Loading...
CC SR 20160606 D - Border Issues Status ReportRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: 06/06/2016 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar Consideration and possible action to review the status of Border Issues RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager -' APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager,,",/•1_± 11 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. May 9th RHE Planning Commission Staff report for 5883 Crest Road project (page A-1) B. May 10th Board of Supervisors report regarding grant funding for Friendship Park project (page B-1) C. Public notice for Peninsula Pointe project (page C-1) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This month's report includes: An update on the proposed 4 -unit detached condominium project at 5883 Crest Road in Rolling Hills Estates; An update on the County's construction of proposed "observation stations" in Friendship Park within Rancho Palos Verdes; and, A report on the proposed conversion of the Peninsula Pointe office building at 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard in Rolling Hills Estates into a 102 -bed residential care facility for the elderly. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text of the current status report is available for review on the City's website at: 1 http://www.rpvca.gov/781 /Border -Issues -Status -Report Current Border Issues 5883 Crest Road Condominium Project, Rolling Hills Estates On May 9, 2016, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission considered a further - revised version of this 4 -unit, detached condominium project at the northeast corner of Crest and Highridge roads. The major revisions included reducing the square footage of all four (4) proposed units and reducing the height of the unit closest to the intersection to a single story. However, the Planning Commission again found the revised project to be unacceptable, and directed the applicant to consider several alternative development schemes, including: Three (3) detached condominium units (as opposed to the four (4) units currently proposed); A single, 3- to 4 -unit townhouse -style building (similar to the adjacent Seaview Villas complex); or, A lot split with two (2) detached single-family homes (similar to the lot split recently approved at the southeast corner of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road in Rancho Palos Verdes). The applicant was tentatively scheduled to return to the Planning Commission with a revised proposal on June 6, 2016. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. Friendship Park Observation Stations, Rancho Palos Verdes/Los Angeles (San Pedro) County Parks and Recreation Staff have recently confirmed that the construction of the second observation station is underway. On May 10, 2016, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the application for $252,000 in Measure A grant funds for the Friendship Park General Improvements Project, which would include additional fences and barriers to control unauthorized access to the park from Calle Aventura, 25t" Street and other surrounding areas. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. New Border Issues Peninsula Pointe Project, Rolling Hills Estates On May 16, 2016, the City received the attached public hearing notice for the proposed Peninsula Pointe project at 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard in Rolling Hills Estates. The proposed project would convert an existing, 2 -story office building with a subterranean garage into a 102 -bed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE). The site takes access from Ravenspur Road, which is Rancho Palos Verdes' public right-of-way. The 2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project may be reviewed on Rolling Hills Estates' website at http://www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us/index.aspx?page=404. The deadline by which to submit comments on this project was June 2, 2016, and City Staff from the Community Development and Public Works departments reviewed the proposal to submit comments by that date. The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission was scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the project on June 6, 2016. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports. 3 �l �# 111111 050916 ITEM NO. 8-A Staff Report City of Rolling Hills Estates DATE: MAY 9, 2016 FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR KELLEY THOM, CBGB, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14 APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to BACKGROUND Revised Application Filed: 4/15/2016 Application Deemed Complete: 4/25/2016 Public Notices Mailed: 4/25/2016 Public Notices Posted: 4/28/2016 Public Notices Published: 4/28/2016 (CECA), on the A new Public Hearing Notice has been sent to all properties within a 500' radius, as the project been revised. As of this writing, staff has received a letter (attached) from the adjacent Seaview HOA reaffirming their support for this project. Please note that the project has been re -silhouetted, to reflect the reduction in home sizes. Prior to the meeting, the Commission should visit the project site to better understand the project and its revisions. Back in 2004, an application for a 5,700 sq.ft, single -story commercial building was approved for the subject property. The applicant and present owner of the property, Ms. Judy Chai, indicated at the time that she attempted unsuccessfully to construct and tenant the approved commercial building. As such, she requested a residential use since it is the predominant use in the surrounding area. On August 11, 2015, a Public Hearing was held before the City Council at the applicant's request, After lengthy discussion, the consensus of the Council was that residential zoning makes more sense than a commercial use, and that the Zoning Text Amendment should have appropriate findings for the unique site. The Council also acknowledged the project support from the adjacent Seaview Viflas. As a result, the Council recommended that the project be revised to satisfy the Planning Commission's concerns of unit size, building massing, etc. Please refer to the staff report and minutes (attached). In response to the feedback received from the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant has hired a new architect, Gary Maxwell, Maxwell and Associates, who has redesigned the project to reduce the appearance of mass by decreasing the home sizes, staggering the garages, and limiting the home at the front corner to be one-story. 11 A-2 w Lot size, 22,366 q. ft. .........._..............._..........,........................._........_...._.....:........;......................_..._..,...................._..........___..............-.....-....._...—...._........__._...................................._...__....,...._................_..............-....._..._._..-_._....,.d.._.._.............................................................._.......-....................._._._......_.............................,..__..„._...........,_........_....__..........._. Lot Coverage Remainder Of Site % Maximum 2.1,°P4 _.... 7,400 sq. ft. 14,9501 sq. ft. 33% _...,_.._..M_ 5.°4a°t 6,628 sq. ft. 15,738 sq. ft. 29.6% . _ ,_., �.,.,....,..°� Revisions 6,300 sq. ft. 16,066 sq. ft. 28.2% _. _............. ...... . etCharsge 326 sq. ft. building footprint decrease EXerTr t from Lost Covera Primary driveways, walkways 4' gide or less, and jlandscaped area j Decrease from 33`/o to 28.2% Livable Building 2,880 sq. ft. 2,431 sq. ft. 1,662 sq. ft. - 1,216 sq. ft. building area decreases Area 2,880 sq. ft. 2,481 sq. ft. 2,160 sq. ft. - 720 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 2,431 sq. ft. 2,054 sq. ft. - 826 sq. ft. 2,880 s. ft. 2,431 sq. ft. 2,054 sq. ft. - 826 sq. ft. Overall 1 11,520 sq. ft. 9,724 sq. t. 7,930 sq. ft. I (- :3,590 sq. ft.) total decrease 3'1.1% _.._............_.._..__,,............................._._., _.:_................................_..........._..._........_.._....:._._......,...:.._.........._:._:.....__.....__.................__.........._........_._........_........._..._.._...._........._...........................,.... t _..........._._.__._._..........._-.-......... _... _......... _...... ...... _..... ........................ .... . Garage 6530 sq. ft. 427 sq. ft. 440 sq. ft. Includes covered guest spaces _.,..........