the Initial
Project or the Revised Project.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
Overall, this Alternative results in a less intensive development of UPV than does the
Initial Project. This Alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPV only, and none of the impacts
associated with development of the Initial Project site will occur with this Alternative. However,
implementation of this Alternative would not foreclose development of the Revised Project on the
Marineland site. Further, implementation of this Alternative will fulfill only one of the objectives identified
in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum —to provide additional public trails and recreational
facilities on the publicly owned UPV. This alternative will not provide as many jobs or revenue to the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes, nor will this alternative provide the City with a high caliber resort capable of
attracting visitors and business to the City. Finally, implementation of this alternative will leave the Project
site underdeveloped and dilapidated. Accordingly, for any of the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds
Alternative 7.9 to be infeasible.
J. Alternative 7.10 (Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing Entitlement Alternative)
1. Summary of Alternative
The "Combined Existing Entitlement and Point Vicente Park Enhancement" Alternative
will involve development of the Project site based upon the existing entitlements (see discussion under
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page41 of 48
Alternative 7.2 — No Project Alternative) in conjunction with development of UPV based upon the Save
Our Coastline II (SOC II) citizens group proposal (see discussion of Alternative 7.9 — Point Vicente Park
Enhancement Alternative).
2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative
This Alternative has been developed in response to the possibility that implementation of
Alternatives 7.2 and 7.9 are not mutually exclusive. Implementation of this Alternative will fulfill the
majority of the objectives identified in Section 4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum, on the Project
site. Overall, this Alternative will involve more intensive development of the Project site (i.e., a five-story
building of a larger scale and mass and more concentrated development on the Project site), contained in
a smaller geographical area, than the Revised Project. Coupled with the anticipated increased use of
UPV, Alternative 7.10 will not avoid the impacts associated with the Revised Project. Additionally, this
alternative does not provide the same level of benefits to the City as the Revised Project. The existing
entitlements do not provide for the same high caliber resort as proposed by the Revised Project. Thus,
this Alternative is expected to create fewer jobs, less revenue, and less public trails and amenities.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that Alternative 7.10 does not best serve the needs of either the City or
the Project applicant and determines that Alternative 7.10 is infeasible.
K. The Initial Project
1. Summary of Alternative
The Initial Project is described in detail in Section 3.0 of the FEIR.
2. Reasons For Rejecting Initial Project
Implementation of the Initial Project will fulfill most of the objectives identified in Section
4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum, but will result in greater environmental impacts than those
associated with the Revised Project as now proposed. While the Initial Project would increase the habitat
preserve area provided, allow for the development of future recreational areas for the general public,
reduce golf safety concerns associated with locating the golf practice facility and driving range adjacent to
the residences at Villa Capri, and minimize the need for safety netting to protect said residences, it would
also require the use of public land and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas
than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that the Initial
Project is not environmentally superior, is infeasible and hereby rejects this alternative.
L. The Revised Project
1. Summary of Alternative
The Revised Project is described in detail in the Introduction of this Exhibit A and in
Section 4.0 of the Addendum.
2. Reasons For Accepting Revised Project
The Revised Project, as proposed, calls for the location of a resort hotel/conference center, a golf
practice facility and related amenities on the former Marineland site (the Project site). The Revised
Project has been revised to eliminate the use of UPV and proposes a less intense use of the Project site
than the existing entitlements (Alternative 7.2). The Revised Project, as revised, eliminates all of the
adverse environmental impacts associated with the Initial Project's use of UPV and preserves both the
natural habitat on UPV and the peace and quiet enjoyment of the residents at Villa Capri and the
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 42 of 48
members of St. Paul's Church. Additionally, the project design features include a conservation district
which will preserve and enhance the existing coastal bluff scrub habitat on the Project site, thereby
protecting the federally-endangered El Segundo Blue butterfly, while providing the City with a world-class,
visitor serving use to attract visitors and business to the area. Moreover, the Revised Project represents
the combination of features that best achieves the Project objectives while minimizing environmental
impacts. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in the FEIR, the Addendum, and this Resolution, the
City Council accepts the Revised Project, as proposed, as the preferred design.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 43 of 48
EXHIBIT B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant that to the California Environmental Quality Act2 ("CEQA") and the State CEQA
Guidelines3 (the "Guidelines"), the City Council hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations in connection with the Revised Project that is described in detail in the Introduction of
Exhibit A and in Section 4.0 of the Addendum.
