Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC RES 2001-037
P.C. RESOLUTION NO 2001- 37 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 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 (400 guest rooms and 50-3 keyed casitas) 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 "Project"), and, WHEREAS, a portion of the Project calls for the use of 64 9 acres of publicly -owned land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard and commonly known as Upper Point Vicente Area ("UPVA") while the remainder will be located on 103 5 acres of privately -owned land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and formerly occupied by Marineland (the "Resort Hotel Area" or "RHA"), and, WHEREAS, the City analyzed the 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 Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines, and, WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services, including aesthetics, air quality, biological PC Resolution No. 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 1 of 7 0 0 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 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 Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to the 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 Protect 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, 20001, 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, PC Resolution No 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 2 of 7 2001, and July 24, 2001, at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the 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 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 interest 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"), and, 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 Project, the DEIR, and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and, WHEREAS, during the Second Public Review and Comment Period, the City received several hours of testimony and 15 written and oral comments regarding the 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 TEIR"), and, P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 3 of 7 i 0 WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the FEIR NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR") will be comprised of five volumes: Volume 1 is the FEIR dated July 9, 2001, Volume 2 contains the Technical Appendices in support of the FEIR, Volume 3 contains the Responses to Comments on the DEIR; Volume 4 is the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and Volume 5 contains the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis. The Planning Commission reviewed the FEIR at a duly noticed public meeting on October 9, 2001 (the "Hearing") at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the Hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. Based upon the record of the Hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the completeness and adequacy of the FEIR and to recommend approval of the general plan amendment and the discretionary permits for the Project to the City Council. Section 2 The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and upon other substantial evidence which 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 on 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 3. The Planning Commission finds that pursuant to Guideline Sections 15087(e) and 15105, agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the FEIR. Section 4 The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the FEIR prior to deciding whether to recommend approval of the Project pursuant to Guidelines Section 15084(e). The Planning Commission hereby finds that the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and the Planning Commission The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in the responses to comments received after recirculation of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and in the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Hearing, does not constitute new information requiring a second recirculation of the FEIR under CEQA None of the information presented to the Planning Commission after recirculation of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation P C Resolution No 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 4 of 7 0 measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement All feasible mitigation measures suggested in the FEIR have been considered and the Planning Commission will recommend that such mitigation measures be adopted by the City Council and incorporated into the Project as a condition of Project approval No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified Section 5 The Planning Commission finds that the comments regarding the DEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and the responses to those comments have been received by the City, that the Planning Commission has received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR, and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to making its recommendation to the City Council on the Project The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15090. Section 6 Based upon the Initial Study and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the 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 Planning Commission determined that the 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 FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the 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 FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the 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. The construction -related significant impacts to Air Quality arising from 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 P C. Resolution No. 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 5 of 7 0 0 impacts to Noise are attributable to Project -related traffic Although the Project's individual contribution will not be significant, the existing ambient noise levels exceed State standards, when Project -generated and cumulative vehicular noise are combine, 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 Project which 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 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. Section 9 Based upon the FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the 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 the Revised Biological Resources Analysis. Section 10. Section 7.0 of the FEIR describes, and the Planning Commission has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the 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 Project Alternatives analyzed in the FEIR, the Planning Commission hereby makes the findings set forth in Exhibit A. The Planning Commission expressly finds that, with the exception of Alternative 7.5, each of the alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Project or will do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project, as proposed, also results in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts 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 Planning Commission finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Project, as proposed, and each of the Project alternatives identified in the FEIR except Alternative 7.5, and each is hereby rejected The Planning Commission finds that Alternative 7.5, with the incorporation of modifications recommended by the Planning Commission, represents the preferred Project design and hereby recommends Alternative 7.5, as modified, to the City Council The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission ultimate recommendation on the Project P C Resolution No 2001.37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 6 of 7 0 0 Section 11 For the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as "significant and unavoidable," namely in the impact areas of Air Quality and Noise, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and impose each mitigation measure as a condition of Project approval. Finally, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" which is presented in Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this Stn day of October, 2001, by the following vote AYES Chairman Lyon, Commissioners Cartwright, Paulson, and Vannorsdall, NOES: Vice -Chairman Clark, Commissioners Long and Mueller UAV0.1 6-11: 101 k 111301 LN = 0 ABSENT: None Attest At 0 4�&n FRANK LYM, Chairman (ijre0 OEL WAS L c ct rofPlann g, uilding and Code Enforcement S t r (Ji arytothe I ping Commission P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 Environmental Impact Report October 9, 2001 Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT 'A' Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Of Findings Article 1. 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 which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR b Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency C Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR' Pursuant the requirements of CEQA, the Planning Commission 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 550 -room resort hotel and conference center, 32 privately -owned villas, and a 9 -hole golf course on 168 4 acres of land generally located at 30490 Hawthorne Boulevard and 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South to be known as the "Long Point Resort" (the "Project"). The Project is more fully described below and in Section 3.0 of the FEIR. 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 Response to Comments on the DEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, the Response to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and staff and consultants' reports prepared and presented to the Planning Commission Article II. Project Description. The Project encompasses approximately 168 4 acres in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The Project site generally involves two geographical 1 Cal. Public Resources Code §21081; 14 Cal Code Regs. §15091 Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 1 of 52 • 0 areas including 103 5 acres of privately -owned land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and referred to herein as the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) and 64 9 acres of publicly -owned land immediately adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall commonly known as Upper Point Vicente (UPVA) The Project is intended to be a multi -faceted destination resort. The cornerstone of the Project is a full-service hotel and conference center The Project includes a resort hotel with 400 rooms in the main building and bungalows, 50 resort casita units (which will be multiple -keyed for an additional total of 150 overnight accommodations), 32 resort villas (which will be privately -owned but included in the Project's visitor -serving accommodations pool), a 68,000 square foot conference and meeting center, a 25,000 square -foot full-service health spa and fitness center, and related amenities In addition to the resort and conference center, the Project will provide a habitat preserve (with both conserved and enhanced habitat) and public open space and recreation facilities (including a public golf practice facility, a 9 -hole public -use golf course, 100 parking spaces for use by the general public, two shoreline access ramps, seven public parks and overlooks, and an 11 1 mile series of public walkways, jogging paths, hiking trails and bike trails linking visitor -serving areas of the RHA with public facilities within the surrounding area) The Project will also involve off-site improvements to City -owned property, including proposed improvements to reconfigure the City Hall parking area and to relocate the City's existing Corporate Yard The off-site improvements to the City - owned property will be processed through separate permits The Project applications consist of requests for a conditional use permit to allow development of a portion of the proposed golf course and related ancillary uses on Upper Point Vicente ("UPVA") within the Open Space Recreational District and Institutional District (CUP 216), a conditional use permit to allow construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, 32 privately -owned villas, a portion of the golf course and a proposed golf school and practice facility on the Resort Hotel Area (the "RHA") (CUP 215), a grading permit to allow grading for master grading and infrastructure improvements on UPVA (GRP No 2230), a grading permit to allow grading for subdivision, master grading, and infrastructure improvements on the RHA (GRP No 2229), a coastal development permit to allow construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, villas, and golf facilities on the RHA within Subregion 2 of the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CDP No 166) and a tentative parcel map to allow the redefinition of land parcels on the RHA (TPM No 26073) (collectively referred to herein as the "discretionary approvals") The Project also involves a request for an amendment to the General Plan to change the land use designation on UPVA from Recreational Passive to Recreational Active (GPA No 28) Article III. Proiect Objectives. As set forth in Section 3 4 of the FEIR, the objectives which the Project applicant seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows Exhibit `A' — EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 2 of 52 a To establish a successful destination 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 RHA site as the core of a successful destination coastal resort, b To provide a variety of hotel/resort accommodations that serve the needs of a wide range of coastal visitors, c 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; d To provide for a variety of public open space, including natural and active open space areas, trails, and general public recreation within the 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, g To provide for implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails in all areas adjacent to the resort, including connections to existing trails, the City's Point Vicente Interpretive Center, and a safe crossing under Palos Verdes Drive South to connect the RHA with UPVA, h To protect sensitive coastal bluffs on the RHA, and limit the degradation of marine resources on or adjacent to the Project, that may occur with increased public access and use of the area; To provide additional public trails and recreational facilities on publicly - owned UPVA, in conjunction with a reevaluation of the Program of Utilization for the former military site, To provide for a project which, in its entirety, 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, k To protect 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 Exhibit'A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 3 of 52 • 0 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 provide for the long-term protection, enhancement and increase of coastal sage scrub and native vegetation that will be consistent with the City's proposed Natural Communities Conservation Plan and state and federal requirements, M To improve water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff management and Water Quality Management Plan, n To provide for the redevelopment of the former Marineland site (the RHA) 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 identified potentially significant environmental impacts of the 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 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, and oral and written evidence, including staff and consultant reports) the Planning Commission finds that the record amply demonstrates the 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 the FEIR analyzes 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 Project will permanently alter the existing view from neighboring properties and will clearly change the visual character of the site Additionally, the 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 Project will add new sources of light and glare to the environment and add to the overall Exhibit'A' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 4 of 52 0 0 urbanization of the area These potential impacts were fully analyzed in Section 5 1 of the FEIR 2 Findings The short term nature of the construction -related impacts and compliance with applicable City Codes will make the 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 Project will temporarily degrade the visual character of the Protect site and disrupt views across the site from surrounding areas Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic will be visible Sall will be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities will be staged at various locations throughout the Project sites. 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 Planning Commission finds that the record demonstrates that any construction -related impacts to views are less than significant. b. Visual Character Implementation of the 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 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 course, parking areas and landscaping throughout Additionally, undeveloped lands vegetated with disturbed and non-native grassland habitat will be replaced with manicured lawns. UPVA will remain in a substantially "open" condition, similar in character to the existing site condition and visually compatible with existing surrounding land uses Additionally, the Project will restore much of the native vegetation and will implement a landscaping plan which is compatible with the natural surrounding. The proposed 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 Project proposes no safety netting of the golf course or 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 Planning finds that implementation of the proposed Project will aesthetically Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C. Resolution No 2001.37 October 9, 2001 Page 5 of 52 r 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 Protect area, both oriented toward the former location of the Manneland Aquatic Park The vistas, which were directed toward the Manneland 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 RHA A second man-made structural focal point, the Nike Missile site, is located on UPVA A majority of the Nike Missile site located on UPVA has been removed. Currently only the concrete pads and railing associated with the missile silos remain, though additional facilities exist underground This remaining portion of the Missile site is limited in its representation of the original facility and is degraded in nature The portions of the Nike Missile Site which remain at surface level will be covered with a golf course, thus removing the view of this structural focal point. However, due to the degraded condition of the existing structures, Project implementation will not result in a significant impact to this resource Further, habitat restoration will occur within and along the perimeters of the proposed golf course, changing the weedy disturbed areas to conditions native to Coastal Southern California, thus creating a beneficial visual impact to the scenic resources in this area. 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 Project will not impact either view corridor. While the casitas and the resort hotel will be visible in the background, the development will not intrude on the overall panoramic view of the seacoast, Pacific Ocean or Catalina Island Additionally, the grade differentials between the site and the road ensures that Project implementation will not impact views along this corridor Since the design, landscape, building height, and architecture of the 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 d Light/Glare The Project site is currently vacant, and surrounding land uses are not affected by light or glare from the site Implementation of the Project will introduce a new source of light and glare to the area The 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 course or practice facility is proposed or required Section 17 56 440 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. Exhibit'A' — EIR P C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 6 of 52 0 9 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 proposed Project will contribute to the cumulative loss of undeveloped land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. However, redevelopment of the Manneland site actually removes a blight condition replacing it with a manicured golf course and resort complex Additionally, the Project will restore much of the native vegetation and will Implement a landscaping plan which is compatible with the natural surrounding Thus, the appearance of urbanization will be evident, but moderated due to the Inclusion of the natural areas. The proposed Project complies with applicable zoning restrictions and a less than significant impact will occur in this regard B Biological Resources. Potential Impacts Section 5.3 of the FEIR, contained in Volume IV, Identifies 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 Project may lead to the cumulative loss of the City's biological resources. 2 Finding Analysis and substantial evidence contained in the record demonstrates that the Project's impacts will be less than significant in these areas. 