RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_03_05_01_Crestridge_Senior_Condominium_Housing_Project
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: March 5, 2013
Subject: Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project (ZON2012-00067
& SUB2012-00001)
Location: 5601 Crestridge
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Schonborn
4. Public Testimony:
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: Trumark Homes
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Brooks
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
1-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE MAVOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~~r
MARCH 5,2013 lJl\
CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING
PROJECT (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)I 5601
Crestridge Road
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGE
Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planne
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2013-_,certifying the Environmental Impact Report;and,adopt
Resolution No.2013-_,conditionally approving Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and
ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project.
Quasi-Judicial Decision
This item is a quasi-judicial decision in which the City Council is being asked to
consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to certify the EIR and
approve the Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit and Tentative Tract Map
applications.The specific findings of fact are listed and discussed in the
"Discussion"portion of the Staff Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project includes various
entitlement applications for the development of a for-sale senior condominium project on a
vacant parcel.The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map,which requires City
Council approval pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16.020(C).
1-2
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
The associated environmental documents and the project were initially reviewed by the
Planning Commission on June 26,2012,September 25,2012,November 13,2012,and
on December 11,2012.At the December 11 th hearing,the Planning Commission
adopted resolutions (attached)recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR
for the project,and that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit,Grading
Permit and Tract Map applications associated with the Crestridge Senior Condominium
Housing Project.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was part of a larger vacant parcel measuring 33.97 -acres in area.
Over the years,the larger parcel has been subdivided,and development has been
proposed,approved and constructed on the site.For a more thorough account of the
site's history,please refer to the Background sections in the attached Planning
Commission Staff Reports dated September 25,2012 and November 13,2012.
The current proposal for development of the property was submitted by Trumark Homes
in February 2012.Although the subject property is owned by First Citizens Bank &
Trust,Trumark Homes is currently working with the bank to finalize their purchase of the
property.
On June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to
provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to comment on the Initial
Study and Notice of Preparation,a precursor to the forthcoming EIR for the proposed
project.On August 22,2012,the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)was
completed and circulated for public review and comment until October 8,2012.Within
the circulation period,on September 25,2012,a hearing was conducted by the
Planning Commission for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Draft EIR for the
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project from the general public and from the
Planning Commission.
On October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed.On November 13,2012,the
Planning Commission considered the Final EIR and the associated entitlements for the
proposed project.At that time,the Planning Commission directed the applicant to make
adjustments to the entry tower,provide a construction timeline,and clarify the
phasing/parcelization of the proposed subdivision.In addition,the Commission directed
Staff to include additional conditions of approval regarding lighting,trails and updating
the height line on the photo simulations,and continued the public hearing to December
11,2012.At the December 11 th hearing,the Planning Commission adopted PC
Resolution Nos.2012-22 &2012-23 (attached)recommending that the City Council
certify the Final EIR for the project,and that the City Council approve the Conditional
1-3
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
Use Permit,Grading Permit and Tract Map applications associated with the Crestridge
Senior Condominium Housing Project.
The proposed project applications are now before the City Council for consideration.
On February 12,2013,Notice of tonight's hearing was provided via mail and publication
in the PV Peninsula News.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project,which has been termed the Crestridge Senior Condominium
Housing project (the "Project"),is proposed on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel.The property
is zoned .Institutional (I),and contains Open Space Hazard (OH)zoning along the rear
of the site.The subject property,which is currently owned by First Citizens Bank &
Trust,is located along Crestridge Road;and is bounded by the City's Vista del Norte
Reserve to the north,by the Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing project to the east,
and by the Belmont Assisted Living facility to the west.Other uses along Crestridge
Road include the PV Art Center,a convalescent home facility with independent living
units (the Canterbury),and various houses of religious worship.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Crestridge Senior Condominium project includes the following:
•Development of a senior,age-restricted (55+years of age or older),for-sale
residential community with a supportive services program for the residents:
• A total of 60 attached residential units ranging in size from 1,700 square
feet to 2,100 square feet in floor area,located within 18 individual buildings
distributed throughout the site,where some buildings will be two-story
structures and others will be split-level,two-story structures;
•Three (3)affordable housing units set aside for qualified very-low-income
senior households in accordance with the City's inclusionary housing
requirements;
• A 2,400 square foot community building exclusively for the residents of the
development;
• A community garden area at the northwest portion of the site,and an
outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the site for
exclusive use by the residents;
•Access to the site via one driveway at the westernmost portion of the site
• A series of public and private pedestrian trails;and,
• A total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading,which includes 145,000 cubic
yards of cut (143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards of fill.
1-4
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
CODE CONSIDERATION
The proposed development project requires the processing of the following applications:
11 Conditional Use Permit -To allow the proposed use and development of the
proposed project.Additionally,approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required
to allow the proposed 27 -foot high,2-story buildings to exceed the Institutional
District's Development Standard of 16'high and one-story.
~Grading Permit -To allow the proposed 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000
cubic yards of fill.
Ql Tentative Tract Map -To subdivide the site to accommodate 60 condominium
parcels,distributed throughout 1 common lot.
~Environmental Assessment -To comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA),via certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
that assesses the proposed project's environmental impacts.
Although the Planning Commission typically makes decisions on Conditional Use
Permits and Grading Permits,the proposed Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing
project includes a Tentative Tract Map because the project proposes individual for-sale
condominiums.The Planning Commission's role in reviewing the tentative tract map is
advisory since decisions on tract maps must be made by the City Council.As such,the
Planning Commission's role was to consider the project and make a recommendation to
the City Council on the entire application package.
DISCUSSION
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
During the Planning Commission's review of the project and the various entitlement
applications,the Planning Commission determined that the necessary findings
associated with the applications could be made in a positive manner to warrant approval
of the project.With regards to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)the Planning
Commission determined that the associated Statement of Facts and Findings could also
be made to warrant certifying the EIR.Further,although it was identified that the project
will cause an unavoidable significant impact that cannot be mitigated with regards to
Aesthetics,the Planning Commission also determined that the necessary Statement of
Overriding Considerations could be made in order to approve the project.As a result,
on December 11,2012,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution Nos.2012-22
&2012-23 (attached)recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR for the
project,and that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit
and Tract Map applications.
1-5
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
Below is a discussion of the necessary findings that the City Council must make to
approve the four applications associated with the proposed project.The necessary
findings are shown in boldface,followed by a summary of the rationale articulated by
Staff and supported by the Planning Commission for support of each application.For a
more in depth analyses for each application,please refer to the attached Planning
Commission Staff Reports of November 13 and December 11,2012.
1)CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)FINDINGS:
The proposed age-restricted housing project requires approval of a CUP.Additionally,
because.the proposed 26'-10"tall two story and split-level structures exceed the
Institutional District's development standards of 16'-0"tall and one-story,a CUP is
required to allow the proposed building heights.In considering a CUP application,
Section 17.60.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC)requires
that the following six (6)findings be made in reference to the property and project under
consideration.
1.That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use and for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,
landscaping and other features required by this title or by conditions
imposed under this section to integrate said use with those on adjacent
land and within the neighborhood;
2.That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways
sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the
subject use;
3.That,in approving the subject use at the specific location,there will be
no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use
thereof;
4.That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan;
5.That,if the site of the proposed use is within any of th'e overlay control
districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts)of this
title,the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that
chapter;and,
6.That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this'
paragraph,which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to
protect the health,safety and general welfare,have been imposed:a.
Setbacks and buffers;b.Fences or walls;c.Lighting;d.Vehicular
1-6
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
ingress and egress;e.Noise,vibration,odors and similar emissions;f.
Landscaping;g.Maintenance of structures,grounds or signs;h.
Service roads or alleys;and i.Such other conditions as will make
possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and
in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title.
In summary,the Planning Commission and Staff believe that the findings can be made
for the following reasons:
•The size of the site,at 9.76-acres,is large enough to accommodate the 60-unit
condominium project;
•The proposed building designs are of a residential character,with a mix of two-
story structures and split-level two story structures.The architectural style of the
proposed structures will be consistent with other residential type structures along
Crestridge Road,such as the Belmont Assisted Living Facility,Mirandela Senior
Apartments,and the Canterbury Congregate Care Facility,as well as the
residential character of the existing single-family residential neighborhoods to the
east and south of the site.
•Of the 19 total structures that comprise the proposed project,9 structures will
exceed the 16-foot height limit.However,it was determined that only three
structures would result in some type of view impairment,as the portions above
the 16-foot height limit (Le.,16-feet above existing grade)impair a small portion
of the city view at the bottom of the view frames from the existing residences on
Mistridge Drive.As a result,these structures are required to be modified by
reducing the interior plate heights,reducing the roof pitch and changing the roof
types.The modifications will minimize the view impairment such that the
buildings will minimally project into the city lights views while maintaining the
larger panoramic view from the residences along Mistridge Drive.
•The associated traffic analyses have concluded that the traffic generated by the
project will not impact the Levels of Service at surrounding intersections;
•The proposed project will be consistent with other Institutional uses on adjacent
properties,and on properties along Crestridge Road;
•With incorporation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval the project
will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property;and,
•The project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies.
1-7
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
Thus,after a complete analysis of the project (as specified in the attached November
13,2012 Staff Report),the Planning Commission and Staff believe that all of the
aforementioned findings can be made to warrant approval of the CUP,and therefore
recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit.
2)GRADING PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA:
The table below summarizes the proposed grading associated with this project:
Within the proposed building footprints,the maximum depth of cut proposed is
approximately 34'at the westernmost portion of the site,while the fill will be conducted
throughout the site primarily for the interior roadway and to ensure a consistent slope
throughout the site that is less steep than what currently exists.
In considering a grading permit application,RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)requires the
following criteria be considered in reference to the property and project under
consideration:
1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot,as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development
Code.
2.The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from,neighboring
properties.In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an
addition to an existing 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,as measured
pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8)of this title,is lower than a structure that
could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from
preconstruction (existing)grade.'
3.The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours,
and finished contours are reasonably natural.
4.The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any
manmade or manufactured slope into the natural topography.
1-8
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
5.For new single-family residences,the grading and/or related construction
is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,as defined in
Section 17.02.040(A)(6)of the Development Code.
6.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provIsions for the
preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes
from soil erosion and slippage,and minimize visual effects of grading and
construction on hillside areas.
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.
8.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of
natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.
9.The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes,
creation of new slopes,heights of retaining walls,and maximum driveway
steepness.
In summary,the Planning Commission and Staff believe that the project meets the
aforementioned grading criteria for the following reasons:
•The intent of the grading is primarily to lower the site's topography by as much as
approximately 38-feet to eliminate or reduce any view impacts to surrounding
residences.While the grading will result in 143,000 cubic yards of export,the
export is needed to lower the site to provide a better designed project as the
majority of the buildings will be set lower on the site than could be allowed "by
right"without the proposed grading (or with less grading).
•The proposed grading will align the interior roadway,ensure a consistent slope
throughout the site and provide for transitional slopes between buildings.As a
result,no fill will be placed under any of the building footprints in order to raise
the grade to accommodate a structure.
•The grading allows the resulting structures to be in line with the developments on
either side,which slope down from west to east.Due to the existing topography
of the site,which is convex in shape,the grading will also prepare the site to
better accommodate the development.While the existing contours will be
removed,the finished contours will ensure a gentler sloping site that continues to
slope from west to east.
1-9
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
•There will continue to be a transitional slope up to the Belmont facility and down
to the Mirandela site,which will create a stepped development that is in line with
the adjacent developments.
•The graded slopes and pervious areas will contain landscaping to prevent
erosion and create an aesthetically pleasing site.
•Since the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through disking
and grubbing,there is no protected habitat (CSS)present on site.However,
since the site is adjacent to the City's Preserve property,there are mitigation
measures proposed to minimize disturbance and impacts to the City's Preserve,
which include planting native landscaping.
•The project permits the reasonable development of land while maintaining the
natural scenic character.
•The development proposal is consistent with prior actions on other Institutional
uses along Crestridge Road,namely the abutting Belmont Assisted Living Facility
project wherein that site was also lowered substantially for the same purposes.
Specifically,development of the Belmont facility resulted in 163,000 cubic yards
of total grading (89,500 cubic yards of cut,73,560 cubic yards of fill and 15,940
cubic yards of export).As such,any proposed deviations from the City's grading
criteria will not grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity.
Thus,after a complete analysis of the project (as specified in the attached November
13,2012 Staff Report),the Planning Commission and Staff believe that the proposed
grading is consistent with all of the aforementioned grading criteria to warrant approval
of the Grading Permit,and therefore recommends that the City Council approve the
Grading Permit.
