CC RES 2015-068 RESOLUTION NO. 2015-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE 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, HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT AT 10
CHAPARRAL LANE (ZON2014-00143).
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation
Request, allowing the applicant to proceed with the pursuit of proposed changes to the General
Plan land use and Zoning designation to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the
subject property designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "hazard"; and,
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
approve the relocation of General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary lines to
accommodate the construction of a new residence on the only flat area of the subject property
(5-1, with Commissioner Leon dissenting); and,
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at
which time the application was continued to June 5th, then to July 17th and September 18th at the
applicant's request, to an unspecified date for additional time to address all geotechnical issues;
and,
WHEREAS, in 2014, a new property owner Kevin Chen, represented by his architect
Luis de Moraes, notified Staff that he intended to follow through on the same pending
application except that the project would be revised with a reduced scope of work. On
September 2"d and 30th of 2014, the City Council granted Mr. Chen's request to continue the
public hearing to future unspecified date to address geologic concerns of the site; 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, Height Variation and Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect on the
environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner
required by law; and,
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation and
Grading Permit was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate
public agencies for a minimum comment period of 20-days, commencing on June 18, 2015, and
concluding on July 14, 2015. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the
Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 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 No. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height
Variation and Grading Permit) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment.
Section 2: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures, the proposed
project will have less than significant individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources,
as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code:
B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season
(February 1 — August 31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between
February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this
mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or grading, to be
verified by the Community Development Department.
B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as
determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur
outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no
longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the
flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to
implement this mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or
grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department.
B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project
pursuant to the City's NCCP.
Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that address
impacts upon geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality in the community and as set
forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, 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:
G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed
under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property
owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to
be verified by the Community Development Department.
G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report
shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and
recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits
of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during
grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations
regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion
control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner
shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety
permit issuance.
Resolution No. 2015-68
Page 2 of 3
H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be reviewed and
approved, prior to Building & Safety Division permit issuance.
H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the
designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or
fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of
streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation
measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development
Department.
H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and
fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation
can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this
mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community
Development Department.
H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall
be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall
be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to
be verified by the Community Development Department.
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 General Plan Land
Use amendment, Zone change and residential development on an existing vacant parcel
located at 5656 Crest Road.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2015.
46"'/.../
11'01;r:yor
Attest:
6,,fzEi7a.etec_.
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 2015-68 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a
regular meeting held on July 21, 2015.
C-7-b4
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2015-68
Page 3 of 3
Sub-Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Project: Case No. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental
Assessment)
Location: 10 Chaparral Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Applicant: Luis de Moraes
Landowner: Kevin Chen
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. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 1 of 7
I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 10 Chaparral Lane, located at the end
of a cul-de-sac, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:
Relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and Zoning map designation boundary lines on the
subject property. The applicant desires to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so
that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the
General Plan's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district.
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 N o. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 2 of 7
II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading,
construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of,filing requirements, and compliance verification.The
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist
The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation
Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of
verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the
mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Files
Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established,
organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development
Compliance Verification
The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist
shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation
measure is completed.
MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS
The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure:
1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for
monitoring of the mitigation measures.
2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible
for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation
measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information.
3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification
column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase,
Resolution No. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 3 of 7
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. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 4 of 7
III. 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 April 17, 2012. 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. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 5 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION
1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B-1 Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur
outside the avian nesting season (February 1 — August
31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs Construction Prior to clearing and/or gradingProperty Owner/applicant
Community Development
between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction p yDepartment
survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist.
B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer
around the nest will be flagged as determined by a
qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All CommunityDevelopment
activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified Construction Prior to clearing and/or grading Property Owner/applicant p
biologist has determined that the young are no longer Department
dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity
has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds.
B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be Community Development
mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP. Construction Prior to clearing and/or grading Property Owner/applicant Department
2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. PropertyOwner/ CommunityDevelopment
This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to Construction Prior to and during construction p
construction of the proposed residence. applicant. Department
G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by
the project geotechnical consultant following
grading/construction for the subject site improvements.