3. Facts in Support of Finding a. Special status species The conclusions in the FEIR are supported by reliable technical studies These studies were conducted at appropriate times and employed appropriate methodologies to correctly ascertain the presence or lack of special status species on site and determine the projects potential impacts, if any The FEIR adequately demonstrates that Project impacts on the California box -thorn and the Exhibit `A' - EIR P.0 Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 7 of 52 0 , wooly sea -byte, two special status plant species found on the site, will be less than significant. The Project as designed will primarily avoid these plants. Nevertheless, even though these plants are considered relatively common in the region, the project will include these plants in the seed mixes used for revegetation of the coastal bluff scrub which is proposed as a project design feature. A focused study for the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly (conducted in Spring 2001) did not observe this species on site, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any impacts to this species. The Project site includes limited habitat suitable for the Western Spadefoot Toad, therefore, and Project impacts, if any, will not be significant The FEIR demonstrates that Project impacts to several special status reptile species which potentially occur on site will be less than significant because the Project will protect 14.63 acres of existing scrub habitat (critical habitat for these species), and will replace the 4.91 acres of habitat impacted by development with 16 80 acres of created coastal sage, thereby providing more than 31 acres of suitable habitat for these reptiles With the exception of the California coastal gnatcatcher (discussed in Article V, below), the only two threatened or endangered species identified as likely to occur on site are the California brown pelican and the peregrine falcon The proposed Project will not directly impact roosting or breeding habitat for the pelican since the rocky shore habitat on the RHA 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 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 RHA As previously noted, the cliff area (RHA) will not be impacted by the proposed Project, therefore, the 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 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 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 and technical studies conclusively demonstrate that Project impacts to annual grassland (18 07 acres), agricultural areas (4.48 acres), and disturbed vegetation and developed areas (105.1 acres) will not be significant due to the abundance of these habitats in the region and their low biological value. Impacts to mule fat scrub (.05 acre) were also determined to be insignificant because the relatively small area disturbed, the fact that the Project is designed to avoid this habitat in onsite drainages and blue -line streams, and the fact that the Project will need permits from appropriate state and federal agencies to disturb any mule fat scrub located in onsite drainages and blue -line streams The loss of habitat, loss of wildlife, wildlife displacement, and habitat Exhibit'A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 8 of 52 • fragmentation that would result from construction of the proposed Project would not be considered significant because: (1) the project would protect 14.63 acres of existing scrub habitat, and would replace 4 91 acres of habitat impacted by development with 16.80 acres of created coastal sage, thereby providing more than 31.43 acres of suitable habitat, and (2) these impacts would not substantially diminish habitat for wildlife in the region nor would it be anticipated to reduce any specific wildlife populations in the region to below self-sustaining numbers. Indirect effects of construction (the accumulation of dust on leaf surfaces)of the proposed 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 UPVA and RHA will not impact wildlife corridors, by definition, but will affect local travel routes This may result in reduced connectivity between the open space areas to the east, north, and west of UPVA. The steep cliffs of the RHA 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. The Project design of UPVA area has maintained a connection to the open space areas offsite In addition, the preserved habitat areas onsite and the newly -created coastal sage scrub areas proposed on UPVA site are expected to provide for adequate local movement on and offsite. Moreover, all fencing proposed on site is designed to allow wildlife to pass through unimpeded. Thus, the 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, 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 Project is consistent with two of the three preserve alternatives currently under consideration Thus, Project implementation will not foreclose the adoption of the NCCP e. Cumulative impacts. When viewed in conjunction with other major developments planned for the Rancho Palos Verdes, the loss of coastal sage scrub and other native vegetation, as well as the loss of wildlife habitat and the displacement of wildlife species in the Project area, could be considered a negative cumulative effect. However, cumulative impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat are currently mitigated on a project -by -project basis In the absence of an approved NCCP program, cumulative impacts to coastal sage scrub by the proposed 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") The Project is required to obtain a habitat "take" permit from the U S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). Exhibit 'A' — EER P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 9 of 52 0 • Compliance with FESA and its associated permitting process will ensure that an cumulative impacts remain less than significant. C. Cultural Resources. Potential Impacts Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources. 2. Finding Resources are evaluated and mitigated on a protect -by -project basis The FEIR demonstrates that the 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 identifies 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 Project grading and excavation 2 Finding Analysis has concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to these hazards Moreover, Project compliance with local and state building codes will ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant. 3. Facts in Support of Finding Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 10 of 52 No active or potentially active faults are located within the Project site or towards the RHA or UPVA 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 either UPVA or the RHA, nor is ground lurching expected to expose persons or structures to substantial risk Further, the Project will be required to comply with numerous controls imposed by local and state building and development codes Accordingly, 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 identifies the potential for the Project to divide an established community, conflict with the General Plan, conflicts with the Coastal Specific Plan, conflict with the Zoning Code, and conflict with the Program of Utilization on UPVA 2. Findings Analysis has concluded that the 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. The Protect area is traversed by two major roadways, Palos Verdes Drive South and Hawthorne Boulevard These roadways, as well as the spacial 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 proposed Project is consistent with all of the applicable goals and policies in the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed Protect will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, with the exception of the golf course use (which will conflict with the Recreational Passive designation on UPVA) However, the Project includes a request for an amendment to the General Plan (GPA No 28) to change the land use designation on UPVA from Recreational Passive to Recreational Active. With Exhibit'A' - EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 11 of 52 adoption of this minor change, Project implementation will not have a significant effect on the General Plan c. Coastal Specific Plan Only the RHA is located within and subject to the City's Coastal Specific Plan Based on the data provided in the Final EIR, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan However, the proposed Project is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit consistent with the CSP requirement. Since the Project's applications for the RHA include both the required conditional use permit (CUP No 216) and the coastal development permit (CDP No 166), Project implementation will not have a significant effect on the Coastal Specific Plan d Zoning Ordinance The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, identifies land uses permitted and prohibited according to the zoning category of particular Based on the analysis provided in the Final EIR, implementation of the proposed Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code However, the proposed Project will require approval of Conditional Use Permits for development of the proposed golf course, driving range and related ancillary uses in the OR District of UPVA, for development of the proposed golf course in the I District of UPVA, and for development of the proposed resort/conference hotel, and golf course proposed in the CR District of the RHA. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in a significant impact with respect to compliance with the Development Code e Program of Utilization The recreational uses proposed by the Project which are generally consistent with the Program of Utilization (POU) with the exception of the proposed portion of the golf course located on UPVA. This conflict would be considered inconsistent with the POU since a golf course was not an identified recreational use in the POU However, this inconsistency will not result in a significant impact because the Deed restriction on UPVA authorizes amendments to the POU with written concurrence from the Secretary of the Interior Since Project implementation will not occur absent the Secretary's consent, any potential impact will be less than significant. G Marine Resources 1 Potential Impacts Operation of the Project may potentially result in long-term effects that could impact marine biological resources Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 12 of 52 0 0 2. Finding Because the 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 amply demonstrate that the 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 stormwater runoff events, wafter column and benthic nearshore marine resources will not be significantly impacted by stormwater 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, nearshore 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 stormwater runoff events will have no significant effects on shorebirds and seabirds since these guilds will forage in fresh and/or saltwater habitat or can move to areas unaffected by stormwater runoff Reduced salinity as a result of stormwater 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 seagrass beds, kelp beds, or Marine Managed Areas are anticipated as a result of 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 stormwater 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 which further reduces the likelihood that they will be adversely affected 1. Potential Impacts Exhibit `A' — EER P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 13 of 52 The Project may result in temporary short-term noise impacts from construction activities 2. Finding Adherence to City Code requirements will reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. 3. Facts in Support of Finding Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally will be restricted to daytime hours since City standards exempt construction noise if construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7 00 p rn , 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 will be less than significant. Public Health and Safety. Potential Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project may impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan for the area. 2. Finding Analysis 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 proposed Project However, 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 Project will not have a significant impact relative to the Exhibit'A'— EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 14 of 52 implementation or interference with emergency response/evacuation plans There are no areas depicted as evacuation routes in the immediate Project area J. Public Services and Utilities. 1. Potential Impacts 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. Analysis has concluded that 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 Since the Project does not include residential units, Project implementation will not directly generate students Any increased student population would result from Project employees who relocate to the City This impact will not be significant and can be absorbed by existing school facilities The 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 Project will not have a significant impact on wastewater facilities Sufficient water supplies are available to adequate serve the Project from existing resources. Compliance with the requirements of AB 939 will ensure that the Project does not have a significant impact on solid waste generation. Additionally, the Project site is adequately served by existing utilities Accordingly, Project implementation will not have a significant impact on public services and utilities. Article V. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Determined to be Reduced to a Level of Insignificance. The FEIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts of the 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. Exhibit'A'- EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 15 of 52 The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts are discussed below. The Planning Commission 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 Project's impacts to a level of insignificance. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt all of the mitigation measures described in the FEIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporate those mitigation measures into the Project. A Aesthetics/Light and Glare Potential Impacts 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 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 land forms and ocean edges The 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 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 Additionally, the Planning Commission has recommended further height restrictions that will ensure the preservation of the identified view corridors. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission restricting the finished heights of the proposed buildings will reduce any impacts below a level of significance. B Biological Resources. 1. Potential Impacts 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 Exhibit'A'- EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 16 of 52 • 2 Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 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 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 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 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 Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 17 of 52 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 • The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall include detailed descriptions of maintenance appropriate for the site, monitoring requirements, and annual reports 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 This 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. Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 18 of 52 • 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 Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall comply with the FESA (through either Section 4[d], 7, or 10) with regards to any impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher The LPHCP has been developed to ensure compliance with FESA and to be consistent with the City's NCCP, when adopted. The LPHCP will provide for the creation of 16.80 acres of new coastal sage scrub habitat area (UPVA Conservation Planning Area and Recreation Area). This, combined with the 14 63 acres of existing coastal sage scrub habitat, the 4.44 acres of coastal bluff scrub habitat, and the 3.87 acres of rocky shore/coastal bluff habitat that will be retained, will result in the protection and/or creation of a total of 39.74 acres of coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and rocky shore/coastal bluff habitat 4 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. Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 19 of 52 0 0 Sensitive natural communities/habitats. A total of 132.70 acres of native and non-native vegetation types, including developed areas, will be impacted by the proposed Project. The majority of this area (105 5 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 various scrub communities and riparian habitat within jurisdictional drainages. A total of 4 91 acres of scrub communities will be impacted on UPVA, including mixed coastal sage scrub (burned and disturbed), disturbed chenopod scrub, and southern cactus scrub (disturbed and non-distrubed) Impacts to these vegetation types are considered significant because this habitat type has been reduced up to 80 percent of its historic coverage throughout Southern California and the potential for this habitat to support special status species, especially the gnatcatcher. Of the 4 91 acres of scrub communities impacted by the proposed Project, 3.17 acres represent areas disturbed by either fire, past human disturbances, or invasion by non-native plant species. The disturbed communities typically require less mitigation or compensations through the CEQA and FESA permitting process However, the Project will mitigate all impacted scrub habitat at a ratio of 3 4 acres of new vegetation to every acre disturbed Project implementation will result in the protection of 14 63 acres of existing coastal sage scrub habitat on UPVA, and the creation and restoration of an additional 16 80 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat thereby providing, upon full implementation, over 31 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. In light of the extent of habitat protection, restoration and creation, the project's impact on scrub communities is considered less than significant In addition to the scrub habitats, the Project may impact 0.10 acre of coastal bluff scrub and disturbed coastal bluff scrub. Impacts on these vegetation types will also be considered significant due to the loss of this vegetation type in southern California and the potential for this habitat to support special status species The FEIR has identified mitigation which involves modification of the development plan to avoid any affect to the coastal bluff scrub area Implementation of this mitigation and complete avoidance will reduce Project impacts to this habitat type to less than significant levels. Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 20 of 52 Finally, jurisdictional delineation 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 which is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game. The project will impact Q.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. c. Indirect impacts The Project may result in indirect from increased noise, dust and urban pollutants, lighting, human activity, and introduction of non-native species, both during construction and operation of the 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 edge 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) restriction of sage scrub removal during February 15 through August 30. 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 RHA. This impact will be potentially significant. Implementation of the LPHCP requiring that a transitional area be planted along the boundary of developed land uses 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 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 Exhibit 'A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 21 of 52 • 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 UPVA and RHA. 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 course Implementation of the specified mitigation measures will reduce this impact to less than significant. C Cultural Resources Potential Impacts Implementation of the proposed 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 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 Archaeological/historical resources The project site includes several 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), Site 19-180593 (Documented Long Point Defense District), and 6621 Beachview Drive (Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex) None of these sites are currently registered as historical landmarks 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 site has been seriously disturbed by Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 22 of 52 • artifact hunters, which compromises the site's historical integrity The six 1930 Base End Stations and an associated cable junction box, contribute to the historic significance of the documented Long Point Defense District (Site 19-180593) The Project, as currently configured, will not disturb the Base End Stations which will lie within the proposed habitat conservation area. Battery 240 was once an integral part of the Los Angeles harbor defense system, and may be eligible for listing in the California Register. Implementation of specific mitigation requiring the Project to avoid Battery 240 will reduce impacts to a less than significant level The Nike Air Defense Site represents the remains of the former Nike anti-aircraft missile launching area designated Site LA -55-L, a relic of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union Because of its association with this important event in post -WWII American history, the Nike Site is eligible for listing in the California Register. Implementation of the identified mitigation will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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 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 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 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 are recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the 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) 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 half- time in those formations with a moderate sensitivity rating. The monitoring time may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the paleontologist Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 23 of 52 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 proposed Project. Any alterations to human remains associated with 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 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 Project implementation may increase the number of people/structures exposed to effects associated with seismically induced ground shaking or landslides, Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 24 of 52 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 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 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 shakinq and landslides. Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California Region, moderate to severe groundshaking 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 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 seacliff/bluffs with in the RHA. 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 rockfalls on the seacliff, 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 RHA 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. Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 25 of 52 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 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 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 Project may significantly alter drainage patterns which 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 Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 26 of 52 9 0 2 Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance. 41 Facts in Supportof s • a. Drainage and runoff The FEIR and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Project will not result in significant increases in drainage or runoff on UPVA because the flows are contained in storm drains with proper bluff drainage to minimize bluff erosion and the increases are not expected to cause or increase flooding on adjacent property. The Project will, however, significantly alter the drainage patterns on the RHA This impact could be potentially significant to erosion potential However, the Project proposes design features (including proper bluff drainage and impact basin installation) which will likely improve bluff stability and curb bluff erosion. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission recommends implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.6-1a and 5.6-1b, identified in the FEIR, to 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 Mmes 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 Project has the potential to significantly violate water quality standards because of the pesticides associated with the golf course and the increased activity levels on the site. However, the 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 Quality Control Board. Additional mitigation is required 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 Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 27 of 52 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 Land Use and Relevant Planning. 1. Potential Impacts Project implementation may conflict with the adopted Program of Utilization ("POU") for UPVA Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 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 proposed Project will involve development of new public recreational facilities and linkages in addition to a public -play 9 -hole regulation -length golf course and a practice facility. The Project's proposed recreational facilities include both active and passive recreational uses, some of which are established in the POU for UPVA The recreational uses proposed by the Project are generally consistent with the POU. All of these proposed recreational facilities will be designated for public use. This will be consistent with the Deed requirement that UPVA be maintained for public purposes. In addition, the proposed golf course and practice facility will be available for use by the resort hotel guests, residents and visitors. However, the Project also proposes that a portion of UPVA be developed with a golf course The golf use is inconsistent with the POU since a golf course was not an identified recreational use in the POU The Deed for UPVA restricts the use of UPVA to the public purposes for which it was conveyed as set forth in the POU. This inconsistency will be considered a significant impact unless mitigated. However, the Deed authorizes amendments to the POU provided written concurrence is first obtained from the Secretary of the Interior, mitigation that requires obtaining this approval prior to Project implementation will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Implementation of the following mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 5.7-5 in the FEIR) will ensure that this impact is reduced to a level of insignificance. An Amendment to the Program of Utilization shall be prepared to concur with the uses proposed for UPVA by the Long Point Resort Project Approval of the Amendment to the POU shall be obtained in writing from the Department of the Interior prior to Grading Permit Issuance. Exhibit'A' — EIR P C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 28 of 52 G Marine Resources 1 Potential Impacts 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 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 stormwater constituents Less than significant grading effects on nearshore 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 8-1a through 5 8-1f (identified in the FEIR) will reduce grading impacts to marine resources below a level of significance b Long-term impacts Project implementation will involve long-term design impacts that, if left unmitigated, could adversely affect shoreline and nearshore marine resources Impacts associated with the operation of the Long Point Resort Project include (1) degradation of water quality as a consequence of stormwater 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 58-2) c Visitor use impacts The 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 Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 29 of 52 9 • 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 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 RHA. The area shall be designated as a Habitat Reserve Although recreational fishing for fin fish 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 provides 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 Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 30 of 52 9 9 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 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. 1. Potential Impacts Exhibit'A' — EIR P.0 Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 31 of 52 9 9 Implementation of the 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. r . . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the 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 limited 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: 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 Code, 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. • 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. Exhibit'A'- EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 32 of 52 0 • 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 proposed Project include resort/golf course uses and associated mechanical equipment and parking areas New stationary noise sources created by implementation of the proposed Project include resort/golf course 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 Public Health and Safety 1 Potential Impacts 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 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 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 course and landscaped areas The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate the implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5 10-1a 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 RHA. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 33 of 52 0 0 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 RHA. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required 3 Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, site specific investigations shall be conducted to determine the contents of the interior of all structures on the RHA. 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 RHA shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides, prior to Grading Permit issuance 8 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II level investigation shall be conducted to determine the level of potential contamination associated with the historic use of UPVA. The focus of the investigation shall include, but not be limited, to the following • Determine the actual absence or presence of the suspected underground storage tanks located near the Point Vicente Bunker Exhibit'A' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 34 of 52 0 0 If determined present within UPVA, soil sampling and/or testing to determine the characteristics and extent of potential contaminants shall be performed Upon completion of soil testing and/or sampling, a Risk Assessment shall be prepared to determine the appropriate measures for remediation of the tank sites, and • The 100 -square foot area of distressed vegetation located adjacent to the abandoned concrete slab in the northern portion of UPVA shall be examined to determine the potential for a release of hazardous materials In addition, a subsurface investigation shall be conducted to determine if any other structures or substances are located below the concrete slab Any stained soil shall be tested to determine the absence or presence of hazardous materials 9 Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate authorities from the United States Department of Interior, National Park Service regarding any proposed modifications to the Nike missile silos 10 Prior to Demolition Permit issuance or modification to Battery 240, a site specific investigation to determine the contents of the interior shall be conducted In the event that hazardous materials are encountered, they shall be properly tested and then properly disposed of prior to modification/demolition activities 11 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, soil sampling of the agricultural portion of the Upper Point Vicente Area shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides b Golf safety The proposed Long Point Resort Golf Course was routed using the standard method for golf hole corridor widths identified in the Existing Conditions discussion The Golf Course Safety Analysis was conducted to confirm that the layout, routing and grading of the proposed golf course and 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 course 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 Long Point Resort Golf Course is consistent with the accepted standard lengths for each par However, the analysis did identify some potential safety risks Based on the analysis, the FEIR recommends two mitigation measures (Mitigation 5 10-2a and 5 10-2b) requiring that certain modifications be incorporated into the design of the course Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5 10-2a and 5 10-2b 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 Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 35 of 52 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. J Public Services and Utilities 1 Potential Impacts Implementation of the 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 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 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 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 proposed 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 Project implementation The proposed 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 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 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 Exhibit'A' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 36 of 52 • additional electric facilities required to service the Project A 40 -foot wide U S Coast Guard electrical easement exists on UPVA. Potential impacts are considered as less than significant with mitigation requiring that the Project Applicant consult with the U.S. Coast Guard with respect to their electrical easement. Removal of the existing fire access road (which extends between the City Hall and the U S. Coast Guard site) will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation requiring that the Project Applicant consult with the U S Coast Guard with respect to the provision of a vehicle access road Implementation of the proposed 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 Project limits, implementation of the proposed Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts The FEIR demonstrates that implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 11-8 will reduce impacts below a level of significance c Solid Waste. The proposed 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 Landfills. The 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 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: Grasscycle, use as mulch, or compost all greenwaste generated from the Golf Course, Recycle all bottles, aluminum cans, glass, and foodwaste. The foodwaste generated on-site may be used for composting efforts if the Project Applicant desires, and 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 grasscycling K Traffic and Circulation. Potential Impacts Exhibit `A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 37 of 52 Implementation of the 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 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 Project's projected average daily trip (ADT) generation and analyzed the Project's impacts at 25 local intersections The traffic study and FEIR concluded that the 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 Project's potential traffic impacts and recommended that the Planning Commission certify the traffic portion of the FEIR and adopt each of the mitigation measures identified therein. The Planning Commission hereby finds that implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified as Mitigation Measures 5.12-1a through 5.12-1e in the FEIR) will reduce 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, access to the driving range shall be restricted to right turns in/out only 4 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) Exhibit `A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 38 of 52 5 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) Restripe 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 and 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 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 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 Project will not add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM peak hours along the 1-110 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 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 Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 39 of 52 • U 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 (FTSE) 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 the hotel patronage and employee parking on a regular business day In addition, the 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission 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 Project are described below, along with measures that will partially mitigate the impacts Air Quality Significant Impacts Section 5.2 of the FEIR indicates the 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 Project conflicting with the Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide with respect to these emissions Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which will substantially lessen but not completely mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR. Exhibit `A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 40 of 52 0 9 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 proposed project. These temporary impacts will include (i) fugitive dust(PM�Q) emissions from clearing and grading activities on-site; (ii) exhaust emissions (including CO, ROG, NO, and PM10) 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, PM10 emissions associated with Project construction activities (the primary source of PM10 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 PM10 emissions: In accordance with the City Development Code and SCAQMD Rules, the Project Applicant shall incorporate the following measures during the construction phase of the 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 Exhibit'A' — EIR P C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 41 of 52 0 9 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 Longterm 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 proposed 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 Project will exceed established ROG/NOx, CO and PM10 thresholds, the Project will also create a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to regional levels of these pollutants. The 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 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 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 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 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 Exhibit `A' — E!R P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 42 of 52 0 • projected total of 9,619 average daily trips (ADT) In contrast, the currently proposed 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 Project will not exceed the ADT projected for the existing entitlement. Thus, the Project will not exceed the AQMP's assumptions and is, therefore, consistent with the AQMP in this regard However, the Project will result in an increase in the severity of existing air quality violations The Basin is presently in non -attainment for ROG, NOx and CO emissions The FEIR and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that the mobile source and area emissions associated with the 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 proposed Project inconsistent with first of the two indicators of consistency 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 Final EIR, 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 UPVA (i e , Montessori School) However, traffic impacts under existing plus ambient growth plus the proposed 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 will 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 Project will generate additional vehicular traffic on local roadways, thereby resulting in noise level increases along these roadways Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Project, together with cumulative projects, will increase the ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity Vehicular traffic from the Project, coupled with vehicular traffic from cumulative Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 43 of 52 0 9 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 Project 2 Findings Analysis has concluded that 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 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 proposed Project traffic will contribute to a significant and unavoidable increase in cumulative noise levels along local roadways. The 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 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 Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied, and based on the record before it, the Planning Commission 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 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 can not, through full compliance with mitigation measures imposed herein, be fully mitigated over time, the Planning Commission 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 Exhibit'A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 44 of 52 0 9 recommended concurrently herewith applies with equal force and effect to such impacts Article VII Project Alternatives. With the exception of Alternative 7 5 (Relocate Practice Facility — Option B), the alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the 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 Planning Commission finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives identified in the FEIR except Alternative 7 5, and each is hereby rejected The Planning Commission also finds that the 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 Project, as proposed, and it is hereby rejected as proposed Finally, the Planning Commission finds that Alternative 7 5, with the incorporation of the changes and modifications recommended by the Planning Commission, represents the preferred Project design and hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Alternative 7 5, as modified The Planning Commission 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 Project. 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 proposed Project. The alternatives considered were "Alternative 71 - 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 Planning Commission 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 proposed Project. As required by CEQA, the Planning Exhibit 'A' — EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 45 of 52 0 0 Commission finds that each of the alternatives except Alternative 7 5 is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons set forth below The Planning Commission further finds that the Project as proposed is also infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons set forth below Alternative 7 5, as modified by the Planning Commission, represents the combination of features that, in the Planning Commission's opinion, best achieves the 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 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 proposed Project and the other alternatives However, the No Development Alternative will not fulfill any of the proposed Project's objectives (e g , establishing a destination coastal resort, providing an on-site golf experience, providing additional public trails and recreational facilities, as well as the additional objectives identified in Section 3 4, Project Objectives, of the FEIR) and will not provide the same benefits as the project (i a creation of jobs, increased revenue to the city, removal of blight, etc ) For any one of these reasons, the Planning Commission has determined the No Development Alternative to be infeasible B Alternative 7 2 (No Project Alternative) 1 Summary of Alternative The "No Project" Alternative involves development of the RHA 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 2 acres of land on the RHA. The roughly 1 5 acre parcel owned by Cigna, which is included as part of the RHA in the current proposal, was not part of the prior entitlements The entitlements issued permit development of a resort hotel and conference facility on consisting of a 400 -room hotel facility, 50 casitas, a 9 -hole golf course, 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 Exhibit `A' - EIR P C Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 46 of 52 2 Reasons For Rejecting Alternative The No Project Alternative will be generally similar to the proposed Project, however, it will exclude the use of UPVA, resulting in a more intensified use of the RHA The majority of the proposed Project components will be developed, as well as additional land uses not currently proposed by the Project 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 RHA site), contained in a smaller geographical area, than the proposed Project. Implementation of this Alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in Section 3 4, Project Objectives, of the Final EIR, on the RHA. However, this Alternative will only partially fulfill the objectives to provide for a variety of public open spaces, proved for implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails, and development of public trails and recreation facilities on UPVA. Moreover, the increased intensity of development on the RHA could potentially increase impacts to the federally -protected EI Segundo Blue butterfly (which was observed on the RHA site during focused surveys in June 2001) and the sensitive coastal bluffs on the RHA The Planning Commission 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) Summar rLof Alternative This alternative will add to the Project the approximately 3.9 -acre site on UPVA that was retained by the U.S. Coast Guard when the federal government transferred ownership of the bulk of UPVA 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 Project's UPVA area from 64.9 to 68 8 acres (an increase of approximately six percent) The additional acreage will be used to (i) add approximately 18 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 Project as proposed. However, during the public review and comment period on the DER, the Coast Guard indicated that inclusion of its site was not an option and directed the City to cease further consideration of this alternative. Accordingly, Planning Commission has determined Alternative 7 3 (the With Coast Guard Site Alternative) to be infeasible. Exhibit `A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 47 of 52 D Alternative 7 4 (Relocate Practice Facility — Option A Alternative) 1 Summary of Alternative This alternative includes the same components as the proposed Project but relocates the 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 UPVA. 