The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2015_04_21_01_General_Plan_Amend_5656_Crest_RdCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: April 21, 2015 Subject: Proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance Application for a Vacant Lot (Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014-00004) Subject Property: 5656 Crest Road 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Knight 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Community Development Director Rojas 4. Public Testimony: Appellants: N/A Applicants: Arbor Capital Group, Inc. Representing landowner Union Oil Co. of CA 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: Public Hearing Cover Page CITUOF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 5�- DATE: APRIL 21, 2015 SUBJECT: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PARCEL MAP AND VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A VACANT LOT AT 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 & SUB2014-00004). REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER V,/�-� Project Manager: So Kim, Senior Planner 4,'1/ RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby approving a General Plan Amendment from R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to R24 (Residential 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre), Parcel Map and Variance to subdivide a single vacant lot into two separate lots at 5656 Crest Road; and, 3) Introduce Ordinance No._, thereby approving a Zone Change from RS -2 (Single - Family Residential 2 du/ac) to RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac) for the vacant lot at 5656 Crest Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property owner of 5656 Crest Road is seeking approval of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to increase the density of the subject vacant lot. The current lot allows the development of one single-family dwelling by -right or pursuant to the overlay district, an auto service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose in changing the land use and zoning designation is to subdivide the lot into two separate lots for the future development of two residential dwelling units. A variance request is also included as the newly created lots will have substandard lot widths. The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2015 and on a 3- 2 vote (Commissioners James and Chairman Leon dissenting) recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project. T-1T4J rl:Z�111 I �7 On February 4, 2014, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes in order to support a lot split for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road. On May 20, 2014, the City Council considered the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change initiation requests. The purpose of the discussion was to allow the applicant an opportunity to elicit feedback from the City Council on the proposed land use change. At the meeting, the Council, except Mayor Knight, provided a strong inclination for the proposal, including the creation of two lots with a reduced lot width dimension. This first step allowed the applicant to proceed with the formal review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designation for the subject site, as part of the applicant's lot split request. On July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on preliminary review, the application package was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014. On January 15, 2015, notice of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance application package was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News. Staff received one letter in support (page A-134) of the proposed project after the May 20, 2014 City Council meeting and none during the public commenting period. On February 10, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and adopted P.C. Resolution 2015-04 (3-2 vote with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting and Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin absent), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project as presented (see attachment). The City received letters from the County Sanitation Districts and Fire Department of Los Angeles County in response to the January 15th public notice after the Commission hearing. County of Sanitation District had comments related to sewer service for future development of the site and the Fire Department had no comments at this time. A public notice that the proposed project would be considered at the March 31St City Council meeting was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site on March 2 11th, published in the Daily Breeze on March 13th and published in the Peninsula News on March 19th. On March 17th, the City Council informed Staff that it would not have a quorum on March 31 st. As a result, a new public notice that the proposed project will be considered at the April 21St City Council meeting was re -mailed and re -published. One email was received in opposition to the proposal in response to the public notice (page A-60). This email is discussed in more detail under `Additional Information'. SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is a 20,468ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. As shown in the attached aerial, the subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS- 2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. The proposed request is to change the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac), respectively, and to subdivide the single lot into two separate lots via a Parcel Map, forthe future development of a single-family residence on each lot. DISCUSSION A detailed description of Staff's analysis of all the relevant findings that need to be made for approval of the project are addressed in the attached February 10th Planning Commission Staff Report. Furthermore, the discussion and actions from the previous City Council and Planning Commission meetings are included in the attached resolutions and minutes. Provided below is a summary of the applicant's request along with a summary of the issues raised and addressed at the Planning Commission meetings. Proposed Project The applicants' request for approval includes the following: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with mitigation measures to satisfy the CEQA mandated environmental review for the project to lessen potential impacts to a less than significant level; Approval of a General Plan Amendment from R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) to R2-4 (Residential 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) to increase the density of the subject lot; Approval of a Zone Change from RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 dwelling units per acre) to RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 dwelling units per acre) to increase 3 the density of the subject lot; and, • Approval of a Parcel Map and Variance application to subdivide the subject lot into two separate lots with substandard lot widths of 67.50'(75' minimum required) for the future development of two single -story dwelling units. Summary of Planning Commission's Review The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is warranted as the result would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts. More specifically, since the existing lot with its current land use and zoning designations allows for the development of either one single- family residence or an auto service station, the Planning Commission felt that allowing a lot split for the future development of two relatively modest homes was a better alternative than what could be allowed with the current land use and zoning designations. Additionally, the abutting Homeowner's Association submitted a letter (page A-134) and spoke in support of the proposal for the same reasons. It should be noted that if the new lots were oriented with access from Crest Road instead of Whitley Collins, the lots would no longer require a variance as the subdivision would comply with the minimum required lot size, depth and width. However, in reviewing the parcel map, the Public Works Department is requiring removal of existing curb cuts from Crest Road left by the former auto service station and supports the frontage and access to the newly created lots via Whitley Collins due to potential traffic safety concerns. By orienting the lots with access from Whitley Collins, the new lots do not meet the minimum 75' width requirement by having substandard widths of 67.5' for both lots. Given the potential traffic safety concerns with access from Crest Road and the proposed development restriction that would limit future development on both lots to single -story homes so that they would be more compatible with the adjacent homes, both Staff and the Planning Commission are in support of the proposal. In addition, the proposal is supported by the applicant's geology report, which was reviewed and approved by the City's geotechnical consultant. Furthermore, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), based on an Initial Study for the proposal prepared by Staff (page A-103), the Planning Commission determined that although the project could have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, the impacts would be less than significant with appropriate mitigation measures. As such, the Planning Commission determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for this application. As noted in the `Background' section of this report, the Planning Commission's vote in support of the proposal was 3-2 with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting. Specifically, the two Commissioners felt that allowing substandard lots was not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, as the property owners already possess the right to develop the subject lot, albeit with one single-family home or an auto service station. Notwithstanding, the majority of the Commission felt that an auto service station on the site would be the least compatible with the surrounding uses. Thus, El if the subject lot is subdivided into two smaller lots, the size of the new lots would no longer make it viable for an auto service station. Additionally, rather than the development of one large single home, the future development of two smaller homes similar to existing developed lots in the same intersection located north of Crest Road, would be the most reasonable development for the subject lot. As a result, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2015-04 (page A-68); thereby recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve all of the project applications. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Future Development Applications If approved, the proposed project only allows the subdivision of the subject lot into two legal lots. For homes to be constructed on said lots, different applications will need to be submitted to the City for processing. Said applications will be subject to the City's Neighborhood Compatibility process which will include public notification to all surrounding landowners within 500' radius of the subject site. Furthermore, based on a condition of approval included on the Tentative Parcel Map, the future homes will be limited to single - story structures (16' maximum height). Public Correspondence Staff received one email from Mr. & Mrs. Bernard in response to the public notice (page A- 61). In this email, Mr. & Mrs. Bernard express their opposition with the proposed project as they believe there are enough high density housing and feel that Crest Road is already overly noisy. Staff does not believe that allowing the development of one additional single- family dwelling as a result of the proposal will cause adverse impacts to traffic and noise along Crest Road as evidenced in the discussions found in the February 10th Planning Commission Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts related to this project. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Planning Commission's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: Identify any issues of concern and continue the request to a future meeting to allow staff and/or the applicant to provide additional information; or, 2. Deny the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance, and continue the item to a future meeting wherein revised Resolutions can be brought back to the Council for consideration. 5 ATTACHMENTS • C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_ for MND (page A-1) • C.C. Resolution No. 2015-_ for GPA, TPM, VAR (page A-37) • C.C. Ordinance No. 2015-_ for ZC (page A-52) • Public Correspondence (page A-57) • P.C. Minutes dated February 10, 2015 (page A-59) • P.C. Resolution No. 2015-04 (page A-65) • P.C. Staff Report dated February 10, 2015 (page A-76) • C.C. Minutes dated May 20, 2014 (page A-135) • C.C. Staff Report dated May 20, 2014 (page A-138) 0 C.C. Resolution No. 2015 - (Mitigated Negative Declaration) C.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72999 AND VARIANCE AT 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014-00004). WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes in order to support a lot split for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, and after considering information as part of the public record, allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations to accommodate a lot split for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on a preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commencing on January 15, 2015, and concluding on January 25, 2015. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015-04 (3-2 vote with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and published on the same day in the Daily Breeze and subsequently published in the Peninsula News on March 19, 2015; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law, and there is no substantial evidence, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed, that the approval of Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 and SUB 2014-00004 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: There are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and, therefore, the proposed project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that address impacts upon air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic in the community and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a level of significance: AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk material or other debris onto public paved roadways AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. GS -2. Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. LU -1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single - story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5: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. PS -1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, minutes and records of the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and also finds that the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto complies with CEQA. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to allow the subdivision of an existing vacant parcel located at 5656 Crest Road. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 St day of April 2015. Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No 2015-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on April 21, 2015. City Clerk , no Exhibit `A (Mitigated Negative Declaration) W, N City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance (ZON2014-00279) 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 5656 Crest Road City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Union Oil Co. of California P.O. Box 285 Houston, TX 77001 6. General plan designation: Residential (1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RS -2) & Automotive Service Station Overlay (OC -4) 9. Description of project: The proposed project involves changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single - Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. Page 1 of 21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a vacant 20,468ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. The subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS- 2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 of 21 Mwe Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property is generally flat, currently screened with mature foliage. North Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South/East Single-family residential These residential properties are part of a Residential Planned Development, approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. West Nursery School Former Chevron Station converted to Hilltop Nursery School. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 of 21 Mwe Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Figure 2: Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map change and lot split. Page 4 of 21 A-11 C R S ROAD D L I ro a' I.p o B C. — 7ACF 272 ► ��_ — fD S1''K. L5 5411 It'I •VMI1• ^ K 69'64'7S'i 2B.00` . e AC. WOW" 4 � :• � j� e �a�--■ aS a--t—s��:�.�a .��.�—x—�[� nTBECSET 9 'ti/ff � 1 I 1rLY OF COF ria �� f +M j�, 1 - gI{ •a, a {� f }� ! A- 10-w6 so '°20° E`General Plan Land Use ,•�>7 .x 12 1� R1-2 to R2-4 - I +nra° i m sit , «, - Zoning ,IVlap Designation — — .7 �- RS -2 t RS -4 •6,•tE . i c; nLLJ 61.�Y'LG j� S$ i 164 ad `q� , i. 1rlY liNE •"� ! Ib ; (l�a SL � +pr •� l { I O� C) TOBEfET 2 28 N'LY tWE CF 1713 46 k tD W'LY Cs CQRNIR Page 4 of 21 A-11 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geology and Soils �] Hydrology and Water Quality Air Quality I ] Biological Resources = Aesthetics Energy/Mineral Resources [::] Cultural Resources 0 Hazards and Hazardous Material F7 Recreation ] Noise F—] Agricultural Resources = Public Services [= Transportation and Circulation 1--] Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: F-1 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. ^ I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [� I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project Signature: _ y_ - Date: Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 5 of 21 A-12 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical 1 ri buildings, within a state scenic hi hwa s? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 �! and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1.8 affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a, b) The term "vista" is defined as a confined view in the City's General Plan, which is usually directed toward a terminal or dominant element or feature. Each vista has, in simplest terms, a viewing station, an object or objects to be seen, and an intermediate ground. Crest Road is identified as a vehicular corridor with views to the south of the ocean and Catalina Island. The subject site is located on the south side of Crest Road. However, since the subject vacant lot is located at the entry of a fully developed residential tract and the abutting property to the south is already developed with a single -story residence at similar building pad level, two new single -story structures as a result of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot -split would not impact the defined scenic vista. Additionally, there are no known scenic resources on the subject lot that would be impacted by the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot -split. c) The current General Plan Land Use (R1-2) and Zoning Map (RS -2) designations only allow for a single dwelling. The immediate neighborhood is surrounded with the same land use and zoning designation as the subject lot. The proposed land use and zone change for a higher density would allow a lot -split for the development of two separate dwellings on the subject lot. Given that a higher density is proposed, there could be a potential impact to the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. However, because the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analysis review process, any potential adverse aesthetic and view impacts will be mitigated through the City's review process. Nonetheless, the applicant voluntarily met with the surrounding property owners within the Island View Community (residential tract to the south of Crest Road) and agreed to place a one-story height restriction to both future lots on the subject site. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measure LU -1 under the Land Use Section limiting the future residential structures to one-story, 16' in height, the proposed project would cause less than a significant impact to the visual character of its surroundings: d) Any future structure with proposed lighting would be required to obtain entitlements in compliance with the Municipal Code lighting restrictions, which regulate lighting intensity and direction. Therefore, with appropriate conditions of approval, any new lighting on future structures on the site would result in a less than significant impact on light and glare. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide d Importance (Farmland), as shown on Page 6 of 21 U15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource ,Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 J contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as 2 defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location 2112 or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use? LL L Comments: The existing land use and zoning designations for the subject site is residential. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact to agriculture caused by the proposed project. 3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected 8 air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a J substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air �1 quality plan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five -county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies. The air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ma Page 7 of 21 A-14 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated amendments simply allow a lot split with future developments on each lot. Any future development on the property would cause some odors and dust during the temporary construction period. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk material or other debris onto public paved roadways. AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the caro com artment. _ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the ro osal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 4 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or 4 v' by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, 4 marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 5 with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Page 8 of 21 A-15 Environmental Checklist Case No, ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological 8 N, resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? D Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, 5 it or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation tan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve (a.k.a. Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) and the General Plan. The subject site is a formerly an auto service station which has been completely demolished and is now vacant with vegetation. Therefore, there would be no impacts to habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, protected or rotected species, as none exist on the subject property. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or 1,7 unique geological feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,7 formal cemeteries? Comments: The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre -historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural resources a result of the proposed project. 6, GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 6 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, 6 Page 9 of 21 A-16 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated including liquefaction? iv Landslides? 6 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, 13 thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a, b, c) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) Based on a review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation report proposed by the applicant and approved by the City Geologist, the subject site is located on expansive soil. Additionally, as a result of demolishing the former auto service station, the underground storage tank was removed and backfilled. This backfill was determined not suitable for support of new fills or structures and will need to be removed and replaced as part of the future development of the site. As such, prior to any future development of the site, grading will be required for recompaction, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division, City Geologist and the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. e) There are existing sewer lines available along both Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS -2. Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would theproject: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, 1 either directly or indirectly, that may Page 10 of 21 A-17 Environmental Checklist Case No, ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? Comments: a) The approval of the proposed land use and zoning designation change for a lot split allows for the future development of two new residences on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built -out scenario would not be significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, a future development project on the subject site would be required to be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger -car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80 -percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government ,I Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the Page 11 of 21 • • Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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, d would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency v evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a- d) The proposed project will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. The site no longer contains contaminated soils and has been cleared with a Case Closure from the Los Angeles County Water Quality Control Board. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. e, 0 There are no airports located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or in close proximity of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. 0 The subject site is surrounded by developed residential properties. The impact caused by two additional dwellings as a result of the proposed land use and zone change for a lot split is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. h) The proposed project is bounded by a public street to the north and developed properties to the east, west and south. Since there are no wildlands in close proximity to the subject site, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any water quality standard or 8 wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there 8 d would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the localgroundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 10 pattern of the site or areas, including Page 12 of 21 • Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially 10 d increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water J quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood v Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede d or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding 11 as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? _ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: a, f) Any future residential development on the subject site will be required to connect to the existing sewer lines. Prior to development, Building & Safety will review drainage plans and ensure that the future development complies with or obtains necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. Future development projects will be required to apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs would be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. With the following mitigation measures in place, future development of the site resulting from the proposed land use and zone change for the lot split would cause less than significant impacts: HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. b The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company Page 13 of 21 A-20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission. The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City with sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking water at a pressure consistent with accepted standards. The subject site already allows for the development of one single dwelling unit and this proposed project would allow for the development of two dwelling units. The potential reduction in permeability of the site as a result would not substantially impact the aquifer volume or the local groundwater table. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. c, d, e) There are no streams or rivers on or in close proximity of the subject site. Currently, rainfall and runoff from surrounding developed properties flow into the existing drainage system. As a mitigation measure, the stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, the increased volume of run-off resulting from an additional residential dwelling as a result of the proposed project would not cause flooding or exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system and therefore result in less than significant impact. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. g,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. i, j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Furthermore, the subject site is flat and not in an area that would be subject to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide and established i community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific 1, 2, 3, 8 plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1.4 J community conservation Ian? Comments: a) The proposed land use and zoning designation change, allowing a higher density to allow a lot split for the development of two residential developments may significantly impact the established community surrounding the subject lot (Island View Community). While the properties to the north of Crest Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates are zoned RS -4, allowing for increased lot coverage, properties within Island View residential tract provide for more open space as they are less dense, zoned RS -2. More specifically, the properties to the north are limited to 50% lot coverage, while Island View properties are limited to 40%. In relation to lot sizes, Island View properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are less than the required minimum of 20,OOOft' for the underlying RS -2 zoning district. However, it should be noted that Residential Planned Developments generally allow for smaller lot sizes for providing common open space areas. For example, the lot sizes for Island View properties range from approximately 12,000ft2 to 20,000ft2. The proposed new lot sizes on the subject lot will be approximately 10,000ft2 in size, which will be even smaller than what exists in Island View and half Page 14 of 21 A-21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated of what is required for new lots in the RS -2 zoning district. The required minimum lot width and depth for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district is 90' and 120', respectively. The lot width and depth of the two new lots is proposed to be 67.5' by 120', respectively. As a result, approval of a Variance application would be required to create the new substandard lots with non -conforming lot widths. Given that the existing lot currently meets the lot size, width and depth of the underlying zoning designation of RS -2, which is also consistent with the abutting RS -2 residential tract, there are concerns with the proposed project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Acknowledging the compatibility concerns, the applicant met with the Island View Homeowner's Association and agreed to place a height restriction of one-story for the two new lots as part of the proposed project to blend in with the existing character of Island View Community. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: LU -1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single -story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. b) The subject site is not located within the coastal zone or within special plan districts. The proposed project would create a higher density allowing for two new substandard lots, inconsistent with the Municipal Code's minimum lot width of the proposed RS -4 zoning district. Given the inconsistency, a Variance application to deviate from the minimum required lot width of 90' is included as part of the proposed project. c) There are no sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site as it was formerly a fully developed auto service station. As such, the proposed project would cause no impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pro osal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 8 d General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use Ian? Comments: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site, identified in the local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan, Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed project. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan d or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or roundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project Page 15 of 21 A-22 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the romect? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a — d) The subject site is currently developable with a residential structure. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site. Potential construction noise and vibration from construction vehicles or tools could occur as close as 33' from the nearest residential buildings to the closest property lines of the subject lot. The Municipal Code limits construction hours in the City from lam to 6pm Monday through Friday and between gam and Spm on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted on Sunday or legal holidays, as defined in the Municipal Code. Given the temporary nature of the construction noise with the following mitigation measures, the short term noise impacts would be less than significant: N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9: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. e, f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip, Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project - a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or ma'or infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction v of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: Page 16 of 21 A-23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) The subject site currently allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposed project, two single-family dwelling would be allowed, increasing the number of households by 1. An increase of 1 household is not considered substantial and therefore considered less than significant impact. b -c The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, there is no displacement of people or housing as a result. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the followin2 public services: 1 Fireprotection? ii) Police protection? ,f iii) Schools? ,J iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? ,f Comments: Currently, the land use and zoning designation for the subject site allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposal for a higher density and creation of two lots, the development of an additional dwelling unit would be allowed, increasing the number of household by 1. The increase in one additional dwelling unit and household would not require an expansion of existing services or facilities. Additionally, any future development would be subject to Fire Prevention Division review and school fees would be required prior to construction. Furthermore, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 16.20.100, as a condition of approval for a parcel map, the applicant is required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. PS -1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that J substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments; Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project would allow for an additional dwelling, resulting in an increase of one household. An increase of one household is not significant and would not result in substantial additional use, expansion or services of existing arks. Additionally, with mitigation measure PS -1 Page 17 of 21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated requiring dedication of land or fee in lieu for park and recreational purposes, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Conflict with an applicable pian, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or v' incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, f) The land use and zoning designation of the subject site already allows for residential development and has access via Crest Road and Whitley Collins. As such, there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6`" edition), the trip generation rate for an additional future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single- family residence, an additional dwelling unit as a result of the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. c The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any I Page 18 of 21 A-25 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project, d, e) Any future development would need to comply with the adopted Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Public Works Department would review any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety. Furthermore, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. With said requirements incorporated as mitigation measures, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable d Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the til construction of which could cause si nificant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the •I project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to Page 19 of 21 �� i Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated solid waste? Comments: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling and there are pubic utilities and services already available due to the development of the surrounding residential development. An increase of one additional dwelling unit would generate an increase in waste water, but not significant enough to impact waste water treatment requirements, water supplies or require additional water or solid waste disposal facilities. Additionally, for any future development of the subject site, the property owner will be required to comply with all local, state and federal requirements related to solid waste. Furthermore, the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a "No Further Action" letter for clearing the subject lot of the former auto service station. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts as a result of the proposed 2roject. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? C"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in v connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The subject site does not contain and is not located within close proximity to areas with protected habitat or species. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative aesthetics, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, noise, population, public services, and recreation, transportation and utility impacts. However, none of these are significant, except for cumulative land use and planning impacts. However, as evidenced in subsection 10 of this document, the impacts are considered not significant with mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance due to cumulative impact considerations. c) There would be no substantial direct or indirect effects on human beings as no aspect of the proposed project potentially significant impacts or adverse impacts to various environmental concerns. Page 20 of 21 A-27 Environmental Checklist Case No, ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments. None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: None 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Pian, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ma 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993, 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3125199), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 511199 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Ma 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 9 State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, U.S. Census Bureau 10 U.S. Geological Survey Ma 11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Torrance & San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1, 2009 12 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan 13 Applicant's Geotechnical Report prepared by Pacific Geotech Inc. Page 21 of 21 • • Exhibit `B' (Mitigation Monitoring Program) Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance (ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014-00004) Location: 5656 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Arbor Capital Group, Inc. Landowner: Union Oil Co. of California TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.........................................................................................................................2 Purpose............ . .............................. ........ ......... ...2 Environmental Procedures.........................................................................................................2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements............................................................................................ 2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program................................................................................... 3 Rolesand Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures........................................................................................ 3 MitigationMonitoring Operations................................................................................................................ 3 Ill. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist.................................................................................................... 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table........................................................................................................ 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program )exhibit A - Page 1 Resolution No. 2015- A-30 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 5656 Crest Road, located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -f=amily Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot with reduced lots widths into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program." Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 2 Resolution No. 2015-_ A-31 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre -grading, construction, and operation, The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures, and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, 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 A - Page 3 Resolution No. 2015- A-32 III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on _, 2015. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures, Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 4 Resolution No. 2015- A-33 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 1. AIR QUALITY AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a Prior to and during Property Owner / Community chemical dust suppressant, or covered when Construction construction applicant. Development material is not being added to or removed from the Department pile. AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient Prior to and during Property Owner 1 Community water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to Construction construction applicant. Development prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible Department emissions from crossing the_bounda line. AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be Property Owner f Community cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from Construction During construction applicant. Development bein released or tracked off site. Department AQ -4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk Construction During construction Property Owner 1 Community Development material or other debris onto public paved roadways. applicant. Department AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are Property Owner / Community either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such Construction During construction applicant. Development that the material does not touch the front, back, or Department sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the caro com artment. 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a Community grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be Construction Prior to and during Property Owner / Development prepared for review and approval by the Community construction applicant. Department Development Department. GS -2. Any future residential development shall be Community connected to the existing sewer lines. Construction Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner 1 Development permit final applicant. Department i Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 5 Resolution No. 2015-_ MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for Community review and approval for compliance with National Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner I Development Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for permit issuance applicant. Department stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction Prior to and during Property Owner 1 Community activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, Construction construction applicant. Development post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be Department applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on- Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Community site drainage system directed into the existing storm Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development drainage system, subject to review and approval of Department the Buildinq & Safety Division_ 4. LAND USE AND PLANNING LU -1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single -story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from Community existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing Planning Review Prior to Planning Division Property Owner 1 Development building pad area covered by the structure and 20', ,approval applicant. Department as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the hi hest point of the structure. L5.NOISE 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 i W Mitigation Monitoring Program Cri Exhibit A - Page 6 Resolution No. 2015-_ MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION demolition, construction and/or grading operations, Construction Prior to and during Property Owner I Community trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project construction applicant. Development site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before Department 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 buildin official. 6. PUBLIC SERVICES PS-1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner 1 Community the City, for park and recreational purposes at the Plan Check permitissuance applicant. Development time and according to the standards and formulas Department contained in Municipal Code Section 1620.100.G. 7. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb Community cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner 1 Development traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the permit issuance applicant. Department Public Works Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Community Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways permit issuance applicant. Department on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner 1 Community Department review will be required to ensure Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development adequate emergency access. Department i CW Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 7 Resolution No. 2015-_ C.C. Resolution No. General Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, and Variance) A-37 C.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM R1-2 TO R2-4, A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72999 AND A VARIANCE FOR 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014-00004). WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes in connection with a proposed lot split for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road, and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, and after considering information that was part of the public record, allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations to accommodate a lot split for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on a preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and to appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commencing on January 15, 2015 and concluding on January 25, 2015. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the 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 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice thereof was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015-04 (3-2 vote with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and published on the same day in the Daily Breeze and subsequently published in the Peninsula News on March 19, 2015; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project involves a change in the General Plan land use designation of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2 to 4 du/ac) for the subdivision of a single vacant lot into two separate lots with reduced lot widths of 67.5'. Section 2: The proposed change in the General Plan land use designation is warranted, since the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan and is in the public's interest. The General Plan describes the existing R1-2 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as public views and vistas which at this density can be controlled through subdivision design. This density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities." The General Plan describes the proposed R24 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." Based on these descriptions, the properties south of Crest Road were designated as R1-2 because there are public views and vistas across said area in a southerly direction of the ocean and Catalina Island, while the properties north of Crest Road were designated as R24 as there are no views across that area. The incorporation of the restriction upon future development of the subject property to one-story structures on the new lots would preserve the existing views and vistas as structures up to 16' in height are allowed by - right and there are no views across that area. Additionally, since two of the four corners on Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road intersection have the same density with similar developments as is proposed for the subject property, the proposal to increase the density to match said developments is a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities located south and north of Crest Road, respectively. Section 3: Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, as revised by this approval. More specifically, the subject property is one of four corner lots at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. While the proposed density of R2-4 is higher than the abutting neighborhood with a density of R1-2, the proposal will match the two corner lots located immediately across Crest Road. Increasing the density of the subject lot to match those corner lots (northwest and northeast) at the same intersection while limiting future development to single - story residential structures results in a reasonable transition from the abutting neighborhood with a lower R1-2 density. Additionally, the new lots with the proposed R2-4 land use density will comply with the minimum lot dimensions required for the corresponding RS -4 zoning district, with the exception of the width of the lots, which are addressed by the variance that is being approved concurrently. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the revised General Plan designation approved concurrently herewith. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code, with exception of lot width. The findings for a Variance are warranted for the reduction in lot with from 75' to 67.5', as set forth in Section 4 below. Additionally, both lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from Whitley Collins Drive which currently serve the surrounding existing residential development. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposed subdivision will result in two lots that comply with the minimum requirements of the City's Development Code for the proposed RS -4 zoning district with an approved Variance for reduced lot widths. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum contiguous lot area requirement of 3,300ft2 for a RS -4 zoning district. The size of the contiguous lot area on the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -4 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from Whitley Collins Drive and utilities are available for future connections that currently serve the surrounding existing residential developments. D. The design of the subdivision for the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, which are not present on the subject property. More specifically, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment, but future development on the parcels may impact air quality, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land "TIA us use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic in the community unless mitigation measures are adopted. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared with mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to an insignificant level. Additionally, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, any future residential development of the vacant parcel will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards for the RS -4 zoning district and will require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map and he has conditionally approved them accordingly. Furthermore, more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical reports will be required at the time a future development proposal is submitted on the vacant lots, which must then be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical consultant. Moreover, the placement of the proposed ingress/egress was approved by the City's Engineer consultant for access to the lots. With regards to wastewater and utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a street (Whitley Collins Drive) that will permit connection to an existing public line, that currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing easements on the subject lot. Section 4: A Variance is warranted for the reduced lot with of 67.5' while 75' minimum is required for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district because: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. More specifically, the proposal involves a zone change to increase the density of the subject property from RS -2 to RS -4 to accommodate the minor subdivision of a single lot into two separate lots. As discussed in the Staff report and the ordinance that is being approved concurrently herewith, the proposed zone change is warranted. Additionally, the existing lot measures 135' in width by 120' in depth. The proposal is a request to divide this lot in equal halves, resulting in each lot measuring 67.5' in width by 120' in depth, while the Code required minimum is 75' in width by 120' in depth. This lot is one of four corner lots located at the Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive intersection. The two corner lots to the north are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and layouts as the subject proposal. The southwesterly lot is developed with a nursery school. The subject southeast lot was once developed with an auto service station, which has been demolished and completely remediated. This lot is unique as there is an overlay district that allows an auto service station (OC -4) with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit, despite the residential neighborhood surrounding the property. Allowing a minor subdivision on this lot for residential development would no longer allow for a viable auto service station primarily due to the substantial reduction in the lot size. Additionally, a residential development on this lot would be the most compatible with the surrounding uses, which are limited to residential with exception of the nursery school. The existing pattern of development in the surrounding area and the unique uses allowed on the subject lot is an exceptional/extraordinary condition that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. More specifically, as discussed in the Staff report and the ordinance that is proposed as part of this application, the proposed zone change from RS -2 to RS -4 is warranted. The two corner lots at the same intersection to the north of Crest Road and Whitley Collins are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and configurations as the proposal on the subject property. Therefore, the proposal for reduced lot widths for a minor subdivision to accommodate future residential development that is compatible with the surrounding existing development is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. More specifically, there is an overlay district on the subject lot that allows an automobile service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Allowing the subdivision to create two smaller lots would no longer make it viable for the future development of an automobile service station, which would not be compatible with the adjacent residential area. Additionally, a residential use on the subject lot would be most compatible and harmonious as the surrounding area is limited to residential uses. Additionally, future development on the new lots would be limited to single -story structures to minimize potential view impacts upon existing residential developments. