CC RES 2014-073 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) IN CONNECTION WITH
ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE END OF THE
CURRENT VISUAL CORRIDORS SECTION (PAGE C-12 OF THE
LCP) OF THE CORRIDOR ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL
COASTAL PLAN (COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) TO ALLOW FLAG
POLES UP TO 70-FEET IN HEIGHT THAT MEET SPECIFIC
STANDARDS IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE.
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2014, the California Coastal Commission
conducted a meeting to consider a number of items related to Trump National that were
previously approved by the City Council but have been awaiting Coastal Commission
approval, including the existing 70-foot high flag pole that was approved by the City
Council in 2007; and,
WHEREAS, at the July 9, 2014 meeting, the Coastal Commission did not
approve the flag pole because the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) does not address
flag poles in the Coastal Zone, and the Coastal Commission suggested that the City
make a specific amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles in the Coastal Zone;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 29, 2014, the City Council initiated the process to
amend the City's LCP to specifically address the height of flag poles in the City's
Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission, at a duly
noticed public hearing, reviewed the proposed text amendment to the LCP and
recommended, via minute order, that the City Council approve the proposed text with
one minor modification replacing "American flag" with the text "flag of the United States
of America;" and,
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, a
public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to property owners within
and adjacent to the City's Coastal Zone, within a 500-foot radius of the project site and
to interested parties including list-serve subscribers, inviting public comments on the
proposed text amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles, exceeding 16-feet in
height, within the Coastal Zone; and,
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to the LCP;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the
proposed text amendment to the end of the current Visual Corridors Section (page C-12
of the LCP) of the Corridor Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific
Plan) to allow flag poles up to 70-feet in height that meet specific parameters in the
City's Coastal Zone in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and determined that the proposed text amendment to the LCP will require a
Negative Declaration, which determined that the proposed amendment will not create
any significant or potential impacts to the surrounding environment because the
proposed parameters only allow flag poles to be erected on property of at least 120
acres in size that either is owned by or subject to an easement dedicated to the City that
provides public amenities, such as public parking, restrooms, and bench seating. Thus,
these parameters will prevent such flag poles from proliferating the City's Coastline and
creating adverse impacts to the environment, particularly views from the public roadway
and public trails. In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
City Council hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and certifies that the Negative Declaration
was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto and approves the
Negative Declaration.
Section 2. Visual Corridors section (page C-12 of the LCP) of the Corridor
Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) is hereby amended by
adding a new section titled "Flag Poles" to read as follows:
Flag Poles
Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from
adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured
from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no
significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles
in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet,
as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met:
• One flag pole exceeding 16-feet in height is permitted for any parcel of 120 acres
or more, provided that, within the 120-plus-acre legal parcel, the land on which
the flag pole is erected is owned by or dedicated to the City so as to allow for
public access and to allow only the flag of the United States of America to be
flown on said flag pole;
• The flag pole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual
corridors section of the LCP;
• An approved Variance Permit to exceed the City's 16-foot height limit must be
obtained from the City; and,
• The property where the flagpole is located must provide a minimum of 20 free
public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench
seating.
Section 3. The City Council finds that the public and affected agencies have
had ample opportunity to participate in the LCP amendment process because as part of
the public hearing process, the following public notice was circulated, inviting
Resolution No. 2014-73
Page 2 of 4
participation and comments, for both the October 14, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting and the November 4, 2014 City Council meeting:
• Mailed to approximately 1,500 residents within the City's entire coastal zone and
properties adjacent to the Coastal Zone;
• Mailed to interested parties on file with the City;
• Mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Trump National Project
site;
• Published, at a 1/8 page, in the Peninsula News at least 15-days before the
scheduled hearings;
• Posted on the City's website;
• Emailed to list-serve subscribers for both the Trump Project (964 subscribers)
and Breaking News (2,049 subscribers);
• Emailed to the Coastal Commission's Long Beach office;
• Posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk's office and sent to the State Office of
Planning and Records pursuant to CEQA; and,
• Circulated to list of local, state and federal agencies.
In addition to the above, the public notice citing the proposed amended language along
with the Negative Declaration (pursuant to CEQA) was circulated on September 22,
2014; accordingly, more than 6 weeks notice was provided to the public.
Section 4. The City Council finds that the LCP amendment conforms to the
requirements of the Coastal Act in that the proposed text amendment to the LCP to
allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height within the City's Coastal District is drafted in
a manner that is consistent to the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act because
such flag poles will be considered to be a visitor-serving public amenity. This is
achieved through parameters that require such a flag pole to be located on land owned
or deeded to the City and that certain amenities will be available to accommodate public
access, such as free public parking, restrooms, seating areas, and drinking fountains.