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 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 Project as proposed, nor is the Planning Commission receptive to the use of additional public lands for the proposed resort. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has determined the No Development Alternative to be 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 proposed Project but relocates the Project's proposed golf practice facility and driving range to the eastern portion of the RHA, between the Entry Road and Hole No 9 The golf practice facility will displace Golf Holes Nos 7 and 8 in the RHA. The displaced golf holes will replace the golf practice facility in UPVA (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 all the objectives identified in Section 3 4 (Project Objectives) of the FEIR but will reduce the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project as proposed Alternative 7 5, as modified by the Planning Commission, will 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 Moreover, Alternative 7 5 provides the best mix of uses on UPVA to Exhibit'A' — EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 48 of 52 0 • facilitate public use of the area while protecting critical habitat Accordingly, the Planning Commission has determined that Alternative 7.5, as, represents the combination of features that, in the Planning Commission's opinion, best achieves the Project's objectives while minimizing environmental impacts F Alternative 7.6 (No Resort Villas — Option 'A' Alternative) Summary of Alternative Alternative 7 6 will exclude the Resort Villas proposed for development in the northeastern portion of the RHA 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 UPVA to the area vacated by the Resort Villas on the RHA and renumbered The area vacated by Hole No 5 on UPVA will be used to create additional new habitat, thereby resulting in a larger conservation zone in the southeastern portion of the UPVA All other components of the proposed project will be retained 2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in Section 3 4 (Project Objectives) FEIR, with one exception — the absence of the villas removes a type of resort unit When compared to the proposed Project, this alternative will have reduced impacts on sensitive habitat on UPVA and slightly reduced overall impacts due to the reduced intensity However, when compared to the Protect, 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. The additional reduction in environmental impacts associated with this alternative are outweighed by the loss of benefits and the reduced quality of the overall development. Accordingly, the Planning Commission hereby finds that Alternative 7.6 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the 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) Summar rLof Alternative Alternative 7.7 will also exclude the Resort Villas proposed for development in the northeastern portion of the RHA. 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 UPVA vacated by the golf practice facility not used for Hale No. 3 will be used for the creation of new habitat, Exhibit `A' - EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 49 of 52 creating a larger conservation zone in the northwestern portion of UPVA. All other components of the project are retained 2 Reasons For Resecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all of the objectives identified in Section 3.4 (Project Objectives) of the FEIR, with one exception — the absence of the villas removes a type of resort unit When compared to the proposed Project, this alternative reduces the impacts to biological resources and public safety on UPVA, but also reduces the variety of visitor -serving units that will be available. 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. The additional reduction in environmental impacts associated with this alternative are minimal (since the impacts of the Project on biological resources and golf safety can be adequately mitigated to a level of insignificance) and are outweighed by the loss of benefits and the reduced quality of the overall development. Accordingly, the Planning Commission hereby finds that Alternative 7 7 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the 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 UPVA with recreational uses. UPVA 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 recreational uses identified in the POU are detailed in Table 57-1 (Program of Utilization) of the FEIR, and illustrated in Exhibit 57-4 (Program of Utilization Conceptual Plan) of the FEIR. None of the components associated with the Project will be developed 2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative This alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPVA only, as the RHA is not subject to the POU Thus, none of the impacts associated with development of the RHA will occur with this alternative However, this alternative results in a more intensive development of UPVA than does the proposed Project The increased use of UPVA for active recreational activities is less compatible with the preservation of sensitive habitat areas and wildlife than the proposed golf activities and will result in potentially greater impacts on UPVA than associated with the Project Moreover, implementation of this alternative will not fulfill the basic Project objectives identified in Section 3.4 (Project Exhibit `A' — EIR P C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 50 of 52 Objectives) of the FEIR. Accordingly, the Planning Commission has determined Alternative 78 (the Program of Utilization Alternative) to be infeasible and not environmentally superior. 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 UPVA, 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 Final EIR). 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 the Project 2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative Overall, this Alternative results in a less intensive development of UPVA than does the proposed Project. This Alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPVA only, and none of the impacts associated with development of the RHA will occur with this Alternative. Although the Planning Commission has identified Alternative 7 9 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, implementation of this Alternative will fulfill only one of the objectives identified in Section 3.4 (Project Objectives) of the FEIR — to provide additional public trails and recreational facilities on the publicly -owned UPVA. 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 RHA underdeveloped and dilapidated. Accordingly, for any of the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission finds Alternative 7 9 to be infeasible. J Alternative 710 (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 RHA based upon the existing entitlements (see discussion under Alternative 7 2 — No Project Alternative) in conjunction with development of UPVA based upon the Save Our Coastline II (SOC II) Exhibit `A' — EIR P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 51 of 52 • 0 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 3.4, Project Objectives, of the Final EIR, on the RHA However, this Alternative will only partially fulfill the objectives to provide for a variety of public open spaces and to implement the City's Mater Plan of Trails. Overall, this Alternative will involve more intensive development of the RHA (i e., a five -story building of a larger scale and mass and more concentrated development on the RHA site), contained in a smaller geographical area, than the proposed Project. Coupled with the anticipated increased use of UPVA, Alternative 7.10 will not avoid the impacts associated with the Project. Additionally, this alternative does not provide the same level of benefits to the City as the proposed Project The existing entitlements do not provide for the same high caliber resort as proposed by the Project Thus, this Alternative is expected to create less jobs, less revenue, and less public trails and amenities. Accordingly, the Planning Commission 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 Project as Proposed Summary of Alternative The Project is described in detail in the Introduction of this Exhibit A and in Section 3 0 of the FEIR. 2 Reasons For Rejecting Alternative The Project, as proposed, calls for the location of the golf practice facility and driving range in the northeast portion of UPVA adjacent to St. Paul's Church and the residences at Villa Capri The Planning Commission finds that this location poses significant safety risks to the residents at Villa Capri and the members of St Paul's Church Additionally, the Planning Commission finds that the Project's use of all of UPVA for golf -related activities and habitat areas is not consistent with the City's General Plan or Master Parks Plan The use of all of UPVA does not leave sufficient area to ensure that the habitat provided is actually viable and results in potentially significant impacts to the City's biological resources Moreover, the use of all of UPVA does not meet the needs of City residents for outdoor recreational areas. Accordingly, and for any of the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the specific environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons enunciated above make the Project as proposed infeasible. Exhibit'A'— EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 52 of 52 EXHIBIT `B' Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant that to the California Environmental Quality Act' ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines2 (the "Guidelines"), the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the proposed 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 to be known as the "Long Point Resort" (the "Project") as more fully described in Section 3 0 of the FEIR, and consisting of requests for two conditional use permits, two grading permits, a coastal development permit and a tentative parcel map (collectively the "discretionary permits") and a general plan amendment. CEQA Requirements CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, 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 final EIR 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 final EIR 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 Project. Project Impacts As stated in Section VI of Exhibit A, the proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable Impacts relative to cumulative noise from Project -related traffic and regional mobile air quality emissions. Cal Pub Res Code §21000 et seq 2 14 Cal Code Regs §15000 et seq Exhibit `B' - EIR P.C. Resolution No 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 1 of 4 • 0 Project Benefits The Planning Commission finds that the following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of the proposed Project: 0 Removal of local blight and the development of currently underutilized land on both privately -owned (the RHA) and publicly - owned land (UPVA) ❑ Creation of jobs and increased revenue to the City from sales tax and transient occupancy tax. ❑ Additional revenue to the City from concessions for the use of U PVA. ❑ 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 visitor -serving uses that will attract new visitors and businesses to the area and provide economic benefits to the City ❑ Development of a variety of public open space, both natural and active areas, including 4 42 miles of public trails, 12 6 acres of general public recreation areas and scenic overlooks, and 32 acres 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, • 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 residents Exhibit'B' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 2 of 4 0 ❑ Implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails in all areas adjacent to the resort, including connections to existing trails, the City's Point Vicente Interpretive Center, and a safe crossing of Palos Verdes Drive South to connect the RHA with the UPVA and the City Hall facilities ❑ Protection of sensitive coastal bluffs on the Long Point Site, and limit the degradation of marine resources on or adjacent to the Project, that may occur with increased public access and use of the area ❑ Increased utilization of publicly -owned UPVA 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 would 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 ❑ Long-term protection, enhancement and increase of coastal sage scrub and native vegetation that would be consistent with the City's proposed NCCP Program and state and federal requirements, including the 16 8 acres of newly created coastal sage scrub habitat on UPVA ❑ Improved water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff Management/Water Quality Management Plan Statement of Overriding Considerations The Planning Commission 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 recommend approval for the Project. Although substantial evidence demonstrates that the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, the Planning Commission recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects After balancing the Project's environmental risks with its benefits described above, the Planning Commission 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 specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of Exhibit'B' - EIR P C Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 3 of 4 the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the Planning Commission specifically finds that the foregoing benefits collectively constitute a significant consideration sufficient to approve the Project independent of any other benefits, and would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable impacts of the Project identified in the FEIR Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt 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 Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify and adopt this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. Exhibit'B' - EIR PC Resolution No. 2001-37 October 9, 2001 Page 4 of 4 LONG POINT RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 13.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Section 2.0 of this EIR identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Long Point Specific Plan project. The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, ": . . the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." Section 21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to .be enforced during project implementation,shall be defined prior to final certification of the EIR. The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that may be included as conditions of approval for the project. These measures correspond to those outlined in Section 2.0 and discussed in Section 5.0. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The developer will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Rancho Palos Verdes departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. LONG POINT RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST VERVICAltel OP COMPLIANCE Mk/ -1000:0,000 s'a R R and ,0x �! ..s,. az.a.;. r� g;.e. ��:i"ad t .:t .i;.z _ .r...:::i.��..i _1 1 p ,?Ti a .. . , S. ,/Qj 1E;.yJ; Y +]1{j r ...:..... .•..: : :..: . .;:. ;....: r. t eo..- oar. � ...,.<,a.`g F.. '�...a.:aaa..�i 'hc�.,,.atr.,:..:.. ....�.w�_ ..>z... .� ..ua m..�. >a. r,.,.rl a :.: _.a..-<.u:,;:r.4 �1�';w�«.1t�a.���Y%.����c�w:i!r����n•.'�.k .•esa.:.��719�•�' `��i.............,,s...i_....:sa..;,..,....,...,...vim... ...�x..�c.,.>-Y�F�.w-.r;. .c a��i+.r......�n t 3i•ea�Jzw`'�'�.�. -.c�s:. ss.r AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE • 5.1-4a The proposed Golf Clubhouse shall be Plan Check or Prior to Grading City Planning redesigned to the satisfaction of the City Hearing Permit Issuance Department or Planning Department so that the maximum City Planning finished height within horizontal limits of the Point Commission Fermin corridor from Palos Verdes Drive South does not exceed the 16-foot height limitations set forth in the adopted Coastal Specific Plan, so that the view of Point Fermin is not obstructed. Alternatively, the Applicant may submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit to the City Planning Commission to construct buildings in excess of 16 feet as permitted under Section 17.22.D of the Development Code. 5.1-4b The two easternmost casitas, as well as any and Plan Check or Prior to Grading City Planning all tennis courts or other structures, shall be Hearing Permit Issuance Department or redesigned to the satisfaction of the City City Planning Planning Department so >that the maximum Commission finished height within horizontal limits of the Point Fermin corridor from Palos Verdes Drive South • C� does not exceed the 16-foot height limitation set forth in the adopted Coastal Specific Plan, so that the view of Point Fermin is not obstructed. • o Alternatively, the Applicant may submit an rn application for a conditional use permit to the 4 0 . City Planning Commission to construct buildings t� o Z `� in excess of 16 feet as permitted under Section IV gr* 17.22.D of the Development Code. . - n CO N pv is O I crow = JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mita Party , nd.... ., .... ; O . . . .gasgrolVont � . .k Date R . a r k . . 5.1-4c The resort Villa buildings shall be redesigned to Plan Check Prior to Grading City Planning the satisfaction of the City Planning Department Permit Issuance Department so that the maximum finished height within the horizontal limits of the Catalina View Corridor from Palos Verdes Drive South conform to the height restrictions set forth in the adopted Coastal Specific Plan-in particular that buildings in Height Zone 1 (closest to Palos Verdes Drive) do no exceed the 16-foot height limitation and those in Height Zone 2 do not exceed the 30-foot height limitations, so that the view of Catalina Island is not obstructed. Alternatively, the Applicant may submit an application for a conditional use permit to the City Planning Commission to construct buildings in excess of 16 feet as permitted under Section 17.22.D of the Development Code. AIR QUALITY 5.2-1 In accordance with the City Development Code Verification of During the City Public and SCAQMD Rules, the Project Applicant shall Compliance Construction Works incorporate the following measures during the Phase Department& construction phase of the Project to the SCAQMD 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. C) Grading: Periodic Field During the City Public Inspections Construction Works • Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to Phase Department& m manufacturer's specifications to all inactive SCAQMD O o' construction areas(previously graded for ten -0 o Z days or more); 11) C r. N n 1V oft is 0 CAOrn w Cr) 70 • JN 10-034194 • VERIFICATIONCOMPLIANCE . r Party fond, Monitoring, anal IVIOnnorirlt -ROSPOOSIble , ati :1 1�� ..�-{l ..�.... .. ,.. .i..�.4•. }••���"' ,:.1.,.fA..a...a._. 'Ai.f'^2 r ���3..•.. ..�.�.���. . N��� . �N ��: � :�� �� ��� ;�� _ _fit .. :���, � , Date Remarks .r...�. rt a.4.a•.:� i...t a<.4yr' c:4'�� �L.SiS. {.' .< 5.2-1 • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as cont'd 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: Periodic Field During the City Public Inspections Construction Works • Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible Phase Department& soil material is carried onto adjacent public SCAQMD paved roads;and • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads,or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving •n the site each trip. 70 cD y 0 gs 0 = -. s0. z CO CD 0• w CD 1 N W o O f O I cn o c..) =— CI) JN 10-034194 • VERIFICAVIONOF COMPLIANCE .yit/ Patty Cond. iMo I Y o:.ng- and Moiling Responsible ..Y y 4 Y Pate_. t Y�t�� f r • ,.� -., .Wiffit��-•r.. `I.i..a�'^.'"t�m �ai..��m �aw��.: ��� o •� <. �s.w, •k.+t . .�r.....soz(�/�'I.�/Q�<a.• _• ..��C�i1'�F�...�o•i__ ...0�. h � 5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.3-1 a A pre-construction survey for the island green Field Survey During the peak City-Approved dudleya shall be conducted during the peak flowering period Biologist flowering period prior to Grading Permit Issuance prior to Grading (approximately April through June), by the Permit issuance Project biologist. The limits of each impacted (approximately dudleya location shall be clearly marked with lath April through 11110 and brightly colored flagging. June) If any of the dudleya is located in the impact Preparation of In the Event City-Approved area, the loss of the dudleya shall be mitigated Special Status Plant Dudley are Biologist by seed and corm collection, and revegetation Mitigation Program Discovered into a suitable mitigation site in the undeveloped and portion of the Project site or at an off-site Subsequent to location. A qualified biologist shall be selected Completion of by the Applicant, subject to the approval of City Field Survey staff, to prepare and implement a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program. The Special Status Confirmation of Of City Planning Plant Mitigation Program shall be prepared and Submittal of Special Department implemented prior to disturbance of the dudleya. Status Plant The detailed mitigation program shall include the Mitigation Program following requirements: • The existing locations of dudleya shall be monitored every two weeks by the Project -o biologist to determine when the seeds are n ready for collection. A qualified seed 11 • collector shall collect all of the seeds from co the plants to be impacted when the seeds o are ripe. m 0o• " so pg. • w CD "5 N ,51D 0 o IV c owm " SAP JN 10-034194 „i. • •k ea F S 3. a :r �{ r. .,,.w_.._,.