The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20170801 01 - Landslide Moratorium Exception 48 Cinnamon LaneRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/01/2017 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to introduce an ordinance amending Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Sections 15.20.040 (Exceptions), 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and 15.20.060 (Application) to establish Landslide Moratorium Exception Category U for residential development on 48 Cinnamon Lane (Case No. ZON2017-00157). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Introduce Ordinance No., amending Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Sections 15.20.040 (Exceptions), 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and 15.20.060 (Application) to establish Landslide Moratorium Exception Category U for residential development on 48 Cinnamon Lane. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, AICP, Deputy Director of Comm. Dev./Planning Manag&" REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Developments APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager f'� ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Ordinance No. (page A-1) B. Settlement Agreement (page B-1) C. Public Correspondence (page C-1) D. P.C. Resolution Nos. 2017-08 and 2017-09 (page D-1) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In 2014, the City and Ms. Andrea Joannou, the owner of the property at 40 Cherryhill Lane, entered into a Settlement Agreement (Attachment B) settling all claims related to the nuisance abatement of a residence that had moved several hundred feet from its original location onto City -owned property on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South. As part of the Settlement Agreement, among other things, Ms. Joannou reserved her right to construct a replacement house on her Cherryhill Lane Lot or build on her vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane. 1 On August 29, 2016, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Director of Community Development ("Director") granted an approval for a Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit, allowing Ms. Joannou to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the placement of a manufactured home, detached garage, and a detached horse corral on the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane. The Director's approval of the LME Permit was based on Landslide Moratorium Exception Category B, which allows a structure to be replaced, repaired or restored to original condition; provided, that such construction is limited to the same square footage and in the same general location on the property and such construction will not aggravate any hazardous geologic condition. No appeal of the Director's approval of LME Permit was filed. On February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 2017- 08 and 2017-09, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit to allow the placement of a new 2,738ft2 manufactured home, detached garage, water storage tank, and 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed improvements, based on the Director -approved LME Permit (Attachment D). On March 15, 2017, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by a group of residents. One of the bases for the appeal is that the Municipal Code does not provide an Exception Category to allow the development of the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane. As a result of the appeal, the Director determined that the use of Exception Category B to approve the applicant's LME Permit was not appropriate, and that a new exception category should be adopted by the City Council to reflect the intent of the Settlement Agreement. The City's Landslide Moratorium Ordinance currently prevents the "filing, processing, approval or issuance of building, grading, or other permits" in the area of the City identified as the "landslide moratorium area", unless expressly allowed under the 15.20.040 (Exceptions) section of the Code. Absent the Settlement Agreement, no development would be allowed on the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane since there is no existing Exception Category that would permit it. However, since the Settlement Agreement contemplated that Ms. Joannou could build the replacement house at 48 Cinnamon Lane, and she has chosen to build on this lot, the proposed code amendment is intended to fulfill the intent of the Settlement Agreement by creating a new Exception Category U to allow development at 48 Cinnamon Lane. On June 6, 2017, the proposed code amendment was presented to the City Council on the Consent Calendar. The item was pulled from the Consent Calendar, the City Council heard public testimony, and the matter was continued to a future unspecified date to allow further analysis. The proposed Exception Category U would allow the construction of up to 2,800ft2 of total structure size including attached and detached structures. This maximum square footage (rounded up) derives from the building permits on file with the City for the replacement of the original 1,538ft2 structure at 40 Cherryhill Lane plus up to 1,200ft2 of additional square footage allowed for existing residences per Exception Category H. 2 The existing Exception Category Q would allow up to 50yd3 of balanced grading on site, which is allowed for developed lots within the Landslide Moratorium Area. In addition, Staff also proposes to amend Sections 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and 15.20.060 (Application) to be consistent with the proposed Exception Category U. The proposed code amendments are summarized below in strikethre inh for deleted text and underlined bold for new text. Proposed 15.20.040(U) — Exception U. The construction of residential buildings, garages and accessory structures up to 2,800 square feet in total size at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Lot 12 in Block 3 of Tract No. 14195), provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the Director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required). Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the City that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the Director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Amendment to 15.20.050 — Landslide Mitigation Measures Required Within the landslide moratorium area as identified in Section 15.20.020 (New Construction Permits Not Issued) of this chapter, the city shall require that appropriate landslide abatement measures be implemented as conditions of issuance of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter with respect to proposed projects and uses requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit pursuant to Sections 15.20.040(B), (H), (K), (L), (P), and (T) and U which must satisfy all of the criteria set forth in this section, the conditions imposed by the city shall include, but not be limited, to the following: Amendment to 15.20.060(A) —Application A. Applicants for an exception to this chapter under Sections 15.20.040(B), (H), (K), (L), (P), (Q), and (T) and U shall file an application for a landslide moratorium exception permit with the Director. The application shall be signed by the property owner, and shall include the following: 9 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: No Future Construction on 40 Cherryhill Lane Lot The Settlement Agreement clearly envisioned that Ms. Joannou would only be permitted to construct a replacement home on one of her two lots. The City Attorney has determined that, since this proposed Ordinance would permit the development of the 48 Cinnamon Lane lot, the development approvals must be conditioned to foreclose any future development of the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot. To accomplish this, the applicant will be required to either grant an irrevocable offer to dedicate the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot to the City or record a "no -build" covenant restriction against the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot. The associated costs shall be borne by the applicant, and the revised LME Permit shall not be issued until this condition has been fulfilled Public Corresaondence Although not required, a public notice of the pending application was sent to all persons owning property within 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News on May 11, 2017. Staff received 2 emails in response to the public notice (Attachment C). The emails are attached and below are Staff's responses to the contents of the email. 1) Amending the Municipal Code to establish Exception Category U is effectively admitting that the original settlement was improper and should not have been entered into and a LME Permit should not have been issued. Staff's Response: The City considered the Settlement Agreement to be valid and accordingly approved a LME Permit. Establishing Exception Category "U" effectuates the intent of the Settlement Agreement between the City and Mrs. Joannou. 2) Issues raised in the letter appealing the Director's decision to approve development on 48 Cinnamon Lane are not addressed in the public notice for the proposed Code Amendment Initiation. Staff's Response: The August 1St public hearing is for the City Council's to consider initiating a Code Amendment, not to discuss the merits of the appeal. A separate, duly - noticed public hearing to address the appeal of the Planning Commission's action will be scheduled at a future City Council meeting. 3) An Environmental Impact Report should be required for development at 48 Cinnamon Lane. Staff's Response: In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the environmental impacts of the proposed development at 48 Cinnamon Lane have been assessed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which 11 was certified by the Planning Commission on February 28, 2017. The issue of CEQA compliance will be discussed at the future public hearing on the appeal. Staff has notified the interested parties that the City Council will once again be considering the proposed code amendment at tonight's meeting. Any additional public correspondence received will be provided to the Council at the meeting as late correspondence. Next Steps Once the Ordinance is approved and is in effect, the Director will re -issue the Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) Permit that qualifies under the new Exception Category U. A Notice of Decision will be issued with a 15 -day appeal period. Should the re -issued LME Permit be appealed, it will be processed together with the pending City Council appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Site Plan Review for residential development at 48 Cinnamon Lane. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Revise the proposed Ordinance, and continue this matter for reintroduction at a future meeting. 2. Do not adopt the proposed Ordinance. 3. Provide additional direction to Staff. 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 15.20.040, 15.20.050 AND 15.20.060 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH LANDSLIDE MORATORIUM EXCEPTION CATEGORY "U" TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 48 CINNAMON LANE TO PERMIT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TERMS OF A CERTAIN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (CASE NO. ZON2017-00157). WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is the property owner of 40 Cherryhill Lane, which was originally developed with a 1,538ft2 single-family residence and garage; and, WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is also the property owner of a vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Lot 12, Block 3, Tract 14195); and, WHEREAS, the residential improvements on 40 Cherryhill Lane moved several hundred feet away from their original location to a City -owned property due to the Portuguese Bend Landslide; and, WHEREAS, on or about November 16, 2012, the City filed a lawsuit captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. Andrea Joannou, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC495866 in which the property owner filed a cross-complaint seeking relief; and, WHEREAS, the City claimed in the lawsuit that the improvements on 40 Cherryhill lot that moved onto City -owned property constituted a nuisance that the property owner had the obligation to abate; and, WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014, Ms. Joannou and the City executed a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), settling all claims, and by which Ms. Joannou reserved her rights to replace the house previously located on her 40 Cherryhill Lane Lot or to build a house on the 48 Cinnamon Lane Lot; and, WHERES, on August 29, 2016, the Community Development Director ("Director") granted an approval for a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, allowing Ms. Joannou to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the placement of a manufactured home, detached garage, and a detached horse corral on the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution Nos. 2017-08 and 2017-09, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving a Site Plan Review and Grading Permit to allow the placement of a new manufactured 2,738ft2 residence, detached garage, water storage tank, and 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the proposed improvements; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by a group of residents. One of the reasons for the appeal is that the Municipal Code does not have an exception category that allows the development of the Cinnamon Lot; and, A-1 WHEREAS, as a result of the appeal, the Director determined that the Exception Category B used to approve the applicant's LME Permit was not the appropriate category and that a new category should be adopted by the City Council to reflect the intent of the 2014 Settlement Agreement; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on May 11, 2017, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code announcing the reason, date and time of the City Council meeting to consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code; and, WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council heard public testimony and continued the agenda item to a future unspecified date without discussion; 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 code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore is exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080); and, WHEREAS, the City Council, at a public meeting held on August 1, 2017, 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 ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the further amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code. Section 2: The amendments to Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the goals and policies of those plans, while limiting the potential impacts resulting from such use upon landslide movement, soil stability and public safety within and adjacent to the Landslide Moratorium Area. Section 3: Based on the foregoing, paragraph U of Section 15.20.040 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is added to read as follows (the underlined bold text represents new language; the text in strikethro igh is to be deleted:: The moratorium shall not be applicable to any of the following: A. Maintenance of existing structures or facilities which do not increase the land coverage of those facilities or add to the water usage of those facilities; B. Replacement, repair or restoration of a residential building or structure which has been damaged or destroyed due to one of the following hazards, provided Ordinance No. Page 2 of 10 A-2 that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) of this chapter: 1. A Geologic Hazard. Such structure may be replaced, repaired or restored to original condition; provided, that such construction shall be limited to the same square footage and in the same general location on the property and such construction will not aggravate any hazardous geologic condition, if a hazardous geologic condition remains. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the city's geotechnical staff and shall substantially repair the geologic condition to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff prior to the issuance of a final building permit. Upon application to the director, setbacks may conform to the setbacks listed below: Minimum Setback Standards Front Interior side Street side Rear 20 1 5 10 15 2. A Hazard Other Than a Geologic Hazard. Such structure may be replaced, repaired or restored to original condition; provided, that such construction shall be limited to the same square footage and in the same general location on the property and such construction will not aggravate any hazardous condition, if a hazardous condition remains. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Upon application to the director, setbacks may conform to the setbacks listed in subsection (B)(1) of this section; C. Building permits for existing structures which were constructed prior to October 5, 1978, for which permits were not previously granted, in order to legalize such structure(s). Such permits may only be granted if the structure is brought into substantial compliance with the Uniform Building Code; D. The approval of an environmental assessment or environmental impact report for a project as to which the city or redevelopment agency is the project applicant; E. Projects that are to be performed or constructed by the city or by the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency to mitigate the potential for landslide or to otherwise enhance public safety, Ordinance No. Page 3 of 10 A-3 F. Remedial grading to correct problems caused by landslide or to otherwise enhance public safety, performed pursuant to a permit issued pursuant to Section 17.76.040(B)(3) of this code; G. Geologic Investigation Permits. Prior to the approval of such a permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed investigation will not aggravate the existing situation; H. Minor projects on a lot that is in the 'landslide moratorium area,' as outlined in red on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office, and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure, enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of 1,200 square feet per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The 1,200 square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the date that shall be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be constructed pursuant to this subsection H. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; I. Construction or installation of temporary minor nonresidential structures which are no more than 320 square feet in size, with no plumbing fixtures and which do not increase water use, may be approved by the director. If the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system, the permit may allow the installation of plumbing fixtures. All permits shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city which prevents the structure from being used for any purpose other than a nonhabitable use, is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. A minor nonresidential structure is defined as temporary if the Building Code does not require it to be erected upon or Ordinance No. Page 4 of 10 A-4 attached to a fixed, permanent foundation and if, in fact, it will not be erected upon or attached to such a foundation. Prior to approval of the application, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; J. Submittal of a lot -line adjustment application; K. Minor projects on a lot that is in the 'landslide moratorium area,' as outlined in blue on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office, and currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure and involves an addition to an existing structure, enclosed patio, conversion of an existing garage to habitable space or construction of a permanent attached or detached accessory structure and does not exceed a cumulative project(s) total of 1,200 square feet per parcel; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and does not include any additional plumbing fixtures, unless the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system. The 1,200 square foot limitation on cumulative projects that can be approved on a lot pursuant to this subsection includes the construction of a new garage, which can be approved pursuant to subsection L of this section. November 5, 2002, is the date that shall be used for determining the baseline square footage, based upon city and county building permit records, for purposes of calculating the square footage of any cumulative project(s) and of any additions that may be constructed pursuant to this subsection K. Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city, that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; L. Construction of one attached or detached garage per parcel that does not exceed an area of 600 square feet, without windows or any plumbing fixtures, on a lot that currently is developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing nonresidential structure; provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required). If the lot is served by a sanitary sewer system, the permit may allow the installation of windows and plumbing fixtures in the garage. The approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such a project shall be Ordinance No. Page 5 of 10 A-5 conditioned to require that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city that prevents the garage from being used for any purpose other than parking of vehicles and storage of personal property is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such garage, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation; M. Submittal of applications for discretionary planning permits for structures or uses which are ancillary to the primary use of the lot or parcel, where there is no possibility of any adverse impact upon soil stability. Examples of these types of applications include special use permits for minor, temporary uses and events; fence, wall and hedge permits that do not involve grading or the construction of retaining walls; permits for the keeping of large domestic animals and exotic animals; conditional use permits for the establishment of a use or activity at or on an existing structure where no structural modifications are required; and such other uses, activities and structures that the city geotechnical staff determines to have no potential for adverse impacts on landslide conditions; N. Minor projects on those lots that are currently developed with a residential structure, which do not involve new habitable space or the addition of a swimming pool or spa, which cannot be used as a gathering space and viewing area, and which do not constitute lot coverage; O. Permits issued pursuant to Section 15.20. 110 (Required Connection to Operational Sanitary Sewer System) of this chapter to connect existing structures with functional plumbing fixtures to an operational sewer system; P. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and grading totaling less than 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill and including no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill material on the 16 undeveloped lots in Zone 2 of the "landslide moratorium area" as outlined in green on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office, identified as belonging to the plaintiffs in the case "Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2008) ", provided, that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) of this chapter. Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable requirements of this code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Ordinance No. Page 6 of 10 A-6 Q. Non -remedial grading, up to a cumulative maximum total of 50 cubic yards of grading per legal lot, on lots developed with a residential structure or other lawfully existing non-residential structure, provided that the grading is balanced on site with no imported material and provided the appropriate geological or geotechnical studies are submitted to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed grading will not aggravate the existing landslide situation. R. The construction of a barn or other similar non -habitable structure(s) used for the sole purpose of housing animals on lots that are currently legally developed with a residential structure. Said non -habitable structures shall only be permitted on lots that are served by a sanitary sewer system, shall not exceed a maximum roofed area of 1, 600 square feet, and shall not count against the 1,200 square foot limitation set forth in paragraphs H and K of this section. A use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, which prevents the structure from being used for any purpose other than a non - habitable use for animal keeping, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder against the title to said property. Said non -habitable structures shall be constructed and maintained so that the structure(s), and all interior spaces of said structure(s), are not fully enclosed and at least one wall along one exterior fagade is open to the air at all times. Prior to approval of an application, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed non -habitable structure will not aggravate the existing situation; S. The installation or construction of a non -habitable storage structure used for the sole purpose of storing agricultural farming equipment on lots that have obtained a conditional use permit for the growing of crops and/or fruits on more than one acre for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Said non -habitable structure(s) shall not exceed a cumulative maximum square footage or roofed area of 1,600 square feet, shall only be permitted on lots that are served by a sanitary sewer system, and shall not count against the 1,200 square foot limitation set forth in paragraphs H and K of this section. A covenant which prevents the structure from being used for any purpose other than a non - habitable use for storing agricultural farming equipment, in a form approved by the city attorney and enforceable by the city, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder against the title to said property, prior to building permit issuance. Said structures shall be constructed and maintained as non -habitable structures and shall be removed if an approved conditional use permit ceases and a commercial or non-commercial agricultural use no longer remains on said property. Prior to approval of an application, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed non -habitable structure will not aggravate the existing situation; Ordinance No. Page 7 of 10 A-7 T. The construction of residential buildings, accessory structures, and grading totaling less than 1,000 cubic yards of combined cut and fill, and including no more than 50 cubic yards of imported fill material on the two lots in Zone 1 of the "landslide moratorium area" as outlined in yellow on the landslide moratorium map on file in the director's office; provided, that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the director, and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) of this chapter. Residential buildings and accessory structures shall not exceed a maximum combined total of up to 8, 000 square feet (habitable and non -habitable area), including non -habitable structures such as garages, sheds, and barns, and shall be limited to a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage with proper setbacks from adjacent properties as determined through the neighborhood compatibility analysis in ordinance with Section 17.02.030(8) of the city's municipal code and the city's neighborhood compatibility handbook. A main residence shall be single -story and not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet as defined by the zoning code for pad lots. Horse keeping is permitted up to a maximum of four horses per lot. Such projects shall qualify for a landslide moratorium exception permit only if all applicable requirements of this code are satisfied, and the parcel is served by a sanitary sewer system. Those who take advantage of this exception category shall, prior to development, record a covenant on the subject property in a form approved by the city attorney running with the land and enforceable by city (i) prohibiting future subdivision of said property, (ii) acknowledging that the city makes no representation as to the suitability of the land for development and assuming risk, and (iii) providing for trail dedication. The property owner will work with the director to find a mutually agreeable trail alignment for connectivity to the city's trail system which is vetted with trail groups and does not impact the developable building site(s). Prior to issuance of a landslide moratorium exception permit, the applicant shall submit to the director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required by the city to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. U. The construction of residential buildings, garages and accessory structures up to 2,800 square feet in total size at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Lot 12 in Block 3 of Tract No. 14195), provided that a landslide moratorium exception permit is approved by the Director and provided that the project complies with the criteria set forth in Section 15.20.050 (Landslide Mitigation Measures Required). Minor projects involving the construction of an enclosed permanent detached accessory structure shall include a requirement that a use restriction covenant, in a form acceptable to the City that prevents the enclosed permanent detached accessory structure from being used as a separate dwelling unit is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to the approval of a landslide moratorium exception permit for such minor projects, the applicant shall submit to the Director any geological or geotechnical studies reasonably required Ordinance No. Page 8 of 10 A-8 by the City to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city geotechnical staff that the proposed project will not aggravate the existing situation. Section 4: Based on the foregoing, Section 15.20.050 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read as follows (the underlined bold text represents new language; the text in stFikethre iivh is to be deleted:: Within the landslide moratorium area as identified in Section 15.20.020 (New Construction Permits Not Issued) of this chapter, the city shall require that appropriate landslide abatement measures be implemented as conditions of issuance of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter with respect to proposed projects and uses requiring a landslide moratorium exception permit pursuant to Sections 15.20.040(8), (H), (K), (L), (P), and (T) and U which must satisfy all of the criteria set forth in this section, the conditions imposed by the city shall include, but not be limited, to the following: Section 5: Based on the foregoing, paragraph A of Section 15.20.060 of Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Applicants for an exception to this chapter under Sections 15.20.040(8), (H), (K), (L), (P), (Q),, aid (T) and U shall file an application for a landslide moratorium exception permit with the director. The application shall be signed by the property owner, and shall include the following: Section 6: In accordance with the Settlement Agreement reserving the right to the property owner to develop "either" the 48 Cinnamon Lane lot or the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot, and as this Ordinance would permit the development of the 48 Cinnamon Lane lot, the development application shall be conditioned upon the applicant either making an irrevocable offer to dedicate the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot to the City or recording a "no - build" covenant restriction against the 40 Cherryhill Lane lot, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with costs paid by the applicant, and the Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit for the 48 Cinnamon Lane lot shall not be issued until this condition has been fulfilled. Section 7 Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in 3 public places in the City within 15 days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. Page 9 of 10 A-9 Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 9: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31St day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) 2017. I, EMILY COLBURN, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. passed first reading on , 2017, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on 2017, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 10 of 10 A-10 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a municipal corporation acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the People of the State of California and as successor to the Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency (collectively referred to as "City") and Andrea Joannou, individually and Trustee of the Andrea Joannou Trust of 2004 ("Joannou" and, collectively with City, the "Parties" and singularly, "Party"), as of June 3, 2014 (the "Effective Date"). WHEREAS, Joannou is the record owner of real property described as Lot 40, Block 1, of Tract 14118, per the map recorded in Book 306, pages 34 and 35 of maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, APN 7572-004-019 (the "Cherryhill Lot"); prior to 1956, a single family residential structure was constructed on the Lot with the address of 40 Cherryhill Lane (the "Structure"); WHEREAS, Joannou is also the record owner of real property described as Lot 12, Block 3, Tract 14195, per the map recorded in Book 323, pages 8 to 10 of maps, in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, APN 7572-010-020, at the end of the cul- de-sac of Cinnamon Lane (the "Cinnamon Lot"); the Cinnamon Lot is unimproved and is located in the area of the Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Ordinance Revisions project, for which the City is now preparing a final Environmental Impact Report; WHEREAS, the Structure has been moved over the years since 1956 by the Portuguese Bend Landslide and is now located several hundred feet away from its original location on the Lot, and is now located on Lot 1, of Parcel Map No. 17161, recorded in book 192, pages 91 to 94 of maps in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder (the "City Parcel"); WHEREAS, on or about November 16, 2012, City filed a lawsuit captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. Andrea Joannou, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case number BC495866 (the "Lawsuit") in which Joannou has filed a cross-complaint seeking affirmative relief; WHEREAS, the Cherryhill Lot is also subject to a lawsuit captioned Andrea Joannou, Trustee of the Andrea Joannou Trust of 2004, et al. v. Orphan Homes at 40 and 41 Cherryhill Lane, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC445457, in which. Joannou seeks to quiet title to the Cherryhill Lot in its original location (the "Second Lawsuit"); WHEREAS, City claims in the Lawsuit that the Structure constitutes a nuisance that Joannou has the obligation to abate; WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to settle all claims among them with respect to the Lawsuit and the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals above and the mutual promises set forth below, the Parties agree as follows: Page 1 of 5 M I . Promptly after execution and delivery of this agreement by the Parties, the Parties shall request dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice including the complaint and cross-complaint. Each party shall bear her or its own costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with the Lawsuit. 2. In consideration of the dismissal as described in Paragraph I, Joannou shall convey all her right, title and interest in the Structure to City; and City shall indemnify, defend and hold Joannou harmless from all claims arising after the Effective Date in connection with the Structure, including, without limitation, City's claims that. Joannou is responsible for the costs of demolition of the Structure. 3. In further consideration of the dismissal as described in Paragraph 1, City shall give Joannou credit against City fees due in connection with processing entitlements for the Cinnamon Lot or the Cherryhill Lot, whichever is the first lot for which she seeks entitlements, for City fees (not including fees paid to City consultants) Joannou paid in connection with her previous processing of permits for replacement of the Structure on the City Parcel. Joannou will pay fees of her own consultants and any consultants that are retained by the City to review her application, such as the City Geologist, Jim Lancaster, and any non -City fees (such as fees to the County or the School District, for example). 4. City wholly releases and forever discharges Joannou, and Joannou wholly releases and forever discharges City from any and all manner of causes of action, whether in law or in equity, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements, promises, liabilities, claims, demands, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, of any nature whatsoever, which any or all of the Parties may now have or may hereafter claim to have arising from the Structure, the Lawsuit and the Second Lawsuit, whether those claims are known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, fixed or contingent. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Joannou releases all claims she may have to ownership of the Structure, and City releases all claims it may have to reimbursement of expenses incurred in abating the nuisance represented by the Structure on the City Parcel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the releases herein do not extend to any claims any Party may have concerning the Cherryhill Lot (not including claims pertaining to the Structure, all of which are subject to this release) or the Cinnamon Lot, and Joannou reserves all her rights with respect to the Cherryhill Lot and the Cinnamon Lot, including, without limitation, her rights under the landslide moratorium ordinance (as it now exists or may be amended in the future) to replace the house that was previously located on the Cherryhill Lot or to build a house on the Cinnamon Lot. 5. The releases set forth in paragraph 4 above are intended to bind, and inure to the benefit of, each of the Parties' present or former principals, officers, employees, agents, managers, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, trustees, attorneys, insurers, reinsurers, representatives, predecessors and successors, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 6. The Parties agree that neither the consideration provided in this Agreement nor the execution or performance of any term of this Agreement shall Page 2 of 5 constitute or be construed as an admission of any liability whatsoever or any wrongdoing by either Party. 7. The Parties represent and warrant that there has not been any assignment or other transfer of any interest in any of the claims released herein and there will be no assignment or other transfer of any interest in any of the claims released herein. 8. The Parties acknowledge that they have been advised of and are aware that California Civil Code § 1542 provides as follows: A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. The Parties hereby waive and relinquish all rights and benefits under Section 1542 of the Civil Code with respect to the matters set forth in this Agreement, acknowledge that the effect and import of such section has been explained to them by their own counsel and further acknowledge that they may hereafter discover facts different than or in addition to those which they now know or believe to be true with respect to the claims, demands, debts, liabilities, obligations, actions, causes of action, costs, and expenses herein released, and agree that this Agreement shall be and remain effective in all respects, notwithstanding such different or additional facts. 9. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the person who drafted the various provisions. Each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though all of the Parties participated equally in the drafting of them, and any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement. 10. In the event that any Party should bring any action, suit, or other proceeding against any other Party on any claim herein discharged and released, or contesting the validity of this Agreement, or attempting to enforce the terms and provisions of this Agreement, or to obtain any remedy or relief for any breach of this Agreement, or to rescind, modify, or reform this Agreement or any of the terms or provisions hereof, the prevailing party shall recover such party's reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in each and every such action, suit, or other proceeding, including any and all appeals or petitions therefrom. 11. Unless another person is designated in writing for receipt of any notice required hereunder, every notice shall be sent electronically to the Party with a copy sent by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid, to: Notice to Joannou shall be given to: Andrea Joannou 14 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Page 3 of 5 M Tel. (310) 941-0777 andrearpv@gmail.com and Douglas W. Beck Law Offices of Douglas W. Beck 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 500 Torrance, CA 90503 Tel. (310) 294-9631 dougbeck@iseeyouincourt.com Notice to City shall be given to: Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Tel. (310) 544-5203 carolynn@rpv.com and Carol Lynch Richards Watson & Gershon 355 S. Grand Ave., 40th floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel. (213) 626-8484 clynch@rwglaw.com 12. This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, and discussions between the Parties. This Agreement may not be modified, except by an instrument in writing, signed by all the Parties. 13. Each natural person signing this Agreement personally represents and warrants that he is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Party for which he is signing. 14. This Agreement may be executed in multiple, counterpart copies, or by facsimile signature, each of which shall be deemed an original. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Ct'4'j4-"- 4-0 C'-� It Andrea Jou, individually,avQr and Trustee .the Andrea Joannou Trust of 2004 Page 4 of 5 Approved as to form Law Offices of Douglas W. Bec Richards Watson & Gershon Associates 1 by by Caro ynch, Douglas W. Beck, Attorneys for City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Attorneys for Andrea Joannou, individually and Trustee of the Andrea Joannou Trust of 2004 Page 5 of 5 I �J From: So Kim To: "cassiej(abaol.com'. Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: Appeal of 48 Cinnamon Lane Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:02:00 AM Hi Cassie, The City Council continued to a date uncertain the matter on the proposed code amendment language because they wanted time to consider more information on the overall landslide area. As you state, the appeal hearing and the proposed code amendment are related. My request seeking your approval to defer the public hearing on the appeal is to provide the Council with the time they need to consider this information at a future meeting. Without this information, if the appeal hearing is scheduled, the Council will likely continue it to a date uncertain as well. My apologies in the delayed response. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: cassiej@aol.com [mailto:cassiej@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 6:05 PM To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov> Subject: Re: Appeal of 48 Cinnamon Lane Hi Ms. Kim, i had not heard back so I am still trying to figure out what the next step is. It is my understanding the Council had one of three options, but chose a fourth. Is that your interpretation? How does that work? 11 was my understanding they could affirm the Planning Commission decision and dismiss the appeal or they could reverse, affirm or modify the decision and conduct a public hearing or they could refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. I am not seeing where first changing the code and deliberating that in closed session fits in the usual order of things. That is why I asked in my response on June 7 what my options were with respect to a delay. Indeed I may not have any options I suppose. Thank you in advance for any light you can shed! Cassie cassiem aol.com -----Original Message ----- From: cassiej <cassiejp_aol.com> C-1 To: SoK <SoK()rpyca.gov> Sent: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 6:02 pm Subject: Re: Appeal of 48 Cinnamon Lane Ms. Kim, I have to admit I am confused a bit at this point. I know the code amendment discussion has been continued.The introduction of the code amendment seems to be a direct response or result of the appeal being filed. Should the council go forward with the code amendment, there are still items in the appeal that need to be resolved that don't necessarily depend on the code amendment. The code amendment itself will likely trigger a response with respect to the spot zoning concerns brought forth last night. Changing the code in the middle of an appeal about that very item is what is throwing the wrench in the usual order of things, isn't it? I don't know all the details about the timing of these things, but if the appeal is supposed to be heard within a certain time period then I am not trying to change that. So, not a yes or a no, but just trying to find out what the delay accomplishes one way or the other. What are the options here? Cassie cassiej(naol.com -----Original Message ----- From: So Kim <SoKUrpyca.gov> To: Cassie <cassie2 aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 12:47 pm Subject: Appeal of 48 Cinnamon Lane Dear Cassie, As the Council continued the code amendment for the new exception category last night, we would like to continue the appeal hearing for 48 Cinnamon to a later date (perhaps a couple months). Would you be ok with the delay? Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 C-2 From: Jeremy Davies To: So Kim Cc: Doug Willmore; Lewis Enstedt; Cassie Jones; robert.cumbv; Dennis Gardner; ioanmc8921(aaol.com; Monika Bauer; Blair Van Buren; Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Ken Dyda Subject: Re: 48 Cinnamon Lane Case no ZON2017-00157- Public hearing June 6, 2017 Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 6:04:06 PM Dear Mr Kim Thank you for your prompt reply to my questions from last evening's meeting. Regards Jeremy Davies On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:54 PM, So Kim <SoK(c)rnvca.gov> wrote: Hi Mr. Davies, The purpose of this email to answer your project specific questions to the City Council. Please see my responses below in red and feel free to contact me with additional questions or concerns. 1) Based on the comments of John Cruikshank, Chairman of the Planning Commission, this evening it was implied that the granting of an LME was recommended by staff to the Planning Commission without consideration of a geological report. Is this true? No. The property owner submitted a geotechnical report for review and the City Geologist issued an in -concept approval for planning purposes (see attached). A more detailed report will be required for review and approval prior to building permit issuance, should the project be approved. 2) Was the LME authorized without City Council approval? Yes. LMEs are approved by the Director and does not require City Council approval. 3) Did the City Council approve the LME as part of the "Agreement" without a City Geologist report? No. The Director approved the LME once an in -concept approval was issued by the City Geologist. 4) Did the Planning Commission and staff consider the infringement of City Codes in granting the LME? The Director -approved LME was based on the language in the Settlement Agreement using Moratorium Exception Category B (RPVMC 15.20.040.E). 5) Has Council seen the City Geologist's report on this property? No. When the appeal hearing is scheduled, it will be provided to the City Council at that time. Sincerely, So Kim, AICP Deputy Director/Planning Manager Community Development Department C-3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes www.rpvca.gov (310) 544-5222 From: Jeremy Davies [mailto:davies(@kuboaa.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:02 PM To: Brian Campbell <BrianCCcDrpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic(@rpvca.govv>; Susan Brooks <SusanBC@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM(@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ke n. Dyda Co) rpvca.gov> Cc: Doug Willmore <DWillmore(@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoKC@rpvca.gov>; Lewis Enstedt <Iewisenstedt(@hotmail.com>; Cassie Jones <CassieJC@aol.com>; robert.cumby <robert.cumby(@cox.net>; Dennis Gardner <dennisggardner(@me.com>; ioanmc8921(@aol.com; Monika Bauer <rmbst5(@msn.com>; Blair Van Buren <blairvanburen(@gmail.com> Subject: 48 Cinnamon Lane Case no ZON2017-00157- Public hearing June 6, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I attended the above hearing this evening June 6, 2017 and learned that you plan a closed session to further discuss the issues regarding the above Case. I appreciate your bringing forward item 5 for efficiency reasons and I decided not to speak. In your further deliberations in a closed session that you also consider the following comments from your prior City Attorney Ms Lynch sent to me on December 30, 2014 as I was seeking clarifications following the non -certification of the FEIR. "In granting a Moratorium Exclusion the Council would be required to make the findings justifying the issuance of a Moratorium Exclusion at the time the Council approves the exclusion application. In other words, the justification for approving an Exclusion does not occur after it has been approved. The submission of and review of geology reports by the City Geologist would occur as part of the application for a Moratorium Exclusion and would occur prior to the City Council's hearing on the Moratorium Exclusion application, so that it would be part of the record leading up to the City Council's decision to approve or deny the application". Questions 1) Based on the comments of John Cruikshank, Chairman of the Planning Commission, this C-4 evening it was implied that the granting of an LME was recommended by staff to the Planning Commission without consideration of a geological report. Is this true? 2) Was the LME authorized without City Council approval? 3) Did the City Council approve the LME as part of the "Agreement" without a City Geologist report? 4) Did the Planning Commission and staff consider the infringement of City Codes in granting the LME? 5) Has Council seen the City Geologist's report on this property? Ms Lynch also confirmed to me that " It is my understanding from Mr Rojas that no permit for a residence on an undeveloped lot within the Moratorium Area has been issued since the Moratorium was adopted in 1978". Finally this evening Mr Cruikshank did not address any of the issues raised in the appeal but merely provided some history on the process adopted in approving the LME. Respectfully, Jeremy Davies C-5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Council members, Jim Knight <knightjim33@gmail.com> Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:50 AM CC LM Code amendment Knight code amendment letter.docx Attached is a letter concerning an upcoming agenda item that will be before you regarding a Landslide Moratorium code amendment. TO: The RPV City Council FROM: Jim Knight DATE: May 30, 2017 RE: Code Amendment (Planning Case No. ZON2017-00157) Council Members, At an upcoming City Council meeting one of your agenda items will be asking you to make a zoning amendment to accommodate the development of one house in the Landslide Moratorium Area of Portuguese Bend. The particular code amendment is very troublesome to say the least. I say this not to criticize the property owner or as argument against development but instead with concern over what is being asked of you as a representative of the City and with regard to your legal and fiduciary responsibilities as Council members. It is my understanding that the justification for this code amendment is based on a settlement agreement made three years ago in which the property owner was promised by the City the right to replace a condemned home that had encroached onto City -owned land due to landslide movement. The existing Landside Moratorium development code has an LME exclusion permit process for new construction if, and only if, the property owner replaces the same footprint home in the same location given extensive damage to the existing home. But apparently the property owner in this case could not comply with the existing code as the location of the home in question (which was subsequently demolished by the City) was unstable and on city -owned land. So, without a way to comply with the existing code, you are now being asked to amend the LM code to allow the construction of one home in another location within the LM area to satisfy the settlement agreement. The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act states "all such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district". This LMO amendment you are being asked to approve appears to be a classic case �I of spot zoning wherein you are being asked to grant development rights to one individual that other property owners in that same zone do not have. The settlement agreement may have had good intentions of avoiding city litigation costs, but a greater cost could now occur by exposing the City to agreeing to violate the law and may be ruled invalid because of arbitrary and unreasonable treatment within a zoning ordinance as it is for one individual owner and not for the benefit to the community or protection of other property owners within the zone. This is well established law, One could make the argument that 16 litigants in the Monks case were allowed to circumvent the LMO. But this was a court order within the confines of our legal system. A settlement agreement is between two parties and must comply with existing laws. I highly recommend you have an extensive discussion with the City Attorney in closed session concerning these issues and search for some other resolution before deciding on the requested LM code amendment. Thank you for your service to the city. Jim Knight C-7 TO: The RPV City Council FROM: Jim Knight DATE: May 30, 2017 RE: Code Amendment (Planning Case No. ZON2017-00157) Council Members, At an upcoming City Council meeting one of your agenda items will be asking you to make a zoning amendment to accommodate the development of one house in the Landslide Moratorium Area of Portuguese Bend. The particular code amendment is very troublesome to say the least. I say this not to criticize the property owner or as argument against development but instead with concern over what is being asked of you as a representative of the City and with regard to your legal and fiduciary responsibilities as Council members. It is my understanding that the justification for this code amendment is based on a settlement agreement made three years ago in which the property owner was promised by the City the right to replace a condemned home that had encroached onto City -owned land due to landslide movement. The existing Landside Moratorium development code has an LME exclusion permit process for new construction if, and only if, the property owner replaces the same footprint home in the same location given extensive damage to the existing home. But apparently the property owner in this case could not comply with the existing code as the location of the home in question (which was subsequently demolished by the City) was unstable and on city - owned land. So, without a way to comply with the existing code, you are now being asked to amend the LM code to allow the construction of one home in another location within the LM area to satisfy the settlement agreement. The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act states "all such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building throughout each district". This LMO amendment you are being asked to approve appears to be a classic case of spot zoning wherein you are being asked to grant development rights to one individual that other property owners in that same zone do not have. The settlement agreement may have had good intentions of avoiding city litigation costs, but a greater cost could now occur by exposing the City to agreeing to violate the law and may be ruled invalid because of arbitrary and unreasonable treatment within a zoning ordinance as it is for one individual owner and not for the benefit to the community or protection of other property owners within the zone. This is well established law. One could make the argument that 16 litigants in the Monks case were allowed to circumvent the LMO. But this was a court order within the confines of our legal MR• system. A settlement agreement is between two parties and must comply with existing laws. I highly recommend you have an extensive discussion with the City Attorney in closed session concerning these issues and search for some other resolution before deciding on the requested LM code amendment. Thank you for your service to the city. Jim Knight C-9 From: So Kim Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:23 PM To: CityClerk Subject: Late Corr for 6/6 Reg Business No. 5 -----Original Message ----- From: guri.otterlei@cox.net [mailto:guri.otterlei@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:38 PM To: Brian Campbell <BrianC@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Susan Brooks <SusanB@rpvca.gov>; Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; Anthony Misetich <AnthonyM@rpvca.gov> Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; peter.gasteiger@cox.net Subject: 48 Cinnamon Lane Comments Dear RPV City Council Members, We strongly oppose the building on 48 Cinnamon Lane (empty lot currently under the Portuguese Bend building moratorium), and have signed and support the arguments in the group letter for appeal to the RPV Planning Commission and Department's decisions (dated 3/15/17). A separate issue (not addressed in the appeals letter, but also) of great concern is the city staff's decision to allow a pre- fabricated house on steel footing on this property. This is unlike any other construction in this part of the Portuguese Bend neighborhood or Zone 2. Anyone that has followed developments in this area (in particular the RPV Planning Department), knows the millions of dollars recently invested in properties and new construction immediately surrounding 48 Cinnamon (including the "Monk's lots"). No-one here is doing prefabricated housing or steel type foundations. The city may be allowing this type of construction in the active landslide side of the neighborhood (surrounding Peppertree Lane, where many of the homes are built on steel adjustable footing, homes are continually moving, safety IS an issue and property values low), but no one in Zone 2 is doing this. If the city allows this type of construction on 48 Cinnamon, it's likely our homes may become classified and grouped with the ACTIVE and moving landslide area. We believe that this construction will ADVERSELY AFFECT our property values by a large percentage and add to the stigma about the Portuguese Bend land movement and building safety. Also, allowing this for 48 Cinnamon will set precedence and open to allow such cheap trailer -type housing on the other currently empty lots in our neighborhood. It is a slap in the face to everyone who invested heavily in this neighborhood, hired professional geologist and builders (which was a requirement imposed by the Planning Department), and paid dearly to ensure quality construction to comply with every requirement and request for the city to approve. Please don't let our beautiful Portuguese Bend neighborhood turn into a trailer park, and in particular the Zone 2 portion and Cinnamon Lane where multimillion dollar homes are being constructed only few yards from number 48 (on $1M buildable lots). Does the city allow prefabricated housing elsewhere in our otherwise extremely highly priced neighborhoods and city? If generally not allowed, then why is it allowed here in this part of Portuguese Bend? If building is allowed on 48 Cinnamon, why wouldn't the owner have go through the same building requirements as every other new construction home owner, including the Monk -lots? Finally, a lawsuit settlement should not have as consequence to bring down standards, neighborhoods, and housing prices for the remaining neighborhood. We strongly believe this "settlement" - and subsequent staff approvals - will inevitably do this. We hope the RPV city council will review the ill-informed settlement of the prior outgoing city attorney, and the recently proposed code amendments (designed to circumvent city laws and allow an ILLEGAL agreement) - and right the wrongs that have been agreed or proposed. Thank you, 1 C- Guri Otterlei, Peter Gasteiger 38 Cinnamon Lane C-11 From: ouri.otterleiCabcox.net To: Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Ken Dyda; Anthony Misetich Cc: PC; Ara Mihranian; So Kim; peter. oasteigerOcox.net Subject: 48 Cinnamon Lane Comments Date: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:37:56 PM Dear RPV City Council Members, We strongly oppose the building on 48 Cinnamon Lane (empty lot currently under the Portuguese Bend building moratorium), and have signed and support the arguments in the group letter for appeal to the RPV Planning Commission and Department's decisions (dated 3/15/17). A separate issue (not addressed in the appeals letter, but also) of great concern is the city staff's decision to allow a pre -fabricated house on steel footing on this property. This is unlike any other construction in this part of the Portuguese Bend neighborhood or Zone 2. Anyone that has followed developments in this area (in particular the RPV Planning Department), knows the millions of dollars recently invested in properties and new construction immediately surrounding 48 Cinnamon (including the "Monk's lots"). No-one here is doing prefabricated housing or steel type foundations. The city may be allowing this type of construction in the active landslide side of the neighborhood (surrounding Peppertree Lane, where many of the homes are built on steel adjustable footing, homes are continually moving, safety IS an issue and property values low), but no one in Zone 2 is doing this. If the city allows this type of construction on 48 Cinnamon, it's likely our homes may become classified and grouped with the ACTIVE and moving landslide area. We believe that this construction will ADVERSELY AFFECT our property values by a large percentage and add to the stigma about the Portuguese Bend land movement and building safety. Also, allowing this for 48 Cinnamon will set precedence and open to allow such cheap trailer -type housing on the other currently empty lots in our neighborhood. It is a slap in the face to everyone who invested heavily in this neighborhood, hired professional geologist and builders (which was a requirement imposed by the Planning Department), and paid dearly to ensure quality construction to comply with every requirement and request for the city to approve. Please don't let our beautiful Portuguese Bend neighborhood turn into a trailer park, and in particular the Zone 2 portion and Cinnamon Lane where multimillion dollar homes are being constructed only few yards from number 48 (on $1M buildable lots). Does the city allow prefabricated housing elsewhere in our otherwise extremely highly priced neighborhoods and city? If generally not allowed, then why is it allowed here in this part of Portuguese Bend? If building is allowed on 48 Cinnamon, why wouldn't the owner have go through the same building requirements as every other new construction home owner, including the Monk -lots? Finally, a lawsuit settlement should not have as consequence to bring down standards, neighborhoods, and housing prices for the remaining neighborhood. We strongly believe this "settlement" - and subsequent staff approvals - will inevitably do this. We hope the RPV city council will review the ill-informed settlement of the prior outgoing city attorney, and the recently proposed code amendments (designed to circumvent city laws and allow an ILLEGAL agreement) - and right the wrongs that have been agreed or proposed. Thank you, Guri Otterlei, Peter Gasteiger 38 Cinnamon Lane C-12 From: Lynn Petak To: ^So Kim Subject: Planning Case #ZON2017-00157 Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:21:09 AM May 16, 2017 So Kim, I am sending this e-mail to address the direction that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes appears to be moving with respect to the property located at 48 Cinnamon Lane. There should be no exemptions to building In this area without an EIR. With all due respect, to create another code exception for the development of one lot is reckless and irresponsible. I have been a resident of Portuguese Bend for over 20 years and I deal with the issues of the landslide on a constant basis, especially as my home is in a location greatly impacted by the flow of water through our community. Absolutely nothing has been done with respect to any issues raised by prior EIR studies. The City owes it to the residents of our community to protect our property. Allowing the building of any more homes in this sensitive, landslide area without the mitigation required by law is extremely shortsighted. The City was founded on the ideal of open space and now it is the duty of our elected officials to do the hard work it takes to maintain that promise. To date, the City has paid lip service to these ideals while constantly moving in the opposite direction. By allowing this Code Amendment to move forward moves us in the wrong direction and I strongly oppose it. Sincerely, Lynn Petak 25 Sweetbay Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 C-13 5/25/17 So Kim Deputy Director/Planning Manager City Council, Re: Code Amendment Planning Case ZON2017-00157 Ms. So Kim, Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, Proposed Code Amendment ZON2017-00157 appears to be in response to an appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 2017-08. This Code Amendment is putting the City in a position of engaging in the illegal practice of spot zoning. Spot zoning is illegal if it does not serve the public interest or is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. It is clear that this action is only in the interest of the property owner. It is also inconsistent with the General Plan. Background on this particular case: A Landslide Moratorium Exception permit does not have as part of its approval process a public hearing component. Therefore, the first public notice of this project and first opportunity for comment on this Resolution came when the notice for this case, dated February 2, 2017, was mailed out to residents within 500 feet of the project. The Planning Commission was asked to make a decision on a project that should never have come before them. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 states: "...WHEREAS, on JUNE 3, 2014, the property owner and the City executed a Settlement Agreement, settling all claims, which allowed the property owner to replace a house that was previously located on 40 Cherryhill lot or to build a house on 48 Cinnamon Lane," leaving out this critical portion of the sentence in the Settlement Agreement: "...and Joannou reserves all her rights with respect to the Cherryhill Lot and the Cinnamon Lot including, without limitation, her rights under the landslide moratorium ordinance (as it now exists or may be amended in the future)..." Now, after receiving the written appeal, Staff has proposed the Code Amendment before you. There is no right under the ordinance as it now exists for 1) building the Cherryhill house on the Cinnamon lot or 2) the City accepting an LME application for the Cinnamon property. During the commission meeting, staff agreed with this second point. The first point did not come up. If by this settlement agreement the former City Attorney truly meant to establish a new LME exception category by transferring the rights of one property to another, that would have to be done with a public process as this act would be changing the municipal code. This is what the now -proposed, after the fact Code Amendment attempts to do. This settlement agreement is in contradiction to the current code, as C-14 Mr. Mihranian pointed out during the Planning Commission meeting, though the commissioners took no heed of his statement. It is settled case law in California that a settlement agreement between a municipality and a litigant is illegal and unenforceable if it contradicts the municipal code. Staff referred to this during the meeting but the commission dismissed it. City staff incorrectly issued a Landslide Moratorium Exception (LME) permit on August 29, 2016. To justify this, Staff gave, as precedent, a situation where a home was moved to a different location from the active slide area into Zone 2. That situation occurred in 1988 and was because Palos Verdes Dr. West. had to be rerouted through this particular property. Also, the actual structure (habitable and un - abandoned) was moved. Subsequent to that time the code has been changed by adding the requirement that homes be replaced "...in the same general location on the property..." The Staff analysis and discussion during the meeting repeatedly referred to the settlement agreement as allowing the applicant to submit the LME. During the discussion of the motion, the Chair stated: "Our place on the planning commission is not to decide legal issues, who is right or wrong. What I see ahead of us or in front of us here is that we have, after litigation, that "x" amount of lots right next door, around the neighborhood have been allowed to build, so therefore 1 just see this as no different than those lots coming before. All litigation has been taken care of on another level. We are just looking at it from 3 specific things and based on the fact that the litigation is out of the way, other lots in that area have been granted permission to build and things have been mitigated, I see that there is no other choice for me but to support the staff decision." Sadly, this shows a very poor understanding of some of the City's prior decisions. As the Environmental Impact Report ordered by the City revealed, there are issues of great magnitude yet to be mitigated. The litigation specifically did not include 47 other lots. It would not be for one Commissioner to expand that legal decision otherwise. With due respect, as you know, litigation did not settle this. Other items of concern to citizens should be the attitude expressed at the Planning Commission level that the Planning Commission is a planning approval body and that the City Council is the planning disapproval body, implying that the decision to approve the project was a foregone conclusion and a waste of time to put forth legitimate concerns. Also of alarm was the question as to whether or not I would abide by the law should the zoning for Zone 2 be changed. This is a very grave charge to level at a resident for speaking up- not to mention a ridiculous question as there is no way to not abide by it short of moving out of the City. Inconsistency with the General Plan is noted when, as stated in the plan: "The General Plan proposes to protect and manage the natural environment of the City and, through the environmental analysis of specific development proposals, it is intended that specific mitigating measures would be required." The EIR previously completed highlighted measures yet to be taken. The Plan also states "The cumulative and long term effects of the project (the Plan) are to maintain the natural environmental characteristics of the City while providing for controlled development of land capable of supporting it." The land's capability has not been demonstrated. C-15 This City was founded on the ideal of open space preservation and has the longest active landslide in existence within its borders. These two facts have allowed the City to boast some of the most spectacular coastal open spaces in Southern California. This has come with a price. The landslides are demanding and relentless. The City has made some good headway in dealing with this in recent years. The Council wisely realized that development in the area needed to proceed with caution and ordered and Environmental Impact Report for further development in the Zone 2 area of Portuguese Bend. Wisely as well, they realized the study uncovered issues of great magnitude in need of action. They have held brainstorming workshops for landslide mitigation. They have listened to geologists and know that the landslides are fed by water infiltrating the canyons. They have had Altamira Canyon drainage/infrastructure workshops which have produced viable solutions to some of the identified problems. The EIR was tabled. Now the Council wishes to circumvent their already paid -for studies and allow spot -zoning for development within the arc of two landslides. This is certainly piece-mealing under CEQA law, which is not allowed. The expensive workshops and studies appear to have been lip - service only. When it comes to doing the hard work of making the landslide area a safe place, the City should! This is no way to govern. We elect people to protect us, the environment and do the right thing with respect to our short and long term infrastructure concerns. Building more homes in a landslide area without the called for mitigations is short-sighted. Should the council feel compelled to allow the building of a house lost to the landslide, the last place to allow that would be back in the landslide area adjacent to the canyon that is the subject of concern. You want to be smart about it and put homes away from the canyon, out of the landslides. A Settlement Agreement cannot bind the council's hands. The council can and should use its discretion and deny this proposed zoning change. Cassie Jones Rancho Palos Verdes C-16 From: Jeremy Davies To: Brian Campbell; Jerry Duhovic; Susan Brooks; Ken Dvda; Anthony Misetich; Planning; Doug Willmore; So Kim Cc: robert.cumby; Dennis Gardner; ioanmc8921(@aol.com; Monika Bauer; Gordon Leon <Gordon.Lew-Oamail.com>; Lewis Enstedt; mcnair maxwell; IDSloan6laol.com Subject: Planning Case # ZON2017-00157 Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:58:28 AM Rancho Palos Verdes Council Members Planning Commission City Manager and Deputy Director/Planning Manager So Kim May 25, 2017 Planning Case no ZON2017- 00157 Code Amendment Dear Mr Mayor, Council and Planning Commission Members, Thank you for your notice of May 11, 2017 referring to the latest proposed City action on the above Planning CWRTSM 1) By requesting an amendment to the Municipal Code (Moratorium on Land Use Permits -Exceptions), amendment to the Landslide Mitigation Measures Required) and an Application to establish a Landslide C-17 Moratorium Exception Category "U" the City is effectively admitting that the original settlement agreement was improper and should not have been entered into. Furthermore the granting of an LME permit should also not have been issued as it contradicts existing City Codes. 2) By proposing these amendments to the code after an agreement had been entered into by the City in contradiction to its own code requirements the City is effectively retroactively dating a settlement agreement that should not have been entered into without these proposed amendments and exception. 3) This raises a major public concern regarding City governance and positions being taken by current and former Council members in contradiction of the City Codes. 4) Issues raised in paragraphs 4-7 of the appeal dated February 10, 2017 to the proposed development have not been addressed by the City in its May 11, 2017 notice raising further governance and professionalism questions. Since these issues have not been addressed the fee for the appeal should be reimbursed. 5) The City by issuing a new proposed Category "U" is contradicting its position regarding the need for a new EIR study before any further development in Zone 2. C-18 I trust the Council members will be mindful of their integrity and full faith and fiduciary commitments to the Public in making decisions of "convenience" in contravention of City Code requirements. Sincerely, Jeremy R Davies 36 Cinnamon Lane, RPV C-19 May 24, 2017 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attn: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Mayor Campbell, Councilmembers Brooks, Dyda, Duhovic, and Misetich Re: Code Amendment, Planning Case ZON2017-00157 Ms. Kim, Sent via email The proposed Code Amendment (ZON2017-00157) is a tacit admission that the City erred in entering into a Landslide Moratorium Exception with the applicant, without basis. Now, the City is trying to mitigate this mistake by reverse - engineering the Municipal Code to add an exception category to the Landslide Moratorium Ordinance in an attempt to validate this approval of an LME. We contend that this zoning action is arbitrary, capricious and illegal and constitutes a prime example of "spot zoning". Spot zoning results when a small parcel of land is subject to more favorable zoning than surrounding properties. However, a zoning change can only be considered legal if it serves the public interest and is consistent with the Municipality's General Plan (Foothill Communities Coalition v County of Orange. Ca App Ct, 4th Div. January 13, 2014. G047326). This zoning change does not serve the public interest, but only one resident of the city and is intended to fulfill a settlement agreement to the benefit of the resident, only. Nor is the the zoning change consistent with the City's General Plan, as it doesn't comply with CEQA. As stated in the City's General Plan: "The General Plan proposes to protect and manage the natural environment of the City and, through the environmental analysis of specific development proposals, it is intended that specific mitigating measures would be reauired". The Plan also states: "The cumulative and long term effects of the project (the General Plan, itself) are to maintain the natural environmental characteristics of the City while providing for controlled development of land capable of supporting it". The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for this parcel at the Planning Commission hearing is inconsistent with the City's well documented stance of requiring a certified Environmental Impact Report be adopted before any further development in Zone 2 (beyond the Monks' plaintiff's lots) can occur. Also, how seriously can this Mitigated Negative Declaration be taken when, to date, no geotechnical studies have been performed on the parcel in question. Ci -20 If this Code Amendment is passed, this would likely be considered "piece-mealing" under CEQA law, which is not allowed. You might argue that this is just a single project. However, it is difficult to imagine that this would not create an indefensible precedent resulting in further uncontrolled development in Zone 2 without the proper identification and mitigation of the impacts of such development, as described in an EIR. Given the known geotechnical issues and fragility of the area, a careless buildout of Zone 2 could lead to disastrous consequences. Clearly, this not in the public interest. It is obvious that this action is only in the interest of the property owner in that it would result in a financial windfall. However, a Settlement Agreement, such as this one between the City and the property owner, cannot "bind the Council's hands". In other words, the Council can use its discretion and deny this proposed zoning change without facing legal liability. We call upon Council to do just that. Sincerely, Narcissa Vanderlip 100 Vanderlip Drive, RPV Tim, Emily and Nick Vaughan 15 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Bill & Lynn Petak 25 Sweetbay Road, RPV Blair & Krishna Van Buren 34 Cinnamon Lane, RPV John & Mary Tootle 5521 PV Drive South, RPV Bill & Marianne Hunter 1 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Tony Baker 16 Limetree, RPV Pat & Marva Burt 31 Sweetbay, RPV Edwin E. Burt 3358 Seaclaire Drive, RPV Dr. Milt Owens, & Lisa Gladstone 18 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Gail Worth & Roger Breghner 76 Narcissa, RPV Jean & Charles Shriver 21 W. Pomegranate Road, RPV Russ & Monika Bauer 68 Narcissa, RPV Jeremy Davies 36 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Ardys Burt 79 Narcissa, RPV Susan Schilz 29 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Mike & Claudia Yancheson 9 Fruit Tree, RPV Sharon Cooper 3 Ginger Root Lane, RPV Mike & Jayne Chiles 11 Figtree Road, RPV Peter & Guri Gasteiger 38 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Barb Rubenstein 34 Cinnamon Lane, RPV Ben & Peggy Zask 96 Narcissa Drive, RPV C-21 Joan Wright 1 Fruit Tree, RPV Hendrick & & Alba Rouwenhorst 1 Thyme Place, RPV Tom & Kathy Mattis 3 Thyme Place, RPV Doug & Sallie Reeves 8 Thyme Place, RPV Dan & Vicki Pinkham 1 Narcissa, RPV Marianne & Steve Shriver 21 West Pomegranate Road, RPV Guy Grant 6 Thyme Place, RPV Alfred & Adele Chan 1 Figtree Road, RPV C-22 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-08 A RESOLUTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND MINOR GRADING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,917FT2 MANUFACTURED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A 600FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A WATER STORAGE TANK, AND SOYD3 OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPROVEMENTS AT 48 CINNAMON LANE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00401). WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is the property owner of 40 Cherryhill Lane, which was originally developed with a 1,538ft2 single-family residence and garage; and, WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is also the property owner of a vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Lot 12, Block 3, Tract 14195); and, WHEREAS, the residential improvements on 40 Cherryhill Lane moved several hundred feet away from its original location to a City owned property due to the Portuguese Bend Landslide; and, WHEREAS, on or about November 16, 2012, the City filed a lawsuit captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. Andrea Joannou, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC495866 in which the property owner filed a cross-complaint seeking relief; and, WHEREAS, the City claimed in the lawsuit that the improvements on 40 Cherryhill lot constituted a nuisance that the property owner had the obligation to abate; and, WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014, the property owner and the City executed a Settlement Agreement, settling all claims, which allowed the property owner to replace a house that was previously located on 40 Cherryhill lot or to build a house on 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHERES, on August 29, 2016, the Community Development Director ("Director") granted an approval for a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, allowing the property owner to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the placement of a manufactured home, detached garage, and a detached horse corral on the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHEREAS, on August 30, 2016, the property owner submitted Site Plan Review, Minor Grading Permit, and Environmental Assessment applications, requesting approval to place a manufactured residence and a detached garage with 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements at 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2016, the application was deemed incomplete due to insufficient information. After subsequent submittals of additional information by the property owner and in -concept approvals were granted by the City Geologist, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department, the application was deemed complete on January 30, 2017; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 1 of 7 D-1 WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Site Plan Review and Minor Grading Permit was sent to all property owners owning property within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commencing on February 2, 2017 and concluding on February 22, 2017. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the Site Plan Review and Minor 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, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2017, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission 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. ZON2016-00401 (Site Plan Review, Minor Grading Permit and Environmental Assessment) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: There are no therefore, the proposed project will resources, as defined in Section 711 sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and, have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon 2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that address impacts upon aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, utilities/service systems in the community and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance: AES -1. The exterior lighting for the proposed residences shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. AQ -1. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 2 of 7 D-2 a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. AQ -5. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. AQ -6. Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. AQ -7. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. AQ -8. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. BIO -1. Prior to any grading or permit issuance, vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the property owner using a 2:1 ratio for CSS, a 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland, and a 3:1 ratio for native grassland as described in the Council -adopted NCCP for loss occurring in an area greater than 0.3 acres by using one of the following two methods: 1) With the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies, the property owner shall dedicate additional acreage to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve that will add to the biological function of the Preserve and the property owner shall provide management funding for the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method; or 2) Payment of a mitigation fee to the City's Habitat Restoration Fund, pursuant to the City's NCCP Subarea Plan. If the revegetation option is selected, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) shall be hired by the City, at the property owner's expense, to grow and plant the required vegetation. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 3 of 7 D-3 BIO -2. Prior to commencing construction, the construction area shall be clearly delineated with fencing or other boundary markers. Temporary fencing (with silt barriers) shall be installed at the limits of Project impacts to prevent habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats (i.e. Altamira Canyon). Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not affect adjacent habitats to be avoided and in compliance with Section 17.56.020.0 of the RPVMC. BIO -3. Prior to commencing construction, a pre -grading meeting shall occur to inform the construction contractor of the biological/jurisdictional constraints (Altamira Canyon) of this Project. The Project limits shall be clearly marked on Project maps provided to the construction contractor and areas outside of the Project limits shall be designated as "no construction" zones. BIO -4. During construction, construction workers shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the designated construction limits. BIO -5. During construction, all equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such activities shall occur in designated areas within the fenced Project limits. These designated areas shall be located in previously compacted and disturbed areas, in such a manner to prevent runoff into adjacent areas and shall be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take place on level surfaces and contractor equipment shall be checked daily for leaks prior to operation and repaired as necessary. BIO -6. During construction, the construction work zone shall be kept as clean of debris as possible to avoid attracting predators of native and sensitive wildlife. All food -related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and removed daily from the construction work zone. BIO -7. In order to avoid unnecessary impacts, should any non -listed species be found within the property, they shall be avoided and allowed to leave the Project site on their own volition, or a qualified biologist shall relocate them outside of the Project site. BIO -8. Pets of Project personnel shall not be allowed on the Project site during construction. BIO -9. Prior to any grading or building permit issuance, a qualified biologist shall review the landscape plans to ensure that that no invasive, non-native plant species are used in any proposed landscaping. The Landscape Plan shall include a plant palette that consists of native plants and non-invasive species. BIO-10.Prior to commencing construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared to reduce the potential for accidental releases of fuel, pesticides, and other materials. This plan shall outline refueling locations, emergency response procedures, and reporting requirements. During construction, equipment for immediate cleanup shall be kept at the staging area. This plan shall also include erosion control measures to control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation outside of the project footprints. BIO -11.A qualified biologist shall monitor construction during clearing, grubbing, and initial excavation activities, as needed. The biological monitor shall ensure that, if present, P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 4 of 7 D-4 nesting birds in the Project vicinity are not impacted (change in normal behaviors) and that construction workers stay within the designated footprint of the construction work zone, as delineated by fencing, to avoid trespass on foot or in vehicles into sensitive habitats, such as Altamira Canyon along the eastern perimeter of the Project site. BIO-12.The clearance of vegetation during construction shall occur outside of the nesting season (generally February 1 through September 1). If avoiding the nesting season is not practicable, the following additional measures shall be employed: A pre -construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to the start of construction activities to determine whether active nests are present within or directly adjacent to the construction zone. All nests found shall be recorded. ii. If construction activities must occur within 300 feet of an active nest of any passerine bird or within 500 feet of an active nest of any raptor, with the exception of an emergency, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest on a weekly basis, and the construction activity shall be postponed until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. iii. If the recommended nest avoidance zone is not feasible, the qualified biologist shall determine whether an exception is possible and obtain concurrence from the resource agencies before construction work can resume within the avoidance buffer zone. All work shall cease within the avoidance buffer zone until either agency concurrence is obtained or the biologist determines that the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. CUL-1.Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any known archaeological sites on or within a half -mile radius of the subject property. CUL-2.Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property for approval by the Community Development Director. CUL-3.Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. GEO-1.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit the additional information required by the City Geologist, including a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City Geologist. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the City Geologist and shall substantially repair the geologic conditions to the satisfaction of the City Geologist. GEO-2.