Moreover, the parameters require that only the flag of the United States of America will
be flown on such flag poles. These public amenities are intended to ensure access by
the public is available and that public amenities are also available for the public's
enjoyment while viewing the flag of the United States of America consistent with the
intent of the Coastal Act.
Section 5. The City Council finds that the proposed amendment to the LCP is
consistent with the provisions of the City's LCP and the City's General Plan, Land Use
Plan, and Zoning Map because consideration of coastal resources, hazard areas,
coastal access and land use was factored in the parameters established under the
Visual Corridors Element. For example, a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the City's
Coastal Zone will require approval of a Variance, a discretionary planning entitlement,
which assesses potential impacts, particularly view impacts from the public right-of-way
and public trails, as required by the View Corridors Element of the LCP. Moreover, a
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) will be required to be processed, and it is through
the CDP process that certain findings will need to be made to ensure that the proposal
conforms to the City's coastal policies, such as meeting the height requirements set
Resolution No. 2014-73
Page 3 of 4
forth in the Visual Corridors Element of the LCP, as well as protecting visual resources
from public streets and trails.
Furthermore, the proposed text amendment to the LCP would not result in a significant
alteration of the City's coastline, nor would it introduce a pattern of development that will
adversely impact the City's coastline because according to the City's Zoning Code and
Zoning Map, such flag poles can only be erected on property of at least 120 acres in
size that either is owned by or subject to an easement dedicated to the City. In fact, as
currently proposed, flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height can only be permitted in the
City on a portion of the Trump National property that is conditioned to be deeded to the
City for public access as a Veterans Memorial because all remaining parcels throughout
the City's coastal zone are less than 120 acres in area.
Section 6. The City Council finds that a procedure has been established to
ensure adequate notice is provided to interested persons and agencies of impending
development proposed after certification of the LCP amendment because one of the
parameters to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet
in height, within the City's Coastal Zone is with the approval of a Variance. The
Variance is a discretionary application considered at a public hearing that is duly noticed
to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and is published in
the local newspaper. Additionally, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is also
required for such a flag pole and through the noticing process, interested parties,
including the Coastal Commission, will receive notification of a pending application for a
flag pole that is proposed to exceed 16-feet.
Section 7. The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought as governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November 2014.
um.w
Mayor
Attest:
gad,4_ i' /
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2014-73 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on Novemb- _4, 2014.
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2014-73
Page 4 of 4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
Planning Case No. Z0N2014-00329) -
Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment
2. Lead agency name/address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
3. Contact person and phone number:
Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5228
4. Project location:
City's Coastal Zone
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
County of Los Angeles
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
6. General plan designation:
Varies
7. Coastal plan designation:
Yes
8. Zoning:
Varies
9. Description of project:
The proposed project is a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment (CSPA) to add the following
underlined text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 or the LCP) of
the Corridors Element:
FjQPoles
Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from
adacent *rade with no discretiona review or u• to 16-feet in hei•ht as measured from
adsacent •rade with a Site Plan Review as•lication to ensure there is no si•nificant view
impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone
•
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
1 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
ma exceed 16-feet in hei•ht us to a maximum hei•ht of 70-feet as measured from
ad acent rade provided theL _ 2Nin ammeters. are met:
• One flag pole over 16-feet per property The flagpole shall be consistent with the
heis ht restrictions identified in the visual corridors of the Coastal S secific Plan
• The flas sole must be located on sr°sert owned or dedicated to the Cit that allows
for public access to the flagpole,
• The flagpole must be located in an area where there is no significant impairment of a
view from a major arterial street in the City or from a single family residence in the
City.
• The property underlying and surrounding the flag pole must be a minimum of 120-
acres in total area and must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces,
public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating: and
• An approved Variance Permit(to exceed the 16-foot height limit) must be obtained
from the City.
•
10. Description of project site(as it currently exists):
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total area of
about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastline. Elevations range from sea level to
1,480 feet. The population of the City is over 42,000 and the character of the community is
primarily residential with about 15,000 single-family residences, 40 multi-family properties
and 155 commercial/institutional parcels. The City is largely built out, with most
development activity in the City's single-family neighborhoods consisting of the expansion
and/or redevelopment of existing residences, with the occasional development of new
residences on existing vacant lots. There are few large contiguous parcels remaining to be
subdivided for single-family residential use.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting:.
.. ....._..,...•_ _ ..••••••••••••.6—aetuan••=mna:::=L:,....,,,,nsmanex.osas • •,—..:•,••••• •••>.•••sg , ••.4,:a.....•x..4.4....•mr.:4—rr•— •••.•••sme.....144..•••••3:.•••”...................n.11.1....111..2.)...,,,••,i ......,•••••...•.