The report shall include the results of all field density
testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth
and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting Prior to Building & Safety permit Property Owner/ Cit Development
the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and Construction p y Community
geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. final applicant. Department
The report shall include conclusions and
recommendations regarding applicable setbacks,
foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion
control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the
site.
3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety permit Property Owner/ Community Development
shall be reviewed and a•'roved. issuance a••licant. De•artment
Resolution No. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A - Page 6 of 7
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION
h
H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials
would be allowed outside the designated construction Property Owner/ Community Development
limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged Construction Prior to and during construction applicant. Department
and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging
area shall be located outside of streambed.
H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion,such as
bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to Property Owner/ Community Development
stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation Construction Prior to and during construction applicant. Department
can be reestablished.
H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If
Property Owner/ CommunityDevelopment
discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained Construction Prior to and during construction p y p
personnel using appropriate methods. applicant. Department
Resolution No. 2015-68
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Sub-Exhibit A- Page 7 of 7
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
LIIIII
1. Project title:
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (Z0N2014-
00143)
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:
10 Chaparral Lane
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
County of Los Angeles
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Kevin Chen
P.O. Box 80084
San Marino, CA 91118-8084
6. General plan designation:
Natural Environment/Hazard & Residential (1-2 du/acre)
7. Coastal plan designation:
This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone
8. Zoning:
Open Space Hazard (OH) & Single Family Residential District (RS-2)
9. Description of project:
The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and
Zoning map designation boundary lines on the subject property. The applicant desires
to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable
for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's
Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district.
10. Description of project site (as it currently exists):
Resolution No.2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
The project site is a 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at
the end of Chaparral Lane in the eastern part of the City. The subject property contains
two separate General Plan Land Use designations (Hazard & Residential 1-2 du/acre)
and two separate Zoning designations (Open Space Hazard — OH & Single Family
Residential — RS-2). The current boundary line that separates said land uses and
zoning designations runs diagonally across the width of the property in the general area
where Chaparral Lane meets the subject property. As a result, approximately two-thirds
of the property (roughly downslope from Chaparral Lane) is designated as Natural
Environment/Hazard land use and zoned OH, while the upper third is designated
Residential (2 du/acre) land use and zoned RS-2.
The area with an existing Residential land use consists entirely of an extreme slope
(greater than 35% gradient) ascending up from Chaparral Lane. The area with a Natural
Environmental/Hazard land use is composed of moderate to extreme slopes and
includes approximately 14,000ft2 of generally level area located off Chaparral Lane. It
should be noted that the relatively level area has been existing since at least 1976,
according to the City's topographic map. The area below the flat area consists of
descending extreme slopes.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Land Uses Significant Features
On-site Vacant The subject property measures 85,178ft2 (1.96-
acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral
Lane. The site currently consists mostly of
moderate to extreme slopes with one relatively
flat area.
North Canyon This property is a vacant canyon area,
consisting of extreme slopes, located in the
abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates.
South Single-family residential These properties are improved with single-family
dwellings that are located approximately 100'
higher in elevation than the flat area on the
subject property.
East Single-family residential These properties along Chaparral Lane are
improved with single-family dwellings that are
either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the
flat area on the subject property.
West Vacant&Single-family residential The abutting property to the northern side of the
subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open
Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme
slopes. The properties near the southern side of
the subject property are improved with single-
family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in
elevation.
Resolution No.2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZO N 2014-00143
August 7, 2014
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Figure 1: Aerial photo of existing project site at the end of Chaparral Lane.
Resolution No.2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
.,,
•,
• •7i T
•
s . .„ d
404.
. ,..
. . .
/444,....
iiiZ � L ' `
_ -- `'� ce0. t �T. jf ,,j !4 ':< •
�r y
°
.-
' . .. ''111 ' '''' . . . .'0.1"'..''''..'''' . - . %.elf.% Ak- 4 744"....... .":,,..' -'..1,-14 • ‘01.11 . ..i.