CEQA Requirements
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, and
technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse risks when determining
whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects,
those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a)). Where the decision of
the local agency to approve a project will result in unavoidable significant effects which are identified in
the FEIR but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, CEQA further requires the local agency to
provide written findings describing the specific reasons to support the agency's action based on the FEIR
and/or other information in the record. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR
or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b)). This Statement of
Overriding Considerations provides those reasons with respect to the Revised Project.
Project Impacts
As stated in Section VI of Exhibit A, the Revised Project will result in significant unavoidable
impacts relative to cumulative noise from Project-related traffic and regional mobile air quality emissions.
Project Benefits
The City Council finds that the following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of
the Revised Project:
❑ Establishment of an attractive resort facility that is architecturally and visually
compatible with the surrounding landscape, that is consistent with the
commercial recreational zoning designation, and that will provide the City's major
visitor-serving uses within the coastal zone and attract new visitors and
businesses to the area and provide economic benefits to the City.
❑ Removal of local blight and the development of currently underutilized land on
privately owned property(former Marineland site).
2 Cal. Pub. Res. Code§21000 et seq.
3 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 44 of 48
❑ Creation of jobs and increased revenue to the City from sales tax and transient
occupancy tax.
❑ Development of a variety of public open space, both natural and active areas,
including approximately 3.0 miles of public trails, 8.0 acres of general public
recreation areas and scenic overlooks (including a 6.7-acre bluff-face habitat
reserve, 1.2 acres of El Segundo Blue butterfly habitat enhancement areas, and
2.1 acres of native vegetation in open space areas of conserved and enhanced
natural habitat)within the project at no cost to the City.
❑ Expansion of public coastal access, including:
• 100 off-street parking spaces for the general public, in addition to those
provided to resort visitors and guests;
• Creation of a 2.2-acre public park and coastal access viewpoint;
• Vertical access from Palos Verdes Drive South, through the resort, safely
and conveniently down to the shoreline in two locations;
• Continuous horizontal access comprised of a bluff-top trail and scenic
overlooks along the full length of coastal bluff; and
• Where feasible, trails and facilities accessible to disabled persons.
❑ Implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails in all areas adjacent to the
resort, including connections to existing trails.
❑ Protection of sensitive coastal bluffs on the Long Point Site, and limitations on
activities causing the degradation of marine resources on or adjacent to the
Revised Project, that may occur with increased public access and use of the
area.
❑ Increased utilization of privately owned land in the City's coastal zone as the
result of construction of public trails and recreational facilities.
❑ Protection of the ecological values of the off-shore marine areas through creation
of a conservation area adjacent to the Fisherman's Access Area that will include
protection of native vegetation, including a transitional planting area (ecotone)
between the bluff edge and the adjacent public park and provisions to direct
drainage and surface runoff away from the bluff.
❑ Improved water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff
Management/Water Quality Management Plan.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts identified above (traffic-related noise and regional mobile air pollutant emissions) in deciding
whether to approve the Revised Project. Although substantial evidence demonstrates that the
unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures
incorporated into the Revised Project, the City Council recognizes that approval of the Revised Project
will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 45 of 48
After balancing the Revised Project's environmental risks with its benefits described above, the
City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth
above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that the specific economic, social, legal,
environmental, technological or other benefits of the Revised Project, as set forth above, outweigh the
significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council specifically finds that any one and
each of the foregoing benefits constitutes a significant consideration sufficient to approve the Revised
Project independent of any other benefits, will warrant approval of the Revised Project notwithstanding
the unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project identified in the FEIR and the Addendum. Therefore, the
City Council hereby adopts each of the foregoing benefits as an overriding consideration with respect to
each of the significant unavoidable impacts individually. Each overriding consideration is severable from
any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any
reason. The City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Revised
Project.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 46 of 48
EXHIBIT C
"Mitigation Monitoring Program"
The Mitigation Monitoring Program that is attached as an exhibit to Resolution 2002-34, which certified
the FEIR, and is discussed in the Addendum, are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit
C to this resolution.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 47 of 48
EXHIBIT D
"Mitigation Measures"
The Mitigation Measures that are attached as an exhibit to Resolution 2002-34, which certified
the FEIR, and are discussed in the Addendum is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit
D to this resolution.
Resolution No. 2002-70
Page 48 of 48