Land Uses Significant Features
...... ...._...•....._,,,,,s>,2,,, ,,,,? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,•.•.•••,.k.....t222r...X2.......,..,V.,r..=ZD=n=k=.ftl:,SSMiak....V.42.4 ta,,,.......1.1... .,...,W .•......
On-site and
.,......
......_
adjacent to Existing residential, commercial, insti-
the City's tutional and open space land uses in the See description above.
Coastal City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Zone
NortheaThe cities of Lomita and Los Angeles serve
st,
East& The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles as gateways to the Port of Los Angeles and
(Harbor City, Wilmington and San the harbor area. They are developed with a
Southeast
Pedro) mixture of single- and multi-family
of the City
..
Lof
the City residential,commercial and industrial uses.
South &
The Pacific Ocean borders the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes for roughly 7.5 miles,
Southwest Pacific Ocean
and includes tidepools and sandy beaches.
There is a State marine reserve at Abalone
Page 2
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
2 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Land Uses Significant Features
Cove.
The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the
oldest city on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Northwest The City Palos Verdes Estates It is primarily developed with single-family
of the City of residential neighborhoods,with commercial
and multi-family development at Lunada
Bay and Malaga Cove.
The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and ..
Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the
1950s, and both emphasize a semi-rural
North of the The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and equestrian lifestyle. The major commercial
City Rolling Hills center on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is
located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
The City of Rolling Hills is gated and
contains no commercial development.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
California Coastal Commission
Page 3
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
3 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicted by the checklist on the following
pages.
[ j Aesthetics {-7,..] Agricultural Resources n Air Quality
_ „..... .. .._,
i----I B• iological Resources pi C• ultural Resources C .......] Geology/Soils
..„.
Li G• reenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards&Hazardous Materials r-i Hydrology/Water Quality
EJ
,•“.......•... _......„....
Ell L• and Use/Planning Ej M• ineral Resources L 1 Noise
---
_.
Population/Housing_
Elr 1 Public Services [ i
Recreation
[ J Transportation/Traffic E- j Utilities/Service Systems Li Mandatory Findings of Significance
_
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[Li I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
i____J I find that,although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Fl I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Li I find that the proposed project MAY have a'potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless
mitigated*impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
J I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects, (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
propos-• 4 4s.- •°thing further is required.
-,‘
Signature: Date: Sestember 22,2014
Printed Name: Ara Mihranian,Desuty Director For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Page 4
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
4 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historical buildings,
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its X
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare, which would adversely affect X
day or nighttime views in the area?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone subject to the parameters cited in the"Project Description"
section of this assessment. One of the parameters states that a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the Coastal Zone shall
be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the View Corridor section of the LCP(Figure 26). This is to ensure
that a flag pole would not encroach into views of prominent features,such as Catalina Island,Point Fermin,or Point
Vicente Light House. Additionally,another parameter requires a flag pole proposed to exceed the 16-foot height limit
receive approval of a Variance application by the City which is a discretionary application that is considered at a duly
noticed public hearing. It is during this discretionary(Variance) process, that potential impacts associated with the
installation of a proposed flag pole that exceeds 16-feet in height would be assessed, including but not limited to,
aesthetic and view impacts such as protecting scenic resources and scenic vistas.
Therefore,since the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP does not approve"by right"the installation of flag poles
up to 70-feet in height,any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of project
implementation will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the
discretionary permitting process described herein. As such. there will be no significant aesthetic impacts aesthetic
resources as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment.
2.AGRICULTURE&FOREST RESOURCES', Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency,to non-agricultural use?
1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,including timberland,
are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project:and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board
Page 5
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
5 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)). timberland (as
X
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest X
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
X
Farmland, to a non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Comments: a-e)Although properties in the City's Coastal Zone are not specifically zoned or otherwise officially
designated for agricultural use,noncommercial agricultural uses of one-acre or less are permitted by right and through a
conditional use permit when greater than one-acre on all property zoned Residential-Single-Family,1 DU/acre(RS-1).
Since the LCP amendment involves allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up, to a maximum of 70-feet in
height,no substantial effect upon agricultural resources is expected to result from the proposed LCP Amendment. As
such,there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to agricultural resource
issues.
, .
3. AIR QUALITY2. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
X
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or X
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
X
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
X
substantial pollutant concentrations?
2 Where available,the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Page 6
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
6 of 18
Environmental Checklist.
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
l i
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people?