__... _......arunit..............per unit .._._...................._.per ..u.nit ..._........ Building All two --story All two-story One and two- fEliminated second -story at front building Stories _._.__......._.._......_.._...... star .............. _ I .. ... .... - Private Yards in 2,560 sq. ft. 1, 500 sq. ff. 568 sq. ft. (- 932 sq. ft.) decrease Street Setbacks Crest Rd Setback Unit 3: 20 ft 30 ft Unit 1. 25 fit. 5 ft. decrease Unit : 20 ft 25 ft. Unit 2: 20 it. 5 ft. decrease Grading 1,150 Cysts 1,150 Cyds 1,070 Cyds (- 0 Cyds) decrease -.__ ... ........ ..___.._-._...----_.__.._..__...._._......... __.:..___..... ............ _..... __._.___._..._..._ .__ __.___.._..__ ._.__....._......_......_...__ _ _ ._ _ _.___.__.___.._....._.....__._..____.___ .. __._...._..........__....___.,,_..._...:._...._ 19 A-3 limmiolm m M" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 1. Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take Public Testimony; 3. Discuss the Issues; and 4. Direct staff to take one of the following actions A-5 It a) Prepare a Resolution recommending City Council approval of the revised project for the next Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2016 No b) Continue this application to a date uncertain with guidance that the project be redesigned to include a revised housing type that is more acceptable for the site. Separate 1. Architectural Drawings, dated May 3, 2016 Pa25-14 pm4 WO N COUNCILWOMAN HUFF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2355 AND JOIN THE "FIX ROADS COALITION" AS REQUESTED BY THE LEAGUE CALIFORNIA CITIES. AYES: Addleman, Huff, Mitchell, Zerunyan BSENT: Zuckerman Manager Prichard read Resolution No. 2355 by title onl 8. PUBLIC H YV NGS MEETINGS A. CONGESTION � NAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) Recommendation: Th the City Council: 1) public testimony; 3) Clos the public hearing; and the 2015 CMP Local D lopment Report. Assistant City Manager Gram provided a COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL mov sec de( TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEART THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, OR I No public testimony was ered. SELF- -ie public hearing; 2) Take Adopt Resolution No. 2354 ff report (as per agenda material). by COUNCILMAN ZERUNYAN COUNCILWOMAN MITCHE moved, seconded by UNCILMAN ZERUNYAN TO CLOSE THE P LIC HEARING. THERE BEING NO ECTION, MAYOR ADDLEMAN SO O FRED. 1. RESOLUT N NO. 2354 FOR ADOPTION A RE UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ROLLING S ESTATES FIN G THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GESTION M AGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE C LOCAL VELOPMENT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CA ORNIA OVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL moved, seconded by COUNCILWOMAN UFF TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2354. AYES: Addleman, Huff, Mitchell, Zerunyan ABSENT: Zuckerman B. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 25-14; APPLICANT: JUDY CHAI; LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD Recommendation: That the City Council: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Take public testimony; and 3) Choose one of the following two options: a. Close the public hearing and direct staff to bring back a City Council Resolution denying PA -25-14, upholding the Planning Commission's recommendation; or b. Remand PA -25-14 back to the Planning Commission for further consideration of three free-standing patio homes (instead of four) or one single building with three to four attached units, as discussed in the staff report. Planning Director Wahba provided a staff report (as per agenda material). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 5 AUGUST 11, 2015 A-7 COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL inquired as to what is the proposed Zone Text Amendment. Planning Director Wahba noted that the Code requires a 10 -acre minimum parcel size and that the project before the COUNCIL is one-half acre contiguous to Seaview Villas. COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL inquired if this would set a precedent. Planning Director Wahba responded that findings would have to be made to meet the requirements for a zone change because this property is unique with no other sites like it in the City. COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL inquired if the Zone Text Amendment would only affect this parcel. Planning Director Wahba noted that the Planning Commission had the same concerns and that additional research is needed to make the appropriate findings. COUNCILMAN ZERUNYAN moved, seconded by COUNCILWOMAN HUFF TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, MAYOR ADDLEMAN SO ORDERED Keith Palmer, Architect, representing the Applicant, provided an extensive background on this project. He noted that patio homes are now being considered in an attempt to come up with a solution for this property and provided a PowerPoint presentation. He further noted that the landscaping has been increased and the building mass has been reduced. COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL inquired if consideration was given to decreasing the size of the units to 1,500-1,800 square feet as the homes are quite large for the site. Mr. Palmer responded that they did consider smaller units and consulted with realtors in the area. He noted that, while many people are downsizing, they still prefer a nice kitchen and open floor plan with larger closets and amenities. He further noted that the upper floor is the living level that includes a "great room" and an office/guestroom with two bedrooms downstairs. COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL noted that the first floor has two bedrooms plus an additional space which would essentially be a four bedroom unit. COUNCILWOMAN HUFF noted that she was a Planning Commissioner at the time this item was considered in 2013, and at that time, the homes were 2,400 square feet and were increased to 2,800 square feet and questioned why they are now back to 2,400 square feet. Mr. Palmer explained that the square footage on the lower level was a miscalculation, but the footprint remained the same. COUNCILWOMAN HUFF noted that The Ranch development has tall trees and hedges, and inquired if this might be a way to respond to the mass as the homes would not be seen. Planning Director Wahba noted that those homes are all single -story and the setbacks are greater in that development. COUNCILWOMAN HUFF asked if there would be more room for foliage to block the ground level. Mr. Palmer noted that landscaping at the lower level could mitigate the view of the buildings as the preferred view is from the second floor. COUNCILWOMAN HUFF mentioned that the Seaview Villas' homes are higher and that this development does not seem to interfere with their view. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2015 1 • • COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL moved, seconded by COUNCILWOMAN HUFF TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, MAYOR ADDLEMAN SO ORDERED COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL noted that the commercial aspect is probably not the correct zoning and that the Zone Text change needs to be considered. She noted that she concurs with the Planning Commission as far as the mass on the lot and encouraged some creative thinking to reduce the size to two 1,500- 1,800 square foot units or townhomes with more open space instead of single- family homes. She further noted that the Planning Commission's concerns still remain regarding the size of the project and were not alleviated. She commended the Planning Commission on their good judgment and respects their decisions and recommended sending this item back for further consideration to review creative planning alternatives that would not be so massive but still be a viable development. COUNCILMAN ZERUNYAN concurred with COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL'S comments. He noted that the challenge is the awkward lot and that Mr. Palmer is doing a good job in attempting to find alternatives. He noted that at the first look meeting, the consensus was that residential zoning makes sense for this lot and that a commercial use was not desired. He further noted that the lot size of one-half acre is a