3)TENTATIVE TRACT MAP:
As indicated above,the project also includes a Tentative Tract M!3p,which requires City
Council approval pursuant to Development Code Section 16.16.020(C).The Applicant
proposes to subdivide the existing 9.76-acre site to accommodate 60 condominium
units and a common lot.Section 66474 of the State Sljbdivision Map Act (SMA)lays
out the findings against which any tentative tract map shall be evaluated:
(a)The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans
as specified in Government Code Section 65451.
(b)The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
1-10
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
For the reasons summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Staff
Reports,the Planning Commission and Staff believe that the proposed project is
consistent with the applicable goals and polices of the land use and housing elements
of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan.Further,the subject property is not located
within any specific plan area.
(c)The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
(d)The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The subject property measures 9.76-acres in area and is sufficient in size to
accommodate the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project.The buildings are
sufficiently spaced;the project provides for open space;outdoor recreational areas for
the future tenants;complies with the applicable setbacks;and,has a density of
approximately 6 units to the acre.As such,the Planning Commission and Staff believe
that the site is physically suitable for the type of development and density of the project.
(e)The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f)The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The subject property has never been developed and has remained a vacant parcel.
There are no sensitive plant or animal species;no known historical,archaeological or
paleontological resources;and no known hazardous materials or conditions on the
subject property.Further,the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of
approval will reduce any potential impacts upon the environment,fish and wildlife,
sensitive habitats or public health to less-than-significant levels.
(g)The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use
of,property within the proposed subdivision.In this connection,the
governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements,for
access or for use,will be provided,and that these:will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.This subsection shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby
granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has
acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
1-11
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
There are no known public access easements across the subject property that should
be preserved as a part of this project.However,since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan
(CTP)calls for a pedestrian trail to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road
below,the applicant will construct said trail provide and record a pedestrian trail
easement consistent with the City's CTP.
In conclusion,the Planning Commission and Staff believe that the proposed tentative
tract map is consistent with the City's subdivision regulations,as well as the zoning and
General Plan land use designations for the site and the State Subdivision Map Act.
Furthermore,the draft map has been reviewed by the City Engineer,the City's traffic
engineer,the City's drainage consultant and other public agencies.As such,the
Tentative.Tract Map may be approved.
4)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
The City through its environmental consultant (Rincon Consultants)evaluated the
proposed project's impacts on the environment through the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).The EIR concluded that the proposed project will
not result in or create any significant impacts,or have less than significant impacts to
Agricultural Resources,Hazards/Hazardous Materials,Land Use/Planning,Mineral
Resources,Population and Housing,Public Services,Recreation,and Utilities and
Service Systems.The EIR concluded that the proposed project could result in
potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics,Air Quality,Biological Resources,Geology
and Soils,Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise,and Traffic and Circulation.However,it
was also concluded that any potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than
significant level through the imposition of certain mitigation measures.These potential
impacts and the appropriate mitigation measures related to these environmental factors
are summarized in the Executive Summary attached to this Staff Report,the associated
EIR and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the attached Resolution.
Pursuant to CEQA requirements,the City is required to adopt a Statement of Facts and
Findings for a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment.The
Statement of Facts and Findings identifies the significant impacts,presents facts
supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis,makes one or more of the following
three findings for each impact,and explains the reasoning behtnd the City's findings.
The possible findings are as follows:
1.Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2.Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding.Such
1-12
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3.Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained works,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the Final EIR.
The Planning Commission and Staff believe that Finding No.1 can be adopted since
changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final
EIR.Thus,based upon the mitigation measures identified in the EIR document,this
finding can be made and adopted.
However,it must be noted that there is one significant impact the EIR concluded cannot
be mitigated to a level of insignificance.The EIR determined that there would be an
unavoidable significant impact to Aesthetics,which cannot be mitigated.Specifically,
the proposed project would introduce structural development,new landscaping,and
hardscape to an open and vacant undeveloped site;and,project grading would
substantially alter the site's slope and ridgeline topography.In addition,the site is
identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a "canyon
and ridge"feature and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character;"grading for
and construction of the proposed project would eliminate both of these attributes.
Pursuant to CEQA,when a proposed project will cause an unavoidable significant
impact that cannot be mitigated,a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted.In adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations,the Planning
Commission and Staff believe that Finding NO.3 (above)can be made to approve the
project.To the extent the Aesthetic impact would remain significant after mitigation,this
impact is acceptable and outweighed by social,economic and other benefits of the
project for the following reasons:
•All feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to
less than significant levels;
•The alternatives to the project are infeasible because whife they have similar or
fewer/reduced environmental impacts,they do not provide all of the benefits of
the project,or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared
to the project.
•The project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan land
use designation and Institutional Zoning,with approval of the associated
Conditional Use Permit.
1-13
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
•Development of the site with senior housing is consistent with the City's vision for
the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved development
pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;Belmont Village and
Mirandela,respectively,and the nearby Canterbury Convalescent Care facility.
•The project is compatible in form and scale with the adj.acent senior housing
facilities and as such would complement the pattern of development in the area.
•The project is consistent with the City's certified Housing Element (2010)and
with the City's inclusionary housing requirements.
•The project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing public
pedestrian pathways that link Crestridge Road to trails on the Vista del Norte
Ecological Preserve to the north,consistent with the Conceptual Trails Plan.
Further,signage will help direct the public through the project site to the public
trails and trailheads to the north.
•The unavoidable adverse impact is based on the development of the project site,
which is identified as "Canyons and Ridges"and as "Undeveloped Lands
Impacting Visual Character"in the Visual Aspects Map of the City's General Plan
(General Plan Figure 41).HoWever,the designations were placed on the site in
1975,at a time when the environmental and view character of the surrounding
area were different from the present conditions.While at one time there may
have been expansive views of the site and its associated ridgelines from
Crenshaw Boulevard and beyond (as identified on General Plan Figure 41)much
of these views of the site have been blocked by development along Silver Spur
Road since the General Plan was adopted.As such,while the existing
designations necessitated an impact finding of significant and unavoidable,the
conditions that prompted the inclusion of those designations in the 1975 General
Plan exist to a lesser extent today.
•The project will add new senior residential units,increasing the availability of this
type of housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to serve local seniors.
•Any development at the project site will require substantial grading activities to
lower the site to maintain views from the upslope residential properties to the
south.Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of development at
the site would not be economically feasible given the amount of earthwork that
would still be required to accommodate development and maintain views.
Therefore,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR,
Technical Appendices and the public record,the Planning Commission and Staff
believe that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been balanced against the
1-14
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project,and that a
Statement of Overriding Considerations can be adopted.Thus,the Planning
Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and certify the EIR.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT
This project is subject to the inclusionary housing requirements of Chapter 17.11 of the
City's Development Code.Based upon the proposed 60-unit project,the applicant shall
be obligated to provide three (3)units affordable to very low income households and a
condition has been included that requires the provision of these 3 residences.This is
consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM
According to the applicant,the new community will provide a supportive services
program consistent with the Institutional Zoning requirements.The City's Municipal
Code Section 17.26.030.E allows age-restricted for-sale housing provided certain
services are provided for the residents of the community.The Code lists a number of
services that qualify but none are prescriptive.The services listed in the Code that are
relevant and appropriate for the proposed Crestridge community are the following
services:
1.Sociallrecreation programs,
2.Educational programs,and/or
3.Health and nutrition programs.
The Crestridge HOA would create regular programs focusing on the three areas listed
above to offer to residents in the community service center building.Some examples of
the programs include community farming classes in the classroom and in the
community gardens,exercise classes in the fitness room,instructor lead indoor and
outdoor yoga,Tai Chi and pilates classes,computer classes,healthy eating seminars
and cooking classes,nature walks along the onsite and adjoininglrails,wine tasting and
food pairing classes,book clubs,movie nights and various other educational and
recreational classes.As the programs grow and residents get more involved,the HOA
would likely form a community programs subcommittee made up of residents and a
part-time programs director to assist in developing topics for the programs,inviting
speakers and organizing events.Given the layout and amenities that are planned in the
service center and onsite,these programs can easily be accommodated onsite.
1-15
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5.2013
The activities would be supported within the Community Service Center building.The
2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck would provide a
second,centralized community amenity for the residents.The Community Service
Center would provide a recreation and lounge area for community gatherings,kitchen,
computer center/business room,office,fitness room,bathrooms,indoor and outdoor
fireplaces,outdoor living area,spa,barbeque and seating area.The Community
Service Center could also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for
regular resident activities like movie nights,book clubs and cooking classes.Ultimately,
a condition of approval has been added to ensure the availability of the aforementioned
services.
MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED CONDITION OF ApPROVAL REGARDING FOLIAGE:
In order to avoid any view impacts to nearby residents caused by foliage at the
proposed development,the Planning Commission approved a condition that requires all
landscaping throughout the development to not exceed the height of a line depicted on
photographs taken by Staff from the residences at 5623,5649,and 5575 Mistridge
Drive and 5525 Seaside Heights Drive.The line follows the highest visible roof
ridgelines of the buildings at the development.The intent of the condition is to restrict
foliage from growing higher than these structures,while providing some flexibility in the
foliage type and allowing the foliage in the foreground (Le.,the foliage closer to
Crestridge Road)to grow taller,but not to the point that would be higher than the line
depicted in the photographs.
The proposed condition currently reads as follows:
"All [private/common area]landscaping throughout the development shall be
maintained so not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the
photographs taken from 5623, 5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive,and 5525
Seaside Heights Drive (Exhibit B,to PC Resolution No.2012-23).
After the December 11 th Planning Commission meeting,a resident continued to have
concern that the condition relied too heavily upon the four properties that were identified
in the condition,and felt that foliage could cause view impairment to others not listed in
the condition.In addition,two of the residents listed in the cond1tion (specifically Mr.&
Mrs.Rockoff at 5525 Seaside Height Drive and Ms.Chen at 5623 Mistridge Drive),
have requested that their address not be used in the conditions of approval and
subsequent CC&Rs for the development.Staff believes deleting reference to their
addresses will not be a detriment to the intent of the condition.As such,in order to
address all of these concerns,Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
approved condition be modified as follows (deleted language in strikethrough,and
modified/added language is underlined):
1-16
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
"All private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so
not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs
taken from ~,5649 and 5575 Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Heights
Qfi.ve (Exhibit B to PC Resolution No.2012-23,and Exhibit B to City Council
Resolution No.2013-).If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in
the development continues to impair a view from another residence along
Mistridge Drive,Seaside Heights Drive or Ocean ridge Drive,then said foliage
shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view."
The modified condition,as specified above and included in the attached conditions of
approval (as nos.9 and 59),now has the full support of the residents in the area.
CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PAD ELEVATIONS:
Another concern raised by two of the residents after the Planning Commission's review
of the project,is that the resulting structure height will be higher than depicted by the
silhouettes.The silhouettes were constructed in accordance with the grading plans that
were submitted for the project,which includes ridgeline heights for each of the
structures on the property.Not all structures were silhouetted because some of the
proposed structures are proposed at heights that are lower than the existing grade,and
thus not feasible to silhouette.However,there is a condition that requires the roof
ridgelines be certified to be consistent with the plans.To provide for additional
measures to ensure that the site is developed in accordance with the approved plans,
Staff is recommending that a condition be added requiring that the grade elevations be
certified prior to construction of the buildings.The new recommended condition (no.
121)is as follows:
"The pad elevations for each structure shall be limited to the pad elevations
identified in the grading plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on
December 11,2012,and approved by the City Council on March 5,2013.
PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building,prior to
construction of each building on each pad.Further,a FINISH FLOOR
ELEVATION CERTIFICATION for each building shall also be provided prior
to placement of concrete."
UTILIZING EXPORTED DIRT FOR THE SAN RAMON CANYON PROJECT:
Staff received an email from resident Ken Delong proposing that the dirt exported from
the Crestridge Project possibly be used for the San Ramon Canyon Storm Drain project
in order to save City costs on the San Ramon Storm Drain project.According to Senior
Engineer Ron Dragoo,approximately 40,000 cubic yards of fill is needed for the City's
storm drain project.Furthermore,it will be the responsibility of the San Ramon Project
Contractor to obtain this needed fill.Although it may be feasible to export some dirt to
1-17
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
San Ramon Canyon,it would be contingent upon both projects being constructed
simultaneously.Mr.Delong also suggests storing (Le.,stockpiling)the exported fill in
the City's Preserve until such time that it is needed.Staff has spoken with the
developer regarding this issue,as this would be beneficial to both the developer and the
City.It appears that these two projects may not be constructed simultaneously,as the
San Ramon Project is scheduled to begin in the Spring 2013 and be completed in the
Spring 2014,while the Crestridge Project will commence in the first quarter of 2014.
