21 - P.C. Staff Report dated September 13, 2011P.C. Staff Report
(September 13, 2011)
ATTACHMENT - 210
STAFF
REPORT
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823/F-1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
CHAIRMAN AND EMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMM SIO
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEV P -'(RECTOR
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 13, 01
SUBJECT:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE
CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION,
GRADING PERMIT
(CASE NO. ZON2010-00025)
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
10 CHAPARRAL LANE
APPLICANT/
LANDOWNER: FRANK COLARUOTOLO
STAFF SO KIM d' f
COORDINATOR: ASSISTANT PLANNER
REQUESTED ACTION: RELOCATE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL & NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD AND THE ZONING BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -2) & OPEN SPACE HAZARD TO A MORE NORTHERLY LOCATION ON A
VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE SO THAT THE MORE LEVEL AREA OF THE LOT
CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH A NEW 6,838FT2 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 2,000yd' OF GRADING.
RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE, WHICH WILL
REQUIRE A RE -NOTICE, TO ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS GRADING AND TRAIL ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE PUBLIC.
REFERENCES:
ZONING: OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH) & SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -2)
LAND USE: VACANT
CODE SECTIONS: 17.02,17.32,17.46,17.48,17-54,17.56,17.68,17.78,17.80,17.86 & 17.96
GENERAL PLAN: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD & RESIDENTIAL (1-2 DU/ACRE)
TRAILS PLAN: GEORGETTE CANYON TRAIL (F-3)
SPECIFIC PLAN: NONE
CEQA: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HAWTHORNEPLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENTO940 DIVIS ON (310) 544--52228 / BUILDING ILDING & CHO PALSAFETY DIVS VERDES, CA N90275
ONO(310)A5 ToACPf riMENT93- 211
E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCOM/ WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
P.C. Staff Report (ZON 40-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 2
ACTION DEADLINE: OCTOBER 1, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request, allowing the
applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan land use and zoning
designation to adjust the boundary lie between the portion designated as "residential" and the
portion designated as "hazard" on the subject property.
On September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-
000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008-00512) to change the land use and
zoning designation to adjust the 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 changed the scope of the project and then ultimately withdrew his application.
On January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application, requesting to change the land
use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line on the property and construct one
single-family residence on the subject lot. Upon preliminary review, Staff deemed the
application incomplete on January 21, 2010 due to insufficient information. After subsequent
submittals of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on August 1, 2011.
Additionally, Staff determined that the proposed project did not qualify for a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was circulated to the County Recorder on August 1,
2011 for posting and a comment period of at least 20 days prior to consideration (as required by
CEQA) and was also circulated to all applicable agencies. Further, a public hearing notice was
mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 4, 2011. During the comment period, Staff received
eleven letters of concern related to the proposed project.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is an 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at 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 of Chaparral Lane. The existing
slopes in both land use designations are vegetated with federally protected coastal sage scrub
ATTACHMENT - 212
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIj 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 3
habitat. The relatively level area has been existing from at least 1976, according to the City's
topographic map and does not contain protected habitat.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan land use and zoning
designation boundary line on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate the
boundary line 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. Additionally, the project includes 2,000yd3 (500yd3
cut & 1,500yd3 fill) of grading for the construction of a new 6,838ft2 two-story residence on the
existing flat area of the lot. Since the street elevation is approximately 10' higher than the
building pad area, fill will be required both on the building pad area and driveway to create an
access that does not exceed 20% slope (Code allowed maximum). The existing earth on the
building pad area will be excavated to the bedrock and replaced with compacted fill. A fill of 4.5'
in height is also proposed on the newly compacted building pad to be accessible from the street.
A summary of the critical project statistics is as follows:
CRITERIA
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
Lot Size
20,000ft2
88,430ft2
Building Size
6,838ft2
Setbacks
Front
20'
59'-3"
Side (N)
5'
181'-7"
Side (S)
5'
273'-4"
Rear
15'
16'-4"
Lot Coverage
40%
10%
Enclosed Parking
3
3
Building Height
Pre -construction grade at the
highest elevation of existing
16' max.
23'-1"
building pad covered by structure
to the rid eline.
Point where the lowest foundation
or slab meets finished grade, to
20' max.
26'-0"
the rid eline.
CODE CONSIDERATION & ANALYSIS
The proposed project requires a General Plan amendment and zone change to relocate the
boundary line between two separate land use and zoning designations; and a Height Variation
and Grading Permit to develop the property with a single -gamily dwelling.
According to California Government Code Section No. 65353, the Planning Commission is
required to hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption
or amendment of a general plan to the City Council. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section No.
ATTACHMENT - 213
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIC i0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 4
17.68.040 requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on Zone Changes.
General Plan Amendment
The applicant is requesting to relocate the boundary line between the General Plan land use
designation of Natural Environment/Hazard and Residential. In order to approve a General Plan
amendment, the City must find that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan.
As described under 'Site Description' of this Staff report, the subject site consists mostly of
extreme slopes with a relatively flat area near the center of the property. With the current land
use and zoning designation, the relatively flat area is designated as Natural
Environment/Hazard, where development would not be allowed. As a result, without a land use
change, the applicant would be forced to build on the extreme slope area. According to the
applicant's biology report (reviewed and approved by the. City Biologist), the sloping areas
beyond the building pad area are vegetated by coastal sage scrub, a federally protected habitat.
As such, without relocating the General Plan land use boundary line, the applicant will be faced
with denuding federally protected habitat in order to develop the lot. Based on the biology
report, there are no traces of coastal sage scrub on the building pad area. Additionally, the
proposed relocation of the General Plan land use boundary line would allow the only relatively
flat area on the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard
designation and be completely within the Residential land use designation. The new boundary
line would be moved in a northerly direction, near the top of the slope abutting the existing
relatively flat area. The remaining extreme slope beyond the new buildable area would remain
as Natural Environment/Hazard and the coastal sage scrub in this area will be preserved. The
boundary line relocation would better distinguish the developable pad area of the lot from the
steep canyon slope vegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub.
Additionally, given that the subject property rests within a developed residential tract; it is Staffs
opinion that the proposal would make the property consistent with the land use designation of
the immediate developed neighborhood. Furthermore, it is Staffs opinion the proposed
residential land use modification in an area with existing residential developments would be
internally consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because the proposed
modification would force development on a building pad area instead over extreme slopes,
which is generally prohibited. Therefore, Staff believes that the General Plan amendment would
be appropriate for the proposed area on the subject property.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment section and attached Initial Study,
the project site is not located in a geologically unstable area as defined in the City's General
Plan and State Landslide Map. However, according to the applicant's geology report, the
southeastern portion of the lot experienced landsliding due to the extension of Chaparral Lane
to the subject property many years ago. It should be noted that the landslide was primarily on
the abutting vacant property to the east, with a portion of the slide extending onto the subject
property. Thus, in order to develop the subject lot and maintain a stable access, the City
Geologist is requiring the applicant to obtain approval to grade and install caissons along the
southern part of Chaparral Lane to ensure safe and secure access not only to the subject
property, but to neighboring properties. No other landslides have been identified on the subject
property. The applicant's geology report for the proposed project received an in -concept
approval from the City's Geologist with a requirement that caissons be used to stabilize the
access on Chaparral, that existing fill dirt on the building pad be removed and replaced with
compacted fill, that the proposed home and retaining wall use deepened footings into bedrock
ATTACHMENT - 214
P.C. Staff Report (ZON -i 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 5
and use caissons in front of the home to stabilize the slopes beyond the building pad area.
Therefore, the City approved geology report establishes sound geologic basis for relocating the
existing boundary line to the top of the slope.
It should be noted, according to Government Code Section No. 65358, any element of the
General Plan may be modified a maximum of four times per calendar year. Should the
requested General Plan amendment be eventually approved by the City Council, then it would
represent the first amendment to the General Plan this year.
Zone Change
In order to bring the site's zoning designation in compliance with the requested General Plan
land use designation, the applicant is requesting to modify the zoning of a portion of the
property from Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single Family Residential (RS -2). According to
Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.010, the purpose of the single-family residential district is to
provide for individual homes on separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, at various
minimum lot sizes, to provide for a range of yard and lot sizes which are based on the General
Plan of the City, and to provide for other uses that are associated and compatible with
residential uses designated in this title. Given that the zone change request is to allow an area
of the lot that would be most suitable to be developed since it is the only relatively flat area on
the lot, it is Staffs opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code.
Since Chaparral Lane is a developed residential area, modifying the zoning boundary on the
subject property would not be inconsistent with other developed residential parcels in the area -
Furthermore, should the General Plan amendment be approved, the zone change would also .
need to be approved in order to maintain the zoning's consistency with the General Plan.
Additionally, as discussed under the 'General Plan Amendment' section, the city geologist has
reviewed the applicant's geology report in support of the zoning boundary change and
conceptually approved the geology report with specific requirements to stabilize the access and
the sloping areas of the lot.
Height Variation
Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(B)(1) allows the construction of a single-family residence
on pad lots within the RS -2 zoning district that does not exceed 16', as measured from the
existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure
to the ridgeline; and 20', as measured form the point where the lowest foundation/slab meets
finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. Municipal Code Section No.
17.02.040(6)(1) allows these heights to be increased to a maximum height of 26' with the
approval of a Height Variation. With the approval of the pending General Plan land use and
zoning designation change, the subject property would be considered a pad lot that could
accommodate a residence up to 26' in height. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing
to place fill on the building pad area to raise the pad by 4.5' in height. Although the building pad.
is being raised, the height of the new structure will still be measured from the existing highest
grade to be covered by the structure. As such, while the new structure itself is proposed at 23'
in height, when measured form the existing highest elevation point; the overall height will be 26'.
Since the proposed project involves a structure in excess of 20' in height, a Height Variation
application is required.
ATTACHMENT - 215
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIC 10-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 6
Per Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1)(a), the Director shall refer a Height Variation
application directly to the Planning Commission for consideration if the portion of the structure
which exceeds 16' in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence. Since
the applicant is proposing a new two-story, single-family residence, it is subject to Planning
Commission's review. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings (in
bold type) required in order for the City to approve a Height Variation:
1. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established
by the city;
The City's early neighbor consultation process requires the applicant to obtain and submit the
signatures of property owners within a 500' radius of the applicant's property. The early
neighbor consultation is deemed adequate only if the signatures of at least 60% of the
landowners within 500'; or 70% of the landowners within 100' and 25% of the total number of
landowners within 500' (including those within 100') is provided, as well as proof of notification
of the homeowner's association, if one exists.
The applicant collected a total of 20 (66%) landowner signatures within the 500' radius and
notified the local homeowner's association in the area. As such, the applicant has complied
with the early neighbor consultation process and this finding can be met.
2. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a
view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or
equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific
plan, as city -designated viewing areas;
The General Plan defines a view as a scene observed from a given vantage point (i.e. Catalina
Island); whereas, a vista is defined as a confined view, which is usually, directed toward a
terminal or dominate element or feature (i.e. lighthouse). There are no views or vistas in the
vicinity which has been identified in the City's General Plan (Visual Aspects Figure 41) and the
subject property is not located in the coastal area. Therefore, this finding can be met.
3. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or promontory;
The subject property is located within a developed single-family residential tract. The tract is not
located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code, and therefore this
finding can be met.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16` in height, when considered
exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
another parcel.
The properties along Chaparral Lane enjoy views in a northerly direction. Therefore, the
properties located north, east and west of the subject property are not affected by the proposed
project. Additionally, the properties located to the south are not affected by the proposed
project because they are approximately 100' higher in elevation than the subject property.
Therefore, the proposed new structure over 16' in height will not significantly impair any views
from the viewing area of another parcel. Therefore, this finding can be met.
ATTACHMENT - 216
P.C. Staff Report (ZOO :x'10-00025) .'
September 13, 2011
Page 7
5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined
not to be significant, the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height is designed
and situated in such a manner as to reasonable minimize the impairment of a view;
The proposed project does not cause view impairment from another parcel. Therefore this
finding does not apply.
6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the
amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structures that is
above 16' in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be
caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures that exceed 16' in
height;
There is no cumulative view impairment because there is no view impairment caused by the
proposed project. Therefore, this finding can be met.
7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements;
As noted in the project description section of this report, the proposed addition meets all of the
code requirements including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and enclosed parking. As
such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
Neighborhood Compatibility is achieved when a new home is designed in a manner that blends
in with the characteristics of the immediate neighborhood. The "character" of a neighborhood is
defined in the City's Development Code as the following: architectural style, mass and bulk,
height, number of stories, roof design, scale, orientation, setbacks, open space, texture,
color, and building materials.
The table below compares the 20 -closest homes in the immediate neighborhood to the subject
property.
ATTACHMENT - 217
8 Bronco Drive
23,370
4,995
1
10 Bronco Drive
25,080
6,361
2
12 Bronco Drive
20,131
4,700
2
2895 Bronco Drive
52,272
3,160
1
2899 Bronco Drive
57,063
4,409
1
4 Ca use Lane
20,304 1
3,057
1
6 Ca use Lane
20,190
4,094
1
10 Ca use Lane
25,930
3,177
1
14 Ca use Lane
25,250
2,470
1
22 Ca use Lane
20,000
4,440
1
28431 Ca use Lane
21,400
3,456
1
1 Chaparral Lane
22,750
3,035
2
2 Chaparral Lane
26,740
3,028
1
3 Chaparral Lane
29,700
1,760
2
ATTACHMENT - 217
P.C. Staff Report (ZOK ,A0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 8
4 Chaparral Lane
25,440
4,145
2
5 Chaparral Lane
28,940
3,520
2
6 Chaparral Lane
24,389
6,911
2
7 Chaparral Lane
29,990
5,085
2
3250 Martingale Drive
50,529
3,520
1
3258 Martingale Drive
54.450
3.333
1
10 Chaparral Lane 88,430 6,838 ' 2
Architectural Style, Roof Design, Texture, Color and Building Materials
The 20 -closest homes are mostly California Ranch style homes with gable or hip roof designs
using either composite shingle or red tile material. There is one house in the area that includes
design features commonly found in pueblo style homes. The proposed residence will use the
same materials found in other residences in the immediate area, such as stucco exterior finish
with a tile roof. The proposed residence will also include columns and a covered entryway.
Staff feels that the proposed architectural style, hip roof design and building materials are
consistent with other homes in the neighborhood.
Mass and Bulk, Number of Stories, Scale, Open Space and Setbacks
Although the proposed home will be the second largest in the immediate neighborhood, Staff
does not believe it will be out of scale. The reasons are as follows: 1) location of the lot; 2)
10% of the structure size is below grade; and 3) use of varying roof planes and structure
setbacks to minimize the apparent bulk and mass of the residence.