problem. While he commended Mr. Palmer on the design, he suggested that perhaps mixing styles might be a better direction along with a recalculation of the site to reduce the wall-to-wall massing. Additionally, he commented that he is sympathetic to the Applicant, but concurred in sending this project back to the Planning Commission. COUNCILWOMAN HUFF commented that she is concerned. this process has taken awhile, and was sympathetic to the Applicant's concerns about the Planning Commission's denial. She noted that it is important for the COUNCIL not to micromanage a property owner's property. She suggested that since this is a difficult property, it could be designed in an attractive way with landscaping. She commended the Applicant for working with Seaview Villas' residents who are in support of this project. She noted that this proposal would be more suitable than a commercial business. MAYOR ADDLEMAN also concurred with COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL and COUNCILMAN ZERUNYAN'S comments and stated that the Planning Commission is very experienced. He noted his preference would be to redesign the property because the current project is too dense and there are too many concerns that were expressed that need to be discussed. He also agreed to send this item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. MAYOR ADDLEMAN moved, seconded by COUNCILWOMAN MITCHELL TO REMAND PA -25-14 BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDED PLAN. AYES: Addleman, Huff, Mitchell, Zerunyan ABSENT: Zuckerman 10 HITI i" A. Depu Attorney Steve McEwen noted his eat attending the COUNCIL g in City Attorney Davis' absence. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8 AUGUST 11, 2015 1 • Staff Repon[ City of Rolling Hills Estates 11: A T E: AUGUST 11, 2015 V v 121 IC N •, JIM AGENDA ITEM NO, SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION 25-14 APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAT LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD OVERVIEW The following is a request to approve: 1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; 2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD); 3. A Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPD Zone; 4. A Tentative Parcel Map for a one -lot subdivision; 5. A Grading Application; 6. A Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development; 7. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four single-family patio homes; and 8. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment. Revised Application Filed: 5.14.15 Application Deemed Complete: 5.19.15 Public Notices Mailed: 7.30.15* Public Notices Posted: 7.30.15* Public Notices Published: 7.30.15* *Dates for 8/11/15 City Council meeting only. This application is before the City Council as the Planning Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council for General Plan Amendments, Zoning Changes/Text Amendments, and Parcel Maps. Therefore, the City Council has the final authority to ultimately approve or disapprove this application. The purpose of this report is to provide a general summary of the actions that have taken place to date for this project. Please refer to the attached information for a complete understanding of this application. ♦ RIPPEC-16 0 so— SM 0 0 III of this writing, several letters have been received from the applicant and the applicant's 2 A-11 representatives (attached). The applicant will also be making a PowerPoint presentation at the City Council meeting. Public hearings for the project were held before the Planning Commission on December 1, 2014, May 4, 2015, and June 1, 201 115. Staff reportand minutes are attached. At the December 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about the project's compliance with Neighborhood Compatibility, including density, home size, building massing, lot coverage, parking, and a potential driveway hazard, and continued the project to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the issues. At the May 4, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested a continuance of the project to the June 1, 2015 meeting. At the June 1, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the project was revised to reduce the visual massing of the homes, including decreasing the home sizes and increasing the building setback and open space on the site. As a result, the lot coverage was reduced to eliminate the Minor Deviation. The Commission discussed the project's density, the revised home sizes and building mass, and stated that the project still needed to integrate, and be more consistent with, the adjoining Seaview development. As a result the the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution, recommending City Council denial of the project. At the July 6, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution No. PA -25-14, recommending City Council denial of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from neighborhood commercial to high density residential, a Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Residential Planned Development (RPD), a Zone Text Amendment for development standards for lot size in the RPD zone, a Tentative Parcel Map for a one -lot subdivision, a Grading Application, a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Planned Development, a Neighborhood Compatibility Determination; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment for the subdivision and grading of land for the construction of four single-family patio homes on a 0.51 -acre parcel in the Commercial Limited (CL) zone. Initial Studv and Mitigated Neaative Declaration (MND) for the California Environmental Q Act (CEQA) A Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for this project last year (attached). Staff is of the opinion thal the project revisions do not require the IS/MND to be re -circulated, as the project revisions are essentially minimal and would not result in any new potential impacts that would require additional study for mitigation. Also note that this document, which favors approval of the project with mitigation, is provided as an "informational tool" to allow the decision makers to provide an environmental basis in which to approve or disapprove a project. Because a project could be approved with mitigation measures, CEQA does not require the City Council to approve the project. Rather, it can still be denied, particularly in this case, if the proposed land use, for example, is found to be incompatible with that of the General Plan. A-12 � III III!! i 11 I, lip li • The applicant, Ms. Judy Chai, has been working with the City for quite some time now t# develop the subject site, which is presently vacant. The history of the property first included an automobile service station and then a garden nursery in more recent years, both of which uses ultimately were not economically viable. Over the years, 'this broader location at the top of the hill has been essentially redeveloped and/or built out with mostly single family homes and multifamily attached homes in the immediate vicinity to the north east of the property, known as Seaview Villas South. For example, the Northrop site was rezoned from Scientific Research Development (SRD) to Residential Planned Development (RPD), whereby 67 single family homes (Vantage Pointe) were built in the late 90s and early 2000s. Also, Pepper Tree Lane (34 patio style free-standing homes) was built shortly after Vantage Pointe, where a shopping center once stood at the northeast corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Crest Road. Lastly, the neighborhoods of Hillcrest Meadows and Manors and Wallace Ranch, all located along Highridge Road, were built on sites originally slated for a high school and on an old antenna farm. 4 A-13 Open the Public Hearing; 2. Take Public Testimony; 3. Choose One of the Following Two Options: A. Close the Public Hearing and •,_ Staff to Bring Back a City Council Resolution denying PA -25-14, Upholding the Planning Commission's Recommendation; OR 9. Remand PA -25-14 Back to the Planning Commission for Further Consideration of Three Free-standing Patio Homes (instead of four) OR One Single Building with Three to Four Attached Units. Attached 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. PA -25-14 2. Minutes and Staff Reports dated July 9, 2013, December 1, 2014, May 4, 1015 and June 1, 2015 3. Letters to City Council received from the applicant 4. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated October 9, 2014 Separate 1. Architectural Drawings, dated June 1, 2015 Pa25-14.cm(2).DW.doc 5 A-14 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Telephone -(310) 377-1577 Fax -(31 0) 377-4468 TAIS GR1kkEM'1G PERMIT RETIE!"! SMALL A17HORIZE ONLY THE GRADING WC)RrZ, REQUESTn AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF OTHER STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN. OWNER DATE ENGINEER LICENSE CONTRACTOR LICENSE # LOCATION 15b?)3 C9097- 90�6ry PROJECT DESCRIPTION Nf'44) 'j CIA�T & WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE IMPORTATION OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIAL? 1. IF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS? CUBIC YARDS B. WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE EXPORTATION OF EARTH MATERIAL? t. IF YES, HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS? CUBIC YARD�!- C. WILL THE AMOUNT OF FILL EQUAL THE AMOUNT OF CUT? EXPLANATION LIT I ATn C,,f "4 —a7 E -x- is n, A-15 D. WILL THIS PROPOSAL CUT INTO AN EXISTING SLOPE? 1. |FYES, WHAT |8THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH {)FCUT SLOPE? LENGTH DEPTH 2. |FYES, WHAT |GTHE RESULTANT RATIO? 3. IFYES, WHAT |GTHE TOTAL NUMBER {JFCUBIC YARDS BEING REMOVED? [�m�«�� � � E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL FILL AN EXISTING SLOPE? 1. |FYES, WHAT |STHE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH {JFTHE FILL SLOPE? LENGTH DEPTH 2. |FYES, WHAT |STHE RESULTANT SLOPE RATIO? _____ 3. IF YES, WHAT IS THE TOTAL WUK4BEF7 OF CUBIC YARDS BEING FILLED? HYDROLOGY A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL ALTER NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS? B. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT |WCONCENTRATION OF STORM WATER RUN-OFF? C. WILL STORM WATER BEDISCHARGED INTO ANACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE FACILITY? D. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN FL(}VV PATTERNS WHICH CAUSE WATER TO BE DIRECTED C]NTC} ADJACENT PFl[}PEFlT|EG? 1. IF YES. HAS THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THESE PROPERTY OWNERS BEEN OBTAINED? E. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS? F. WILL THIS pR{]P(}8&L ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF OTHER PROPERTIES? I K MIA x FA MEN 0 WHAT r TO ENSURE EROSION EXPLANATION GRADING METHODS A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL REQUIRE THE USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT? 1. IF YES, WHAT MACHINERY WILL BE USED? EXPLANATION i B. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVE THE USE OF TRUCK TRANSPORT? 1. IF YES, WHAT CAPACITY OF VEHICLE AND WHAT HAUL ROUTE IS REQUESTED? CAPACITY: CUBIC YARDS HAUL ROUTE METHODSC. DESCRIBE OF DUST CONTROLTO BE EMPLOYED DURINI GRADING COMPATIBILITY A. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL AMENITIES, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY, LANDSCAPING AND NATURALFEATURES? 3 A-17 1'�-T.'EM B. WILL THIS PROPOSAL PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND RESPECT _ RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? EXPLANATION C. WILL THIS PROPOSAL INCORPORATE EXISTING AND/OR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? D. WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND MAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC _ AND PRIVATE VIEWS? E, WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ORDINANCE? F. WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES GRADING ORDINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE 17.07.010)? forms/grading updated 10/23/07 4 A-18 0"(3,2 PROJECT STATISTICS SHEET PROJECT ADDRESS: � r . cjgjqT SETBACKS EXISTING SQ,FT. co 6p TOTAL SQ.FT. SQ First Story Front: RESULT SQ.FT. LOT' COVE RAGE Lot Size 7-2�0b(41f& sq.ft, Residence + garage: Sides: 17 6,5 0 0 1 footage must be included to determine front Pool: 18 rd coverage) 75 41 Total front yard coverage %: Rear: (total front yard coverage + front yard area Barn: Second Story 1,00 Utility Sheds > 64 sq.fU Front: JrJOS-1 1.00 Sides: Permanent assessory structures: 1.00 Eaves > 4' wide: 1.00 Rear: Walkways > 4' wide: BUILDING HEIGHT: r,214AtCW 410M LIVING SPACE SQ.FT. 1 s' floor:N d 2nfloor: q(j6 BI 1100 Garage: ITOTAL: .75 Front yard area sq.ft: (Refer to code for definition of front yard area EXISTING SQ,FT. co 6p TOTAL SQ.FT. SQ Front yard coverage sq.1t: RESULT SQ.FT. LOT' COVE RAGE Lot Size 7-2�0b(41f& sq.ft, Residence + garage: (Ali hardscape and structures' square 17 6,5 0 0 1 footage must be included to determine front Pool: 18 rd coverage) 75 41 Total front yard coverage %: .75 1.00 (total front yard coverage + front yard area Barn: total front and coverage %) 1,00 Utility Sheds > 64 sq.fU A-19 EXISTING SQ,FT. + PROPOSEb SQ.FT TOTAL SQ.FT. SQ X FACTOR SQ.FT. RESULT SQ.FT. LOT' COVE RAGE Lot Size 7-2�0b(41f& sq.ft, Residence + garage: 17 6,5 0 0 1 "2;, CV Pool: 75 Patios & other decks �< 1' high: > 1'high: .75 1.00 Barn: 1,00 Utility Sheds > 64 sq.fU 1.00 Permanent assessory structures: 1.00 Eaves > 4' wide: 1.00 Walkways > 4' wide: .75 Turfblock & grasscrete: .50 Secondary driveway: TOTALS: Lot Coverage %: .75 (Total -. Lot Size = Lot Coverage Percentage) A-19 To: The City of Rolling Hill Estates Planning Commission 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA, 90274 Subject: Proposed Residential Development at Crest Road and Highridge Road owned bv MW The Board of SVHOA has reviewed the current proposal to build four (4) patio homes on the property owned by Judy Chai. illustrated and would prefer residential use for this prop 2rtv versus commercial. However, we note that the property is currently zoned commercial (CL). The Board of SVHOA would expect to have the right to review any future proposal that would involve building a commercial enterprise on that site - prior to it bein,.N approved by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission. ME= - - - - •resiclent SVHOA (310) 614-5312 helen.cannefax@gmaii.com A-20 Errata Sheet for the 5883 Crest RoadJ pJI&Y-.dcJ 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction The City of Rolling Hills Estates prepared an Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed 5883 Crest Road Project. On October 9, 2014, the City published a corresponding Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt an MND. Subsequent to publishing the NOI and prior to adopting the MND, the applicant refined the proposed project. Accordingly, this Errata Sheet identifies the refinements to the proposed project and documents all the necessary revisions to the Initial Study and the IVIND to reflect the refined project. This Errata Sheet has been prepared by the City to fulfill its responsibility as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). State CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(a) requires that a lead agency recirculate a negative declaration "when the document must be substantially revised." A "substantial revision" means: (1) identification of a new, avoidable significant effect requiring mitigation measures or project revisions to reduce the effect to insignificance and/or (2) determination that proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. Recirculation is not required when new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. None of the changes noted herein modify the conclusions of the environmental analysis or th�z determination of the document that the proposed project would not have a significant effect or the environment after the incorporation of mitigation measures. None of the changes constituteiR substantial revision that requires recirculation of the MND. A: 1.11r.11111,1111r.17T-19, iL,i �M Changes to the text of the Initial Study and IVIND are noted below by the corresponding section and page number of the document. Additions are indicated with double underlined text and the deletions are shown with 19U- WIN WWWWWW IRMA A-22 square feet and a 440 -square -foot two -car garage. As proposed. Units 3 and 4 both comprise two-story, three-bedroom/two-and-three-quarter-bath units. comprising 2.054 square feet with 440 -square -foot garages. The lot size is 0.51 -acre (22,366 square feet), with proposed total lot coverage of 33 28.2 percent. Each dwelling unit will have a fenced rear yard and side yard. The project will have a landscaped front yard fronting Highridge Road. Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters will be improved where needed according to City standards. Minimal grading would be required. The proposed project will involve grading to lower the site for the purpose of minimizing the roof height by up to 3 feet. Additionally, backfilling the slope on the eastern side of the site to create side yards for two of the homes is proposed. The proposed cuts would remove approximately 1, 4 50 1,070 cubic yards of material, of which approximately 650 350 cubic yards will be used in backfilling. A total of 5OG-7720 cubic yards of fill would be exported # 111(a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the construction of four sing1l family residences. The project, as proposed, is designed aesthetically to agree wi the surrounding development. For example, the project site would be designed with low -profile roofline to be compatible with the surrounding residential development. T proposed project must be designed to meet the City's development standard including Neighborhood Compatibility, Zoning Ordinance, and General Plan. 11 Municipal Code Chapter 17.62, Neighborhood Compatibility, sets p 'a standards,-• • new constructionto be"compatible" • d neighborhoods in scale (bulk and mass) and style (fagade details and appurtenance materials ce structures, and avoiding a monolithic appearance. The Neighborhood Compatibili Ordinance sets forth six -#jrinci-#,,al ob'ectives for new residential constructi rt mp rcolors,•• pitch, -Further,! • • b "overbuilt"' It appearance,preserving pe space . • penetration between a .i li identified in Table 111-1. In addition, Table 111-1 evaluates the design of the propos units ir consistency with these six objectives.. shown in Tabledesign the proposed project and the proposed conceptual architectural plans comply with t Neighborhood # # . b Ordinance. - •ore- the project's aesthet impacts relateddevelopment • • and other plans, policie and regulations are less than significant. - --- Table 161-1 l�leighborhood Compatibility Analysis 1, Natural Amenities This criterion has been met since the project site is a largely flat and denuded iot with minimal Improvements to residential property shall grading proposed. No notable natural amenities exist on-site. In addition, landscaping is respect and preserve to the greatest proposed along both the Crest Road and Highridge Road frontages. extent possible existing topography, landscaping, and natural features. 2. Neighborhood Character The proposed development is surrounded by the Seaview Villas townhomes on the north and Proposals shall be compatible with the east sides and by single-family residential uses to the south and west across Crest Road and existing neighborhood character in terms Highridge Road, respectively. Architecturally, the Seaview Villas townhomes express Mission of scale of development, architectural Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival elements including red, mission -tiled roofs, exposed style and materials. rafter tails, and white stucco elevations. Mediterranean architectural styles also dominate the neighborhood to the south across Crest Road in Rancho Palos Verdes. The homes to the west, across Highridge Road, are in a gated community that is largely screened from view from Highridge Road, This community contains homes designed in California Ranch and Mediterranean styles. A-23 A-24 The proposed new residential units would be %asenabl-y consistent with the architectural themes, scale, and development density in the surrounding neighborhoods. The architectural style of the proposed homes is SatifA-Pnia Mer�terey Spanish Colonial Revival with design elements that include exposed rafter tails on pop out building volumes eaves, flAfes+#a WA Spanish file roofs, painted wood trellises, stucco elevations, low-pitched roofs with gables, and recessed and pop -out window treatments. These design elements would be consistent with, while prevlag vii variety from, the adjacent Mediterranean and Ranch styles. In terms of scale, the project site is in a transition area between multi -family residential uses and single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed garden -court -style development, with detached homes surrounding a central driveway, is appropriate for this transitional area. The height and mass of the proposed homes are also in context with the surrounding uses. T -he pFel;Gsed hemes w9uld be twe stories and would be 3,295 SqUaF9 feet iR fleeF area (2,8 livable squaFe feet plus 4 4 5 square feet ef garage spaG The proposed bQmes would contain three floor plans of one- and two-story homes. The size of the homes would be 1.662. 2.160. and 2.054 square feet. with approximate 440 square -foot garages respectively. The Seaview Villas are two-story townhomes, with floor areas for each unit ranging from approximately 1,800 to 2,200 square feet; most buildings contain four or more units. The single-family homes across Crest and Highridge roads are one- and two-story structures with floor areas ranging from approximately 2,000 to more than 4,000 square feet. The proposed homes are consistent with the scale of the surrounding residential structures both in terms of height and square footage. In conclusion, the Neighborhood Character criterion has been met since the proposed residences would have a scale of development and architectural style that would appear to be in character with the other residences in the area. 3. Scale This criterion has been met since the proposed residences incorporate design elements that Designs should minimize the appearance help to minimize the massing of the structure, such as setting the finished floor below existing of overbuilt property to both public and grade, low-pitched roofs with gables, and elements that break up the fagade including trellises, private view. The square footage of the balconies, pop -out features, and inset fenestration. In addition to these design elements, the residence and total lot coverage should proposed Ce(+feere—Menferey Spanish Colonial architectural style would provide reflect the rural character of the City and neighborhood. GGMplerReRtiRg variation from be consistent with the adjacent Seaview Villas townhomes, which feature Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival architectural features. 5. Privacy This criterion has been met because the existing property line walls and vegetation buffer are Proposals shall maintain an adequate proposed to be maintained along the shared property lines with the Seaview Villas townhomes, separation between the proposed Residences to the west, across Highridge Road, would be separated from the proposed homes structures and adjacent property lines. In by a landscaped meandering sidewalk in addition to the roadway itself. Similarly, the residences addition, proposed balconies, decks and to the south, across Crest Road, would be separated by a landscaped median in addition to the windows shall respect the existing privacy roadway itself and by changes in elevation. of surrounding properties. 6. Views This criterion has been met because views from the upslope surrounding areas (primarily the Designs should respect existing Seaview Villas) are currently obstructed by vegetation along the property line. Furthermore, the neighboring views, proposed homes have been designed with a low -profile roof line and would be slightly depressed below existing rade to reduce roof elevations. A-24 V) m r Z co m 6 pe m Z m • �J 25'-0" C0 ' ��0 z= ■ �z NE = < N O 0 C � N ■ rn � Q ■ ' D Dm D 0 � 0 • 10'-0' Of F 20'-0" Cv i L_ 21'-6" ■ `t! � ■ ■ � ■ ■ CJI 1 70 m z Cl � p m o c7 z m D N <mcn I I o 25-0" HIGHRIDGE ROAD i °Q, 125.00 vello '° s 0 prnDr� <, D zp Z w S2N <� popper CJI c" F= (=) V 7Q DmDn� cn O ' -n C/) _ G-) D =f Vv m rn Cn lV lV o � C31 0 26'-0" ° N 00 O O C7 C P -z om 0 �- z T oiv 0 0 m -n z n 0 m 4 -9Lo,, N • 7 °"0I &' •/1� O O CT A 1 5 0 0 0 O O 0 ", .