Loading...
12 - C.C. Staff Report dated September 2, 2014CC Staff Report (September 2, 2014) ATTACHMENT - 39 CITYOF MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY CUNCIL M MBERS FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVE P NT DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CASE NO. ZON2014-00143) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL, LANE (SUPPORTS 2014 CITY COUNCIL GOAL — CITY TRAIL SYSTEMS ENHANCEMENT) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE Project Manager: So Kim, Senior Planner 5.14• Z4 RECOMMENDATION 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration that finds the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding environment with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-_, thereby approving a General Plan Amendment to allow a portion of the subject property to be changed from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential; and, 3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2014-_, thereby approving a Zone Change to allow a portion of the subject property to be changed from Open Space Hazard to Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac, respectively. BACKGROUND On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request, allowing the property owner to proceed with proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the portions of his property designated as "residential' and "hazard" to accommodate the future development of the subject lot. ATTACHMENT - 40 10 CHAPARRAL - GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE 2 On September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008- 000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008-00512) to change the General Plan land use and Zoning designations to adjust the land use and zoning boundary line, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single- family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant considered variations to the proposed project and then ultimately withdrew the original application. On January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application, requesting approval to change the land use and zoning designation to adjust the Residential/Hazard boundary line and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot. The application was presented to the Planning Commission on September 13, 2011 with Staff's recommendation to continue the hearing to an unspecified date to assess new information (grading on a neighboring property) and to address trail issues raised by the public. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to an unspecified date to allow the applicant to work with Staff to resolve said issues (refer to the attached September 13, 2011 Staff Report and Minutes). The applicant worked with Staff to resolve the issues and a new duly noticed public hearing was scheduled for February 28, 2012. On February 28, 2012, the proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission. During the public hearing, the Commission received public testimony related to trail connection and geologic stability issues of the site. However, through the applicant's dedication of nearly a third of the property for future trail connections and the City Geologist's in -concept approval of the proposed project, the Planning Commission felt that all issues raised by the public were adequately addressed. Thus, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05 (attached), recommending that the City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the applicant's request to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary lines to accommodate the construction of a new residence on the subject property (5-1, with Commissioner Leon dissenting). Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role was solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. On April 17, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which time the application was continued to June 5th, then to July 17th and again to September 18th at the applicant's request, for additional time to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. On September 18th, the public hearing was continued again to an unspecified date to allow the applicant additional time to address all geotechnical issues. The applicant did not submit additional information and the property was subsequently sold. Earlier this year, Staff was notified that the property was acquired by a new property owner, Mr. Kevin Chen. Mr. Chen notified Staff that he intended to follow through on the same application that was reviewed and conceptually approved by the Planning Commission except that it was his desire to pursue the proposed land use and zoning map change first and separate from a development application. As such, the General Plan Land Use ATTACHMENT - 41 10 CHAPARRAL - GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE 3 Amendment and Zone Map Change component of the application is now before the City Council for consideration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property currently has two separate General Plan Land Use (Residential 1 to 2 du/ac & Natural Environment/Hazard) and Zoning designations (Open Space Hazard & Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac). The area designated as "Residential" in the General Plan and Single -Family Residential on the City's Zoning Map consists entirely of extreme slopes (over 35%) while the area designated as Natural Environment/Hazard in the General Plan and Open Space Hazard (OH) on the Zoning Map consists of a relatively flat pad area and extreme slopes to the north of the pad. The current land use and zoning designations would force the construction of a single-family residence over the extreme slope portion of the property as opposed to the existing flat area of the property which is more suitable for accommodating a residence on the subject lot. This is inconsistent with the policies set forth in the City's General Plan and Development Code. In order to allow a single-family residence to be built on the relatively flat portion of the subject lot as opposed to the extreme slopes on the southern portion of the lot, the applicant is proposing to move the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary lines so that the residential land use and zoning designation will include the only flat area on the property while the extreme slopes to the north will remain Natural Environment Hazard/OH (this will leave the extreme slopes on the southern portion of the lot designated as residential, but unbuildable per the Development Code). In other words, the only flat area on the property is proposed to be changed from Natural Environment Hazard/OH to Residential/RS-2, which would allow the applicant to develop the flat area of the property instead of over extreme slopes. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an updated Initial Study along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared assessing the proposed project's potential impacts to the surrounding environment with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures (see attachment). On August 7, 2014, the MND was circulated to the County Clerk's Office for posting and to all applicable agencies requesting comments for a period of at least 20 days prior to consideration (as required by CEQA). Further, on August 7, 2015, a public hearing notice was also mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on the same date. Staff received 3 comments in response to the public notice that pertain to trails, geology, and habitat. These issues are addressed in this Staff Report, as well as past discussions during the Planning Commission's deliberations, as reflected in the attached Resolution, Staff Reports and Minutes (see attachment). DISCUSSION The applicant's request requires City Council review and approval because the proposed ATTACHMENT - 42 10 CHAPARRAL - GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE 4 General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary changes are a legislative decision. Acting in an advisory capacity, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal back in 2012 and recommended that that the City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve the applicant's request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map by adjusting the boundary line between the "residential" and "open space hazard" as reflected in the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 and Minutes and Staff Reports (September 13, 2011 and February 28, 2012). Staff feels that all the required findings, as stated in the attached draft Resolutions and Ordinance, such as consistency with the General Plan, for approval of the proposed project could be made and therefore, like the Planning Commission, recommends City Council approval of the proposed land use and zone map changes. During the Planning Commission's review of the proposed project, the two primary concerns that were raised by the public related to trails and the geologic stability of the site. The issue pertaining to trails was addressed by the previous property owner, as reflected in the Commission adopted Resolution (see attachment), and will be considered by the Planning Commission when it reviews the subsequent development application submitted by the current property owner (this application is currently incomplete). It should be noted that Staff has met with the current property owner (Mr. Chen) regarding the trail issues and he has expressed an interest in providing trail access but wanted to consult with his project team before making a final decision. As for the geologic stability issue, the City Geologist has reviewed and conceptually approved the geotechnical report on the proposed land use and zoning map amendments (and the original residential development including matters related to the septic system). An updated geotechnical report will be reviewed by the City Geologist for the proposed residence before the development application is considered by the Planning Commission. All attached correspondence relating to trail and geotechnical issues as a result of a development proposal, as well as public comments recently received, are attached for reference purposes. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Comments The City recently received a public comment letter expressing a concern with potential habitat loss resulting from the development of the subject property (see attachment). As reflected in the attached Initial Study, a biological report was prepared for the site assessing the project's potential impact to surrounding habitat. According to the biological report, the proposed residence located on the flat portion of the subject lot will not impact protected habitat, like it would if the residence was built on the portion of the subject lot that is currently zoned residential. This is because the portion of the lot that is currently zoned residential consists of extreme slopes (greater than 35%) and pristine habitat. So the proposed zone change will actually minimize impacts to habitat by shifting the residential development on the flat portion of the lot where habitat does not exist. ATTACHMENT - 43 10 CHAPARRAL - GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE 5 Subsequent Residential Development Application The land use and zone change request is subject to review by the City Council because this involves a legislative decision, while the subsequent development application will be subject solely to review by the Planning Commission's review (unless appealed). The development application has been submitted but is incomplete and is not presently ready to be heard by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the development proposal cannot move forward until a decision is rendered on the subject land use and zone change request because the residence cannot be built in the current proposed location (the flat portion of the lot) based on the existing Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation of Open Space Hazard. CONCLUSION Based on the past discussions and analysis within the attached Staff Reports, P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05; and P.C. Minutes (refer to September 13, 2011 and February 28, 2012), Staff is concluding that all required findings for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change have been met and thus recommends approval of Case No. ZON2014-00143. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the Council may consider the following alternatives: 1. Deny the Applicant's request and continue the item to the next Council meeting so that Staff can prepare a Resolution for the Council's consideration. 2. Identify concerns to the Applicant and continue the public hearing to a date certain to allow the Applicant additional time to address the Council's concerns. FISCAL IMPACT All costs incurred in processing the proposed project, particularly the Land Use and Zone Map changes, will be borne by the current property owner (applicant) resulting in no fiscal impacts to the City. ATTACHMENTS ■ Resolution No. 2014-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration o Initial Study o Exhibit A — Mitigation Monitoring Program ■ Resolution No. 2014-_, approving a General Plan Amendment ■ Ordinance No. 2014-_, approving a Zone Change ■ Public Correspondence received after September 18, 2012 CC hearing ■ C.C. Staff Report (September 18, 2012) ATTACHMENT - 44 10 CHAPARRAL - GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CC MEETING PAGE 6 ■ C.C. Staff Report (July 17, 2012) ■ C.C. Staff Report (June 5, 2012) ■ C.C. Staff Report (April 17, 2012) ■ Public Correspondence Received after February 28, 2012 PC hearing ■ P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 ■ P.C. Minutes (February 28, 2012) ■ P.C. Staff Report (February 28, 2012) ■ P.C. Minutes (September 13, 2011) ■ P.C. Staff Report (September 13, 2011) ■ Initial Study ■ Conceptual Geology Approval ■ Geology Report (dated February 1, 2011) ■ Fire Department Review (dated October 6, 2012) ATTACHMENT - 45 RESOLUTION NO, 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR CASE NO. ZON2014- 00143 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "open space hazard"; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary Imes and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve Case No. ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, a new property owner acquired the subject property and submitted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA ATTACHMENT - 46 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 with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, On August 7, 2014, a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time ali 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 proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation 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 and within the Residential Land Use and Single -Family Residential Zoning District. Section 2: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial evidence that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of Case No. ZON2014-00143, a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 3: With the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon aesthetics, biological resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; and hydrology and water quality, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. Section 4: That the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the boundary lines are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan that would allow the construction of a single-family residence on the flat and developable portion of the subject lot rather than the extreme slopes. ATTACHMENT - 47 Section 5: Based upon the foregoing findings, the adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures is in the public interest. Section 6: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, 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: For the forgoing reasons, and based on information and findings contained in the public record, including the Staff reports, minutes, records of proceedings, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program as shown in Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September 2014. 