More specifically, the subject property is located at the end of Chaparral Lane and the closest
portion of the new structure will be more than 59' away from the front property line abutting the
street. Due to the location of the lot and the placement of the proposed structure, the new
house will appear smaller than its actual size. Secondly, 714ft2 of the total proposed structure
size of 6,838ft2 will be entirely below grade and will not be visible. Lastly, the proposed
residence includes design features such as recessing the second floor by more than 10' above
the garage to provide articulation. Since the garage faces the street, recessing the second floor
in this area minimizes the appearance of bulk and mass when seen from the street.
Additionally, the applicant is providing pillars around the side and rear of the residence that
extend beyond the building fagade, creating more depth to the design. A balcony feature is also
added to the rear to provide additional articulation. As such, Staff feels that the proposed
structure will not appear bulky and massive.
In terms of open space, the building footprint of the proposed project is 6% of the total lot size.
As such, it is Staff's opinion that even with the proposed driveway and other paved areas, the
total lot coverage of the proposed project (10%) would be well below the neighboring properties
and therefore compatible.
The structure setbacks on neighboring properties vary heavily due to varying lot configuration
and sizes. As such, Staff feels that the proposed setbacks will not deviate from the
neighborhood character.
ATTACHMENT - 218
P.C. Staff Report (ZOf _,. a 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 9
Based on the discussion above, Staff feels that the proposed project achieves neighborhood
compatibility and this finding can be met.
9. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not result in an
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences;
The Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(A) defines "privacy" as reasonable protection from
intrusive visual observation. The closest residence is 7 Chaparral Lane, located immediately
east of the subject property. The proposed structure will be placed more than 59' away while
the existing structure at 7 Chaparral Lane is approximately 100' away from the shared property
line. In other words, the proposed structure will be more than 159' away from the nearest home
and therefore will not result in privacy impacts. As such, this finding can be met.
Grading Permit — Major
A Major Grading Permit is required for projects which result in excess of 50yd3 in any two-year
period. When a Major Grading Permit application proposes earth movement involving 1,OOOyd3
or more of earth, the application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration
with criteria set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040. The proposed project involves a total of 2,000yd3
for recompaction and fill on the building pad and a maximum 8' depth of fill around the driveway
area. More specifically, the building pad area will be excavated to bed rock and re -filled with
compacted fill. The footings for the new residence and retaining wall will be in newly compacted
fill, embedded in bedrock. A small portion of the building pad will not be filled because a
basement level is proposed as part of the new residence. Additionally, due to the elevation
difference between the street level (Chaparral Lane) and the building pad area, additional fill is
proposed both on the building pad area and a new driveway area so that the driveway gradient
does not exceed the Code allowed maximum of 20% gradient.
As a result of the proposal to develop the vacant lot with a residential structure, the City
Geologist is requiring the applicant to install caissons at the base of the slope that straddles the
subject property and the immediately abutting vacant property to the east to mitigate a landslide.
According to the applicant's geology report, a dormant landslide is identified on the abutting
vacant property to the east with no historical movement in the past. However, some time ago,
the toe of the slope on this abutting property was excavated to provide access to the subject
property. The excavated area was not stabilized at that time and a landslide occurred that
extended over to the south eastern part of the subject property. As such, the City Geologist is
requiring the applicant to install caissons to mitigate this landslide, prior to developing the
subject lot. However, because some of the required caissons are located on the adjacent
property, authorization from the adjacent property owner is required and still pending.
Therefore, one of the reasons for Staff's continuance recommendation is to allow additional time
for the applicant to obtain the abutting neighbor's approval to grade and install caissons on the
abutting lot.
With exception to the proposed grading and caissons on the abutting property, Staff analyzed
the proposed grading within the boundary lines of the subject property in, light of the following
Major Grading Permit criteria (in bold type):
1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot;
ATTACHMENT - 219
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIC"_`. -00025) .'
September 13, 2011
Page 10
"Primary use" means the most important purpose for which a particular zoning district was
established (RPVMC §17.96.2210). The subject lot is zoned single-family residential (RS -2).
The purpose of the single-family residential district (RS) is to provide for individual homes on
separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, at various minimum lot sizes, to provide for
a range of a yard and lot sizes which are based on the general plan of the city, and to provide
for other uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses (RPVMC §17.02.010).
The subject property consists of extreme slopes with a relatively flat area at the center. The
applicant is proposing to raise the pad area by approximately 4.5' and fill the driveway area up
to 8' in height so that a vehicular driveway to the proposed residence can be constructed
without exceeding the 20% mandatory gradient allowed per Code. Additionally, the applicant's
geology report (which was conceptually reviewed and approved by the City Geologist)
recommends caissons on the south side of Chaparral Lane to stabilize the access way,
construction of a retaining wall along the upper slope to the south with footings embedded in
bedrock to stabilize the southern slope, recompaction of the building pad area so that the
footings for the new structure will be on newly compacted fill, embedded in bedrock, and
caissons in front of the home to stabilize the building pad and lower slope. As such, in order to
develop the lot as proposed, 2,000yd3 of grading is proposed primarily for stabilization
purposes. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed grading is necessary for the development of
the property for its intended use and this criterion can be met.
2) The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of
neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence, this
finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade
under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower
than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if
measured from preconstruction (existing) grade;
As discussed in Height Variation finding no. 4, no views will be impacted by the proposed
project. Although the applicant is proposing to raise the elevation of the building pad by
approximately 4.5' in height, there are no views across the proposed grading/construction area.
Therefore, the proposed grading and related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. As such, this criterion can be met.
3) The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural;
Grading is necessary to construct a driveway access from the street (Chaparral Lane) to the
building pad area which is approximately 10' lower in elevation. In order to maintain a driveway
slope of less than 20%, the applicant is filling the driveway area up to 8' in height. By raising the
driveway, it is also necessary to raise the building pad level for access. The only other
alternative would be to create a wrap around driveway that would need to be built over a larger
portion of the extreme slope. Staff feels that the proposed fill to minimize the area of grading is
a better alternative. As a result of raising the building pad and access areas, the applicant is
proposing to create transitional slopes to blend in the new fill area with the natural downslope
beyond. Additionally, the applicant will grade the area immediately behind the retaining wall
against the upslope to blend in with the upper slope beyond. Staff feels that creating transitional
slopes behind the upper retaining wall and the lower slope would result in finished contours that
ATTACHMENT - 220
P.C. Staff Report (ZON. 10-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 11
appear reasonably natural. Additionally, it should be noted that the applicant is disturbing less
than 1/5 of the natural slope while the remaining existing slope will be preserved in its current
condition. Therefore, this criterion can be met.
4) The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography;
As discussed in criterion 3 above, the applicant is creating slopes behind the upper retaining
wall and the lower slope to blend in with the natural contours of the site. Additionally, the
applicant will be altering less than 1/5 of the existing slopes on the property. Therefore, Staff
feels that the proposed grading takes into account the natural topographic features on the site
by means of land sculpturing while preserving most (4/5).of the site in its original condition.
Therefore, this criterion can be met.
5) For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
As discussed in Height Variation no. 8, Staff feels that the proposed project achieves
neighborhood compatibility with regards to scale, bulk and mass, architectural size and
setbacks. Therefore, this criterion can be met.
6) In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes form soil erosion and slippage
an minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas;
The proposed project is not part of a new residential tract. Therefore, this criterion does not
apply.
7) The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the
hillside;
This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements; therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
8) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
As discussed in the project's 'Initial Study', a biology report submitted by the applicant shows
that the vegetation on the slopes consist of federally protected 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 Initial Study identifies mitigation measures as part
of the proposed project. With these mitigation measures in place, this criterion can be met.
9) The grading conforms to the following standards:
Table 2 below summarizes the proposed project's consistency with these criteria. Further,
below are a detailed explanation of each criteria and how this project does or does not meet
ATTACHMENT - 221
P.C. Staff Report (ZON 1 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 12
said criteria.
Table 2
a) Grading on
Permitted on vacant lots created prior to the
slopes over 35%
City's incorporation, not zoned OH, based
Yes (with finding)
steepness
upon a finding that the grading will not
threaten public health, safety and welfare
b) Maximum finished
35% steepness, unless next to a driveway
No
slopes
where 67% steepness is permitted
c) Maximum depth
5' depth, unless based upon a finding that
of cut or fill
unusual topography, soil conditions, previous
Yes (with finding)
grading or other circumstances make such
grading reasonable and necessary
d) Restricted
No grading on slopes over 50% steepness
Yes
grading areas
e) Retaining walls
One 8' -tall upslope wall (unless in front yard
Yes
or street side setback
One 3W -tall downslope wall
Yes
One 3W -tall up- or downslope wall in each
Yes
One 5' -tall up- or downslope wall adjacent to Yes
driveway
Retaining walls within building footprint may Yes
exceed 8'
f) Driveways 20% maximum slope permitted, with a single Yes
I U-Iong section up to 22%
67% slopes permitted adjacent to driveways Yes
a) Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and
legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently
zoned open space/hazard, if the Director or Planning Commission finds that such
grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare.
The subject residential lot was created in April 1957 (Tract Map No. 22946), prior to the
City's incorporation in 1973. The lot was created with slopes that exceed 35% which
would necessitate grading to reasonably develop the property. Most of the
topographically comparable lots within the same residential tract were granted grading
approvals to accommodate an individual dwelling and driveway. If the proposed project
is approved, the applicant will be required to submit a final soils/geology report, subject
to the City Geologist's review and approval prior to any grading activity. The applicant
will also be subject to Building & Safety Department's regulations to ensure that the
proposed grading will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, Staff
believes that this finding can be met.
c) Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed
a depth of 5' at any point except where the Director or Planning Commission
determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other
circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary.
The elevation difference between the street of access (Chaparral Lane) and the building
ATTACHMENT - 222
P.C. Staff Report (ZOK.., :: ,' 0-00025) i
September 13, 2011
Page 13
pad area is approximately 10' in height. In order to create a driveway that does not
exceed 20% steepness, the applicant is proposing to raise the building pad area and the
driveway up to 8' in height. As such, Staff feels that the existing topographical
conditions make the proposed grading reasonable and necessary to develop the subject
lot. Therefore, this standard can be met.
As evidenced in the discussion above, criterion (E)(9)(b) cannot be met. According to
Development Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), the Planning Commission may grant a Grading
Permit in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) upon finding that:
10a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied;
As described above, all other findings for the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review
approval can be met. Therefore, this finding can be met.
10b. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit;
The Development Code §17.76.040 describes the purpose of the Grading Permit and Site
Plan Review as "permitting reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum
preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic
use of such property, and ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of
the General Plan" The General Plan land use map allows for a residential development
and ancillary improvements on the subject lot. Staff believes that the proposed grading
and related retaining walls are consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit because
it allows reasonable development of the intended use of the property without adversely
affecting surrounding properties while consistent with the RS -2 zoning designation for the
area. Therefore, this finding can be met.
10c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity; and,
The subject property consists of extreme slopes that exceed 35%, similar to other lots
along Chaparral Lane. The proposed depth of fill allows recompaction of the building pad
area, as recommended by the City Geologist and allows access from Chaparral Lane to
the subject property, which is approximately 10' lower in elevation. The maximum
proposed depth of fill is 8' in height. Other neighboring developed properties were also
granted similar approvals to allow access to the building pad area. Neighboring properties
located at 4, 5 and 6 Chaparral Lane also had similar height of cut and/or fill approved to
develop their lots, as shown in the table below.
4 Chaparral Lane 8' 3'
5 Chaparral Lane 7' 4'
6 Chaparral Lane 12' 4'
Based on the topography of the site and the elevation difference from the street of access,
an 8' maximum height of fill is necessary on the subject property. Allowing the applicant to
create slopes in excess of 35% allows the man-made slopes to blend in with the existing
ATTACHMENT - 223
r
P.C. Staff Report (ZO1 V,._ 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 14
2:1 slopes on site. More specifically, three neighboring properties (3, 4 and 5 Chaparral
Lane) were also granted generally the same deviations as what is being requested by the
applicant. As such, Staff believes that the proposed project will not constitute a grant of
special privileges as it will be consistent with other improved properties in the vicinity.
Therefore, this finding can be met.
10d. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) will not be detrimental to the
public safety nor to other property;
While, the proposed improvements will require final geotechnical review and issuance of a
Building Permit, thereby ensuring that the improvements will not be detrimental to or
injurious to other properties and improvements in the area, the proposed grading has been
reviewed as part of a preliminary geology report, . approved by the City Geologist.
However, because the implementation of the slope buttressing recommendation included
in the City approved geology report require the abutting neighbor's authorization; this
finding cannot be made until such authorization is obtained.
10e. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property
adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the
applicant.
Staff will prepare a notice of decision and distribute it to the applicant and adjacent
property owners upon project approval. As such, this finding can be met.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Environmental Assessment & Decision Deadline
Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project did not quality for a CEQA exemption and therefore
staff prepared an Initial Study of the project's environmental impacts (Environmental Checklist
Form is attached). As a result of the Initial Study, Staff determined that the proposed project
would not have a significant effect on the environment if appropriate mitigation measures were
incorporated, resulting in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
As evidenced in the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in or create any significant
impacts, or have less than significant impacts to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, air
quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, land
use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation,
transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems. However, it was identified that the project
may create potentially significant impacts to biological resources, geology/soils and
hydrology/water quality, unless mitigated with appropriate measures. These potential impacts
and the associated mitigation measures are discussed below.
Biological Resources: 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 resulting from
proposed construction activities. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on
nesting birds, the Initial Study identified mitigation measures that require clearing and grading
ATTACHMENT - 224
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIC 10-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 15
on site to occur outside of the avian nesting season. These mitigation measures will be
included as part of the project's condition of approval.
Geology/Soils: The proposed project may cause erosion if proper mitigation measures are not
implemented. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts, the Initial Study
identified mitigation measures that require a caisson wall to be built against the upslope for
stabilization, prior to construction of the proposed residence. Additionally, a detailed
geology/soils report will be required for final approval through the Building & Safety Divison's
plan check process prior to building permit issuance.
Hydrology/Water Quality: Increased runoff is expected from development of the site that may
cause hillside erosion during and after construction. To ensure that there will be 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 Division
review. Additionally, a drainage plan will be required for review and approval prior to building
permit issuance.
However, it should be noted that the applicant submitted revised plans after the distribution of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration that included a reduction in structure size and identified the
grading on the abutting neighbor's property. Since the proposed grading and installation of
caissons on the abutting neighbor's property to mitigate a landslide was not assessed as part of
the Initial Study, Staff will need to re-circulate a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
for review. However, since CEQA requires a posting and a comment period of at least 20 days
prior to consideration of the MND and the decision deadline for the proposed project is October
1, 2011, the applicant and the City will have to agree to a 90-day extension to the decision
deadline to schedule the proposed proj6ct to a date certain.