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant as well as the City's Engineer consultant reviewed the proposal and granted conceptual approval. Lastly, there are existing utilities for connection that already serve the surrounding residential development. D. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan, as concurrently amended, or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. More specifically, the proposed increase in density is consistent with the revised General Plan designation and will create a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities in the vicinity. The subject lot is located south of Crest Road, which consists of density levels lower (1 to 2 du/ac) than the properties located to the north (2 to 4 du/ac). At the Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection, the two corner properties to the north are developed with residential development on lot sizes and configurations similar to the proposal on the subject southeast lot. The properties to the north are located at a higher elevation with views of the ocean and Catalina Island over the properties located south of Crest Road. Additionally, some properties to the south have views over each other's property of the same view. Acknowledging the existing views, future development of the new lots will be limited to a single -story. With this height restriction, allowing a higher density on the subject lot for residential development consistent with existing developments north of Crest Road allows for a reasonable transition between the lower and higher densities in the area. Also, the requirements of the coastal specific plan do not apply, as the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, minutes and records of the proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby: a) Approves the General Plan Amendment, thereby allowing a change in the land use designation from Residential 1 to 2 du/ac (R1-2) to Residential 2 to 4 du/ac (R2-4), b) Approves Tentative Parcel Map 72999 (Exhibit 'B') with a Variance; thereby allowing the subdivision of a single vacant lot into two separate lots with reduced lot widths of 67.5', subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 St day of April 2015. Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No 2015-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on April 21, 2015. City Clerk Exhibit `A' (Conditions of Approval) Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999, Variance Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 & SUB2014-00004 5656 Crest Road General Within 90 days of this approval, the applicant and/or 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within 90 days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. 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. 3. 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. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the City Council, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. 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. 5. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 6. The subdivision allows for two parcels that shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -4 Zoning District, with a reduced lot width of 67.5'. Vacant Lot 1 will contain a lot area of 10,306ft2; while Lot 2 will also be vacant and contain a lot area of 10,420ft2. Both lots will measure 67.5' in width by 120' in depth. 7. This approval expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the City Council in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. "T,A No 8. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 9. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map 72999 10. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 11.A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 12.All existing easements shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 13. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 14. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map 72999 15. Parkland dedication fees, pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Development Code, shall be paid to the City. 16. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 17. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance #99-0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map 72999 18. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar and copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Future Development Proposals 19. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive, and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. 20. Future development of the lots shall comply with the RS -4 requirements of the City's Municipal Code at the time and date the Tentative Parcel Map is approved by the City. 21. Future development of the lots shall comply with the City -adopted Mitigation Measures associated with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the map. 22. Future development proposals shall be restricted to a maximum building height of 16', as measured from the highest point covered by structure to the ridgeline; and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridgeline, for a single -story structure on each of the proposed lots. 23. Future development proposals will require submittal of appropriate applications for review to the City, including, but not limited to a Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis. 24.A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line. 25.All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. 26. Addresses for the proposed vacant lots shall be obtained by the property owner from the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject parcel(s). 27.The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public street that may be damaged during any future development of the subject parcels. 28.All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. 29. Future development of the vacant parcels shall be subject to review by the City's Geotechnical Consultant prior to obtaining approval of any Planning Division applications for development. 30. Prior to Building or Grading Permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with Public Works Department requirements, including, but not limited to, landscaping and curb cuts to the Public Works Director's satisfaction. Exhibit `B' (Tentative Parcel Map 72999) SCALE: 1 " - 20' TENTATIVE 64' SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET PARCEL MAP �/ �} NO. ^-/� 2 9 9 9 I SUBDIVIDER . ! ted 28 LMC MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 4040 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, STE 250 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NEWPORT BEACH, CA x2666 (949) 230-1446 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2 LEGAL DESeRIPTHJN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENGINEER E...... . i . ... THAT PORTION OF LOT 75 OF LA.C.A NO. 51, IN THE 42.00'Z DENN ENGINEERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER �j CS MAP RECORDED IN ROOX 1 PAGE 1, OF ASSESSOR'S FOR SUBDIVISION MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER PURPOSES 3914 DEL AND BLVD., STE. 421 TORRANCE, CA 90503 N, 3Ca7L " OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: �b01 (310) 542-9433 r yJF CI Y1 &t;T COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF CREST ROAD (100 FEET WIDE) AND THE CENTERLINE OF WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE (70 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 27759. AS PER MAP RECORDED IN 400K 695 PAGES. 96 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OEFl" OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE OF CREST ROAD. NORTH 50' 00. 13" EAST 197.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 39' 59' 47' EAST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID OUT ROAD. SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION: THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 39' 59' 47" EAST 13ti FEET; THENCE SOUTH 50' 00' 13"' WEST 152.47 FEET 70 A POINT IN A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 508.00 FEET, WHICH SAID. CURVE IS TANGENT TO A LINE THAT 15 PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY 42 90 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SAFO CENTER LINE OF WH17LEY COLLINS DRIVE; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 50.70 FEET TO SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 39' 59' 47' WEST 57 39 FEET TO THE CF ,;Atte GATE 6-17-14 GARY J ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 NOTES I. ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. ALL UTILITIES AND SEVER -ARE LOCATED IN ALUACENT STREETS 3 THIS IS 2 LOT SUBDIVISION *TRACTNO 38848 M 13_ 1017-6-14 BEC ING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND VICINITY MAP (SATS) HAVING A RAOIUS OF 27.00 FEET, WHICH SAID CURVE IS ALSO TANGENT TO SAID SOL THEASTERLY LINE OF CREST ROAD; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 42.41 FEET TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY UNE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 50' 00' 13` EAST 128.00 FEET TO THE TRLE POINT OF BEGINNING JOB ADDRESS FLISLS AF REARING S THE BEARING OF N 49.59"27-E SHOWN AS THE BEARING OF THE 5556 CREST ROAD CENTERLINE OF CREST ROAD ON TRACT NO.38848 M.B. 1017-8-14, RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90275 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS PLAT. APN 7581-033-002 I CREST EST R O AHD 4.' C.3 iJ FD 2° IP @ R.C. ��^o k /9"99•d9'E 2J2.93'� o e t _ -35`d 35.93---'-----]]] { FD SPK LS 5411 . � sy ae Dvr+Y 1 ry 0� a A 8 0 F� Pte* sy a vry 6�9 �� t 4 L&T RCE 30826 TO OF SET 2.00' W'LY OF CORNER -- H 49'S9'27'E 128,00" LrnVt' ae. At. slr>F1++Tx ,I- L&T RCE 30826 ' BE SET WCORNER yLY OF CORNER / 134 Z3. 71 I� II A� 10.366 SO FT" H 1759'21'� 155,00' I I � I I � I I 111-E € I 165 2A I � I fIf � W'LY FINE OF LOT 49 • A= 10,420 SO FT j G TRANSFORMER ,� .REM41!0_ Y18s -- _l____va• N'LY FINE OF LOTS 48 & 49 ', ` e lr � 164 9i1• 9 Ell GH III R.K LA Co R.M. NO. Y 8545 PALOS VERDES QUAD .31 9.xc. (ADJ) 2005 z10 ELEV = 1183.485 NOTE: ADD 1000.90 TO ALL •20a 66 I .GGE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. 14-314 A-51 64' 6208 EC� 4z 4z• I 'Pzq, ted 28 FD SPK s1 2 42.00'Z a t83 .8209FG L �b01 K'� u+ 193 o n rt 4 0 42.19' is33dID. U ` L Y IIIII 51 I1 Y 4 L&T RCE 30826 TO OF SET 2.00' W'LY OF CORNER -- H 49'S9'27'E 128,00" LrnVt' ae. At. slr>F1++Tx ,I- L&T RCE 30826 ' BE SET WCORNER yLY OF CORNER / 134 Z3. 71 I� II A� 10.366 SO FT" H 1759'21'� 155,00' I I � I I � I I 111-E € I 165 2A I � I fIf � W'LY FINE OF LOT 49 • A= 10,420 SO FT j G TRANSFORMER ,� .REM41!0_ Y18s -- _l____va• N'LY FINE OF LOTS 48 & 49 ', ` e lr � 164 9i1• 9 Ell GH III R.K LA Co R.M. NO. Y 8545 PALOS VERDES QUAD .31 9.xc. (ADJ) 2005 z10 ELEV = 1183.485 NOTE: ADD 1000.90 TO ALL •20a 66 I .GGE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. 14-314 A-51 C.C. Ordinance No. (Zone Change) A-52 ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A ZONE CHANGE FOR 5656 CREST ROAD FROM RS -2 TO RS -4 (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014- 00004). WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes in order to support a lot split for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, and after considering information as part of the public record, allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations to accommodate a lot split for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014, and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commencing on January 15, 2015 and concluding on January 25, 2015. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2015-04 (3-2 vote with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and published on the same day in the Daily Breeze and subsequently published in the Peninsula News on March 19, 2015; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public A-53 hearing on April 21, 2015, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; 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 Council reviewed an Initial Study and certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration under Resolution No. 2015-_, which determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment, provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project involves a change in the zoning map designation of a vacant property from RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac) for the subdivision of a single vacant lot into two separate lots with reduced lot widths. Section 2: With the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic in the community as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be below a level of significance. Therefore, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 2015-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, including the requested zone change. Section 3: The proposed change in the zoning designation is warranted, since the proposed Zoning is consistent with the revised General Plan land use designation that is approved as part of this project. The General Plan describes R24 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." Based on this description, the properties south of Crest Road were designated as R1-2 because there are public views and vistas across said area in a southerly direction of the ocean and Catalina Island, while the properties north of Crest Road were designated as R24 because there are no views across that area. The incorporation of the restriction that limits future development to one-story structures on the new lots would preserve the existing views and vistas as structures up to 16' in height are allowed by -right and there are no views across that area. This amendment also is consistent with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3) that also governs the property, which was established to preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands. Additionally, since two of the four corners on Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road intersection have the same density with similar developments as proposed by this application, the proposal to increase the density to match said developments is a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities located south and north of Crest Road, respectively. Thus, the proposed revision to the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the revised general plan designation of R2-4 and is in the public interest because it is consistent with development in the vicinity and provides a transition between lower and higher density development. Section 4: The approval of the zone change is in the public interest because it would allow for the most compatible development for the surrounding area. More specifically, the existing zoning designation allows for either one larger home or an automobile service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The development of one larger home at a visible corner lot along Crest Road, while the other two existing corners at the same intersection are developed with more modest homes, would not be visually compatible. Additionally, allowing for an automobile service station in the subject location would be even less compatible, as the surrounding area is limited to single-family residential development. The proposed zone change would allow for the subject site to be subdivided into two separate lots, for the development of two modest homes, which would be most compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the Homeowner's Association of the abutting residential tract submitted written correspondence and voiced their support of the proposed project. Section 5: Based upon the facts contained in this Ordinance, in the Staff Report and other components of the legislative record, in the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration, and in the public comments received by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby approves the change in zoning designation for 5656 Crest Road (Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014- 00004), from Single -Family Residential 2 dwelling units per acre (RS -2) to Single -Family Residential 4 dwelling units per acre (RS -4) and the corresponding amendment to the City's zoning map, which is on file in the Department of Community Development. Section 6: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Ordinance, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. 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. A-55 Section 8: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after this passage, in accordance with the provisions of 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. Section 9: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty -fist (31 St) day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 St day of April 2015. Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No._ passed first on April 21, 2015, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City as a regular meeting thereof held on May _, 2015, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk "T o Public Correspondence A-57 So Kim From: Mfbbernard@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:16 AM To: So Kim Subject: Rezoning of 5656 Crest Road Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Ms. Kim, We are in strong disagreement with the rezoning plan of the property located at 5656 Crest Road from R1-2 and RS -2 to R2-4 and RS -4. It is our opinion that enough high density housing is located in Rancho Palos Verdes. As a resident located behind Crest Road, we find that street already overly noisy. Please take into account the citizens of this city who moved here to get away from the crowded streets and noise of other cities in Los Angeles County. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Eric and Mary Bernard • P.C. Minutes (February 10, 2015 Meeting) None PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map, Variance (Case Nos. ZON2014-0029 and SUB 2014-0004); 5656 Crest Road Senior Planner Kim explained the request is to change a land use and zoning designation to a higher density, and to split a vacant lot at the corner of Whitley Collins and Crest Road. She explained that initially staff had concerns related to compatibility with the immediate neighborhood, however the abutting residential neighborhood is a City created tract which excluded the subject southeast lot and the nursery school on the southwest lot. In addition, there is a vehicular gate which separates this tract from these two excluded lots. With this in mind, staff compared the subject lot with the three remaining lots at the same intersection. She stated that staff believes the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area, as detailed in the staff report. She stated that staff also believes there is an exceptional circumstance which applies to this property which does not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district to warrant the proposed substandard lot widths. She explained the property has an auto overlay district allowing for an auto use on the site, and although this type of use can be allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, staff does not believe that would be the most compatible use for the area. She stated that staff believes the most compatible use for this particular lot would be residential. She also stated that, despite the reduced lot widths, staff is in support of the proposal since allowing this type of use will make the lot no longer viable for an auto service station use on the site, as the lot sizes would be too small. She stated that staff is able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval. She noted that the Planning Commission's decision is advisory only, as the final decision will be made by the City Council. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that he met with the applicant and advised the applicant to pay great attention to the feedback from the adjacent neighborhood and to stick very close to staff's recommendations. He noted the current lot is approximately 20,000 square feet, and asked how that compares to the sizes of the lots on the south side of Crest Road. Senior Planner Kim responded that the lots on the south side of Crest Road vary from approximately 12,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet. She also explained the tract was created under a Residential Plan District, therefore the lots do not necessarily have to meet the minimum lot size required by the City. Vice Chairman Nelson also disclosed that he met with the applicant and concurred with Commissioner Emenhiser's advice. Commissioner James noted that in the staff report it is stated that in order to approve a General Plan amendment the City must make certain findings, one of which is that the Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 2 A-60 proposal is in the public's interest. He asked staff why this proposal is in the public's interest. Senior Planner Kim answered that because the HOA representing the property owners on the south side of Crest Road are in support of the proposed project staff feels that in itself supports the project being in the public interest. She also noted that by moving forward with this proposal it will reduce or eliminate the possibility of having this lot developed as an auto service station. Director Rojas added that staff felt that the overall size and scale of the houses built on these lots can be limited so that the views over the lots are maintained. Commissioner James agreed that this is a reasonable proposal, however the question before the Commission is whether the City should change the zoning of the lot, and there are certain rules to do so. He read the requirements to approve a Variance, and asked staff what the substantial property right of the applicant to preserve and enjoy was that required the Variance to be approved. Senior Planner Kim stated that either way the property owner has the right to develop the lot, whether at the current zoning designation of one to two, or the higher density of two to four. She stated that staff felt that allowing this would be compatible and the density didn't make a difference from staffs standpoint. Director Rojas added that staff did not see a problem with developing substandard lots since the residents to the south are part of the Residential Planned Development where the lots do not meet the zoning requirements and are also substandard lots according to the zoning code. Commissioner Cruikshank asked how the minimum widths for lots are determined in different zones and the reasoning for the minimum width. Director Rojas answered that the Code identifies what would be an ample size width and depth of a lot to accommodate a home of a size that would meet the lot coverage and other standards that would apply to that zoning district. Chairman Leon asked if these lots are being invited to join the HOA of the residents to the south, and if the gate to the development is being moved to allow these homes to be part of the development. Senior Planner Kim answered that there is no such plan for either that she is aware of. Chairman Leon asked staff what the maximum home size would be for these lots. Senior Planner Kim explained that the applicant submitted a plan showing an idea in concept of what could be allowed on the lots, which showed a 3,000 square foot home. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 PageA-61 Director Rojas stated that the maximum size of the home will depend on allowable lot coverage, and since there are facets of the development such as walkways, driveways, and hardscape that count towards lot coverage it is difficult to give a maximum size home. In reviewing the staff report, Commissioner Cruikshank questioned why the City would allow expansive soil to be brought to the site when removing the old tanks. He asked if the City monitors what type of soils is brought in when the tanks are removed. Senior Planner Kim explained that at that time the property owner obtained approval from LA County. However, she noted that the City Geologist looked at the lots from a potential development standpoint and determined he soil that currently exists would not be suitable for the type of development that is being proposed. Chairman Leon opened the public hearing. Tristan Harris (representing the applicant) explained that his company originally purchased the property with the intent of developing a commercial use, however after meeting with the surrounding residents and community leaders they realized that would not be a viable option. He explained that he worked with the Island View HOA to develop a plan for this property that would cause the least amount of impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Harris why they looked at developing two houses as opposed to one house on this lot. Mr. Harris explained that two houses is really the only feasible option at this point since the houses are being limited to a single story. He also noted that this property is outside of Island View gates and not part of that community. Louie Tomaro (architect) reiterated that this lot sits lower than the lots behind it, and there is a wall and a gate separating this lot from Island View. He felt this lot relates more to the properties on the north side of the street. He explained that they felt safe ingress and egress to the lot was important, which is why they are proposing the entrance off of Whitley Collins Drive rather than Crest Road. He noted that by doing so the houses were turned, thus creating a lot of a substandard width. Chairman Leon asked Mr. Tomaro if he felt a single home on a 20,000 square foot lot would be viable. Mr. Tomaro explained that given a bigger lot one would tend to build a larger house, and given this is a busy street and the lot sits rather low, it would be a difficult selling point. He also felt that a 5,000 square foot house was not consistent with the properties to the north and it's not a part of the planned development to the south. Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 4 A-62 Don Douthwright stated he is president of the Island View HOA, as well as the property owner immediately to the east of the proposed development, and therefore the property most impacted by the proposed development. He stated that nobody in the neighborhood is interested in having an auto repair shop on this property or any other commercial development. He felt that something should be built on this lot, and the Island View HOA, as well as himself as a property owner, are in favor of two single story homes being built. He stated that he appreciated how closely the applicant has worked with their HOA in their proposal to develop the property. Minas Yerelian stated that the applicant had stated they bought the property as a commercial property then decided the commercial use wasn't viable. He stated that one buys a commercial property they are thinking a commercial business, therefore he felt the applicant's intention from the very beginning was to buy the property and rezone it. He felt that the least the developer could do was to be honest. He asked the Commission to reject this proposal just on the fact that the intentions were misrepresented. Chairman Leon stated that he never heard the applicant misrepresent this project and felt anyone has the right to buy a lot and risk requesting a zone change. Mr. Yerelian responded that before someone buys a commercial property they should do a feasibility study and know whether or not a business will be viable. He stated that his point is that the applicant's intention from the very beginning was to change the zoning and they should be honest about that. Tristan Harris (in rebuttal) explained that all of the remediation has been done on the lot and that the lot only has to be recompacted before development. Chairman Leon closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Emenhiser stated these type of in -fill lots are always problematic, and he commended the applicant and the HOA for working together. He felt that if the applicant comes back with two single story homes along the lines of what has been presented at this meeting, he did not think he would have an issue. Commissioner James agreed with the applicant and staff in that this project makes good sense, however he felt the question of whether or not to change the zoning is a much more serious issue. He did not think it should be the case that anyone who feels they can improve their own economic situation can simply ask for a change of zoning. He noted there is a requirement that the zone change be in the public interest, and he did not think this development is in the public interest, as he did not think it was in the public's interest to have more density and more congestion with the approval of smaller lots in this location. He did not feel there was any factual information given to the Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 5 A-63 Commission to support a finding that they are supposed to make that it is in the public's interest. In addition, he was troubled by the requirement of a substantial property right of the applicant in order to approve a Variance. He stated he did not see this substantial property right, and there was nothing presented in the staff report to change his opinion. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner James, but noted that allowing the zone change and building the homes will keep someone from coming in and building an auto repair or a 7 -Eleven. He felt that it was in the public interest to not allow that to happen. Commissioner Cruikshank was concerned about allowing the creation of substandard lots, which will result in the building of narrow houses. Yet, he agreed with the architect in that it would be difficult to sell one large house built on the lot. Chairman Leon asked staff if the applicant could split the lot with the current zoning. Director Rojas answered that the lot could not be split under the current zoning. Chairman Leon stated his concern is these two homes would be out of character with the surrounding homes and it would almost be like putting two townhomes on this corner. Vice Chairman Nelson agreed with Commissioner James' comments. He noted that he made the motion to approve staff's recommendation knowing that down the road there will be recommendations to change and modify the final design. However, the Commission's purpose at this meeting is to make a recommendation to the City Council for their review and, most likely, modifications. He stated the Commission represents 40,000 people and if a survey were taken he felt that the 40,000 people would much prefer what has been proposed as opposed to many of the alternatives. The motion to approve staff's recommendation, thereby approving PC Resolution 2015-04 was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner James and Chairman Leon dissenting. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Appeal of FenceMall Permit decisions (Case Nos. ZON2014-00202 and ZON2014-00415): 29023 Sprucegrove Drive Senior Planner Kim presented the staff report, explaining that at the last hearing in December the Commission had voted to continue the public hearing to allow both parties to get together with the view mediator to try to resolve their differences. She noted that both the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney agreed that the City Council would have to authorize the use of the view mediator, as the current contract is limited to view purposes only, and to decide if this would be an appropriate use of city funds. She explained that the item was scheduled to be heard by the City Council, Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2015 Page 6 A-64 P.C. Resolution 2015-04 • P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 72999 AND VARIANCE FOR A LOT SPLIT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SU$2014-00004). WHEREAS,. on February 4, 2014, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, provided a strong inclination for the proposal, and allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Pian land use and Zoning designation for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan. Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commenting on January 15, 2015 and concluding on January 25, 2015. 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 has prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law, and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2015, 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: Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 1 of 9 Section 1: That the protect involves a change in the General Plan land use and Zoning map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2 to 4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac) for the subdivision of a single vacant lot into two separate lots with reduced lot widths. Section 2: That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence before the Commission prior to taking action on the proposed project 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 taken, that the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 3: That there are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and therefore, the proposed project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Section 4: That with the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic in the community as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "S", attached hereto, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be below a level of significance. Section 5: That the proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations are warranted since the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Pian and in the public's interest, and the Zoning is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan describes the R1-2 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as public views and vistas which at this density can be controlled through subdivision design. This density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent existing densities andlor a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities." The General Pian describes R2-4 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." Based on these descriptions, the properties south of Crest Road were designated as R1-2 because there are public views and vistas across said area in a southerly direction of the ocean and Catalina Island, while the properties north of Crest Road were designated as R2-4 as there are no views across that area. The incorporation of the restriction for future development to one-story structures on the new lots would preserve the existing views and vistas as structures up to 16' in height are allowed by -right and there are no views across that area. This is also consistent with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3) that also govern the property, which was established to preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands. Additionally, since two of the four corners on Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road intersection have the same density with similar developments as proposed, the proposal to increase the density to match said developments is a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities located south and north of Crest Road, respectively. Section 6: That the Tentative Parcel Map No_ 72999 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because: Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 2 of 9 A-67 A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. More specifically, the subject property is one of four corner lots at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. While the proposed density of R24 is higher than the abutting neighborhood with a density of R1-2, the proposal will match the two corners located immediately across Crest Road. Increasing the density of the subject lot to match those corner lots (northwest and northeast) at the same intersection while limiting future development to single -story residential structures is a reasonable transition from the abutting neighborhood with a lower R1-2 density. Additionally, the new lots with the proposed R2-4 land use density will comply with the minimum lot dimensions required for the corresponding RS -4 zoning district. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code, with exception to lot width. The findings for a Variance is warranted for the reduction in lot with from 75' to 67.5% as evidenced in Section 4 below. Additionally, both lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from Whitley Collins Drive which currently serve the surrounding existing residential development. C, The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposed subdivision will result in two lots that comply with the minimum requirements of the City's Development Code for the proposed RS -4 zoning district with an approved Variance for reduced lot widths. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum contiguous lot area requirement of 3,300ftz for a RS -4 zoning district. The size of the contiguous lot area on the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -4 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from Whitley Collins Drive and utilities are available for future connection as it currently serves the surrounding existing residential developments. D. The design of the subdivision for the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. More specifically, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment, but future development on the parcels may impact air quality, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic in the community unless mitigation measures are adopted. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Additionally, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, any future residential development of the vacant parcel will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards for the RS -4 zoning district and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map and has conditionally approved them accordingly. Furthermore, more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical reports will be required Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 3of9 at the time a future development proposal is submitted on the vacant lots, which must then be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical consultant. Moreover, the placement of the proposed ingress/egress was approved by the City's Engineer consultant for access to the lots. With regards to wastewater and utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a street (Whitley Collins Drive) that will permit connection to an existing public line, that currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing easements on the subject lot. Section 7: That a Variance is warranted for the reduced lot with of 67.5' while 75' minimum is required for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district because: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. More specifically, the proposal involves a zone change to increase the density of the subject property from RS -2 to RS -4 to accommodate the minor subdivision of a single lot into two separate lots. As detailed in Section 5 above, the proposed zone change is warranted. Additionally, the existing lot measures 135' in width by 120' in depth. The proposal is a request to divide this lot in equal halves, resulting in each lot measuring 67.5' in width by 120 in depth, while the Code required minimum is 75' in width by 120 in depth. This lot is one of four corner lots located at the Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive intersection. The two corner lots to the north are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and layouts as the subject proposal. The southwesterly lot is developed with a nursery school, The subject southeast lot was once developed with an auto service station, which has been demolished and completely remediated. This lot is unique as there is an overlay district that allows an auto service station (OC -4) with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit, despite the residential surrounding. Allowing a minor subdivision on this lot for residential development would no longer allow for a viable auto service station primarily due to the substantial reduction in the lot size. Additionally, a residential development on this lot would be the most compatible with the surrounding uses, which are limited to residential with exception to the nursery school. The existing pattern of development in the surrounding area and the unique uses allowed on the subject lot is an exceptional/extraordinary condition that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. More specifically, as detailed in Section 5, the proposed zone change from RS -2 to RS -4 is warranted. The two corner lots at the same intersection to the north of Crest Road and Whitley Collins are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and configurations as the proposal on the subject property. Therefore, the proposal for reduced lot widths for a minor subdivision to accommodate future residential development compatible with the surrounding existing development is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 4 of 9 C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. More specifically, there is an overlay district on the subject lot that allows an auto service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Allowing the subdivision to create two smaller lots would no longer make it viable for the future development of an auto service station. Additionally, a residential use on the subject lot would be most compatible and harmonious as the surrounding area is limited to residential uses. Additionally, future development on the new lots would be limited to single -story structures to minimize potential view impacts from existing residential developments. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant as well as the City's Engineer consultant reviewed the proposal and granted conceptual approval. Lastly, there are existing utilities for connection that already serve the surrounding residential development. D. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. More specifically, the proposed increase in density is consistent with the General Plan as the existing land use designation of R1-2 is described to have social constraints, such as views and vistas which could be controlled through subdivision design for a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities. The subject lot is located south of Crest Road, which consists of density levels lower (1 to 2 du/ac) than the properties located to the north (2 to 4 du/ac). At the Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection, the two corner properties to the north are developed with residential development on lot sizes and configurations similar to the proposal on the subject southeast lot. The properties to the north are located at a higher elevation with views of the ocean and Catalina Island over the properties located south of Crest Road. Additionally, some properties to the south have views over each other's property of the same view. Acknowledging the existing views, future development of the new lots will be limited to a single -story. With this height restriction, allowing a higher density on the subject lot for residential development consistent with existing developments north of Crest Road allows for a reasonable transition between the lower and higher densities in the area. Also, the requirements of the coastal specific plan does not apply as the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, minutes and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council; a) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Approve the General Plan Amendment; thereby allowing a change in the land use designation from Residential 1 to 2 dulac (R1-2) to Residential 2 to 4 du/ac (R2-4), c) Approve the Zone Change, thereby allowing a change in the zoning designation from Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac (RS -2) to Single -Family Residential (RS -4), d) Approve Tentative Parcel Map 72999 with a Variance; thereby allowing the subdivision of a single vacant lot to two separate lots with reduced lot widths of 67.5', as conditions in the attached Exhibit "B". Resolution No, 2015-04 Page 5 of 9 A-70 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1011 day of February 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, Vice Chairman Nelson NOES: Commissioner games, Chairman Leon ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner, Tomblin Joel Roj s, A. Commu ity D :Iop ej Director; and, Plan i a Commission Cordon Leon, Chairman Resolution No. 2015- 04 Page 6 of 9 A-71 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999, Variance Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 & SUB2014-00004 5556 Crest Road General 1. Within 90 days of this approval, the applicant and/or 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within 90 days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. 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. 3. 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, Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the City Council that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. 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. 5. in the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 6. The subdivision allows for two parcels that shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -4 Zoning District, with a reduced lot width of 67.5'. Vacant Lot 1 will contain a lot area of 10,306ftz; while Lot 2 will also be vacant and contain a lot area of 10,420ftz. Both lots will measure 67.5' in width by 120' in depth. 7. This approval expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16,040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the City Council in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 8. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 9, The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 7 of 9 A-72 Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map 72999 10. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 11. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 12. All existing easements shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 13. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items. mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures. 14. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map 72999 15. Parkland dedication fees, pursuant to Section 16,20.100 of the Development Code, shall be paid to the City. 16. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 17. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance #99-0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map 72999 18. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar and copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Future Development Proposals 19. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. Resolution No, 2015-04 Page 8 of 9 A-73 20. Future development of the lots shall comply with the RS -4 requirements of the City's Municipal Code at the time and date the Tentative Parcel Map is approved by the City. 21. Future development of the lots shall comply with the City adopted Mitigation Measures associated with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the map. 22. Future development proposals shall be restricted to a maximum building height of 76', as measured from the highest point covered by structure to the ridgeline; and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridgeline, for a single -story structure on each of the proposed lots. 23. Future development proposals will require submittal of appropriate applications for review to the City, including, but not limited to a Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis. 24. A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line. 25. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department, 26. Addresses for the proposed vacant lots shall be obtained by the property owner from the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject parcel(s). 27. The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public street that may be damaged during any future development of the subject parcels. 28. All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. 29. Future development of the vacant parcel shall be subject to review by the City's Geotechnical Consultant prior to obtaining approval of any Planning Division applications for development. 30. Prior to Building or Grading Permit issuance, the applicant shall comply to Public Works Department requirements, including, but not limited to, landscaping and curb cuts to the Public Works Director's satisfaction. Resolution No. 2015-04 Page 9 of 9 SCALE: 1 " = 20' TENTATIVE SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET SDffwOeR PARCEL MAP NO.72999 LMC MA AMENT GROUP, LLC 404G MACARTHUR BOULEVARD. STE 250 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NEWPORT BEACH, G 92660 (948) 230-1496 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ENGINEER LIS, LEGAL DESCRIPTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA o ° THAT PORTION OF LOT 75 OF LA.CA. NO 51, IN THE DENN ENGINEERS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER ,/1 SUBDIVISION \! C I I1] /1 C� C� 3914 DEL AMC BLVO., STE. 921 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PACE 1. OF ASSESSOR'S FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES TCRRANCE, CA 90503 J1p OJISI <T MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. crVl DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: (310 ) 542,9433 +t ` COMMENCING AT THE ¢NTERSECnON OF THE CENTER LINE OF CREST ROAD (100 FEET WIDE) AND THE CENTERLINE DF WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE (70 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN DN THE MAP OF TRACT N0. 27769, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 695 PAGES 96 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICEOF THE RECORDER OF SAID COLINiY; THENCE ALONG THE SAO CENTERLINE OF CREST ROAD, NORTH 50' DO' i3" EAST 797.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 39' 59' 47" EAST MOO FEET TO A POINT IN THE SDUTHEASTCRLY LINE OF SAID CREST ROAD. SAID POINT SEINCTHE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 39' 59' 47` EAST 135.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 50' CC' 13° WEST 15247 FEET TO A POINT IN A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 508.00 FEET, WHICH SAID CURVE IS TANGENT TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHEASTERLY 42.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SAID CENTER LINE OF WHIPLEY COLLINS DRIVE: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 50.70 FEET TO SAID PARALLEL UNE: THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL UNE NORTH 39' 59' 47' WEST 57 39 FEET TO THE fX 7. DATE 6-17-14 GARY ' ROEHC R.C.E.. 30828 NOTES 1, ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TD BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 2 ALL U71UT1ES AND SEWER ARE LOCATED IN ADJACENT STREETS 3 THIS IS 2 LOT SUBDIVISION *TRACT NO. 38848 MB- 1017-8-14 SECINNINC OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND VICINITY MAP (NTS) HAVING A RADIUS OF 27.00 FEET. WHICH SNO CURVE IS ALSO TANGENT TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CREST ROAD, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 42.41 FEET TO SAID SOUTHFASTENLY FINE, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 51 00' 13' FAST t28 00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING JOB ADDRESS THE BEARING OF N 49-!,9'27E SHOWN AS THE BEARING OF THE 5656 CREST ROAD CENTERLINE OF CREST ROAD ON TRACT N0.38848 M,B 1017-8-14, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS PLAT APN 7581-033-OC2 CREST ROAD ED 2` LP ® B.0 O 49'79'211 35293'_ I �� FD $PK LS 5411 1J I 19 I AI 'd?°4. _c i4 RD �dJ - i `i ya JJ 't•4"d~3p f `pp 'TS fejd .qy om s35 MH N 49'59'27' avSYY A.C. 9i0EMAV< 1 4—a3 14 A-75 128 W 3 a +�� ME PCE 30825 � WI 8E SET 20 W' 0' LY OF CORNER ♦r I .62 es Tc A= 10.306 SD FT'\ � 7 •9 ` r Inm. o l ,a173T f'I 42' � 42' i FD SPK Fc 18226 LTI+ - N 19'50 Y1'E ty7.po' I 42.tl0' I a'tv€E O r aj E29f 2a W'LY LINE OF LOT 49 I ra144 cc n o A- 10,420 50 FT i� 1 V�.�__..- $1®5p1 I Iii J Q� d'EASING TRANSFORMER _ 4 TG 4219• -`--- _ - - - -- - 1 jll O �! S L&T RCE 30826 TO AF SET 2 00. N'LY LINE OF LOTS 48 & 49 W'tY OF CORNER o� '} 9iN4NYAaX 1l LA CO B.M. NC. Y 8545 PALOS VERDES GLAD y (AOJ) 2005 I4 7103, RIDGE. ELEV . 1183.485 NOTE: ADD 1000.00 TO ALL r .toe ss v-oc[ ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAF 1 4—a3 14 A-75 P.C. Staff Deport (February 10, 2015 Meeting) CITY OF Ll RANCHO PALOSVERDES STAFF REPORT s, t REST'___ THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 8231A-2 COMMUNITY DEVLLOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOP ECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2015 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 72999 AND VARIANCE (ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014-00004) PROJECT ADDRESS: 5656 CREST ROAD APPLICANT: ARBOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC. LANDOWNER: UNION OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA STAFF SO KIM COORDINATOR: SENIOR PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING MAP DESIGNATIONS OF A VACANT PROPERTY FROM R1-2 AND RS -2 TO R2-4 AND RS -4 FOR A► SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE VACANT LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH REDUCED LOT WIDTHS. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-_; THEREBY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 1) CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 2) APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 72999 AND VARIANCE, SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS (ZON2014-00279 & SUB2014-00004). REFERENCES: ZONING: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -2), URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY (OC -3), AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION OVERLAY CONTROL DISTRICT (OC -4) LAND USE: VACANT CODE SECTIONS: 16.12, 16.24, 17.02, 17.40, 17.64, 17.68, 17.80, 17.88 GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL (1-2 DUTAC) TRAILS PLAN: NONE SPECIFIC PLAN: NONE CEQA: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 / BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-78001 DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293A_7 7 E-MAIL PLANNINGgDRPVCOM/ WWWPALOSVERDESC;OM/RPV ACTION DEADLINE: JUNE 20, 2095 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE JAmF2 1:161irk,18] On February 4, 2014, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road. On May 20, 2014, the City Council considered the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change initiation requests. The purpose of the discussion was to allow the applicant an opportunity to elicit feedback from the City Council on the proposed land use change. At the meeting, the Council, except Councilman Knight, provided a strong inclination for the proposal, including the creation of two lots with a reduced lot width dimension. This first step allowed the applicant to proceed with the formal review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designation for the subject site, as part of the applicant's lot split request. On July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on preliminary review, the application package was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014. On January 15, 2015, notice of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies. Additionally, the notice was published on the same day in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff received one letter in support (attached) of the proposed project after the May 20, 2014 City Council meeting and none during the public commenting period. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is a vacant 20,726ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. The subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School, in a converted former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1- 2 du/ac) and RS-2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. The proposed project involves changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. More specifically, the applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 20,726ft2 lot into two separate lots measuring 10,306ft2 and 10,420ft2 in size, to accommodate the future development of a single- family dwelling on each lot. Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.D of the City's Subdivision • Ordinance, each lot created by a map shall include a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,000ft2 or 33% of the minimum lot area required by the appropriate residential base zoning district standards, whichever is greater. The contiguous lot area shall not include the required setback areas and slopes equal to or greater than 35%. Since the subject property is located within a RS -2 zoning district and 33% of the minimum lot area (20,000ft2) is 3,300ft2, which is greater than 3,OOOft2, Staff has determined that the applicant must possess a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300ft2 on each lot to allow the proposed subdivision. As proposed, the contiguous lot area for Lots 1 and 2 are at over 3,300ft2 for each lot (4,489ft2 and 5,672ft2). These calculations exclude the required setbacks and all slopes greater than 35% (none on the subject property). As shown on the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 72999, both lots will have access (ingress and egress) from Whitley Collins Drive. The City's Engineer has recommended that Whitley Collins Drive be the street of access for any future driveway to the lots and for drainage due to the orientation and corner lot location of the parcel. Further, there are existing public utilities that serve the existing residential development surrounding the subject parcel for future connection purposes. Lastly, development is not proposed on either vacant parcel at this time, nor are any other uses proposed for the lot. Nonetheless, pursuant to the City's Development Code since the request includes a tentative parcel map, the applicant is required to submit any future development ideas for the lots to City Staff. In general, the applicant would like to propose a single -story, 3,OOOft2 residential structure (including garage) on both lots 1 and 2. The locations of the residences comply with the required setback standards and lot coverage limitations for structures Located within the proposed RS -4 zoning designation. However, approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is not authorization for future development of the lot, as the applicant/landowner will still need to receive proper City approvals for the development of either lot (i.e. approval of a Site Plan Review). A Vested map only ensures that the Development Code regulations in effect at the time the parcel map is approved will govern development of the site in the near future, even if amendments are made to the Development Code. Specifically, according to the City's Development Code, the rights of a vested map will expire if a final map is not approved or extended prior to the expiration of the tentative map (24 months). FBI GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE According to California Government Code Section No. 65353, the Planning Commission is required to hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption or amendment of a General Plan to the City Council. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section No. 17.68.040 requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on Zone Changes. The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan land use and corresponding Zoning designations of the subject parcel from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single-family residential, 2 du/ac) to RS -4 (Single-family residential, 4 du/ac), respectively. While the current land use and zoning designation would only allow for the development of one dwelling unit on the subject property, the proposed re -designation and rezoning could allow for a subdivision and the development of two dwelling units. In order to approve a General Plan Amendment, the City must find that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan and is in the public's interest. A-79 The properties to the north of Crest Road have a higher laird use density of R2-4, allowing for increased lot coverage compared to the properties to the south (referred to as Island View residential tract) which have a lower land use density of R1-2, providing for more open space. Below is an aerial of the two neighborhoods as a visual comparison of the lot sizes and zoning designations. In comparing the proposed lot split to neighboring properties in terms of lot size, Island View properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are less than the required minimum of 20,000ftz for the corresponding RS -2 zoning district, with the smallest lots measuring 12,000ft2. This is because this tract is a Residential Planned Development (RPD) which allows for smaller lot sizes in exchange for providing common open space areas. The proposed new lot sizes of 10,306ft2 and 10,420ft2 for lots 1 and 2, respectively, will be slightly smaller than what exists in Island View. However, the proposed lot sizes would be consistent with the existing development located north of Crest Road. More specifically, the northwest and northeast corners of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive consist of two lots developed with residential structures in similar configurations and sizes as the pending proposal for the subject southeast corner lot. Additionally, the proposed lot sizes would meet the minimum required size of 10,000ft' for the proposed R2-4/RS-4 land use and zoning designations. However, the proposed lot width of 67.5' for the new lots would not meet the minimum required 75' for the RS - 4 zoning district. As such, a Variance request to allow for a reduced lot width is proposed as part of this request. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Island View Homeowner's Association (HOA) submitted the attached letter and spoke at the City Council initiation hearing in support of the proposal. The attached letter describes that the applicant met with the Island View HOA with their proposal on a couple occasions. In response to potential view impairment concerns raised by the HOA, the applicant agreed to limit the height of future residential development on the new lots to a single -story structure. With this design alternative, the Island View HOA voted in favor of the proposal. The General Plan describes the 131-2 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as public views and vistas which at this density can be controlled through subdivision design. This • density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities. " The General Plan describes R2-4 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." The only difference between R1-2 and R2-4 appears to be that the properties designated as R1-2 have more physical constraints than that of R2-4. Based on these descriptions, Staff believes that all properties south of Crest Road were designated as R1-2 because there are public views and vistas across said area in a southerly direction of the ocean and Catalina Island, while the properties north of Crest Road were designated as R2-4 as there are no views across that area. Moreover, Staff believes that with the restriction to only allow one-story structures on the new lots of the existing views and vistas as experienced from neighboring properties would be preserved since structures up to 16' in height are allowed by - right and there are no views across that area. This is also consistent with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3) that also governs the property, which was established to preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands. Additionally, since two of the four corners on Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road have the same density with similar developments as proposed, Staff believes that the proposal to increase the density to match said developments is a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities located south and north of Crest Road, respectively. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan. It should be noted, according to Government Code Section No. 65358, any element of the General Plan may be modified a maximum of four times per calendar year. Should the requested General Plan amendment be approved, it would represent the first amendment to the General Plan this year. Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.E of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, no map shall be approved by the Planning Commission unless it complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission must consider the following required findings (shown in bold) prior to rendering a decision, along with Staff's analysis (shown in normal type): 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan The proposal includes an amendment to the General Plan land use designation from Residential 1-2 dwelling units/acre (R1-2) to Residential 2-4 dwelling units/acre (R2-4). All new residential lots within the proposed R2-4 density range must maintain a minimum lot size of 10,000ft2. As noted earlier in the report, the subject property is one of four corner lots at the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road. While the proposed density of R2-4 is higher than the abutting neighborhood with a density of R1-2, the proposal will match the two corners located immediately across Crest Road. As noted earlier, Staff believes that increasing the density of the subject lot to match those corner lots (northwest and northeast) at the same intersection while limiting future development to single -story residential structures is a reasonable transition from the abutting neighborhood with a lower R1-2 density. Additionally, lots 1 and 2 will be 10,306ft' and 10,420ft2 in size, respectively, which is consistent with the proposed R2-4 General Plan land use designation. Therefore, this finding can be met. • 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan requires new lots to comply with the lot dimensions listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district. The proposal includes a zone change from RS -2 to RS -4. Based on the requested zone change, the table below identifies the minimum Development Code requirements to create new lots within the RS -4 zoning district compared to what is being proposed. RS -4 ZONING DISTRICT Lot Size Area Lot Depth Lot Width Minimum Required 10,000 (ft2) 3,3 100' 75' ftz Lot 1 10,306 4,489 120' 67.5 Lot 2 10,420 5,672 120' 67.5 According to the table above, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code, with exception to lot width. As noted earlier, a Variance request for a reduced lot width is part of the pending application. The Variance findings with Staff's analysis are noted below with a recommendation of approval. Additionally, both lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from Whitley Collins Drive. Therefore, Staff believes that the configuration of the proposed subdivision will result in two residential lots that comply with the development standards of the RS -4 zoning district. Further, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan requirement for compliance with the zoning criteria. As such, this finding can be met. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. The subject property is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development since the subdivision will result in two lots that comply with the minimum requirements of the City's Development Code and RS -4 zoning district with an approved Variance for reduced lot widths. Additionily, each of the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that exceeds 3,300ft2, which is the minimum required for a RS -4 zoning district. Pursuant to Section 15.04.040.D of the Development Code, the contiguous lot area is the gross lot area less slopes steeper than thirty-five (35) percent and the required setback areas. The contiguous lot area is considered that portion of the property that will be used as the building pad and/or buildable area for any future single-family residences. Based on the applicant's preliminary site plans (attached), the size of the contiguous lot area on the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a single -story residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -4 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from Whitley Collins Drive and utilities are available for future connection as it currently serves the Island View community. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the size of the proposed vacant lots will be physically suitable for residential development, utilities can be provided, and access can be attained safely. As such, this finding can be met. • 4. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed subdivision will create two additional lots in an area that is solely developed with single-family residential structures. In regards to significant impacts to the environment, the Initial Study prepared by Staff determined that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment as it relates to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, mineral resources, population/housing, recreation, utilities/service systems in the CEQA guidelines, but future development on the parcels may impact air quality, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic in the community unless mitigation measures are adopted. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration with appropriate mitigation measures was prepared and attached for Commission review. Additionally, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed project and any potential future development will not cause significant damage to the environment or injure any fish or wildlife. Therefore, this finding can be met. 5. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed project consists of a minor lot split of an existing residential lot that will not cause serious public health problems. Any future residential development of the vacant parcel will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map and has conditionally approved them accordingly. Furthermore, more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical reports will be required at the time a future development proposal is submitted on the vacant lots, which must then be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical consultant. In addition to the requirements mentioned above, the applicant will be required to improve the vacant lot to sustain residential development, which will not be detrimental to the public health and safety. As for drainage, Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the applicant mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property, to any adjacent properties. Staff has incorporated conditions that require the applicant to address all drainage flow concerns prior to building permit issuance of future developments. Further, the placement of the proposed ingress/egress was approved by the City's Engineer consultant for access to the lots. With regards to wastewater and utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a street (Whitley Collins Drive) that will permit connection to an existing public line, that currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that this finding can be made since the proposed subdivision will result in lots that can sustain future residential development that will not cause any serious public health problems. Therefore, this finding can be met. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. There are no existing easements on the subject lot and therefore, this finding can be met. VARIANCE Pursuant to Section 17.64 of the City's Development Code, when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general intent and purpose occur by reason of the strict interpretation of any of its provisions, the Planning Commission, upon verified application of any interested persons, may consider a variance from the development provisions. The Planning Commission, before granting a variance, must consider the following required findings (shown in bold with Staff's analysis in normal type) prior to rendering a decision: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district; The proposal involves a zone change to increase the density of the subject property from RS -2 to RS -4 to accommodate the minor subdivision of a single lot into two separate lots. As evidenced in earlier discussions, Staff is able to make all required findings and recommends approval to the zone change. Additionally, the existing lot measures 135' in width by 126' in depth. The proposal is a request to divide this lot in equal halves, resulting in each lot measuring 67.5' in width by 120 in depth, while the Code required minimum is 75' in width by 120 in depth. While generally Staff would not be in support of creating substandard lots, there is an exceptional and extraordinary condition that warrants the reduced lot with. More specifically, this lot is one of four corner lots located at the Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive intersection. The two corner lots to the north are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and layouts as the subject proposal. The southwesterly lot is developed with a nursery school. The subject southeast lot was once developed with an auto service station, which has been demolished and completely remediated. This lot is unique as there is an overlay district that allows an auto service station (QC -4) with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit, despite the residential zoning of the lot and surrounding residences. Allowing a minor subdivision on this lot for residential development would no longer allow for a viable auto service station primarily due to the substantial reduction in lot sizes. Staff believes that a residential development on this lot would be the most compatible with the surrounding uses, which are limited to residential with exception to the nursery school. Therefore, Staff believes that the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area and the potential commercial use conditionally allowed on the subject lot is an exceptional/extraordinary condition that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. As such, this finding can be met. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district; As mentioned in earlier discussions, Staff is recommending approval to the proposed increased density of the lot from RS -2 to RS -4 and the two corner lots at the same intersection to the north of Crest Road and Whitley Collins are already developed with residential structures on lots with e" similar sizes and configurations as the proposal on the subject property. Therefore, Staff believes that a variance for a reduced lot width to allow for a minor subdivision to accommodate future residential development compatible with the surrounding existing development is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Therefore, this finding can be met. 3. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located; and Staff does not believe that allowing a reduced lot width for a minor subdivision to accommodate future development compatible with the surrounding existing developments will be detrimental or injurious to the area. As mentioned earlier, there is an overlay district on the subject lot that allows an auto service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Allowing the subdivision to create two smaller lots would no longer make it viable for the future development of an auto service station. Despite the overlay district, Staff believes that residential use would be most compatible and harmonious as the surrounding area is limited to residential uses. Additionally, future development on the new lots would be limited to single -story structures to minimize potential view impacts from existing residential developments. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant as well as the City's Engineer consultant reviewed the proposal and granted conceptual approval. Lastly, there are existing utilities for connection that already serve the surrounding residential development. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be met. 4. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. Granting the variance for reduced lot widths would allow for a subdivision of the subject lot, while denying the variance would not allow for a subdivision. If the subdivision is not allowed, Staff would not be in support of the proposed land use and zone change designations to increase the density of the lot. As described in more detail in earlier discussions, Staff believes that the proposed increase in density is consistent with the General Plan as the existing land use designation of R1-2 is described to have social constraints, such as views and vistas which could be controlled through subdivision design for a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities. The subject lot is located south of Crest Road, which consists of density levels lower (1 to 2 du/ac) than the properties located to the north (2 to 4 du/ac). At the Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection, the two corner properties to the north are developed with residentialdevelopment on lot sizes and configurations similar to the proposal on the subject southeast lot. The properties to the north are located at a higher elevation with views of the ocean and Catalina Island over the properties located south of Crest Road. Additionally, some properties to the south have views over each other's property of the same view. Acknowledging the existing views, the applicant agreed to limit future development of the new lots to a single - story. With this height restriction, Staff feels that allowing a higher density on the subject lot for residential development consistent with existing developments north of Crest Road allows for a reasonable transition between the lower and higher densities in the area. Therefore, Staff believes that granting the variance will be consistent with the General Plan. Also, the requirements of the coastal specific plan does not apply as the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone. As such, this finding can be met. "Ow ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATIONS AND FEES Pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay in lieu fees, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes. As a general standard for the City, it is found and determined that the public's interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require 4 acres of land for each one 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to local parks and recreation purposes. The formulas for dedication of land or in lieu fees are stated in the Development Code under Section 16.20.100 and are based on the number of lots being created and the parkland acreage requirement per dwelling unit. At the time the final parcel map is filed, the subdivider shall dedicate the land or pay the parkland fees as determined by the City Council, and as mentioned earlier in the Staff Report under the Environmental section. A condition requiring payment of the appropriate fees based on the Municipal Code is included in the attached resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff prepared an Initial Study of the project's environmental impacts (see attached). Based on the Initial Study, Staff determined that the proposed lot split and future development on the parcels would have potential significant effects on the environment unless mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, and as such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for comments to the State Clearinghouse and required public agencies for a period of 20 days, beginning on January 15, 2015 and concluding on January 25, 2015. No comments were received to date. The Initial Study has concluded that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment as it relates to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, mineral resources, population/housing, recreation, utilities/service systems in the CEQA guidelines, but future development on the parcels may impact air quality, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic in the community. Since the proposal currently does not involve any new construction or alteration to the existing site and contours but has significant potential to be developed with future single-family residential structures in the near future, Staff has incorporated the following mitigation measures to help protect the environment: • AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. • AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. • AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. • AQ -4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk material or other debris onto public paved roadways. • AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment. • GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. • GS -2. Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. • HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. • HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. • HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. • LU -1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single -story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. • N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9: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. • PS -1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City„ for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. • T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. • T-2. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. The attached Mitigation Monitoring Program includes these mitigation measures to ensure that no future development projects on either lot will have a potentially significant impact on these resources. Once again, the measures will not directly affect the division of land application, but rather any future development on the lots (i.e. single family homes). Therefore, Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be approved and adopted for this project. • rather any future development on the lots (i.e. single family homes). Therefore, Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be approved and adopted for this project. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion and analysis of this report, Staff is able to make the required findings for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Variance. Additionally, Staff believes that the proposed subdivision complies with the City's Subdivision Ordinance and that the proposed project will have no significant impact upon the environment. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999, and Variance for 5656 Crest Road (ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014-00004). ►1WV:'7.Ir111Ih1-*� In addition to Staff's recommendation, alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission include: Recommend denial to the City Council to not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance (ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014-00004) and direct Staff to prepare the an appropriate P.C. Resolution for adoption at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting; or, 2. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. ATTACHMENTS • P.C. Resolution No, 2015- • Tentative Parcel Map 72999 • Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study) • Mitigation Monitoring Program • Public Correspondence • Late Correspondence (May 20, 2014 C.C. Meeting) • C.C. Staff Report and attachments (dated May 20, 2014) � w • P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 72999 AND VARIANCE FOR A LOT SPLIT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5656 CREST ROAD (CASE NOS. ZON2014-00279 AND SUB2014-00004). WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road; and, WHEREAS, on May 20, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests for the subject property, provided a strong inclination for the proposal, and allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designation for the subject site; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2014, the applicants submitted formal applications for said General Pian Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance. Based on preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on July 15, 2014. After subsequent submittals and reviews of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on December 22, 2014; and, WHEREAS, on January 15, 2015, notice of the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Parcel Map and Variance was sent to all property owners within 500' of the subject site and appropriate public agencies for a comment period of 20 -days, commenting on January 15, 2015 and concluding on January 25, 2015. 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. ("CEQK), 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 has prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment provided appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 10, 2015, 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: Resolution No. 2015 - Page 1 of 9 Section 1: That the project involves a change in the General Plan land use and Zoning map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1 to 2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2 to 4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac) for the subdivision of a single vacant lot into two separate lots with reduced lot widths. Section 2: That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence before the Commission prior to taking action on the proposed project 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 taken, that the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 3: That there are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site and therefore, the proposed project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code. Section 4: That with the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic in the community as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B", attached hereto, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be below a level of significance. Section 5: That the proposed change in the General Plan land use and Zoning designations are warranted since the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan and in the public's interest, and the Zoning is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan describes the R1-2 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical constraints, and social constraints, such as public views and vistas which at this density can be controlled through subdivision design. This density is compatible with the Peninsula environment and with adjacent existing densities and/or a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities." The General Plan describes R2-4 land use designation as follows: "Vacant land designated in this density range has low and moderate physical and social constraints and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing and future densities." Based on these descriptions, the properties south of Crest Road were designated as R1-2 because there are public views and vistas across said area in a southerly direction of the ocean and Catalina Island, while the properties north of Crest Road were designated as R2-4 as there are no views across that area. The incorporation of the restriction for future development to one-story structures on the new lots would preserve the existing views and vistas as structures up to 16' in height are allowed by -right and there are no views across that area. This is also consistent with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3) that also govern the property, which was established to preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors and public lands. Additionally, since two of the four corners on Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road intersection have the same density with similar developments as proposed, the proposal to increase the density to match said developments is a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities located south and north of Crest Road, respectively. Section 6: That the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act, the Development Code and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code, because: Resolution No. 2015 - Page 2 of 9 A -9Q A. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan. More specifically, the subject property is one of four corner lots at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. While the proposed density of R24 is higher than the abutting neighborhood with a density of R1-2, the proposal will match the two corners located immediately across Crest Road. Increasing the density of the subject lot to match those corner lots (northwest and northeast) at the same intersection while limiting future development to single -story residential structures is a reasonable transition from the abutting neighborhood with a lower R1-2 density. Additionally, the new lots with the proposed R2-4 land use density will comply with the minimum lot dimensions required for the corresponding RS -4 zoning district. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposal complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code, with exception to lot width. The findings for a Variance is warranted for the reduction in lot with from 75' to 675, as evidenced in Section 4 below. Additionally, both lots 1 and 2 will have ingress and egress from Whitley Collins Drive which currently serve the surrounding existing residential development. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development. More specifically, the proposed subdivision will result in two lots that comply with the minimum requirements of the City's Development Code for the proposed RS -4 zoning district with an approved Variance for reduced lot widths. Additionally, each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum contiguous lot area requirement of 3,300ft2 for a RS -4 zoning district. The size of the contiguous lot area on the vacant lots will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for a RS -4 zoning district, as it pertains to structure size, lot coverage and setbacks. Further, access will be provided from Whitley Collins Drive and utilities are available for future connection as it currently serves the surrounding existing residential developments. D. The design of the subdivision for the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. More specifically, the Initial Study determined that the proposed project will not significantly impact the natural environment, but future development on the parcels may impact air quality, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic in the community unless mitigation measures are adopted. Thus, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Additionally, according to the General Plan's Biotic Species Map, the subject property is not located within an area designated as a blue line stream or an area that contains major wildlife. Further, according to the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP), no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property and/or any nearby properties. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems. More specifically, any future residential development of the vacant parcel will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code standards for the RS -4 zoning district and require approval by the Building & Safety Division to ensure compliance with the California Building Code. Additionally, the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the geotechnical reports that were prepared for the proposed parcel map and has conditionally approved them accordingly. Furthermore, more detailed site and project -specific geotechnical reports will be required Resolution No. 2015 - Page 3 of 9 A_91 at the time a future development proposal is submitted on the vacant lots, which must then be reviewed and approved by the City's Geotechnical consultant. Moreover, the placement of the proposed ingress/egress was approved by the City's Engineer consultant for access to the lots. With regards to wastewater and utilities, the existing parcel is directly adjacent to a street (Whitley Collins Drive) that will permit connection to an existing public line, that currently serve the existing surrounding residential development. F. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not be in conflict with the easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision since there are no existing easements on the subject lot. Section 7: That a Variance is warranted for the reduced lot with of 67.6' while 75' minimum is required for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district because: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. More specifically, the proposal involves a zone change to increase the density of the subject property from R5-2 to RS -4 to accommodate the minor subdivision of a single lot into two separate lots. As detailed in Section 5 above, the proposed zone change is warranted. Additionally, the existing lot measures 136' in width by 120' in depth. The proposal is a request to divide this lot in equal halves, resulting in each lot measuring 67.5' in width by 120 in depth, while the Code required minimum is 75' in width by 120 in depth. This lot is one of four corner lots located at the Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive intersection. The two corner lots to the north are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and layouts as the subject proposal. The southwesterly lot is developed with a nursery school. The subject southeast lot was once developed with an auto service station, which has been demolished and completely remediated. This lot is unique as there is an overlay district that allows an auto service station (OC -4) with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit, despite the residential surrounding. Allowing a minor subdivision on this lot for residential development would no longer allow for a viable auto service station primarily due to the substantial reduction in the lot size. Additionally, a residential development on this lot would be the most compatible with the surrounding uses, which are limited to residential with exception to the nursery school. The existing pattern of development in the surrounding area and the unique uses allowed on the subject lot is an exceptional/extraordinary condition that does not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. More specifically, as detailed in Section 5, the proposed zone change from RS -2 to RS -4 is warranted. The two corner lots at the same intersection to the north of Crest Road and Whitley Collins are already developed with residential structures on lots with similar sizes and configurations as the proposal on the subject property. Therefore, the proposal for reduced lot widths for a minor subdivision to accommodate future residential development compatible with the surrounding existing development is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 4 of 9 A-92 C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. More specifically, there is an overlay district on the subject lot that allows an auto service station with an approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Allowing the subdivision to create two smaller lots would no longer make it viable for the future development of an auto service station. Additionally, a residential use on the subject lot would be most compatible and harmonious as the surrounding area is limited to residential uses. Additionally, future development on the new lots would be limited to single -story structures to minimize potential view impacts from existing residential developments. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant as well as the City's Engineer consultant reviewed the proposal and granted conceptual approval. Lastly, there are existing utilities for connection that already serve the surrounding residential development. D. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. More specifically, the proposed increase in density is consistent with the General Plan as the existing land use designation of R1-2 is described to have social constraints, such as views and vistas which could be controlled through subdivision design for a reasonable transition between lower and higher densities. The subject lot is located south of Crest Road, which consists of density levels lower (1 to 2 du/ac) than the properties located to the north (2 to 4 du/ac). At the Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection, the two corner properties to the north are developed with residential development on lot sizes and configurations similar to the proposal on the subject southeast lot. The properties to the north are located at a higher elevation with views of the ocean and Catalina Island over the properties located south of Crest Road. Additionally, some properties to the south have views over each other's property of the same view. Acknowledging the existing views, future development of the new lots will be limited to a single -story. With this height restriction, allowing a higher density on the subject lot for residential development consistent with existing developments north of Crest Road allows for a reasonable transition between the lower and higher densities in the area. Also, the requirements of the coastal specific plan does not apply as the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Initial Study, Staff Report, minutes and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, Therefore, Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council; a) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Approve the General Plan Amendment; thereby allowing a change in the land use designation from Residential 1 to 2 du/ac (R1-2) to Residential 2 to 4 du/ac (R2-4), c) Approve the Zone Change, thereby allowing a change in the zoning designation from Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac (RS -2) to Single -Family Residential (RS -4), d) Approve Tentative Parcel Map 72999 with a Variance; thereby allowing the subdivision of a single vacant lot to two separate lots with reduced lot widths of 67.5% as conditions in the attached Exhibit °B". Resolution No. 2015 - Page 5 of 9 A-93 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10111 day of February 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Gordon Leon, Chairman Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Resolution No_ 2015 - Page 6 of 9A-94 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map 72999, Variance Case Nos. ZON2014-00279 & SUB2014-00004 5656 Crest Road General 1. Within 90 days of this approval, the applicant and/or 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within 90 days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. 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. 3. 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. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the City Council that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 4. 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. 5. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 6. The subdivision allows for two parcels that shall comply with the minimum lot dimensions required by the Development Code for the RS -4 Zoning District, with a reduced lot width of 67.5'. Vacant Lot 1 will contain a lot area of 10,306ftz; while Lot 2 will also be vacant and contain a lot area of 10,420ft2. Both lots will measure 67.5' in width by 120' in depth. 7. This approval expires 24 months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the Planning Commission, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the City Council in writing and with the appropriate fee prior to the expiration of the map. 8. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement. 9. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the Development Code. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 7 of 9 A-95 Prior to the Submittal of Final Parcel Map 72999 10. According to Section 16.20.130 of the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act, at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform to the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made. 11. A note shall be placed on the final map stating that a geology and/or soils report has been prepared in conjunction with the subdivision. 12. All existing easements shall be clearly illustrated and described on the final parcel map. 13. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures_ 14. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property prior to approval of the final map. Prior to the Recordation of Final Parcel Map 72999 15. Parkland dedication fees, pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Development Code, shall be paid to the City. 16. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. A trust deposit shall be established with the City to cover any costs of the City Engineer's review. 17. Prior to recordation, the applicant shall supply the City with a digital copy of the Final. Parcel Map in the format required by the County of Los Angeles, through ordinance #99-0080. An additional copy for the County of Los Angeles will also be required upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. After Recordation of the Final Parcel Map 72999 18. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar and copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. Future Development Proposals 19. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 8 of 9A_96 20. Future development of the lots shall comply with the RS -4 requirements of the City's Municipal Code at the time and date the Tentative Parcel Map is approved by the City. 21. Future development of the lots shall comply with the City adopted Mitigation Measures associated with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the map. 22. Future development proposals shall be restricted to a maximum building height of 16', as measured from the highest point covered by structure to the ridgeline; and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridgeline, for a single -story structure on each of the proposed lots. 23. Future development proposals will require submittal of appropriate applications for review to the City, including, but not limited to a Grading Permit, Site Plan Review and Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis. 24. A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line. 25. All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities, which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. 26. Addresses for the proposed vacant lots shall be obtained by the property owner from the City prior to issuance of any building permit for the subject parcel(s). 27. The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public street that may be damaged during any future development of the subject parcels. 28. All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. 29. Future development of the vacant parcel shall be subject to review by the City's Geotechnical Consultant prior to obtaining approval of any Planning Division applications for development. 30. Prior to Building or Grading Permit issuance, the applicant shall comply to Public Works Department requirements, including, but not limited to, landscaping and curb cuts to the Public Works Director's satisfaction. Resolution No. 2015 - Page 9 of 9 A-97 Tentative parcel Map 72999 SCALE: i" =20' TENTATIVE SHEET 1 Or 1 SHEET SUBOMOER PARCEL MAP NO. 72999 '99 4b OWIT I Is 'NN LMC MANAGEMENT TWR GROUP, LEG 4040 MACARTBEACH, BOULEVARD. STE 256 RD. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NEWPORT -1495 GA 92660 COUNTY OF LOS 949) 230-1496 ANGELES LEGAL DESCRIPTION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENGINEER LIST � THAI PORTION OF LOT 75 OF L.A.C.A. NO 51, IN THE 9 DENN ENGINEERS z�..N vt� 4 3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER SUBDIVISION p C /1 MAP RECORDED IN HOOK 1 PAGE 1. OF ASSESSOR'S FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES 3914 DEL AMD BLVD., STE. 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 -1 i w, 4.PN0.1, JI€It MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS d� (310) 542 -9433 sf IV1 COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF CREST ROAD (IOD FEET WIDE) AND THE CENTERLINE OF WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE (70 FEET WIDE) AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT N0. 27789, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 695 PAGES 96 THROUGH IOD INCLUSEVE OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SATO COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SATO CENTERLINE OF CREST ROAD, NORTH 50' 00 ,3' EAST 187.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30' 59' 47' EAST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID CREST ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 38' SS' 47" EAST 1135,00 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 50' 00' T3' WEST 152 47 FEET TO A POINT IN A NON -TANGENT CURVE jr CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 508.00 FEET, WHICH SAID ICURVE IS TANGENT TO A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND DESTA14T NORTHEASTERLY 42.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY PROLONGATWN OF THE SAID CENTER LINE OF WHITLEY COLONS DRIVE: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 50-70 FEET TO SAID PARALLEL ONE; ID THENCE ALONG SAPARALLEL LINE NORTH 38' 59' 47' WEST 5739 FEET TO THE �f -1-1 fi � ! kF CFM 4 f —1—/ DATE 6 17-1 a GARY J ROEHL R.C.E 30826 NOTES 1, ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 2 ALL UTILHIE5 AND SEWER ARE LOCATED IN ADI STREETS 3, THIS 15 2 LOT SUBDIVISION s TRACTNO 36848 41.8. 1017-8- T4 BEGINNING; OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND VICINITY MAP (NTS) HAVING A RADIUS OF 2700 FEET, WHICH SAID CURVE IS 460 TANGENT TO SAID SOUTNEA.STENLY LINE OF CREST ROAD, THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 42.41 FEET TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LING THENCE ALONG SND TERLY SOUTNEASLINO NORTH 50 00' 13' EAST 12800 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING JOB ADDRESS r OF RFARRMe THE UCAAIC OF N 49'58'27"E SHOWN AS THE BEARING OF THE 5655 CREST ROAD CENIERLINE OF CREST ROAD ON TRACT N0,38848 M.B- 1017-8-14, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 WAS TAKEN AS THE BASISOr BEARING FOR THIS PIAT 03I� APN 75$1-3-OD2 CREST I C T ROAD ED 2' IP O 8.0 �N 4P59127'E 252.93' IS -0 EO SPK. LS 5411 �. I YAY SG AC S" -Wk. � RCE 30626 rsL&T TO BE SET 2 00' I I W'LY OF CORNER i 1 aa• .s � ,A..a• IRs re ' tl �Sh i i I I I � I j 4538 r 1 pp'�. W'LY LINE OF LOT 49 u I . � 1 �tasJ7 # A I IFENCH M -ARK LA CO B.M. NO. Y 8545 PALOS VERDES QUAD 210 31 Alocc. (ADJ) 2005 ELEV . 1183.485 NC7E; ADD 1000,00 10 ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. A-99 '99 4b OWIT I Is 'NN N 49'!9'27-E 28 b d� bl IA165 A + s�• %' f n $ A= 10,306 SO FT, 182 &E E4 o J t.a276 i N 4459'2)'11 155 flo" F➢ SPK I 42,06' 3 I I&'IREE Q S} I Li p IB1A EG e 7f v /'/ LL 1 � IR] 0 EG � _.._. ,` �. A- 10.420 SO FT EMSIING TRANSFORMER TO 6E REMOVE0 042.19"law 5 Vr- y $ L&T RCE 30828 r � 10 RE SET 2 00' WILY LIN€ OF LOTS 48 & 49 ' W'LY OF CORNER X14{ 4 ' .70b 66 RIDGE �. I YAY SG AC S" -Wk. � RCE 30626 rsL&T TO BE SET 2 00' I I W'LY OF CORNER i 1 aa• .s � ,A..a• IRs re ' tl �Sh i i I I I � I j 4538 r 1 pp'�. W'LY LINE OF LOT 49 u I . � 1 �tasJ7 # A I IFENCH M -ARK LA CO B.M. NO. Y 8545 PALOS VERDES QUAD 210 31 Alocc. (ADJ) 2005 ELEV . 1183.485 NC7E; ADD 1000,00 10 ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. A-99 Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study) A-100 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ILA 1. Project title: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Parcel Map and Variance (ZON2014-00279) 2. Lead agency namel address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 5656 Crest Road City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Union Oil Co. of California P.O. Box 285 Houston, TX 77001 6. General plan designation: Residential (1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RS -2) & Automotive Service Station Overlay (OC -4) 9. Description of project: The proposed project involves changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single - Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. Page 1 of 21 A-1 01 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a vacant 20,468ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. The subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS- 2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 of 21 A-1 02 Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property is generally flat, currently screened with mature foliage. North Single-family residential These residential properties are located in the abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South/East Single-family residential These residential properties are part of a Residential Planned Development, approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. West Nursery School Former Chevron Station converted to Hilltop Nursery School. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 of 21 A-1 02 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015. Figure 2: Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map change and lot split. �s CREST ROAD rD 2' l,P o 0C. — ED SPK LS ,5411 4 �? iL iyY d� S. � � c� e• � P I v'L' 4r, Id 59'75 •E V 20,QC _ { AC srSOulx A d•: /// � 44.. } Ce F,- �� 9 '� % L.bT RCE .}Ail CIATo BE SET YELT or CCK M 10.3CE 50 FT'," 'General Use Plan Land . 42" 42 l RI -2 to R2-4_ - � `�• ` I MS •x2 35 w v?f'.77Y ,36 70 � Zoning,Map Designation"` I 4 r J°I RS -2 tQ RS -4 I ),� W:as.c •has �Mt �44; � MAO �7 • r I .' �`' ••�'�._._ WLY UNE � t6y t1 E�� 1 .. � A+ 1,4'20 � w - i I �I. �_ { 1 t� � h4 '• �� ^�-.,.�- ` ....... ....� � _� r4J114 i hyo „7 , i, .n�w•+�+�..�[S.eees*1M�nn.� �.�cesl � � .r• r LAI RC£ 30626 f � T3 w SFT x' H°Lr t1vE Cr LA'S 4t+ & d9 w.LY OF CCRN:R Page 4 of 21 A-104 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning F--] Biological Resources Q Aesthetics 0 Population and Housing F-1 Energy/Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils = Hazards and Hazardous Material Recreation 0 Hydrology and Water Quality [] Noise Agricultural Resources Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance 0 Transportation and Circulation 0 Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: r7 I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. XD 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project Signature: Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner Date: For: Citv of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 5 of 21 A-105 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 J vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical 1 v buildings, within a state scenic highways? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 +i and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1,8 affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a, b) The term "vista" is defined as a confined view in the City's General Flan, which is usually directed toward a terminal or dominant element or feature. Each vista has, in simplest terms, a viewing station, an object or objects to be seen, and an intermediate ground. Crest Road is identified as a vehicular corridor with views to the south of the ocean and Catalina Island. The subject site is located on the south side of Crest Road. However, since the subject vacant lot is located at the entry of a fully developed residential tract and the abutting property to the south is already developed with a single -story residence at similar building pad level, two new single -story structures as a result of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot -split would not impact the defined scenic vista. Additionally, there are no known scenic resources on the subject lot that would be impacted by the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zone Change for a lot -split. c) The current General Plan Land Use (R1-2) and Zoning Map (RS -2) designations only allow for a single dwelling. The immediate neighborhood is surrounded with the same land use and zoning designation as the subject lot. The proposed land use and zone change for a higher density would allow a lot -split for the development of two separate dwellings on the subject lot. Given that a higher density is proposed, there could be a potential impact to the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. However, because the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analysis review process, any potential adverse aesthetic and view impacts will be mitigated through the City's review process. Nonetheless, the applicant voluntarily met with the surrounding property owners within the Island View Community (residential tract to the south of Crest Road) and agreed to place a one-story height restriction to both future lots on the subject site. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measure LU -1 under the Land Use Section limiting the future residential structures to one-story, 16' in height, the proposed project would cause less than a significant impact to the visual character of its surroundings: d) Any future structure with proposed lighting would be required to obtain entitlements in compliance with the Municipal Code lighting restrictions, which regulate lighting intensity and direction. Therefore, with appropriate conditions of approval, any new lighting on future structures on the site would result in a less than significant impact on light and glare. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide }I Importance Farmland), as shown on Page 6 of 21 A-106 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as 2 defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location 2,12 or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non -a ricultural use? Comments: The existing land use and zoning designations for the subject site is residential. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact to agriculture caused by the proposed project. 3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected a J air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to v substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant For which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air v quality Ian? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five -county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies. The air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map Page 7 of 21 A-1 07 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated amendments simply allow a lot split with future developments on each lot. Any future development on the property would cause some odors and dust during the temporary construction period. However, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a chemical dust suppressant, or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile. AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site. AQ -4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk material or other debris onto public paved roadways. AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the caro compartment. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 4 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or 4 �( by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, 4 marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...}, through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 5 with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? Page 8 of 21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant. Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological $ �, resources, such as tree preservation olic or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, 5 or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve (a_k.a. Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) and the General Plan. The subject site is a formerly an auto service station which has been completely demolished and is now vacant with vegetation. Therefore, there would be no impacts to habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, protected or protected species, as none exist on the subject property. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the pro osal: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State ` CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ` resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or 1,7 unique eolo ical feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,7 J formal cemeteries? Comments: The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre -historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural resources a result of the proposed project. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 6 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, 6 Page 9 of 21 A-109 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 6 d b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the q loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, 13 +� thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a, b, c) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d) Based on a review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation report proposed by the applicant and approved by the City Geologist, the subject site is located on expansive soil. Additionally, as a result of demolishing the former auto service station, the underground storage tank was removed and backfilled. This backfill was determined not suitable for support of new fills or structures and will need to be removed and replaced as part of the future development of the site. As such, prior to any future development of the site, grading will be required for recompaction, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division, City Geologist and the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact: GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be prepared for review and approval by the Community Development Department. e) There are existing sewer lines available along both Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. Therefore, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact.- mpact:GS-2. GS-2.Any future residential development shall be connected to the existing sewer lines. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may Wage 10 of 21 A-110 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of reenhousegases? Comments: a) The approval of the proposed land use and zoning designation change for a lot split allows for the future development of two new residences on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built -out scenario would not be significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, a future development project on the subject site would be required to be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger -car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80 -percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed ro'ect would not cause any impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or ! ro osed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government v Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the Page 11 of 21 A-111 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated _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, J 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 in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuationplan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a- d) The proposed project will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. The site no longer contains contaminated soils and has been cleared with a Case Closure from the Los Angeles County Water Quality Control Board. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project, e, f) There are no airports located within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes or in close proximity of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. f) The subject site is surrounded by developed residential properties. The impact caused by two additional dwellings as a result of the proposed land use and zone change for a lot split is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. h) The proposed project is bounded by a public street to the north and developed properties to the east, west and south. Since there are no wildlands in close proximity to the subject site, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any water Quality standard or 8 wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there 8 yr would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local roundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 10 -pattern of the site or areas, including Page 12 of 21 A-1 12 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially 10 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ualit ? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood v Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding 11 v as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 1 mudflow? Comments: a, fj Any future residential development on the subject site will be required to connect to the existing sewer lines. Prior to development, Building & Safety will review drainage plans and ensure that the future development complies with or obtains necessary [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. Future development projects will be required to apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs would be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. With the following mitigation measures in place, future development of the site resulting from the proposed land use and zone change for the lot split would cause less than Significant impacts; HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for review and approval for compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction activities to protect the water quality. Additionally, post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. b The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the Califomia Water Service Company Page 13 of 21 A-113 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission. The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City with sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking water at a pressure consistent with accepted standards. The subject site already allows for the development of one single dwelling unit and this proposed project would allow for the development of two dwelling units. The potential reduction in permeability of the site as a result would not substantially impact the aquifer volume or the local groundwater table. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. c, d, e) There are no streams or rivers on or in close proximity of the subject site. Currently, rainfall and runoff from surrounding developed properties flow into the existing drainage system. As a mitigation measure, the stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. Therefore, the increased volume of run-off resulting from an additional residential dwelling as a result of the proposed project would not cause Flooding or exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system and therefore result in less than significant impact. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on-site drainage system directed into the existing storm drainage system, subject to review and approval of the Building & Safety Division. g,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. i, j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Furthermore, the subject site is flat and not in an area that would be subject to mudflow. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide and established J community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific 1, 2, 3, 8 J plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,4 �! community conservation Ian? Comments: a) The proposed land use and zoning designation change, allowing a higher density to allow a lot split for the development of two residential developments may significantly impact the established community surrounding the subject lot (Island View Community). While the properties to the north of Crest Road within the City of Rolling Hills Estates are zoned RS -4, allowing for increased lot coverage, properties within Island View residential tract provide for more open space as they are less dense, zoned RS -2. More specifically, the properties to the north are limited to 50% lot coverage, while Island View properties are limited to 40%. In relation to lot sizes, Island View properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are less than the required minimum of 20,000ft2 for the underlying RS -2 zoning district. However, it should be noted that Residential Planned Developments generally allow for smaller lot sizes for providing common open space areas. For example, the lot sizes for Island View properties range from approximately 12,OOOft2 to 20,000ft2. The proposed new lot sizes on the subject lot will be approximately 10,000ft2 in size, which will be even smaller than what exists in Island View and half Page 14 of 21 A-11 4 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated of what is required for new lots in the RS -2 zoning district. The required minimum lot width and depth for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district is 90' and 120', respectively. The lot width and depth of the two new lots is proposed to be 67.5' by 120', respectively. As a result, approval of a Variance application would be required to create the new substandard lots with non -conforming lot widths. Given that the existing lot currently meets the lot size, width and depth of the underlying zoning designation of RS -2, which is also consistent with the abutting RS -2 residential tract, there are concerns with the proposed project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Acknowledging the compatibility concerns, the applicant met with the Island View Homeowner's Association and agreed to place a height restriction of one-story for the two new lots as part of the proposed project to blend in with the existing character of Island View Community. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would cause less than significant impacts: LU -1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single -story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure and 20', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. b) The subject site is not located within the coastal zone or within special plan districts. The proposed project would create a higher density allowing for two new substandard lots, inconsistent with the Municipal Code's minimum lot width of the proposed RS -4 zoning district. Given the inconsistency, a Variance application to deviate from the minimum required lot width of 90' is included as part of the proposed project. c) There are no sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site as it was formerly a fully developed auto service station. As such. the proposed project would cause no impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pro osal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be J of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 6 General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan? Comments: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site, identified in the local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed project. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or roundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in N1 ambient noise levels in the project Page 15 of 21 A-1 15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? 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 d airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in J the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a — d) The subject site is currently developable with a residential structure. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site. Potential construction noise and vibration from construction vehicles or tools could occur as close as 33' from the nearest residential buildings to the closest property lines of the subject lot. The Municipal Code limits construction hours in the City from 7am to bpm Monday through Friday and between gam and Spm on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted on Sunday or legal holidays, as defined in the Municipal Code. Given the temporary nature of the construction noise with the following mitigation measures, the short term noise impacts would be less than significant: N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9: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. e, f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the pro osed roject. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or mai .or infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction d of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: Page 16 of 21 A •, Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) The subject site currently allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposed project, two single-family dwelling would be allowed, increasing the number of households by 1. An increase of 1 household is not considered substantial and therefore considered less than significant impact. b -c The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, there is no displacement of people or housing as a result. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Q Fire protection? ii) Police protection? d iii) Schools? d iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Comments: Currently, the land use and zoning designation for the subject site allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. As a result of the proposal for a higher density and creation of two lots, the development of an additional dwelling unit would be allowed, increasing the number of household by 1. The increase in one additional dwelling unit and household would not require an expansion of existing services or facilities. Additionally, any future development would be subject to Fire Prevention Division review and school fees would be required prior to construction. Furthermore, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 16.20.100, as a condition of approval for a parcel map, the applicant is required to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes. Thus, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measure„ there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. PS -1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of the City, for park and recreational purposes at the time and according to the standards and formulas contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that 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, v which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments, Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project would allow for an additional dwelling, resulting in an increase of one household. An increase of one household is not significant and would not result in substantial additional use, expansion or services of existing arks. Additionally, with mitigation measure PS -1 Page 17 of 21 A-117 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with impact Mitigation Incorporated requiring dedication of land or fee in lieu For park and recreational purposes, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Woutd theproject: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other �1 standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, t The land use and zoning designation of the subject site already allows for residential development and has access via Crest Road and Whitley Collins. As such, there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th edition), the trip generation rate for an additional future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single- family residence, an additional dwelling unit as a result of the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. c The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close roximit of any airports to cause an Page 18 of 21 A-118 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d, e) Any future development would need to comply with the adopted Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Public Works Department would review any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety. Furthermore, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. With said requirements incorporated as mitigation measures, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Warks Department. T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing J 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 �I construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the "I project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to Page 19 of 21 A-119 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated solid waste? Comments: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling and there are pubic utilities and services already available due to the development of the surrounding residential development. An increase of one additional dwelling unit would generate an increase in waste water, but not significant enough to impact waste water treatment requirements, water supplies or require additional water or solid waste disposal facilities. Additionally, for any future development of the subject site, the property owner will be required to comply with all local, state and federal requirements related to solid waste. Furthermore, the Los Angeles County Regional (Nater Quality Control Board has issued a "No Further Action" letter for clearing the subject lot of the former auto service station. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts as a result of the proposed project. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife Species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Hoes the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The subject site does not contain and is not located within close proximity to areas with protected habitat or species. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative aesthetics, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, noise, population, public services, and recreation, transportation and utility impacts. However, none of these are significant, except for cumulative land use and planning impacts. However, as evidenced in subsection 10 of this document, the impacts are considered not significant with mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding of significance due to cumulative impact considerations. C) There would be no substantial direct or indirect effects on human beings as no aspect of the proposed project potentially significant impacts or adverse impacts to various environmental concerns. Page 20 of 21 A-1 20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00279 January 15, 2015 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: None 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ma 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plan 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25199), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 5/1/99 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Ma 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 9 State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, U.S. Census Bureau 10 U.S. Geolo teal Survey Ma 11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Torrance & San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1, 2009_ 12 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan 13 Applicant's Geotechnical Report prepared by Pacific Geotech Inc. Page 21 of 21 A,-121 Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "B"') A-122 Exhibit T1) Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 72999 and Variance (ZON2014-00279 and SUB2014-00094) Location: 5656 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Arbor Capital Group, Inc. Landowner: Union Oil Co. of California TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction.......................................................................................... ..................... -............2 Purpose............................................................................................2 .................................... Environmental Procedures.......... . ............................................................. .............. ................. 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements............................................................................................ 2 11. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program................................................................................... 3 Rolesand Responsibilities.......................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures......................................................................................... 3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations................................................................................................................ 3 III. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist.................................................................................................... 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table... ... - .......... ............... ....... ........................... ............................... - 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 1 Resolution No. 2015- A-123 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 8656 Crest Road, located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Changing the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations of a vacant property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the proposed project is to subdivide the existing single lot with reduced lots widths into two separate lots for the future development of a single-family dwelling on each lot. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial StudylMitigated 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." Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 2 Resolution No. 2018- A-124 ll. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre -grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 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 A - Page 3 Resolution. No. 2015- A-125 Ill. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on —, 2015. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 4 Resolution No. 2015- A-126 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 1. AIR QUALITY AQ -1. Storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas must be stabilized by being kept wet, treated with a Prior to and during Property Owner f Community chemical dust suppressant, or covered when Construction construction applicant. Development material is not being added to or removed from the Department pile. AQ -2. Prior to any ground disturbance, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, sufficient Prior to and during Property Owner / Community water must be applied to the area to be disturbed to Construction construction applicant. Development prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible Department emissions from crossing the boundary line. AQ -3. Construction vehicles leaving the site must be Property Owner/ Community cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from Construction During construction applicant. Development beingreleased or tracked off site. Department AQ4. Minimize and clean-up the track -out of bulk Construction During construction Property Owner/ Community Development material or other debris onto public paved roadways. applicant. Department AQ -5. No trucks are allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are Property Owner/ Community either: covered with tarps, wetted and loaded such Construction During construction applicant. Development that the material does not touch the front, back, or Department sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6" from the top and that no point of the load extends above the to of the cargo compartment. E2GEOLOGY AND SOILS GS -1. Prior to any future grading on the site, a Community grading plan with related geotechnical report shall be Construction Prior to and during Property Owner/ Development prepared for review and approval by the Community construction applicant. Department Development Department. GS -2, Any future residential development shall be Community connected to the existing sewer lines. Construction Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner 1 Development permit final applicant. Department Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 5 Resolution No. 2015- MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICAVON i 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY �. HWQ-1. Drainage plans shall be submitted for Community review and approval for compliance with National flan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner I� Development Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for permit issuance applicant. Department stormwater discharges. HWQ-2. Future development projects shall apply best management practices (BMPs) for erosion, sedimentation and run-off control during construction Prior to and during Property Owner 1 Community activities to protect the water duality. Additionally, Construction construction applicant. Development post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be Department applied to treat runoff from the future buildings, including roof run-off. HWQ-3. Stormwater runoff as a result from future development of the subject site would utilize an on- Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner 1 Community site drainage system directed into the existing storm Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development drainage system, subject to review and approval of Department the Building & Safety Division. 