.4tirr
,,, ' • 1,' ..:y..,....* ,...- ' - ,, ' __. - h F:L1 i-�r'a H I_i ESTATES =3 -`)=-J1',• ' V ' .
5r
T :"
G
,. . n._ ' Ztr. , .- rte• •340,,, . .r .,M •!�`•
. f r . - : , ' *\ .1 f'.' - ill
rsY ,, ;.� dem
'.....4-: . --
\ ,,,,,
) . t •-•_ v ._ ',..o. .*
. ,
,.. - - '-,
. ,Y.---
_ . .
, 0
° te4�-
4it :le A ,� j . -,� a *rt �
-.,,,, , .., -,-,...1, ._. . Ir..;.---- - ,A.,,,,,
..„
«, +a Project Site l �:, ' ' — 4,4 1 • .•
•-...,,. •. ,
S p•.4
• t M 4.) E • t° I'. S v
J • .may -3iT * � ;---,
• � � t .\' �l1
,?p,,,,,,,,,•-i
1 f Y
*175.4 t', '* '-. ._..0-74-• ';'---, ' * . , ,.. 2,,,
Illt ":--'-----1 1 ; .f/ iin',...., N,
'' ' Ilk' 1p.i.'...tiitn,.. --"%i''..':17•',..e:' -. ': ., 4-,..- .-,, - ......
..-, .. 4,(..i,-''.‘-‘,..1L-..,Vettf.41',. .i,m..*-- ..„f -.. ,:-- - , I., \IA*,
IN.* -----... 1 ,
,, r
, eer . '°' #t
e y 4 • +
.4,--4,-,
_ ..., ',4 4
4411r$,_ .,. ,.,. ,,, .:'-',, ,-,-4. , it.-.A., '7
J .J. a ... `'�°- + .t "'' ''i.. - 1Lti �•t
Ery .j'.4 - '-'16-'{ ,.pr{ 7'_y -1•. •
.4 +.
, ' 0 V.i''.' - - , t 1.%.1,is,„, .4'
.. .._, .,..,..,, - _-. - • ...i._-,‘ ,: ,-.0, ;eve - - ire.iiit,\if- - ., ''..'>.- '1'. ' ''"
lit: . ' ' 4%-i'-',-, ......... -..4.41,__,
''' ' '' ".' ,, - ,r*--,441Ati Or - '
.s .
li. ilk 4,, \ ...! Nils, ..',I. 4. „ ..„
V
\'•
4\''''''''
.-kit.,
r t , t x.f , 4'4'' )ii.g 11\' . ":1111 114M:;'''''-' -' + ;
_ \,.,,,0:.
tit., ,
.... .r, -
tit
4 - ,,, ilk,,
0
lEik.''llak4
r „4,,,i . 1 .,, - .. ., , -4,- ,„,Alit.40r...:S. , '4\
}fr-- '+' ... , :k. ,tir. ,...4\ ''. ‘ \
e
4 ,.. , ,,,‘,
., ... i
E t a { t Aja.. /r 1 iti, , . „,,: + _ Y. r
,111
,,,, I.* ' , , "I'• , , -,,,,,. , •11..
,. .. , N * : .4 , ..,f 4 „ .i4.„,.. _ . ;1114,4..
..
. 4„, . _ , . _.,
4.,i , .• c....„4.,,. _ , .., „.„ _ ,L ,4.--. , ....44,44„ . ,.. . . . ,
• , • P. i , f ' .:'-,. /t/ k, 7.s.a?. .:,/
, ,,, , ,,, . ,
, , ,r
.., .
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 4of24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZO N 2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Figure 2: Existing and Proposed land use and zoning map boundary line.
Resolution No.2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
.4) r .
U'
'+'
a
Nom ■ U-
\ .,..... •
• Open Space Hazard (OH) - %
‘ •
• t
I ‘ %. :1-.) 4: N I 7 ' •
-kOl'e). .*: \* ..,
4 -
L• 441:1*13
r}Ji ,
.view Bounciain •- .- L.