Conceptual Trails Plan
Local trail users have raised concerns with regards to trail use and access of the property. They
indicated that there is an existing dirt path on the subject property that connects Chaparral Lane
with a trail easement over the abutting easterly property (7 Chaparral) which ultimately leads to
a Nature Trail in Rolling Hills Estates. Staff confirmed that there is a dirt path on the subject
property that appears to be used as a pedestrian and equestrian trail that connects to a trail in
Rolling Hills Estates. However, it should be noted that there is no easement on the subject
property dedicated for any type of public trail use. The actual recorded trail easement what was
intended to connect Chaparral Lane with the trails in neighboring Rolling Hills Estates is on the
adjoining private property (7 Chaparral). However, due to the steepness of the easement it has
not been improved with a trail and is not used by the public. On a general note, the local trail
users are concerned with the gradual reduction of trails in the city due to new developments and
the property owners' unwillingness to dedicate easements for trail use.
The City's conceptual trails plan identifies three pedestrian/equestrian use trails that converge
near the applicant's property. These three conceptual trails are the Gap Trail (F1), the Bronco
Trail (172) and the Georgette Canyon Trail (F3). The Georgette Canyon Trail is identified on the
southern most area of the subject property. The other two conceptual trail locations do not
appear to be on the subject property. Although the City's Conceptual Trails Plan does not
require that the property owner dedicate an easement to serve as a public trail, since the dirt
ATTACHMENT - 225
P.C. Staff Report (ZOh 0-00025) '
September 13, 2011
Page 16
path on the subject property has been functioning as a connection to other trails in the vicinity;
the local trail users are requesting that the property owner dedicate a trail easement to maintain
the current trail path on the subject property.
Despite the City's Conceptual Trail's Plan trail designations, the applicant is under no obligation
to grant any public trail easements on his property to implement these trail connections.
Notwithstanding, Staff believes that there is an opportunity to improve the trail connections in
the area. Therefore, another reason Staff is recommending continuance is to meet with the
applicant and adjoining property owner at 7 Chaparral Lane to see if either party owner is willing
to add or modify trail easements on their respective properties to offer better trail connections.
The applicant indicated that he is interested in working with the City on this issue.
Public Correspondence
Staff received eleven letters of concern related to trail connection, geologic stability, fire access
and riparian impact. Most of these letters were from neighbors desiring the access to nearby
trails maintained on the subject property. This matter has been addressed in the above
paragraphed under 'Conceptual Trails Plan'.
Five of the letters expressed concerns that the subject property is not geologically stable for
development and an adequate fire access does not exist. One of these letters also indicates
that there is a landslide identified on the subject site. As described under the 'Grading Permit'
section and based on the 2007 Landslide Inventory Map prepared by the California Geologic
Survey (Dept. of Conservation), the abutting neighbor has a 'dormant' landslide area with no
evidence of historic landslide movement that extends slightly over on the southeastern portion
of the subject property. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in the report, the City Geologist
reviewed the plans and is requiring a caisson wall be constructed, prior to the development of
the subject lot to stabilize/mitigate the landslide. The applicant is currently in the process of
contacting the abutting neighbor for approval to grade and install caissons on their property.
Additionally, the applicant is aware that he will need to obtain Fire Department approval prior to
Building Permit issuance.
One of the letters also expressed concerns related to potential riparian impact at the northern
edge of the subject property. As mentioned in the `Project Description' section, the proposed
grading and construction area is more than 180' away from the north property line. Additionally,
a biology report was reviewed and submitted to assess any impacts to protected habitat. Based
on the biology report reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, the only potential for impact
is to coastal sage scrub and nesting birds as discussed under 'Environmental Assessment' and
mitigation measures have been added to the attached Exhibit W.
Foliage Analysis
A foliage analysis conducted by Staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the
protected view from any surrounding properties.
Application Package
The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request requires a City Council decision. As
noted previously, the development applications for the new residence are being processed
ATTACHMENT - 226
P.C. Staff Report (ZOIC � 0-00025)
September 13, 2011
Page 17
concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. Pursuant to the
City's Development Code, the City Council shall act on the entire application package. As such,
although typically the Planning Commission would make a final decision on the development
applications, in this case, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the
City Council on the entire application package.
CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion above, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue
the public hearing to an unspecified date, which will require a re -notice, to allow time for Staff to
address grading and trail issues that have been raised by the public.
ATTACHMENTS
Public Correspondence
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Conceptual Geology Approval
Geology Report (dated February 1, 2011)
ATTACHMENT - 227
Public Correspondence
ATTACHMENT - 228
i f
:
RECEIVE►
SEP 0 6 2011 Damon Swank
CCUMUN1?Y OEVELOPMEW
r%EP&MIA04T
2621 Plaza Del Amo, No. 527
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 365-9692
September 6, 2011
Ms. So Kim
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Re: Proposal to Rezone a Portion of #10 Chaparral from Open Space Hazard to
Residential
Dear Ms. Kim:
I oppose the change in zoning because the property remains just as hazardous as it has always
been. The geology has not changed. Not only is the lot itself unstable, but the land above and
below it is not stable.
I enclose a geology report on this lot, prepared by U.S. Geologic Services. His observations and
conclusions are set forth on pages 18 and 19.
This property was purchased at a bankruptcy trustee's sale. The purchaser was given a copy of
this report at the time of his purchase. He was required to state in open court that he had
received a copy and that he was aware that the property might not be buildable.
I request that you furnish copies of the geology reports by the applicant and the city geologist
so that the concerned parties may review them and request a hearing concerning them.
Yours truly,
ATTACHMENT - 229
A
U.S. GEOLOGIC SERVICES
296 College Park Drive, Beal Beach, California 90740
Phone: (562) 598-0595 • Fax: (562) 598-5658 • E-mail. dickbrowmgeo( adeiphia.net
January 29, 2005
Mr. Damon R. Swank
7 Chaparral Lane
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90275
Project No. 05001
Subject: Geologic Inspection for Feasibility of Purchase of the approximately 2 -acre Vacant
Parcel 26 of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Located adjacent to your residence at 7
Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275
Dear Mr. Swank:
At your request, we made an on-site geologic inspection of the subject 2 -acre vacant lot on
January 16, 2005 accompanied by you for part of our inspection. The purpose of our inspection
was to identify features that could indicate the presence of geologic hazards and drainage
problems affecting the lot. We geologically mapped the subject 2 -acre lot and surrounding area
using field geological methods, aerial photographs and published geologic maps tocompile-our
geologic map. This geologic inspection did not include subsurface investigations. We
communicated our observations, opinions and recommendations regarding the property to you on
the above date.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Damon R. Swank, and because
conditions may change over time due to earthquakes, rainstorms, construction, and other causes,
this report becomes invalid after 90 days from the above date. This report is not to be provided
to any other third party without our authorization and our on-site inspection, except for your
specific purpose in purchasing the subject property. Should this report be provided to another
third party without my authorization and on-site inspection, then U.S. Geologic Services and the
undersigned will assume no liability, whatsoever.
Data used in preparation of this report included an Assessor's Parcel Map (plat map), an aerial
photograph with topographic contours and lot lines provided by Mr. Swank, digital photographs
taken on the date of our on-site inspection, a topographic map of the property and surrounding
area obtained from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the published geologic reports and
maps listed in the References.
Mr. Swank provided several unpublished consultant's reports and a map of properties in the area
of the subject 2 -acre vacant lot, which we reviewed. These consultant's reports are listed
separately in the references section of this report.
ATTACHMENT - 230
I
Project No. 05001 �
Site Description
r
The vacant lot is located about 2/3 -mile southwest of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East
and Palos Verdes Drive North, at the westerly end of Chaparral Lane (Figure 1, Location Map;
Figure 2, Topographic Map; and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The property is described as
Tract 22946, Lot 21, Parcel 26 (Figure 4, Assessor's Parcel Map (Plat Map)). The irregular-
shaped 2 -acre lot ranges from approximately 80 to 240 feet wide by an average of about 560 feet
deep and contains approximately 88,430 square feet or about 2.03 acres (Figure 4). Elevations
on the lot are estimated to range from about 790 feet to about 575 feet above mean sea level
(Figure 2 and Figure 5, Aerial Photograph with lot lines and topography).
The vacant lot has a north -facing natural slope with a near -level pad apparently created by cut -
and -fill -grading in the north -central portion of the lot (Photo 1). The slope above the pad is
about 150 feet high and ranges from about 3:1 (horizontal to vertical slope ratio) on the upper
portion to about 2:1 in the lower portion of the slope. The slope below the pad ranges from
about 2:1 on the eastern portion to about 11/4:1 on the western portion of the slope. The graded
pad measures approximately 250 across the lot in a northwesterly direction and is about 100 feet
maximum wide in a northeasterly direction. The pad extends westerly, across the lot line to the
crest of George F Canyon. The pad is currently vegetated with tall grass and is traversed by a
horse trail. Some erosion gullies, approximately 2 to 4 feet deep, were noted along the outside
(northerly) edge of the pad. The slope above the pad is mostly vegetated with chaparral and
grass with some scattered small trees. The slope below the pad appears entirely covered by
chaparral and trees.
Geologic Setting
Geologic Materials
Dibblee (1999, Figure 6), Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) and Woodring and others (1946, Figure 8)
mapped or compiled the geology in the area of the subject property. The geologic bedrock unit
underlying the general area of the subject lot is the Cretaceous age (110 million years old,
Sorenson, 2004) Catalina Schist. The Catalina Schist, as described by Dibblee (1999), consists
of "quartz -sericite -schist, quartz -chlorite -schist, and glaucophane-blueschist, dark bluish -gray,
weathered to rust brown, foliated and contorted; contains white quartz veins, thick chert beds,
and rare small masses of metagabbro." Catalina Schist is well exposed in several areas along the
crest of the slope's ridge west of the 2 -acre vacant lot and overlooking George F. Canyon and
west of the subject lot, where it consists of well -foliated quartz schist and quartz -mica schist.
The subject vacant lot is covered by surficial soils, including slumps, landslides and the fill soils
of the graded pad (Figure 9, Site Geologic Map).
The near -surface soils exposed on the lot consist of mainly light brown silty sand with abundant
schist rock fragments on the pad and slopes. Local clayey sand to sandy clay was exposed on the
slope surface underlain by landslides. The soils on the lot appeared generally very moist to wet
(due to recent rainfall in January this year) at the time of our on-site inspection. The surficial
soils have a generally low potential for expansion.
2
ATTACHMENT - 231
Figure 1. Location Map showing the approximate location of the subject vacant lot
3
ATTACHMENT - 232
LI
11
Proiect No. 05001
Figure 2. Portion of the USGS Torrance 7'/2 -minute Quadrangle map showing approximate
location of the subject property
11
ATTACHMENT - 233
[7
i' 7568
1. C
I
CODE
7081 r,�'',r�,1ir
tl .� �;
rot nev. uuir. IM 466-701472
7568-6
r
TRACT NO 22946
MA 619-5-8
PARCEL MAP
13M.110-59-100
L.AJ:A. MAP NO 51
A. M. 1 - I
11801I3t0147 MAI
COUNTY OF IN ANOELE3, CALIF.
b
O
u.
Fieure 4. Assessor's Parcel Man (nlat man) showinu location of the subiect oronertv. vacant Lot 21. Parcel 26. Tract No. 22946.
ATTACHMENT - 235
Project No. 05001
Figure 5. Aerial Photograph with superimposed topography, lot and parcel lines showing the
subject 2 -acre vacant lot and the west end of Chaparral Lane near its east lot line
7
ATTACHMENT - 236
Project No. 05001
Photo 1. Graded pad and slopes on subject lot, viewed from northeast, with George F Canyon
on the western side of the graded pad
91
ATTACHMENT - 237
I"
PA
PA
Ok
..........
Proiect No. 05001
Figure 6. Portion of the Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity
(Dibblee, 1999) showing approximate location of the subject property and a
mapped landslide on or near the property
Z
ATTACHMENT - 238
Project No. 05001
Geologic Structure
The subject lot is situated on the axis of a northwesterly trending syncline as mapped by
Cleveland (1976). We could not, however, verify the existence of this syncline, nor was it
shown on Dibblee's (1999) geologic map. Foliation attitudes in Catalina Schist in the vicinity of
the subject vacant lot dip 20-250 northeast and 21° southwest, as shown on the published
geologic maps (Dibblee, 1999, Figure 6; Cleveland, 1976, Figure 7; Woodring and others, 1946,
Figure 8). We mapped (Figure 9, Site Geologic Map) attitudes of the foliation in the vicinity of
the subject lot dipping 20-600 northeast to locally 350 southwest (one exposure). The
predominately northeast dip of foliation of the Catalina Schist has a component of dip out of the
northerly -facing slope. This orientation of the foliation is considered generally unfavorable for
gross bedrock stability, especially for the overlying colluvial soils, as they are deposited on the
dipping Catalina Schist bedrock. Nearly vertically joints in the Catalina Schist strike
northeasterly in the outcrop overlooking George F Canyon near the western edge of the pad.
Origin of these joints may relate to uplift and anticlinal folding of the Palos Verdes Hills.
Drainage
Drainage on the lot and adjacent areas is by sheet flow on the slopes, except where it is
concentrated into existing natural swales on the upper slope and erosion gullies, such as exist on
the easterly side of the pad near the horse trail and on the northern edge of the pad. Due to the
relatively high permeability of the soils, they are expected to drain fairly well unless saturated by
heavy and/or prolonged rainfall, in which case, erosion, slumps and landslides may occur.
Earth Movement
Dibblee (1999, Figure 6) and Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) mapped landslides on the slope in the
southern portion of the subject Lot 21, Parcel 26 and the adjacent Lot 32. Cleveland (1976) also
mapped an arc -shaped scarp (possibly representing a large landslide head scarp) crossing Lots 2,
29 and 30 south of, and above, the subject Lot 21, Parcel 26, and just below Bronco Drive
(Figures 7 and 9). Surficial geomorphic features associated with old to recent or incipient
landslides were noted and mapped by us within the larger, previously mapped landslides on the
slope above the pad on the subject lot during this inspection (Figure 9, Photos 2 and 3). We
mapped a scarp with some vertical separation indicating another recent/incipient landslide on the
asphalt road near the west end of Chaparral Lane just east of the subject lot boundary (Photo 4).
A questionable landslide showing a bowed topographic expression was noted on the slope north
of and below the graded pad. Erosion gullies and slumping, caused by rainfall runoff, are
located along the northern edge of the graded pad. Slumping and erosion may continue on the
pad and slopes during heavy and/or prolonged rainstorms.
1 _ The Official Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Torrance Quadrangle shows the subject 2 -acre lot
is within an "Earthquake -induced Landslide" Zone (CDMG, 1999, Figure 10), and within and
area of past landsliding on the steep slopes on either side of George F Canyon west of the subject
lot (CMMG, 1998).
13
ATTACHMENT - 242
Project No. 05001
Groundwater
Groundwater data are not available for the area of the subject property (CDMG, 1998). The
nature of the surficial deposits and the underlying Catalina Schist bedrock indicate that any
groundwater would not occur in significant quantities.