4. LAND USE AND PLANNING LIJ-1. All future single-family dwelling units on the subject lots shall be limited to single -story structure, permitted up to 16' in height, as measured from Community existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing Planning Review Prior to Planning Division Property Owner 1 Development building pad area covered by the structure and 20', Approval applicant. Department as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. f 5. NOISE N-1. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:OOAM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the I Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. During Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 6 Resolution No. 2015- MITIGATION MEASURES I TYPE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION demolition, construction and/or grading operations, Construction Prior to and during Property Owner I Community trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the protect construction applicant. Development site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before Department !� 7AM Monday through Friday and before SAM 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. i These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subiect to approval by the building official. 6. PUBLIC SERVICES PS -1. The applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, at the option of � Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner 1 Community the City, for park and recreational purposes at the Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development time and according to the standards and formulas Department contained in Municipal Code Section 16.20.100.G. 7. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC T-1. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, any new curb I� Community fl cuts to minimize or eliminate any impacts related to Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner / Development traffic safety shall be reviewed and approved by the permit issuance applicant. Department Public Works Department, T-2. The ingress and egress access shall be from Community Whitley Collins Drive and no access shall be allowed Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety Property Owner I Development from Crest Road. Existing curb cuts and driveways permit issuance applicant. Department on Crest Road shall be removed. T-3. Prior to Building Permit Issuance, Fire Prior to Building &Safety Property Owner Community Department review will be required to ensure Plan Check permit issuance applicant. Development adequate emergency access.J De artment i N C4 Exhibit A - Page 7 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2015-_ Public Correspondence A-130 5/20/2014 Don Douthwright President, Island View I10A 37 Santa Barbara Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 So Kim Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes RE: 5656 Crest Rd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 — Case No. ZON2014-00055 Dear So Kim: I am writing to offer my support for the proposed project at 5656 Crest Rd_, Rancho Palos Verdes. My home is dir�i-ctly adjacent to the subject lot and I along with my neighbor to the West, would be the most affected by any improvements to the site. On 12/9/131 was contacted via, email by LMC Management Group to discuss the proposed project and provide feedback. I agreed to host a preliminary meeting at my home with some of the closest neighbors to the site on the evening of 12/16/13. Tomaro Design Group & LMC Management Group presented their plan for the project to build two 2 -story homes at the site. Our major concern was the idea of roof lines from the proposed homes obstructing the views frnm our properties. Following the meeting at my home, Tomaro and LMC offered to place up Silhouette Marker Lines on the subject property to show the heights of the proposed homes. Our concerns were validated and the markers showed the 2 -story height would be in our A-131 ;,ghtlirses. Tomaro and LMC then requested to hold another meeting to be open to the public and the entire Island View Neighborhood on 1/20/14 at the Palos Verdes Public Library Community Room.1 sent out a letter to all of the members of the HOA informing them ui the prujC6L .ULd ;laviting them to the meeting. Between 25-30 residents attended the meeting and Tomaro & LMC presented an alternative plan proposing 1 -story homes only. This was accepted by all residents in attendance and a vote was taken with all in favor. After all of the discussion, I appreciate that Tomaro & LMC Management approached our community to work with us and conte to an agreement on a project suitable to the neighborhood before going to application. Throughout the process they have addressed our major concerns and provided appropriate alternatives. Sincerely, Don Douthwright President, Island View HOA A-132 Late Correspondence (May 20, 2014 City Council Meeting) A-133 d/yaiv I'm 14) Z(L+ Ptd Ve4 4AiK+ CUX Bey m r� ae,, . '-, 0.6v M&C)l f U A-134 C.C. Minutes (May 20, 2014 Meeting) A-135 The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic NOES: None ABSENT: None General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Initiation Request to Change the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for a Vacant Lot at 5656 Crest Road to Allow Subdivision of the Lot into Two Separate Lots (Case No. ZON2014r 00055) City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, written protests included with the staff report and late correspondence distributed prior to the meeting, and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing open. Associate Planner Kim provided a staff report regarding this item. Louie Tomaro, Applicant, Tomaro Architecture, stated that there have been many hours working on the application and communication with the neighbors regarding the best proposal for the property site. He provided background information regarding the site and highlighted the proposal before Council for a low density and low level development for the site. Don Douthwright, President, Island View HOA, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that his property is the largest adjacent property most impacted by the proposed development. He reported that he hosted a meeting regarding the initial proposed development of the property to allow for two story homes. He reported that the applicant returned with a proposed project and silhouette for two one-story homes at the location; and noted that he and the HOA were in favor of the two one-story home development. Don Renkowitz, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he is opposed to the subdivision of the lot or the proposed change in zoning. He noted the original zoning was established to avoid the development of multiple dwellings on a lot, which would add to the density or the area; and noted concerns with school traffic at the location. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Tristan Harris, representative, LMC Management, clarified that a small real estate investment group is working with Chevron and Tomaro Architecture regarding this proposed development. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing closed. City Council Minutes May 20, 2014 Page 11 of 15 A-136 Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch. Mayor Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to make the findings and allow the applicant to bring forward the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation changes for the vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road, to the Planning Commission. The motion passed on the following roll call vote.- AYES: ote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic NOES: Knight ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Duhovic called a brief recess from 9:41 P.M. to 9:53 P.M. Sewer Easement Reconfiguration in the Rear Yard of 6847 Alta Vista {Case No. ZON2013-00494} City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no written protests received, and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing open. As there were no requests to speak regarding this item, Mayor Duhovic declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Misetich moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to remove the item from the agenda at Staffs request. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic NOES: None ABSENT: None REGULAR BUSINESS: Update Regarding Agricultural Use at Point Vicente Park City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were two requests to speak regarding this item. City Council Minutes May 20, 20114 Page 12 of 15 A-137 City Council Staff Report (May 20, 2 01 4) A-138 CITY OFLi4�RANcHo I'ALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: May 20, 2014 Subject: General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Initiation Request to Change the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for a Vacant Lot at 5656 Crest Road to Allow Subdivision of the Lot into Two Separate Lots (Case No. ZON2014-00055) Subject Property: 5656 Crest Road 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Kim 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: Tomaro Architecture Appellant: NIA 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal:. 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: A-139 CITVOFIL RANCHO PALOSVERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & ClWELOPMENT NCIL MEMBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNI DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 20, 2014 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE INITIATION REQUEST TO CHANGE THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR A VACANT LOT AT 5656 CREST ROAD TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF THE LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS (CASE NO. ZON2014-00055). REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRO, ACTING CITY MANAGER Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner Z-� RECOMMENDATION Review the proposal and affirm Staffs concerns with the proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation changes for the vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road. BACKGROUND On February 4, 2014, applications (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation Requests) were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and Zoning designation changes for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road. After preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on February 11, 2014. Additional information was submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed complete on April 17, 2014. Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 33 (attached) and Development Code Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes), notice of the request was published in the Peninsula News and sent to all persons owning property within 500' radius of the subject site on April 24, 2014. Staff received one email in objection to the proposal (attached) which is addressed under 'Additional Information' below. 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD, / RANCHO MLOS VERDES, CA 902755391 PLANNING & MDE C✓I`IFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544.52281 BUILDING & SAFETY UIV6101) (310) 2$5-7800 J DEIN FAX (310) 544-529: E MAIL: PLANNINGORPWOM, %"PALOSVERDES COMPV A-1 40 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is a 20,468ft'rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. As shown in the attached aerial, the subject site is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The !stand View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS- 2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively. The proposed request is to change the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS -2 (Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac) to R24 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS -4 (Single -Family Residential 4 du/ac). The purpose of the requested change is to potentially subdivide the single lot into two separate lots, for the development of a single-family residence on each lot. 1 &iel l+ _Il 10121. Review Process A proposed change in a General Plan land use designation is governed by City Council Policy No. 33 which was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 1997. City Council Policy No. 33 establishes the process for General Plan Amendment Initiation Requests. A proposed change in zoning is governed by Chapter 17.68 of the City's Municipal Code. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.68.030(C), "Any person having an interest in land may file an application with the City Council for a change of zone and/or an amendment to this title upon submission to the Director of an initiation application and payment of a filing fee, as established by the City Council. The City Council shall review an accepted initiation application to determine if the requested amendment and/or change is necessary or desirable." The initiation request process is a procedure that allows the applicant to gauge the Council's general outlook on the proposed request prior to submitting more costly General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications along with the preparation of any necessary studies. Because the information provided by an applicant in an initiation request is general, at the meeting, the Council only needs to provide general feedback to the applicant on his/her proposal. Whatever feedback the City Council provides is not binding as the applicant has the ability to file or not file the formal General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications regardless of the Council's feedback. Should the applicant ultimately decide to move forward with the formal application process, the land use and zone change requests will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Subsequently, the Planning Commission will forward a formal A-141 recommendation on the proposal to the City Council for a final decision, The applicant also has the ability to submit subdivision and actual development applications to be processed concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests. While the current land use and zoning designation would only allow for the development of one dwelling unit on the subject property, the proposal re -designation and rezoning could allow for a subdivision and the development of two dwelling units. In preliminarily reviewing the proposed concept of subdivision and the development of two separate lots, Staff has the following initial comments: Potential Pros: Visual compatibility from the street when comparing the development at the four corners intersecting Whitley Collins and Crest Road since the two corners to the north is part of a residential tract already developed and zoned RS -4. More specifically, the proposed two new lots on the subject property would match what is already existing at the northwest and northeast corner of said intersection, with relation to lot layout, density, lot coverage, and setbacks. Staff does not anticipate substantial increase in traffic as a result of two additional dwelling units. According to Trip Generation 6th Edition written by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1997), the average rate of trip generation for a single-family detached housing is 9.57. With the proposed development of two homes, the average weekday trip generation will be 19. Additionally, since there are existing utilities in the area, Staff does not anticipate adverse impacts to utilities from two additional residential developments. Potential Cons: Incompatibility with the abutting residential tract to the south (referred to as 'The Midge'), related to density, open space and lot size. While the properties to the north of Crest Road are denser as they are zoned RS -4 allowing for increased lot coverage, properties within The Ridge residential tract provide for more open space as they are less dense, zoned RS- T. More specifically, the properties to the north are limited to 50% lot coverage, while The Ridge properties are limited to 40%. Below is an aerial of the two neighborhoods as a visual comparison of the lot sizes and zoning designations. A-142 In relation to lot sizes, The Ridge properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are less than the required minimum of 20,000ft2 for the underlying RS -2 zoning district. However, it should be noted that Residential Planned Developments generally allow for smaller lot sizes for providing common open space areas. For example, the lot sizes for The Ridge properties range from approximately 12,000ftx to 20,000ft2. The proposed new lot sizes on the subject lot will be approximately 10,000ft2 in size, which will be even smaller than what exists in The Ridge and half of what is required for new lots in the RS -2 zoning district. The required minimum lot width and depth for new lots within the RS -4 zoning district is 90' and 120', respectively. The lot width and depth of the two lots is proposed to be 67.5' by 120', respectively. As a result, approval of a Variance application would be required to create the new substandard lots with non -conforming lot widths. Given that the existing lot currently meets the lot size, width and depth of the underlying zoning designation of RS -2, which is also consistent with the abutting RS -2 residential tract, Staff has concerns with the proposal as the appropriate findings in support of a Variance application to create substandard lots may not able to be made by the Planning Commission. Staff's Position Staff has some preliminary concerns with the proposal. Specifically, creating 1) an inconsistent land use and zoning designation on a single property to allow for a higher RS - 4 density in an area directly adjacent to existing lower density of RS -2; 2) new residential lots with open space, lot size and density that wouid be incompatible with the abutting residential tract; and 3) new residential lots with non -conforming lot widths which would require a Variance application that may not obtain Planning Commission's approval. Staff is recommending that the Council affirm these concerns and allow the applicant to decide whether they want to pursue the formal application process. A-143 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence Mr. Don Rendowitz residing at 29825 Whitley Collins Drive, submitted the attached email objecting to the proposed land use and zone change requests. He expresses in his email that the proposed changes are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will decrease property values. FISCAL IMPACT Should the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications be submitted, the fees collected for the applications would offset the cost of processing the applications. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staffs recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City Council's consideration: 1. Identify additional issues of concern not identified by Staff and continue the request to a future meeting to allow Staff and/or applicant to provide additional information; or, 2. Despite Staff's concerns, provide the applicant positive feedback and encourage them to submit the formal applications; or, 3. Maintain a neutral position and allow the applicant's decide whether or not to pursue the formal applications. ATTACHMENTS Public Correspondence City Council Policy No. 33 Preliminary Plans A-144 Public Correspondence A-145 So Kim From: Pilotdon4 <pilotdon4@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:43 PM To: So Kim Cc: Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony M'isetich; PlanningCommission Subject: General Plan Revision Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Mr. Kim, This is to express my complete objection to the proposed change (case No. 2014-00055). The proposed change is completely inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. My home is in the Mesa Palos Verdes tract, an entity that has existed for over forty years. This tract of over 75 homes, as well as the new tract on Whitley Collins are in full compliance with the present zoning. Modifying the zoning for this one lot is satisfying the desires of one Corporation at the expense of these surrounding homes, resulting in a loss of property value to us all. Other than to Union Oil, I see no positive benefit to anyone in the community. I moved to RPV in 1974, at a time that this type of " lets get the most bucks for out land" was prevalent and was in fact a major factor in creating the City of RPV,to pre ventt this type of action. 1 hope that you will act appropriately to protect our city and our neighborhood. Sincerely, Don Renkowitz 29625 Whitley Collins Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes email: PilotDon4@gmail.com A-146 City Council Policy No. 33 A-147 CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER: 33 DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 05/06/97 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Initiation Request Procedure POLICY: It shall be the policy of the City Council that the General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) process shall be an optional process to be followed at the discretion of an applicant. In the event that an optional General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) application is filed, the following requirements shall be adhered to: The applicant shall submit the required application, associated information, materials, and fees. 2. Notification of the pending City Council consideration of the request shall be provided to all owners of properties within 500 feet of the subject property, as well as all Homeowners Associations for properties within 500 feet of the subject property. The notice shall be provided a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the City Council meeting at which the item will be considered. 3. Notification of the Council consideration of the request shall be published in an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the City Council meeting at which the item will be considered. 4. Decisions on any GPAIR shall be tentative and advisory only, and shall not be construed as any form of obligation that the City Council will grant or deny an ensuing General Plan Amendment (GPA) application. 5. GPAIR applications shall be accepted and processed at any time during the calendar year. Nothing in this policy requires that any applicant file a GPAIR, and any person or entity may submit a GPA application for consideration by the Council regardless of whether a GPAIR has been filed and/or acted on by the Council. In the event that the Council denies a GPAIR, the applicant shall be entitled to apply for a GPA at the applicant's discretion. I E6 Nothing in this policy shall preclude the City Council from directing staff to commence any General Plan Amendment with or without a related General Plan Amendment Initiation Request, and this Policy shall supersede the January 6, 1976, minute order previously establishing the General Plan Amendment process. In the event that a Pre-screening Workshop is held for a particular project, the project applicant shall not have the option of filing a GPAIR since the GPAIR process is substantially the same as that of the Pre-screening Workshop. In the case that a rescreening Workshop has been held and a GPA is necessary, the project applicant shall proceed directly with the GPA application. It shall also be the policy of the City Council to generally approve resolutions amending the General Plan three times per year, during the months of April, August, and December, to ensure that the maximum number of amendments allowed each year, four (4), is not exceeded in a given year. To achieve that goal, one or more applications to amend the General Plan may be combined into a single Resolution of approval. This policy is only a guideline, and the Council, at its discretion, may approve resolutions amending the General Plan at any time, so long as the maximum number does not exceed four (4) in any given calendar year. IJMM&U.Tellu Z S The original General Plan Amendment process, as established by the City Council on January 6, 1976, included a requirement for an Initiation Request prior to proceeding with an actual GPA. In the past this process was effective in conveying the general disposition of the Council, given the nature of the specific request. The process as it relates to the current issues in the City creates concerns with respect to lack of public notice, lack of detailed information for Council consideration in conjunction with such requests, that requests are accepted and processed only twice per year, and that the applicants should have the ability to apply directly for a GPA without first going through the GPAIR process. A benefit of the original process is that the applicant can, with a low fee, gauge the Council's outlook on a particular proposal without preparation of detailed studies as would be required for a GPA. The City Council has determined that a required GPAIR process is not necessary. However, an optional GPAIR process is beneficial to applicants and the public. In order to ensure that the community is aware of any requested change in the General Plan, notification as stipulated above shall be provided for all GPAIR applications. Council determinations on such applications will be advisory in nature, and the applicant can thereafter proceed with a GPA proposal as desired. THARO I� CREST ROAD �t O co im Wil I\ SITE AREA: +l-9,950 S.F.7 1, i BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA: +1-5,672 S.F. ALLOW. FOOTPRINT AREA = 50% OF SITE AREA = .5 x 9,950 = 4,975 S.F.' RIDGE HEIGHT = 16' 0" wl A r -I ntr I w rr A\1'�kr1 oSITE PLAN �r EXISTINC3;4 !' A. a ' # a3' CURB _ .. • NI _ `lp.00' -� 3_ CUT -- --- - `-" EXISTING CURB CUT ; TO REMAIN TO BE r-- REMOVED, ( OI ° SETBACK LINE, TYP. - - -�- - - - - - - - - ' f I SITE AREA: +1-9,950 S.F. BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA: +/-4,489 S.F. I - `��° ALLOW. FOOTPRINT AREA 0 - = 50% OF SITE AREA .5 x 9,950 _ 4,975 S.F. - N RIDGE HEIGHT=16'-U" cV c� 40' 15 iL-- -- ------__ ----------- 1 O 120 °I ------ --• r --NEW y-'----------- Cj PROPERTY LIKE -+1-155.00' � M .. ° r 120' •- �t O co im Wil I\ SITE AREA: +l-9,950 S.F.7 1, i BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA: +1-5,672 S.F. ALLOW. FOOTPRINT AREA = 50% OF SITE AREA = .5 x 9,950 = 4,975 S.F.' RIDGE HEIGHT = 16' 0" wl A r -I ntr I w rr A\1'�kr1 oSITE PLAN II NI EXISTING CURB CUT ; TO REMAIN �t O co im Wil I\ SITE AREA: +l-9,950 S.F.7 1, i BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA: +1-5,672 S.F. ALLOW. FOOTPRINT AREA = 50% OF SITE AREA = .5 x 9,950 = 4,975 S.F.' RIDGE HEIGHT = 16' 0" wl A r -I ntr I w rr A\1'�kr1 oSITE PLAN 3 I CREST ROAD SETBACK LINE, TYP. I PROPOSED STRUCTURE '----- MAX HEIGHT: 16'-0" ALLOWABLE SF: 4,950 SF 00, PROPOSED CURB CUT ; Y SF SHOWN: 3,000 SF 'I 5� a< ----- PARKING: 3 -CAR -----__--- L p 120' .� 10 Z _ NEW PROPERTY LINE --+1-155.€0' �A o = PROPOSER STRUCTURE MAX HEIGHT: 16'-0" a I ALLOWABLE SF: 4,950 SF SF SHOWN: 3,000 SF PARKING: 3 -CAR EXISTING CURB CUT TO REMAIN - l=a I 15' j a EXISTING HEDGE TO REMAIN t �I� � ^�• _ _ _ - +1-118' _ wmk t a SITT1A, PLAN 5('.hLF_ Ilxtil'.SY