' 1„ ''' f glir ello .'S,r.;*i: , I 4.
f •,„,,,, ,„,._ , „. lip „,, , ik 4N it.....„.
• ' -,:\lb, tr.
i - -
d r
' itf`16 '
f 1 4:54,,,: a f
.„..a.
, ..,:
.. - .
, , " !j
(proposed)
.,•,', *NA, ' ' '- `;al'is ..1.• % y.
k y
i
l'' OH (existing)to .. s r'M.
..• - , ° " �� - .�` ; ' ��,�: �� RS � * � . � e
lit' ' * t; '.*,,' 4‘044:4'4"1"*.r."'. ''''' '-"'"P4r .4"lit ' S4 '4 •44 - .-.**,
• 111111110006,,.**-- ..,„',IR.., 1-- .. . :-0
1 oki N. - *... ,_ , ,.1 7. S. '44,021 it...too4-,, a_
I 4 „,k.
\ ,c”- . ../49*'F., ,
s•4 '- CC, IRV .i , %
Fir........
�r
is
Oil:
auly" exp
si!) Residential U
,,,, , - (RS-2) . t'
1Existi g Boundary Lane :,-- ,� t 'r
o* 4 iv '—_•::,:is.VIM+ •
- .fes 1
. _
.., __
....
._.,,i,___
,,,,,„ 1 ,
.. „.._
—--- .
_,.. „. . ii„.
lik 44 • --,--Ir-- -.144:'2,,.: , ,,
'- WO:7 -
1115..
NO i
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZO N 2014-00143
August 7, 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the
following pages.
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: 24a0-15
Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Resolution No.2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 7 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
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:
The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning map designations will not have an
impact to existing scenic resources. The proposed boundary line relocation merely allows for a residential
development occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. The
future development of a single-family residence on the new building pad area as a result of the proposed
land use and zoning boundary line relocation will have less of a visual impact than the hillside area where
the construction is currently allowed by-right as the hillside character of the lot will be preserved.
Additionally, developing on the new building pad area may cause view impairment from the viewing areas of
the properties located in the easterly direction. However, the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood
compatibility and view analysis for any new residential projects to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and
view effects, and any structure proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the
Municipal Code, including lighting. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the
proposal.
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
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
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 8 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
cause rezoning of forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)),timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Gov't Code section 5104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment that, due to their location 2
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland,to a non-agricultural use?
Comments: The subject site has an existing land use of single-family residential and open space hazard and is not
zoned for agriculture or forestry use. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or
timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the
proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation and future residential development on the site.
3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected 8
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)?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a
ti
substantial number of people?
e) Conflict with or obstruct the
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 amendments to the land use and zoning
designation change as a result of relocation the boundary line has no impacts to air quality as it simply allows
development to occur over a relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact.
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 9 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 8
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 8
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
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, 8
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...),
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or 8
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 8
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan, 8, 12
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 and the General Plan. A biology report submitted by the
applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting
birds. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the following mitigation measures
have been added:
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 10 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZO N 2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (February 1 —August 31).
If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey
for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to
implement this mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or grading. to be verified by the
Community Development Department.
B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a
qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified
biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity
has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to implement
this mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the
Community Development Department.
B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource 7
as defined in§15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological 7
resource pursuant to§15064.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or 7
unique geological feature?
d) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of 7
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:
a) Expose people or structure to potential 7/
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
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 ti
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 6
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? 2, 6, 8
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 8
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,
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) 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 will be no impact caused by the proposed
project.
b-c) According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Map (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) released in March 25,
1999, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslide areas. However, upon City
Geologist review, the proposed project may cause erosion and/or landslide if proper mitigation measures are not
implemented. To ensure les than significant impacts, the following mitigation measures have been added:
G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit
prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this
mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department.