Photo 2. Landslide head -scarp on slope above graded pad near subject lot, viewed from
the east
14
ATTACHMENT - 243
Project No. 05001
rnoto J. xecent scarp across norse trau on scope aoove graaea paa on suojecc ior,
viewed from the northwest
Photo 4. Tension cracks and incipient landslide scarp in asphalt near west end of
Chaparral Lane, viewed from west
15
0
ATTACHMENT - 244
Project No. 05001 t ... ..
Figure 10. Portion of the Seismic Hazard Zone Map of the Torrance 7'J2 -minute Quadrangle
(CDMG, 1999) showing approximate location of the subject property (blue color
is the "Earthquake -induced Landslide" Zone_ The subject 2 -acre vacant lot lies
entirely with in the zone.
16
ATTACHMENT - 245
Project No. 05001`
Faults and Earthquake Hazards
Dibblee (1999, Figure 6), Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) and Woodring and others (1946, Figure 8)
mapped or compiled no faults in the immediate area of the subject property, and none were
identified during this inspection. The lot is not included in an `Earthquake Fault Zone"
(formerly known as an "Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone"). Nearby significant faults and
earthquake epicenters (Tsutsumi and others, 2001; Toppozada and others, 2000; Dibblee, 1999;
Dolan and others, 1995; Greenwood, 1995x; Jennings, 1994; Leighton and Associates (1990);
and Ziony and Jones, 1989) include:
1. The potentially active Cabrillo fault, about % mile south-southeast;
2. The active or potentially active Palos Verdes Hills fault, about 11/2 miles northeast;
3. The active Newport -Inglewood fault zone, about a 9 miles northeast;
4. The offshore potentially active San Pedro Basin fault zone, about 131/4 miles southwest;
S. The active Santa Monica fault, about 21 miles north-northwest;
6. The active or potentially active Malibu Coast fault, about 22 miles northwest;
7. The active Hollywood fault, about 23 miles north;
8. The active Whittier fault, about 231/z miles northeast;
9. The epicentral area of the 1994 Mw (moment magnitude) 6.7 Northridge earthquake that was
generated on a blind thrust fault, at a depth of about 15 -km, about 34 miles northwest; and
10. The epicentral area of the 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake that was generated on a
blind thrust fault, about 25 miles northeast.
Other seismogenic blind thrust faults or fault ramps may underlie, at depth, the area of the
subject property (Dolan and others, 2003; Tsutsumi and others, 2001; Shaw and Shearer, 1999;
Shaw, 1993; Dolan and others, 1995; and Greenwood, 1995b).
} Earthquakes on one of the major active faults or blind thrust faults in Southern California will
probably cause moderate to severe ground shaking at the subject site during the life of the
property. The Modified Mercalli. intensity in the area of the property due to the January 19,
1994, MW 6.7 Northridge earthquake and October 1, 1987, Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake
was mapped as intensity V (Dewey and others, 1994; Leyendecker and others, 1988) [i.e., Felt
by nearly everyone, many awakened a direction can be estimated Some dishes, windows and so
on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned Disturbances of trees,
poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop.]. The Official
Seismic Hazard Zone Map of the Torrance Quadrangle shows the lot is within an "Earthquake -
induced Landslide" Zone (Figure 10). The risk of surface fault rupture at the site is considered to
i be low, and the relative liquefaction susceptibility during an earthquake is considered to be very
low (CDMG, 1998; Leighton and Associates, 1990; Tinsley and others, 1985; and Toppozada
and others, 1988).
17
ATTACHMENT - 246
Project Ido_ 05001
Observations
We made an inspection of the slopes and graded pad on the subject lot with regard to earthquake
shaking, settling, and geologic instability. Landslide scarps and ground cracks were noted on and
near the lot. The lot was inspected for geologic and drainage problems. We mapped and
compiled the geology of the vacant lot, showing the geologic structure and landslides and slumps
(Figure 9). Listed below are some of the observations made during our on-site inspection.
1.
A relatively old approximately 3- to 4 -foot high arc -shaped, east -northeasterly trending scarp
was noted on the slope within Lot 32. This feature appears to align with another younger 1-
i
foot high scarp to the west on the subject lot. Two tension cracks were noted on a horse trail
along the trend between the two scarps. These scarps and cracks likely represent a larger
landslide (Photos 2 and 3).
i�
2.
The slope in the'north-central portion of Lot 32 has a hummocky surface with clayey soil
exposed on the surface and phreatophytes (water -loving plants) covering the slope.
3.
Another recent approximately 1 -inch high, northeasterly trending scarp with tension cracks
1
were noted in the asphalt pavement near the western end of Chaparral Lane (Photo 4). The
1
road ending here is likely underlain by a landslide.
1 4.
The near -level graded pad appears to be underlain by sandy material that drains fairly well.
1 5.
Some erosion gullies, approximately 2 to 6 feet wide and 2 to 4 feet deep, were noted along
1
the outside (north) edge of the pad. These galleys can be seen on the aerial photograph
(Figure 3).
Conclusions
1. The general geological conditions on and around the lot are considered generally satisfactory
for very limited use only (such as a grassy sports area and a gazebo, park tables and benches,
etc.) at this time, and the vacant lot is probably not economically feasible for structures, as
they would require deep foundations into the very hard Catalina Schist bedrock.
2. Existing and incipient landslides on the upper part of the slope on the subject 2 -acre vacant
�. lot and vicinity and the unfavorable orientation of the out -of -slope dip of foliation in the
underlying Catalina Schist probably preclude satisfactory stabilization of the colluvial and
® landslide soils on the slopes above and below the graded pad.
3. Some tension scarps and crack noted in the slope above the pad are likely due to past and
active or incipient slumping within a landslide complex. The tension scarp and cracks in the
asphalt street near the west end of Chaparral Lane are due to a landslide. Erosion at the
outside edge and on the slope below the pad is due to concentrated rainfall runoff. Slumping
is expected to continue, especially during periods of heavy and prolonged rainfall, and will
probably work its way on to the pad and at the outer edge of the pad, unless drainage control
is properly implemented.
4. The subsurface soils are relatively permeable and transmit water through the soil such that
® the water drains vertically through the near -level pad, but erodes easily on slopes.
18
ATTACHMENT - 247
Project No. 05001
5. The pad appears relatively old, and may not have been graded with benching and proper
compaction; and therefore it is probably not suitable for modem construction.
Limitations
This is a professional opinion report prepared for the exclusive use Mr. Damon R Swank. The
observations and opinions expressed herein are for the purpose of evaluating the geologic and
drainage conditions on the property on the date of our inspection for the feasibility of purchasing
the subject property. This report is intended for use only by the client named above for the
purpose stated; no other use of this report is authorized, and transfer to any other person or
agency without our notification and authorization is not advisable. No subsurface explorations
were made to verify conditions underlying the lot. No warranties, either express or implied, are
given as to the geologic, soils, or foundation conditions of the lot. Should any construction or
modification affecting the graded pad or slopes on the lot be planned for the future, it is
advisable to have detailed soils, geologic, and structural -engineering reports prepared. Required
permits should be obtained for any work that may have been recommended in this report.
This opportunity to be of professional service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please call me.
Very truly yours,
U.S. GEOLOGIC SERVICES
Stephen E. Jacobs
RG -3978, EG -1307
Arthur R. (Dick) Brown, President
RG -631, EG -1043
Attachments: References and digital photographs taken on the date of the on-site inspection
provided on a CD-ROM that are considered a part of this report.
19
ATTACHMENT - 248
Project No. 05001
References
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998; Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the
Torrance 7.5 -Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: Open -File Report 98-
26, 53 p_
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999, Official Seismic Hazard Zones map
of the Torrance Quadrangle: CDMG, scale 1:24,000.
Cleveland, G.B., 1976, Geology of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles
Count, California: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 27,
Plate 2, map scale 1:12,000.
Dewey, J.W., Reagor, B.G., Dengler, L., and Moley, K., 1994, Intensity Distribution and
Isoseismal Maps for the Northridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994: U.S.
Geological Survey Open -File Report 95-92, 35 p.
Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1999, Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity: Redondo
. Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee
Geological Foundation Map #DF -70, scale 1:24,000.
Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Yeats, R.S., Shaw, J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G.J., and Gath,
E.M., 1995, Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles
Metropolitan Region: Science, vol. 267, p. 199-205.
Greenwood, R.B., 1995x, Regional Geologic Overview of the Los Angeles Basin in Woods,
M.C. and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January
1994: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Special Publication 116, p. 1-8.
Greenwood, R.B., 1995b, Characterizing Blind Thrust Fault Sources --an Overview in Woods,
M.C. and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January
1994: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Special Publication 116, p. 279-287.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: Calif Div. Mines
and Geology, Data Map Series, Map no. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Leighton and Associates, 1990, Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los .Angeles
County General Plan, Hazard Reduction in Los Angeles County: Prepared for Dept. of
Regional Planning, County of Los Angeles: vols. 1 and 2, includes Plates 1-8, scale 1
inch = 2 miles.
Leyendecker, E.V., Highland, L.M., Hopper, M., Arnold, E.P., Thenhaus, P. and Powers, P.,
1988, The Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake of October 1, 1987 Early Results of
Isoseismal Studies and Damage Surveys: Earthquake Spectra, the professional journal of
the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), vol. 4, no. 1, February 1988, pp.
1-9.
Shaw, J.H., 1993, Active Blind -thrust Faulting and Strike -slip Fault -bend Folding in California:
A dissertation presented to the faculty of Princeton University in candidacy for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 216 p.
20
ATTACHMENT - 249
Project No. 05001
References (continued)
Shaw, J.H. and Shearer, P.M., 1999, An Elusive Blind -Thrust Fault beneath Metropolitan Los
Angeles: Science, vol. 283, p. 1516-1518.
Sorenson, S., 2604, E-mail Conversation with Sorena Sorenson: in, Brown, AR, ed., Palos
Verdes Peninsula: Fabulous Geology in a Beautiful Setting: Los Angeles Basin
Geological Society Field Trip, June 26, 2004, pp.76-78.
Tinsley, J.C., Youd, T.L., Perkins, D.M., and Chen, A.T.F., 1985, Evaluating Liquefaction
Potential in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles
Region—An Earth -science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1360, p.
263-315.
Toppozada, T., Branum, D, Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C., and Reichle, M., 2000
Epicenters of an Areas Damaged by M > 5 California. Earthquakes, 1800-1999, California
Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 49, scale: 1" = 25 miles.
Tsutsumi, H., Yeats, RS., and Huftile, G.J., 2001, Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the Northern Los
Angeles Fault System, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, April 2001, v.
113, no. 4, pp. 454-468.
Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of the
Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, 145 p.,
Plate 1, geologic map, scale 1:24,000.
Ziony, J.I. and Jones, L.M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity
of the Los Angeles Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Misc. Field Studies Map
MF -1964, scale 1:250,000.
Unpublished Consultant's Reports and Mans Provided by Mr. Damon R. Swank,
listed in Chronological Order
Ehlert, Keith W., June 26, 1998, Geologic Opinion, #7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA: Consultant's report P.N. 2129-98, signed by Keith W. Ehlert, Geologist, prepared for
Damon Swank, 9 pages (contains several other reports, listed below).
Ehlert,. Keith W. August 16 1990 Geologic Opinion, #6 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes
CA: Consultant's report, Project No. 2557-90, signed by Keith W. Ehlert, Geologist,
prepared for Greg Gawlik, 5 pages.
Keene Associates., July 26, 1990, Third Party Review of Geologic Data Relative to No. 6,
Chaparral, City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Consultant's report prepared for Greg Gawlik,
signed by A.G. Keene, CEG, 6 pages.
American Geotechnical, May 7, 1990, Real Estate Review, No. 6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA: Consultant's report, File No. 2665.02, signed by Gregory W. Aston, RCE,
prepared for Greg Gawlik 2 pages.
21
ATTACHMENT - 250
Project No. 05001 c
Baseline Consultants, Inc., September 5, 1985, Geotechnical Opinion Report, #6 Chaparral Lane,
Rancho -Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's report, Project No. 1446-085, signed by Richard
A. Martin, RCE, prepared for Edward H. Cowgill, 5 pages and Geologic site map (map
by Cleveland, 1976).
Los Angeles County, Soils Engineering Section, February 9, 1973, Review of Soils and Stability
Problems, Half -Acre Portion, Southwestern Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula
[# 8]: Signed by James R. Trotter in Response to plat plan and pertinent reports prepared
for Ralph Smith, one page.
Los Angeles County, Soils Engineering Section, February 9, 1973, Review of Soils and Stability
Problems, Two -Acre Portion, Western Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula [# 9]:
Signed by James R. Trotter in Response to plat plan and pertinent reports prepared for
Ralph Smith, one page.
Stone Geological Services, Inc., October 28, 1960, Tract 22946: Lots 1, 2, 3 of Block A, of Lot
12; Lots 1, 2, of Block B, of Lot 21; Lots 1, 2,3, of Block C, of Lot 21, Lots 19 and 20;
Cayuse Lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots), 60-164: Consultant's report signed by Robert
Stone, Ph.D. Pres., prepared for Joel H. Prescott, Jr., 2 pages and Geologic map and
Explanation [The geologic unit mapped underlying the subject 2 -acre vacant lot and
adjacent lots on this map is incorrect].
Paul Calvo, Tract No. 22946 in Unincorporated Territory of Los Angeles- County, April 1957:
Tract map of the area between Cayuse Lane and Bronco Drive, Palos Verdes (reduced
from original scale of 1' = 60'), signed by Paul Calvo, Licensed Land Surveyor.
22
ATTACHMENT - 251
NGINEERING GEOLOGY
t
STONE GEOLOGICAL SERVICE, INC.
CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS
5525 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES 36, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Joel H. Prescott, Jr.
P. 0. Box 186,
Lomita, California
Dear Mr. Prescott:
WEB STER 1-4629
October 28, 1960
60-164
GROUND -WATER GEOLOGY
Subject: Tract 22946:
Lots 1,2,3, of Block A, of Lot 12
Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21;
_,a.Lots 1.2.3. of Block C. of Lot 21
Lobs .ij ana ev; uayuse. Lane,
Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots).
In compliance with your request, we made visual geologic exam-
inations of the subject property and certain nearby areas. The
latest of these examinations was on October 21, 1960. This report
presents our opinions resulting from these examinations which
included inspection of bulldozer and back -hoe excavations, as well
as existing cuts and exposures on and near the property. Aerial
photographs of the area taken at various times over the past 30
or so years were also examined.
The general location of the subject property is shown on the
attached Location Map. Details of the topography are shown on
the Geologic Map included in this report. The base for this map
was modified from a map by Paul Calvo,Licensed Surveyor which
you supplied to*us; we make no representations regarding the
accuracy of this'base map. The subject property includes two
portions of Tract 22946. A number of houses have been built on
other lots in this tract: Grass and weeds cover most of the
subject property.
The North Portion consists of lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block A of
Lot , shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. The
lots are located near the northeast end of a ridge and include
part of the small canyon to the.south. Access to the lots is
by a road descending from the cul-de-sac on Cayuse Lane.
