Loading...
CC RES 2015-028 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-28 A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72999 AND VARIANCE AT 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014- 00004). WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes in order to support a lot split for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, and after considering information as part of the public record, allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations to accommodate a lot split for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on a preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20-days, commencing on January 15, 2015, and concluding on January 25, 2015. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015-04 (3-2 vote with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and published on the same day in the Daily Breeze and subsequently published in the Peninsula News on March 19, 2015; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law, and there is no substantial evidence, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed, that the approval of Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 and SUB 2014-00004 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: There are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and, therefore, the proposed project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that address impacts upon air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic in the community and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance: AQ-1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ-2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ-3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ-4. Minimize and clean-up the track-out of bulk material or other debris onto public paved roadways AQ-5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point Resolution No. 2015-28 Page 2 of 4 less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. GS-1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. GS-2. Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post-construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. LU-1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single-story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. PS-1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. Resolution No. 2015-28 Page 3 of 4 T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, minutes and records of the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and also finds that the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto complies with CEQA. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to allow the subdivision of an existing vacant parcel located at 5656 Crest Road. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April 2015. M Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No 2015-28 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on April 21, 2015. / L aimAggle. City Clerk Resolution No. 2015-28 Page 4 of 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance (Z0N2014-00279) 2. Lead agency name/address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 5656 Crest Road City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Union Oil Co. of California P.O. Box 285 Houston, TX 77001 6. General plan designation: Residential (1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (RS-2) &Automotive Service Station Overlay (OC-4) 9. Description of project: The proposed project involves changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS-2 (Single- Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS-4 (Single-Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 1 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZDN2014=00279 January 15;?015 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a vacant 20,468ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. The subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS- 2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single-Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property is generally flat, currently screened with mature foliage. North Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South/East Single-family residential These residential properties are part of a Residential Planned Development, approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. West Nursery School Former Chevron Station converted to Hilltop Nursery School. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 2 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2014-00279 January 15,2015 Fiqure 1: Aerial of project location at the southeast corner of Crest Rd. and Whitley Collins Dr. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 3 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 — , -,„ , A *,.' :‘ .14,- ,„,Air--'iti,"*.,,,'' ----, . ' ' ..'.. ''''''' , ......_ le- - "kvi•,,,,,ii- '1"Iltfilio Ile '‘ \ '!),,*,fo- L _ + ..t... \,..4.- 11 to lirii. ,,drl ~_ a# .,„44. g 4,•-'''-'•-it: ‘ ' ' \,-,' gyp`„, ..;ek t' `11�A • - g .,... ‘iii .,„,- ------.., ....--ielr--- , 5.,,, , , ,, , ,, ,„ .,,. -,..- - - It , stt.\ si t ...., - ., . - - 0 _#..0_ ,_ . _ -4\ , , ,.- .,,, . . A . ,. .. t . ..\ ''C'' 400_ 4.8*. ..„-, -44,P” -4111. ir t \ d .....****'' '' . _. -1\itt, - ',--11 ,:i lie *' ‘: 40 1 11 '-'' -:' il - # '. ' ,,,,,,7 ':• ,' 4 - vorplipt- s'l - - I it, - r\ \ , - ... . . .% - -. ''''' - *- lk„ 1:,-::,.....::7-,- ' ' '/'''',,,..., ,_ .....,, ., ,,4, N1/4_.,. dr.r:,,,,,,, . ... -, _ -"\,, , -,,,t . . 4 Or' 4..4% , si,e" . fil‘ , , ,,,,, , .,,,,,,,, ,.s, ,,,,„:. 4,1f; ,, .,,, , ,s,:,<, ,.. -.7,7,-- ' '. .„. ,'' . ( A,_., : '' .,,,,,„ \ ,ik — ' '441116. -4 Ir, .' :: .‘"?/7 ,,f , 4, ,, iiiir Ai „.- i:,„,, ., 4,4014140, ' ilk 1000(7, „„e /40 , „lip a f J/: ,,, -,,gi.� .N * • 40. ' iiilit6•4 ." ii ' O Rp3x ,00/1 S :: 3 } o Af * le 1, "-... ,,,.,,-, ,, .. ,t," op „ 1: .. „L. ,, 11, , i., ---. .441;) .7-- I , - \ .4.0 . . \44. ject ite ‘ 0.7 ...".. \ ,,,,, ,,,,,, , -,,,,,, ,, , . , -. -,,,,it . , ,, ko., ,,, ,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,„-- , , 4e. , ,.., , , . , \\,.„ • . 16-4‘1* .'N,„,,. ' 4190 ',:,::,,, „\N. el-'' "f\eit, 4<:,,‘ ' \ „: , , . / ' ' \ '' ' ' ,,, , .,,,, ', '''',,. ',:' .., lcS: \ 110`. , '.„, '''''', ? r�'F m xs it, . ."�'# €--limo" . A, r . \ „,„,,, .. ----7.--_---- :4,-, \ . *AA; Ir. r _ , - .,,,„-.- „,,,.. 4, -----:------ .--.. -----w ,, , .... . ,,400 ,� 5i...,„ ,*,,,,* ., S , ‘, I, i N , - , 7-'' iii, , , \ :........ " ,. 4 :: ,t It't 1 \ Itt 4..,"1: ..-/ 's-4'' \NI, .4."': ' '- !A.', 'itilt 1:0 '. ',.‘- ,.- � �� > F � � rr� \, �`" ita;�, ,, .......t „. , ,t, _ \,. 1 "'�►axe '� ,�' s ,,,, - ,__, . ,_-___ \ ,......--- .,„„,,,, .----- __ , ......... , ,k j ,amt__ II � , or ,.,:' ',,,*, � PL., ,�„ , ii,_-_ ,-,,,,, ,r-t-:4 "4,4...