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, a Hold Harmless Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project, shall be P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 5 of 7 D-5 submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. GEO-3.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. GEO-4.Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Building Official. The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during project construction. HAZ-1.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the new single-family residences and related accessory structures shall be designed to incorporate all applicable fire protection requirements of the City's most recently adopted Building Code, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. HYD-1.Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City's Building Official an Erosion Control Plan that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post - construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HYD-2.Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Public Works Director, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. HYD-3.All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Public Works Director. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden. N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 6 of 7 D-6 N-2. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. N-3. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. UTL-1.Pursuant to the City -approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (ZON2016-00170) issued on August 29, 2016, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the project the sewer lateral that serves the applicant's property shall be inspected by the Public Works Department to verify that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks. If such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them prior to any grading or building permit issuance. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2017-_p§ thereby determining 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 Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B' and incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to allow the construction of a 1,917ft2 manufactured single-family residence, a 600ft2 detached garage, a water storage tank, and 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements at 48 Cinnamon Lane. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bradley, Nelson, Vice Chairman, Cruikshank, Chairman Tomblin NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon ABSENT: Commissioner James r ' avid Tomblin. Chairman Ara M F ra Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08 Page 7 of 7 D-7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2016-00401) 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) 544-5222 4. Project location: 48 Cinnamon Lane (Tract No. 14195, Lot 12, Blk 3) City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Andrea Joannou 14 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 6. General Plan designation: Residential, 1-2 du/acre 7. Coastal Plan designation: Not applicable 8. Zoning: Single -Family Residential, 2 du/acre 9. Description of project: Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Code Section 15.20.020, there is a moratorium on the filing, processing, approval or issuance of building, grading, or other permits in the area of the City identified as the "Landslide Moratorium Area", which this subject lot is part of. However, in 2014, the City and the property owner entered into a settlement agreement as a result of lawsuit filings which among other things, gave the property owner the ability under the exception category of the Landslide Moratorium ordinance (RPVMC 15.20.040.B) to construct a replacement structure on the subject lot. As a result, the subject lot may be permitted for residential development. The proposed project involves the construction of one 1,917ft2 single-family residence plus a 600ft2 detached garage (total structure size of 2,617ft2), and a water storage tank on a vacant lot located at 48 Cinnamon Lane. i Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a triangular shaped vacant lot that measures 33,541 ft2 in size, located at the end of a private street — Cinnamon Lane. The subject lot gently slopes in a south easterly direction with an extreme slope along the rear (i.e. northeast) property line that descends to a canyon area. The subject site is located within the gated Portuguese Bend residential community, within Zone 2 of the City's Landslide Moratorium Area. There are only two access points to this neighborhood, which are both off Palos Verdes Drive South (Narcissa Gate and the Peppertree Gate). 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 F • Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant See site description above. The abutting lot to the northeast is a vacant residential lot, which is surrounded by other vacant and developed lots, as well as the Filiorum Vacant residential lot in the Reserve which is a sub -area of the larger Northeast Portuguese Bend community and City- Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. The owned Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Filiorum Reserve was acquired by the City in 2009 and contains a variety of natural vegetation. An ephemeral stream within Altamira Canyon, occurs along the eastern lot boundary of the subject lot. The abutting lot to the northwest is a Developed and vacant residential lots residential lot that obtained entitlements in the Portuguese Bend community from the Planning Department but has yet Northwest and the City -owned Palos Verdes to be constructed. The properties Nature Preserve. beyond said lot is vacant, and the Filiorum Reserve which is a sub -area of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. The abutting lot to the south is a vacant South Developed and undeveloped residen- residential lot which is surrounded by tial lots in the Portuguese Bend mostly developed residential lots, community downslope from the subject property, along Cinnamon Lane. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 F • Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Figure -1 Site Plan for 48 Cinnamon Lane (Tract No. 14195, Lot 12, Blk 3) Page 3 D-10 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 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 indicated by the checklist on the following pages. = Aesthetics [=] Agricultural Resources II Air Quality U Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils F—I Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Population/Housing 0 Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION: Mineral Resources [::] Public Services = Utilities/Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation, Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 1 find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects, (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: - — Date: February 2, 2017 Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 4 D-11 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Page 5 D-12 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 8 X outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its 11, 10 X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect 11, 10 X day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) The subject site does not fall within any scenic vista identified in the City's General Plan. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The approval of the proposed project will result in the future development of one lot. As the lot is undeveloped, there are no historical buildings or other structures that could be damaged as a result of the construction of the proposed project, although it is possible that some mature shrubs and trees might be removed as a result of future development. Such vegetation is not protected. As such, damage to any scenic resources as a result of the proposed project will be less than significant. c) Approval of the proposed project will result in the development of one single-family residence on a residentially zoned lot that is located on a private street (Cinnamon Lane) with predominantly developed lots with single-family homes. As part of the City's entitlement process, the proposed project is subject to the neighborhood compatibillty analysis under the provisions of Section 17,02.030.8 (Neighborhood Compatibility) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code which will require the proposed residence to be compatible with the visual character of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, as mitigated by the Neighborhood Compatibility process, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) The proposed new residence on the subject lot will have exterior lighting that may have impacts to nighttime views in the area. The materials and windows for the proposed residence will not adversely impact daytime views However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would result in less than a significant impact to nighttime views: AES -1: The exterior lighting for the proposed residences shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located Page 5 D-12 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 6 D-13 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE 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 g X 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 g X contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned X Timberland Production? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest X use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 8 Farmland, to non-agricultural use or X conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Comments: a -e) The subject site has an existing land use of single-family residential 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 project. III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 3 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or 3 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 3 X (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to 3 X substantial pollutant concentrations? Page 6 D-13 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 7 D-14 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 2, 11 X substantial number of people? Comments: a -d) The subject lot is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is an area of non -attainment for Federal air quality standards for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM25). The proposed project would limit the amount of non -remedial grading for the development to less than fifty cubic yards (50 CY) total. The movement of soil and the operation of construction equipment may have the potential to create short- term construction -related air quality impacts upon nearby sensitive receptors, such as single-family residences. Based upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines for estimating air quality impacts from construction activities, the development of individual 1 -acre parcels would not exceed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for nitrous oxides (NOx), CO, PM10 or PM25. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: AQ -1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile AQ -2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. AQ -5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. AQ -6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. AQ -7: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. AQ -8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. e) The zoning of the subject lot does not permit industrial or commercial uses. Therefore, no objectionable odors are expected to be generated as a result of the proposed promect. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 6, 16 X directly orthrough habitat modifications. Page 7 D-14 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 8 D-15 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, 6, 16 X or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 6, 16 (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the 6, 16 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or 6, 16 ordinances protecting biological X resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an 6, 16 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a, b, e, 0 The subject lot consist of 0.4 acre of grassland and 0.36 acres of woodland communities. The Altamira Canyon drainage, an ephemeral stream, occurs along the eastern lot boundary. The grassland community is composed primarily of non-native species and none were observed within the footprint of the proposed project or on the stream bed or banks Nevertheless, the proposed project will result in 0.12 acres of permanent and 0.04 temporary impacts to grassland and exotic woodland communities. Compensation for impacts to these non-native communities would follow guidelines in the NCCP Subarea Plan, as presented in mitigation measure BIO -1 below. BIO -1 Prior to any grading or permit issuance, vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the property owner using a 2:1 ratio for CSS, a 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland, and a 3:1 ratio for native grassland as described in the Council -adopted NCCP for loss occurring in an area greater than 0.3 acres by using one of the following two methods: 1) With the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies, the property owner shall dedicate additional acreage to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve that will add to the biological function of the Preserve and the property owner shall provide management funding forthe additional Page 8 D-15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method); or 2) Payment of a mitigation fee to the City's Habitat Restoration Fund, pursuant to the City's NCCP Subarea Plan. If the revegetation option is selected, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) shall be hired by the City, at the property owner's expense, to grow and plant the required vegetation. According to Biological Study prepared by AECOM, no special -status plant or wildlife species have been previously recorded within the subject site and none were recently observed based on a site visit conducted in October 2015. Additionally, the subject site does not contain Primary Constituent Elements (PCE), in other words habitat, for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Suitable coastal sage scrub habitats that provide PCE for coastal California gnatcatcher are present in nearby the PVNP reserves, including Filiorum and Portuguese Bend Reserves, where undisturbed habitat provides for the survival and reproduction of the species. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to impact PCE required by the species. Critical habitat for Palos Verdes blue butterfly occurs in two areas, the closest located two miles northwest of the subject site and is would not be impacted by the proposed project. Nevertheless, indirect impacts during construction related to dust, stormwater runoff, and through the potential spread of noxious and invasive plant species into Altamira Canyon could occur and such impacts would be considered significant. However, by implementing and adhering to avoidance and minimization measures provided in Mitigation Measures BIO -2 through BIO -11 below, along with mitigation measured recommended under the Air Quality and Hydrology Sections of this Initial Study, indirect impacts to the surrounding sensitive natural community would be less than significant 13I0-2 Prior to commencing construction, the construction area shall be clearly delineated with fencing or other boundary markers. Temporary fencing (with silt barriers) shall be installed at the limits of Project impacts to prevent habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats (i.e. Altamira Canyon). Fencing shall be installed in a mannerthat does not affect adjacent habitats to be avoided and in compliance with Section 17.56.020.0 of the RPVMC. 13I0-3 Prior to commencing construction, a pre -grading meeting shall occur to inform the construction contractor of the biological/jurisdictional constraints (Altamira Canyon) of this Project. The Project limits shall be clearly marked on Project maps provided to the construction contractor and areas outside of the Project limits shall be designated as "no construction" zones. 13I0-4 During construction, construction workers shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the designated construction limits. 13I0-5 During construction, all equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such activities shall occur in designated areas within the fenced Project limits. These designated areas shall be located in previously compacted and disturbed areas, in such a manner to prevent runoff into adjacent areas and shall be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take place on level surfaces and contractor equipment shall be checked daily for -leaks prior to operation and repaired as necessary. BIO -6 During construction, the construction work zone shall be kept as clean of debris as possible to avoid attracting predators of native and sensitive wildlife. All food -related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and removed daily from the construction work zone. 13I0-7 In order to avoid unnecessary impacts, should any non -listed species be found within the property, they shall be avoided and allowed to leave the Project site on their own volition, or a qualified biologist shall relocate them outside of the Project site. 13I0-8 Pets of Project personnel shall not be allowed on the Project site during construction. 13I0-9 Prior to any grading or building permit issuance, a qualified biologist shall review the landscape plans to ensure that that no invasive, non-native plantspecies are used in any proposed landscaping. The Landscape Page 9 D-16 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Plan shall include a plant palette that consists of native plants and non-invasive species. BIO -10 Prior to commencing construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared to reduce the potential for accidental releases of fuel, pesticides, and other materials. This plan shall outline refueling locations, emergency response procedures, and reporting requirements. During construction, equipment for immediate cleanup shall be kept at the staging area. This plan shall also include erosion control measures to control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation outside of the project footprints 13I0-11 A qualified biologist shall monitor construction during clearing, grubbing, and initial excavation activities, as needed. The biological monitor shall ensure that, if present, nesting birds in the Project vicinity are not impacted (change in normal behaviors) and that construction workers stay within the designated footprint of the construction work zone, as delineated by fencing, to avoid trespass on foot or in vehicles into sensitive habitats, such as Altamira Canyon along the eastern perimeter of the Project site. Little wildlife was observed on site and no nest were observed in on-site trees. Nevertheless, indirect impacts to nesting birds within the vicinity of the Project site could occur during construction as a result of noise, dust, increased human presence, and vibrations resulting from construction activities. Disturbances related to construction could result in increased nestling mortality due to nest abandonment or decreased feeding frequency. Therefore, indirect impacts would be considered significant. By adhering to avoidance and minimization measure BIO -12 below, indirect impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant. BIO -12 The clearance of vegetation during construction shall occur outside of the nesting season (generally February 1 through September 1). If avoiding the nesting season is not practicable, the following additional measures shall be employed: • A pre -construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to the start of construction activities to determine whether active nests are present within or directly adjacent to the construction zone. All nests found shall be recorded. • If construction activities must occur within 300 feet of an active nest of any passerine bird or within 500 feet of an active nest of any raptor, with the exception of an emergency, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest on a weekly basis, and the construction activity shall be postponed until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. • If the recommended nest avoidance zone is not feasible, the qualified biologist shall determine whether an exception is possible and obtain concurrence from the resource agencies before construction work can resume within the avoidance buffer zone. All work shall cease within the avoidance buffer zone until either agency concurrence is obtained or the biologist determines that the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. c) Altamira Canyon is an ephemeral stream that occurs along the eastern perimeter of the subject site and receives protection under the Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code. The limits of ground disturbance as a result of the proposed project will be approximately 25 feet away from the top of the stream bank. As a result, permits from regulatory agencies for impacts to waters pursuant to CWA Section 404, and waters of the State pursuant to CFGC Sections 1600-1670 are not required. d) The subject site represents a small area and is primarily composed of non-native species that are generally unsuitable to support wildlife movement. Altamira Canyon, along the eastern perimeter of the Project site, may support local wildlife movement. Activities proposed under the Project would not remove vegetation along Altamira Canyon, thus direct impacts to a movement corridor for local wildlife are not anticipated. However, temporary construction activities (i.e., increased dust and noise) would likely result in wildlife species generally avoiding the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, indirect effects of construction on wildlife movement along Altamira Canyon would be temporary Page 10 D-17 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 11 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact in nature, restricted to the project construction time period. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1310-2 through RIO -12 above would ensure impacts to a wildlife movement corridor are less than significant. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource 8 X as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological 5 X resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or 5 X unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal 5 X cemeteries? Comments: a) The subject lot has remained undeveloped since its creation in the late 1940s. As a result, the proposed residential development would have no impact upon any historical resources. b -d) According to the City's Archaeology Map, the subject site is within a possible area of archaeological resources. The approval of the proposed project would only permit 50yd' of grading, which limits the depth of grading to surface excavations for the footings of the structure. Nevertheless, it is possible that subsurface cultural resources may exist on the subject lot. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts to cultural resources: CUL -1 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any known archaeological sites on orwithin a half -mile radius of the subject property. CUL -2 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property for approval by the Community Development Director. CUL -3 Priorto the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Page 11 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 12 D-19 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 17 X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, in- 17 X cluding liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 17 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and 17 X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building 17 X Code (1994), thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal X systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a, c -d) Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Code Section 15.20.020, there is a moratorium on the filing, processing, approval or issuance of building, grading, or other permits in the area of the City identified as the "Landslide Moratorium Area", which this subject lot is part of. However, in 2014, the City and the property owner entered into a settlement agreement as a result of lawsuit filings which among other things, gave the property owner the ability under the exception category of the Landslide Moratorium ordinance (RPVMC 15.20.040.6) to construct a replacement structure on the subject lot. As a result, a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (ZON2016-00170) was issued by the City on August 29, 2016 that allows the processing of formal applications for the proposed residential development. Additionally, on November 4, 2016, the City Geologist reviewed the proposed project and granted an in -concept approval for planning purposes, provided that additional input is submitted during the Building & Safety plan check process. According to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of Conservation, the subject lot is located within an area that is potentially subject to earthquake -induced landslides. The subject site is located within the vicinity of the Palos Verdes fault zone, although there is no evidence of active faulting as a result. The soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are also generally known to be expansive and occasionally unstable. Given the known and presumed soils conditions in and around the subject site, it is expected that soil investigations, reviewed and conceptually approved by the City's geotechnical consultant, will be required prior to construction. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: GEO-1 Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submitthe additional information required by the City Geologist, including a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City Geologist. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the City Geologist and shall substantially repair the geologic conditions to the satisfaction of the City Geologist. GEO-2 Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, a Hold Harmless Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Page 12 D-19 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 13 D-20 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact GEO-3 Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. b) During grading and construction operations for any new residences, top soil will be exposed and removed from individual properties. It is the City's standard practice to require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for wind- and waterborne soil for construction projects. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: GEO-4 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Building Official. The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during project construction. e) The City has constructed a sanitary sewer system that serves the subject lot along with other lots within the Portuguese Bend Community. The purpose of constructing this system was to reduce the amount of groundwater within the Landslide Moratorium Area by eliminating the use of private septic systems, with the ultimate goal or slowing or stopping land movement. New residences in areas with sanitary sewer connections, such as the proposed project, are required to connect to the existing sanitary sewer system. As a result, any geology/soils impacts related to septic systems will be less than significant. VILGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may X have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a) The average California household generates thirty-eight (38) tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually, based upon data obtained from CoolCalifornia.org. Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the development of the proposed residence would include features that tend to offset the carbon footprint of their development. For example, the use of water would continue to be carefully controlled within the Landslide Moratorium Area in the interest of minimizing the infiltration of groundwater as a means to enhance soil stability. Reducing the use of water reduces energy use related to the transport of water. The development of the subject lot would tend to counteract the negative effects of sprawl by "in -filling" an established residential neighborhood rather than converting raw land to urban use. For all of 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 new, single-family residences. Additionally, the proposed manufactured residential building will be State certified, which incorporates required Green building and energy standards. For this reason, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Page 13 D-20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 14 D-21 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine X transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 8 X one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code 12 X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, 8 X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? D For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result 8 X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency 13 X 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 9 X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a -b) No hazardous materials or conditions are known or expected to exist on the subject property. The proposed residential development of a manufactured home and a detached garage will utilize conventional construction methods and materials that would not involve the use or transport of hazardous materials. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. Page 14 D-21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 15 D-22 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) The nearest school in the vicinity of the subject property is the Portuguese Bend Nursery School at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. At its closest point, the subject property is over half a mile away from the nursery school. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) The subject lot is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. e -f) The subject lot is not located within two (2) miles of Torrance Municipal Airport or in the vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. g) In 2014, the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP). The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards." The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. h) Based upon the most recent maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The subject lot is located at the end of a private street that abuts developed and undeveloped private properties. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the new single-family residences and related accessory structures shall be designed to incorporate all applicable fire protection requirements of the City's most recently adopted Building Code. to the satisfaction of the Building Official. IX. HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X 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 area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase X the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or X planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources Page 15 D-22 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 16 D-23 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 8 X Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or 8 X redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death 8 X involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 8 X mudflow? Comments: a, c -f) The proposed project may result in changes to the current drainage patterns of the area as a result of increased impervious areas, as well as the potential for erosion and run-off during construction. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: HYD -1 Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City's Building Official an Erosion Control Plan that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run- off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post -construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HYD -2 Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Public Works Director, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. HYD -3 All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Public Works Director. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden b) The proposed project will not involve or require the withdrawal of groundwater because water service to these properties will be provided by the California Water Service Company. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. g -h) There are no Federally -mapped 100 -year flood hazard areas in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. i) There is no dam or levee anywhere in the vicinity of the subject lot. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. j) The subject lot does not adjoin an ocean, lake or other body of water, so there is no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Furthermore, the lowest elevation of the subject property is roughly 430 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Therefore there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed Proiect. X. LAND USEIPLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established com- 1 8,2 X Page 16 D-23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 17 D-24 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact munity? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general 1.2 X plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com- 6 X munity Conservation Plan? Comments: a) Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Code Section 15.20.020, there is a moratorium on the filing, processing, approval or issuance of building, grading, or other permits in the area of the City identified as the "Landslide Moratorium Area", which this subject lot is part of. However, in 2014, the City and the property owner entered into a settlement agreement as a result of lawsuit filings which among other things, gave the property owner the ability under the exception category of the Landslide Moratorium ordinance (RPVMC 15.20.040.B) to construct a replacement structure on the subject lot. As a result, the subject lot may be permitted for residential development and a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (ZON2016-00170) was issued by the City on August 29, 2016 that allows the processing of formal applications for the proposed residential development. Since the subject site is a vacant lot located at the end of a private street within an established tract with existing homes, the proposed residential development would not divide the Portuguese Bend community; rather, it would constitute "in -fill' development within the community. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The underlying General Plan land use and zoning designations for the subject lot are Residential 1-2 du/ac and Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac, respectively. Both land use and zoning designations allow single-family residences as the primary permitted use for the subject lot. Additionally, the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. c) See Section IV, Biological Resources section above. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource thatwould be of 1 value to the region and the residents of X the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 1 X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Comments: a -b) There are no mineral resources known or expected to exist on the subject lot. Additionally, the approval of the proposed project only permits shallow surface excavations, primarily for footings, as the quantity of grading is limited to 50yd3, balanced on site. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards 1 X established in the local general plan or Page 17 D-24 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 18 D-25 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact noise ordinance, or applicable stan- dards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, 8 X would the project expose people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose 8 X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a noise ordinance. However, General Plan Noise Policy No. 5 "[requires] residential uses in the 70 dB(A) location range to provide regulatory screening or some other noise -inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance." The Noise Levels Contour diagram in the General Plan does not depict the subject lot falling with a 70 db(A) noise contour. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. b -d) The proposed residential development will result in an increase of ambient noise levels in the area as a result of one additional household and related vehicle noise. The large lot sizes of the neighboring lots in the near vicinity (i.e., averaging an acre in size) and the presence of existing mature foliage along the private rights-of-way and private properties will serve as buffers to the "operational" noise associated with new residences. The operation of construction equipment have the potential to create short-term construction -related noise and vibration impacts to neighboring homes. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: N-1 Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OO13M on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of- way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. N-2: The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulatinq features during Page 18 D-25 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 19 D-26 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact construction to reduce source noise levels. N-3: All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction e -f) The subject lot is not located within two (2) miles of Torrance Municipal Airport or in the vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed proiect. XIII. POPULATIONIHOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., 14 X through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction 8 X of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction 8 X of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The proposed project involves a residential development of a single vacant lot, which would result in an increase of one household. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. b -c) As the proposed project is for residential development on a vacant lot, no existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im- pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) Fire protection? X ii) Police protection? X iii) Schools? X iv) Parks? X v) Other public facilities? X Comments: a) The proposed residential development of a single vacant lot will result in an increase of one household in an established residential neighborhood that is currently served by public safety services. One additional household will not result in impacts that will necessitate the provision of additional facilities to maintain existing public services. Additionally, as standard requirements of the construction of new residences, the applicant will be required to pay fees Page 19 D-26 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 20 D-27 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The proposed residential development of a single vacant lot will result in an increase of one household in an established residential neighborhood. One additional household will not result in substantial increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities that would accelerate physical deterioration. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. b) The proposed project does not include the development of recreation facilities and therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit X and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other X standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm Page 20 D-27 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 21 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency ac- 13 X cess? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative trans- X portation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, f) The land use and zoning designation of the subject site is residential development and has access via private streets from Palos Verdes Drive South 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 (6'h edition), the trip generation rate for an additional future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single-family residence, an additional dwelling unit as a result of the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. c) The subject property is designated for residential use that will not cause substantial safety risks because the proposed residence complies with the required setbacks for the RS -2 zoning district, does not impair an intersection visibility triangle, does not exceed the permitted building envelope of 16'/20' and is within an established residential tract surrounded by other residential properties. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d -e) The proposed project does not include any modifications to existing private rights-of-way or changes in current land -use patterns that would create or increase hazardous conditions or hamper emergency access the Portuguese Bend community. Additionally, the proposed project would need to comply with the adopted Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Furthermore, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts. XVII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment require- ments of the applicable Regional Water 15 X Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing 15 X 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 15 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing X entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it 15 X has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition Page 21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Page 22 D-29 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid X waste? Comments: a -c, e) The City has constructed a sanitary sewer system that serves certain areas of the Portuguese Bend community, including the properties located along Cinnamon Lane (e.g., the Abalone Cove Sewer System). The purpose of constructing the Abalone Cove Sewer System was to reduce the amount of groundwater within the Landslide Moratorium Area by eliminating the use of private septic systems, with the ultimate goal or slowing or stopping land movement. According to the EIR prepared for the Abalone Cove Sewer System project, this system was originally intended to serve one hundred ten (110) developed and forty-six (46) undeveloped lots in the Abalone Cove area orthe Portuguese Bend community, which includes the subject lot. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the utilities/service systems impacts of the proposed project to less -than -significant levels, the following mitigation measures are recommended: UTLA Pursuant to the City -approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (ZON2016-00170) issued on August 29, 2016 , prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the project the sewer lateral that serves the applicant's property shall be inspected by the Public Works Department to verify that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks. If such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them prior to any grading or building permit issuance. d) California Water Service Company (Cal Water) provides the City's water service. Given that the proposed project will increase the number of households by only 1, the increase in water demand is nominal and will result in less than significant impact. f -g) The properties in the Portuguese Bend community solid waste disposal services through existing City contracts with residential waste haulers. However, the approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement to develop these lots. Given the limited potential scope of the proposed project, the solid waste disposal impacts are expected to be less -than -significant. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Comments: The proposed project, with mitigation, will not degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre -history. Page 22 D-29 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 20.5OURCE REFERENCES. 1 "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Page 23 D-30 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues and Supporting Information Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable?' Comments: The proposed project is to allow a manufactured home on a single vacant lot within an established residential community. While there would be temporary construction related impacts, with the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures, these potential cumulative impacts will be reduced to less -than -significant levels. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: As discussed above, all potentially -significant environmental effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to less - than -significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. XIV. 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 and state where they are available for review. Comments: A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Abalone Cove Sewer System in 1996. A supplement to the SEIR was subsequent prepared in 1998. Copies of these documents are available for review at the Public Works Department of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. These documents were utilized as source of background data related to the installation of the Abalone Cove Sewer System. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: Not applicable Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 20.5OURCE REFERENCES. 1 "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Page 23 D-30 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2016-00401 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California November 1993 (as amended). 