A out about six to eighteen feet high, northeast -sloping at about k
to 85° is present at the end of the ridge, just off the Geologic
Map.
The South Portion consists of lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot 21;
lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block C of Lot 21; and lots'19 and 20; all
shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. These lots
are located on the slope descending northward from Bronco Drive.
(continued on page #2)
ATTACHMENT - 252
N C.
( NONE GEOLOGICAL SERVIC( ^'
Joel H. Prescott, Jr.
5e #5. October 28, 1960 60-1644
..Conclusions and Recommendations, continued
.S'
The house foundations, and placement of fill, must be
engineered in a manner appropriate to geologic and topo-
graphic setting(including the presence of thick, loose
soil subject to creep, and the presence of loose fill).
2. The material underlying lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot 21;
_
and lotsiand_2of B1Qc C of of 21., is not stable
enou or om c n The loose fills above these
lots res on unstable material. They present a hazard
to these lots.
Very truly yours,
Stone Geological Service, Inc.
r
By
Robert Stone,- .D.,Pres.
RS:sts.
EXPLANATION
ALTAMIRA SHALE: Mainly punkt', diatomaceous
shale; silty shale; and massive siltstone
and diatomite. White and light gray.
ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish -
brown to buff sandstone and conglomerate.
Slumps readily.
FRANCISCAN SCHIST: Quartzose schist and talc
schist.
40° Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates
-y direction of inclination; angle of inclination
is measured from the horizontal.
Strike and dip, approximate.
y Strike and dip of foliation of schist.
Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock.
Exploratory excavation.
Fill
60-164
EXPLANATION
ALTAMIRA SHALE: Mainly punkt', diatomaceous
shale; silty shale; and massive siltstone
and diatomite. White and light &ay.
ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish -
brown to buff sandstone and conglomerate.
Slumps readily.
FRANCISCAN SCHIST: Quartzose schist and tale
schist.
40° Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates
direction of inclination; angle of inelinatign
is measured from tho horizontal.
Strike and dip,, approximate.
3d,
Strike and dip of foliation of schist.
ee-v', Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock.
VM Exploratory excavation.
Fill
60-164
fy _-
'KEITH lLE T
Consulting Engineering Geologist
June 26, 1998
Mr. Damon Swank
1685 Crestview Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
SUBJECT: GEOLOGIC OPINION
#7 Chaparral Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Project No. 2129-98
In accordance with your verbal request, the subject property was
visited for a visual review of geologic conditions. Information
presented in this report is based on visual review, limited
research, review of geologic maps, experience and professional
judgement.
Descriptions of the site and features observed in this report are
provided with the understanding that the reader of this report has
visually reviewed the site and is generally familiar with the site.
No warranty of future site performance is expressed or implied.
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in
this report, please contact my office.
Re p tful y submitted,
i Ehler
Geologist
27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #195 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
(310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332
ATTACHMENT - 258
ff ...
P.N. 2129=98 Page 4
appear to meet at exactly 90 degrees). In general, from a geologic
standpoint, it is my opinion the interior of the house is in good
condition.
I reviewed portions of the underfloor area. Water and moisture was
observed to be seeping into the underfloor in a local area under
the house. The seller indicated that the moisture was coming from
an atrium where plants were watered. It is my opinion the water
was likely coming from the atrium. I noticed a slight musty or
mildew odor under the house. This was likely due to the moisture
accumulating under.the house. Mineral salts were observed on the
foundations under the house at some locations not in the area of
the atrium. It has been my experience that mineral salts usually
result from water or moisture seeping through the foundations. The
mineral salts are crystals of minerals that grow out of solution as
the water evaporates. I have observed similar mineral salts on
many other hillside homes, and many flatland homes I have reviewed.
I did not observe any cracks in the swimming pool or ceramic tile
decking around the pool. The retaining wall along the left side of
the driveway appeared to be in good condition in that I did not
observe any major cracks in the wall and it did not appear to be
severely leaning.
FArelatively large landslide is located westerly of the site.
rtions of this landslide have been recently active. I do not
know if the landslide underlies a portion of the property
(#7 Chaparral). This would depend on where the property boundaries
are. Based on review of maps and previous work I have performed in
the site area, it is my opinion that the house at #7 Chaparral is
not underlain by an ancient or active landslide. However, portions
of the property westerly of the house may be underlain by the
landslide, depending on where the property boundaries are located.
ATTACHMENT - 259
P.N. 2129-98 Page 5
I observed ground fissures in an unpaved road (continuation of
Chaparral 'Lane) to the west of the house. These fissures appear to
be a result of relatively recent movement on the landslide that is
located westerly of the house. The movement likely occurred as a
result of the recent heavy rains and the heavy rains of 1995.
No features were observed on the slope which descends from the rear
of the house that in my opinion indicate it is experiencing," or has
recently experienced, slope stability problems.
DISCUSSION
It is my opinion that the house is not experiencing major geologic
stability problems (i.e., the house is not being influenced by
landslide movement). It is further my opinion that the features
observed in the house (relatively minor cracks and patched cracks,
etc.) are likely a result of slight settlement and/or structural
adjustments in the house. It has been my experience that with
time, houses can experience structural adjustments due to slight
sagging of the wood that was used to construct the house, "normal"
curing of the wood due to drying, etc. This can cause cracking in
walls, etc.
As previously indicated, based on the data in hand, it appears that
the foundations for the house are founded in bedrock via caissons.
Based on the apparent relatively good condition of the house, it is
my opinion that most or all of the foundations are likely founded
in bedrock.
Based on the apparent past relatively good performance of the
house, it is my opinion that any future influences from local soil
conditions and/or structural adjustments will remain at a nuisance
ATTACHMENT - 260
P.N. 2129-98 Page 6
level. It is my opinion that the features observed at the time of
my site visit were at a nuisance level. No major functional
impairment' of the house was observed due to the features observed.
The features observed (i.e., minor cracking, etc.) are typical of
features I have observed in most other hillside properties I have
reviewed in southern California.
It has been my experience that over the years, most hillside homes,
including appurtenances (i.e., walkways, driveways, retaining
walls, etc.) do experience some degree- of movement and cracking
due to local soil movement. Typical features that occur in
hillside homes due to settlement or other local soil influences
and/or structural adjustments, and could occur at the site, include
cracking in walls, slabs and ceilings, distortion of door jambs
(causing doors to stick), etc. Such features are common in many
homes I have reviewed.
As previously indicated, the swimming pool appeared to be in good
condition. I cannot predict the future performance of the swimming
pool with regard to the potential for future cracking, etc.
It appears that the most significant geologic issue with regard to
the site is the presence of the large landslide to the west of the
site. It is likely that it will continue to move, most likely
during and after rainstorms. Based on the geologic data I have
reviewed, it is my opinion the risk of the landslide expanding to
include the house is very low. Based on the reports by Lockwood,
the house is underlain by in-place bedrock as opposed to landslide
debris.
As previously indicated, I previously reviewed #6 Chaparral Lane
(located across the street from the site). A review report by a
company named American Geotechnical suggested that #6 Chaparral
might be underlain by an ancient landslide. A copy of their report
ATTACHMENT - 261
ti
! I
Subled Date O.
9 ievieri of ;Coils and. Stability Problems 9 February 1973
...� Tiro-t.cre x'ortion, 'Jestern Lot 21, Tract 22946
Palos Verdes Feninsula
ii_ response to a request from Air. Ralph amith on 19 January 1973,
Ile have reviewed the referenced plot plan dated 4 April 1966 and
pertinent reports of record with respect to the soils and stability
conditions which influence the possible' development of the subject
property. In summary, prior to Soils Engineering Section approval
of grading or building construction and subject to Engineering
Geology Section confirmation of quoted geologic aspects, a quali
soils engineering consultant must submit.information and analyst
u3 necessary on the followin- problems:
1. Thbelowroposed residence location is below reported active
1ancslides on an existing fill pad believed to be substandard with
respect. to compaction and placement. The proposed guest house is
located entirbly on a Clapped landslide reported to be active.
2.Considering the overall canyon slope 6ection through the
property,
the stability of the foliated schist �aaterials which under-
lie the landslides Inas not been calculated and is suspect.
3. SG.:ie as ltera 3, Lot 29.
IH. Sarre as Item 4, Lot 29.
R F���
EIE�d�N „-,.,a�,
Same as for Lot 29.
James R. Trotter
Superv. CJ- I
roils ilngineering Sectio?
ATTACHMENT - 262
GEOLP71C REVIEW SHEET
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER - FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
738 - 2161 PJ, ._ o /L a2 %
PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S)
Grading Plan No. U
Building Plan No.
Geologic Report Dated
Soils Report Dated
Other
Plan is approved
FX NF
SHEET OF
DISTRIBUTION:
❑
Plan Check
ISI
Dist. Engineer
❑
Developer -Owner
❑
Site Engineer
V3
Geologist .
IT
Soils Engineer
71
Geol. Sect. File
ED
Grading Section
® Plan is not approved for reasons below
F1 Plan approved subject to conditions below C9 Submit plans for recheck
0
Sec. 309 Code requirements
VL fN G �G�S c�5 o`f"- g dJ re_v i+OVS Ire 1Q40 0 f (not met)
ar lofs a8 �q aK� as a QY-9� 0"It'01t Sec. 308(b) 3c& a code requirements
7 UViS'iJ i Iak►�� -1 i t S Qj1jBt���e J 4G,�(notmet)
-- r
e -e✓ --_+x.,-+ be+We-evt �.��c�oso; I�-�'Ill qvtd beddroc-41-x- Jay 1ighti
vl 'f 'h e_ Z -j O pe 1 t i G e,o ► Ifc,-crf ib G.+We_e✓1 -f'h C_ /41 +a MIN v,'q U. rt d
}�G 5e.kisf C1 ay i�� Ott' s- n0W ayr w 1 )� � � 01 V 1,qk` ,-c1 by
C o v1 s +, r u c -f iNo vic-L s fd b i`) i' �x
Gc vt a f y a � �"�1 e S' 10,o C, 4 to cit
i ff
av^e ct 0-o o Ye, -+ h e_ e, e- ✓e, t o i� k" zvtW 1 c� -r r-1 o i Y,
)coi , 611
+h,
r-�r a,t of a. f'r-d�S.e rl e- wt b e tr -;74, l 9 73 ritino y-,
Coy-re.c`t"i 1/e, xvor N_ VV 0 U kaVe. +o be Accovtn, 1`s�ccl a
CAC-Ve-1 d --�
e— c01 ACA a 117-e, e cx real. C) -F A- ) a -s
4�-o�',V, sZ "
_L 1 -
b -P `{ LLe_ S' T 1 e, c� aTGv►-�e�c;1",� -vv i 1 �Qe_ v ec�U i reo{ +0 sa`t,,SA,
.5 -Ir C+ i cC?'oV1 d a K of �6
GX 3ria! l kccf;s-
It 1e..
Reviewed by Date
1�
AT?2HMENT
-263
I
NEERING GEOLOGY
GROUND -WATER GEOLOGY
STONE GEOLOGICAL SERVICE, INC.
CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS
5525 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES 36, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Joel H. Prescott, Jr.
P. 0. Box 186,
Lomita, California
Dear Mr. Prescott:
WEBSTER 1-4629
October 28, 1960
60-164
Subject: Tract 22946:
Lots 1, 2, 3, of Block A, of Lot 1
Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21;
Lots 1,20, of Block C of Lot 2.
ots 19 and 20; Cayuse Lane,
Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots).
In compliance with your request, we made visual geologic exam-
inations of the subject property and certain nearby areas. The
latest of these examinations was on October 21, 1960. This report
presents our opinions resulting from these -examinations which
included inspection of bulldozer and back -hoe excavations, as well
as existing cuts and exposures on and near the property. Aerial
photographs of the area taken at various times over the past 30
or so years were also examined.
The general location of the subject property is shown on the
attached Location Map. Details of the topography are shown on
the Geologic Map included in this report. The base for this map
was modified from a map by Paul Calvo,Licensed Surveyor which
you supplied .to�us; we make no representations regarding the
accuracy of this base map. The subject property includes two
portions of Tract 22946. A number of houses have been built on
other lots in this tract: Grass and weeds cover most of the
subject property.
The North Portion consists of lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block A of
Lot , shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. The
lots are located near the northeast end of a ridge and include'
part of the small canyon to the south. Access to the lots is
by a road descending from the cul-de-sac on Cayuse Lane.
A cut about six to eighteen feet high, northeast -sloping at about
to 85° is present at the end of the ridge, just off the Geologic
Map.
The South Portion' consists of lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot 21;
lots 1. 2 and 3.of Block C of Lot 21; and lots'19 and 20; all
shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. These lots
arelocated on the slope descending northward from Bronco Drive.
(continued on 'page #2)
ATTACHMENT - 264
F NONE GEOLOGICAL SERVICE`"..SNC.
Joel H. Prescott, Jr.
;P
October 28, 1960 60-164.
age #5.
--Conclusions and Recommendations, continued
! The house foundations, and placement of fill, must be
engineered in a manner appropriate to geologic and topo-
graphic setting (including the presence of thick, loose
soil subject to creep, and the presence of loose fill).
tt
E 2. The material underl in lots 1 and 2 of Black B of Lot 21;
i
and lots 1and. 2 of of Lb t I. of stable
enou or ome c n The loose fills above these
o s res on unstable material. They present a hazard
to these lots.
Very truly yours,
Stone Geological Service, Inc.
L+
: By
4ober____Z__Ph_.D.ne, ,Pres.
}
RS:sts.
L
14
! —,1'" o;' a y�tiocri` :gdfroen map by Paul Calvo,
Garden Grove, California.
P J -tg +j • 1�
! i S; 'Yt�i� ,y A tom. •'7
i
4 x i .�- s• bs,0
T� �. L s' } }; 9 i� • x� �-
am
l ,b
773-
CY
03
�:� . ;,,rte ;. <. • . � "'Q::z;:•.:'; _- a.. �°`'::_ :::;;•/:•:`::•::� :�::�_;=:� =;:•: • - •.•i' , •`.�: ':;:: -- — — _ :.;:
I
i. _ •Q _ - .�-. -rte.-.:ll: a:=^:�"s: ',-..a..� }
- b `�fi'�.• '`•'�-.moi: '
EXPLANATION
M
j.
ALTAMIRA SHALE: Mainly punkt', diatomaceous
shale; silty shale; and massive siltstone
and diatomite. White and light gray.
ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish -
brown to buff sandstone and conglomerate.
Slumps readily.
FRANCISCAN SCHIST; Quartzo.se schist and tale
schist.
40*
Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates
direction of inclination; angle of inclination
is measured from thO horizontal.
Strike and dip, approximate.
3CP
Strike. and dip of foliation of schist.
11.
Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock.
Exploratory excavation.