Comments:
a--e)The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as
the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP)to address federal and state air quality standards. Although high level of air quality is
prevalent in Rancho Palos Verdes since the ocean is the primary air recharge area region,allowing flag poles to exceed
16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, in the Coastal Zone will not result in emission discharge.
Therefore,there will be no air quality impacts resulting from the LCP Amendment.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications,on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, X
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans. policies,or regulations, X
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands,as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, X
vernal pool,coastal,etc.),through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption.
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with X
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local polices or
ordinances protecting biological X
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
Page 7
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
7 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
state habitat conservation plan?
Comments: a-e) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
(NCCP)which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S.Department of
Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for
compatible and appropriate local uses. There are various types of vegetation communities identified in the City's NCCP
and the General Plan. Said vegetation communities include,but are not limited to,Coastal Sage Scrub,Chaparral and
Grasslands. It should be noted that any applicable flag poles will be located on developed properties outside of
sensitive biological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact to any species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural
community, wetlands, biological resources or to any adopted habitat conservation plan as a result of the LCP
Amendment.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource X
as defined in§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological X
resource pursuant to§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or X
unique geologic feature?
d) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Comments: a-d) The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet
in height,up to a maximum of 70-feet in height,subject to specific parameters to minimize impacts to the surrounding
environment. The proposed project would not result in significant physical modifications or alterations of land(aside for
the foundation to support a flag pole)that could impact cultural resources. Any physical modifications or alterations will
be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an
existing easement. These properties already are developed. Accordingly, there will be no impacts upon cultural
resources.
6. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State X
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?3
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, in- X
3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Page 8
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
8 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
cluding liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and X
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-6 of the Uniform X
Building Code (1994), thus creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal X
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
Comments: a-e) The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height,up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to
properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing
easement. These properties already are developed. In addition,the proposed project does not include any physical
modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures;thus,there are no impacts to geology and soils conditions.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may X
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan,policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of X
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Comments: a-b) The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height,up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone, The project will not result in any emissions of greenhouse
gasses since the proposed LCP Amendment is to allow the placement of flag poles on developed properties subject to
certain parameters to minimize impacts to the City's Coastal Zone.As such,there will be no greenhouse gas emissions
as a result of the Code Amendment.
8. HAZARDS&HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine X
transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public X
or the environment through reasonably - - -
Page 9
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
9 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
fcoornedsietieoanbsle invoulpvsinegt the
end releaseacco
accident
hazardous materials into the environ-
ment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or,where such a plan has
not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip,would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires,including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone.
a-d)All applicable site-specific environmental analysis would be reviewed prior to any construction of a flag pole to
identify potential adverse impacts or conditions. If hazardous material is found,appropriate remediation and mitigation
methods would be incorporated to prevent creating any hazardous condition for the public and the environment during
the discretionary permitting process. Therefore,there is no impact caused by the proposed amendment.
e,f)There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore,there is no
impact caused by the proposed amendment.
g-h)Since the project does not involve any development,but rather an amendment to the text of the LCP to allow flag
poles to exceed 16-feet in height,up to a maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone,the project,as
its proposed,will not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Further,thepro'ect will not
Page 10
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
10 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
exposureresult in the • people or s any adverse risks. Therefore,there would be no impact caused by
proposed . •
Violate9. HYDROLOGYANATER QUALITY. Would the project:
quality standardsor
wastewater discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or •
groundwater recharo- such that there
nearbywould be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing
s • • s•to. level which
would notres o land uses or
planned uses forpermits
been •
existingc) Substantially alter the drainage
pattern of area, • •
through the alterationof • of
stream or river, in a manner which
• rresult in substantial •
siltation • or s
• Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of or -a including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or or substantially
ratethe or amount • runoff
on-
or • w
e) Create or contribute runoff water
would exceed the capacity of existing or
plannedstormwater drainage
or provide substantial additional sources
• polluted rune?
quality?Otherwise substantially degrade wr
ter
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X
Insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death X
involving flooding,including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Page 11
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
11 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
X
mudflow?
Comments: The proposed project is LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height,up to a maximum
of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties
in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement.
These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or
alterations of the existing land or structures that will impact hydrology or water quality. As such,there will be no impacts
with respect to hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment.
10.LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established corn- X
munity?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan,policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general
X
plan,specific plan,local coastal plan,or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Corn- X
munity Conservation Plan?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone.Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to
properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing
easement. These properties already are developed.Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or
structures as a result of the project will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA as
part of the discretionary permitting process. Therefore, there will be no significant land use or planning impacts
associated with the LCP Amendment,
'11.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be X
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local X
general plan,specific plan,or other land
use plan?
