Loading...
02 - Initial StudyCity of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ILA 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (ZON2014- 00143) 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 10 Chaparral Lane City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Kevin Chen P.O. Box 80084 San Marino, CA 91118-8084 6. General plan designation: Natural Environment/Hazard & Residential (1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Open Space Hazard (OH) & Single Family Residential District (RS -2) 9. Description of project: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and Zoning map designation boundary lines on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district. 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at 12 the end of Chaparral Lane in the eastern part of the City. The subject property contains two separate General Plan Land Use designations (Hazard & Residential 1-2 du/acre) and two separate Zoning designations (Open Space Hazard — OH & Single Family Residential — RS -2). The current boundary line that separates said land uses and zoning designations runs diagonally across the width of the property in the general area where Chaparral Lane meets the subject property. As a result, approximately two-thirds of the property (roughly downslope from Chaparral Lane) is designated as Natural Environment/Hazard land use and zoned OH, while the upper third is designated Residential (2 du/acre) land use and zoned RS -2. The area with an existing Residential land use consists entirely of an extreme slope (greater than 35% gradient) ascending up from Chaparral Lane. The area with a Natural Environmental/Hazard land use is composed of moderate to extreme slopes and includes approximately 14,000ft2 of generally level area located off Chaparral Lane. It should be noted that the relatively level area has been existing since at least 1976, according to the City's topographic map. The area below the flat area consists of descending extreme slopes. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 13 Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property measures 85,178ft2 (1.96 - acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral Lane. The site currently consists mostly of moderate to extreme slopes with one relatively flat area. North Canyon This property is a vacant canyon area, consisting of extreme slopes, located in the abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South Single-family residential These properties are improved with single-family dwellings that are located approximately 100' higher in elevation than the flat area on the subject pro perty. East Single-family residential These properties along Chaparral Lane are improved with single-family dwellings that are either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the flat area on the subject property. West Vacant & Single-family residential The abutting property to the northern side of the subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme slopes. The properties near the southern side of the subject property are improved with single- family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in elevation. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 13 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed land use and zoning map boundary line. IL now A� ■ MONO A moo pw� • T 6j AL * C I ;_ r-11 Open Space Hazard (OH) ' Gam► Oew Boundarine OH (existing) to RS (proposed) ,► , 16 ^+ { 41 A } R Residential 'Existing Boundary Line (RS -2) 15 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 Population and Housing 0 Geology and Soils 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Energy/Mineral Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Hazards and Hazardous Material 0 Recreation 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Public Services 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance = Transportation and Circulation 0 Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. XD 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. 0 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 Signature: 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 Date: Printed Name: So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 16 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical 1 buildings, within a state scenic highways? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1,8 affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning map designations will not have an impact to existing scenic resources. The proposed boundary line relocation merely allows for a residential development occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. The future development of a single-family residence on the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary line relocation will have less of a visual impact than the hillside area where the construction is currently allowed by -right as the hillside character of the lot will be preserved. Additionally, developing on the new building pad area may cause view impairment from the viewing areas of the properties located in the easterly direction. However, the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analysis for any new residential projects to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and view effects, and any structure proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the Municipal Code, including lighting. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposal. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104(g))? 17 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location 2 or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use? Comments: The subject site has an existing land use of single-family residential and open space hazard and is not zoned for agriculture or forestry use. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation and future residential development on the site. 3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected 8 air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air 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 amendments to the land use and zoning designation change as a result of relocation the boundary line has no impacts to air quality as it simply allows development to occur over a relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 8 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? im Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or 8 by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, 8 marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc...), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 8 with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurser sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological 8 resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, 8,12 or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve and the General Plan. A biology report submitted by the applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting birds. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the following mitigation measures have been added: B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (February 1 — August 31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure, including any payments, prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the 19 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Community Development Department. B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource 7 as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological 7 resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or 7 unique geological feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of 7 formal cemeteries? Comments: The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre -historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Therefore, there will be no impacts to cultural resources a result of the proposed project. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the proposal: a) Expose people or structure to potential 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 including liquefaction? iv Landslides? 2, 6, 8 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 8 loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, thus creating substantial risks to life or 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated property? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there will be no impact caused by the proposed project. b -c) According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Map (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) released in March 25, 1999, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction or earthquake -induced landslide areas. However, upon City Geologist review, the proposed project may cause erosion and/or landslide if proper mitigation measures are not implemented. To ensure les than significant impacts, the following mitigation measures have been added: G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance. d) Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report by the City Geologist, the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is not located on expansive soil. Nevertheless, additional City Geologist's review and approval of applicable site specific soils/geology reports will be required during the plan check stage, prior to construction of a new residential structure. Additionally, all construction is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements to prevent potential adverse impacts. As such, there would be no impacts caused by the proposal with the implementation of mitigation measures G-1 and G-2. e) The proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation simply allows development over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the property. Any future development on the site would necessitate a septic tank, which would require Los Angeles County, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review prior to any development proposal. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposal. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may 21 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 allows for the future development of a new residence over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built -out scenario would be not significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, a future development project on the subject site would be required to be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger -car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80 -percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the 22 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 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 land use and zoning boundary relocation to allow a future residential development over the only relatively flat area on the property will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. There is no evidence that the project site contains contaminated soils or have been used for underground storage of hazardous materials. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts. e, f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. g) The existing land use and zoning designations allow for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed land use and zoning change would allow for a future development to be constructed on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Chaparral Lane is already developed with residential units and therefore the development of one additional property along the same street is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. h) The subject property is a large parcel, containing significant amount of vegetation. In the past, the property owner has complied with the Fire Department's brush clearance requirement on the site. The proposed project simply allows a residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. Additionally, any future residential projects will be subject to Fire Department review to ensure that all appropriate measures, such as on-site sprinklers are installed to prepare and protect from any future wildfires in the area. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any water quality standard or 8 wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater 8 supplies or interfere substantial) with 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the localgroundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of 10 a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially 10 increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding 11 as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11 mudflow? Comments: a, f) The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a Water Quality Control Policy for siting, design, operation, and maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), which sets standards for OWTS that are constructed. Implementation of this OWTS policy is overseen by the State Water Board and the regional water quality control boards, and local agencies. Any new development on the subject site will require a septic tank as there are no sewer systems in close proximity. Septic tanks are required to obtain Los Angeles County, City Geologist, and Building & Safety Division review and approval to ensure compliance with all applicable policies and codes. Since the subject site already allows for development of a single-family dwelling and the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation merely changes the developable area from the hillside portions to a relatively flat area, there are no impacts as a result of the proposal. b The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company 24 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 a single-family dwelling and this proposed project simply changes the developable area from the hillside to the relatively flat area on the property. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impacts to the current water demand of the City. c — e) Based on the City's NPDES consultant, there may be increased runoff resulting from a future residential development and the submitted Biology report states that indirect impact on jurisdictional waters may occur as a result of hillside erosion during future construction over the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation. To ensure less than significant impact, implementation of the project -specific water quality management plan and standard requirements for a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required to avoid and minimize the discharge of construction related pollutants during the Building & Safety review phase of a future development on the subject lot. Additionally, the following best management practices (BMPs) have been added as mitigation measures for erosion, sediment, wind erosion, tracking control, as well as non- stormwater management, waste management and materials pollution control: H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be reviewed and approved, prior to Building & Safety Division permit issuance. H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. g,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. i, j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Also, mudflows are potentially serious hazard to life and property in the hillside areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The proposed building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is relatively flat and future improvements will be designed to mitigate potential mudflow impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide and established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but 1, 2, 3, 8 not limited to the general plan, specific 25 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 boundary line changes have no impact to the established community since it simply allows a residential development to occur on a relatively flat area instead of over existing slopes. The subject property is located within a near fully developed residential neighborhood. As such, the project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impact. b) The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan amendment and zone change to move the Natural Environment/Hazard boundary line such that the relatively flat area of the lot can be developed with a residential structure and this area would be entirely outside of the Open Space Hazard area and would be designated Residential. The proposed boundary line will be located at the top of the existing extreme slope near the edge of the relatively flat area. The relocation of the boundary line would allow the property owners to develop the flat portion of their property instead of the hillside area that would involve significant alteration of the lot. The proposed land use and zoning boundary line relocation would remain consistent with the existing properties on Chaparral and will not conflict with any adopted policy of the City's General Plan or the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the local coastal plan and specific plans do not apply to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impact. c) There are sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site. However, based on a biology report, none of the species identified in NCCP would be disturbed as a result of development over the new building pad area. As such, the proposed project would cause no impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 8 General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use 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 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 vicinity above levels existing without 26 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 l airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a — d) The subject site already allows for the development one single-family dwelling unit. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site. However, all development projects are regulated so that construction only occurs during the allowable construction hours of the City, with none allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Additionally, the proposed project simply allows the development to occur over a relatively flat area instead of a hillside. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. e, f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The subject site is a vacant lot zoned residential, intended to be developed with a single-family dwelling. The proposed land use and zone change as a result of the boundary line relocation simply allows a future residential development over the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Therefore, there is no displacement of people as a result and there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b -c) The subject site is a vacant lot. Therefore, there is no displacement of people. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 27 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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: i Fireprotection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral Lane are developed lots that already require public services. The subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project simply allows development to occur on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of a hillside. Therefore, there is no impact on public services. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project simply allows development to occur on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of a hillside. Therefore, there is no impact on public services. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b Conflict with an applicable con estion W• Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a, f) The proposed project is a land use and zone change, thereby allowing a future residential development on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over existing slopes. The subject site can already be developed with a residential development and has access via Chaparral Lane. As such, there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (61h edition), the trip generation rate for a future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project simply allows the development over a relatively flat area instead of a hillside, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. c) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d -e) The proposed land use and zoning boundary change would allow for a residential development over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside on the subject site. Any future development would need to comply with the adopted Development Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment 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 29 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 v construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or v 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 v 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 ti solid waste? Comments: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. The proposed project simply allows for this development to occur over the only relatively flat area instead of a hillside portion of the site. The subject site is in a near fully developed residential neighborhood and therefore a future development proposal will not generate a substantial increase in current wastewater nor require a substantial increase in water use. Additionally, the Building & Safety Division will require and review a drainage plan for consistency with the current standards. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project that would change the existing water/wastewater/drainage facilities, wastewater treatment requirements, water supply, wastewater treatment demand, waste disposal needs or compliance with any statures/regulations related to solid waste. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate ti 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 30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The subject site contains wildlife species subject to NCCP regulations. However, the development area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary change will not be located in close proximity to impact said species based on an approved biology report of the site. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The subject site is zoned residential, located in a midst of a near fully developed residential neighborhood. Since the proposed project simply allows for an already allowed residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of hillside portions of the property, there are no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project. c) The proposed development land use and zoning designation boundary relocation allows residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portion of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project, s there are no adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None 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, 31 32 Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Ma 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 5/1/99 7 CitV of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Ma 8 Cit 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 1 Biology Report 32