•!a,. :.ra::. .. ...: rte. '. .. .. � — ki>i-� t t :f K..�. S. 1 • ifV': Y ••i A't y a. -Ls Y • 1 • a i•. ., ,:. ♦ :.. .. . e •V al: .\ _ t .a r' ..h' l , i r < E "v {• '�\ {fir��•: ,,: �; { /a r . 'J 1� ..,t�.xrc»;�,� �,�ii�,..c�,.� r:,•.:....• � '^-r."..� `m �t�r. ..e. . m ks � r. .. ..Hoods. 5.3-1a • Following the seed collection, the corms Cont'd 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 -o in storage for subsequent seeding, if n necessary. • The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program o shall include detailed descriptions of c, m maintenance appropriate for the site, O o' x monitoring requirements,and annual reports o - requirements. In addition, the Project o) cr Z '* biologist shall have the authority to suspend mco O N n any operation on the Project site which is, in cn 00 � the Project biologist's opinion and confirmed =4. N • owm j w JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION-OF A •E AP J l M001:011 and Mo j onsible' is > F.: 1 9a !` Pate' Remarks 5 .. S �1.+ � s v.�/L�.Jr? 1.E>,.�w.��� i. sar3.r:�K:....Piw...a. .�:�t�(��-...•1..:.Yr,w ,.; ..tY �• 5.3-la by the City, not consistent with the Special Cont'd 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. This 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 C7 of the seed) of the planted areas by raking or similar actions. Additional mitigation measures may be suggested as determined o appropriate by the Project biologist. o Potential seed sources from additional donor sites shall also be identified in case it m a o »� becomes necessary to collect additional m N n seed for use on the site following v) co oo � performance of remedial measures. 2. 8 -Am JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mitt 'Party Cond. Moi r' g: and MOnitoring Responsib e i _ Remarks �� .i 5.3-1b Pre-construction special status plant surveys Field Survey During the City-Approved shall be conducted to determine the presence or Appropriate Biologist absence of aphanisma, south coast saltscale, Blooming Period Catalina crossosoma, Santa Catalina Island (Spring)Prior to desert-thorn, and Lyon's pentachaeta. The Demolition Permit focused surveys for these species shall be Issuance conducted during the appropriate blooming period (spring) prior to Demolition Permit Preparation of In the Event Any City-Approved • Issuance. In the event any of these species are Special Status Plant of these Species Biologist found to be present on the Project site, then a Mitigation Program are Discovered Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be and developed in consultation with the appropriate Subsequent to resource agencies if the status of the species Completion of and the size of the population warrant a finding Field Survey of significance. The Special Status Plant and Prior to Mitigation Program shall be developed and Grading Permit implemented prior to the issuance of a grading Issuance permit. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified • botanist and shall be subject to review by the Confirmation of " " City Planning City. The program shall include avoidance of the Submittal of Special Department populations, relocation, or purchase of off-site Status Plant populations as appropriate and feasible. The Mitigation Program program shall also include the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.3-1 a as appropriate for the species being addressed. 5.3-1c Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, the Project Confirmation of Prior to Demolition City Planning Applicant shall comply with the FESA (through Compliance With Permit Issuance Department n either Section 4[d], 7, or 10)with regards to any the FESA impacts to the coastal California gnatcatcher. cD The LPHCP has been developed to ensure o compliance with FESA and to be consistent with • m the City's NCCP, when adopted. The LPHCP O would provide for the creation of 16.80 acres of o new coastal sage scrub habitat area (UPVA op) `Y AD O • (D O' N -4 30 p. o I cn 0 C o) 70 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE MEV Party Cond. Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible Datefollextitthr4, Illinois .... .�h..,,,. .... .T^�: ? s.a '.r•!.. ww..•. ."',a'F.�M»,.k,i�f�,.,.c�z� .�'k..`3k�4�1!��:.a-t.w .+x l :fig-J� i'��w�E:�� .. a.�..r... ..� 4N f..s�....Y.\.r:- � 5.3-1c Conservation Planning Area and Recreation Confirmation of Prior to Demolition City Planning Cont'd Area). This, combined with the 14.63 acres of Compliance With Permit Issuance Department existing coastal sage scrub habitat, the 4.44 the FESA acres of coastal bluff scrub habitat, and the 3.87 acres of rocky shore/coastal bluff habitat that would be retained, would result in the protection and/or creation of a total of 39.74 acres of coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and rocky shore/coastal bluff habitat. • 5.3-1d No more than seven days prior to Field Survey No More than City-Approved commencement of demolition activities, a Seven Days Prior Biologist qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to to determine whether Cooper's hawk, burrowing Commencement owl, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, prairie of Demolition falcon, and peregrine falcon, or other raptor Activities 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. 5.3-2a All habitat revegetation activities identified in the Confirmation of Prior to Issuance City Planning LPHCP shall be initiated prior to issuance of the LPHCP Initiation of the Certificate Department Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel, to the of Occupancy for n satisfaction of the City. The LPHCP shall contain the Hotel habitat restoration and enhancement design • details for the Conservation Planning Areas o through revegetation with drought-tolerant m species, transitional areas of planting between p o. g, the Conservation Area and Resort ,0 Hotel/Recreation Planning Areas,and design for A o w CD 1 N 00 IO o v v 0I cn o m os 70 JN 10-034194 fi. 4.. VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE MMit./ Pti ti Monitoringand Monitoring: Responsible Cond. Date Remarks . .:: ;. I.. .' Pr9ee �_ fie; f IOU*l a.e ' 5.3-2a long-term sustainability. The plant palette of the Confirmation of Prior to Issuance City Planning Cont'd LPHCP shall be reviewed by a botanist to ensure LPHCP Initiation of the Certificate Department that any landscape zones that are adjacent to of Occupancy for the natural open space areas do not contain any the Hotel invasive non-native plant species. In addition, the Project's drainage and surface runoff shall be directed away from the bluff habitat areas in the RHA. 411 5.3-2b The Project development plan shall be modified Confirmation of Prior to Grading City-Approved to avoid any construction/development impact Modified Permit Issuance Engineer with the upon coastal bluff scrub and disturbed coastal Development Plan Assistance of a bluff scrub areas. City-Approved Biologist 5.3-2c A native/non-invasive plant transition area shall Field Survey Prior to Grading City-Approved be initiated prior to grading permits, along the Permits along the Engineer with the bluff crest along the project development limits. Bluff Crest Assistance of a To define the precise location of the existing City-Approved coastal bluff scrub in these areas, the limits of Biologist the bluff scrub shall be surveyed by an engineer with the assistance of a biologist in the field. From this plotted location on a site plan,a native plant buffer area shall be established with the first 30 feet from the inland limits of the coastal City-Approved bluff scrub. This native plant buffer shall be Field Verification Prior to Grading Biologist reseeded and /or replanted with plants native to Permit Issuance the coastal bluff scrub community. This area shall include, at a minimum, coast buckwheat, n ashy-leaf buckwheat, bladderpod, California bush sunflower,wooly sea-blite,and California cD co O rn p O is a � ,icr 0z - CO �iI/w O . co O o 0 O I cn0wm CA 70 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mit./. Party Coni. Mo itoring and: Monitoring Responsible . _ },.•.s...a y:: i• • King* Y o. i IOCeSst f1 Remarks 5.3-2c box-thorn. The pedestrian trail shall be located Field Verification Prior to Grading City-Approved Cont'd to the inland side of the native plant buffer. The Permit Issuance Biologist trail is approximately 4 feet wide and shall be fenced to limit intrusion into the native plant buffer. Inland of the trail, a non-invasive plant zone 50 feet wide shall be established. The plants within this 50 foot zone shall contain only drought tolerant and non-invasive species. The final plant pallet for this area shall be reviewed • by a restoration ecologist/biologist. In addition, non-native plant species within the existing coastal bluff scrub habitat at the uppermost portions of the bluff face shall be removed by hand. The native plant buffer area shall be maintained and monitored for a minimum of five years. 5.3-2d Prior to Grading Permit issuance, fencing shall Field Verification Prior to Grading City Planning be installed along the edge of all conservation, Permit Issuance Department restoration, and enhancement areas to discourage human encroachment into those areas that would not be encroached upon except as a result of Project implementation. 5.3-2e Prior to Grading Permit issuance, signs shall be Field Verification Prior to Grading City Planning placed on all fencing installed along the edge of Permit Issuance Department all conservation, restoration, and enhancement areas prohibiting entrance into these areas. -a 5.3-2f Earth-moving equipment shall not maneuver in Field Verification Prior to Grading Construction n areas outside the identified limits of grading in Permit Issuance Supervisor and • order to avoid disturbing open space areas that City-Approved • are proposed to remain undeveloped. Prior to Biologist Grading Permit issuance,the natural open space rn limits shall be marked by the construction p o• s supervisor and the Project biologist. These limits a) 0z - (DO . 1 C 49D 0 o rV � 0 JN 10-034194 5.3-2f shall be identified on the grading plan. The Field Verification Prior to Grading Construction Cont'd Applicant shall submit a letter to the City of Permit Issuance Supervisor and Rancho Palos Verdes prior to Grading Permit City-Approved issuance verifying that construction limits have Biologist been flagged in the field. No earth-moving equipment shall be allowed within the open space areas. VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE �� -�.� E Mita Party Gonad. Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible isto, 1ittillati± Initials�_, � .� i �� �. � �� tryiiiw �: ��err� ...� .... r.. rrX :L� r � aa�e : Remarks 5.3-2g The Project development plan shall be modified Field Verification Prior to Grading Construction to avoid any construction/development impact to Permit Issuance Supervisor and • any areas subject to jurisdiction of the ACOE and City-Approved CDFG. If impacts to areas within the jurisdiction Biologist of the ACOE and/or CDFG cannot be avoided, prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall obtain a permit and/or agreement from the ACOE and CDFG for any impacts to areas within their jurisdiction as part of the proposed Project. Prior to the final submittal of an application for an Confirmation of Prior to the Final City-Approved ACOE permit or CDFG agreement, the Project Submittal of Submittal of an Biologist Applicant shall develop a riparian restoration Riparian Restoration Application for an plan for the ACOE, CDFG, and City of Rancho Plan ACOE Permit or Palos Verdes. The objective of the mitigation is CDFG Agreement to ensure no net loss of habitat values as a result of the Project. Prior to implementation, a detailed restoration program shall be developed and shall contain the following items: -o n • Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the y plan. The responsibilities of the landowner, specialists and maintenance personnel that m would supervise and implement the plan O o' x shall be specified. 0) o co a. z - . N C7 " �Op o No c w orn Cr) OW� " JN 10-034194 VERIFICATiON OF COMPLIANCE MIL/ omit Monitoring ate: •N1011401:04.4ROs s i r �1. '1 h. �k YC�,' i ,��,...n ��..kl'��.��+w�.'.� }i�. �r�.�.,1!..4'�'...tr�<���������3�A���'�,•r.`i-..s� ..�..,�.�..Y..tom c�A�. ... �E�����•<�3.... ': 5.3-2g • Site selection. The site for the mitigation Cont'd shall be determined in coordination with the Project Applicant, City staff, and resource agencies. The site shall be located in a dedicated open space area and shall be contiguous with other natural open space. • Site preparation and planting4111 implementation. Site preparation shall include: 1) protection of existing native species, 2) trash and weed removal, 3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e. duff), 4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting), 5) temporary irrigation installation, 6) erosion control measures (i.e., rice or shallow wattles), 7) seed mix application, and 8)container species. . • Schedule. A schedule shall be developed which includes planting to occur in late fall and early winter, between October and January 30. • Maintenance plan/guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include: 1) weed control, 2) herbivory control, 3) trash removal, 4) irrigation system maintenance, •C) 5)maintenance training, and 6)replacement • planting. 70 o • Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall m include: 1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., 0 $4- photographs and general observations), 2) 0 -o ,� quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly ▪ o C o rt placed transects), 3) performance criteria as • approved by the resource agencies, O 9h 18 c N 0 43 • 70 JN 10-034194 • VERIFICATION Mit Party Conti: Monitoring and. Monitoring Responsible. s } �: f nfti Iia ..ema .,.. ...No5. .-..:...�?�.i�11����I��::. ast:.0.i -�... � i} ANN** .•6Je:� t' ttr..<.� 5: ��..++.�i.c.i....r..-... -. ..'.��f:FY1���..•fM:.:i.A- l'::t... .t l.. 5.3-2g 4)monthly reports for the first year and bimonthly Cont'd reports thereafter, and 5) annual reports which shall be submitted to the resource agencies for five years. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas; however, if there is successful coverage prior to five years, the Project Applicant may request from ACOE and 110 CDFG to be released from monitoring requirements. • Long-Term Preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future development. This shall include provisions for adequate fencing and signing to protect the preserve areas. • Performance standards shall be identified and shall apply for the restoration of riparian habitat. Revegetation shall be considered successful at three years if the percent cover and species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are similar to percent cover and species diversity of • adjacent existing habitats, as determined by n quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat areas. Testing shall y be conducted by a qualified biologist selected by the Applicant and subject to m o 0= approval by City staff. sv O Zcm _. (D 4) O . 1 y) 00 I K, m JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mia Party illy. +y�� 'a r - i. ri and,d, ,•Mt.� ya `Rea•°WWW .: .. v:<trh...t: ...+;.ai•Y,....-._..,,.K.,.<JSa.1.f[i R_i.> v rigitatitgt tiii1 E . .101#014, Pato 1 5.3-2h Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Confirmation of Prior to Issuance City Planning Applicant shall develop a sage scrub restoration Submittal of a of Grading Department plan. The plan shall be approved by the Coastal Sage Scrub Permits USFWS, CDFG, and City of Rancho Palos Restoration Plan. Verdes. The plan shall contain the following items: • Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the landowner, specialists and maintenance personnel that would supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. • Site selection. The site for the mitigation shall be determined in coordination with the Project Applicant, City staff, and resource agencies. The site shall be located in a dedicated open space area and shall be contiguous with other natural open space. • Site preparation and planting implementation. Site preparation shall include: 1) protection of existing native species, 2) trash and weed removal, 3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e. duff), 4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, n decompacting), 5) temporary irrigation installation, 6) erosion control measures y (i.e., rice or shallow wattles), 7) seed mix 0 application,and 8)container species. C.7. O 0 ? • Schedule. A schedule shall be developed o which includes planting to occur in late fall cfl 11) cr o and early winter, between October and CD CD N n January 30. g O ' • owrn v) 70 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE j Party Cond, Monitoring: and Monitoring Responsible Ragtag y� ` t � �r a: e:. for ooltto(ri:.... Initials Pate ..._...._Remarks... . 5.3-2h • Maintenance plan/guidelines. The Cont'd maintenance plan shall include: 1) weed control, 2) herbivory control, 3) trash removal, 4) irrigation system maintenance, 5)maintenance training,and 6)replacement planting. • Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall include: 1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations), 2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects), 3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies, 4) monthly reports for the first year and bimonthly reports thereafter, and 5) annual reports which shall be submitted to the resource agencies for five years. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment of sage scrub habitat within the restored and created areas; however, if there is successful coverage prior to five years, the Project Applicant may request from USFWS and CDFG to be released from monitoring requirements. • Long-Term Preservation. Long-term C7 preservation of the site shall be outlined in • the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the co mitigation site is not impacted by future cn development. - - m po �; ,-. � U ▪ oz cr CD CD o • 1 • O om JN 10-034194 f. . - • 'VERIFICATION'OF COMPLIANCE u Mint :MOff ;��n�d :_ISI ft�►rf := •Responsible r Q ,R0-06.10-,-'040:0001; for It i i to ReMa ks (e tk; .ply � � t. �a IF .� : ..�fn;7,.:..> ,..:�, e... f. h�.s r..,... .,..,...o.�. ..�.w ,. ..., �.... •1�1�:�����i�Y�n'� "�'„�.,�,.�'����,.,�, .�. ._!���{S�%''--'fir- ,_..., '.,t-::..r:.,y,,,p•_.v .... ...,.,...( � i.i .x. :..."-f � Mh• :1.���i:#' a.,,,. .... -, S c_•...3» >'2. � >i� 5.3-2h • Performance standards shall be identified Cont'd and shall apply for the restoration of sage scrub habitat. Revegetation shall be considered successful at three years if the percent cover and species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are similar to percent cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats, as determined by quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat areas. Testing shall be conducted by a qualified biologist selected by the Applicant and subject to approval by City staff. 5.3-2i All activities of any kind involving the removal of Field Verification During the City-Approved coastal sage scrub habitat occupied by the Breeding and Biologist coastal California gnatcatcher shall be prohibited Nesting Season of during the breeding and nesting season of this the Coastal species (February 15 through August 30). All California grading/grubbing operations shall be monitored Gnatcatcher by a qualified biologist, selected by the Applicant (February 15 and subject to approval by City staff. The Through monitoring biologist shall ensure that only the August 30) permitted amount of coastal sage scrub would be removed. The monitoring biologist shall flush gnatcatchers and other birds from the vegetation prior to disturbance, to ensure no gnatcatchers are directly impacted during the removal of the C7 vegetation. The monitoring biologist shall have 11 the authority to stop or direct construction at any • time she/he feels that a gnatcatcher is in danger. 0 5.3-2j Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, a Confirmation of Prior to the City Planning • m lighting plan shall be submitted to the City of Submittal of Lighting Issuance of Department o o' Rancho Palos Verdes for review and approval to Plan Occupancy o demonstrate that lighting from the proposed Permits CO Cro '* Project will be directed away from natural open N C7 space areas on and adjacent to the Project site, v� o � as well as proposed biological resources o N o Imitigation sites. c o 43 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION-OP t s 'LSA (AE. Mitt 2` 'Party 'i iz :< 1r n...-.C,://GT r' fJ �i+n - • . t j40,41,010110 7a1" b 'tom YYr a 'i6si•• t s J ` 011$0- �nrvt� vl iJ` itatifit1itAiNtkittfitAOC _1041414.s y: Date Rernarks 5.3-2k Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Resort Confirmation of Prior to Issuance City Engineer Hotel Area Infrastructure Plan and the Upper Revisions to the of Grading Point Vicente Area Infrastructure Plan shall be Resort Hotel Area Permits revised, to the satisfaction of the City of Rancho Infrastructure Plan Palos Verdes City Engineer such that the and the Upper Point proposed water, sewer and storm drain lines are Vicente Area re-aligned to the "impact areas" illustrated in Infrastructure Plan Exhibit 5.3-5, Biological Resources Impacts Within the Resort Hotel Area, and Exhibit 5.3-6, Biological Resources Impacts Within the Upper Point Vicente Area. CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.4-la Site CA-LAN-103 (Rock Shelter and Shell Conduct Testing Prior to Grading Qualified Midden). The Project Applicant shall retain a Program Permit Issuance Archaeologist/ qualified, City approved archaeologist to conduct City Planning archaeological testing in order to determine the Department depth,breadth, and nature of the contents of Site CA-LAN-103, and whether or not it qualifies as a historical resource. Such a testing program would consist of scientific excavation units, artifact analysis, and report preparation for a sample of the site area, so that a conclusion can be reached regarding site integrity and the research potential of its intact deposits. 