Nonetheless,Staff will be working with and assisting the developer in the hopes that this
can be accomplished.If it can,Staff will also assist the developer in identifying an
appropriate haul route to transport the dirt from Crestridge Road to the San Ramon
project site.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above,the analyses contained in the various Staff Reports
to the Planning Commission for this project,and the conditions that have been included
to mitigate impacts,the Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City
Council adopt Resolution No.2012-_,certifying the Environmental Impact Report;and,
adopt Resolution No.2012-_,conditionally approving Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and
ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project.
ATTACHMENTS
•Resolution No.2013-_,certifying the Environmental Impact Report with Exhibit
"A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding
the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project"
•Resolution No.2013-_,conditionally approving Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and
ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project,with Exhibit "A"to Resolution
2013-_,Conditions of approval for Planning Case Nos.ZON2012-00067 and
SUB2012-00001
•EIR Executive Summary
•PC Resolution No.2012-22,recommending that the City Council certify the EIR
for the Crestridge Senior Condominium Project '
•PC Resolution No.2012-23,recommending that the City Council approve the
entitlements associated with the Crestridge Senior Condominium Project
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated December 11,2012
•Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)of the December 11 th meeting
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated November 13,2012
•Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)of the November 13th meeting
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated September 25,2012
•Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)of the September 25th meeting
1-18
City Council Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
March 5,2013
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated June 26,2012
•Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)of the June 26 th meeting
•Correspondence in response to Notice
•Plans (Le.,Tentative Map,site plan,grading plan,etc.)-Hard Copies Only
•Final EIR (CD)
1-19
RESOLUTION No.2013-_,
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH EXHIBIT "A",
TITLED "FACTS,FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE
CRESTRIDGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT"
1-20
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2013-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CERTIFING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;
MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS;AND,A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CRESTRIDGE
SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE NOS.ZON2012-
00067 &SUB2012-00001)LOCATED AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD (APN
7589-013-009).
WHEREAS,on February 22,2012,applications for an Environmental Assessment,
Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit (ZON2012-00067)and Tentative Tract Map
(SUB2012-00001)were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000
cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and
above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601
Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009);and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012,pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act
(PSA),Government Code Section 65920 et seq.;and,'
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079)(the "EIR");and,
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study")for
the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,and on May 29,2012,the
Initial Study (IS)and Notice of Preparation (NOP)were released to the public and public
agencies for a comment period of 31 days (through June 29,2012).Further,a Public
Notice was mailed on May 29,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot
radius from the subject property.SUbsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula
News on May 31,2012.Furthermore,the notice was posted on'the City's website,and
emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the Iistserve for this project.
Lastly,a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall,
Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to
download and review;and,
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public
scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide
verbal comments on the IS/NOP,at which time the Planning Commission extended the
comment period through July 12,2012;and,
1-21
WHEREAS,after the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared
taking various comments into account.After completing the Draft EIR,the document was
made available to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48-day public comment period that
concluded on October 8,2012;and,
WHEREAS,on September 26,2012 the Planning Commission held a public
comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in
addition to the typical written comments,on the Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was
provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was
scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13,2012 to review the Final EIR
and the entitlement applications for the proposed project.Subsequently,a notice was
emailedtothe611 people registered on the City's Iistserve for this project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 13,2012,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated
with the Project,the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the
Draft EIR;and,
.WHEREAS,on November 13,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting,landscaping,trail use,
and tower height,and return to the Planning Commission on December 11,2012 with
Resolutions for consideration;and,
WHEREAS,on the December 11,2012,the Planning Commission adopted PC
Resolution No.2012-22,recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental
Impact Report;and,adopted PC Resolution No.2012-23,recommending that the City
Council conditionally approve Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for a
proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior Condominium
Housing Project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on March 5,2013,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the
Project,the Final EIR,the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR,
and the Planning Commission recommendation:
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Resolution No.2013-_
1-22
Section 1:Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081,and based
upon information contained in the Initial Study,the City ordered the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")for the Project.The City contracted with independent
consultants for the preparation of the technical studies for the EIR and on May 29,2012,
prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible,trustee,and other
interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation were accepted during an extended 45-day
comment period ending on July 12,2012.During the scoping period,the City held an
advertised public meeting on June 26,2012,to facilitate public input regarding the scope of
the EIR.
Section 2:The City completed the Draft EIR,together with those certain technical
appendices (the "Appendices"),on August 22,2012.The City circulated the Draft EIR and
the Appendices to the public and other interested parties from August 22,2012 through
October 8,2012,for a 48-day comment period.In addition to receiving written comments
submitted during this time,public comments were received at the September 25,2012,
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
Section 3:During the Draft EIR public comment period,including at the
September 25,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the City received numerous letters
and comments.Responses to each of the individual comments,including a number of
master responses,were prepared and made available on October 25,2012.The
comments and responses are found from pages 8-1 through 8-83 of the Final EIR,and are
incorporated herein by reference.The written responses to comments were made
available for public review in the Community Development Department,at the Rancho
Palos Verdes,Public Library and 'on the City's website.After reviewing the responses to
comments,the revisions to the Draft EIR,and the Final EIR,the Planning Commission
concluded that the information and issues raised by the comments and the responses
thereto did not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Section 4:The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR,including Appendices,
and the Comments and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR,dated October 2012;
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Section 5:Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council has independently reviewed and considered the content of the Final EIR,the public
comments upon it,and other evidence before the Commission prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project.The City Council finds that
the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as to the Project.The
City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports,in the
Final EIR and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Planning
Commission and City Council hearings do not constitute new information requiring further
recirculation of the EIR under CEQA.None of the information presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to
Resolution No.2013-_
1-23
comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation
measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement.
Section 6:Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council finds that the comments regarding the Draft EIR and the responses to those
comments were received by the Commission;that the Planning Commission and the City
Council received documents and public testimony regarding the adequacy of the EIR;and
that the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and considered all such
documents and testimony and the Final EIR.In accordance with Guidelines Section
15090,the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA,as to the Final Project.
Section 7:Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning
Commission and City Council,and consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation,the City Council finds that the Project will not cause any significant
environmental impacts after mitigation except in the area of aesthetics (Visual Character
and Quality of the Site).Explanations for why the impacts other than the foregoing were
found to be less than significant are contained in the Environmental Findings set forth in
Exhibit A to this Resolution and are more fully described in the Final EIR,all of which are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 8:Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning
Commission and City Council,and consistent with the Planning Commission's
recommendation,the City Council finds that the Project will create a significant unavoidable
impact to aesthetics (Visual Character and Quality of the Site).This significant impact is
further described in the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior
Housing Project",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,and
in the Final EIR.The findings in Exhibit A explain that all feasible mitigation,including
project revisions,have been incorporated to reduce the level of this impact to the degree
feasible,but that even after mitigation,this impact remains significant.
Section 9:The EIR describes,and the Planning Commission and City Council
have fully considered,a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.With respect to
each of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR,the City Council hereby makes the findings,
set forth in Exhibit "A"which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.On the
whole,the Project is environmentally superior to other feasible alternatives.As such,the
City Council finds that all other alternatives and variations are infeasible or are not
environmentally preferable for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "A".
Section 10:For the significant and unavoidable impact,consisting of aesthetics
(Visual character and Quality of the site)as identified in the Final EIR as "significant and
unavoidable,"consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council hereby adopts the "Statement of Overriding Considerations"that is set forth in
Exhibit "A",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.The City
Resolution No.2013-_
1-24
Council finds that each of the overriding benefits,by itself,would justify proceeding with the
Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to
be significant in the record of proceedings.
Section 11:The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program,attached hereto as Exhibit "B"and incorporated herein by this
reference,and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of the Project's approval.
City staff shall be responsible for enforcement and monitoring the mitigation measures as
described in Exhibit "B".
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Reports,Environmental Assessment and other components of the
legislative record,in the Final EIR,in the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the
Crestridge Senior Housing Project",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference,and in the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City
Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies the Final EIR
and adopts the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing
Project"and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "B")associated
with Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067,thereby allowing 147,000 cubic
yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and older
condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge
Road ,(APN 7589-013-009).
Resolution No.2013-_
1-25
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,CARLA MORREALE,City Clerk ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby
certify that the above Resolution No.2013-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 5,2013.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2013-_
1-26
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT IIA"
to Resolution No.2013-
FACTS,FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
SCH #2012051079
Lead Agency:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Contact:Mr.Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planner
(310)544-5228
March 5,2013
1-27
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction 1
II Description of Project Proposed for Approval 2
III Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Initial Study/Notice Of
Preparation 5
IV Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant..12
V Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant With Mitigation and Findings .......18
VI Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation and Findings 28
VII Alternatives to the Proposed Project 30
VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 34
r
A
B
C
Introduction 34
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 34
Overriding Considerations 34
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-28
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
I INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requires that a Lead Agency issue
two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact
on the environment.The Statement of Facts and Findings is the firstset of findings
where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts,presents facts supporting the
conclusions reached in the analysis,makes one or more of three findings for each
impact,and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings.
The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and Public Resources Code Section 21081.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)provides that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an ElR has been
certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of
those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for
each finding.
There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and
Findings pursuant to Section 15091 (a)of the CEQA Guidelines.
(1)Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final ElR.
(2)Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding.Such changes
have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
(3)Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,
including provision ofemployment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives idenNfied in the
final ElR.
These findings relevant to the project are presented in Sections V and VI.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings.Where a
project will cause unavoidable significant impacts,the Lead Agency may still approve
the project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts.Further,as provided in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations,the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning
by which benefits are balanced against effects,and approves the project.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-29
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,the CEQA Lead Agency,finds and declares that the
proposed Crestridge Senior Housing Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR)has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information
contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Crestridge Senior
Housing Project,herein referred to as the "project."
Based upon its review of the EIR,the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate
assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project,
represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency,and sets forth an adequate
range of alternatives to this project.On December 11,2012,the Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No.2012-22,recommending that the City
Council Certify the EIR.Subsequently,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council certified
the EIR at its hearing of March 5,2013.
The Final EIR is comprised of the following elements:
•The Final Crestridge Senior Housing EIR,including the responses to comments
on the Draft EIR and changes made to the EIR based on the comments received,
November 2012;);and
•Mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
II.Description of project proposed for approval;
III.Effects determined to be less than significant in the Initial StudyjNotice of
Preparation;
N.Effects determined to be less than significant;
V.Effects determined to be less than significant with mitigation and findings;
VI.Environmental effects that remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation
and findings;
VII.Alternatives to the proposed project;and
VIII.Statement of Overriding Considerations.
II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL
The proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project would involve the development of a senior-
restricted (55+years of age or older)for-sale residential community.The proposed project
would include 60 attached residential units at an overall density of 6.15 units per acre.Of the 60
units,three units would be dedicated affordable units available to very-low-income households,
in accordance with the City's inc1usionary housing requirements.
r 2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-30
The proposed townhome-style and single-level living stacked flat residences would have two
bedrooms and two bathrooms in six dif£erent floor plans,ranging from approximately 1,700
square feet to 2,100 square feet.The units would be two stories in height with up to five
residences per structure.The main architectural style of the residences and other onsite
structures would be Spanish Colonial.Elements of this style include the use of arches,tile roofs,
window grilles,wrought iron,corbels,tile or stone decorative elements low-pitched,exterior
courtyards,tiled parapets and stucco walls.Other complimentary architectural styles would
also be incorporated in the residential building designs.Proposed landscaping includes a mix of
native and non-native plants and trees.
Maximum building heights would be approximately 27 feet from finished grade.Several
proposed buildings would exceed 16 feet in height above existing grade,and thus the project
requires approval of a Conditional Use permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.26.040.B.
A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment would be required to allow the
proposed mix of uses and density.
To accomplish the project,the existing slope would be excavated to accommodate flat building
pads stepping gradually downward from west to east.Much of the ridge itself would be
removed and graded generally flat.The maximum depth of excavation would be approximately
40 feet at the western portion of the site.Site preparation would involve excavation of
approximately 145,000 cubic yards of material (soil and rock)and placement of approximately
2,000 cubic yards of fill material.The project grading and construction would occur over
approximately 13 months and be would be completed in 2014.Construction access would be
from Crestridge Road.