Bill
60-164
P
i
So Kim
From: Chris Murray [chris@murrays.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:47 AM
To: sok@rpv.com
Subject: 10 Chaparral Lane Proposed Rezoning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Hi So,
7- ,
711
I enjoyed talking with you. My job includes some travel so I'm not sure I'll be able to attend the meeting. I have a
few concerns that I would like to bring up though:
1. There must be some basis in why the land was zoned "Hazardous Open Space" in the first place. It seems there
should have to be some ompelling evidence that either the property or the def finition of "Hazardous Open Space"
has changed.
2. I ran into geologist Dick Brown and some other geologists recently as they were planning a field trip for a geology
convention. He was adamant that the land was not buildable. He had done a study in the past for my neightbor in
which he had off iciallly expressed the some opinion.
3. The land is zoned to have a house on the more stable foundation of the hillside. I would like to know why that is
not adequate.
Thanks
Chris Murray
Property Owner at 5 Chaparral Lane
ATTACHMENT - 268
To: sokim@RPV.com
RECEIVED
Add Cc I Ad, d Bc
Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane request for Zoning Change. COMMS
Attach a file Insert I nvitaiion rry DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Plain Text
I am a property owner on Chaparral Lane for 15 years and have concerns for the land use for residential construction.
1. The area where the plan shows the future house is on land fill. The stability of this land and soil is questionable. Diagrams o
necessary on the West side. Terraced borders on the East side would not seem to be enough support when heavy rains come
Chaparral Lane. A few years ago during the rainy season, a home on Bronco/Martindale had large slabs of saturated earth give
repairs with retaining walls.
2.George F. Carryon Trail access for hikers, nature groups and horses would be blocked by the proposed house and grounds.
Chaparral Lane.
Sincerely,
Susan Swank
#7 Chaparral Lane
or110-377-5721
Send Saved
15% full
Using 1196 MB of your 7621 MB
Discard
Draft autosaved at 7:37 PM (1 minute ago)
02011 Google - Terms & Privacy
Disable buzz
9/1/20117:38
ATTACHMENT - 269
Page 1 of 3
i
So Kim
From:
Madeline Ryan [pvpasofino@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 02, 2011 10:51 AM
To:
So Kim
Cc:
pc@rpv.com
Subject:
#10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status:
Red
Gentlemen:
I am not within 500' of this project, but still have many concerns with regard to the re -zoning of any Open Space Hazard (OSH) areas to
Residential for the sole purpose of meeting the City's building codes to construct homes outside of given footprint.
Several years ago, this developer violated his GTP permit for 3 test pits by denuding, disturbing and cutting across several areas of hillside.
With the winter rains there had been much erosion and slippage. The area remains unmitigated today.
I believe in property rights for all landowners and would not deny a landowner his right to build, but this particular parcel could become a
slippery slope if OSH areas are allowed to be developed with the City setting a dangerous precedent.
In addition, there is an access, historically used for decades by hikers, dog -walkers, and equestrians and is a neighborhood link to the Rolling
Hills Estates Nature Trail. It would be a tremendous loss to the eastside residents if this access were terminated.
Please keep this in mind as this project progresses through the various planning stages.
Thank you,
Madeline Ryan
Palos Verdes Drive East
9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT - 270
Page 1 of 1
So Kim
From: ray van dinther [raymadelin@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:43 AM
To: sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; City Council
Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Dear Planning Council and City Council of RPV, The RPV Planner So Kim will bring this to your attention in the
correspondence package.
Regarding the lot at the end of Chaparral Lane, #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, which is currently in
planning stages to be developed.
This owner is requiring the Planning Commission to provide zoning change from Open Space Hazard to Residential 2
to meet the criteria for building a 6100 sf home.
This property has been used for decades to access the Nature Trail in RHE. It is the only remaining access point from
RPV through to the Nature Trail for hikers, dog walkers, equestrians, etc.and it is crucial to RPV that an access trail on
this property be provided in the planning for this development.
Without this access RPV will have lost virtually all access to trails.
Please consider this a priority when making your decisions regarding development.
Only a small portion of the property is required to assure a way of life that generations to come can also be blessed to
access.
We as current residents have enjoyed this access to the Trails of the canyons and RHE. It is now our responsibility to
provide the same for future generations.
Thank you for your time and I remain optimistic when you set condition priorities for this property that this request will
be acted upon.
Sincerely
Ray Van Dinther
Palos Verdes Drive East 28180
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275
September 2, 2011
9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT - 271
Page 1 of 2
From:
David Lukac [david.lukac@freshandeasy.com]
Sent:
Friday, September 02, 2011 12:04 PM
To:
sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; City Council
Cc:
ray van dinther
Subject:
RE: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Planning Council,
Please add my voice to those asking for the trail access to be preserved. It would be sad to see our part of RPV, one of
the active equestrian communities, losing its access to trails that allow us to practice horsemanship in this area.
Thanks for your considerations to the needs of many two and four legged residents.
David
David Lukac
Director, Retail and COmmercial IT
fresh & easy Neighborhood Market
2120 Park Place, suite 200
El Segundo, CA 90245
Cell: +1 310 748 9243
Desk: +1 310 341 1267
From: ray van dinther [ma lto_:_rayma.defi_n_@_gma l,com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:43 AM
To: sok. r v.com; pc@rpy.c_om; City Council
Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Planning Council and City Council of RPV, The RPV Planner So Kim will bring this to your attention in the
correspondence package.
Regarding the lot at the end of Chaparral Lane, #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, which is currently in
planning stages to be developed.
This owner is requiring the Planning Commission to provide zoning change from Open Space Hazard to Residential 2
to meet the criteria for building a 6100 sf home.
This property has been used for decades to access the Nature Trail in RHE. It is the only remaining access point from
RPV through to the Nature Trail for hikers, dog walkers, equestrians, etc.and it is crucial to RPV that an access trail on
this property be provided in the planning for this development.
Without this access RPV will have lost virtually all access to trails.
Please consider this a priority when making your decisions regarding development.
Only a small portion of the property is required to assure a way of life that generations to come can also be blessed to
access.
We as current residents have enjoyed this access to the Trails of the canyons and RHE. It is now our responsibility to
9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT - 272
Page 2 of 2
t
provide the same for future generations.
Thank you for your time and I remain optimistic when you set condition priorities for this property that this request will
be acted upon.
Sincerely
Ray Van Dinther
Palos Verdes Drive East 28180
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275
September 2, 2011
----------------Warning----------------
This e-mail is from outside Fresh and Easy - check that it is genuine. Fresh and Easy may monitor and record all e-
mails
------------ Disclaimer --------------
This is a confidential email.
Fresh and Easy may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in
this email are those of the sender and not Fresh and Easy. Fresh & Easy
Neighborhood Market, Inc. 2120 Park Place, El Segundo, CA 90245
9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT - 273
Sunshine
W Limetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5909
310-377-w8761
sunshinerpvOaol.com
September 5, 2011
Planning Commission
c/o So Kim, Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: ZON2010-00025 10 Chaparral Lane Public Hearing.
Gentlemen,
It is unfortunate that the RPV Rec. & Parks staff chose the title of Conceptual
Trails Plan (CTP) for a portion of the update to the RPV Trails Network Plan in
1990. Have you read the introduction to the CTP, lately? Apparently the
Community Development Staff has not. According to So Kim, a conceptual trail
is a "dream" which the City is not in a position to pursue in relatfon, to
development proposals.
The RPV General Plan and the RPV Trails Network Plan beg to differ. CTP
SECTION FIVE trail F1, The -Gap Trail is an existing trail. It was an existing trail.
when RPV incorporated as a City. The concept of a point-to-point trail is
described in the CTP specifically to direct Staff to work with applicants so that an
existing trail connection on private property can be preserved by letting the
applicant design and build a new route (to specifications) which is more
compatible with the property owner's development objectives. Eliminating the
trail/emergency circulation continuity is not an option.
If the applicant does not want to cooperate, Staff should be prepared to file a
prescriptive easement suit. That would legalize public� access -on--the historic trail
route which in this case would impact the applicants request to redefine the
Open Space Hazard Zone. There are several easements on adjacent properties.
FYI, the CA Coastal Commission Enforcement Dept, is pursuing a prescriptive
easement where the City of RPV has not initiated negotiations. Too bad The
Gap Trail has no "higher authority" than the RPV General Plan to watch over it.
Please do not make an amendment to the RPV General Plan's Land Use Map if
it will jeopardize the continuity of Spoke #2 of The Peninsula Wheel Trails
Network,
Most Since
ATTACHMENT - 274
August 29, 2011
Planning Commission
Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
Attn: So Kim, Assistant Planner
Re: 10 Chaparral Lane
Dear Planning Commissioners:
RECEIVED
A131 2011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPIOLN C
DEPARTMENT
On Map Sheet #27 distributed by the California Division of Mines and Geology (by
George B. Cleveland, 1976), a landslide is shown in the location of the proposed
development at #10 Chaparral Lane. If the City permits development in this area and a
future problem arises, does the City incur additional liability due to the State map?
Another slide shown on the map in the same vicinity (Poppy Trail area of Rolling Hills)
has already experienced geologic failure.
Also, the bottom of lot #10 extends further into the canyon than other lots and is in closer
proximity to Willow Springs Creek. What would be the riparian impact and how would
any impact be mitigated?
Sincerely,
Jean Longacre -
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310-544-0105
ATTACHMENT - 275
John A. Feyk
2727 San Ramon Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
7 June 2011
Mr. Joel Rojas
Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear Mr. Rojas,
JUN 08 2Q
PLANNING, BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Some years ago I wrote, I believe to you, about development of the lot at the end of Chaparral
Lane. That turned out to be another abortive attempt to develop this potentially unstable land.
However, this time the flags are flying so development promises to occur.
In the previous letter, I wrote that no existing residential development blocked continuous travel
along the George F Canyon trail in Rolling Hills Estates, through a short section of Rancho Palos
Verdes, and then into Georgeff Canyon (same canyon by a different name) in Rolling Hills.
When I previously wrote, I received the response that any residential development would include
an easement to maintain trail continuity. I hereby request that this be the case with the present
development. The existing trail runs immediately past the proposed house corner nearest to
Chaparral Lane.
The trail in both uphill and downhill directions is currently accessed via Chaparral Lane. If the
residential development were allowed to cut off access to the trail, there would be no other
Rancho Palos Verdes access. It, for example, would no longer be possible to run from Bronco,
through Cayuse, and then Chaparral to the lower end of the trail at the intersection of Palos
Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North. I certainly hope that access to this trail, which
has been in use for decades, can be maintained.
E-mail: john.feyk@cox.net
Tel: 310-833-2173 (home)
310-416-1625 (work)
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT - 276
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
05/30/2011
ATT: SO KIM
Dear Ms. Kim,
To memorialize our meeting of May 23 rd. In regard to concerns of the
construction at #10 Chaparral Ln R.P.V. I would first of all like to thank
you for your time.
As discussed the property at #10 Chaparral shows that geologically this
property is unstable on a ancient landslide base. I have the geological
studies of this property and want to go on the record of this seriously
dangerous problem. Evidenced by a history of slippage of homes from
landslides above the subject property on Bronco lane and Martingale St..
I was at one time interested in the property next to me at # 6 Chaparral Ln.
(above # 10) and was warned by geologists that I should not even
consider buying it, as the liability is so great that even irrigating the land
would be a tremendous liability risk.
I would further like to point out that the 05/ 13/ 2011 fire on the hillside
adjacent to # 10 Chaparral lane Required 12 helicopter extinguisher drops
and 5 engine companies. It was a difficult task for fire fighters to put out
the fire. The congestion of the fire fighting vehicles on Chaparral was a
threatening concern of the fire department as well as the fact that I was
told by Fire dept captain that "there is not sufficient hose lay distance
should there ever be a fire at #10 Chaparral."
Please see the attached photo of the non permitted drive way and pad.
This grading was done on the weekend at #10 chaparral In. This is
certainly more than brush removal (heavy equipment is not used for brush
removal) Please consider the concerns the community has and inform me
of any developments regarding the subject property. Thank you for your
consideration .
Joe Oliveri
ATTACHMENT - 277
ATTACHMENT - 278
Mitigated Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT - 279
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation,
Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (ZON2010-00025)
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, Assistant 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:
Frank Colaruotolo
725 Battery Street
San Pedro, CA 90731
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 and Zoning
designation boundary line on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate the
boundary line 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. Additionally,
the project includes the construction of a new 8,186ft2 two-story residence on the
existing flat area.
Page 1 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 280
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
10. Description of project site (as it currently exists):
The project site is a 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at
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 of Chaparral Lane. It
should be noted that the relatively level area has been existing from at least 1976,
according to the City's topographic map. The area below the flat area consists of
descending extreme slopes.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting:
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Page 2 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 281
.K£a>z/.t1 9f
IBM, .A: ..,'ysXR 1011"
9
On-site
Vacant
The subject property measures 85,178ft2 (1.96 -
acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral
Lane. The site currently consists mostly of
moderate to extreme slopes with one relatively
flat area.
North
Canyon
This property is a vacant canyon area,
consisting of extreme slopes, located in the
abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates.
South
Single-family residential
These properties are improved with single-family
dwellings that are located approximately 100'
higher in elevation than the flat area on the
subject pro perty.
East
Single-family residential
These properties along Chaparral Lane are
improved with single-family dwellings that are
either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the
flat area on the subject property.
West
Vacant & Single-family residential
The abutting property to the northern side of the
subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open
Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme
slopes. The properties near the southern side of
the subject property are improved with single-
family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in
elevation.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Page 2 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 281
Figure 1; Aerial photo of existing project site at the end of Chaparral Lane.
Page 3 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 282
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Figure 2: Existing Site Plan
Existing Boundary Line
—E I
Page 4 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 283
M
-U q ron' m, ent/Hi rd
-Hozie.
& -0space....
.....
Existing Boundary Line
—E I
Page 4 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 283
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan
'Natufat IMvi-onn6WR
AA
pon
-O,�_Space H'
azar d'
. .... .... -
POME
5
ig
nO
Proposed Boundary Line
kf
-00000
'z
N)O
. . . . . . . . . .
"...i . . . . ...........
. . . . . . . . . . .
* H.H
..........
. ...... .....................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
Page 5 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 284
p
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
0 Hydrology and Water Quality
0 Air Quality
= Biological Resources = Aesthetics
0 Energy/Mineral Resources = Cultural Resources
0 Hazards and Hazardous Material 0 Recreation
0 Noise Agricultural Resources
= Public Services
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
= Transportation and Circulation 0 Utilities and Service Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
FX 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.
Signature:
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated". An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
project
Date:
Printed Name: So Kim, Assistant Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Page 6 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 285
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
v -JI, J�
1p1p1p1p, vo4,,J_,,
_Av
,,Ap
,Ap,,
"N ... . . . ..
V S,
"k
wtq, 411
z _'E�,s
Nnf.'L
AN„
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic
I
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historical 1
buildings, within a state scenic
highways?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site 1,8
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
1,8
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
The proposed amendment in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation will not have an impact to
existing scenic resources. However, a two-story new residence is proposed on a vacant property and the
proposed second story 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
analyses for the proposed project to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and view effects. Any structure
proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the Municipal Code. Therefore,
there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposal.