5.4-1 a If the testing program determines that Site CA- Develop and Prior to Grading Qualified Cont'd LAN-103 qualifies as a historical resource as implement mitigation Permit Issuance Archaeologist/ defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, program as City Planning • three options are available to reduce impacts to appropriate Department co y a less than significant level: 0 E m • Capping the site to preserve in situ; 0 o' ? • Redesign to avoid impacting Site CA-LAN- -a ° 3 -�v- 103;or coo • Retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare "N n • and implement a data recovery plan prior to 0 o issuance of a Grading Permit for the 0 N o I immediate area of CA-LAN-103. c o w r JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE M ./: Party 2 >l'i .:t / ..� f ��.,�, 'cy �i .1.q. ... ,2:T....a,.wa:�� �L.'a7'. .... .�:�n...<iw.... .� � d II 'j 1r�;1 .: i:.r.(u�+ I.{t��i1� x.2. ,�y , E iCC �w'' o �,...'I N,s'i%-e.a..: I»^ -'F�•x,- ate �........:Z.r,aNS����� h as ..:2 .� llll� ..�..i �I���tIIS�A�I�`lL�?� :u:x:.� �''yC.�_?.9,,.._... 1. l 1. 9:ai.�..... 01448010t..01,011111g, , _-- I 5.4-lb Site 19-180589 (Base End Stations). Since the Field Inspection With During Qualified proposed Project would have no effect on the Final Report Construction Archaeologist Base End Stations, the only further requirement Activities regarding this site is to ensure its proper protection during construction activities. No other treatment is recommended for this historical resource. 5.4-1c Site 19-180590 (Battery 240). Due to the Review of Grading Prior to Grading City Planning • proposed Project's potential to cause a change Plan Permit Issuance Department in the significance of this historical resource, prior to Grading Permit issuance, project effects Field Monitoring of During Qualified to this site shall be avoided by preserving the Compliance Construction Archaeologist portion of the site within the Project area and w/Approved Plan Activities incorporating it into the Project design in such a way as to retain the historic characteristics of this resource. r5.4-1d Due to the likelihood of encountering subsurface Field Monitoring/ During Grading Qualified features or buried artifacts from the WWII era in Final Report Archaeologist the vicinity of Battery 240,earth-moving activities near the site shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. 5.4-1 a Site 19-180591 (Nike Air Defense Site La-55-L). Review of Grading Prior to Grading City Planning cont'd One of the following two mitigation options shall Plan or Conduct Permit Issuance Department or be implemented regarding disposition of Site 19- Level 2 Qualified 180591 prior to Demolition Permit issuance: Documentation Archaeologist -o • Option 1. Project effects to this site shall be n avoided by preserving components of the site and incorporating them into the Project y design in such a way as to retain the historic o characteristics of this resource. • m po )4 fao � fa 0z mcDo � N0 rri c orn w 70 JN 10-034194 COMPLIANCE VERIFICATIONOF Vitt Party: Celtic": 61°41thricrig and MonitoringResponsible . •'" 00: d040MreYciOi itlAnt-�f-�PFYA( yr001111191togoss:_•., 4114t9 < illi0,1404 �� i...i<. . Date • Option 2 (if demolition is unavoidable). The Review of Grading Prior to Demolition City Planning Project effects to this site shall be mitigated Plan or Conduct Permit Issuance Department or through recordation procedures compatible Level 2 Qualified to Level 2 of the Historic American Buildings Documentation Archaeologist Survey (HABS) and the Historic American Engineering Record(HAER). Established in 1933 and 1967, respectively, 4110 HABS and HAER have been adopted by the National Park Service as the primary methods of preserving important information about architectural, engineering, and industrial sites of historic value, and are often initiated as the means of mitigating adverse effects of federal undertakings on such sites (NPS 1993:1). At Level 2, HABS/HAER requires detailed textual and photographic recordation, sketch maps and drawings of structural features, and historical documentation to record the subject property's history. The results of such documentation are to be made accessible to the public at one or more local repositories, such as the local history collection of the Palos Verdes Library and/or the Palos Verdes Historical Society's museum. 5.4-1f Site 19-180593 (Documented Long Point Refer to Mitigation Refer to Mitigation Refer to Defense District). Refer to Mitigation Measures Measures 5.4-1 b, Measures 5.4-1 b, Mitigation 5.4-1b, 5.4-1c and 5.4-1e. If these 5.4-1c and 5.4-1e. 5.4-1c and 5.4-1e. Measures 5.4-1b, • recommendations are adopted, the Project's 5.4-1c and 5.4- • potential effects on the documented historic 1 e. cD district would be reduced to a level less than cn significant. o. m 0 x sa O Z(cIa _. M CCD t0 O 0 O I -, 0 -CA 0 42 171 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION:OF COMPLIANCE Mit./ Party Cond. Monitoring,and Monitoring Reepontible '.<..>.... NO..... � i•.•->.'<..*Kiliattniy; offir. Animalal •e:.t>:� -t . YP ^Y � �.,- w�� l��� initials i. t� .. .... ... _ Dat....w�e Remarks. . 5.4-1g 6621 Beachview Drive (Ishibashi Farmhouse General Prior to Demolition Qualified Complex). Although not eligible for listing in the Documentation Permit Issuance Archaeologist/ California Register, this farmhouse complex City Planning qualifies as a point of local historical interest. In Department order to reduce the Project impacts on the complex, the historical and physical data about the buildings, structures, and other related features shall be documented prior to Demolition 110 Permit issuance. The recommended scope of work consists of a general documentation of the complex's history and current conditions, and limited photographic recordation of its physical characteristics. The results of these procedures should be housed at one or more local repositories to facilitate public access. 5.4-1 h Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project Verification and Prior to Grading City Planning developer shall provide verification that a Approval of Letter Permit Issuance Department qualified archaeologist and/or an archeological Submittal monitor have been retained to implement the archeological monitoring program. This verification shall be in the form of a letter from the Project developer to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ; The qualified archeologist shall attend any Meeting Attendance Pre-Construction Qualified41111 n preconstruction meetings to make comments Meetings Archaeologist 70 and/or suggestions concerning the monitoring Review of CD program and to discuss excavation plans with Construction Plans Prior to City Planning 0 the excavation contractor. The requirements for Grading Permit Department �.. archaeological monitoring shall be noted on the Issuance O a construction plans. The qualified archaeologist Field Monitoring o Z v; or archaeological monitor shall be present on- During Qualified site during construction activity involving work in Final Reports Construction Archaeologist or co o N n previously undisturbed soils. The Archaeological c " archaeologist(s) duties shall include monitoring, Monitor 2. 8 -am evaluation, analysis of collected materials, and o "q 7J _preparation of monitoring results reports. JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mitt Party Coad: Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible ' � ...- Ct1,110911:.MaQ OIN ...OITS...OxAVM)* ftttingPTPAOSS Milestone f K ti :a Remarks 5.4-li In the event that cultural resources are Field Monitoring During Grading/ Qualified discovered during grading/construction activities, Construction Archaeologist the archeologist shall have the authority to divert Activities or temporarily halt ground disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. The archaeologist shall contact City staff at the time of discovery. The significance of the discovered • resources shall be determined by the archeologist, in consultation with City staff. City staff must concur with the evaluation procedures to be performed before construction activities are allowed to resume. For significant cultural resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall be prepared and implemented to mitigate impacts. Any human bones of Native American origin shall be turned over to the appropriate Native American group for reburial. 5.4-1j All cultural remains uncovered during Field Monitoring During Grading/ Qualified grading/construction activities shall be cleaned, Construction Archaeologist cataloged and permanently curated with an Activities appropriate institution. All artifacts shall be analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history of the area. Faunal material shall be identified as to species. .� Speciality studies shall be completed as appropriate. • 70 CD y 0 po . m -0 -go 3 ca CZ ,-} (D MD . 0 , is cowm co 70 JN 10-034194 5.4-2a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project Verification and Prior to Grading City Planning developer shall provide a letter of verification to Approval of Letter Permit Issuance Department the City Planning Department stating that a Submittal qualified paleontologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The qualified Meeting Attendance Pre-Construction Qualified paleontologist shall attend preconstruction Meeting Archaeologist 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. VERIFICATION OF COMpuANcE • MIt:/. .: .. :.,' �..;. .,..... 't � aresy e+ Monitoring, Mon nibt .wM��� �� o-. ���:s na a i i i a Date te Remarks 5.4-2b The paleontologist or paleontological monitor Field Inspection During all Paleontologist or shall be on-site to inspect for fossils during all Excavation! Paleontological excavation/grading activities. Monitoring shall be Grading Activities Monitor done full-time in those formations with a high sensitivity rating, and shall be 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. 5.4-2c In the event that fossils are encountered during Field Inspection During all Paleontologist or grading, the paleontologist shall have the Excavation/ Paleontological authority to divert or temporarily halt construction Grading Activities Monitor activities in the area of discovery to allow .o recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. •n Because of the potential for recovery of small • fossil remains, it may be necessary to set up a co screen-washing operation on-site. 0 m o• ox =. o m m . IV O 3 p N0I CA, owm JN 10-034194 5.4-2d Fossil remains collected during grading/ Field Inspection During Grading/ Paleontologist or construction activities shall be cleaned, sorted, Construction Paleontological repaired, cataloged, and then (with the Activities Monitor 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 11 an alternative disposition of the collection. CD y 0 0 • x n O .0 . a' 0) c r Z .�' m m O • n who g N O I cnowm JN 10-034194 • �VERIFICATION�OF�COMPLIANCE Party Cond. Monitoring and Mort[tering Re ;o ble j t a 9 ® ft 1 ��l�ll��.�reiCL .�,.. .a=�.�:�A�'�!��... ::,� _ . . ��.'�� s��� .. .��40100toLr. marks. 5.4-3 In the event human remains are discovered Field Inspection During Grading/ Paleontologist or during grading/construction activities, work shall Construction Paleontological cease in the immediate area of the discovery and Activities Monitor 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". GEOLOGY,SOILS AND SEISMICITY 5.5-2a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, additional Verification of Prior to Grading City's design-level geotechnical studies shall be Completion of Permit Issuance Geotechnical performed to provide the adequate level of Additional Design- Consultant/ information to properly design and engineer the Level Geotechnical City Building Project. The Applicant shall submit a Studies Official Geotechnical Report for review and approval by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and Building Official addressing the following: • The Report shall primarily involve assessment of potential soil related constraints and hazards such as slope and sea cliff instability, sea cliff erosion, or related secondary seismic impacts, where n determined to be appropriate by the City's Geotechnical Consultant/Building Official; CD o • The Report shall include an evaluation of m potentially expansive soils and recommend 0 o• ).4. construction procedures and/or design -v �. a: criteria to minimize the effect of these soils CO o �: on the proposed development;and 1%' N C'' oo Pidentify appropriate • The Report shall a ro riate No .� m mitigation measures and be completed in o y - the manner specified by the City. JN 10-034194 { • -VEMPICATI-4 NOP COMPLIANCE Mt.1l : Par �r Cond. Monitoring andMonitori Responsible a s n �. t Dato Remarks piEyyq .. t i�...a �* 5.5-2b Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant Verification and Prior to Grading Geotechnical& shall submit a report by an engineering geologist Approval of Report Permit Issuance Building Official indicating the ground surface acceleration from Submittal earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand 4110 anticipated g-factors shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Geotechnical Consultant/City Building Official. 5.5-6 Prior to Building Permit issuance, a layer of Plan Check/Field Prior to Building City Building relatively non-expansive soils shall be placed Inspection Permit Issuance Safety beneath floor slabs. For building footings, the use of properly reinforced concrete, deep spread-footings, drilled-and-belled caissons, or drilled cast-in-place piles shall be utilized.As part of the geotechnical report for the final design of the Project, specific recommendations shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant. In addition,refer to Mitigation Measure 5.5-2. 5.5-7a Prior to Building Permit issuance, permanent Plan Check Prior to Building Building Safety structures and structures of all-hours occupancy Permit Issuance shall be placed landward of the existing City-approved building setback line on the RHA and the structural (building) setback line established by Neblett&Associates (July, 2000) • on the UPVA. C1 _ 70 cD y O m a• -• cocQ0za ar 0 m m . IV .5 N • A Ogoi c 0 44 • ou JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION of COMPLIANCE Parti Cond. Monitoring and Motaortng FteSponsible `l ,l '.t o600000.,,,_ '3 1 .ts•, .. 71 �-� � '� � �f ... ..t... .n•IV.F.: "✓.�T(�'. fM n :.t.... �siF�.+.«1�i�����:'.•�••��'•+��������iu-�a. i.w:.ifw:.ee; ,�����:.'�!f' h......_Aso. ....r.. �����lit�. ` 5.5-7b Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant Review and Prior to Grading Director of Public shall submit a grading/drainage plan for review Approval Permit Issuance Works and City's and approval by the Director of Public Works Geotechnical Building Official, and City's Geotechnical Consultant Consultant. Said plan shall incorporate the following design objectives: Building Official • All surface and subsurface runoff shall be 10 directed to the nearest acceptable drainage facility, via sump pumps if necessary, as determined by the Director of Public Works/Building Official; • On-site drainage and subdrain systems shall not drain over the bluff top. All roof gutter drains shall be required to connect into a tight line drainage pipe or concrete swales that drain to an acceptable drainage facility, as determined by the Director of Public Works/Building Official; • A soils/geotechnical report addressing the extent of uncompacted fill and remedial grading on site shall be prepared. The report, including the recommended bluff protection measures and vibration -0 monitoring system, shall be submitted for n review and approval by the Director of Public Works and City's Geotechnical y Consultant/Building Official. Heavy vibrating o compaction or other equipment shall not be • m allowed near the bluff face. ° 0 '4. o • Incorporate all recommendations of the ca g Z '* approved soils/geotechnical report into the cu IN YDo15 o IN) construction design of the Project. � oN � I c owit m o) " 70 JN 10-034194 Llr C CE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mit/ Party Cond. Monitoring and MOnitoring Reopen-6%1e ,. -' for .. , init I$ tie Remarks No. ...... ���. �:�� e�aure/Gc� #�, : .......��f_: :�>,.�'�C �w.._ ....�? ��� �_�' !4!��+..�.�.�..,.. ..�. u.�. � ��:_ �.,�ri. 5.5-7c Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the location of Verification of Well Prior to Grading City's groundwater monitoring wells with a combination Location Permit Issuance Geotechnical of shallow (30 feet), intermediate (80 feet), and Consultant deep (200 feet), shall be identified and installed by the Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant to the Verification of After Issuance of City Public satisfaction of the City's Geotechnical Submittal of Monthly Certificate of Works Consultant. These wells shall be monitored,at a Report Occupancy once minimum, on a monthly basis for the first five per month for five • years after issuance of the Certificate of years Occupancy. A monthly report shall be prepared presenting the groundwater level monitoring data and submitted to the City for review. In the event the groundwater level monitoring data indicates either a rise of more than ten feet Verification of Well In the event the City's within the regional water table, or the presence Drilling Plan groundwater level Geotechnical/ of groundwater if no groundwater was monitoring data Hydrogeologic documented immediately following installation of indicates either a Consultant the well(s), additional wells shall be installed in rise of more than order to assess the nature and extent of the ten feet within the changes in the groundwater conditions beneath regional water the area. If this condition were to occur, a well table,or the drilling plan shall be submitted to the City for presence of review by the City's Geotechnical/Hydrogeologic groundwater if no Consultant. groundwater was documented immediately • following • installation of the well(s) H O po x c 3 to Q• Z CD CD O • •/ y O O N 2 c owm o) •i 70 JN 10-034194 OF COMPLIANCE and Moriltoring ReSPOnsible. ... . 7.. ....Y...,.....oitt—tigatiorukolawrxcomationsio Approyai 4,looms*........ �= a ar ks 5.5-7d A bi-annual reconnaissance of the UPVA and of Reconnaissance After Issuance of Applicant's the sea cliffs shall be performed for at least six Bi-Annual the Certificate of Geotechnical years after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy Bi- Consultant Occupancy,as indicated by the Director of Public Verification of Annually for at Works, to assess the presence of seeps or Monthly least six years City Public springs which may develop overtime. The result Groundwater Works of the evaluation shall be included in the Monitoring Report appropriate monthly groundwater monitoring report with recommendations to mitigate any adverse seepage noted during the reconnaissance. 5.5-8b Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, a Verification of Prior to Demolition City's Planning, Construction Monitoring Plan shall be prepared Submittal of Permit Building and to protect coastal resources within and Construction Code surrounding proposed development areas during Monitoring Plan Enforcement construction phases of the Project. The Plan Department shall be submitted to the City's Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for review and approval. The Plan shall also identify measures for the protection of resources and monitoring procedures to determine compliance. Such measures include, but are not limited to, Best Management Practices, erosion control measures and protective fencing. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE -p 5.6-1 a The City may require that the Applicant utilize Determination of Prior to Grading City Public n slant drains for discharge over the bluffs. If, the Slant Drain Use Permit Issuance Works City determines that the slant drains are required, the design of the slant drains shall be o completed in accordance with the City Public m Works standards during the design phase of the 0 o Project. Issues that would be addressed in the design phase include: outlet siting, geotechnical tQ Z '* considerations, and wave action impacts on the N • w N Q structures. _ V O N � c o m JN 10-034194 - w. f NCEpato , R- 'WAS* ..!r,40.01.11110, , „ :•.4-'100*tt. .. .moi G' Date Remarks N 1teJ �_ �rP� )�� x � 5.6-1b In the event the outfall structures are located Verification of Prior to Grading City Public within the jurisdiction of the California State Consultation with Permit Issuance Works Lands Commission, the Project Applicant shall California State consult with this Agency prior to Grading Permit Lands Commission issuance for the Project, with respect to outfall elevations and avoidance of impacts to tidelands and beds of navigable waterways. 5.6-2 Prior to Grading Permit issuance and as part of Verification of Prior to Grading Los Angeles • the Project's compliance with the NPDES Submittal of Notice Permit Issuance Regional Water requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be of Intent and Storm Quality Control prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles Water Pollution Board Regional Water Quality Control Board providing Prevention Plan notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Also, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be completed for the construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP shall be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP shall outline the source control and/or treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the"maximum extent practicable." 5.6-3a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the Public Submittal of Water Permit Issuance Works Works Director, a Water Quality Management Quality Management Plan, which includes Best Management Plan Practices (BMPs), Structural Measures, and411 n Adaptive Management, under the guidelines in Development Planning for Storm Water y Management-A Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) prepared m by Los Angeles County Department of Public 0 o >. Works dated May 2000. The SUSMP is a new • o National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System cQ v' Z (NPDES) Permit requirement for Los Angeles M " o County. co,P• 7 o VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE ° p - m cy) 7i JN 10-034194 M#1 S. �r .. � S 1..,t... .l.�T -t V y�r,� E t�:.,.. s a and Mon Res.On.�'�b e � y; Y: C d. t jag* Rate Re_njarks, •„-..w.