The project would include a number of community amenities.A private community trail
system would be provided in open space areas in the northern portion of the site adjacent to the
Vista del Norte preserve.A portion of the on-site trails including a pedestrian connection from
Crestridge Road to the preserve would be open to the public,which would serve to connect the
off-site City trails on the neighboring Preserve with Crestridge Road through the proposed
development.The community trails would also access the proposed 13,000-square-foot outdoor
community recreation area located at the northeastern corner of the site.The amenities
proposed for this area would include a patio and trellis,a community conversation and
gathering stage,a sundeck and outdoor living room,barbeque facilities,bocce ball courts,and
picnic tables.An approximately 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and
sundeck would provide a second,centralized community amenity for the residents.
The proposed project would have a gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road.The vehicular
entry gate would have a key pad and call box with sufficient stacking distance at the entrance to
allow multiple cars to enter without impeding traffic on Crestridge Road.Remote and keypad
entry would be two options for residents accessing the site through the gate.Visitors would be
able to use the call boxes to call residents to open the gates.A turnaround would be provided
should visitors not be able to reach a resident to be allowed inside the community.Pedestrian
entry would also be provided adjacent to the drjveway;however,it would be an un-gated
pedestrian walkway with an entry feature.
Once inside the community,internal private streets would be designed to be a minimum of 26
feet wide.No parallel parking would be allowed on the streets.Guest parking would be
r 3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-31
provided by 31 perpendicular parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the
two-car garages available to each resident.
Public pedestrian access would be provided through the community.A sidewalk and trail
system would be provided that connects visitors and residents from Crestridge Road through
the site to view points and to the City's property to the north.As specified above,the pedestrian
access would not be gated;this would facilitate and ensure public access through the
community to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north
The table below provides a summary of proposed development.
Lot Size 9.76 acres
Senior Residential Units 60
Density 6.15 dwelling units/acre
Maximum Building Height Approximately 27 feet from finished grade
142,342 sf (units and garages)
Project Square Footage 2,400 sf <community room)
144,742 sf (total)
Building Footprints 90,527 sf (21 %of site)
Streets/Parldng/Driveways 62,798 sf (15%of site)
Private Yards 16,404 sf (4%of site)
Open Space/Landscaping 255,394 sf (60%of site)
120 garage spaces (2 per unit)
Parking 31 uncovered spaces (0.52 per unit)
151 spaces (2.52 spaces/unit)
•Community Trails
•13,OOO-sf outdoor community recreation area
0 patio and trellis
0 conversation and gathering stage
0 sundeck and outdoor living room
0 barbeque facilities
0 bocce ball courts
0 picnic tables
•2,400 sf Community Service Center
Community Amenities 0 recreation and lounge area
0 kitchen
0 computer center/business room
0 office
0 fitness room
0 indoor and outdoor fireplaces
0 outdoor living area
0 spa
0 barbeque
0 seating area
•Community garden and orchard
sf =square feet
Source:Trumark Companies,2012
r 4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-32
III EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE
INITIAL STUDYjNOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes conducted an Initial Study to determine significant effects of
the project.In the course of this evaluation,certain impacts of the project were found to be less
than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the
absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type.The effects determined not to be
significant are not included in primary analysis sections of the Final EIR (refer to Appendix A,
Initial Study and Notice ofPreparation,in the Draft EIR).
AESTHETICS
Will the project:
Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.There are no scenic resources such as trees,rock outcroppings,or historic
buildings on the site,and there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the
site.Therefore,development of the project would not affect any scenic resources within
a state scenic highway.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
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
Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.The project area is not located in an area designated as Prime or
Unique Farmland,or within Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract,conflict with existing
zoning or cause rezoning offorest land,or result in a loss offorest land?
No Impact.The subject property is not zoned or otherwise designated for
agricultural uses,nor is the site subject to a Williamson Act contract.The project
site is not located adjacent to agricultural operations,and curreI!:tly contains no
significant agricultural operations.As such,no conflicts with a Williamson Act
contract or existing zoning for agricultural use would occur.The project would
not involve conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature,could result in
conversion ofFarmland,to non-agricultural use?
r
No Impact.The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.As such,project development will not have the potential to result
in the loss or conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
5 1-33
AIR QUALITY
Will the Project:
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.The project will involve adding 60 residential
units for seniors in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The residential use of the
property will not generate objectionable odors during normal operations.
Therefore,the project will not generate objectionable odors that would affect a
substantial number of people.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,
hydrological interruption,or other means?
No Impact.The project site is located in a suburban area surrounded by
development.There are no watercourses or wetlands on or adjacent to the
project site.The project does not involve development in a federally protected
wetland and does not involve improvements that would impair or interrupt
hydrological flow into a wetland.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact.The proposed project would involve construction of
new structures on a vacant site.There are no historic structures located on the
adjacent properties;therefore,the project will not affect historic resources.
Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?
No impact.No known burial sites have been identified within t1).e project area or
in the vicinity and given the previous disturbance at the site the likelihood of
finding human remains is low.In the unlikely event that human remains were
discovered at the site,California Health and Safety Cod~Section 7050.5 requires
that all construction or excavation must be stopped in the event of an accidental
discovery of any human remains until the County coroner or medical examiner
can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Will the Project:
r 6
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-34
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or
death involving:rupture ofa known earthquake fault,as delineated on the Alquist -riolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence ofa known fault;or seismic-related ground
failure,including liquefaction?
Less than significant.There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within
the City.The project site is located approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the
inactive Cabrillo Fault and approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Palos
Verdes Fault.Therefore,the potential for surface rupture at the project area is
considered low.The project site is located within an area that has low to no
potential for liquefaction.Further,project construction would be required to
conform to the California Building Code as adopted by the City in Section
15.04.010 of the Municipal Code,which further reduce any impacts caused by
unstable soils.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse?
Less than significant.According to the California Department of Conservation
Seismic Hazard Zones Map,the site is not located in an area that is subject to
settlement due to seismic shaking,liquefaction,or lateral spreading.
Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal ofwaste water?
Less than Significant.The proposed development would be connected to the
City sewer system and would not use on-site septic systems for wastewater
treatment.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Will the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Less than significant.The project would involve construction of 60 residential
units on vacant land.By their nature,the proposed residential uses would not
involve the transport,use,or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous
materials and would not introduce any unusual hazardous mat~rials to the area.
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?Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste within %mile ofan
existing or proposed school?Be located on a site which is included on a list ofhazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
r
Less than significant.The project will not be located in an area with known soil
or groundwater contamination,will not emit hazardous emissions or involve
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
7 1-35
handling of hazardous materials,and was not determined to be at risk for any
hazards in a Phase I prepared for an adjacent property.Therefore,the potential
for the proposed project to release hazardous materials would be extremely low.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within
two miles ofa public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip,would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact.The project site is located over three miles from the nearest
airport/airstrip,the Torrance Municipal Airport.No impacts are anticipated.
Would the project impair implementation ofor physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact.The proposed project would not change the alignment of or access through
streets serving the project site or surrounding area,and thus would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,injury or death involving
wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less than significant.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,including the project site,is
identified as a High Fire Hazard Area.However,Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
Section 8.08.010 adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code,Title 32,as the Fire Code of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The County maintains fire safety requirements,
development standards and regulations,and standard fees,for new development.
Building standards for fire hazards,including roof coverings,construction materials,
structural components,and clearing of brush and vegetative growth,are administered
by the LACFD and the City's Building and Safety Division.The new residential
buildings would be required to be constructed to the City's most recently adopted
Building Code.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Will the Project:
Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?Place within a lOO-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
No Impact.According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency the
project site is located outside the 100-year flood zone).Therefore,no significant
flood impacts are anticipated.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,injury,or death involving flooding,including
flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam?
r 8
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-36
No Impact.No dams or levees are located in the vicinity of the project site.In
addition,the project area does not lay within any known dam inundation zones.
Thus,the potential for flooding due to dam failure is low
Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,injury,or death from inundation by seiche,
tsunami or mudflow?
Less than significant.The project site is approximately two miles from the Pacific
Ocean at an elevation of approximately 1,167 feet above sea level.In addition,
the project area is located outside a tsunami inundation area.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
Physically divide an established community?
No Impact.The project would involve construction of 60 residential units on a
single parcel of land that is surrounded by residential,open space,and
institutional uses.The project would not physically divide an established
community.No impacts would result.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation ofan agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant.With approval of a Conditional Use Permit,the project
would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site.Also,
the project would be generally consistent with the intent of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Conceptual Trails Plan due to the provision of pedestrian pathways
through the site that link Crestridge Road with the Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:
Result in the loss ofavailability ofa known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to the region and the
residents of the state?Result in the loss ofavailability ofa locally-important mineral resource recovenJ
site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact.The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan states that there are no
mineral resources present within the community that would be economically
feasible for extraction.Construction of 60 residential units on a vacant site
would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value locally,regionally,or to the State.
NOISE
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within
two miles ofa public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in
r 9
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-37
the project area to excessive noise levels?For a project within the vicinihJ of a private airstrip,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.The project area is not included within an airport land use plan,and
is approximately 13 miles from the Los Angeles and Long Beach airports,and
approximately three miles from Torrance Municipal Airport.The project is also
not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.Significant impacts relating to
aircraft noise are not anticipated.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Will the project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant.The current estimated population of the City is 41,897.
Withimplementation of the proposed project,the population in the City would
total 42,057.The population projections for Rancho Palos Verdes anticipate a
population of 43,215 in 2020.Therefore,the increase in residents would not
exceed planned growth forecasts in the City.
Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact.Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any
housing or people,as the site is currently vacant.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for other public services?
Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project is not expected to adversely
affect any services.
RECREATION
Will the Project increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilihJ would occur or be accelerated?Does
the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse effect on the environment?
r
Less than significant.The project could incrementally increase the use of
recreational facilities in the project vicinity,but would not cause substantial
physical deterioration of recreational facilities.The project area contains existing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
10 1-38
residential uses and is adequately served by recreational facilities.In addition,
the project applicant would be required to pay fees pursuant to City Municipal
Code Section 16.20.100.Recreational amenities are included in the project;
impacts of the construction of these facilities have been addressed as part of the
project's potential effects as a whole.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Will the Project:
Result in change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact.The project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Will the Project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental effects?Result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less than significant.There is currently available capacity at the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant (JWPCP),which will treat wastewater from the site.Therefore,the JWPCP
will have capacity to treat the additional flow of wastewater from the project and no
improvements in the wastewater treatment system will be required.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or
are new expended entitlements needed?
Less than significant.The project will generate demand for approximately 11,700 gpd or
13.1 acre-feet per year of water.Based on current and projected water supplies and
demand for the West Basin Municipal Water District,sufficient water will be available to
meet demand associated with the project.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacihJ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant.Puente Hills Landfill is the primary landfill used by the City and
has approximately 4,200 tons per day of available capacity.Although the project would
incrementally increase solid waste generation,the daily solid waste generation by the
project will be within the available capacity at the Puente Hills Landfill.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
11 1-39
IV EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE EIR
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes found that the project would have a less than significant
impact with respect to a number of environmental topics discussed in the ErR,without the need
for mitigation.A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each
topic area listed below.
AESTHETICS
Scenic Views or Vistas.The proposed project is located in an area with rolling
topography allowing views of developed and undeveloped hillsides in several
directions from public and private viewpoints.The proposed project would alter
the view of the project site from several of these viewpoints,but would not block
or otherwise have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista,including
those identified in the General Plan.This is a Class III,adverse,but less than
significant impact.Note that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless
recommended to further reduce impacts on impacts from viewpoints in the
surrounding area.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
AES-l Tree Maintenance.All landscaping throughout the development (in both the
common areas and in private yard and balcony areas)shall be maintained so not exceed
the height of the line depicted on the photographs taken from 5623, 5649,and 5575
Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Heights Drive (Exhibit B,to PC Resolution No.2012-
23).
Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall prepare and submit for City
review and approval a landscape plan for the project site.The plan shall demonstrate
that:
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed
the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B,to
Resolution No.2012--1 which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the
development.
Light and Glare.The proposed project would result in new sources of light and
glare on and around the project site due to introduction of new buildings,
hardscape and associated lighting.Some of the new light and glare would be
visible from public and private viewpoints.However,with required adherence
to the lighting restrictions in City's zoning ordinance,impacts related to light
and glare would be Class III,less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
r
Operation of the Project.Operation of the proposed project would generate
criteria air pollutant emissions.However,regional emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD operational significance thresholds.Therefore,operational impacts to
regional air quality would be Class III,less than significant.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
12 1-40
Consistency with Regional Plans.The proposed project would generate
population growth,but such growth is within the population projections upon
which the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)is based.Therefore,proposed
project would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be Class III,less
than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Increased Traffic.Vehicle traffic
associated with the proposed project could incrementally increase localized
carbon monoxide (CO)levels.However,CO levels would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for further CO hotspot analysis and would not be expected to exceed
federal or state ambient air quality standards.Impacts would be Class III,less
than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Candidate,Sensitive or Special Status Species.The proposed project would not
have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in
local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
Riparian Habitat.The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans,policies,or regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or u.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.Impacts would be Class III,less
than significant.