\y 00 o� ,° 0, N ^ _ �G) 1O ^ i �u JQ 10'-0"/70 WI1NN ■ .70 .G) 2 ' 0" P, 10'-0" ■ ■ °Q' ■ �7 N N •� �G O �O O ■ � 00 O n r m r m m m O m m r co m � Z77 ;;o -n m [7 r D r D D D D D D D D D cn O m w m m `— m m= D D O O m m m m r D m O m p oo d� s, w iv x m m D O c 0-0� v ��� c7 2Np D cn cn cn cn o D DO nDzD� `O rn �z ��W� O O` cn cn m r — — � r m � z cn cn O �mDO D 000 z -G r pn m z z z zD G—) oCn C-) cnm �<N) n z -v v -v D D D cn w -n -n D p rn O m T G7 Cn T C7 G7 �7 cn —n C7 G7 �7 cn —n C7 G7 C7 � D � m cn —� cn m m m cn T C7 z v ; m m D —� --1 O z r m m C 0 0 0 0 p - i O O D r Cm—n n m Cm_n n m Cm_n n Cn DC7 Cn OD —I —I C7 m r 55 m D m m m cn p c X X X O m O G7 o v w w iv D C7 D O Cn < m o p w O m G7D Cn XDD zzz cn + G7 O m DpO� DpO� DpO� Dc---C/)c o� <nmmmTO—gym mcn �m cn m c D m iv O c7 G) m z T G) m z -n G) m z -n G) m c z o D m D m z -n m p cn c7 r z p O* D " t m cn -5 Z7 —I m z � r m Z r m Z r m z N cio - c n r 0 0 0 r C r w D m _0 m cn Cn 70 -n n D D D o o c m � m -n C> m -n C> m -n C> m N Cn N CD O 00 -n Z T O= z m rn v c7 D r c -� cf)O D w 0 z D m m m r O m z cn m �7 D r -I v v v D o o•• m � O ;Jo —j O �l7 —4 O �l7 cn D rn �' e r r r r N 0 DC7 m -0 C� o D 70 cn o cn D a O O O O O O D c7 rn v n 7 r m m m O -o � = r cn Z m m O TJ o --i � --i � --A � n Cn D m Cn <<< r D O p c T D < m + m cn D D D D m m fD m -n m D D D U) -n ;a I w o m m D m -P --A ---A Z7 r r r n Cn m c7 ��� z p m D N n O D o 0 o D N 11 m D c� m m O 0 0 0 z cn Uj Cn r- �0 z� ccc m� ^N, co �D m �O (nU)cn m O z�0o 0300ou Dw w� �� co m opDp m m G7 D 00 N n n n � I rn OD -j- o con con Co c O D m O z m rn -<-<-< a' D o rn� N (=> z O z z z7 D z ^' D D D cn cn cn (=) N cn cn cn N Ci n D07 + fD 4::--. N4:1. TD 4::-.. N P -r' cylN P D o C)cncn cn cn cn � coil (=) con o O con o N m o cn D nm�-� �O ii cno cn �o CD CD C=) r10 m m -n D rn N OCD cn OCDf7 OJO� cn cn m m co00 cn N o —I � � � —1 � � � —I m m o J0 - -n DDDOOmA° I 0 m z 0 No No NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAT OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA �� �� of ,:;2 co P w(� W5'D <111-4 cn X O A, CD 7 7 V E m co o D m 0 3 ■ z It D z rQ rQm � W ca x I 0 m z 0 No No NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAT OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA �� �� of ,:;2 co P A-25 w(� W5'D cn X O A, CD 7 7 V w W co o D m 0 3 ■ It D m rQ rQm W x x A-25 TI TI r 70 Z 0 oyi I s _ 41'-0" 2$-6)t 26'-0" 35-10" 1 -2" 14'-8" 20'-1» I ----------- I I I_ rn rn •-------------� o I �J o I o co I o � � r � o I p W I cn I X m I �, O O CD x o J I I = 41 cn W � 00 1 ° r 0 x D rn I I D co —I I ` 07 W CT p N o O (p I I o I I cli x N NCi o W n o DD o o G7 0 " o om -----------------------� o 34'-2» Lcc.I N I N I" Ci I 34'-2" 1'-8„ 10 N N O " " IV O O O s s - I _ W 41' N O II r----------------------- 0 a � _ m N O I x O s o No rn U D o o1 a 2 0 N _ I- CD I GJ I GJ I 1 m D, I ° i I I � 2 I- I" [>< O I z NCZW O W o rnEll, cn W N Ln N CAI IL I � I I o •• N `-------------� I" L --------- --------------------J W ------ - - --- O 14'-8" 20'-1" 20'-0" 42'-1" 35'-10" 20'-0" 5'-4" Ilk N N 11 q 1'-2" 0 0 I" I" O o I I I � n D II r rn o DDDDDmAA NET/ 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT cs N �� T_� � c co m j FOR U DY C HAI w ��. J o� Nom-` o � X O 7 7 V w W D OD o m ■ ■3 co cSr coo D � m cnmcn M 5883 CREST ROAD mm W x x ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA .26 ■ G) < I>. - o p a> E m O 0 N O _ z m tl O O1 � � O NET/ 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT cs N �� T_� � c co m j FOR U DY C HAI w ��. J o� Nom-` o � X O 7 7 V w W D OD o m ■ ■3 co cSr coo D � m cnmcn M 5883 CREST ROAD mm W x x ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA .26 ■ G) O - n p a> O 0 N O NET/ 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT cs N �� T_� � c co m j FOR U DY C HAI w ��. J o� Nom-` o � X O 7 7 V w W D OD o m ■ ■3 co cSr coo D � m cnmcn M 5883 CREST ROAD mm W x x ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA .26 00 C) D n r 1 m 6 I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I. I I I m x ;0,0 � _--i1`0 cn X W _ 0 n x D x I I I I I I I I d b m O 41 N O al m O 11 0 NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAI 1 0 3 N� X o w7 1 c7 V� ODWD ul n m n < G coo D m � CA) J�Ul x x v, W = X `�' �> o O --i I 0 X z LLOLz G) N o m n G7 w � n X m W z ,- I I 1 N X w O X m w c) ---- ----------, W _ -j- o m z I x n p cn � � x n Q z — z o 0;U O-, O m x ;0,0 � _--i1`0 cn X W _ 0 n x D x I I I I I I I I d b m O 41 N O al m O 11 0 NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAI OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES., CA wo 10,c 1200cop 1 0 OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES., CA wo 10,c 1200cop 3 N� X o w7 1 c7 V� ODWD ul n m n < coo D m � CA) J�Ul x x i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ir----------------------- I I I I I I T/\ I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �----------------------- I I I I 1�4�4>>> m A v b m mll A O m 0 1 z O m 0 No O e �o y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA { b. e ca _ z o >� z c� O n K v b m mll A O m 0 1 z O m 0 No O e �o y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA m r m C O z Ro m Cn r m D O Z C m n O z m O /u D U-1 X (/m/^/ V I 0 m z 0 m /v m 0 m z c) m N ` T N J N O D mc/) 0 DDDDDA u mAA 0 � � O < r. - o 41 m �C � G7 O E m I I I I I I \I ____ d 1.6 -0" N O _ z m x. X � (1 O pJ O 0 � � O O — � n 41 m �C � G7 O m I I I I I I I I I I I \I ____ d 1.6 -0" N O 0 o m D ...I� I I � I O m I c I r � � m I = I C I D m r O I : ❑ C z I m �o O e® -n C cn 0 m O m -= m C7 D n D m ❑❑❑❑� r m o ❑ O Z i �I L D G7 n , n mI zI m c/) 4i•\a I � O I m D r c C7 Zx> O r m O I O O m �_ 1 a _n r \ mED a m cn Z a a C r III m a C) Ccc'7 z O m N o Z Z O C/) _n C") I cn D c O an z CD -< W Z a m D 0 a mr o m = D O c7 � .Z7 Z Cn m •-L7 2 O m -z m -1 O m m 0 o Z = m cn 00 70 c� - z n m T °' a m _ I I z � C/3 O cc/) O cri3 /v m cn 0 m z C) m NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA I I I 0 Iwo co � � �O O= � D s0 00 �C ;N W 6 0 G7 m I I I I I I I I I I I \I ____ d 1.6 -0" o m D ...I� I I � I O m I c I r � � m I = I C I D m r O I : ❑ C z I m �o O e® -n C cn 0 m O m -= m C7 D n D m ❑❑❑❑� r m o ❑ O Z i �I L D G7 n , n mI zI m c/) 4i•\a I � O I m D r c C7 Zx> O r m O I O O m �_ 1 a _n r \ mED a m cn Z a a C r III m a C) Ccc'7 z O m N o Z Z O C/) _n C") I cn D c O an z CD -< W Z a m D 0 a mr o m = D O c7 � .Z7 Z Cn m •-L7 2 O m -z m -1 O m m 0 o Z = m cn 00 70 c� - z n m T °' a m _ I I z � C/3 O cc/) O cri3 /v m cn 0 m z C) m NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA I I I 0 Iwo co � � C7 0 s0 nO �C ;N W 6 0 n C n N w< CD v co D cn cCD coo x. X � D o� DDDDDmAA NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT O < r. - o 41 m � n C n O E m v cn oo D cco m N N N 0, M O _ z m x. X � (1 O pJ O FOR JUDY CHAT 0 0 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA O O — r� n 41 m � n C n O N 9 w< v cn oo D cco m N N N 0, M O 0 0 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA D r� W � 0 n C n N 9 w< v cn oo D cco m N N 0, M x. X � D D D > m it A 0 N 0 A, m �yy� � c itis -77 W 00 i 0 cayni 0 OR 00 0 0 m 0 z O m m C D O z C m m m - 0 n 0 m z Om a' D n m z O m m 0 m z C) m CIO 70 G7 O D � G7 m O o e o�o I d < b -4 D� �' OD �o,o� P., P a = 1� G7 E m �� C'04�m ^ G �co„ n (D n < CD N z w D c o a CD N Co co 0 N 0 A, m �yy� � c itis -77 W 00 i 0 cayni 0 OR 00 0 0 m 0 z O m m C D O z C m m m - 0 n 0 m z Om a' D n m z O m m 0 m z C) m CIO 70 G7 O D � G7 m O o e o�o I d NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAT U) O C 2 m m m m C 0 0 D m z m OW Z C m n 70 O C m D OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA m U) 0 m z C) m 0 3 _ A C 2 .A O= D� �' OD �o,o� P., P a = 1� G7 m NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVEL FOR JUDY CHAT U) O C 2 m m m m C 0 0 D m z m OW Z C m n 70 O C m D OPMENT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA m U) 0 m z C) m 0 3 _ A C 2 .A N cQ D 32,04 �' �o,o� P., P a = 1� �O �� C'04�m ^ G �co„ n (D n < CD 1, w D c CD N Co co X N D M 3 U a LN M I i rpo I v cn co r on rro W C (7 rri Z 0- rri �0 E– r- > Z 7 f- � r D IA HT1 3 0 0 i z F AVM -40 l WO 18 '00 �'d��l 39ONHOMH o p rA �i X O �Q� O 0 g UI OD ii N A V �' 'rr 7C :c W (J1 C) F - i O O i t0 C IoIn� -a /aqte m l�r^� 9x Q� c�'� sr �co o 1>+o • m jr- �: D'� ®w 00sr a®®O • a 4 �rrtr3ilr31n&rreanriu�rr��er�rpN�rrrtrrnrRrrr�rra i F11In ° i c M DDDDD M A � w . D o vy i GD c rn c p i o 1x J w W � Ena 0 �nr�*ren T z� m — /0T O wz - C7 70 v) T - T �, v T �4 zno rn �Z-< Z > r*0 mZ rn V lI l 1 T Mcna v N D M 3 U a LN M I i rpo I v cn co r on rro W C (7 rri Z 0- rri �0 E– r- > Z 7 f- � r D IA HT1 3 0 0 i z F AVM -40 l WO 18 '00 �'d��l 39ONHOMH o p rA �i X O �Q� O 0 g UI OD ii N A V �' 'rr 7C :c W (J1 C) F - i O O i t0 C IoIn� -a /aqte m l�r^� 9x Q� c�'� sr �co o 1>+o • m jr- �: D'� ®w 00sr a®®O • a 4 �rrtr3ilr31n&rreanriu�rr��er�rpN�rrrtrrnrRrrr�rra i F11In ° i c M DDDDD M A � 0 aD� (Arum z FEF X z En o� s zm A z z9 m; �m C 00 0 v -v O z NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MM!RED M co Haw _I omvczi co vv)mig m q 22 o *' .