=...,..waasstYr,.w•rcoz1c.F+rc•�r .na••.R`.'t�• Y ��� z � � S��� a m 2 IY v •it{ - 1 . Y l a s\ •S 1 i 5.6-3b It was determined that the current Water Quality Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public Management Plan did not meet the SUSMP Revised WQMP Permit Issuance Works requirements for the design of several Standard BMPs. The Water Quality Management Plan shall be revised to include the additional BMPs listed below: Standard BMPs Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public incorporation into Permit Issuance Works From the California Storm Water Best Revised WQMP Management Practice Handbook - Construction Activity. • CA 20 Solid Waste Management-This BMP describes the requirements to properly design and maintain trash storage areas. The primary design feature requires the storage of trash in covered areas. • • From the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook - Industrial/Commercial: • SC 3 Vehicle and Equipment Washing & Steam Cleaning - This BMP provides regulations for the cleaning of equipment used on-site. The BMP requires the consideration of utilizing off-site commercial washing and steam cleaning business. If on-site washing is preferred, designated C7 wash areas must be identified and designed to the standards listed in the handbook. c� 0 O 0 -13 !Q CT �1I /w �l//w . w • w " •/ O O 0 N CA owrn JN 10-034194 5.6-3b • SC 4 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance cont'd and Repair - This BMP details appropriate measures to keep oil and grease, heavy metals and toxic material from coming in contact with stormwater runoff. • SC 5 Outdoor Loading/Unloading of Materials-This BMP describes measures to prevent and reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater from outdoor loading and unloading of materials. The primary design features to reduce pollution are: covering the loading/unloading docks; preventing storm run on; and containing ill spills. Treatment BMPs Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public incorporation into Permit Issuance Works • Two areas identified in the impact analysis Revised WQMP as needing additional mitigation are the proposed east swale and those golf course drainage areas not addressed in the Water Quality Management Plan. • The east swale does not meet the minimum criteria for optimal swale performance as detailed in Appendix B, Section B.13 of the SUSMP Manual. Specifically, the hydraulic residence time for the eastern swale is less than the 5 minute optimum criteria. Therefore, the swale shall either be lengthened, using a large radius curved path m or if it is not possible to lengthen the swale, n the swale shall be enlarged by increasing • MI the flow depth and/or swale width. If none CD of these options are feasible, detention to cn o attenuate flows shall be incorporated as part E of a treatment train. o -' Q 0 -o a = 0.? O o. - cD cD o i. " p o N OSD I "41 rn cn o w — JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Mnta Party 3.. Con dMonitoring ... ir o ria�dA � I��� 0 f 110. ., N{� �� eQs.teXb �d�wKA� ;1�. > rrttttkgaWC«w f. f• V m . M D. Remarks ps. 5.6-3b For those areas of the golf course which have cont'd been identified as not receiving specific treatment before discharging into natural areas or storm drains, appropriate treatment shall be incorporated into the Project. Appropriate treatment is either vegetative swales, enhanced vegetated swales utilizing check dams and wide depressions, a series of small detention facilities • designed similarly to a dry detention basin, or a combination of these treatment methods into a treatment train. The Water Quality Management Plan shall address treatment for all areas of the golf course to assure that the runoff from the golf course is treated to the "maximum extent practicable." In order for the vegetation swales to be effective in the removal of potential pollutants, the swales shall be treated as a water quality feature and shall be maintained in a different manner than the turf of the golf courses. Specifically, pesticides, herbicide, and fertilizers, which may be used on the golf course turf shall not be used in the vegetation swales. All swales or basins, shall be designed to treat the First Flush Treatment per the SUSMP criteria n of designing mitigation to treat the volume of runoff from the 0.75" of rainfall. This treatment y along with other the other components of the O WQMP shall fulfill the requirements of the .rn SUSMP. O -' x 0 - a' IV O Z _. CCI 17 cD m O W N n N„ p -C2o t:3) O I , wm v) — 70 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Party orad Monitoring: and i Monitoring Responsible No. ittiagtsM �QS M�� ��res. � r �I �� ����-ee rt .�¢xa ktfmitaKg . nIn.t �« �e ...._ Remarks ► 5.6-3c Water Quality Monitoring and Adaptive Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public cont'd Management Plan incorporation into Permit Issuance Works revised WQMP The Water Quality Management Plan does not address BMP maintenance nor does it detail how the water quality monitoring would be completed and how the results would affect the Adaptive Management Plan. Additional mitigation required includes a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan. The Plan shall addresses the following issues: • BMP Maintenance - Maintenance for the treatment BMPs (filtration units, swales, detention basins) shall be performed at specific intervals depending on the specific BMP. At a minimum the BMPs shall be maintained at the beginning of the rainy season (October 15), at least once during the rainy season, and following the rainy season (April 15). Maintenance for swales shall consist of mowing, irrigation maintenance, and sediment removal. Mowing shall take place on an as-needed basis to maintain optimal grass height. Filtration units shall be maintained and C7 inspected once per month, after each storm event, and at the end of the dry season. Detention basins shall be inspected based y on the minimum standards above and m sediment shall be removed on an as-needed 0 = basis pending the results of monthly a -. inspections during the rainy season. aaoz P it /w . • W O St N 2 ' owm va - 1 � JN 10-034194 , ...vtotirotAVA0*-'• • . . , ... _ '.', .... ................,.. . ...... .... .. .. .. om ,...,.:„:.:., '''" ss sL,<9z5 v ,t- .. r . . � , ' t j : ., - \,,--.- :. � ..i i : 1 y z t '':-:?;001341.: PC i L 3 Y 41'!'''''';''';'-!:1:'''-''''''' t -4111154.'' i > 4 ., f •. v : >. L.:l f7fi rr. p f �� n�3 ,... .- l .,:1 <. '. .a ,',. ..;7., .. r4Ia:fi ^, , tr r , c, ` , .:s . .. . .... ._ ... . . . -<. . Y . . t : ",+ lVF ® i �• e �7:tI a _- Rem_ arkettAtk s ::':.,1,,-1.. t :, ,, a. i. s .� t . " `�a 2 "iN1S •F i. M; -.x }•r � i ,�1ii. ifcation ofa p t ' s« , 9 .S4ection -,'.:::.,-',.:":::::::::11,1 a i : f T >r. f i �Verr' �� � fi, Pmsri�o7Ir to.Gradnwng DirectWoroorkfsPublictyr , ic 4 5.6-3c • ble for incorporaoMPProof of BMP Maintenance The plan shall identify aninto Permit Issuance WQ amlsaorevised set forth a method for logging,tracking, and reporting BMP maintenance and inspection to the appropriate City officials. 411) , t , • Water Quality Monitoring - The plan shall identify who will perform and be responsible for the monitoring of the treatment BMPs. The monitoring shall take place for at least 6 years post construction. Monitoring shall be completed for a minimum of 5 storms per year and twice during the dry weather months. Monitoring shall include gathering data on flow measurement, and constituent levels for both pre-and post-treatment. This information shall be logged, tracked, and reported to the appropriate City officials. the • Adaptive Management Plan - Using BMP inspection, maintenance, and monitoring data collected on a yearly basis, an adaptive management plan shall be 411 issued on an annual basis fora 5-year period once construction is completed. The adaptive management plan shall not only • report the findings of inspection, n maintenance, and monitoring, it shall utilize this information to determ• ine any necessary 0o changes in the current WQMP. The report shall also specifically discuss the O �'• effectiveness of the Golf Course - �. Management Portion of the Water Quality to 0 z Management Plan. The Plan shall be CD ." •o C� submitted to the City for their review and co c approval. O i N c 0wrn JN 10-034194 •' is t Zg a % .....''....'+.. r•�, .. .. , ''...:'!...,.<. S_,,<+••'..}.• .<Jr . —.rsnc,•.;r.._�,- r .,.p•..,—,.0� YF`_�Xr�'<. '„4f:.k`:.r..:•'..F'%....,.•..•.v�.•_. F- Y• .Yom.:,•_ t t! 'I x1 r^ �xl - � rY•.` r� .. . ,_ ......_.._.� . I .�•.:Fks 1 � _inputs. Pq ;.t 1,1-:: om- r.:r.... LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING 5.7-5 An Amendment to the Program of Utilization Verification of Prior to Grading Department of shall be prepared to concur with the uses Amendment to the Permit Issuance the Interior and proposed for the UPVA by the Long Point Resort Program of City Planning Project. Approval of the Amendment to the POU Utilization Department shall be obtained in writing from the Department of the Interior prior to Grading Permit Issuance. • MARINE RESOURCES 5.8-1 a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public Applicant shall prepare/implement the following: Submittal of Storm Permit Issuance Works/ (1) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Water Pollution Building Official (SWPPP); (2) Best Management Practices Prevention Plan, (BMPs) identified within the State of California Best Management "California Storm Water Best Management Practices and Practice Handbook for Construction Activity";and Construction Erosion (3)Construction Erosion Control Plan prior to site Control Plan construction. Refer also to Mitigation Measure 5.6-3. These plans and documents shall identify dry season and wet season runoff control measures, source control, and or treatment controls that avoid and/or mitigate potential soil erosion,runoff pollutants,and other stormwater constituents. 1111OF CO OLIAN cE • VERIFICATION m MIL/ moottorio.*rid' 4n— _ .. r J - No on d. ls Dat < far.'. �I ... rks03. -13 o Z17 _• /w CD O ") m w'•_ ) V■� 0 v , o O C IV I ow v) 70 JN 10-034194 • 5.8-1 b Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Storm Water Verification of Prior to Grading Public Works Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by Submittal of Storm Permit Issuance Department/ the Applicant. This Plan shall identify source Water Pollution Building Official control and/or treatment control BMPs that avoid Prevention Plan and/or mitigate runoff pollutants at the specific site to the "maximum extent practical". BMPs shall be developed to mitigate forpotential adverse impacts from nutrients, heavy metals, toxic chemicals related to construction and ' cleaning;waste materials such as concrete wash water, paints and paint equipment, wood, paper and concrete materials related to building materials and packaging, food containers and 4111 sanitary wastes; and fuels, lubricants, and other toxicants related to construction equipment and its maintenance. 5.8-1c Prior to Grading Permit issuance, an Erosion Verification of Prior to Grading Public Works Control Plan shall be prepared by the Applicant Submittal of Erosion Permit Issuance Department/ and submitted to the City Public Works and Control Plan Building Safety Building Safety. Specific BMPs in the Erosion Control Plan shall include: • • Water trucks shall be used during all grading activities to prevent visible dust emissions. • All trucks hauling debris or excavated materials shall be covered or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; • No grading shall occur during periods of high velocity winds exceeding 25 miles per hour; • is y, f � '.tom k `•n it./ t t " it z. .o .t' ,: .:. i. , < :`Y• •.£ "fit J'' �: ,r o a�1 .s �p 1 Re1 t a # t s © E �. moi' .l V...., 7 b }..`.: p twos �_ ,re' o�_ �1' » .r..''.!���k�.�����.�:�: � ��:.e ,ii:,., �ti��i"d-:s.r�ri:w.t.,...u,...:�'.,.[S.:S2::7'.•..£c- «. `s, o (A)c2 Q' Z M O • O N c owrn Cs 70 JN 10-034194 • 5.8-1c • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply cont'd non-toxic chemical stabilizers to exposed stockpiles with five percent or greater silt content. • During the rainy season (October-April) or if slopes are generally exposed to erosion,the slopes shall be stabilized and compacted, and/or temporarily hydroseeded. • Silt fencing, hay bales, sand bags, temporary detention basins, and other methods that prevent the transport of dust or eroded soils into the marine environment 40 shall be implemented. • During the rainy season, silt fences shall be installed around the perimeter of the construction site until all grading has been completed. • The construction site shall be monitored by a state-licensed civil engineering firm during • construction activities and any storm events to ensure that all BMPs have been implemented and that the BMPs are effective at minimizing and avoiding dust generation or the transport of stormwater into the marine environment. 5.8-1d Prior to commencement of grading/construction Verification of Prior to City Planning, activities, contractors shall provide workers with Development and Commencement Building and specific guidelines to avoid and minimize Distribution of of Grading/ Code disturbances to the rocky intertidal habitat and Guidelines Construction Enforcement C7 associated plant and animal communities while Activities 73 working on the beaches in the Project area and to remove all debris from the shoreline following o completion of construction. ,12: T 0 ..•,; • ,.... Y,,r• .,.,. ..<.,.... ,... 44 \I , J . yt . � e ' ti af .L, s. .fir r lint....l..r.. r,t OMPLIANCE o Z _ , r CD . Pt • 1/D 4a 3 ,r.) 914,9#1‘11' r . ting + hr : Dow, H • O IA ` Ti5 • 2, 8 I JN 10-034194 5.8-1e In addition to standard BMP's employed for Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public storm drain construction, the following BMPs Submittal of Revised Permit Issuance, Works/ shall be implemented during grading/construction Water Quality during Grading/ Building Safety/ activities to ensure that impacts to shoreline Management Plan/ Construction Building Official habitats and shoreline organisms are avoided: Field Monitoring Activities • All beach vehicular movement shall be limited to the backshore environment behind the lower beach berm (i.e., behind lower cobbles). • All construction debris shall be removed from the site as often as deemed necessary by the City to prevent the material from • being washed out to sea on the high tides. • Coastal protection devices shall minimize intrusion into sand beach habitat. Any sand beach habitat that is disturbed during construction shall be restored to its natural state following the completion of construction. 5.8-1f A construction-period Water Quality Monitoring Verification of Prior to Grading Director of Public Program shall be implemented that would Submittal of Water Permit Issuance Works/ include monitoring of suspended solids and Quality Monitoring City Planning, runoff contaminants from the Project site to Program Building and ensure that the local marine resources are not Code being degraded. This monitoring program shall Enforcement include the construction site,local tide pools,and nearshore waters offshore of the Long Point • Resort prior to, during, and following the grading activities. If it is determined that tide pool or Field Monitoring During City's ocean water quality has been degraded by Construction Construction • construction activities, then adaptive Period Monitor 7 management techniques shall be implemented to correct water quality violations in order to prevent o adverse effects on marine organisms. m o �- o co a • P w VERIFICATION 1I OF COMPLIANCE CO co Mita ,,;: t Ora : tv,' ROSPOOthfre e l,^ 1� S S ,t . O :<. f. t.. i.> � qtr. r i '•s •Y: l w. � �i� �1 'IN 1 ��qq -n�- Y t t .S t �A ! 1 i l9 ;Ininatoi 1 t f � 1 '� �y C 4 t' n ,c 4 5 ��y �i 11.a t, j is i•1 ,• 01-" jj,, 11 ♦�^ (�j tp ..�-� 7�` .(n r.. , E1ff]:T� __ 3 t�Y).�� 1�`!k�_. o � �if.t�.i7..,.,.r,i.iv e�f��".I't.'�e��� f .r..�.��'� ^E v••oo p...r �� 3 ��.nA��[ifjp�l:�,...�.•Y >."...� 'IS:1 " .!.•R'] _ V , JN 10-034194 5.8-2 A comprehensive Water Quality and Marine Verification of Prior to Issuance Director of Public Resources Monitoring Program shall be Submittal of Water of Certificate of Works/ conducted for a period of five years following Quality and Marine Occupancy City Planning, completion of resort construction to ensure that Resources Building and source controls and BMPs are satisfactorily Monitoring Program Code protecting the beneficial uses of the receiving Enforcement waters and marine life. Yearly monitoring reports Verification of shall detail the results of the field surveys. If the Submittal of Yearly Once per year for Director of Public yearly conclusions indicate that water quality Monitoring Report five years Works/ and/or the marine life in the vicinity of the Long City Planning, Point Resort has been adversely affected, then Building and adaptive management strategies shall be Code implemented to correct runoff control Enforcement deficiencies. If at the end of the fifth year the • results indicate that the beneficial uses of the receiving waters are being attained, the monitoring program shall be deemed completed. The Monitoring Program shall include monitoring Field Monitoring Prior to,during, Qualified Marine of suspended solids and runoff contaminants and following the Biologist from the Project site to ensure that the local grading activities marine resources are not being degraded. This monitoring program shall include the construction site, local tide pools, and nearshore waters offshore of the Long Point Resort prior to,during, and following the grading activities. Marine biological surveys shall be conducted to document the health of key rocky intertidal species, rocky habitat quality in the vicinity of the discharges, surfgrass distribution, and nearshore kelp bed characteristics within the immediate vicinity (less than a radius of one nautical mile) C'1 from each of the two discharges. • 70 O 0-' U ,. 2: O Z =• tQcr O VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE c.) N) co Sc, o 3 MIL/.. a Party o N I eon& Mo it tin and Monitoring Responsible (71 OO - t ; * � tWi 2 } JYu *MI HM4D nx ,•:y . ROMarkS JN 10-034194 5.8-3a The intertidal resources of the Fisherman's Cove Active Management On-Going Qualified Marine and east to the tip of Long Point shall be actively Biologist managed on an on-going basis by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes/County of Los Angeles Verification of and the Applicant to offset potentially significant Designation of impacts to intertidal marine resources. This area Habitat Reserve shall be managed as part of Conservation Area 1-A in association with the westerly bluffs below the bluff-top edge of the RHA. The area shall be designated as a Habitat Reserve. Although recreational fishing for fin fish is permitted, the Habitat Reserve Designation shall restrict certain uses below the resort hotel including commercial • fishing, the collection of invertebrates, and the 4111 disturbances of plants, birds, and other animal life. 5.8-3b Prior to Building Permit issuance, the City and Verification of Prior to Qualified Marine the Applicant shall work with a qualified marine Submittal of a Long- Occupancy Permit Biologist/ biologist to develop a Long-term Shoreline Term Shoreline Issuance City Planning, Resource Management Plan that identifies and Resource Building and details the means by which visitor use of the Management Plan Prior to issuance Code rocky outcrops of the Project area shall be of Building Permit Enforcement actively managed. At a minimum the plan shall implement monitoring and enforcement of Plan implemented protected regulations herein: (1) signage; (2) prior to occupancy 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. The plan shall be implemented prior to Occupancy Permit issuance. '04110 n 70 CD co 0 m po x 0 to o Z te. co cr 0 '4' m m . it. .- VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Party � �` �••� � :� rty j. a: `�<<and. '=R onsi `le ce,-., �ttiA.�ir��' ,.r . � � r ���. •r a .r ` .�:L :S 4 L 'e S +t. for 1 n� I i. Iti': C fi P' ® O s W d ,� f b :C. u J [ {1 yJC S. i tG.. K...v u•N`0:.... 11(�;I G ,�. MC��[(';�,, j[�i��.�'y; Z wLX+P`•v0. rT" .. 1 7.') h � £.'.E;,M+.r��,.. .�r� �n"��r� •�.� �' �.n�:�.'.'!>��+ta���. .. .r r.AI��W i• >...�i.e�IF�#���e�i,�:��:,O aR ie^.,.,.:fif•'+� .:T'^ JN 10-034194 5.8-3c Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Verification of Prior to Qualified Marine Applicant shall develop an educational booklet Development of Occupancy Permit Biologist/ for hotel guests that provides ways to prevent Educational Booklet Issuance City Planning, ecological damage to the intertidal and subtidal Building and habitats. Code Enforcement 5.8-3d Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Verification of Prior to City Planning, Applicant shall develop an interpretive display at Development of Occupancy Permit Building and the hotel/resort that informs visitors of the area's Interpretive Display Issuance Code natural resources and provides suggestions for Enforcement minimizing damage to these resources. 5.8-3e Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Verification of Prior to City Planning, Applicant shall post simple, but direct and Posted Signage Occupancy Permit Building and enforceable signage in multiple languages at all Issuance Code • access points to the rocky intertidal habitats from Enforcement the residential and resort areas to advise the • public of the area's ecological value and to help prevent degradation of the intertidal habitat. 5.8-3f Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Verification of Prior to City Planning, Applicant, under the guidance of the City of Development of Occupancy Permit Building and Rancho Palos Verdes shall provide training for Training Program Issuance Code and enforcement of the Habitat Reserve Enforcement 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. 4111, C) 70 CD Cl) O pO > CO3- • 17 Z - CD CD o VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE 50 NoC� Mit./ Party o NO �!Cond. 9.Moro*•1W•Monitoring } and. M.tonL�i4ti roriM.n,Y.g. .r.Responsible }e pon ble • O � Noi 0111#001001640,010/00010011a01 IttioNtikilhooto " e �� y � i . v ! P atO n t !M Y JN 10-034194 5.8-3g A qualified Marine Biologist shall conduct Field Inspection Four times per Qualified Marine intertidal monitoring studies to document the every five years Biologist effects of visitor use and storm drain discharges on the Habitat Reserve intertidal and marine life. City Planning, In association with surveys being conducted to Verification of On-Going Building and assess runoff effects on marine' life, the Visitor Intertidal Monitoring Code Use Monitoring Program shall include quarterly Studies Enforcement (four times/year) monitoring surveys of beach and rocky intertidal habitat use and concurrent City Planning, intertidal biological resource surveys over a five- Submit Reports to Annually Building and year post-construction monitoring period to City Code determine if the management program is Enforcement 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 • ;v reviewed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes C) prior to implementation of alternative methods. The assessment/revised program shall be prepared and submitted for review prior to the o completion of the sixth year after implementation O0 • m of the original Resource Management Plan. o z-=. o VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE � NC� IIIil. Part* N coo "coed . monitoring andMOnItorIng Re p sibl o .al No. ��i`�; �Q�.