GEOLOGY
Seismically-Induced Ground Shaking.Seismically induced ground shaking
could destroy or damage structures and infrastructure,resulting in loss of
property or risk to human safety.However,mandatory compliance with
applicable City of Rancho Palos Verdes and California Building Code
requirements would reduce impacts to a Class III,less than significant,level.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.The proposed project would
generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions.However,GHG
emissions generated by the project would not exceed the applicable significance
thresholds.Impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
Consistency with Adopted Plans,Policies or Regulations.Development
facilitated by the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in
GHG emissions.However,the proposed project would be consistent with the
GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 Climate Action Team Report as
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
13 1-41
well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures.
Impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Construction Discharge and Surface Water Quality.During grading for and
construction of the proposed project,the soil surface would be subject to erosion
and the downstream watershed,including the Pacific Ocean,could be subject to
temporary sedimentation and discharges of various pollutants.However,with
implementation of NPDES requirements,impacts related to the potential for
discharge of various pollutants,including sediment,would be Class III,less than
significant.
Operational Discharge and Site Drainage.Development of the proposed project
would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the project site,and
w0uld also generate various urban pollutants such as oil,herbicides and
pesticides,which could adversely affect surface water quality.Increased
impermeable surfaces on the site could also increase the flow rate of stormwater
off the site compared to existing conditions resulting in increased erosion in
downstream drainage channels.However,with implementation of NPDES
requirements and the proposed onsite stormwater detention facilities,impacts
related to surface water quality would be Class III,less than significant.
NOISE
Construction Noise.Project construction would intermittently generate high
noise levels on and adjacent to the site.However,the project would be required
to comply with the City's regulations pertaining to the allowable timing of
construction activities,and construction noise would not be expected to exceed
typical levels associated with grading and construction.Therefore,impacts
would be Class III,less than significant.Note that the following mitigation
measure is nonetheless recommended to further reduce temporary noise levels
associated with project construction.
Recommended Mitigation Measures:
r
N-l(a)Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program.The applicant shall
provide,to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that
requires all of the following:
•Construction contracts that specify that all construction
equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other state required
noise attenuation devices.
•That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles
of the project site shall be sent a notice,at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each phase,regarding the
construction schedule of the project.All notices shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
14 1-42
r
Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the
dates and duration of construction activities,as well as
provide a contact name and telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and
register complaints.
•Thatprior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit,the
Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's
Building Official how construction noise reduction methods
such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles,installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction
noise sources,maximizing the distance between construction
equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential
areas,and electric air compressors and similar power tools,
rather than diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible.
•That during construction,stationary construction equipment
shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
N-l(b)Construction Vehicle Idling.During demolition,construction
and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park,queue and/or
idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way
before 7:00 am,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction.
N-l(c)Staging Area.The construction contractor shall provide staging
areas onsite to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment.These areas shall be located to maximize
the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses).This would reduce noise levels
associated with most types of idling construction equipment.
N l(d)Diesel Equipment Mufflers.All diesel equipment shall be
operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory recommended mufflers.
N l(e)Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.Electrical power shall
be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers or
caretaker facilities.
N-l(f)Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning.
Excavation,and conditioning activities shall be restricted to
between the hours of 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through
Friday and located to maximize the distance between activity and
sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses).
N-l(g)Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques.For all noise-
generating construction activity on the project site,additional
noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
15 1-43
levels to the maximum extent feasible.Such techniques may
include,but are not limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise
generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound
barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors.
Construction Vibration.Project construction activities could generate
intermittent levels of groundborne vibration affecting residences and buildings
adjacent to the project site.However,these impacts are temporary in nature and
would not exceed existing thresholds.Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less
than significant.
Traffic Noise.Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels
on area roadways.However,the increase in noise would not exceed significance
thresholds and would therefore be Class III,less than significant.
Operational Noise.Operation of the proposed project would generate noise
levels that may periodically be audible to existing uses near the project site.
Onsite noise sources would include parking lot noise,deliveries and other
service vehicles,visitors,and onsite machinery.However,noise from these
sources would be below the thresholds used for this analysis and consistent with
City Codes.Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Intersections.Project-generated traffic would increase traffic volumes and
incrementally reduce levels of service at each of the five study intersections.
However,the level of service impact would not exceed Citythresholds at any
intersection.Therefore,impacts to study area intersections would be Class III,
less than significant.
Roadway Segments.Project-generated traffic would not exceed LOS standards
for Crestridge Road.Therefore,impacts to street segments would be Class III,
less than significant.
Storage Capacity.Project-generated traffic would not affect vehicle storage
capacity at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard/Crestridge Road.Storage
capacity for the westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Highridge
Road/Hawthorne Boulevard is currently inadequate and would remain
inadequate in the Year 2015 scenario.However,project generated traffic would
not exacerbate issues with storage capacity.Therefore,impacts to intersection
queuing would be Class III,less than significant.
r
Site Access and Internal Circulation.Vehicles exiting and entering the site
would experience delays equivalent to LOS B during the AM and PM peak
period for Year 2015 traffic conditions.In addition,review of the current site
plan indicates that the proposed project driveway would provide an adequate
storage reservoir to accommodate vehicles entering the site.The internal
circulation system is also deemed to be adequate.Therefore,impacts related to
site access and internal circulation would be Class III,less than significant.Note
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
16 1-44
r
that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further to
further improve site circulation and access.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
T -4 Site Access.Install a stop sign and stop bar at the proposed
project driveway on Crestridge Road.This feature shall be shown
on all project plans submitted for building permit review.Further,
landscaping at or near the proposed driveway shall not obstruct a
driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public
Works Department.
CMP Arterial Monitoring Intersections.Project-generated trips at identified
Congestion Management Program (CMP)locations would be below CMP
thresholds for arterial monitoring intersection locations.Also,there are no CMP
freeway monitoring locations in the vicinity of the proposed project.In addition,
the existing transit service in the project area would adequately accommodate the
increase of project generated transit trips.Impacts would therefore be Class III,
less than significant.
Construction Traffic.Access to Crestridge Road and the project site during
project grading and construction would be provided via Highridge Road and
Crenshaw Boulevard.Although there would be an increase of traffic during
grading and construction,construction traffic would not result in any significant
impacts to key study intersections.Therefore,impacts relating to construction
traffic would be Class III,less than significant.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
17 1-45
V EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH
MITIGATION,AND FINDINGS
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final ElR,the Technical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to
California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(l)and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(l)that changes or
alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the proposed project which would avoid
or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR in the following categories:Air Quality,
Biological Resources,Geology,Traffic and Circulation.The potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a less
than significant level after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final ElR.
The Draft EIR is incorporated by reference.
AIR QUALITY
The project's potential impacts with regard to air quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise
less than significant are discussed in Section 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft ElR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Construction-Related Air Emissions.Construction activity would generate on and off site air
pollutant emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)construction thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx)and particulates less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10).On-site construction-related emissions would also exceed
SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for PM10 and particulates less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM2.S).
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts to air quality from construction activities have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation measures identified
in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-l(a)Construction Equipment Controls.The following shall be
implemented during construction to minimize emissions of NOx
associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment.
1.All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission
standards.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
18 1-46
r
2.Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout
construction.Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than
five minutes.
3.Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune as per manufacturers'specifications.
4.The number of pieces ofequipment operating simultaneously shall be
minimized.
5.Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction
equipment (such as compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
6.The engine size ofconstruction equipment shall be the minimum
practical size.
7.Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after
1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines)shall be utilized
wherever feasible.
8.During the smog season (May through October),the construction period
should be lengthened so as to minimize the number ofvehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
AQ-l(b)Fugitive Dust Control Measures.The following shall be
implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:
1.All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite shall be watered three
times (3x)daily until completion of project construction to minimize the
entrainment ofexposed soil.
2.Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be
graded or excavated before commencement ofgrading or excavating
activities.Application of water (preferably reclaimed,ifavailable)should
penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading
activities.
3.Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation,and construction
activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
•Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from
the point oforigin or must maintain at least one feet offreeboard.
•All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active
portions ofthe construction site,including unpaved on-site
roadways,shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment shall
include,but not necessarily be limited to,periodic watering,
application ofenvironmentally-safe soil stabilizatiOn materials,
and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible..
4.Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
5.During periods ofhigh winds (i.e.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,
and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to
prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site
or on-site.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
19 1-47
6.The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit
track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel
washing,rumble plates,or another method achieving the same intent.
7.Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day,preferably
at the end of the day,ifvisible soil material is carried over to adjacent
streets and roads.
8.Personnel involved in grading operations,including contractors and
subcontractors,shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
9.All residential units located within 500 feet of the constntction site must
be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed
project.A sign legible at a distance of50 feet must also be posted in a
prominent and visible location at the construction site,and must be
maintained throughout the construction process.All notices and the signs
must indicate the dates and duration ofconstruction activities,as well as
provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the
construction process and register complaints.
10.Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
11.Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per
hour or less.
12.Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans.
13.These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications.
Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections
by the City.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project's potential impacts with regard to biological resources that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Wildlife Movement and Corridors.The proposed project would not be expected to interfere
substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.However,native bird species commonly encountered in urban areas could nest in
the dispersed toyon shrubs and Brazilian peppertrees found at the project site.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as iaentified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts to wildlife movement associated with the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation
measure identified in the Draft EIR.
r 20
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-48
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.Site disturbance shall be
prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 -
August 30),if feasible.If breeding season avoidance is not feasible,a
qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey
to determine the presence/absence,location,and status of any active
nests on or adjacent to the project site.The surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community
Development Department.The extent of the survey buffer area
surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to
ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.To
avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive
success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of
California,nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week
during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance.
In the event that active nests are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g.30-
50 feet for passerines)should be established around such active nests
and no construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified
biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g.the
nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).No
ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the
City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is
completed and the young have fledged the nest.Nesting birds
surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between
August 16 and February 1.
Consistency with Natural Conservation Community Plan.The proposed project would
not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance.In addition,the project site is not within an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan area.However,potential introduction of non-native
plant species associated with on-site landscaping could conflict with the adopted
Natural Conservation Community Plan (NCCP).
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts resulting from conflicts with the NCCP associated with the proposed
project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of
the mitigation measures identified in the Draft ElR.
BIO-4(a)Construction Best Management Practices.The following measures
shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for the site:
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21 1-49
•Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and
the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site
prior to the initiation of construction.
•Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned
limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.
BIO-4(b)Provisions for Invasive Species and Native Habitat Elements in the
Landscaping Plan.No species listed in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant
Inventory (2006)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental
species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan (2004)will be
utilized in the landscaping plan for the site.Species listed in the
Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),Sydney
golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus moUe),
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia),black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia),myoporum (Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus
spp.),and pines (Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the
proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the
landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trails,scenic
overlooks,and community gardens in the northern portion of the
Crestridge Senior Housing development project.Native habitat
elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon,
California sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,native grasses,and
native perennial forbs as part of the planting palette.
BIO-4(c)Construction Staging and Stockpiling Areas.Grading and building
plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and
approval shall identify areas for construction staging,fueling and
stockpiling.These areas shall be located as far as practical from the
Vista del Norte Preserve,and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve
boundary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project's potential impacts with regard to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGA TION INCORPORA TED.
Will the Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofan archaeological resource as defined in
§15064.5?Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
r
Potential to Disturb Undiscovered Archaeological or Paleontological
Resources.Previous archaeological studies in the project area and at the site
itself have not identified any archaeological resources.In addition,the site and
surrounding areas have been extensively disturbed over the years.Therefore,
the potential for archeological resources,unique paleontological resources or
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
22 1-50
unique geologic features to be found onsite is low.However,construction
activity for the residential units would involve earthwork such as grading and
trenching,which has the potential to unearth yet-to-be discovered archaeological
and paleontological resources.However, potential impacts to previously
unknown resources are likely mitigable with standard mitigation measures and
procedures to be followed if resources or remains are discovered during grading
and site preparation.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft ElR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts upon archaeological or paleontological resources associated with the
proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level
by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft BIR.
CR-l Discovery Procedure.If cultural resources are encountered during
construction,the construction manager shall ensure that all ground
disturbance activities are stopped,and shall notify the City Building and
Safety Department immediately to arrange for a qualified archaeologist to
assess the nature,extent,and potential significance of any cultural
resources.If such resources are determined to be significant,appropriate
actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in
consultation with a qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the nature
of the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,documentation,or
other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.