4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 7 Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE Trio Generation, 71 Edition. 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS) database and maps 9 State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Sacramento, California, accessed via website, March 2008 10 Project Plans 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e., "Cortese List") 13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element 15 Abalone Cove Sewer System Supplement Environmental Impact Report 16 Popp, Arthur (AECOM). (2016, October 31). Biological Assessment for Tract 14195 Lot 12 748 Cinnamon lane (Case No. ZON2016-00401). 17 Lancaster, Jim (Kling Consulting Group, Inc). (2016, November 4). City of Rancho Palos Verdes Revised Geotechnical Report Response Checklist. ATTACHMENTS: Mitigation Monitoring Program Page 24 D-31 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: Site Plan Review and Grading Permit (ZON2016-00401) Location: 48 Cinnamon Lane (Tract No. 14195, Lot 12, Blk 3) Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 County of Los Angeles Applicant/Landowner: Andrea Joannou TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction...........................................................................................................................2 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................2 Environmental Procedures......................................................................................................... 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements.......................................................................................... 2 Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program_. .......................... .................... ............... 3 Rolesand Responsibilities..................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures......................_................................................................ 3 MitigationMonitoring Operations............................................................................................................ 3 III. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist ......... ............... ...................................................... ._._,_............. 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table..................................................................................................... 6 I. INTRODUCTION Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B - Page 1 Resolution No. 2017-08 D-32 PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Tract No. 14195, Lot 12, Blk 3), located at the end Cinnamon Lane, a private street, within the Portuguese Bend community in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Construction of a 1,917ft2 single-family residence, a 600ft2 detached garage (total structure size of 2,617ft2), and a water storage tank. 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 Inas 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." II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B - Page 2 Resolution No. 2017-08 D-33 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, 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. Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B - Page 3 Resolution No. 2017-08 D-34 III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on February 28, 2017. 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. Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit B - Page 4 Resolution No. 2017-08 D-35 a s JU aLL 0> 42 a) E E0 E6 ci ) -a)c E E0� EQ cion =a>c E E5 Ea�Q Uoo w.00 E Eo Eo cion .�a)c 3 E 00� E3 Uoo w.a)c S E E 00r E '0 CL Uoo LU e ` J IM C.r 3 c ` 3 c 3 c C 3 c C 3 c C 3 c Z— OU OU OU OU OQ OU O Z Q 1� Q Q O O Q UW Q -Q nm acro ncaa aca nca LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a Z _O c) c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 U. Q 6 0 O Z a U U) cn C W (0 O U O U O U O U U W J c o c rn c c v) c c IL :3 ZI > O o O o 0 W IL 3 U 0 U U D) c cn cn c 0 c 0 u U ca U U U U a a) M O _r C 'N _° L C� C5U_O U O'� N a) a) N O C ) a)L C y.° O) ca CL.c 01 m E )� O CL OU"_ 0) � � .. m 0 C CL a) N CD a) c 7 `L LO O m U m 7 3.— > av n ca m•� > ca a .0 > t:! cu �o m� > c m �'�o ° a) m coria > c N .^- U--0 U a W C O a) U -O Y a) U N im. U a) O X U N a) to C x U tO O a) a) 0 m d. >a<) -C C13 '0 ate) o� d g)OL a) U a) > Via) c O E W N E c CL.- a) � �rnr >. 0 a) m a rri ° a) 3 �� O E rn O ° N m o co 0W vY mL m Wa.0 3 m� ° 0 0) c,c� ��Lv °) 3 O o)m mL mw w 'M o� o �-> a) c_ co N f0 �o 0 `° d°° C m e a) m c O� m °` 3 U E OL72 l0 O U E CO) a w to w N E 7 O a) m a) L -ODtp >O 0) a) to 0) _ 01 m C O) t/j � � � 0) U° 3 U f0 a) � L . V 0) m D O C U W w v) a) " ,k ca., - Q W 7 to W .L+ L ?: p lD C= O �L.. C m .N N N N U fn C-5 C U 7 L E C_ N 7 to -O c or a 7 C .n N O (O 'O — .-+ 7 C w O0 ca m O U 7 to L a 7" 7 7 7 a) 7 m $ a N yU., 7 m to U C m Y m > C.� OE cn a m O `O ' CL M UN O C L a) C CLWL ( 0 O .N O cYrgy O O) O U -O C ` p ' OO Oda"O C F- ca 0. p `` NU .N a z -r ` ) ` y Uoa 7 O OCNj aa3 "f cC O O 0> N O a tz C p m N U) U CL ` O a) ci y a � c oc�— cC OF- � ma �L av LU a) N w J c - m �EOL a� N v m m.mONZ mC°mo -F CD L7JL ° — C dD c � N O 3`00- ° omY- a ) . °a� ° N v0�.a NN N �L6 0E� Ca W 4)�C �C0a)� a O w.0 O N o aO m CV n QC 7N t U U O��c > a) rQ=n— c L>E p Q m0> a 0 �a w EVvN C c aao)aaca p O OT-: N Q m m Q m y a Q mL 2 Q m 2 L muU Q m N m O 0-0 U C 00 o rn� 0 0 a N O C Z O c "= O O2-6 7 N C: a) O of fU O) if 0 c x W D-36 Lu Z7a) 00 QE QE 3 QE 73ci E O� E O� O E or- aLL ESQ Ea�Q EaQ Ea)a V W U00 U00 U00 Q a)o W v) 3 c O 3 c O 3 c a) 3 c Z IL -=Q � O_ � W c Q m Q m Q m Q m LU O O O p a a a a - z Z p w m o c o c O a) m LL.0� � N i 06 C Zc W � N `o c co C N W .N o O `a •(n �w mE rn co F= J d O C C C O a) — `Li g •`o 3 Y U C O C O Q) > W IL U (1) c c c O U O c m U a_ C > O a U) 0 N a) C m a) m a) O L L a) w 7 L aI (A N D1 •C OI C U O C) a co 2 f0 fn N �' f0 m m p a) .0 - a) C.L.. M a) y C U U) O- � a O C >, `. w .� Lm Lm. v U :d rn W W m a) V m 0 Lji m o a) Lm- = Z an d m c CD cl- w m C L O OU Q) U U '� N 0I > a) 'fn ° O '� m m ?.'� N CO cn �. > L rn rn a) L d ' C N a) C L C U n O a) > m 0 pl d p W O a) C O y a N c .3 M p_ M co M (n Z N a 0 U w c N O N> 3 cUo o_ .L.. d EO .- v, U E u, O) m mc a) p U� a) `O _ c .� O N U m d �a .0 d O O o' m p L O` _ °• m m a) a_ rn— U �m rn Q> -tzC13 T C N �p N 'p6 .v o,rny C C .� m 'C .Q rnaa c 7 Ol (�(� ° .E ,�U- .� O M S- m L m a (n L O W ca m O o w m o m Q j CD 3 c W U a v m mo c) o> L '� p> U O C m a) = a) Z O p N N N O ) c m C .� y p O _ C U o c (6 LC' E m O U O`mNa E --r- m y 3 a) E wo -,-,c `m ~ aci cL �'� o ° o m rn� m E. � 0 �'w `° m Q O m `m_Z L)_j a co) 'E V a Q (9 a) M m a) M > U a) y C E p) m L L) x v, m M -0 a) N U 0 in ti I c a U t17 W a� � � m �n � a� � o -d ami 0- m C a) p) :S U a p_ O w a) ."_�' a �/1 H a m 0 p c m a.. M ° � o a) v—gid ° in m 3 o a) c H m o c 0 0 0-6 co R' J;� CD m my m m o > a) (n m d E� �� O m p am `a)Q �= o ciLt m oic U 9 c o " m c c= o a) o c o 3 rn' ° •° 3 my am c) w � w 3 E:> �m � U o a) 0 a)-0 O a �Oa o ami ° � > � ° ami�ain2 ° C O U m E .ami p U p U m Co U Q p Q CD ° O +� a '� C c m C a) w O c U) m a> IE m a y m U 3 f0 N E 0-0 N C a) a O)9 U a o m c X J a a Q c U C 3 m a) m c o a O c to O U Z C •- O C U p a 2 aOL E O O (O .L-� E C 5 a > d a) O a) O C h (0 a) •� rn'OD l a- a) a U' c X r N m i d d o c m i O O a) O -) m a) a) .0 >. (9 7 N a O c ° 7 V U Via m N 0) a 7 0 N a) O> N a) C c: C N 0- L c U Qa-U °)cn m'� Q m )n a) o)U `O Q m am c Vi U p> o0 cw ° m Owb- a< E cLE-i C cO O O aN 09 7i T■ L X W D-37 W 0 0 c c 0 c 0 0 c 0 V O as w c =EE � c SEE c c c c a) > c c w a) > C w J U E o E O �� E O V- cEE CL E O V- SEE E O r- �E E O V- aLL EmQ UDp Ea�a Ea�a Ea)a E6a (D (D C)_ UW a) Q- CU UDp UDp U0p C) UDp W 0 0 c c 0 c 0 0 c 0 N 3 c a) 3 c a) 3 c a) 3c a) 3 c aD 3 c Z Om •U Om U Om U Om Om Om Z aw A Q C- tf Q Q T� Q Q Q u) a) Q- CU a)Q CL CU mQ Q- co a) CL a- co a) C- Qm a�Q Qm w 0 0 0 0 0 0 U a a a a a a ZO 0 0 c c 0 c 0 0 c 0 LL 3 :3 U U U 0 U 0 OH LU Z u C cn0 C in m in C: �LU U U (j U U U H ui o o rn Im rn O ao o 0 0 0 0 U a` a` o 0 o a c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 W v '' V U U CL � 2 � 2 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U 2 C_ (n Uy C C C L ca O c m U 0, Q0._ m -o a)2 L cc 12U a)e a a) C) Coy0 O o3ca�Q-0.c>� vU2 (nmvmd 0 0� w 2 C (0 .U+ c U C_ N U in -0 0 E > m a) cc ` c 0_— a) O -0 •-N O > ca � o a)c)�w� cL2 ca LIn C U `'p m V1 C I` .0 a) � to C cm U E m `m m ca c�•o EO y E � .E O LL m N U U 0 C _ , p 0 N O ,O C 0 L t O c o a •U .0 U) c 00 (n C N ` N y > L - .c` 0 d� CL O c o' D E mo E m 0o`.0 a, —w 0 O O Y m C U C _ O O U` N C m L C C L w a) m_ U O U T o O) c a) O rn '� C O C m O O N N O a-0 C p i0 N 0 2.0 N N` o ,.L• L N C N O> w N .0 L N D Em Y_ c m 3 (n o_ ami U 0 0 m CL o m L m c N 'm �O N 0 N C a) (n o c 0 7 U) m. m o-- �, c_ `o c E m m � a) c o- 0-4 0 i� �' E L) c m c 'm m '� c m 0- C0 - o o s ` y m a) C Q N m m m m y 'C -0 (n U ] "O O a Q a) CO in c = :Fi 2 '° 5 w E o a � '`� � c u'i 'D Q)) O '- uN) U a) :5 0 U D a C a) •j O m m' _O a j Y a) C m a) U +' m �' > O co U c oaw 0 o C, .Lm �= rn0)� 0 d aa) rcn 0 (° rn m E �t M.o U Y 00— O c O E D m a) 0 0 a) 0 0 U -0 •y m_0 w U 3 O v)Em a) o m.o d vv c' �Dm=.>_ C C L Q U C> C C a) m y U_• N> m m C "O a) N C .0 �, W 0 y O a) O U 01 0 L E 0 Q L N O C U -O 'D 0 0 0 E o s N m 0 C 2 - rn ? c v H coi > a) Y rn ` E w E j O- m co E co o E m v in•>_m in c 0 (6 > QSo cin m 0 0 M.0v U V. a 0 C 0 m 0 w E O o o— a C V U O y N o w Co C (q om Awa m �w c 0) i, aUi c 3L QL rnm -0 -0 c CD -0 o •� L _O 6 C m -0 0 O O C. 'p d N L rn 0 a) a d 0. 0 m O m 0 aN0 0020Ev Qm.>_�CEwmOO�Yrnipy -S-0 Co �? .� O T Y ` C > In CP m d m -a E m o (O n o m � .N L 0 (n M L L — I a) I m E o 0 E 00 a m in U m in a) o o a) w w of m m m-0 00 ZD N m r- u)- C 00 cu C? mti 0 0 a N O)O _Z O c c .O. O 3 2 N 0 0 O af m tm m 0) rn m CL m x w w O E cn c U U L U c cc a .a m pC U a) E L U cn c co �) a c o U O U E c U U O Q O c C N > c� N a) E w e a) O > C: ._ C Q J U Q E E O r- Q E E O mc E O E c E E E O : E E E p aLL EN'Col Ups E75Q U�po Ern U00 Ea�Q UDo E@ V> Q(D Qccu Qcu (D U00 w O E cn c U U L U c cc a .a m pC U a) E L U cn c co �) a c o U O U E c U J m N c N3 3 c a) c 3� a) 3c 4) c.r Z— O� O(U cu Ocu Om 3 `� w 0 u/ a) 0 O E OZ IL ra �a moa 3 O Q N W Q(D Qccu Qcu (D a) n n, U) c(V m a U .> a u1 u) 2 m C ..+ 'a—J U) C C N NCU 0> C m a Q. L C m U) 3 U 0 N L L a` U m O T a` a` m m 'r' CL a� m d C m m c m ay.oin m.o v1 U C N L o m (D.E - m c c) cv_� z cw o a� cu m o rn LL Q U 7 U 06 C C O Q U C C O in m 0)3 v O z W LU c o c� 7 .L c „��, co c .� O a cp =n U a c°) �j U >, a) O ul .� L a) O L .— 'c p O .S m> >• V! co U m N LU 0) m E ° C o N uJ .0 a) ° o J a c ° a oU O O) M.L.. E >, N O cp y oU O L N QO U � E m a) N O C m `m m m _p c .0 C_ O Y O' c ° a) a N O 0 a U V C � `o d aUi a) p p n` n- o U) m.d U Lj O -O c C— O c �(n m E m O U a) a d C p m N a> LU ya F-) O E cn c U U L U c cc a .a m pC U a) E L U cn c co �) a c o U O U E c U c O C �°-a)vomoa) 4) 'C C N C p N a- m 3 `� w 0 u/ a) 0 O E 0,-- a c) U� O .L.. 3 O m a) a� a 7 0 'U a a°_ (D E m m `p m O O� �:> o U m c V fa C> 2 ° >, C L o a) `o m U) c(V m a U .> a u1 u) .d (n a U L ] Vi M N u1 V O• N j m C ..+ 'a—J U) C C N NCU 0> C m C— a) m O N :E C Q. L C m U) 3 U N N L L m C L a) U m O T r O C O m m 'r' CL a� m d C m m c m ay.oin m.o v1 U C N L o m (D.E - m c c) cv_� >. mM E m m uJa)° L ,f0 UL cnUq)Ec�o ` u) .� c 7 C "U—.- u1 m. OD C X m ,U a) C U C m U 0 (>0 Zc�> 7— a) U in L .>• C � y m e c yL.+ L O -- O ca aci~ m O a) L> U— a) p ° m-- E m'� m C m C w_ ° ��'3 (n ° °1'3 - lJ.l c uai _E OU Stv.� m c 0 �-" u) 6 C 0 d c .� O a cp =n U a c°) �j U >, a) O ul .� L a) O L .— 'c p O .S m> >• V! CD a) C O N U U •— a) O Z O u) O ° 3 C U .m (n m 1 C .0) Y O C O a L a) C M N uJ .0 a) C O t C a) a o a).m o aci c E a) o f o m O O) M.L.. E >, N O cp y O C y T O L N QO U co m� c-0 aw E m a) N O C m `m m m _p c .0 C_ O Y O' c ° a) a N O 0 a U V C � C7 d aUi a) p CD co >' L a)) C y Ea p c cLn O C C -r- a) 7 U n- o U) m.d U Lj O -O c C— O c �(n m E m O U a) .o aci -- f0 U u) d C p m N a> U .0 ) O W E 7 U P N a) L a) Y C o< a ' m N V O .— C 7 7 L) O O O .6),Z6 `O p a m V) a) a v O N .c > C '7 y p� .0 a) O) O V N m a) ] O) L C m� m :5 a)aa)) O Q m N N N C m> '� a) m U Q N O a Q.� iA L c v1 U w Q° m OL.. O L O m OL -0 j c' c� ami rn�m m° c� o u, d~ �� N Q° m ° ap E w a) .0 .0 C '� U -U •C '�—cLA U V i O) U .`. N pp O O m C N 2 0 m a) c�.z m O� m Omu'ia°imvO—'° 7 C V) L C m aE�C'©O'�c�a�w>m'n�p�o�cu O N N N E— 7 .. O m E O w m `m L a) a) O U .L.., Q a) 7 u1 m m Ow a U p m m Cl .— U O L m U LL N E • U.L.. m E 00 cu O C3) ~ aN mo _z `oc ._ o o � N C N O0� cu rn ►_ 00 D-39 WZ U O �w c c v c 0 m c 0 U J a� E o Ea�Q E o EQ E o EoQ O� U 050 U 0) U ago V� f 0 0 0 W a) N a) m� cam; c c 3 c 3 c 3 c y UV UU Ucu cu Z� aZ a V -a V a EcO W a)CL ao Q)CL ti 0 0 0 0� a a n a`N m o _ Z 0 0 c +. w T O Z w c o O co� m(D �� U U U O LLQ 06 c06 c ` :_. O ca ca fU Z � D m� c m W W .� `a Ln :- J in E m E O LL O O O O O O ` L a a Q - U U O W L t '� � a U Ucu Hc c a a a v m C a7 CD f0 C N CD fU >` 0-0 p rn m N � w � U � � C O p O 0 y C? O N N tri E �m to '0 c 0 ,� � m> N.,-0 O (h C C L y L" to a) .L... (n 7 U Y O a) C_ .0 = r m p N m> to C L T to n N E C •� L in a C U p "' O -c- o .- o L w d O N m 3 o c cOi . S w O j m O U (� m o y ax-E5::w m °' m �t m m c cin c� cm `v�� o d� 0 m W U-2� E O N E c O Y L C .'C.,, m E p d m m L U C to T m > to m m D CO O L N v c O .� ink .L-• N N L a v to Y a) E c 3 Nc.E o c.o 3 ='rn� c 3 L cam E� c`oi o'E 2 Q v ELU ar _c E moL)Q�o_a� �°�Um mo a)(D-003�m ) N a O C >O C N C C L W a) N U L_ a) Z3 a a) m m U m L uj O — m m m m e a) 0 c "O rn N p m "' Z .�. '� O O N N :E C m U� mom E "p �p j m (0 U1 O N m M m N O C U a) O O t7 M� �O U �O O m O D U (0 N - C p 7 7 O. U1 L C to N >, D1 •_-' Q poo v o m-0 m–�� m m m m c L� m.5 m > E �= Q U m M m m c m-0 m a� •m c W w c U m Lm rn a �° U o 0� c C m .v_i w E =m c c s 00 O .V •- •- O O` O `� p N N `� L (a p c>>> M w > E 5 p U mp � T J Q m m V p "_ E 'M CM� to ,m C pU U U U L U 0 6 p" W pj pj - C � �o f0 E V N O a .a) o f �O L C m_ .E o w m m Y -p m mw.� m m m U m a) o.0)o a- m aci d y-0 m o 0) -2 C C a7 a) C a) ry c.4 L c 0 C '� 0) .2 p mma>amica m.g�y��5 J�� oa DoE coc0l�oc c •� w OL m °e M cu E a`c a O m N cJ U o L OE v o m m _ L moa 7=>acX:C:v, )ca -0 8L ca E LLJ Y Y Y U O U c o E > c o E > c o > c C g Q U E E E E S E E U (L a: E o EmQ E o s Ea) E o Ea�Q E o Ea)Q wwCL ~ o> o U0� o> a) U ) 0 o> o Q o> UDo p V> om oc0 0CLc9 LLJ Y Y Y J U U U U LU z~ z U a) a) Om Oc Oc(Ua O z 'U Q -a r- • a wwCL ~ oc0 CL a a) om oc0 0CLc9 _J I z w w O cn N U in a) U cn o U in N U.Q C.6(a "� m C.6 C m U otf C cuc Ww =oD ocn -0 SQ o� w coE m mE mE IL oa) oQ oa) a oa) Q o .o 0 0 a a a a U) LU w D co Q LU 2 z O Q C7 F.. 2 UU- c m 7 N C .LN.1 "O co a N w EO cow G:� viy : EQ Ea ❑3mm c v o (n � r -ao o O)U o 2 m ❑ >N a, co (` Q.fO O)�+C O ww 0) C vi tap 0 W C C) m 0 L co Uo - 0 E E C .r .N co r m 0 C rC .D1 MM O O 7U N U m T- ❑ w O C `❑ U U ,L.., a) U C w' a� a) U 2 N E= N f/1 C it a O) C (D _U J m a In- O m 0 w m Q o � rLn O� O co m moi' O` N N ym= O N a, U N ❑ m O CL Mp cr,O w C_ ccoo v- w ) N CL N C C) 0 .N E .N o O J ��UcNNm dSarn-°E� _N w' a a) U a E co,a m U N c Nin O w N o ui(D:E 502 noC9mQmc"0U C .LN-) -0 ya)) U C . .i..r +N+ C > U ° >- c . Un a 0 a m ao a°'0 m 0'O> m O m U N N a N -❑ . U N L C O D1 O O > a) 0 r - O 0) a C N O a 0 O .m U m O- E N 0) Ua) M CO a - o a)� o� o 00 7 o 6:Et5 N mL.O c °' CD s r- 0 > N U N 0 C 3 O_•0 O L (Cp C 7 C aa) E= �r.a� �' a❑) �m o 0 c io a� r- a C U° w N > 2 m E.9 c a,«- N 73 O U oacVU.2 m co A >M Mn m tO) N O m 0 0C y00 m O -0 O L- a m Q- w C >, awN= a OCo m O - c m c O y.mdoaci�oOmN — Nin w N: O > N w N> m d C C9 (n a mi0�crC9�°'5).Eo cn J Q LU a cn m O 0 1IK Q 081 co D 2 co O _z o c F- .o o 5 2E N c N O af N cm 2 D-41 Y Y Y U U U U LU U U a) a) IL U U U U ~ m coo coo � U) LU w D co Q LU 2 z O Q C7 F.. 2 UU- c m 7 N C .LN.1 "O co a N w EO cow G:� viy : EQ Ea ❑3mm c v o (n � r -ao o O)U o 2 m ❑ >N a, co (` Q.fO O)�+C O ww 0) C vi tap 0 W C C) m 0 L co Uo - 0 E E C .r .N co r m 0 C rC .D1 MM O O 7U N U m T- ❑ w O C `❑ U U ,L.., a) U C w' a� a) U 2 N E= N f/1 C it a O) C (D _U J m a In- O m 0 w m Q o � rLn O� O co m moi' O` N N ym= O N a, U N ❑ m O CL Mp cr,O w C_ ccoo v- w ) N CL N C C) 0 .N E .N o O J ��UcNNm dSarn-°E� _N w' a a) U a E co,a m U N c Nin O w N o ui(D:E 502 noC9mQmc"0U C .LN-) -0 ya)) U C . .i..r +N+ C > U ° >- c . Un a 0 a m ao a°'0 m 0'O> m O m U N N a N -❑ . U N L C O D1 O O > a) 0 r - O 0) a C N O a 0 O .m U m O- E N 0) Ua) M CO a - o a)� o� o 00 7 o 6:Et5 N mL.O c °' CD s r- 0 > N U N 0 C 3 O_•0 O L (Cp C 7 C aa) E= �r.a� �' a❑) �m o 0 c io a� r- a C U° w N > 2 m E.9 c a,«- N 73 O U oacVU.2 m co A >M Mn m tO) N O m 0 0C y00 m O -0 O L- a m Q- w C >, awN= a OCo m O - c m c O y.mdoaci�oOmN — Nin w N: O > N w N> m d C C9 (n a mi0�crC9�°'5).Eo cn J Q LU a cn m O 0 1IK Q 081 co D 2 co O _z o c F- .o o 5 2E N c N O af N cm 2 D-41 W Z Y Y Y = z O w c c - c c .- a) c a) c z c U E O r- OJ E E E O -t E O V E O 1 -- IL LL Ea)Q E Ec" CU E 75 'o U VW D❑ I U0❑ Up❑ 0❑ U0 W Y Y Y = ma) a) N w N O cu ZO .Q O w O co O@ O cu IL Z a)� = �.� �.� >I- a)0 - W U) CL CU a)n Qm aa))n nca a) CL a- cu a- cu �w m E m E m E m E a a a a` ! a Y Y Y Y = z w w U w c O co U) Qco 0 ca 0 cv 0 g I1 Q 06 c O�- �� 06 c CD (a od c 0) cc off$ � 0) � c W W a.T c o.0 c �_.'n :3 U �.T) o �w m E m E m E m E a o a) o Q o a> o L CL a a a U Y Y Y Y = U U U U O W } U U U U H = = c c m a a d U co W oc D co Q W 2 Z O a C7 H 2 �: w C 01 a) � p .' a) DI U ob 0) CD 'o a) a)= m to 0 N 0-0 c N O C C — U) C C C C a) Co `� Y f0 N O O .�•' "0 > w 0 7 O- w N c O C p > O c �. .v O O O U m O m U 6 U O N a7 3 O Q E m U � `O d ° N 7 `p 7 m O (9 -O -° `= (CO O •� N •� 0 D_ c a) Q N ca cu m U) N U a) _ � o� `-' �_ � � ca of -.- E 0- 0 CL .� C •C E (0 `>..-- > ,N n ,� o a (a o >. .-- a) O O1 Cl a N— "O U a7 cy -O a) w c0 L 'J ❑ -0 . - c Co y a) w U 'MO "'� a) •C a) �� !C cL to p)cnU a7� o >�_ C C al ..- C C N` .LO+ > U) a) : 7 C d a) (0 o) -°m '> M co ° O U c m cow >O c O v `- v a) a— U) L '- CO !Z a) ,C a) U :- °: Co ` . V >` > E cu `� a) 7 — rn O O c a� U N N —0--a 7 U m U U ` 'J p) C �0 O F OI a� U O 3: O �� A a) U O` A�'0 -0 a= a) Q co o,o c a o cu ° c=w o o:° a a� `� > v ° u) fO a) c0 10 a7 m y, y a) .-• — N Co n .. C C a) C O o C O w O m min a) C1 ° E o E o > o a,E � o o v)m ,o Q.S m o o� cv o (` O V w� N C a o a) o a O U .�.+ (0 d N _Q >. U L p° c a) �c ° E w W c y c cn .(D U ca c c c m �, m a) v m n o0 'a co f0 �° c rn 0 0° U ca O_ N O a) m ` f0 E C M U) O w c F' (n ca .� C 'Y c m w c'n t 'M U m rn 6 t- - .rn a�7 '� � -c ° t N O y a) c°)i,cU Q �'u°_i m'v°—ice o '� �pL� m� a) .c > 10 c cam 3 m c Q �) aci o a) m �O o c o N m" cwt.:: o cL m v, o'm `g -- c Z) .-��Co Q) o C7 o v ma) owa C) ° o o 2 cn av aa) CLi c c o�� om c m o CU c° co O a� -0tED c' m= a) N �� m m.� c- m E -°o y -12 .o a >+ — a) cc :3 0_ y c c) Q) O .O co N y c c c D).a) ° = � ° c a E aa) a) O a CD CO c> o,c a c a; g N m U) 4) — m W E° c mo m m a) U Q c -Mv E ° [Y rim ° �'� o n- E ro m a) O-qw c °�c�vt o ai .' - m.o c N. c� m �4 m- E o U)) Q aQa �(6 c 0 N rn='�-0 ❑ EU �.ca U) ❑ E'm a) co c 0 a) c.)L ❑ a) �' m ootnrn Y a cL �o m o �a a'} `mom ca m a)'m E , o} c6 Z oo c� D 2 2'in cn �U 2 vQ CO) r� 2 Qocnw�vinin� v, 2 3� c oo Zr--iii o �.- E ro cuo 0) a oN O)O C Z O C •"= O O 7 2 0 C: o m o of rn 2 m rn cu CL m x w D-42 W Z U O � c w c c Z O O E m a) w c c O m Q Q a E :3a E c = _ E .�U E o•c E or- E 0 aLL Ea)co EQ W U O� U Ea�Q a�0 V > D U � O LU Z O O O OZtf a tf n n E0O �W OL am nca Qm �o � O o o , IL a. a N d O) O E Z O c += O o O Z c c O o U 0 coo U)a� � V)) LLQ 7 U U off C O = O Z C c C cu 7 C U) cu LLI LLI U U •N _ �J rn m E LL c c o a`) 0 a `O — .c 0- C: c O c O Y U N L=I U U N a) ~ (n c cn c m O U o U n m C M U p .N C UC C -0 0 0 a) _ Y w o� `'c a) a) 4) � a� a a_0 o oa r— m a c co) -O � E 5v o �w CL mv� m y m m m w m` E J— Qm�c°)�mmn m �m L) a) CO) I� •C N a) C 0) L m N c0 (O w a) m c '0� C m U N > W N C .� 0-0 C ELO_ O)(n N .N O a) O U O w M O O 0 m a) C_ C N p (p -0 y win N O L) in C c 0) a) �o f/1 a a`) w .E ai O' U CO)>, Q m C m N O E 0 0 c C — O O N C .w E O W m O C a) N >. N N a) w N 0 C N LLI3 c C-0 m U O O) +J -0 w O U W .w C '�-'= w O' O N w' Z 7 w 'C U a 7 a) w S2 U p 0I � (c0 .= Vi O .-� .Qr N a) N N U C O 0' CO)• N. -c O N u_wi a) `� M m 0 Z O Q a) L O O m L m w. O C O C -0 CO) a) U w E a) t w E a) N N .- w ,� p .T) a) O w O — O U C LL (} O •O w �'U C a) OL a �O p d a) .> L f0 N w ` N O a > N v En o.o– m cmc co � c.0 a: O O m un c a) cD m q)> L C 0 w a) L) w E w w CO) m c— — c -O O'S c O 0 a a) .. S ESL Oaw'a C-0 m c) o n m > .O O is xo. rn E W N q-' N w c N m o a m m �' 3 C o C i v ao LLI ~ 1 - M E w m a a Lu Ll O C O �' fV C ''O M 0I '' O O U~ L 'O U d a a) O .0 - Q '0 O_ J J N a. V N N C 0I O" w a) c9 .L. L m N N O a) a y ` E O N C a w Y L > •— ca- m J w 2 c m m H C O O L a) 7 3 0 0 0 a w U O Z m w i O Z E `o 0 of 0 7 7 0> �2Qaw _ O w m D-43 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-09 A RESOLUTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND MINOR GRADING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,917FT2 MANUFACTURED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, A 600FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A WATER STORAGE TANK, AND 50YD3 OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPROVEMENTS AT 48 CINNAMON LANE (CASE NO. ZON2016-00401). WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is the property owner of 40 Cherryhill Lane, which was originally developed with a 1,538ft2 single-family residence and garage; and, WHEREAS, Andrea Joannou is also the property owner of a vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane (Lot 12, Block 3, Tract 14195); and, WHEREAS, the residential improvements on 40 Cherryhill Lane moved several hundred feet away from its original location to a City owned property due to the Portuguese Bend Landslide; and, WHEREAS, on or about November 16, 2012, the City filed a lawsuit captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. Andrea Joannou, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court case no. BC495866 in which the property owner filed a cross-complaint seeking relief; and, WHEREAS, the City claimed in the lawsuit that the improvements on 40 Cherryhill lot constituted a nuisance that the property owner had the obligation to abate; and, WHEREAS, on June 3, 2014, the property owner and the City executed a Settlement Agreement, settling all claims, which allowed the property owner to replace a house that was previously located on 40 Cherryhill lot or to build a house on 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHERES, on August 29, 2016, the Community Development Director ("Director") granted an approval for a Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit, allowing the property owner to submit the appropriate Planning applications for the placement of a manufactured home, detached garage, and a detached horse corral the vacant lot at 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHEREAS, on August 30, 2016, the property owner submitted Site Plan Review, Minor Grading Permit, and Environmental Assessment applications, requesting approval to place a manufactured residence and a detached garage with 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements at 48 Cinnamon Lane; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2016, the application was deemed incomplete due to insufficient information. After subsequent submittals of additional information by the property owner and in -concept approvals were granted by the City Geologist, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department, the application was deemed complete on January 30, 2017; and, WHEREAS, on February 2, 2017, notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed Site Plan Review and Grading Permit was sent to all property owners owning property within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commencing on February 2, 2017 and concluding on February 22, 2017. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 1 of 1b-44 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 Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2017-08, determining that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the Site Plan Review and Minor Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2017, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a 1,917ft2 manufactured single-family residence, a 600ft2 detached garage, a water storage tank, and 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements. Section 2: A Site Plan Review is warranted because the proposed project conforms with the provisions of the Code, including but not limited to, setbacks, heights, and open space. Additionally, the proposed project is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural styles and materials, and setbacks. More specifically, the immediate neighborhood is developed with single -story, low profile homes with design elements that reflect California Ranch style homes. The streetscape of neighborhood is heavily vegetated along the private streets with only portions of the residences visible between the trees. The more recently built homes in the immediate neighborhood are more visible as they are perched on the slope utilizing grading to create a pad lot that is higher than the street elevation. The proposed residence will be smaller than the neighborhood average in terms of structure size and the proposed height of the new residence and detached garage is 15.08718.54' and 10.12711.62', respectively, which maintains the low - profile character of the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, while the proposed residence will be elevated towards the front fagade, the elevated portion will be oriented to the south and not west towards the street. Also, the proposed detached garage will be oriented with the shorter side of the structure facing the street, which will be setback by 76'-3" from the front property line. The proposed residence will be placed an additional 10'-11" beyond the garage. As a result, only portions of the proposed residence will be visible from the street due to the strategic placement of the main residence behind the garage and its larger setback from the street. In terms of architectural styles and materials, the proposed residence represents a classic single - story California Ranch style home designed with a 3:12 pitched shingle roof, extended eaves, exterior siding, a deck with wooden guardrails, symmetrical windows, and a recessed entryway, which are common elements found in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed setbacks of 76'-3" front, 20' side and 50' rear, which are compatible with the large setbacks of other existing residential developments in the immediate neighborhood. Section 3: A Minor Grading Permit is warranted because the proposed 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements will be balanced on site with no imported material and appropriate geological or geotechnical studies were conceptually approved that demonstrates that the proposed grading will not aggravate the existing landslide situation. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 2 of 1b-45 Section 4: The proposed project is compliant with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3) and regulations as the proposed project is designed in a manner that does not adversely impact views, vistas, or the existing visual character of the City. Additionally, the proposed project is strategically situated away from neighboring views, designed with low -profile structures that do not impact protected views, and the related grading is minimal which will be balanced on site. Additionally, no manufactured grading or re - contouring is proposed that may change the visual character of the site or its surroundings. Section 5: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following February 28, 2017, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09, thereby approving Site Plan Review and Minor Grading Permit, subject to the conditions in Exhibit `A', which is attached hereto, to allow the construction of a 1,917ft' manufactured single- family residence, a 600ft2 detached garage, a water storage tank, and 50yd3 of grading to accommodate the improvements at 48 Cinnamon Lane. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2017, by the following vote: AYES: CommissiOners Bradley, NeIs9n, Vice Chairman Cruikshank, Chairman Tomblin NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: Commissioners Emenhiser, Leon ABSENT: Commissioner James Ara Mihr n, Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission '1 ave om in, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2017- 09 Page 3 of 1b_46 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Environmental Assessment 48 Cinnamon Lane (ZON2016-00401) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit "A". Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Any substantial change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, conditions of approval, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code or administrative citations as described in Section 1.16 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 4 of 1b-47 8. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within 1 -year of the final effective date of this approval, the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City. 10. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans. 11. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 12. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. 14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in Section 17.56.050(C) of the Development Code. Project Specific Conditions: 15. This approval is for the following: a) Construction of a 1,917ft' manufactured single-family residence with a 288ft2 attached elevated deck along the front fagade and a 600ftz detached garage. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 5 of 1 b-48 b) Installation of a grey water storage tank underneath the deck along the front fagade. c) Construction of a 3' tall planter wall that wraps around both sides of the residence to screen the area below the deck. d) 50yd3 of balanced on site grading limited to less than 5' in depth of cut or fill. No grading shall be allowed over extreme slopes (35% or greater in gradient). 16. The height of the approved project shall be as depicted on the stamped approved plans. The maximum height of the approved manufactured residence is 15.08' as measured from the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure (elev. 99.08') to the highest point of the structure (elev. 114.16'); and 18.54', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade (elev. 95.62') to the highest point of the structure (elev. 114.16'). The maximum height of the approved detached garage is 10.12' as measured from the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure (elev. 97.41') to the highest point of the structure (elev. 107.53'); and 11.62', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade (elev. 95.91') to the highest point of the structure (elev. 107.53'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. 17. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (proposed: 13.6%). 18. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' (76'-3" proposed) front, 15' (50' proposed) rear, 5' (20' proposed) sides. 19. Except for driveways, paved walkways and parking areas, all of the required 20' setback area shall be landscaped. Driveways, paved walkways and parking areas shall not cover more than 50% of the required 20' front yard setback area. 20. A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway, on the property. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 21. A driveway shall be a minimum width of 10'. 22. The slope of the driveway shall not exceed a 20% gradient (proposed: 14.5%)- 23. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 24. No construction of any improvement is allowed within a legal easement without written authorization from the legal holder of the easement. Such authorization shall be in a form that can be recorded and shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 6 of 1 b-49 25. Cargo containers may be used for temporary storage in conjunction with construction allowed through an active building permit, provided that the City's Building Official determines that the active building permit warrants the use of a cargo container for temporary storage and is needed to facilitate construction. The number and location of cargo containers shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance of the surrounding property owners to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 26. The temporary silhouette shall be removed within seven (7) days of the final effective date of this approval. Landslide Moratorium Exception Conditions: 27. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant's drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works Department, and said plan shall provide details regarding the location, dimensions and height above or below grade for a holding tank for site drainage runoff. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Public Works Director, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. 28. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the sewer lateral that serves the property shall be inspected to verify that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks and, if such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 29. The requirement for a sewer holding tank shall be waived provided that the subject parcel will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. 30. Roof runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course. 31. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, all landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Director of Public Works. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden. 32. All other necessary permits and approvals required pursuant to this code or any other applicable statute, law or ordinance shall be obtained. 33. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, if required by the City Geologist, the applicant shall submit a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City Geologist. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the City Geologist shall substantially repair the geologic conditions to the satisfaction of the City Geologist. 34. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, a Hold Harmless Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. 35. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 7 of 12_50 projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation. 36. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for recordation a restriction use covenant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, which prevents the detached corral from being used for any purpose other than a non -habitable use and the detached garage from being used for any purpose other than parking of vehicles and storage of personal property, is recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar - Recorder. Mitigation Measures: AES-1.The exterior lighting for the proposed residences shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.56.030 (Outdoor Lighting for Residential Uses) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, all residential lighting shall be fully shielded, and no outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. AQ -1. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water shall be applied to areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City's public roadways, and if tracked, the applicant's contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City's public roadways. AQ -5. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. AQ -6. Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Community Development Director's satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. AQ -7. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 8 of 1b_51 mph. To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. AQ -8. During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 13I0-1. Prior to any grading or permit issuance, vegetation needed to be cleared for fuel modification shall be offset by the property owner using a 2:1 ratio for CSS, a 0.5:1 ratio for non-native grassland, and a 3:1 ratio for native grassland as described in the Council -adopted NCCP for loss occurring in an area greater than 0.3 acres by using one of the following two methods: 1) With the approval of the City, PVPLC, and the Wildlife Agencies, the property owner shall dedicate additional acreage to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve that will add to the biological function of the Preserve and the property owner shall provide management funding for the additional acreage according to a Property Analysis Record or similar method); or 2) Payment of a mitigation fee to the City's Habitat Restoration Fund, pursuant to the City's NCCP Subarea Plan. If the revegetation option is selected, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC) shall be hired by the City, at the property owner's expense, to grow and plant the required vegetation. BIO -2. Prior to commencing construction, the construction area shall be clearly delineated with fencing or other boundary markers. Temporary fencing (with silt barriers) shall be installed at the limits of Project impacts to prevent habitat impacts and prevent the spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent habitats (i.e. Altamira Canyon). Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not affect adjacent habitats to be avoided and in compliance with Section 17.56.020.0 of the RPVMC. 13I0-3. Prior to commencing construction, a pre -grading meeting shall occur to inform the construction contractor of the biological/jurisdictional constraints (Altamira Canyon) of this Project. The Project limits shall be clearly marked on Project maps provided to the construction contractor and areas outside of the Project limits shall be designated as "no construction" zones. BIO -4. During construction, construction workers shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the designated construction limits. BIO -5. During construction, all equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such activities shall occur in designated areas within the fenced Project limits. These designated areas shall be located in previously compacted and disturbed areas, in such a manner to prevent runoff into adjacent areas and shall be shown on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take place on level surfaces and contractor equipment shall be checked daily for leaks prior to operation and repaired as necessary. BIO -6. During construction, the construction work zone shall be kept as clean of debris as possible to avoid attracting predators of native and sensitive wildlife. All food -related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and removed daily from the construction work zone. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 9 of 1b_52 BIO -7. In order to avoid unnecessary impacts, should any non -listed species be found within the property, they shall be avoided and allowed to leave the Project site on their own volition, or a qualified biologist shall relocate them outside of the Project site. BIO -8. Pets of Project personnel shall not be allowed on the Project site during construction. BIO -9. Prior to any grading or building permit issuance, a qualified biologist shall review the landscape plans to ensure that that no invasive, non-native plant species are used in any proposed landscaping. The Landscape Plan shall include a plant palette that consists of native plants and non-invasive species. BIO-10.Prior to commencing construction, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared to reduce the potential for accidental releases of fuel, pesticides, and other materials. This plan shall outline refueling locations, emergency response procedures, and reporting requirements. During construction, equipment for immediate cleanup shall be kept at the staging area. This plan shall also include erosion control measures to control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation outside of the project footprints. BIO -11.A qualified biologist shall monitor construction during clearing, grubbing, and initial excavation activities, as needed. The biological monitor shall ensure that, if present, nesting birds in the Project vicinity are not impacted (change in normal behaviors) and that construction workers stay within the designated footprint of the construction work zone, as delineated by fencing, to avoid trespass on foot or in vehicles into sensitive habitats, such as Altamira Canyon along the eastern perimeter of the Project site. BIO-12.The clearance of vegetation during construction shall occur outside of the nesting season (generally February 1 through September 1). If avoiding the nesting season is not practicable, the following additional measures shall be employed: A pre -construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 3 days prior to the start of construction activities to determine whether active nests are present within or directly adjacent to the construction zone. All nests found shall be recorded. If construction activities must occur within 300 feet of an active nest of any passerine bird or within 500 feet of an active nest of any raptor, with the exception of an emergency, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest on a weekly basis, and the construction activity shall be postponed until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active. iii. If the recommended nest avoidance zone is not feasible, the qualified biologist shall determine whether an exception is possible and obtain concurrence from the resource agencies before construction work can resume within the avoidance buffer zone. All work shall cease within the avoidance buffer zone until either agency concurrence is obtained or the biologist determines that the adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. CUL -1. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall consult with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) regarding any known archaeological sites on or within a half -mile radius of the subject property. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 10 of 1b-53 CUL-2.Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the property for approval by the Community Development Director. CUL-3.Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. GEO-1.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit the additional information required by the City Geologist, including a soils report, and/or a geotechnical report, for the review and approval of the City Geologist. The applicant shall comply with any requirements imposed by the City Geologist and shall substantially repair the geologic conditions to the satisfaction of the City Geologist. GEO-2.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, a Hold Harmless Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney promising to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from any claims or damages resulting from the requested project, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. GEO-3.Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit for recordation a covenant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, agreeing to construct the project strictly in accordance with the approved plans; and agreeing to prohibit further projects on the subject site without first filing an application with the Director. Such covenant shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for recordation with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. GEO-4.Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Building Official. The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during project construction. HAZ-1.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the new single-family residences and related accessory structures shall be designed to incorporate all applicable fire protection requirements of the City's most recently adopted Building Code, to the satisfaction of the Building Official. HYD -1. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City's Building Official an Erosion Control Plan that shall include BMPs for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, the Erosion Control Plan shall include post - construction BMPs that apply to runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HYD -2. Prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit for new construction, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Drainage Plan by the City's Building & Safety Division and the City's Public Works Director finding that stormwater runoff as a result from the development of the subject site is designed to flow and utilize an on-site drainage system that directs runoff from all buildings and structures on the site shall be P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 11 of 1 b-54 contained and directed to the streets or an approved drainage course. If lot drainage deficiencies are identified by the Public Works Director, all such deficiencies shall be corrected by the applicant. HYD-3.All landscaping irrigation systems shall be part of a water management system approved by the Public Works Director. Irrigation for landscaping shall be permitted only as necessary to maintain the yard and garden. N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:OOPM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights- of-way before 7AM Monday through Friday and before 9AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official. N-2. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. N-3. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated during construction. UTL-1. Pursuant to the City -approved Landslide Moratorium Exception Permit (ZON2016- 00170) issued on August 29, 2016, prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the project the sewer lateral that serves the applicant's property shall be inspected by the Public Works Department to verify that there are no cracks, breaks or leaks. If such deficiencies are present, the sewer lateral shall be repaired or reconstructed to eliminate them prior to any grading or building permit issuance. P.C. Resolution No. 2017-09 Page 12 of 1 b-55