G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following
grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density
testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map
depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during
grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks,
foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 12 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety
permit issuance.
d) Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report by the City Geologist, the new building pad area as a
result of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is not located on expansive soil. Nevertheless.
additional City Geologist's review and approval of applicable site specific soils/geology reports will be required
during the plan check stage, prior to construction of a new residential structure. Additionally, all construction is
required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements to prevent potential adverse impacts. As such, there
would be no impacts caused by the proposal with the implementation of mitigation measures G-1 and G-2.
e) The proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation simply allows development over the only relatively flat
area instead of the hillside portions of the property. Any future development on the site would necessitate a septic
tank, which would require Los Angeles County, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review prior to any
development proposal. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposal.
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 allows for the future development of a new
residence over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions 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 be
not 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 the project:
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 13 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
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,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Comments:
a- d) The proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation to allow a future residential development over the only
relatively flat area on the property will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within
the vicinity of the site. There is no evidence that the project site contains contaminated soils or have been used for
underground storage of hazardous materials. 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.
e, f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore. there
would be no impacts caused by the proposed project.
g) The existing land use and zoning designations allow for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The
proposed land use and zoning change would allow for a future development to be constructed on the only relatively
flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Chaparral Lane is already developed with residential units
and therefore the development of one additional property along the same street is not substantial enough to interfere
with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the
proposed project.
h)The subject property is a large parcel, containing significant amount of vegetation. In the past, the property owner
has complied with the Fire Department's brush clearance requirement on the site: The proposed project simply
allows a residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject
site. Additionally, any future residential projects will be subject to Fire Department review to ensure that all
appropriate measures, such as on-site sprinklers are installed to prepare and protect from any future wildfires in the
area. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact 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 N
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 -\i
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?
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
quality?
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
or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding 11
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11
mudflow?
Comments:
a, f) The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a Water Quality Control Policy for siting, design, operation,
and maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), which sets standards for OWTS that are
constructed. Implementation of this OWTS policy is overseen by the State Water Board and the regional water
quality control boards, and local agencies. Any new development on the subject site will require a septic tank as
there are no sewer systems in close proximity. Septic tanks are required to obtain Los Angeles County, City
Geologist, and Building & Safety Division review and approval to ensure compliance with all applicable policies and
codes. Since the subject site already allows for development of a single-family dwelling and the proposed land use
and zoning boundary relocation merely changes the developable area from the hillside portions to a relatively flat
area. there are no impacts as a result of the proposal.
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 a
single-family dwelling and this proposed project simply changes the developable area from the hillside to the
relatively flat area on the property. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impacts to the current water
demand of the City.
c — e) Based on the City's NPDES consultant, there may be increased runoff resulting from a future residential
development and the submitted Biology report states that indirect impact on jurisdictional waters may occur as a
result of hillside erosion during future construction over the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land
use and zoning boundary relocation. To ensure less than significant impact, implementation of the project-specific
water quality management plan and standard requirements for a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be
required to avoid and minimize the discharge of construction related pollutants during the Building & Safety review
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
phase of a future development on the subject lot. Additionally, the following best management practices (BMPs)
have been added as mitigation measures for erosion, sediment, wind erosion, tracking control, as well as non-
stormwater management,waste management and materials pollution control:
H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be reviewed and approved, prior to Building &
Safety Division permit issuance.
H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction
limits. Prior to construction,the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area
shall be located outside of streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation
measure prior to and during construction,to be verified by the Community Development Department.
H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used
to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be
responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the
Community Development Department.
H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained
personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation
measure prior to and during construction,to be verified by the Community Development Department.
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.
i, 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). Also, mudflows are potentially serious hazard
to life and property in the hillside areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The proposed building pad area as a result
of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is relatively flat and future improvements will be designed
to mitigate potential mudflow impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
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
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning
ordinance?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural 1, 4
community conservation plan?
Comments:
a) The proposed land use and zoning boundary line changes have no impact to the established community since it
simply allows a residential development to occur on a relatively flat area instead of over existing slopes. The subject
property is located within a near fully developed residential neighborhood. As such, the project will not disrupt the
physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore,the proposed project would cause no impact.