The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and
shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center.After
the find is appropriately mitigated,work in the area may resume.
CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring.Prior to the commencement of grading,the
applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to
monitor grading and excavation.Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever
grading activities are occurring.Additional monitors in addition to one
full-time monitor may be required to provide adequate coverage if earth-
moving activities are occurring simultaneously.Any cultural resources
discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall be reported
immediately to the paleontologist.In the event undetected buried
resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be
halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the
resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may
include testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review and/or transfer
to the appropriate museum or educational institution.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
23 1-51
All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or transfer to research
institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be determined by the
qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City.
GEOLOGY
The project's potential impacts with regard to geology that can be mitigated or are otherwise
less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4,Geology,of the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Slope Stability.The slope stability analysis prepared for the project site concluded that the on-
site existing and proposed slopes could be subject to landslides.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts from slope instability as a result of the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of a mitigation
measures identified in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
GEO-2(a)Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous
geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shall be required.These
recommendations include maintenance of a uniform,near optimum
moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of over-drying or
excess irrigation,which will reduce the potential for softening and
strength loss.In addition,slope maintenance shall include the
immediate planting of the slope with approved,deep rooted,
lightweight,drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of
erosion and drainage control devices,and a continuous rodent control
program.Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall,before
the rainy season,and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned,as
necessary,after each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,including foot
traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should be
minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.The City of
Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and
approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
GEO-2(b)The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the
eastern boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining
wall to support the project and underlying adverse geologic structure.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
24 1-52
The system requires a design and depth of embedment that would
safeguard onsite improvements in the event the offsite slope failed.
GEO-2(c)An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project
geotechnical consultant following completion of grading.The report
shall include the results of in-grading density tests,and a map clearly
depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths,removal area
locations and depths,sub-drainage system locations and depths and
geological conditions exposed during grading.
GEO-2(d)If required by the final geotechnical report,as reviewed and approved
by the City Geologist,the applicant shall install permanent
inclinometer stations at the site to allow the northern slope to be
monitored for possible movement following implementation of the
project.The number and location of the inclinometer stations shall be
determined by the City Geologist.The applicant shall submit a record
of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a
geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime
of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual
readings are no longer necessary.In addition, readings and
geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City
following a heavy rainfall event (>2 times average monthly rainfall)
or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles
of the project site.
If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has
taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the
project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with
the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the
geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable.Further
monitoring by inclinometers may be required,if recommended by the
geotechnical engineer or required by the City.
Expansive Soils.The proposed project is located in an area underlain by expansive soils.
Expansive soils swell or heave with increases in moisture content and shrink with decreases in
moisture content.The shrinking and swelling of soil beneath structures can potentially result in
cracking of foundations and other structural damage.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Fads in Support of Finding
The potential impacts from expansive soils as a result of the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Draft ElR.
r 25
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-53
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-3(a)Geotechnical Recommendations.Prior to issuance of any Grading
Permit or Building Permit,the project applicant shall comply with
all recommendations contained within the Geology and
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants
(2003)including:
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade
shall be tested.The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the
high expansion potential.Following completion of grading and until
slabs and footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrock materials
shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-
saturation is also recommended.
GEO-3(b)Expansive Soil Removal and/or Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce
impacts from expansive soils could include one or more of the following
techniques,as determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer and
approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department:
•Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils.All
imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical
Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain
amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter
18,Division III of the UBC.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The project's potential impacts with regard to traffic and circulation that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8,Traffic and Circulation,of the Draft
EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Sight Distance.Adequate vertical sight distance would be provided from the proposed project
driveway to the crest on Crestridge Road.However,a motorist's sight distance could be
obstructed by future project landscaping and/or hardscape along the project frontage.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
r 26
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-54
The potential impacts related to sight distance have been eliminated or substantially lessened to
a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measure identified in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
T -5 Maintain Sight Distance.Final project plans shall show that
landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the proposed project
driveway is designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is
not obstructed.In addition,curbside parking shall be
prohibited along the property frontage within the identified
sight visibility lines shown on Figure 4.8-5 of the ElR.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
27 1-55
VI ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION AND FINDINGS
The EIR for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project identifies potentially significant
environmental impacts within one issue area which cannot be fully mitigated and is therefore
considered significant and unavoidable ("Class I").That impact is related to Aesthetics.The
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final EIR,Technical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to California
Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(3)and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(3),that to the extent this
impact remains significant and unavoidable,such impact is acceptable when weighed against
the overriding social,economic,legal,technical,and other considerations set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations,included as Section VIII of these Findings.The Class I
impact identified in the FEIR document is discussed below,along with the appropriate findings
per CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
AESTHETICS
SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION.
Visual Character and Quality of the Site.The proposed project would introduce structural
development,new landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site,and project
grading would substantially alter the site's slope and ridgeline topography.In addition,the site
is identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a "canyon and
ridge"feature and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character;"grading for and
construction of the proposed project would eliminate both of these attributes.
Findings
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects;therefore the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable.
Facts in Support of Findings
The existing visual character of the project site is defined by both its undeveloped,open
condition and its topography,which consists of a moderate to steep slope and a ridgeline.The
General Plan's Visual Aspects Map (General Plan Figure 41)identifies the project site,together
with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve,as "Canyons and Ridges"and as "Undeveloped
Lands Impacting Visual Character."
The proposed project would substantially alter the visual character of the site related to its
topography by grading the existing slopes into stepped,relatively flat pad areas,and by removing
the site's natural ridgeline.The existing open,undeveloped visual character,which is
accentuated and made more visible to the public by the site's sloping topography,would be
completely altered to a fully developed condition.The substantial alteration of the visual
character of the project site and proposed removal of the visual aspects as identified in the
General Plan would result in a significant adverse impact related to the visual character and
quality of the site.Mitigation measures are not available to reduce the impact of the proposed
project to the visual character of the site.
r 28
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-56
The overriding social,economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of these findings.Any
remaining,unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set
forth therein.
r 29
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-57
VII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft EIR,in Section 6.0 Alternatives (incorporated by reference),discusses the
environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project.A description of these
alternatives,a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project,and the City
Council's findings are listed below.These alternatives are compared against the project relative
to the identified project impacts,summarized in sections V and VI,above,and to the project
objectives,as stated in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR.In making the following
alternatives findings,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certifies that it has independently
reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Draft EIR,including
the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto.
A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that development of the proposed project would not occur and that the
site would remain an undeveloped hillside.The site would remain in its current condition and
no improvements (including trails)would occur.
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services,consistency with the existing
Institutional Zoning at the site and compatibility with existing development in the area,as
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,render this alternative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable
aesthetics impact as it would not change the visual character of the site.The proposed project's
potentially significant but mitigable aesthetic impacts,such as light and glare,impacts to
biological resources related to nesting birds and non-native plant species,geology impacts
related to slope stability and expansive soils,traffic impacts related to sight distance at the
project entrance,and construction impacts related to air quality,would also be avoided.
However,the No Project alternative would not provide new senior housing opportunities in
Rancho Palos Verdes or the pedestrian trails that would connect Crestridge Road to the Vista
Del Norte Ecological Preserve.As such,this alternative would not meet the objectives of the
proposed project or the Institutional Zoning in place at the site.Implementation of the No
Project alternative would not preclude future development on the site.,
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
B REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that 12 new senior-restricted (55+years of age or older)for-sale
residential units would be developed on the project site.These units would be located along
r 30
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-58
Crestridge Road and would correspond to units 1 to 12 as shown on the site plan for the
proposed project (see Figure 2-4 of the Draft ErR).As with the proposed project,the height of
several of these units would exceed 16 feet above existing grade;therefore,a conditional use
permit would be required.Access would be provided through the site to the City-owned lands
(Vista Del Norte Preserve)to the north.The undeveloped portion of the property would be
restored with native vegetation,with pedestrian trails connecting this area of the site to the
adjacent preserve.
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services,and compatibility with form and scale
ofexisting development in the area,as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
render this alternative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
The intent of this alternative is to provide the public and City decision makers with a
comparative analysis between the impacts of the proposed project and a reduced project which
would reduce but not avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable visual character
impacts.The Reduced Project Alternative would introduce structural development,new
landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site.While the intensity of grading
required for this alternative would be substantially reduced when compared to the proposed
project,alteration of the site's slope and ridgeline topography would likely still be required to
accommodate development of this alternative at the project site.
Due to the reduction in grading required,this alternative would also reduce impacts related to
aesthetics,air quality,biological resources,geology,greenhouse gases,hydrology and water
quality,noise and transportation and circulation;however,with the exception of air quality,
these impacts are already less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
This alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics associated
with the proposed project.This alternative would achieve some of the objectives of the
proposed project,but not to the extent desired by the applicant.In addition,the reduced
density of this alternative may not be economically feasible.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
C OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative involves incorporation of the site into the adjacent Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve and maintaining the site as open space.Recreational amenities would be added to the
site for use by the public,including trails connecting to the existing Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve,which would replace the existing informal paths used by the public at present.
Amenities such as an overlook area with seating would also be added.
r 31
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-59
This alternative would require a change in the land use designation and zoning for the site from
Institutional to Open Space.As part of this alternative,the site could be designated as reserve
open space under the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning
(NCCP)Subarea Plan.
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services,consistency with the existing
Institutional Zoning at the site,compatibility with existing development in the area,cost ofland
aquisition and existing environmental and view character of the area,as discussed in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations,render this alternative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
This alternative would avoid the significant impact to visual character that would result from
implementation of the proposed project.However,it would not achieve any of the project
objectives discussed in Section 2.0,Project Description,of the DEIR.For example,as noted in
Section 2.0 Project Description,the proposed project provides market rate and affordable senior
housing.In addition,the proposed project would provide a residential community that is of a
scale and density that is consistent with the adjacent senior housing facilities.This alternative
would not fulfill the intent of the existing Institutional Zoning at the site and would require a
change in land use designation and zoning to accommodate formal open space at the site.
Finally,this alternative would require the expenditure of funds to acquire the site;there are
other properties that would be higher priorities for acquisition for these purposes based on
superior aesthetic,recreational or biological resources.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
D OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USE
This alternative would involve development of an approximately 18,000 square foot,single-
story (16 feet maximum height)building,or strip of buildings depending on the use or uses at
the site,directly adjacent to Crestridge Road that would be occupied uses allowed under the
site's Institutional Zoning.The remainder of the site would be left in its current undeveloped
state.Grading at the site would be limited to only what is required to a~commodate the
building and the supporting infrastructure;retaining walls would be constructed at the rear of
the structure to limit the amount of alteration required to the slopes north of Crestridge Road.
No on-site parking would be provided as part of this alternative; therefore,all workers and
visitors to the site would be required to use on-street parking.
This alternative would not include provision for a pedestrian link to the adjacent Vista Del
Norte Preserve.
r 32
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-60
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services,provision of pedestrian trails,
compatibility with existing development in the area and existing environmental and view
character of the area,as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,render this
alternative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
While this alternative would not achieve the project objectives stated in Section 2.0,Project
Description,it would reduce the significant unavoidable impact related to ,the change in the
visual character of the site to a less than significant level.However,it would not continue the
senior housing and services development of the area,and a project at the small scale
contemplated in the alternative might not be economically feasible.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
r 33
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-61
VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines provide in part the
following:
•CEQA requires that the decision maker balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project.If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental
effects may be considered"acceptable."
•Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)but are
.not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency must state in writing the
reasons to support its action based on the ErR and/or other information in
the record.This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the
finding under Section 15091 (a)(2)or (a)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines.
•If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines).
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project (the project),
Responses to Comments and the public record,adopts the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a
decision on the project.
B SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Although mitigation measures have been included where feasible for potential project impacts
as described in the preceding findings,there is no complete mitigation for the following project
impact:
•Aesthetics -Visual Character and Quality of the Site.
Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact are discussed in the Crestridge Senior
Housing Project EIR and are summarized in Section VI,Environmental Effects Which Remain
Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation,and Findings,in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
C OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed action involves discretionary actions needed for approval of the Crestridge Senior
Housing Project.Analysis in the EIR for this project has concluded that the proposed project
would result in an impact to aesthetics that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
r 34
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-62
All other potential significant adverse project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through mitigation measures in the Final ElR.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that the significant unavoidable adverse
project impacts,which would remain significant after mitigation,are acceptable and are
outweighed by social,economic and other benefits of the project.Further,the alternatives that
were identified in the Final ErR would not provide the project benefits,as summarized below,
to the same extent as the proposed project:
1.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed to lessen project impacts to less than significant levels;and furthermore,that
alternatives to the project are infeasible because while they have similar or
fewer/reduced environmental impacts,they do not provide all of the benefits of the
project,or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the
project,as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
2.The project is consistent with the City ofRancho Palos Verdes General Plan land use
designation and Institutional Zoning,with approval of the requested Conditional Use
Permit.As such,development of the site with senior housing is consistent with the
City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved
development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;Belmont Village
and Mirandela.