„ +#�„ -_-, -,- . . . ' 4-11114V, -'- *-' - „, ' ,1 41 ' ___ - v. . _ ems_. '* ‘It AL `,,,,i,..” - ' x-..r -mow+ .Y # ] F Resolution No, 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 4 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Figure 2:, Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map change and lot split. CREST ROAD n) 2. I.F 10 k.t. Oi 4V1Pfart 132.3. 1 --...._. ----,,•— — -......— —.......... ..— .44.. ............... 61--. ,IP Mil t5 5411 T "t; t.' I , i v '?e,_ Tt tii ., , ,e'`4t- 4 h 0- Pdv 4.- , ' . it,-e,, 'erR ic? -ct,-4,, .-, s .,,..4. -, ..-tt is e 4', . • . ,I 11111•11M . . _ • 14 I , 71,sl-C16 . . : • 1- 1", . •11, ,.. ... . ,,, IF," s ,-1 • ti 49-39'2S1 . r 20„.„... D.ver . . .. .3, 4C =CUL* As.) -----,, -)" .A /_____,.._____, 1, f TO DE SET ; / IS4 1.1 , IrLY or cc* t- i a / / no p,,I I --- -- 7 r.Illig1/7 / 18.A2. 94,5 la 1 ..:I. i P.; ,.:- i ( • in ./// 1 .I ' 1'I - A- 10.306 so Fr\ ..---',- General Plan Land Use '1 .. . .." lei :-' 42' i 42' _ •.•- ! R1-2 to R2-4 ___— ________ v,., .... , ; 1A2 21,,I` I,f ..... . ,.......—.........SW.-..I Me D ...........,..a.tO...S...*.,r ri) SPk-\ Zoningfiap Designation misa .. r , ---——---- — ''i RS-2 tO RS-4 .F1141 i , Lii Sin'41,pr- ! , l0 1 er5-117 1 > •/\ : •". c ,, l . . "----_ / . NI i vrve UNE ir C . Tita 4 t at "` . _ ,-, .,. 14. 'C40 SQ FT w ..*:. Ci 1 .,,.• 1 14_1 .3 0 , iv3507 r* Cn , Z • , sot's 4 'f 1 L,,, ' . 0 s, 0 ._____......--„_____ ___ _ -- "WWI --::7., ......_ .......—. .- • .....--........... ...7.- -!--,—.........., E I :' f51 ---- ..—.., .--.- -- - I f _...--,--- ......— -- _ —4- - ___- - ___... __ __,..-.— ti. ... • ..._ ___...---: .. r N n \ / „,...._.-•-- -_..- ....`44' ......., :i 'i,1 UV ROE 30626 so. i'—' TO BE scr 2' reLY ONE Cr LOTS 4E, & 49 • S I, sr WIY OF CORNER (.1.1 Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 5 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2014-00279 January 15,2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy/Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Material Recreation Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Agricultural Resources Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project Signature: Date: 4--2$-16 Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 6 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical 1 buildings, within a state scenic highways? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1 8 affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a, b) The term "vista" is defined as a confined view in the City's General Plan, which is usually directed toward a terminal or dominant element or feature. Each vista has, in simplest terms, a viewing station, an object or objects to be seen, and an intermediate ground. Crest Road is identified as a vehicular corridor with views to the south of the ocean and Catalina Island. The subject site is located on the south side of Crest Road. However, since the subject vacant lot is located at the entry of a fully developed residential tract and the abutting property to the south is already developed with a single-story residence at similar building pad level, two new single-story structures as a result of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot-split would not impact the defined scenic vista. Additionally, there are no known scenic resources on the subject lot that would be impacted by the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot-split. c) The current General Plan Land Use (R1-2) and Zoning Map (RS-2) designations only allow for a single dwelling. The immediate neighborhood is surrounded with the same land use and zoning designation as the subject lot. The proposed land use and zone change for a higher density would allow a lot-split for the development of two separate dwellings on the subject lot. Given that a higher density is proposed, there could be a potential impact to the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. However, because the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analysis review process, any potential adverse aesthetic and view impacts will be mitigated through the City's review process. Nonetheless, the applicant voluntarily met with the surrounding property owners within the Island View Community (residential tract to the south of Crest Road) and agreed to place a one-story height restriction to both future lots on the subject site. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measure LU-1 under the Land Use Section limiting the future residential structures to one-story, 16' in height, the proposed project would cause less than a significant impact to the visual character of its surroundings: d)Any future structure with proposed lighting would be required to obtain entitlements in compliance with the Municipal Code lighting restrictions, which regulate lighting intensity and direction. Therefore, with Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 7 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case Noy ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Eisotentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated appropriate conditions of approval, any new lighting on future structures on the site would result in a less than significant impact on light and glare. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the v' Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? _ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland (as 2 defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest v' use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location 2 12 or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use? Comments: The existing land use and zoning designations for the subject site is residential. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or timberland and therefore riot in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact to agriculture caused by the proposed project. 3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected 8 �l air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? II d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct the Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 8 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated implementation of any applicable air quality plan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies. The air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map amendments simply allow a lot split with future developments on each lot. Any future development on the property would cause some odors and dust during the temporary construction period. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: AQ-1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ-2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ-3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ-4. Minimize and clean-up the track-out of bulk material or other debris onto public pave,i roadways. AQ-5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6"from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the caro compartment. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 4 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or 4 by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as 4 defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 9 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...), I through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 5 v' with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation 8 policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, 5 or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve (a.k.a. Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) and the General Plan. The subject site is a formerly an auto service station which has been completely demolished and is now vacant with vegetation. Therefore, there would be no impacts to habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, protected or protected species, as none exist on the subject property. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? _ I c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or 1, 7 unique geological feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of 1, 7 v _ formal cemeteries? Comments: The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre-historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural resources a result of the proposed project. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the proposal: Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 10 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Expose people or structure to potential j substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 6 -‘l Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 _ I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 6 including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ti loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, 13 thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a, b, c) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) Based on a review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation report proposed by the applicant and approved by the City Geologist, the subject site is located on expansive soil. Additionally, as a result of demolishing the former auto service station, the underground storage tank was removed and backfilled. This backfill was determined not suitable for support of new fills or structures and will need to be removed and replaced as part of the future Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 11 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated development of the site. As such, prior to any future development of the site, grading will be required for recompaction, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division, City Geologist and the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS-1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall he prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. e) There are existing sewer lines available along both Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure,the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS-2. Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? _ Comments: a) The approval of the proposed land use and zoning designation change for a lot split allows for the future development of two new residences on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built-out scenario would not be significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, a future development project on the subject site would be required to be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would theJ ro'ect: p a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 12 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated hazardous material? • - I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the N release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, N would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including y; where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a- d) The proposed project will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinityof the site. The site no longer contains contaminated soils and has been cleared with a Case Closure from the Los Angeles County Water Quality Control Board. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. e, f) There are no airports located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or in close proximity of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 13 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation I Incorporated f) The subject site is surrounded by developed residential properties. The impact caused by two additional dwellings as a result of the proposed land use and zone change for a lot split is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. h) The proposed project is bounded by a public street to the north and developed properties to the east, west and south. Since there are no wildlands in close proximity to the subject site, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any water quality standard or 8 wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there 8 would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of 10 a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially 10 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water � aULalty? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede v' or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death 11 �1 involving flooding, including flooding Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 14 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11 mudflow? Comments: a, f) Any future residential development on the subject site will be required to connect to the existing sewer lines. Prior to development, Building & Safety will review drainage plans and ensure that the future development complies with or obtains necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. Future development projects will be required to apply best management practices (BMPs)for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post-construction treatment control BMPs would be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. With the following mitigation measures in place, future development of the site resulting from the proposed land use and zone change for the lot split would cause less than significant impacts: HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance: with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post-construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. b) The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission. The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City with sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking water at a pressure consistent with accepted standards. The subject site already allows for the development of one single dwelling unit and this proposed project would allow for the development of two dwelling units. The potential reduction in permeability of the site as a result would not substantially impact the aquifer volume or the local groundwater table. Therefore,there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. c, d, e) There are no streams or rivers on or in close proximity of the subject site. Currently, rainfall and runoff from surrounding developed properties flow into the existing drainage system. As a mitigation measure, the stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, the increased volume of run-off resulting from an additional residential dwelling as a result of the proposed project would not cause flooding or exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system and therefore result in less than significant impact. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. g,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Furthermore, the subject site is flat and not in an area that would be subject to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 15 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No 1 Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide and established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific 1, 2, 3, 8 v' plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance? l c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1, 4 communit conservation 'Ian? Comments: a) The proposed land use and zoning designation change, allowing a higher density to allow a lot split for the development of two residential developments may significantly impact the established community surrounding the subject lot (Island View Community). While the properties to the north of Crest Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates are zoned RS-4, allowing for increased lot coverage, properties within Island View residential tract provide for more open space as they are less dense, zoned RS-2. More specifically, the properties to the north are limited to 50% lot coverage,while Island View properties are limited to 40%. In relation to lot sizes, Island View properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are less than the required minimum of 20,000ft2 for the underlying RS-2 zoning district. However, it should be noted that Residential Planned Developments generally allow for smaller lot sizes for providing common open space areas. For example, the lot sizes for Island View properties range from approximately 12,000ft2 to 20,000ft2. The proposed new lot sizes on the subject lot will be approximately 10,000ft2 in size, which will be even smaller than what exists in Island View and half of what is required for new lots in the RS-2 zoning district. The required minimum lot width and depth for new lots within the RS-4 zoning district is 90' and 120', respectively. The lot width and depth of the two new lots is proposed to be 67.5' by 120', respectively. As a result, approval of a Variance application would be required to create the new substandard lots with non-conforming lot widths. Given that the existing lot currently meets the lot size, width and depth of the underlying zoning designation of RS-2, which is also consistent with the abutting RS-2 residential tract, there are concerns with the proposed project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Acknowledging the compatibility concerns, the applicant met with the Island View Homeowner's Association and agreed to place a height restriction of one-story for the two new lots as part of the proposed project to blend in with the existing character of Island View Community. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: LU-1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single-story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. b) The subject site is not located within the coastal zone or within special plan districts. The proposed project would create a higher density allowing for two new substandard lots, inconsistent with the Municipal Code's minimum lot width of the proposed RS-4 zoning district. Given the inconsistency, a Variance application to deviate from the minimum required lot width of 90' is included as part of the proposed project. L.922_1112fLe_a_ fivepecies identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community 1 Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 16 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site as it was formerly a fully developed auto service station. As such, the proposed project would cause no impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 8 General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan? Comments: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site, identified it the local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the propose i project. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan �l or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or �l groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a — d) The subject site is currently developable with a residential structure. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site. Potential construction noise and vibration from construction vehicles or tools could occur as close as 33' from the nearest residential buildings to the closest lines of the subject lot. The Municipal Code limits construction hours in the City from 7am to 6pm Monday 1 property J P Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 17 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated through Friday and between 9am and 5pm on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted on Sunday or legal 1 holidays, as defined in the Municipal Code. Given the temporary nature of the construction noise with the following mitigation measures, the short term noise impacts would be less than significant: N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. e, 0 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or y ma.or infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? • c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The subject site currently allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposed project, two single-family dwelling would be allowed, increasing the number of households by 1. An increase of 1 household is not considered substantial and therefore considered less than significant impact. b-c) The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, there is no displacement of people or housing as a result. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the followin• •ublic services: 9 Fire protection? ,1 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? Resolution No. 2016-28 ri;rilbit A Page 18 6f 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated v) Other public facilities? Comments: Currently, the land use and zoning designation for the subject site allows f:r the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposal for a higher density and creation of two lots, the development of an additional dwelling unit would be allowed, increasing the number of household by 1. The increase in one additional dwelling unit and household would not require an expansion of existing services or facilities. Additionally, any future development would be subject to Fire Prevention Division review and school fees would be required prior to construction. Furthermore, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 16.20.100, as a condition of approval for a parcel map, the applicant is required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. PS-1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both,at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that �l substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, �l which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project would allow for an additional dwelling, resulting in an increase of one household. An increase of one household is not significant and would not result in substantial additional use, expansion or services of existing parks. Additionally, with mitigation measure PS-1 requiring dedication of land or fee in lieu for park and recreational purposes, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other R► ,solution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 19 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.Z©N2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or NI incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative r transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, f) The land use and zoning designation of the subject site already allows for residential development and has access via Crest Road and Whitley Collins. As such, there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th edition), the trip generation rate for an additional future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single- family residence, an additional dwelling unit as a result of the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. c) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d, e) Any future development would need to comply with the adopted Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Public Works Department would review any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety. Furthermore, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. With said requirements incorporated as mitigation measures, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest l Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Resolution No, 2015-28 EI it it Page 20 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: s a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? _ _ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? _ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal ti needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling and there are pubic utilities and services already available due to the development of the surrounding residential development. An increase of one additional dwelling unit would generate an increase in waste water, but not significant enough to impact waste water treatment requirements, water supplies or require additional water or solid waste disposal facilities. Additionally, for any future development of the subject site, the property owner will be required to comply with all local, state and federal requirements related to solid waste. Furthermore, the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a "No Further Action" letter for clearing the subject lot of the former auto service station. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- l , Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 21of23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or •rehi sto ? ' b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are � considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directlLor indirectly? [omments: a) The subject site does not contain and is not located within close proximity to areas with protected habitat or species. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative aesthetics, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, noise, population, public services, and recreation, transportation and utility impacts. However, none of these are significant, except for cumulative land use and planning impacts. However, as evidenced in subsection 10 of this document, the impacts are considered not significant with mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance due to cumulative impact considerations. c) There would be no substantial direct or indirect effects on human beings as no aspect of the proposed project otentiall si•nificant im•acts or adverse im•acts to various environmental concerns. _ Li . EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: _a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the miti•ation measures, which were incor•orated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit Page 22 of 23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: None 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associ :ated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001 _ 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan - 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Fiamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (5/1/99) 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 9 State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, U.S. Census Bureau 10 U.S. Geological Survey Map 11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Torrance& San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1, 2009) 12 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan 13 Applicant's Geotechnical Report prepared by Pacific Geotech Inc. _ Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit A Page 23 of 23 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance (Z0N2014-00279 and SU62014-00004) Location: 5656 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Arbor Capital Group, Inc. Landowner: Union Oil Co. of California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............ .................................................................................... 2 Purpose.. 2 Environmental Procedures 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements 2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program 3 Roles and Responsibilities 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures 3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations 3 III. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table 6 Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B-Page 1 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 5656 Crest Road, located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS-2 (Single-Family Residential 2 du/ac)to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS-4(Single-Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot with reduced lots widths into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code,which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate,this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended(California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081,the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program." Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B- Page 2 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of,filing requirements,and compliance verification.The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition,the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B- Page 3 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Community Development Director would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B- Page 4 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program Ill. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on , 2015. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B- Page 5 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program ^i�---- ____ — _' _ �.._._. -__._.-_,-.. .._• - rrte __-. —_ I t MiTiGATION MEASURES �`�f P TIME OF RESPONSIBLE CO IlPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION ANNINIMPOISIIIIMIIIIIMANINIMMUNIMINEINPIr " 1. AIR QUALTY AQ-1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a Prior to and duringProperty Owner/ Community py chemical dust suppressant, or covered when Construction Development material is not beingadded to or removed from the construction applicant. Department pile. AQ-2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient Prior to and duringProperty Owner/ Community py water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to Construction Development frevent emittingdust and to minimize visible construction applicant. P Department emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ-3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be Property Owner/ Community py cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from Construction During construction Development beingreleased or tracked off site. applicant. Department AQ-4. Minimize and clean-upthe track-out of bulk PropertyOwner/ Community Construction During construction Development material or other debris onto public paved roadways. applicant. Department AQ-5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are Community Property Owner/ either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such Construction During construction applicant. Development that the material does not touch the front, back, or Department sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load Lextends above the top of the cargo compartment. L 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS __ _ _ _ _ _ _ GS-1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a 1� radiaplan with relatedgeotechnical report shall be { , Prior to and during Property Owner/ community grading Construction reared for review and approval bythe Communityconstruction applicant. Development prepared pp Department Development Department. Resolution No. 2015-28 Exh h:t B - Page 6 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION GS-2 Any future residential development shall be Community connected to the existing sewer lines. Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner/ Construction permit final applicant. Development Department JI 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1 Drainage plans shall be submitted for �! review and approval for compliance with National Prior to Building & SafetyPropertyOwner/ Community pp p Plan Check Development Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for permit issuance applicant. Department stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction Community activities to protect the waterquality. Additionally, Construction Prior to and during Property Owner/ Development y construction applicant. post-construction treatment control BMPs shall be Department applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HWQ-3 Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on- Community site drainage system directed into the existingstorm Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner/ Development g y permit issuance applicant. drainage system, subject to review and approval of Department the Building & Safety Division. 4. LAND USE AND PLANNING LU-1. All future single-family dwelling units on the �I i subject lots shall be limited to single-story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existinggrade at the highest elevation of the existingPrior to PlanningDivision PropertyOwner/ Community g Planning Review Development building pad area covered by the structure and 20', Approval applicant Department as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the his hest •oint of the structure. 5. NOISE Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B - Page 7 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project !+ site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before i 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of Community j construction stated in this condition. When feasible Prior to and during Property Owner/ to do so, the construction contractor shall provide Construction construction applicant. Development pp Department 1 staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. i These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. I 6. PUBLIC SERVICES PS-1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of Community p Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner/ the City, for park and recreational purposes at the Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development I time and according to the standards and formulas Department , contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. _ II 7. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC T-1. PriorBuilding P rmit Issuance, anynew curb , to � e ' toimpactsof Property Owner/ Community � cuts minimize or eliminate any related to Plan Check P Prior to Building & Safety p y Development q traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the permit issuance applicant. Department Public Works Department. p T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from ,�:,. Community �I Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner/ Development f from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways permit issuance applicant. Department 1 on Crest Road shall be removed. L_____ Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B - Page 8 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE l IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, FirePro e Community De artment review will be re uired to ensure Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property / Owner r e Develo ment p q permit issuance applicant. p adequate emergency access _ Department Resolution No. 2015-28 Exhibit B - Page 9 of 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program