AlfA0
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?
9) 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))?
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
Page 7 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 286
r
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
§
t
'�A
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
intended 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. Furthermore, the proposed project implementation
would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland, forest land, or
timberland. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project.
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected 8
air quali!y violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
e) Conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of any applicable air
quality plan?
Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five -county region in southern California that is
designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted
AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies. The air
quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more
dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed project is a construction of a new residence on
a single site. Some construction equipment is expected during the temporary construction process that would not
significantly affect the air quality or produce objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impact.
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
8
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
8
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Page 8 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 287
s,
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
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 J
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
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
(NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and
Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for
compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural
Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve and the General Plan. A biology report submitted by the
applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting
birds. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the following mitigation measures
have been added:
B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (approximately 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 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 prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development
Department.
habitat shall be mitigated by the
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource y
Page 9 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 288
E
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
as defined in §15064.5 of the State
CEQA Guidelines?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological 7
resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or 7 �l
unique geological feature?
d) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of 7
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.
a) Expose people or structure to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State 6
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
ii) Strona seismic around shaking? 1 6
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, I 6 I I I I I
includinq liquefaction?
MMI
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 8
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code,
thus creating substantial risks to life or
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?
Page 10 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 289
ra_
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Page 11 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 290
��►�r�es � 31 2 � �c a 4 k
�6w4g4� �i }P f�'
f
p)�
J Oin
E Y,3
.:
R
Comments:
a) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used
for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault
rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of
Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25,
1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or
liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety
standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there will be no impact caused by the proposed
project.
b -c) According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Map (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) released in March 25,
1999, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction or earthquake -induced landslide areas. However, upon City
Geologist review, the proposed project may cause erosion and/or landslide if proper mitigation measures are not
implemented. To ensure les than significant impacts, the following mitigation measures have been added:
G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit
prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this
mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department.
G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following
grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density
testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map
depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during
grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks,
foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the
site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety
permit issuance.
d) Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report by the City Geologist, the proposed project is not located
on expansive soil. Nevertheless, additional City Geologist's review and approval of applicable site specific
soils/geology reports will be required. 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.
e) The existing subject site and the proposed project will not use a septic tank or an alternative disposal system.
There are sewers available that are connected to improved neighboring properties. Therefore, there would be no
impact caused by the proposal.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
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 project includes the development of a new residence on a vacant property.
Currently, there are no generally -accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Page 11 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 290
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Page 12 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 291
'N
W, S
P
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, the proposed project would be constructed to the most current energy efficiency
standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the
proposed project would be less than significant.
b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in
Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB)
regulation to reduce passenger -car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80 -percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the
development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future,
and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may
be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed
project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the
proposed project would not cause any impact.
7-7
7
�-777-_
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of and existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site, which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
Page 12 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 291
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Page 13 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 292
St
Sk"
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 plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments.
a- d) The change in land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential, including subsequent construction will
not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. The project does
not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances. Further, there is no evidence that the project site has been
used for underground storage of hazardous materials and no evidence that the project site contains contaminated
soils. 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 proposal involves the construction of a residential dwelling on a vacant property that is intended as a
residential use. 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. Additionally, the proposed project
will be subject to Fire Department review to ensure that all appropriate measures, such as on-site sprinklers are
installed to prepare and protect from any future wildfires in the area. Therefore, there would be less than significant
impact caused by the proposed project.
V9
W
tk_@.�
a) Violate any water quality standard or
wastewater discharge requirements?
8
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
8
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner, which
10
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas including
10
through the alteration of the course of
Page 13 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 292
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
a stream or river, or substantially
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 �1
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood
hazard area, as mapped on a Federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood �1
Insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area, structures which would impede �1
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding 11 �l
as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 11
mudflow?
a, f) According to the State Water Board, all federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other
public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated
wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in California are required to comply with statewide general waste
discharge requirements. Given that the proposed project would be connected to an existing sewer system, the
proposed project would cause no impacts.
b) The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company
(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. One additional dwelling on a residential property zoned for
development will not require significantly more water than the current demand of the City. Therefore, the proposed
project would cause no impacts.
c — e) Based on the City's NPDES consultant, there would be increased runoff resulting from the new construction
and the submitted Biology report states that indirect impact on jurisdictional waters may occur as a result of hillside
erosion during construction of the proposed project. 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. 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:
Page 14 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 293
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
I.S. -Wk lqn 'ki
L
1`,
Le
SorfiCesV
4
H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be required for review and approval, 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 temporary 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 project is on a generally flat
area and a retaining wall is proposed against the upslope. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact.
IN "'A IRWIN
A
v
0 A
11
a) Physically divide and established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
1,2,3,8
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning
ordinance?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
1,4
community conservation plan?
Comments:
a) The proposed project involves development of a residential dwelling on a vacant property, with Residential and
Hazard land use descriptions. 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 without significantly altering the sloping portion of their lot. The project will result in the zoning and
land use designation that would remain consistent with the existing properties on Chaparral and will not conflict with
Page 15 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 294
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
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 less than significant
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 the project. As such, the proposed project would cause no impact.
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local 8
General Plan, Specific Plan, or other
land useplan?
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 oroiect.
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbourne vibration or
�l
roundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
theproject?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without theproject?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or a public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Comments:
a — d There may be a minimal increase in temporary noise caused during the construction phases of a project.
Page 16 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 295
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
Additionally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes limits the construction hours from 7:00am to 7:00pm, Monday through
Saturday with no work permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Therefore, there would be less than significant or 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 proiect.
a) Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g. through
projects in an undeveloped area or
maior infrastructure)?
b) Displace existing housing, especially
c) Displace substantial numbers of I I
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) The subject site is a vacant lot zoned residential, intended to be developed with a single-family dwelling. The
proposed development of one residential lot will not induce substantial growth in a near fully -built residential
neighborhood. Therefore, there is no displacement of people. As such, there would be no impact caused by the
proposed project.
b -c) Since the proposed project is to develop a vacant lot, there is no existing housing to displace. Accordingly,
there is no displacement of people. Therefore. there would be no impact caused by the proposed proiect.
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? J
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks? �I
v) Other public facilities? ,J
Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral Lane are developed lots that already require public services and
therefore an addition of one residential dwelling will not necessitate a significant change to the current performance
in public services. Additionally, the proposed construction will incorporate necessary fire suppression devices
required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and will be constructed in accordance with applicable fire
codes. Therefore, there is less than siqnificant impact on public services.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
Page 17 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 296
f�
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
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 therefore the increase in one dwelling
and its residents is not significant enough to result in considerable physical deterioration or increase of recreational
facilities. As such, there would be less than siqnificant impact caused by the proposed proiect.
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
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures, or other �1
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location
Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative J
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
Comments:
a, f) The proposed project involves the development of a residential site that already 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
Page 18 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 297
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
the proposed project.
b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (6th edition), the trip generation rate for the
proposed project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for
designated roads or highways. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact to the
service standard established by the county congestion management agency.
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) All aspects of the proposed project comply with the adopted Development Code and will be subject to Building
& Safety Division's review for compliance with the 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 proiect.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
4
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
�I
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
�l
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
J
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statures and regulations related to
�l
solid waste?
Comments: The proposed project involves the
construction
of one dwelling
unit in a near fully developed residential
Page 19 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 298
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
neighborhood and therefore will not generate an increase in current wastewater nor require a substantial increase in
the 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 anv statures/requlations related to solid waste.
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
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directiv or indirectly?
a) The subject site contains wildlife species subject to NCCP regulations. However, the proposed project 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 significant impact caused by the proposed project.
b) The subject site is zoned residential, located in a midst of a near fully developed residential neighborhood.
Therefore, there are no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable as a result of developing
one lot with its intended use.
c) The proposed development involves the construction of a new single-family dwelling on a residential site.
Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project, as there are no adverse direct or indirect
effects on human beings.
t cEI.".1
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:
Page 20 of 21
ATTACHMENT - 299
Environmental Checklist
Case No. ZON2010-00025
August 1, 2011
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
'i NIM.N/ )) t sky
1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact
Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001
2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ma
3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978
4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Ma
5
South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California:
November 1993.
6
The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone 5/1/99
7
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Ma
8
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
9
State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, U.S. Census Bureau
10
1 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 - 300
Conceptual Geology Approval
ATTACHMENT - 301
to M M.110st100 M
GEOTECUNWAL REPOItf "SPONSE CHEC: KLts'r
Date Received:
October 20, 2011
Date Completed.
October 27, 2011
Date of Wall Response.
October 5, 2011
Consultant:
Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc.
Their Job No.:
FC0907
Date of 6"' Response:
September 15, 2011
Prior Reviews:
October 4, 2011
Date of 5"' Response:
February 1, 2011
February 17, 2011
Date of 0 Response:
December 29, 2010
January 27, 2011
Date of 3`d Response:
July 28, 2010
August 5, 2010
Date of 2'd Response:
December 18, 2009
January 25, 2010
Date of V Response:
September 15, 2008
October 2,2008
Original Report:
November 4, 2007
November 26, 2007
Applicant Name:
Frank Colaruotolo
LEGEND:
N =No
Site Address:
10 Chaparral
Y — Yes
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Lotrrract No.:
Portion of Lot 21 Tract 22946
Proposed Project: I single family residence with associated retaining walls, driveway, anti drainage structures.
Landslide shall be mitigated by use of a caisson wall at the toe of the slope.
Previous Proposed Project- 3 single family residences, split level with slabs on grade supported with deepened footings
or caissons. Grading will include cut slopes and fill slopes with retaining walls up to 20 feet in height.
Geotechnical Response
YYN Grading/Foundation Plans Changed. as a Result of Update Letter
Planning Department:
X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes
Building and Safety
Report Approved Conditional. Approval (See Below) X Additional Input Required
Items requiring response/further evaluation.
1. As previously requested, please provide revised slope stability analysis based on the "new" location and height of the
retaining wall.
Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required):
2. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide. This wall should be installed under a separate pen -nit prior to
construction ofthe proposed residence, Based on proposed wall location, a major portion of the wall will be located
on the adjacent property. City should confirm that all appropriate encroachment permits are obtained.
3. Note to City Staffi. Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E.) have signed the final dated
grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report
and associated addenda.
1. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following
grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density
testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the
I irnits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The
report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks. foundation
recommendations, slope stability, erosion control :anal any other relevant af"otechnical i,,pects of the site
"'Immd,pnw, 1 07092 -1 o,0 7"' Re, ieu, I 0-I I do, I0 Chaparra?
ATTACHMENT - 302
TD 6207 PN 97082-1642
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST
Limitations:
Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and
generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of out services for this third party review has
been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re -analysis of reported data ai id/or calculafions and preparation of amended construction
or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be
considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability
for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers
or engineers.
8 — BY:
-
J es Lancnk3ter,Jr.,C.E:G 1927 Expires 6130/12 Da�te P. D061ingo, IWX 157939 Expires 6/30/12
"'ne'
7 31
KLING CONSULT, =T , INC. MISER KLING CONSULTANTS, INC.
11"J7 7", Rc,,m 10-11 &'v I i) Chnparrai
ATTACHMENT - 303
Category 4
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST
Date Received: February 10, 2011
Date of 5th Response: February 1, 2011
Consultant:
Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc.
Date of 4th Response:
December 29, 2010
Date of Yd Response:
July 28, 2010
Date of 2nd Response:
December 18, 2009
Date of 1st Response:
September 15, 2008
Previous Report:
November 4, 2007
Applicant Name: Frank Colaruotolo
Site Address: 10 Chaparral
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Lot/Tract No.: Portion of Lot 21 Tract 22946
PN 97082-1642
Date Completed: February17, 2011
Their Job No.: FC0907
Prior Review: August 5, 2010
January 25, 2010
October 2, 2008
November 26, 2007
LEGEND: N =No
Y =Yes
Proposed Project: 1 single family residence with associated retaining walls, driveway, and drainage structures.
Landslide shall be mitigated by use of a caisson wall at the toe of the slope.
Previous Proposed Project: 3 single family residences, split level with slabs on grade supported with deepened
footings or caissons. Grading will included cut slopes and fill slopes with retaining walls up to 20 feet in height.
Geotechnical Response
t�
Responsive to Checklist Comments
Grading/Foundation Plans Changed as a Result of Response
Planning Department:
X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes
Building and Safety:
Report Approved X Conditional Approval (See Below) Additional Input Required
Items requiring response/further evaluation:
1. None
Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required):
2. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide. This wall should be installed under a separate permit prior to
construction of the proposed residence.
3. Note to City Staff. Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E.) have signed the final dated
grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report
and associated addenda.
4. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following
grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density
testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the
limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The
report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation
recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site
SAShared\Projects\1997\97082\97082-1642 6th Review 2-1Ldoc
10 Chaparral
ATTACHMENT - 304
Category 4
Limitations:
.w
PN 97482-1642
Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and
generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has
been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re -analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction
or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be
considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability
for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers
or engineers.
BY4BY: i
Janies M ancaster, Jr., C.E. 1927 Expires 6/30/12 Dante P. Do6iingo, .E. 57939 Expires 6/30/12
ZEI E KLING CONSULTANTS, INC. MISER KLING CONSULTANTS, INC.
S:`•Shmvd'•pm.*L01997':9705_".97052-1642 (Ab Review 2-1 l.doc 10 Chaparral
ATTACHMENT - 305
Geology Report
(dated February 1, 2011)
ATTACHMENT - 306
0 0
PROFESSIORS-
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ► O
25422 Trabuco Rd. #105 Lake ,Forest, CA 92630 Phone 949-768-3693 Fax 949-588-8386
27636 Ynez Road, # L7 Temecula, CA 92591 Phone 951-698-4598 www.pesoil.eont
February 1, 2011
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
Dear reviewers:
Per your request, we are submitting you our responses to the review letter, January 27, 2010,
PN 97082-1642, regarding the project at 10 Chaparral lane , Rancho Palos Verdes, California:
ITEM If /,-
1. Please provide a cogy of the ire -w- test gaits PEC -7 and PES' -E.
Copies of the new test pits are included.
/TEM # 2.
2. The consultant has reconunended caissons to initigate the existing landslide. Please illustiute locations of proposed
caissons on the plot plan.
The locations of the proposed caissons are shown on the enclosed plan.
/ TEM #3.
3. Please provide slope stability analysis to illustrate that the proposed caisson wall will mitigate the lalidslide.
The slope stability analyses is included. We also provided additional analyses for the stability of
the loose landslide material and achieved factor of safety of 1.75.
ITEM #4.
4. The consigtant's response to Continent # 10 uidicates that the Factor of Safety is 2.6 and that the analysis is
enclosed. Stability analysis are not nicluded ui the response. please protide.