3.The project is compatible in form and scale with the adjacent senior housing facilities
and as such would complement the pattern of development in the area.Conversion of
this site to designated open space would require a land use designation and zone change
and potentially require a financial outlay by the City that could potentially be directed
more beneficially elsewhere.
4.The City's Housing Element (2010)encourages and facilitates development of senior
housing through density bonuses for new housing that provide at least 50%of all units
for seniors.Further,the project will provide for additional affordable senior housing to
qualified lower-income households,consistent with the City's inclusionary housing
requirements and the City's certified Housing Element.
5.The project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing public pedestrian
pathways that link Crestridge Road to trails on the Vista del Norte Ecological Preserve
to the north.Further,the inclusion of this pedestrian J.i.rik between Crestridge Road and
the trails on the Preserve will.facilitate implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan.
Signage will help direct the public through the project site to the public trails and
trailheads.
6.The determination that the proposed project will result in an unavoidable adverse
impact on the visual character and quality of the site is based on the identification of the
project site,together with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve,as "Canyons and
r 35
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-63
Ridges"and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character in the Visual Aspects
Map of the City's General Plan (General Plan Figure 41).These designations were
placed on the site in 1975,at a time when the environmental and view character of the
surrounding area were different from present.While at one time there may have been
expansive views of the site and its associated ridgelines from Crenshaw Boulevard and
beyond (as identified in on General Plan Figure 41)much of these views of the site have
been blocked by development along Silver Spur Road since the General Plan was
adopted.As such,while the existing designations necessitated an impact finding of
significant and unavoidable,the conditions that prompted the inclusion of those
designations in the 1975 General Plan exist to a lesser extent today.
7.The project will add new senior residential units,increasing the availability of this type
of housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to serve local seniors.The location of the
project site will allow creation of a residential community in walking and bicycling
distance to services to the north and thus has the potential to result in reduced per-
capita greenhouse gas emissions.
8.Any development at the project site will require substantial grading activities to lower
the site to maintain views from the upslope residential properties to the south.
Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of development at the site would
not be economically feasible given the amount of earthworks that would still be required
to accommodate development.
Therefore,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR,Technical Appendices and the public record,adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations that has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in
reaching a decision on this project.
r 36
City of Rancho Palos Verdes1-64
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Prepared for:
City of Ranchos Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Contact:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP
(310)544-5228
Prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants,Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura,California 93003
March 2013
1
-
6
5
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6).The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to
ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation.For each mitigation measure recommended in the EIR,
specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur.In addition,a responsible agency is
identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
To implement this MMRP,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will designate a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator
("Coordinator").The coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with
during project implementation.The coordinator will also distribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agencies identified in the MMRP,
which have partial or full responsibility for implementing certain measures.Failure of a responsible agency to implement a mitigation measure
will not in any way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed project.
The following table will be used as the coordinator's checklist to determine compliance with required mitigation measures.
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
6
6
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
AESTHETICS
AES-1 Landscape Maintenance.All landscaping Once prior to
throughout the development (in both the common areas issuance of building
and in private yard and balcony areas)shall be permits,once prior
maintained so not to exceed the height of the line to occupancy
illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from clearance
5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive (Exhibit B to PC
Resolution No.2012-23,and Exhibit B to City Council
Resolution No.2013---.J.If it is brought to the City's
attention that foliage in the development continues to
impair a view from another residence along Mistridge
Drive,Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive,then
said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no
longer impairs the view.
Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall
prepare and submit for City review and approval a
landscape plan for the project site.The plan shall
demonstrate that:
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be
maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line
illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B,to
Resolution No.2012-23,which are the highest visible
roof ridaelines of the develooment.
AIR QUALITY
Community
Development
Department -
Planning and
Zoning
Division
Review landscape
plan for compliance
with the measure,
and ensure
implementation in
the field
AQ-1 (a)Construction Equipment Controls.The
following shall be implemented during construction to
minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel-fuelled
construction equipment.
1.All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim
Tier 4 EPA emission standards.
2.Construction contractors shall minimize equipment
idling time throughout construction.Engines shall
be turned off if idling would be for more than five
minutes.
3.Equipment engines shall be maintained in good
condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers'
specifications.
r
Periodically during
grading and
construction
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
2
Verification of
implementation in
the field during
grading and
construction
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
6
7
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.The number of pieces of equipment operating
simultaneously shall be minimized.
5.Construction contractors shall use alternatively
fueled construction equipment (such as
compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
6.The engine size of construction equipment shall be
the minimum practical size.
7.Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment
manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated
clean diesel engines)shall be utilized wherever
feasible.
8.During the smog season (May through October),
the construction period should be lengthened as
permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time.
AQ-1(b)Fugitive Dust Control Measures.The
following shall be implemented during construction to
minimize fugitive dust emissions:
1.All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite
shall be watered three times (3x)daily until
completion of project construction to minimize the
entrainment of exposed soil.
2.Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include
watering the area to be graded or excavated before
commencement of grading or excavating activities.
Application of water (preferably reclaimed,if
available)should penetrate sufficiently to minimize
fugitive dust during grading activities.
3.Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation,
and construction activities shall be controlled by the
following activities:
•Trucks transporting material on and off the site
must be tarped from the point of origin or must
maintain at least one feet of freeboard.
r
Periodically during
grading and
construction
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
3
Verification of
implementation in
the field during
grading and
construction
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
6
8
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
•All graded and excavated material,exposed soil
areas,and active portions of the construction
site,including unpaved on-site roadways,shall
be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment
shall include,but not necessarily be limited to,
periodic watering,application of
environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials,
and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering
shall be done as often as necessary and
reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible.
4.Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas
as quickly as possible.
5.During periods of high winds (Le.,wind speed
sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent
properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the
degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from
being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site or on-
site.
6.The contractor must provide adequate
loading/unloading·areas that limit track-out onto
adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel
washing,rumble plates,or another method
achieving the same intent.
7.Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least
once per day,preferably at the end of the day,if
visible soil material is carried over to adjacent
streets and roads.
8.Personnel involved in grading operations,including
contractors and subcontractors,shall wear
respiratory protection in accordance with California
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
regulations.
9.All residential units located within 500 feet of the
construction site must be sent a notice regarding
the construction schedule of the proposed project.
A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be
osted in a prominent and visible location at the
Comments
r 4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
6
9
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
construction site,and must be maintained
throughout the construction process.All notices
and the signs must indicate the dates and duration
of construction activities,as well as provide a
telephone number where residents can inquire
about the construction process and register
complaints.
10.Visible dust beyond the property line emanating
from the project must be prevented to the maximum
extent feasible.
11.Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction
traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
12.Dust control requirements shall be shown on all
grading plans.
13.These control techniques must be indicated in
project specifications.Compliance with the
measure shall be subject to periodic site
inspections by the City.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B10-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.Site
disturbance,including brush clearance,shall be
prohibited during the general avian nesting season
(February 1 -August 30),if feasible.If breeding season
avoidance is not feasi!;>le,a qualified biologist shall
conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to
determine the presence/absence,location,and status of
any active nests on or adjacent to the project site.The
surveys shall be conducted byaqualified biologist
approved by the Community Development Department.
The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site
shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure
that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are
avoided.To avoid the destruction of active nests and to
protect the reproductive success of birds protected by
MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California,
nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week
during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation
clearance.In the event that active nests are discovered,
a suitable buffer (e.g.30-50 feet for passerines)should
be established around such active nests.No around
r
Once prior to
initiating grading or
construction;if work
planned during
nesting season,
periodically during
grading and
construction
Community
Development
Department -
Planning and
Zoning
Division
5
Verification of
completed surveys,
if applicable;
verification that
prescribed
measures taken if
species observed
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
0
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/CandittOJ'
disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the
City-approved biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed and the young have
f1edaed the nest.
BIO-4(a)Construction Best Management Practices.
The following measures shall be employed as part of
construction monitoring for the site:
Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site
Reserve and the need to keep equipment and
personnel within the project site prior to the initiation
of construction.
Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at
the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the
Reserve.
BIO-4(b)Provisions for Invasive Species and Native
Habitat Elements in the Landscaping Plan.No
species listed in the Cal-I PC Invasive Plant Inventory
(2006)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental
species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea
Plan (2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the
site.Species listed in the Subarea Plan include
everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),Sydney golden
wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus
mol/e),Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia),
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia),myoporum
(Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.),and
pines (Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the
proposed project shall incorporate native habitat
elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre
passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community
gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior
Housing development project.Native habitat elements
include using locally sourced native shrubs such as
toyon,California sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,
native grasses,and native perennial forbs as part of the
planting palette.
BIO-4(c)Construction Staging and Stockpiling
Areas.Grading and building plans submitted for the
proposed project for City review and approval shall
identify areas for construction staoino,fuelina and
r
Once prior to
initiating grading or
construction,
periodically during
grading and
construction
Once prior to
issuance of grading
or building permits,
once prior to
occupancy
clearance
Once prior to
issuance of grading
or building permits,
periodically during
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department
Community
Development
Department -
Planning and
Zoning
Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
6
Verification in the
field that education
takes place and
fencing erected and
maintained
Review landscape
plan for compliance
with the measure,
and ensure
implementation in
the field
Review plans for
proper staging,
fueling and
stockpiling
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
1
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
stockpiling.These areas shall be located as far as
practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve,and not
closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR·1 Discovery Procedure.If cultural resources are
encountered during grading or construction,the
construction manager shall ensure that all ground
disturbance activities are stopped,and shall notify the
City Building and Safety Department immediately to
arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the
nature,extent,and potential significance of any cultural
resources.If such resources are determined to be
significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the
resources must be identified in consultation with a
qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the nature of
the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,
documentation,or other appropriate actions to be
determined by a qualified archaeologist.The
archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and
findings,and shall the report to the South Central Coastal
Information Center.After the find is appropriately
mitiaated,work in the area mav resume.
CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring.Prior to the
commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a
qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor
grading and excavation.Monitoring onsite shall occur
whenever grading activities are occurring.Additional
monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be
required to provide adequate Q9verage if earth-moving
activities are occurring simultaneously.Any cultural
resources discovered by construction personnel or
subcontractors shall be reported immediately to the
paleontologist.In the event undetected buried resources
are encountered during grading and excavation,work
sl:1all be halted or diverted from the area and the
paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and propose
appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may include
testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review and/or
transfer to the appropriate museum or educational
institution.
r
grading and
construction
Ongoing during site
preparation and
grading
Ongoing during site
preparation and
grading
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Planning and
Zoning
Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety and
Planning and
Zoning
Divisions
7
locations,verify
compliance in field
If potential cultural
resources are
encountered,verify
that work is
stopped and found
materials are
properly assessed
and addressed
Verify that qualified
paleontologist is
retained and on
site during grading,
and that all
measures are
taken if resources
discovered
ce Verificijtion
Comments
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
2
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or
transfer to research institutions related to monitoring
discoveries shall be determined by the qualified
paleontologist and shall be reported to the City.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Comments
GEO-2(a)Compliance with the recommendations
included in the previous geotechnical studies undertaken
at the site shall be required.These recommendations
include maintenance of a uniform,near optimum
moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of
over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the
potential for softening and strength loss.In addition,
slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting
of the slope with approved,deep rooted,lightweight,
drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of
erosion and drainage control devices,and a continuous
rodent control program.Brow ditches and terraces shall
be cleaned each fall,before the rainy season,and shall
be frequently"inspected and cleaned,as necessary,after
each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,including foot
traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should
be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.
The City of Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works
Department shall review and approve all final plans for
slope maintenance prior to issuance of a aradina permit.
GEO-2(b)The proposed retaining wall at the top of the
existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site
shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support
the project and underlying adverse geologic structure.
The system requires a designaJ;'ld depth of embedment
that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event
the offsite slope failed.