Comments: According to the Natural Environment Element of the General Plan,areas in Rancho Palos Verdes were
quarried for basalt,diatomaceous earth,and Palos Verdes stone between 1948 and 1958. However,the proposed
project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up to a maximum of 70-feet in height within
the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that
either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already
are developed. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to mineral resources associated with the LCP
Amendment.
Page 12
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
12 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
12.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or X
noise ordinance, or applicable stan-
dards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or X
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project X
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the X
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or,where such a plan has
not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or a public use airport, X
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip,would the project expose X
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to
properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing
easement. These properties already are developed. As such,there will be no significant noise impacts associated with
the proposed Code Amendment.
13. POPULATION/HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes or businesses)or indirectly(e.g., X
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the X
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction X
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Page 13
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
13 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to
properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing
easement. These properties already are developed.Since the proposed project would enact revisions to the City's LCP
to allow the installation of flag poles on limited properties within the Coastal Zone, it will not have any impacts to
population or housing, and no existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project.
Therefore,the proposed LCP Amendment will have no impact upon population and housing.
14.PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental im-
pacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project will not result in the need for added
protection services or the need for schools, added parks, or other public facilities. As such, there will be no
environmental impacts resulting from the proposed LCP Amendment with respect to public services issues.
15.RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, X
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments: The proposed projectis a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone subject to certain parameters,such as requiring flag poles
that exceed 16-feet in height to be located on property owned by the City or dedicated to the City for public access,and
that the property accommodate certain facilities(benches,drinking fountains,public parking,etc.). Such flag poles,if
allowed per the LCP Amendment,would not significantly increase the use of a park or park facilities because such
improvements would likely already be in place or proposed to be installed to accommodate park visitors.Moreover,the
location of a flag pole in the Coastal Zone will not result in the physical deterioration of park grounds or facilities. As
Page 14
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
14 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
such,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
16.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit X
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other X
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic x
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g. sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incom-
patible uses(e.g.farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency ac- X
cess?
f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or X
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not include any physical
modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures and thus no traffic generation will result from the proposed
LCP Amendment. As such,the proposed project would have no impacts related to traffic and transportation.
17.UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment require-
ments of the applicable.Regional Water X
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of X
new water or wastewater treatment
Page 15
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
15 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
•
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing X
entitlements and resources,or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it X
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statures and regulations related to solid X
waste?
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone and will not result in requiring added utilities to a site that
would accommodate such a flag pole because such a property will already have or proposed to have utilities that can
accommodate drinking fountains,restrooms,etc.for park visitors. Thus,there will be no increase in demand for utilities
or service systems as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. As such,the proposed project would have no utilities
or service systems impacts.
Page 16
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
16 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No. Z0N2014-00329 (LCP Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
18.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a X
plant or animal community,reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Comments: As described above,the proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in
height,up to a maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations
will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has
an existing easement. These properties already are developed.The proposed project does not include any physical
modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures other than the construction of flagpoles. As such, the
amendment to the City's CSP will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species;cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal. The proposed LCP Amendment will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or pre-history. Therefore,the effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be
less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively X
considerable?4
Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a
maximum of 70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to
properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing
easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications
or alterations of the existing land or structures, and the approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any
entitlement to develop. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the
project objectives will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the
permitting process. As such, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial X
adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
Comments: The proposed project LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height,up to a maximum of
70-feet in height,within the City's Coastal Zone. As discussed above,all of the potentially environmental effects of the
proposed project are expected to have no impacts. As such,the project does not have environmental effects that would
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly.
19.EARLIER ANALYSES.
4 "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects.and the effects of probable future projects.
Page 17
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
17 of 18
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2014-00329 (LCF' Amendment)
September 22, 2014
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No
Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c) (3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
Comments: Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Comments: Not applicable,
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Comments: Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,321094,
21151;Suncistrorn v. County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App. 3d 296(1988);Leonofff v.Monterey Board of Supervisors,
222 Cal.App.3d 1337(1990).
20.SOURCE REFERENCES.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan,and associated Environmental
Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes,California as amended through August 2001.
2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook,Diamond Bar,California:
November 1993(as amended).
4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of
California,Division of Mines and Geology
5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map.
6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes,
California as adopted August 2004
7 Institute of Traffic Engineers,ITE Trip...Generation 7th Edition.
8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System(GIS)database and maps
9 State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,VeuijiatiEirellazard Severity Zone
Maps. Sacramento,California,accessed via website,March 2008
10 —Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of
the State of California and the California Geological Survey
11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List(i.e.,'Cortese List")
13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element
Page 18
Resolution No.2014-73
Exhibit A
18 of 18