The stability analyses is included. We used the most conservative number of o = 26°
Respectfully Submitted,
Professional Engineers Consulti
Saeed
�oQEssroNgi
3 No. 51711 rn
n
�* EXA 6/30/12
CIVIL
OFC
ATTACHMENT - 307
e,
MOFESSIONALE-N&INEMS CONSULTING, Inc. ,
T CH LOG
Surface Elevation: NA
Logged By: TH
Trench Orientation: E -W
Date: 10/30/10
TP -7
Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X 1.0'X15.0'
Equipment: Excavator
Groundwater Depth: NA
This log is a representation of subsurface conditions at
the time @ place of excavation.
SAMPLE
h
ENGINEERING
o
b
A
CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
PQ
Ey
GA
w U
AN
A
0
_
0 - 5' (on slope), Fill:
-
ML
Brown and light gray clayey silt and gravel/cobble, loose.
5.0
ML.
5'- 8' Native:
_
Residual soil, dark brown silty clay with weak fragments,
moist
—
SM
SW
81- 151 Bedrock:
10
Catalina Schist, hard, moderately well foliated.
-
Fol: N35W, 25NE
—
N28W, 25NE
]s
N545W
TOTAL DEPTH =15.0 FEET
Af
5'
Ground Surface
RS
--------------
10'
--------------------------
SC
FOLD
15'
Location @ Situation:
Surface Gradient: NA
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Scale: — 5 ftJlnch
Project No.:
FC0907
ATTACHMENT - 308
PROFESSIONAL'LAGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc.
ATTACHMENT - 309
TRENCH LOG
Surface Elevation: NA
Logged By: SS
Trench Orientation: E -W
Date: 10/30/10
TP -8
Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X 15.0'X15.0'
Equipment: hand digging
Groundwater Depth: NA
This log is a representation of subsurface conditions at
the time @ place of excavation.
SAMPLE
U
ENGINEERING
CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
AM
0
H
P4
wCeJ
A
0 S' (on slope) Fill
_
SW
Gray Silt with Shale fragments and reddish brown clayey silt with
_
shale fragments.
2.5
SM
Moist, loose, porous with woods.
—
SW
Qls ( includes fill above)
—
Mixture of fill as above, dark brown residual soil, and shale
—
fragments, overrides AC pavement.
—
Bedrock:
5.0
SM
Catalina Schist, very hard, difficult to excavate, Schist.
_
SW
Fol: N05W. 11SW.
7.5
Ground surface
Af (Qls)
5'
Q1S
AC Pavement
10'
MAW
!ti:'.: 15}ri} V ti~
Base
SC
ls'
Location @ Situation:
Surface Gradient: NA
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Scale: — 5 ft./Ittch
Project No.:
FC0907
ATTACHMENT - 309
t9
ra
a
Proposed 64 feet ...........
retaining wall 111i Q. YA r
?:.' •'.,
v �°jk•-��DAYLIGHTLINE• ;,��- N .,.7'li' ,t{" t U..,d'
Qt VS
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING, Inc
SITE FLAN
LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL & CAISSONS
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Project No.: FC0907 i
ATTAr
10
PRO�PSIONALENGINEERS .
f r�
t �
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES (Stability Behind retaining walls)
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
SLOPE SURFACE ,.►'''
TOPSOIL/
SLOPEWASH
Z PW
Fd
FAILURE PATH
8S WS
.0 . SLOPE ANGLE
ASSUME f 1) SATURATION TO SLOPE SURFACE
(12) SUFFICIENT PERMEABILITY TO ESTABLISH WATER FLOW
Pyr= WATER PRESSURE HEAD
Ws= SATURATED SOIL UNIT WEIGHT
Ww= UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL WATER
PW _ Z' cosi 4
U = WWZ- case
Fd- 112 (Z) Ws sln2X-
Fr- Z (%-Ww) coat .t tarp 0+c -
2Z (Ws-Ww) co92 X-tan0+2 c
F. S.-
Ws Z' sin2.0
PARAMETERS
Cohesion C=100
Angle of Friction (D = 30 °
Saturated unit weight ys= 142
Water Unit weight yw = 62.4
Slope Angle (a) = 26
Depth of failure surface (Z) = 8
U= PORE WATER PRESSURE
ASSUMPTION:
Infinite slope with seepage
Failure parallel to the slope surface
F.S. -_ 200 + 2X8(142-64) Cost 26 X Tan 30
142 X 8 X Sin 26 Cos 26
=1.78 >1.5
ATTACHMENT - 311
C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Landslide area
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
SATURATED
L=
280
feet
Wet Density =
142
psf
( =
30
degrees
C=
100
psf
SLICE
I°
AREA
W(KIPS)
D=W Sin I
N=W Cos I
1
31
750
106.50
54.85
91.29
2
22
1570
222.94
83.51
206.71
3
16
1620
48.60
13.40
46.72
4
11
1640
164.00
31.29
160.99
5
7
1420
201.64
24.57
200.14
6
3
860
25.80
1.35
25.76
TOTAL
207.63
705.84
R=N TAN (D + CL=
435.5
F.S.=R/D=
2.10
OK
NON -SATURATED
L =
280
feet
Wet Density =
126
psf
(D =
30
degrees
C =
100
psf
SLICE
I°
AREA
W(KIPS)
D=W Sin I
N=W Cos I
1
31
750
94.50
48.67
81.00
2
22
1570
197.82
74.10
183.42
3
16
1620
48.60
13.40
46.72
4
11
1640
164.00
31.29
160.99
5
7
1420
178.92
21.80
177.59
6
3
860
25.80
1.35
25.76
TOTAL
189.27
649.71
R=N TAN (D + CL=
403.1
F.S.=R/D=
2.13
OK
ATTACHMENT - 312
-r`CONSULTING
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Landslide area
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
IN Obi < N
C1i r> Q cx
r
ATTACHMENT - 313.
PROFESSIONAL r7�16INEERS CONSULTINGx
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Proposed development
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
SATURATED
L =
220
feet
Wet Density =
142
psf
(D =
25
degrees
C =
100
psf
SLICE
I°
AREA
W(KIPS)
D=W Sin I
N=W Cos I
1
30
85
12.07
6.04
10.45
2
21
270
38.34
13.74
35.79
3
18
470
11.75
3.63
11.17
4
12
625
62.50
12.99
61.13
5
6
650
92.30
9.65
91.79
6
2
270
6.75
0.24
6.75
TOTAL
46.05
210.35
R=N TAN 4) + CL= 120.1
F.S.=R/D= 2.61
OK
NON -SATURATED
L =
220
feet
Wet Density =
126
psf
(D =
25
degrees
C =
100
psf
SLICE
I°
AREA
WOCIPS)
D=W Sin I
N=W Cos I
1
30
85
10.71
5.36
9.28
2
20
270
34.02
11.64
31.97
3
16
470
11.75
3.24
11.29
4
10
625
62.50
10.85
61.55
5
6
650
81.90
8.56
81.45
6
3
270
6.75
0.35
6.74
TOTAL
39.64
195.54
R=N TAN (D + CL= 113.2
F.S.=R/D= 2.86
OK
ATTACHMENT - 314
PROFESSIONAL P7)GINEERS CONSULTING
',
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Proposed development
10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
0
tD
0
0
rv;
i�
ATTACHMENT - 315
f
Fire Department Review
(October 6, 2011)
ATTACHMENT - 316
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
Fire Prevention Engineering
4476 W. El Segundo Blvd.
Hawthorne, Ca 90250-4411
Telephone 310-973-3044 Fax 310-263-2735
BUILDING PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
DATE: 10-06-2011 REGIONAL OFFICE: CENTRAL REGION CARSON
PROJECT FPD
NAME: - -SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NO: FEPC 201101376
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
10 CHAPARREL LN
CITY:
2&
BASE
BLDG.
OCCUPANCY
MEN
TYPE: _VB CLASSIFICATION:
R -3,U STORIES:
T
TOTAL BLDG
REQUIRED
SPRINKLERS
AREA SQ. FT.:
6,836 SIDE YARDS:
REQUIRED:
YES
ARCHITECT/
APPLICANT:
FRANK COLARUOTOLO
PHONE: 310-628-1099
A building permit WILL NOT be issued prior to acceptance of the hydrant location, fire flow, and
any additional requirements by the Department.
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING YOUR PROJECT CORRECTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT:
PLANS EXAMINER: MARION JAIKOWSKI
NOTE: PLANS EXAMINER'S PHONE HOURS ARE BETWEEN 7:30 A.M. AND 10.30 A.M. ONLY, MONDAY
,ZHROUGH FRIDAY. OFFICE MEETING ARE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
SUBMIT-Fdf R'CORRkrTED ARCHITECTURAL SETS OF PLANS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL,
PLEASE MAKE EACH CORRECTION AS DIRECTED BELOW EACH REQUIREMENT.
The following deficiencies have been identified as not in compliance with applicable codes,
standards, and Department regulations, as stated on the construction documents.
317
1. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, except for approved security gates in accordance
with Section 503.0 and an unobstructed vertical clearance 4clear to sky, Fire Department vehicular
access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior building wails. Fire Code 503.2.1
ACTION REQUIRED: Cross -hatch the Fire Department vehicle access on the site plan.
2. The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15% unless approved by the
fire code official. `Fire Code 503.2.7
ACTION REQUIRED : indicate the grade of the Fire Department access roadway on the site plan.
3. Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior
to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan.
4. Building address numbers shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from
the street fronting the property. The numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum
stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1
Provide Note on Site Plan
5. The required fire flow for PUBLIC fire hydrants at this location is 1,125gpm, at 20 psi residual
pressure, for a duration of 2 hours over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Fire Code 5018.3
and Fire Department Regulation 8.
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan.
6. Show all existing PUBLIC fire hydrants within 300 feet of the lot frontage on both sides of the street_
Specify size of fire hydrant(s) and dimension(s) to property lines. Additional fire hydrant requirements
may be necessary after this information is provided.
Fire Code 508.1 and Fire Department Regulation 8
ACTION REQUIRED: indicate size and locations of all existing fire hydrants on site plan.
7. Complete and return the attached 4Fire Flow AvaliabilityL Form 195.
Fire Code 508.1.1 --
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide attached form completed by the water purveyor
ATTACHMENT - 318
8. Provide Building Code occupancy classification(s) for all separate and distinct uses of the structures(s)
in accordance with Building Code 302.1
ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate on the site pian
9. Provide Building Code type of construction in accordance with Building Code Section 602.1 and Table
601.
ACTION REQUIRED., Indicate type of construction on the site plan and provide construction
details for the structural elements in Table 601
10. Provide a 1 hour fire barrier between the R-3 occupancy and the U-1 occupancy as required by
Building Code 508.3.3 and Table 508.3.3
ACTION REQUIRED: Show on floor plan and provide a construction detail.
11. Fire -resistive assemblies for the protection of openings, when required
by the Building Code shall comply with Building Code 715 and Table
715.4,
ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate on floor plan and in door/window
schedule.
12. Every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one exterior emergency escape and
rescue opening. Required openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet with a
minimum clear height of 24 inches an le idth of 20 inches. Building Code 1026
ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate size ian of windows on floor plan and In door/window
schedule.
13. Single or multiple station smoke alarms shall be Installed in the locations described in Building Code
907.2.10.1.1 and 907.2.10.1.2. Smoke alarms shall receive their primary power from the building wiring
where such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backup.
Where more than one smoke alarm is required to be installed within an individual dwelling unit, the
smoke alarms shall be Interconnected in such a manner that the activation
;;offo�one alarm will aclivale all
of the alarms in the individual unit. Building Code 907.2.10.2 and 907.2.10
Locations:' '
ACTION REQUIRED: Indicate smoke detectors on floor plan and provide a note that they
hard wired with a battery backup and interconnected.
14. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Plans shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan
Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Building Code 903.2.8
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan.
&f
ATTACHMENT - 319
15. All roof coverings shall be Class "A" as specified in Building Code 1505.2. Wood -shingle and wood -
shake roofs are PROHIBITED in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, regardless of classification.
(Fire Code 4710.1.2)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and indicate the roof covering on roof plan/elevation
views. r- I✓�t�'"L���
16. Roof valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019-irich (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) corrosion -
resistant metal installed over a minimum 36 -inch wide underlayment consisting of one layer of No. 72
ASTM cap sheet running the full length of the valley. (Fire Code 4710.1.3)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan/roof plan
17. Roof gutters shall be provided with a means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the
gutter.
(!'ire Code 4710.1.4)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan/roof plan
18. Roof and attic vents shall resist the intrusion of flame and embers into the attic area of the structure.
Vent openings shall be protected by corrosion -resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with 1/4 -inch
openings. Vents shall NOT be installed in eaves or cornices.
(Fire Code 4710.2.1 & 4710.2.2)
ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on roof plan and show vent locations on roof plantexterior
elevations.
19. Eaves and soffits shall meet one of the following:
a. Noncombustible construction on the exposed underside OR
b. Protected by ignition -resistant materials OR
C. Meet the requirements of SFM 12-7A-3
(Fire Code 4710.2.3)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide construction detall.
20. Exterior wall vents shall resist the intrusion of flame and embers Into the structure or vent openings
shall be protected by corrosion resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with 1/4 inch openings.
(Fire Code 4715.2.1)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and show vent locations on exterior elevations.
21. Exterior windows, window walls, glazed doors, and glazed openings within exterior doors shall meet
one of the following:
a. Multi -pane glazing units with a minimum of one tempered pane OR
b. Glass block units OR
C. Have a fire -resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes, when tested according to ASTM E
2010 OR
d. Meet the performance standards of SFM 12-7A-2
(Fire Code 4715.2.2)
ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate one of the above methods in the window/door schedule or on the floor
plan.
ATTACHMENT - 320
r ±�
22. All chimneys or fireplaces that burn solid fuel shall be equipped with an approved spark arrester.
Building Code 2802.9
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note and indicate on exterior elevations.
23. Prior to building permit final approval, the property shall be In compliance with the vegetation clearance
requirements prescribed'in California Public Resources Code Section 4291, California Government
Code Section 51182 and this code.(Fire Code 4708.3)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan and a copy of approval to field Inspector prior to
occupancy.
24. Clearance of brush and vegetative growth shall be maintained per Fire Code 317.2,2
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide note on site plan.
25. A final fuel modification plan shall be submitted and approved by the Forestry Division prior to building
plan approval. Implementation of the approved Final Fuel Modification Plan and final inspection will be
required prior to approval of final occupancy. Submit 3 copies of a completed fuel modification plan to
the Fuel Modification Unit: Fire Station 32, 605 N. Angeleno Avenue, Azusa 99702-2904. Phone (626)
969-5205, fax (626) 969-4848 (Fire Code 317.2.1)
ACTION REQUIRED: Provide a copy of the final approval plans from the Forestry Division.
26. OTHER REQUIREMENTS MAYBE ADDED BASED ON INFORMATION RECIEVED.
ATTACHMENT - 321