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. 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on September 2, 2014. City Clerk ATTACHMENT - 48 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 'A ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM IL 1. Project title: General Pian 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 85,178ft' (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at Page 1 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 49 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 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: Done. Page 2 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 50 [_and Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property measures 85,178ft2 (1.96 - acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral Lane. The site currently consists mostly of moderate to extreme slopes with one relatively flat area. North Canyon This property is a vacant canyon area, consisting of extreme slopes, located in the abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South Single-family residential These properties are improved with single-family dwellings that are located approximately 100' higher in elevation than the flat area on the subject property. East Single-family residential These properties along Chaparral Lane are improved with single-family dwellings that are either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the flat area on the subject property. West Vacant & Single-family residential The abutting property to the northern side of the subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme slopes. The properties near the southern side of the subject property are improved with single- family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in elevation. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Done. Page 2 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 50 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed land use and zoning reap boundary line. Residential ` Existing Boundary Line f (RS -2) ♦ . _ �-1 Page 4 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 52 amp WON � r Open Space Hazard (OH) 0{Flew "nder a ON [existing) to r RS (proposed) r Residential ` Existing Boundary Line f (RS -2) ♦ . _ �-1 Page 4 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 52 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources 0 Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy/Mineral Resources Q Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Material 0 Recreation 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Noise Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality F-7] Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation and Circulation L=J Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0 I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. XO 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.. F7 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 HR, 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 ATTACHMENT - 53 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproposal: 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 v' buildings, within a state scenic highways? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 y' and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1,8 tit 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 causer) 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))? Page 6 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 54 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 d 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 theproposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special $ status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Page 7 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 55 Environmental Checklist Case No. Z©N2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or a by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, 8 marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc... ), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or 8 with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological 8 resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, 8, 12 v 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 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 Page 8 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 56 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 �l as defined in §15©64.5 of the State CEOA 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 uni ue 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 Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 6 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? JIStrong seismic ground shaking? 6 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, 6 includin2 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, Nl thus creatin substantial risks to life or Page 9 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 57 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 recompaclion, 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 theproject: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may Page 10 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 58 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting ]Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 eroject 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 J routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and J 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 J proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government J Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the Page 11 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 59 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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, N 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 witdland 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 fess than significant impact caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any water quality standard or 8 wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater $ supplies or interfere substantially with Page 12 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 60 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 ti 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 J 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 v 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 Slate 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 Page 13 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 61 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with impact Mitigation Incorporated (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 slates 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 comm unit ? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but 1, 2, 3, 8 not limited to the general plan, specific Page 14 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 62 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation incorporated 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 J 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 1 or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or roundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without Page 15 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 63 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the J 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 J 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 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 J projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially J affordable housing? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction J of replacement housingelsewhere? 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. Page 16 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 64 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? v Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral thane 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. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. 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 Page 17 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 65 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 �r 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 racksJ? 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 (61 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 Page 18 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 66 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Comments; The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. The proposed project simply allows for this development to occur over the only relatively flat area instead of a hillside portion of the site. The subject site is in a near fully developed residential neighborhood and therefore a future development proposal will not generale 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 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 Page 19 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 67 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentiafly 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. 1$, 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, Page 20 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 68 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 69 Rancho Palos Verdes, Califomia: 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 (3/25199), 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 Munici al 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 Biology Report Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT - 69 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: Case No. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment) Location: 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Luis de Moraes Landowner: Kevin Chen I. Introduction._.................................................................................................... Purpose....... . ...... ................... ........ ... -- ............................... — ..... .....2 Environmental Procedures......... ................. .............................................. ...... ............... ........ 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements ...... ..................................................................................... 2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program................................................................................... 3 Rolesand Responsibilities............................................................................................................ 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. 2014 - ATTACHMENT - 70 I. INTRODUCTION This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 10 Chaparral Lane, located at the end of a cul-de-sac, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and Zoning map designation boundary lines on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district. The MMP responds to Section 2.1081.6 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 agencyforthe 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. 2014 - ATTACHMENT - 71 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in piace through all phases of the project including final design, pre -grading, constructionand 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. Mitiaation Monitorina Proaram 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 responsiblefor 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. 2014 - ATTACHMENT - 72 III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on April 17, 2012. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 4 Resolution No. 2014 - ATTACHMENT - 73 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEME=NTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (February 1 — August 31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs Construction Prior to clearing and/or grad}ng Property Owner 1 applicant Community Development between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction Department survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified I' biolo ist. 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 Community Development � activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified Construction Prior to clearing and/or grading Property Owner / applicant Department biologist has determined that the young are no longer {I dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity i has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP. onsrucon Construction Ptlid/Community rior o clearing and/orProperty Owner applicant opey wn1 ppan Development f Department 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. Property Owner 1 Community Development This wall shall be installed under a separate permit priorto Construction Prior to and during construction applicant, Department j construction of the proposed residence. 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 j testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting Prior to Building & Safety permit Property Owner i Community Development the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and Construction final applicant. Department geologic conditions exposed during gradinglexcavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. 3. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY i H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan Plan Check Prior to Building & Safety permit Property Owner/ Community Development 1 shall be reviewed and approved. issuance applicant. Department H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials Construction Prior to and during construction Property Owner/ Community Development would be allowed outside the designated construction a licant. Department Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 5 Resolution No. 2014 - ATTACHMENT - 74 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged 'I i and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to Construction Prior to and during construction Property Owner/ Community Development stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation applicant. Department can be reestablished. H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stared. If Property Owner / Community Development discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained Construction Prior to and during construction applicant. Department II personnel using appropriate methods. Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit A - Page 6 Resolution No. 2014 ATTACHMENT - 75 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) TO ALLOW A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD TO RESIDENTIAL FOR A PORTION OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "open space hazard"; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve Case No. ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, a new property owner acquired the subject property and submitted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal; 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 ATTACHMENT - 76 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 with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, On August 7, 2014, a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation 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 and within the Residential land use and Single -Family Residential zoning d istrict. Section 2: Approval of a General Plan amendment is warranted because the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed relocation of the General Plan Land Use boundary line would allow only the relatively flat area of the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard designation and to be completely within the Residential Land Use designation. The remaining extreme slopes beyond the new buildable area would remain as Natural Environment/Hazard. Further, the surrounding area is a developed residential neighborhood and thus the boundary line relocation would be consistent with the land use designation of the immediate developed neighborhood. Section 3: That the proposed change in the General Plan is warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public's interest because it would further differentiate only the pad area of the property from the extreme slope areas. Section 4: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, 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 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the City Council hereby approves the General Plan Amendment, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top ATTACHMENT - 77 of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus modifying the General Pian land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential for a portion of the property located at 10 Chaparral, as set forth in Exhibit W, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September 2014. 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. 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on September 2, 2014. City Clerk ATTACHMENT - 78 General Plan Land Use Map - - films1� NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD HO is v Ne Existing B Residential -W,ine a N. ATTACHMENT - 79 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADJUSTING THE OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH) AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -2) BOUNDARY LINE ON PROPERY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE, WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Pian Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "open space hazard"; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single- family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative declaration and conditionally approve Case No. ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence; and, WHEREAS, a new property owner acquired the subject property and submitted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal; 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 ATTACHMENT - 80 with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, On August 7, 2014, a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. This approval is for a change in zoning designation for a portion of 10 Chaparral Lane from the existing Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single -Family Residential (RS -2), as set forth in Exhibit `A', which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Specifically, the new OH boundary area will follow the top of the slope to the north of the building pad area, so that the areas to the south of the boundary line, including the building pad area will be entirely within the RS -2 zoning district while the areas to the north of the boundary line will remain OH. Section 2; The City Council finds that the proposed zone change would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts in addition to or beyond those already associated with the existing use of the site since the zone change reflects existing conditions on the subject property, and therefore has adopted Resolution No. 2014-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zone Change (Case No. ZON2014- 00143). Additionally, the zoning designations would be consistent with the topography of the site, which contains one building pad area (surrounded by extreme slopes) suitable for development. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and conceptually approved a geotechnical report in relation to the proposed project. Section 3: The City Council finds that the resulting change in zoning designation is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. A land use designation of Natural Environment/Hazard identifies areas that possess extreme physical constraints with very light intensity uses permitted such as agricultural and recreational activities. A land use designation of Residential allows for residential development, generally over areas with less physical constraints. The subject lot consists of extreme slopes with exception to one generally flat area. Currently, the only generally flat area of the lot suitable for residential development has a Natural Environment/Hazard land use and Open Space Hazard designation. The change in zoning designation from Open Space Hazard to Single -Family Residential, will allow the proposed residential development to occur on the flat area of the lot rather than over extreme slopes, thus consistent with the intent of the Ordinance No. _ Page 2 ATTACHMENT - 81 Residential land use of the General Plan. Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of the Zone Change is in the interest of the property owners within the project area because it would enable residential development on the only fiat area on the property, instead of over extreme slope areas. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the requested amendment to the City's zoning map as set forth in Exhibit `A' hereto. Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its 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 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 311;t day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this _ day of September 2014. Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) Mayor Ordinance No. _ Page 3 ATTACHMENT - 82 I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. —was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September_, 2014. Ordinance No. _ Page 4 ATTACHMENT - 83 Zoning Map Open Space Hazard (OH) `i k� ATTACHMENT - 84 Ara Mihranian From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:32 AM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: cc Subject: Re: General Plan Land Use Map proposed Amendment — Bronco Area Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment at 10 Chaparral Hi Ara, Thank you for the map. My comments remain the same. To be more specific, the City's proposal to amend the General Plan on this one parcel is misguided, incomplete and absurd. I look forward to seeing a Staff Report which recommends withdrawal of this proposal. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 8/27/2014 8:38:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, AraM@rpv.com writes: Sunshine, If you provide me with your comments before noon today I can still add them to the Staff Report (it's not finished yet). Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) ATTACHMENT - 85 aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv Do you really need to print this e-mail? "'his a -mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and;or protected frorn disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or fopying is strictly prohibit€gid. If you received this email in terror, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender irnmodiately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:35 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: General Plan Land Use Map proposed Amendment— Bronco Area I Ii. Ara, You wrote: Was the second exhibit I emailed you today ok? Got it and it is lovely. But, it does not show how the line will move on adjacent properties. You shouldn't propose leaving an incomplete circle. You shouldn't propose excluding a known, active landslide. The slope between Bronco Drive and 10 Chaparral is so steep that the City declined an offer, for free, of that little triangle lot. (A trail goes around it. F2.) If the definition of the [.1azard 'Lone is 35 percent or more slope and/or active geology, the existing line and the proposed line are both wrong. If the proposal is to update or amend the RPV General Plan Land Use Map, reveal the whole situation and get it right. (Preserve the trail, too.) ... S PS: Is the "Tuesday" you mentioned as the deadline for receiving comments, today? 