�z. intoz ! o 73 tAQ z 0 z z 32 (Amm an rn mz �r rri N � z o o tn, 'LAW N >zatn00aa Fnc7 "p cm 0 1AMzorTj r- T T ^ i Q VV �I �YY - -V 2 cr-z 0 20>M o Zc x3z� 0 5Q LTi -1 z T^ m -qz" om ��m o fri N 0 C) s_ m_9AF 0m rn z LA z 1MV w . D o vy i GD c n - o 1x J w W > 0 0 0 E m — O CD cnM� � N _ z N m 1 1 O l 1 x rn V lI F— v o a /�'� E } U) cf) -,u 71 (P 0> z Fri U) 0 aD� (Arum z FEF X z En o� s zm A z z9 m; �m C 00 0 v -v O z NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MM!RED M co Haw _I omvczi co vv)mig m q 22 o *' .�z. intoz ! o 73 tAQ z 0 z z 32 (Amm an rn mz �r rri N � z o o tn, 'LAW N >zatn00aa Fnc7 "p cm 0 1AMzorTj r- T T ^ i Q VV �I �YY - -V 2 cr-z 0 20>M o Zc x3z� 0 5Q LTi -1 z T^ m -qz" om ��m o fri N 0 C) s_ m_9AF 0m rn z LA z 1MV w . D o vy i GD O — cj-)0 1x J w W > 0 0 0 c ro — O CD cnM� � N 1 1 O l 1 x 0 aD� (Arum z FEF X z En o� s zm A z z9 m; �m C 00 0 v -v O z NEW 4 RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT FOR JUDY CHAT 5883 CREST ROAD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA MM!RED M co Haw _I omvczi co vv)mig m q 22 o *' .�z. intoz ! o 73 tAQ z 0 z z 32 (Amm an rn mz �r rri N � z o o tn, 'LAW N >zatn00aa Fnc7 "p cm 0 1AMzorTj r- T T ^ i Q VV �I �YY - -V 2 cr-z 0 20>M o Zc x3z� 0 5Q LTi -1 z T^ m -qz" om ��m o fri N 0 C) s_ m_9AF 0m rn z LA z 1MV c0T �co � m � � co : w . D o vy i 0 o cj-)0 1x J w W > c ro D CD cnM� 00 ,�Cn 1 1 w l 1 x rn V lI F— v F F /�'� E } U) cf) -,u 71 0> > Fri U) 1 1 0 T1 c0T �co � m � � co : z V! W 0©;< w�r m�M ;U LQ Cf! ©l�T10 a 0 0 Z -n O7 q L4 00, r U0� L4r--P c -- -� I -P w . D o vy i o 1x J w W D co 0 :17D m c ro D CD cnM� ,�Cn w ai x z V! W 0©;< w�r m�M ;U LQ Cf! ©l�T10 a 0 0 Z -n O7 q L4 00, r U0� L4r--P c -- -� I -P COLS' OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTNfE1\7 OF PA=S AND RECREATION - "Parks h -fake Life Better" May 10, 2016 The Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Supervisors: John 'Nicker Director ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FOR COUNTY SPECIFIED AND EXCESS FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TO FUND THE FRIENDSHIP PARK GENERAL REHABILITATION PROJECT AND ADOPT THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN FOR THE DODGERS DREAMFIELDS AT BELVEDERE PARK PROJECT (SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS 1 AND 4) (3 VOTES) SUBJECT Approval of the recommendations will allow the Department of Parks and Recreation to submit a grant application to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District for County Excess Funds, available to the Fourth Supervisorial District, pursuant to the Los Angeles County Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 and 1996, in the amount of $252,000 to fund the Friendship Park General Rehabilitation Project. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD: 1. Find the proposed Friendship Park General Rehabilitation Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act for the reasons stated herein and the reasons reflected in the record of the project. 2. Adopt a resolution to submit a grant application to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District for County Specified and Excess Funds, available to the Fourth Supervisorial District, pursuant to the Los Angeles County Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 and 1996, in the amount of $252,000 to fund the Friendship Park General Rehabilitation Project. The Honorable Board of Supervisors 5/10/2016 Paqe 2 3. Authorize the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, or his designee, as agent of the County, to accept grant funds, execute the agreements, conduct all negotiations, and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, amendments, Memorandum of Unrecorded Grant Agreements, deed restrictions, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the project. 4. Adopt a Youth Employment Plan for the Dodgers Dreamfields at Belvedere Park Project, as required by the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District's procedural guide. PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval of the recommendations will allow the Department of Parks and Recreation (Department) to submit a grant application to the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (RPOSD) for County Specified and Excess Funds, available to the Fourth Supervisorial District, pursuant to the Safe Neighborhood Parks Proposition of 1992 and 1996 (Proposition A), in the amount of $252,000 to fund the Friendship Park General Rehabilitation Project (Project). The proposed Project is located at Deane Dana Friendship Park at 1805 West 9th Street in San Pedro, California. The proposed scope of work consists of refurbishing and replacing security fences, gates, bollards and barriers at several boundaries of the park, and replacing section of roofing, sheet metal flashing, woodwork and related improvements. Approval of the enclosed Youth Employment Plan (YEP) for the Dodgers Dreamfields at Belvedere Park Project, previously approved on November 24, 2015, is required to comply with the requirements of RPOSD's Youth Employment Policy. Youth will be employed to perform general maintenance and programming duties. Implementation of Strategic Plan Goals The recommended actions will further the Board -approved County Strategic Plan Goal of Operational Effectiveness/Fiscal Sustainability (Goal 1) by improving and enhancing recreational opportunities for residents and visitors to Los Angeles County. FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING The estimated total project cost and grant request is $252,000, which will be funded with County Specified and Excess Funds available to the Fourth Supervisorial District. Sufficient appropriation for the grant is budgeted in the Fourth Supervisorial District's portion of RPOSD's Specified and Excess Funds Project Funds. OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT Based on the Project description above, the Department does not anticipate any additional one-time or ongoing costs upon Project completion. The provisions of the proposed Project have operating and maintenance requirements which will be fulfilled with existing park staff and resources. FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The 1992 and 1996 Proposition requires that agencies to which funds were allocated under the Safe The Honorable Board of Supervisors 5/10/2016 Paqe 3 Neighborhood Parks Proposition encumber all such funds prior to receiving grants of Specified and Excess Funds. The Department has met this requirement. Additionally, RPOSD requires that the grantee submit an adopted resolution by its governing body authorizing the submission of the grant application and acceptance of grant funds. On June 26, 1997, the Board, acting as the governing body of RPOSD, adopted the YEP for projects funded by Proposition A. RPOSD required that the governing body of the grantee adopt a YEP for each grant funded project at a duly noticed public meeting. Approval of the enclosed YEP will comply with RPOSD's YEP. County Counsel has approved this Board Letter and resolution as to form. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The proposed Project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Project, which consists of replacement of section of roofing and installation of fencing and bollards, is within certain classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment in that it meets the criteria set forth in Sections 15302 and 15303 (e) of the State CEQA Guidelines, and Classes 2 (a) and 3(b) of the County's Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines, Appendix G, because the Project involves replacement or reconstruction of structures with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity and construction of accessory structures. The proposed Project will not involve the removal of healthy, mature, and scenic trees. Additionally, the proposed Project is not in a sensitive environment, and there are no cumulative impacts, unusual circumstances, or other limiting factors that would make the exemption inapplicable based on the proposed Project's records. IMPACT ON CURRENT SERVICES (OR PROJECTS) These actions will have no impact on any other projects or services at Deane Dana Friendship Park. CONCLUSION Please instruct the Executive Officer -Clerk of the Board to return one adopted copy of this letter to the Chief Executive Office, Capital Projects Division, and one to the Department of Parks and Recreation. Should you have any questions please contact Luva Robinson at (213) 637-1845 or Irobinson@parks.lacounty.gov, Francine Choi (213) 351-5033 or fchoi@parks.lacounty.gov, Kasey Dizon at (213) 738-2986 or kdizon@parks.lacounty.gov, or Kaye Michelson at (213) 738-2955 or kmichelson@parks.lacounty.gov. The Honorable Board of Supervisors 5/10/2016 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, JOHN WICKER Director JW:FP:FC:Ir Enclosures c: Chief Executive Officer County Counsel Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors ------------- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR COUNTY SPECIFIED AND EXCESS FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT FOR THE FRIENDSHIP PARK GENERAL REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the people of the County of Los Angeles on November 3, 1992, and on November 5, 1996 enacted Los Angeles County Proposition A, Safe Neighborhood Parks, Gang Prevention, Tree -Planting, Senior and Youth Recreation, Beach and Wildlife Protection (Propositions), which among other uses, provides funds to public agencies and nonprofit organizations in the County for the purpose of acquiring and/or development facilities and open space for public recreation; and WHEREAS, the Propositions also created the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (District) to administer said funds; and WHEREAS, the District has set forth the necessary procedures governing application for grant funds under the Propositions, and WHEREAS, the District's procedures require the Department of Parks and Recreation (Department) to certify, by resolution, the approval of the application before submission of said application(s) to the District; and WHEREAS, said application contains assurances that the Department must comply with; and WHEREAS, the Department certifies, through this resolution, that the application is approved for submission to the District; and WHEREAS, the Department will enter into an agreement with the District to provide funds for development of the Friendship Park General Rehabilitation Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEREBY: 1. Approves the filing of an application with the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District to fund the above project; and 2. Certifies that the Department understands the assurances and certification in the application form; and 3. Certifies that the Department has, or will have, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project in perpetuity; and 4. Certifies that the Department will sign and return, within 30 days, both copies of the project agreements sent by the District for authorizing signature; and 5. Appoints the Director of Parks and Recreation, or designee, as agent of the County of Los Angeles to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, memoranda of unrecorded grant agreements, deed restrictions, amendments, payment requests and so forth, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned projects. The foregoing resolution was passed on this day of , 2016, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and ex -officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts, agencies, and authorities for which said Board so acts. LORI GLASGOW, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles n - Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARY C. WICKHAM County Counsel Christina A. Salseda Principal Deputy County Counsel Me ATTACHMENT I COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DODGERS DREAMFIELDS AT BELVEDERE PARK PROJECT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PLAN The proposed project is located at Belvedere Park, at 4914 East Cesar Chavez Avenue in Los Angeles, California. The scope of work will consist of rehabilitation of existing baseball fields to include new turf, irrigation, fencing, backstop, dugout roofs, scoreboard, signage, and related improvements. Tasks that youth may perform Youth will be employed to perform general maintenance and programming duties from the existing agency budget. Estimated Cost of youth Employment The estimated budget for youth employment for this project is approximately $1,000. Youth Employment Goal Under the provisions of the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District's policy on employment of youth, the Youth Employment Minimum Obligation for the County of Los Angeles of $15,739,750 has been met. However, the Department actively pursues employment opportunities for at -risk youth on all projects where feasible. 0 RA - 604 6 6*=' 1 A W1,1111811111=8fily 111kffim Project Title: Date: May 13, 2016 PENINSULA POINTE PROJECT (PA -18-15) Project Location: The project is located at 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard at a 2.6 -acre site currently zoned for Commercial Office uses. Pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act, this site is not on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Project Description: The project involves the conversion of an existing two-story office building into an 89 -unit residential care facility for the elderly. The existing commercial building would remain in its current location; however, the building would undergo substantial interior modifications and exterior fagade improvements to accommodate the new use. The facility would provide 102 beds (76 assisted living studio units and 13 double -occupancy memory care units) within the reconfigured building. A total of 48 parking spaces would be provided, consisting of 38 stalls for residents and 10 spaces for employees of the facility. The proposed project would require the following entitlements: General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from C -O to Commercial General (C -G); Zone Change from C -O to C -G; Conditional Use Permit for RCFE use within the C -G zone; Precise Plan of Development for the exterior fagade work; Variance for existing surface parking spaces extending into the setback; Variance for parking stall dimension and aisle width in the parking structure; Variance for room size per licensed bed for Memory Care Units; and Other development and building permits, as required by the City. Environmental Determination: The Initial Study/Environmental Checklist that has been prepared for the project recommends that the lead agency adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Public Review Period: May 13, 2016 to June 2, 2016 Date, Time, and Location of PublicMeeting: The City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing for the project on June 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM at the Rolling Hills Estates City Council Chambers, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274. The project will also require a Public Hearing before the City of Rolling Hills Estates City Council at the conclusion of the Planning Commission Public Hearing at a date to be determined. The City Council hearing date will be posted on the City's webpage once it is scheduled: hftp://www.ci.rolling-hills- estates. ca. us/index.aspx?page=129. h•• - • • ••• • •. M • • • City of Rolling Bills Estates City Hail 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Hours: Monday—Thursday 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM; Friday 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Peninsula Center Library 701 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Hours: Monday—Thursday 10:00 AM to 9:00 PM; Friday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM; Saturday 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM; and Sunday 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM City of Rolling Hills Estates Website, Project Updates Page http:/iwww.ci.rollig-hills-estates.ca,usfsndex.aspx? a e=129 (City of Rolling Hills Estates Website; What's New tab; Project Updates tab; Peninsula Pointe Project tab) CommentsPlease send written comments to: Jeannie Naughton, AICP, City of Rolling Hills Estates, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 1 tel. 310.377.1577 ext. 115 1 fax 310.377.4468 e: be received by 11 PM on - 2, 2016. 4 __X2 - I e_- �_, Douglas R. Pri rd, City Manager Date C-1