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 17 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan amendment and zone change to move the Natural
Environment/Hazard boundary line such that the relatively flat area of the lot can be developed with a residential
structure and this area would be entirely outside of the Open Space Hazard area and would be designated
Residential. The proposed boundary line will be located at the top of the existing extreme slope near the edge of the
relatively flat area. The relocation of the boundary line would allow the property owners to develop the flat portion of
their property instead of the hillside area that would involve significant alteration of the lot. The proposed land use
and zoning boundary line relocation would remain consistent with the existing properties on Chaparral and will not
conflict with any adopted policy of the City's General Plan or the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the local coastal
plan and specific plans do not apply to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impact.
c) There are sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation
Plan that were found on the subject site. However, based on a biology report, none of the species identified in
NCCP would be disturbed as a result of development over the new building pad area. 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 in the local General Plan,
Specific Plan. or other land use plan. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed 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
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbourne vibration or
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?
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 18 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or,where such a plan
has not been adopted,within two miles
of a public airport 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 already allows for the development one single-family dwelling unit. As such. there is
expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site. However, all development
projects are regulated so that construction only occurs during the allowable construction hours of the City, with none
allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Additionally, the proposed project simply allows the development to occur over a
relatively flat area instead of a hillside. Therefore,there would be no impact caused by the proposed project.
e, f) 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
major 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 is a vacant lot zoned residential, intended to be developed with a single-family dwelling. The
proposed land use and zone change as a result of the boundary line relocation simply allows a future residential
development over the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Therefore, there is no
displacement of people as a result and there would be no impact caused by the proposed project.
b-c) The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, there is no displacement of people. Therefore, there would be no
impact caused by the proposed project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 19 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
following public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection? �I
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities? •41
Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral Lane are developed lots that already require public services.
The subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project simply
allows development to occur on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of a hillside. Therefore, there is
no impact on public services.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments: 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 simply allows development to occur on the
only relatively flat area on the property instead of a hillside. Therefore, there is no impact on public services.
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
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 20 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
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
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Comments:
a, f) The proposed project is a land use and zone change, thereby allowing a future residential development on the
only relatively flat area on the property instead of over existing slopes. The subject site can already be developed
with a residential development and has access via Chaparral Lane. 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 a
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 and the proposed project simply allows the development over a relatively flat area instead of a hillside.
there would be no impact caused by the proposed project.
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) The proposed land use and zoning boundary change would allow for a residential development over the only
relatively flat area instead of the hillside on the subject site. Any future development would need to comply with the
adopted Development Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Fire
Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, there would be no impact
caused by the proposed project.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 21 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
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. The proposed
project simply allows for this development to occur over the only relatively flat area instead of a hillside portion of the
site. The subject site is in a near fully developed residential neighborhood and therefore a future development
proposal will not generate a substantial increase in current wastewater nor require a substantial increase in water
use. Additionally, the Building & Safety Division will require and review a drainage plan for consistency with the
current standards. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project that would change the
existing water/wastewater/drainage facilities, wastewater treatment requirements, water supply, wastewater
treatment demand, waste disposal needs or compliance with any statures/regulations related to solid waste.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate _
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 22 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
a) The subject site contains wildlife species subject to NCCP regulations. However, the development area as a
result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary change will not be located in close proximity to impact said
species based on an approved biology report of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the
proposed project.
b) The subject site is zoned residential, located in a midst of a near fully developed residential neighborhood. Since
the proposed project simply allows for an already allowed residential development to occur on the only relatively flat
area instead of hillside portions of the property, there are no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable as a result of the proposed project.
c) The proposed development land use and zoning designation boundary relocation allows residential development
to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portion of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no
impacts caused by the proposed project, s there are no adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings.
18. 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
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 23 of 24
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2014-00143
August 7, 2014
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Comments: None
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact
Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001
2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning 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 NCCP Phase 1 Map
5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California:
November 1993.
6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone (5/1/99)
7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology 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 Biology Report
Resolution No. 2015-68
Exhibit A
Page 24 of 24