2 ATTACHMENT - 86 3 ATTACHMENT - 87 ATTACHMENT - 88 John A. Feyk 2727 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 26 August 2014 Ms. So Kim, Senior Plann2r City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3094o Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Ref: Case No. ZON2014-0014.3 Dear Ms. Kim, pFeEIVED AUG 26 Z01 ]MUN{TY DEV. OPMENT DEPARTMENT" Along with many joggers, hikers; and equestrians, I have been passing through the property at 10 Chaparral Lane for decades. The property occupies a unique position from Chaparral Lane through George F Canyon's nature trail ending near the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and North. In addition to the downhill portion of the trail from Chaparral Lane, the uphill portion of the trail along the canyon passes through the property. Any zoning change and/or residential development eliminating ingress and egress for pedestrians and equestrians would have a drastically adverse affect on recreation and on cultural enjoyment of the nature trail. This request is not to suggest that the zoning -change should be disallowed but only that the change constructively keeps open a trail from Chaparral lane that joins with the uphill and downhill portions of the trail along the canyon. The trail can be located where it does not interfere with residential use of the property. However, the location must retain access for foot and horseback,passage. Sincerely, John A. Fevk john.feyk@cox.net ATTACHMENT - 89 Ara Mihranian From: tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:19 PM To: So Kim Cc: Ara Mihranian Subject: Public Comment -Case NO. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Environmental Assessment) Dear Ms. So Kim, I am writing because I am very concerned about the amendment to change the zoning boundary for the flat area at the end of 10 Chaparral Lane to RS -2 zoning. If this zoning change is approved and development takes place, this will have a significant impact on the native habitat that surrounds the flat area. The development footprint of even a single family residence could seriously impact populations of native plants as well as have the potential to introduce exotic/invasive species. The footprint of impact would be further extended by fire clearance. Due to these concerns I am opposed to the incorporation of the flat area into the RS -2 zoning. Thank you, Tony Baker 16 Limetree Ln. Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 ATTACHMENT - 90 So Kim From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:13 PM To: CC; Carolynn Petru; So Kim Cc: cprotem73@verizon.net; traildoctor@cox.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmaii.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; susanmswank@gmail.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; primadonis@aol.com; andyc@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us Subject: Learning from past mistakes. 10 Chaparral Attachments: Position page 1-0236.pdf, Position page 2-0237.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged March 26, 2014 MEMO from SUNSHINE TO: RPV City Council, City Manager and interested parties RE: Learning from past mistakes. It has been called to my attention that there is a now a new owner of the property known as 10 Chaparral. I have confirmed with So Kim that this new owner is in contact with the City's Planning Staff. Of great concern is the news that Staff is encouraging this applicant to pursue the poorly conceived easements which were negotiated with the previous owner. Attached is a clarification of the City's approved objectives with regard to preserving these historic trail connections. Staff should not support any application which does not provide for the continued use of these trail connections and a minimal interruption during construction. Subsequent to the writing of the attached Position Statement, the RPV City Council has directed Staff to use the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. Staff should be advising the applicant that his/her development proposal must include the design for the relocation and reconstruction of Trail F1 to a minimum of the TYPE 7 CRITERIA. As one of the "spokes" in the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network, the design for relocation and reconstruction of Trail F2 should meet a minimum of the TYPE 5 CRITERIA. Any easements recorded should provide for public access to these physically usable trails, in perpetuity. These trail relocations must be included in the proposed grading plan. What is a General Plan for if Staff does not mention it to new applicants? This sort of business should be taken care of long before a Public Hearing is noticed. ATTACHMENT - 91 RE: Implementation of trail preservation opportunities Page 1 of 2 Position Statement Direct questions to the above or March 20, 2012 Sunshine 310 377-8761 Practically from day one after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has had a problem with trails preservation. Various solutions have been considered including the trails oriented Goals in the Transportation Element in the General Plan and the adoption of a Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP), Historic trails were still being lost. On 1170611991 the RPV City Council adopted Amendment 22 to the General Plan in an effort to make it more clear which Department was responsible for preserving and snaking an effort to Improve which sort of trails 'based on the legal status of the public's access. Staff is stili destroying historically used trail connections. Simply acquiring a trail easement without designing, funding and constructing the revised trail tread .in a timely fashion Increases- the liability of the City at large and reduces the public's access to emergency and recreatio' nal circulation. In the .case .of 1.4 Chaparral .(CASE NO.. ZON201,0405); Staff Is. recommending more easement acquisition and more trail connection Obliteration. This is not the Applicant's fault. City Council should not have to delay -this .application, :again, in order for Staff to come up with both a more immediate and a more permanent solution. In the `RPV General Plan, the "concept" (figure 22). is to preserve the trail connection through the Bronco neighborhood to both Rolling HillsEstates and Rolling Hills. Theexistingtrails-cross 10 Chaparral. The RPV CTP Indicates that Section Five, Trails F1 and F2 are to meet the Pedestrianlequestrian "'challenging" and "intermediate" standards, respectively. "The exact route is to be designed! prior>to,.Nsement solicitation " (Emphasis added.) Staffs current recommendation does not do that. The RPV Open Space Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force proposed a Trails Development/ Maintenance Criteria. Staff has not yet produced an analysis of this design specification tool. It is our position that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should avail themselves of all the professional and volunteer skills needed to design, negotiate the public access and arrange to construct a TYPE*5 trail corridor between the south end of the Stein -Hale Trail in RHE to the south end of Bronco Road prior to approving this GENERAL PIAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION & GRADING PERMIT. There is an abundance of "nexus". ATTACHMENT - 92 t r t' � t ♦ � t'' .y 1 t` t t'' ATTACHMENT - 93