� ��������� ���.�� �,� � T �� �' � � . magmas Initials Date• Remarks. JN 10-034194 • NOISE 5.9-1 During grading/construction activities, the Verification of During Grading/ Building Official/ contractor shall employ the following measures Compliance Construction Public Works to ensure that construction noise will not Activities adversely affect adjacent sensitive uses. Monthly Construction activities shall be periodically Maintenance monitored by the City to ensure compliance with Reports applicable City Code, 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. • 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. • C) 70 cD H O pO X -0 a .1..:s r. :Yi: 'f: > L • 1 I , . co x VERIPIOMION.Olt- I-LANCE y) O tmitt: d 4 •! a2't ( S ' 'il r cr' .. t a u pi i t)' j ' s- ., 4 t st 1%) Si' tooth $,A01011) ti '001,(11011.100,-- #t Ul O ""`� �� t �T����� � P � ��. ;�} 4,01:010: ... ._sw.�4y��n. i.._A « I • JN 10-034194 5.9-3a Prior to Final Building Plan approval, a Verification of Prior to Final City Planning, subsequent noise analysis shall be prepared, to Submittal of Development Plan Building and the satisfaction of the City Planning, Building and Subsequent Noise Approval Code Code Enforcement and the Public Works Analysis Enforcement. Director,which demonstrates that site placement of stationary noise sources would not exceed noise standards indicated in the State Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines for adjacent residences. 5.9-3b Prior to Final Building Plan approval, a Verification of Prior to Final City Planning, subsequent noise analysis shall be prepared, to Submittal of Development Plan Building and the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Subsequent Noise Approval Code Building and Code Enforcement and the City Analysis Enforcement • Engineer, which demonstrates that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the practice facility's parking lot, such as berms, landscaping and brushed driving surfaces, such that noise from the parking lot would not exceed noise standards indicated in the State Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines for the adjacent Church. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.10-la Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II Verification of Phase Prior to Grading City Public level investigation shall be conducted to II Investigation Permit Issuance Works determine the characteristics and extent of the Department potential contamination (i.e, soil and groundwater) associated with the concrete sump Building Official located in the former service station in the RHA. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether .Q remediation efforts shall be required. • n 70 CD N 0 m pO• -v c� � Za' s ,1. w V,7119"11°141 . �. t{ Fs c� c� ,;: •; LI' NCE t CO" " M �'i is t s. I 6 4f 3 O G l.. 6%) � w 1 ,-!Mom t +i .f a •V I 4011,,„ :ir, 1 1..� 1 , :OW t Fr•.. r.Mlt`..Y.. ,1 l' L e r.. t. .n,�,+W ,��jt ■r} E1+ ua/��j�- 4 )p ti ��ice_�n.•. - � ,h.��• ter' _.t. ��fiN «• t� � -. ,a c� .��. �,� ..�f..Cn �M i"'"'.» �� W!fit iN, i':+.q,•/ ����:i6�::`�h`+._������.(►��H,Nl.<J'r'S.S•'YYu�t^4 .. ..a.';� �( ...'�Sc�..l7�(;5..,..:t:•,ki:�.!'�•'�' x� �)�.a.._._i�fe� i ZF ( JN 10-034194 5.10-1 b Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II Verification of Phase Prior to Grading City Public level investigation shall be conducted to II Investigation Permit Issuance Works determine the characteristics and extent of the Department potential contamination (i.e, soil and groundwater) associated with the liquid Building Official contained within the vault of the former sky tower on the RHA. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required. 5.10-1c Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, site specific Verification of Site Prior to Demolition Building Safety investigations shall be conducted to determine Specific Permit Issuance the contents of the interior of all structures on the Investigations RHA. In the event that hazardous materials are • encountered, they shall be properly tested and then properly disposed of prior to renovation/demolition activities. 5.10-1d If during demolition of any of the structures paint Evaluation of Paint During Demolition Certified is separated from the building materials (e.g., Waste Contractor chemically or physically),the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building Building Safety 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. -a • n 70 cD U) 0 m 00 )< _! ca• D. 0 al VERIFICATION' :F ,. ERI E N ,. cn o Mft.i 10-rty o N 0 i1(11°111t001 d for RIO 9 Otiitiblier Cll oW � • y � 149,R tlasti� Tgr4- ��n �A�fe��' �a.... .r 0 �.i t ,. #10:0 A 7 Remarks_ JN 10-034194 }, I. ,7: a'{? F� ° 5.10-le Prior to the commencement of any remedial work Verification of Prior to Demolition Building Safety } and consistent with the National Emission Completion of Permit Issuance Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Asbestos Survey t, (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. :t, 5.10-1f Any demolition of the existing building shall Verification of Field Prior to Demo City Public comply with State law, which requires a Procedures Permit Issuance Works Dept. contractor, where there is asbestos-related work • involving 100 square feet or more of AGMs,to be Field Procedures During Demolition Certified 3, certified and that certain procedures regarding Contractor . the removal of asbestos be followed. _ Building 1110 . • 5.10-1g Soil sampling of the agricultural portion of the Verification of Soil Prior to Grading Building Safety -s, RHA shall be conducted to determine the Sampling Permit Issuance presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides,prior to Grading Permit issuance. f t t i 1• i., -0 • n x 0 H 0 c: m Do )4_,. d o zvellifiemiettioP COWLCE w ' " r.) ti Mit/ .,' ' , ,,,,_,,,- ,,', . ' ., ,,,„: , ,,- ,- - Pal* e,s 1: , y r: r ('� 0 � .f, i� If f� z , V t. a` y s: F• _ ter. -„It t :••, s s t, S , 1- a.F z�• es ,1 7 I •f �4` 3 1 ' ,-------'.''ON' n o i•i I •I I� _ r 44 ,fin I N �3•• Y F I laiiiatitinMAINUOtoPoratiOttstotAriktotat 3 i t ■,!9U i, .rrt A4. O 1 :�,t,���'+�.kr',..-d-...�.....lE1�.k �i,�•..1!,x' •.•l n c`.tl!^,��,1 .... .�- ... . ,...•.� t .. s:�!,., r. '.Y. ': eRyt ! 1 t`ti tL A.•S4s 4...,,t,,. I:id;r aboy73 JN 10-034194 5.10-1h Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase ll Verification of Prior to Grading Building Safety level investigation shall be conducted to Completion of Phase Permit Issuance determine the level of potential contamination II Level Investigation associated with the historic use of the UPVA. The focus of the investigation shall include, but not be limited,to the following: • Determine the actual absence or presence of the suspected underground storage tanks located near the Point Vicente Bunker. If determined present within the UPVA, soil sampling and/or testing to determine the characteristics and extent of potential contaminants shall be performed. Upon • completion of soil testing and/or sampling, a Risk Assessment shall be prepared to determine the appropriate measures for remediation of the tank sites;and • The 100-square foot area of distressed vegetation located adjacent to the abandoned concrete slab in the northern portion of the UPVA shall be examined to determine the potential for a release of hazardous materials. In addition, a subsurface investigation shall be conducted to determine if any other structures or substances are located below the concrete slab. Any stained soil shall be tested to determine the absence or presence of hazardous materials. 1:i • C') 7J 0 m O ..": rnO -a 3 6: co a' Z . m co w • w 0 O I • Iorn uw co -, 170 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION krifitt Paw COW. W and. :Mpriitoring - .. R onsib le ,MitigaikikiiiktaMiS " Y • N 1 • SiOsionei, waw.. c: ettailho , initials 5.10-1i Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, the Project Verification of Prior to Demolition City Planning, Applicant shall coordinate with the appropriate Coordination with Permit Issuance Building and authorities from the United States Department of United States Code Interior, National Park Service regarding any Department of the Enforcement proposed modifications to the Nike missile silos. Interior, National Park Service 5.10-1j Prior to Demolition Permit issuance or Verification of Prior to Demolition Building Safety1110 modification to Battery 240, a site specific Completion of Site Permit Issuance investigation to determine the contents of the Specific or Modification to interior shall be conducted. In the event that Investigation the Point Vicente hazardous materials are encountered, they shall Bunker be properly tested and then properly disposed of prior to modification/demolition activities. 5.10-1k Prior to Grading Permit issuance, soil sampling Verification of Soil Prior to Grading Building Safety of the agricultural portion of the Upper Point Sampling Permit Issuance Vicente Area shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides. 5.10-2a The proposed golf course design shall be Verification of Golf Prior to Plan City Planning, modified prior to plan check submittal of grading Course Check submittal of Building and plans approval,to the satisfaction of the Planning Modifications Grading Plan Code Department, pursuant to the recommendations Enforcement cited in the Golf Safety Study contained in Appendix 15.11, Golf Course Peer Review and Safety Analysis, of this EIR (September 15, 2000)as follows: • Hole #1. Additional support (i.e., higher mounding)shall be added along the parking area by providing vegetation on top of the mounding. The tee shall be moved back slightly to the left. c. m a, oX � 3 su O Z _. CDC O co ID O O Irn V 0 c ow JN 10-034194 .. VERIFICATION'O COMPLIANCE ►r : Y CKs r .. v•a ^[���, n..,... d m000rist- Responsible ` r�}14� .��. kas�141;0001 . . .,F �f !�= . �a i �t Dote ReMarks 5.10-2a Hole #2. The back two tee complexes shall be cont'd moved to the left and down the slope. Thsand bunker shall be moved toward the green. Hole#3. This hole shall be made a Par 4. The green shall be located beyond the shallow draw near what is now the proposed second landing area. 11110 The support (mounding) situated to the right of the first landing (separating the landing area from the 4th green complex)is necessary and shall be retained: however, the fairway area shall be cut by five to ten feet through the areas that are currently at elevation of 360 feet. The highest point in the fairway shall be at 355 feet while the sides (rough areas) shall be five to ten feet higher. The first landing area shall be lowered by 10 to 15 feet (leaving the support that separates the 3rd fairway from the 4th green). • One of the two following options shall be implemented regarding the relationship between the third and fourth holes: • Option # 1 —The third hole becomes a par • -a�Cfour with the green just short of where the • original second landing area is. The fourth tees remain where they are;or H O • m p O gm • pz- - CD CD O w co▪ $D O 0 r O I • owm JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE MIL/ Party Cond._t.. ... Monitoring :. ������t�g and o orin pons � � ��� L �� �4 �� �� V� � A �� � �J111, 'No. � � � � nInitials Date Remarks 5.10-2a • Option#2—The third hole's second landing cont'd moves out to the right(to a distance at least 150 — ideally 175 feet — away from the property boundary). This way the hole would remain as a par five. The fourth hole would become a par three (about 185 yards from the back tee). Hole#4. The fifth tee location shall be moved to • the south by 35 to 40 feet and a retaining wall provided similar to that around the fourth tees. The landing area on the fourth hole shall move by approximately 30 feet. Signage shall be provided on the fourth tee to let players on the right of the third fairway play first prior to playing shots off the fourth tee. The overall profile of the entire third and fourth fairways shall be lowered for improved vision with each shot. Also refer to the Hole#3 discussion. Hole # 5. Two or three more bunkers shall be added down the slope to the right of the green. The back tee shall be moved to the south. One or the other of the following recommendations shall be implemented: • The hole shall be shorted slightly by moving the green back towards the tee;or • C7 • • Dense vegetation of medium height shall be added to screen against long shots landing near the pedestrian trails. m O o' � - 3 5' co o Z - CD CD . w • w 1 O t,0 O O � 2 O0 43 rn JN 10-034194 ...../..S...: • . .^ ;kit ( VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE , Party I i t r A O i ] • 1 1 L .c a J =t: .< ilble -r. 7 ' Z i 9 I�• D � �ks t s � Q tkl1 �i.. (;� A .f... r.. -w.w fiS'�m+r�c-+�•ami.'.#�w:i�fs"�'S!!•��A .. �Tl,.�.�,. ..>�0����.,s�1�:�e.,+{�ei... .. . rfifistffie�. . 5.10-2a Hole # 6. A bunker or strong shaping (grass cont'd hollows) shall be provided between the sixth green and first tee. The back tee on the first hole shall be moved to the left slightly (closer to the property boundary). Hole # 7. Additional support (i.e., higher mounding)shall be added on the back left. The cart path shall be relocated behind the back tee • and down the left-hand side. Hole#8. The landform to the right of the eighth tees shall be landscaped to protect players from shots off the ninth tee. Hole#9. Vegetation shall be added to the right hand support(higher mounding) past the landing area. The walking trails shall be screened with small to medium height vegetation near the landing. •• Prior to Plan CityPlanning, The proposed practice facility design shall be Verification of Golf Pio modified prior to Plan Check submittal of Grading Course Check submittal of Building and Plans approval to the satisfaction of the Planning Modifications Grading Plans Code Department, pursuant to the recommendations Enforcement cited in the Golf Safety Study contained in Appendix 15.11, Golf Course Peer Review and Safety Analysis, of this EIR (September 15, .v 2000). One of the following modifications to the • •C) practice facility's design shall be implemented: 70 . CD y 0 rn po x I 0) O Z _. cm Q SI 63a I cnowrn a! -a ift•I JN 10-034194 c .. . ........ . • .:. ,Y •f y r 'LANCE .r. u. n t :r • 5>, •.-.,r:1a.+.t:i'..u:y. ....-•k,.t_ •�,t_.._.ry.rr.0.i.., r9:rr i�>l.�t ie i y4.S . i�� . a NO� _Mk � � l+ .If i%F,�S Ate, • Pato Remarks 5.10-2b • The low area between the range and cont'd property boundary shall be excavated out. The range's elevation shall be decreased by between 10 and 15 feet and then revegetated with native materials;or • The elevation of the driving range tee shall be lowered to approximately the 230-foot elevation. • 5.10-4a Prior to delivery to the UPVA and the RHA, all Verification of Proof Prior to Delivery City Planning, nursery stock and other items likely to carry fire of Fire Ant"Clean" Building and ants shall be inspected for their presence and Landscape Code identified as free of ants by the landscape and Enforcement native plant nursery used for the Project. 5.10-4b The Project Applicant shall develop for the Verification of Fire Prior to City Planning, suppression of fire ants a Fire Ant Management Ant Management Landscaping Building and Program. The Program shall be included as part Program Code of the Landscaping Plans for both the UPVA and Enforcement/ RHA and shall be submitted for review and City approved approval to the City Planning Department or City Biologist approved Biologist Consultant prior to Landscape Plan approval. The Program shall include measures that (1) identify appropriate treatments that can be administered most effectively and at the right times, (2) identify the area to be managed and establish a level of acceptable pest presence/damage/tolerance, (3) .o establish regular monitoring visits as part of the • C7 landscape maintenance program, and (4) treat infestation when monitoring indicates that the c� situation exceeds the established level of presence. m , o x '0CO C7 - CD . A\ �1I �1I cn 11•3 IV 10 0 O N CA owm JN 10-034194 F COMPLIANCE -Mitt , Cord • ., . � .__•.•.-.rr '.�:rti..:t ,..r ..'.�r.r+'•,•...i..e..�';t�i... :. ' • .. - l t .r 'o..f a J z1. J•a s rx .-.. 1• akrS .Ha� aSsSJ�( •;r<-• vNl auGG ! e ■! . Qhs ........ ... PUBLIC SERVICES 5.11-1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance for the UPVA, Verification of Prior to Grading City Planning, the Project Applicant shall consult with the Los Consultation with Permit Issuance Building and Angeles County Fire Department with respect to Fire Department Code avoidance of Helispot Pad#53A or the provision Enforcement of an alternate pad within the Project area. 5.11-2 The Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of Verification of Prior to Grading City Planning 4110 the City Planning Department, implement the Consultation with Permit Issuance Department following measures: Sheriffs Department • Minimize number of compact parking • spaces; • Maximize required signage; • Provide Sheriffs Department a minimum of 30 days prior notice of upcoming events; and • Provide additional traffic control measures beyond public traffic signals at the main entrance to the Resort. -13 "P • 70 cn Oo X ▪ 54.) c11) a' z - CD • O w 1 who O N � Im c ow v) " 70 JN 10-034194 • VRI -ICAT1CIN OF•COMPLIANCE cm:11.d/. t andmom. , m. sib k s t' S r f #1 t3 i�: 1 t ci( r R ka 5.11-7 The Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of Verification of On-Going City Public the City Public Works Department, implement Submittal of Annual (once per year) Works Dept. the following on an on-going basis: Report • Grasscycle, use as mulch, or compost all greenwaste generated from the Golf Course; • Recycle all bottles, aluminum cans, glass, • and foodwaste. The foodwaste generated on-site may be used for composting efforts if the Project Applicant desires;and • 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 grasscycling. 5.11-8 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project Verification of Prior to Grading City Public Applicant shall consult with the U.S.Coast Guard Consultation with Permit issuance Works Dept. regarding the 40-foot wide electrical easement U.S.Coast Guard which exists on the UPVA. The Applicant shall Building Safety either underground or relocate this electrical utility line; however, electrical service to the Coast Guard shall not be interrupted. Additionally, the Project Applicant shall consult • •C1 with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the • provision of a vehicle access road to the U.S. Coast Guard site. 0 O m pO x - � co co . C7� IV 4.v O O o c IV owrn os X170 JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE fit/ Patty ......-— . . . : _ 4 � r y Cond. M itorin and Ikt ''....-At, r.n Reno i ble ' -. � _e ...A �' -.e..i� eeasutetcn .K5cot, �m� . ��as�.�S"� t � .-.. ,.. . -..ed^ 4i.. . .wxae At:‘,.',i, ''..,, ,Initials Bete Remarks c TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 5.12-la Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, Palos Verification of Prior to City Public Verdes Drive South, adjacent to the Project site, Roadway Occupancy Permit Works Dept. shall be widened to it's ultimate width as a 100 Construction Issuance foot right-of-way. 5.12-lb Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, a 150-foot Verification of Prior to City Public111/ minimum left turn pocket shall be provided for Roadway Occupancy Permit Works Dept. vehicles traveling west on Palos Verdes Drive Construction Issuance South and desiring to turn left into the main access to the Project site. 5.12-1c Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, access to Verification of Prior to City Public the driving range shall be restricted to right turns Roadway Occupancy Permit Works Dept. in/out only. Construction Issuance 5.12-1d Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, a traffic Verification of Prior to City Public signal shall be installed by the Project Applicant Roadway Occupancy Permit Works Dept. at the Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Construction Issuance Drive South (EW). _ 5.12-le Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Project Verification of Prior to City Planning Applicant shall be responsible for their fair share Roadway Occupancy Permit Department of the following roadway improvements as Construction Issuance 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 III n Boulevard (EW) XI - Restripe south leg with two left turn co O lanes, one through lane and one right o turn lane and a. 5 - Provide north leg with one left turn lane, ' ° 7 two through lanes and one right turn A) o Z � lane mm . UI _ NC) i■ID O V I p oi m JN 10-034194 VERIFICATION ON OF COMPLIANCE i T a Party Cond. Ma icon g and a Onito rb ng.. Re#10nOlble 4' �c S s. Dale. Remarks • � :-. �• 1 .:' �.: ....' rrL. .Y,L.:.b.si.wl..w:::�.b� ... L.r:i�.n"}4yt��� T,.p���':i11 i .. ..i..s.. �.i ♦.�+41�LI��. �.. �r_ .... NO. �:-���i����..11�lw�-.�..•.-.����•�. �'-+�'�„nl'�ww��.. �''..1 �,.�i� ��: ., T■! 5.12-le • Hawthorne Boulevard (NS)at Palos Verdes cont'd 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 • 5.12-3a Sight distances at the Project entrances shall be Further Review At the time of City Public further reviewed with respect to standard Plans preparation of Works Dept. Caltrans/City of Rancho Palos Verdes sight Final Grading, distance standards at the time of preparation of Landscape and final grading, landscape and street improvement Street plans. Improvement Plans 5.12-3b Internal traffic signing/striping shall be Verification of In conjunction with City Public implemented in conjunction with detailed Implementation detailed Works Dept. construction plans for the Project. Construction Plans 5.12-4 The use of public parking areas for hotel/golf Verification by City On-Going City Planning, uses shall be restricted unless approval from the Building and City is obtained. Code Enforcement C5 70 co co O C m po 3 o o. — CD /D O w O O Na owm JN 10-034194