GEO-2(c)An as-graded geotechnical report shall be
prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following
completion of grading.The report shall include the
results of in-grading density tests,and a map clearly
depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths,
removal area locations and depths,sub-drainage system
locations and depths and geological conditions exposed
durina aradina.
r
Once prior to
issuance of grading
permits,ongoing
during project
grading and site
preparation
Once prior to
issuance of grading
permits,ongoing
during project
grading and site
preparation
Once following
completion of
grading
On site
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
8
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify that plans
comply with
measure,and
implementation
during grading and
construction
Review as-graded
report
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
3
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Moni'toring and Reporting Program
GEO-2(d)If required by the final geotechnical report,as
reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,the
applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at
the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for
possible movement following implementation of the
project.The number and location of the inclinometer
stations shall be determined by the City Geologist.The
applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings
along with any recommendations from a geotechnical
engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime
of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-
annual readings are no longer necessary.In addition,
readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be
submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2
times average monthly rainfall)or following a magnitude
5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project
site.
If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient
movement has taken place that warrants further
corrective or preventative action,the project applicant
shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the
costs of implementing any remediation recommended by
the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope
remains stable.Further monitoring by inclinometers may
be required,if recommended by the geotechnical
enaineer or reauired bv the Citv.
GEO-3(a)Geotechnical Recommendations.Prior to
issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the
project applicant shall comply with all recommendations
contained within the Geology and Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants
(2003)including:
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the
exposed subgrade shall be tested.The design of
foundations and slabs shall consider the high
expansion potential.Following completion of grading
and until slabs and footings are poured,the exposed
.soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically
wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-
saturation is also recommended.
r
Once following
completion of
grading;every six
months during the
lifetime of the project
or until the City
Geologist agrees
that semi-annual
readings are no
longer necessary
Once prior to
issuance of building
or grading permits,
once following
completion of
grading
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
9
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify
implementation
following grading
and construction
Comments
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
4
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
...
Milestone/
A~tinn I
'~
Compliance Initials
Compliance Verification
Date I Comments
GEO-3(b)Expansive Soil Removal and/or
Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from
expansive soils could include one or more of the
following techniques,as determined by a qualified
geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
Geologist:
•Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-
expansive soils.All imported fill shall be tested and
certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and
certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to
accommodate certain amounts of differential
expansion in accordance with Chapter 18,Division
III of the UBC.
NOISE
N-1(a)Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
The applicant shall provide,to the satisfaction of the
Cpmmunity Development Director,a Noise Mitigation and
Monitoring Program that requires all of the following:
•Construction contracts that specify that all
construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be
equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers and other state required noise attenuation
devices.
•That property owners and occupants located within
0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice by
the developer,at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each phase,
..regarding the construction schedule of the project.All
notices shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the mailing
or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities,as well as provide a contact
name and telephone number where residents can
inquire about the construction process and register
complaints.
•That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building
Permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate to the
r
Once prior to
issuance of building
or grading permits,
periodically during
grading
Once prior to
issuance of grading
and building permits;
ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
10
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Review and
approve plan,verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
5
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as
shutting off idling equipment and vehicles,installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources,maximizing the distance
between construction equipment staging and parking
areas and occupied residential areas,and electric air
compressors and similar power tools,rather than
diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible.
•That during construction,stationary construction
equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
N-1(b)Construction Vehicle Idling.During demolition,
construction and/or grading operations,trucks and other
construction vehicles shall not park,queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way
prior to the grading and construction hours.
N-1(c)Staging Area.The construction contractor shall
provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment.These
areas shall be located to maximize the distance between
activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences
and institutional uses};This would reduce noise levels
associated wi.th most types of idling construction
equipment.
N 1(d)Diesel Equipment Mufflers.All diesel
equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors
and shall be equipped with factory recommended
mufflers.
N 1(e)Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.
Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and
similar power tools and to power any temporary
structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker
r
Ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Once prior to
grading and
construction;
ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Develooment
11
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Comments
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
6
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
N-1 (f)Restrictions on Excavation and
Foundation/Conditioning.Excavation and conditioning
activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:15
AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through Friday and located to
maximize the distance between activity and sensitive
receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses).
N-1(g)Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques.For
all noise-generating construction activity on the project
site,additional noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent
feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not
limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise generating
equipment and the construction of temporary sound
barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive
receptors.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
T -4 Site Access.Install a stop sign and stop bar at the
proposed project driveway on Crestridge Road.This
feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for
building permit review.
T~5 Maintain Sight Distance.Project plans shall show
that landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the
proposed project driveway is designed such that a
driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed,to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.In addition,
curbside parking shall be prohibited along the property
frontage within the identified sight visibility lines shown on
Fiaure 4.8-5 of the EIR.
r
Ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Ongoing during
project grading and
construction
Once prior to
issuance of building
permits,once prior
to occupancy
Once prior to
issuance of building
permits,once prior
to occupancy
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
Onsite
construction
manager,
Community
Development
Department -
Building and
Safety Division
12
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Verify
implementation
during grading and
construction
Review plans for
compliance with the
measure,and verify
implementation in
the field
Review plans for
compliance with the
measure,and verify
implementation in
the field
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1
-
7
7
RESOLUTION No.2013-_,
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE Nos.5UB2012-00001 AND
ZON2012-00067 FORA PROPOSED 60-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION
KNOWN AS THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT,
WITH EXHIBIT "A"TO RESOLUTION 2013-_,CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR PLANNING CASE Nos.ZON2012-00067 AND 5UB2012-00001
1-78
RESOLUTION NO.2013-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE NOS.SUB2012-
00001 AND ZON2012-00067 FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE
NOS.ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)LOCATED AT 5601
CRESTRIDGE ROAD (APN 7589-013-009).
WHEREAS,on February 22,2012,applications for an Environmental Assessment,
Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit (ZON2012-00067)and Tentative Tract Map
(SUB2012-00001)were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000
cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and
above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601
Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009);and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012,pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act
(PSA),Government Code Section 65920 et seq.;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079)(the "EIR");and,
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study")for
the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,and on May 29,2012,the
Initial Study (IS)and Notice of Preparation (NOP)was released to the public and public
agencies for a comment period of 31 days (through June 29,2012).Further,a Public
Notice was mailed on May 29,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot
radius from the subject property.Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula
News on May 31,2012.Furthermore,the notice was posted on the City's website,and
emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the Iistserve for this project.
Lastly,a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall,
Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to
download and review;and,.
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public
scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide
verbal comments on the IS/NOP,at which time the Planning Commission extended the
comment period through July 12,2012;and,
WHEREAS,after the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared
taking various comments into account.After completing the Draft EIR,the document was
1-79
made available to the public on August 21 ,2012 for a 48-day public comment period that
concluded on October 8,2012;and,
WHEREAS,on September 26,2012 the Planning Commission held a public
comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in
addition to the typical written comments,on the Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was
provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was
scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13,2012 to review the Final EIR
and the entitlement applications for the proposed project.Subsequently,a notice was
emailedtothe611 people registered on the City's listserve for this project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 13,2012,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated
with the Project,the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the
Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,on November 13,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting,landscaping,trail use,
and tower height,and return to the Planning Commission on December 11,2012 with
Resolutions for consideration;and,
WHEREAS,on the December 11,2012,the Planning Commission adopted PC
Resolution No.2012-22,recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental
Impact Report;and,adopted PC Resolution No.2012-23,recommending that the City
Council conditionally approve Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for a
proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior Condominium
Housing Project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on March 5,2013,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the
Project,the Final EIR,the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR,
and the Planning Commission recommendation.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed project includes 60 age-restricted (aged 55+),for-sale
condominium units accessed by one driveway at the southwestern portion of the site.The
60 units will be located within 18 different buildings distributed throughout the site,where
Resolution No.2013-_
1-80
some buildings will be two-story structures and others will be split-level,two-story
structures.
The proposed project also includes a 2,400 square foot community building for the
residents of the development;a community garden area for the residents at the northwest
portion of the site;an outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the
site;and a series of public and private pedestrian trails.Three of the condominium units
are proposed to be made available to qualified very-low-income senior households in
accordance with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements contained in
Chapter 17.11 (Affordable Housing).
To facilitate the development,a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed,which
includes ~45,000 cubic yards of cut (143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards
of fill.The topography of the site will be lowered by as much as approximately 38-feet on
the western side of the property to create a flatter and lower site.This grading will result in
the structures on the west side of the property being well below the maximum 16-foot
height limit,as measured from existing grade.
TENTA TIVE TRACT MAP
Section 2:Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No.71878 to subdivide the 9.76-acre site for a 60-unit,age-restricted
(aged 55+),condominium project:
A.The proposed map and the design and improvement of the proposed
subdivision are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan.The
goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan "to preserve and
enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual
character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the
development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all
present and future residents of the community."Additionally,it is a policy of the
General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses
very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites".Furthermore,it is
a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to '1require]all new housing
developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping,open space,and other
design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality."
The proposed project meets this goal and these policies as it provides an
aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land
uses and serves the needs of residents within the community,and is consistent
with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the
approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;
Belmont Village and Mirandela,respectively.Lastly,based upon the proposed
60-unit project,the applicant shall be obligated to provide three (3)dwelling units
(or their equivalents)that are affordable to households with very low incomes.
Resolution No.2013-_
1-81
B.The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed
in that the subject property measures 9.76-acres in area and is sufficient in size
to accommodate the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project.The
buildings are sufficiently spaced,the project provides for open space,outdoor
recreational areas for the future tenants,complies with applicable setbacks,and
has a density of approximately 6 units to the acre.
C.The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat,nor are they likely to cause serious public health
problems.The subject property has never been developed and has remained a
.vacant parcel.Further,there have been past approvals and proposals that call
out the subject property for the use that is now being proposed.There are no
sensitive plant or animal species;no known historical,archaeological or
paleontological resources;and no known hazardous materials or conditions on
the subject property.In the event that any of these are encountered prior to or
during construction of the project,the recommended mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will reduce any potential impacts upon the environment,
fish and wildlife,sensitive habitats or public health to less-than-significant levels.
D.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.There are no known public access
easements across the subject property that should be preserved as a part ofthis
project.However,since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)calls for a trail
to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road below,the project will provide
and record a public pedestrian trail easement through the development,
consistent with the City's CTP to connect Crestridge Road with the trails in the
City's Preserve property to the north adjacent to Indian Peak Road.
CONmnONALUSEPERMIT
Section 3:Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a conditional
use permit to;1)establish a senior condominium residential devetopment project on the
subject property;and,2)to allow certain building heights to exceed the Institutional
District's development standards of 16'-0"tall and one-story:
A.The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and
for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other features
required by Title 17 (Zoning)or by conditions imposed under Section 17.60.050
to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood,
such as:
1.The proposed structures will comply with and exceed all of the required
Resolution No.2013-_
1-82
setbacks of the Institutional zoning district.
2.Parking throughout the site will be provided to residents of the facility within
dedicated 2-car garages for each unit,and visitor parking will be available
throughout the site.
3.The proposed project will contain landscaping throughout the facility and will
be conditioned to minimize view impairment by requiring the landscaping to
be maintained to specified height limits,and the appearance of the buildings
will not be apparent due to the landscaping.
4.The subject site will be lowered by up to 38'from existing grade to create the
proposed building pads,internal roadway and parking area,and will create a
manageable slope for the site to accommodate the development,which
would continue to slope from west to east,but it would be less of a dramatic
slope.Further,lowering the site will bring the western portion of the project
closer in elevation to the adjacent Belmont Assisted Living facility,which was
also lowered substantially from its pre-construction grade;and,lowering the
site also reduces the height of the existing slopes along the roadway,which
will be planted as part of the project,and will minimize the use of retaining
walls along the street.Furthermore,lowering the site substantially and
reducing the height of some of the structures reduces the potential view
impacts over the site from the upslope residences to the south along
Mistridge Drive.
5.The building designs are of a residential character,with a mix of two-story
structures and split-level two story structures,and will be consistent with
other residential type structures along Crestridge Road,such as the Belmont
Assisted Living Facility,Mirandela Senior Apartments,and the Canterbury
Congregate Care Facility,as well as the residential character of the existing
single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the site.
B.The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry
the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.The project takes
direct access from Crestridge Road,a collector roadway connecting Crenshaw
Boulevard and Highridge Road.The project plans and traffic study have been
reviewed by the City's traffic engineer.The traffic study considered five
intersections and focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the
morning and evening commute peak hours and found that the five (5)key study
intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS with project implementation.The cumulative projects analysis
also found that the five (5)key study intersections are forecast to continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS with the additicjn of project generated traffic.
Construction traffic was also assessed since construction includes 143,000
cubic yards of export,and concluded that the increased traffic generated by the
project will not exceed the impact threshold.Lastly,sight distance related to the
project's access way onto Crestridge Road is adequate due to a mitigation
measure limiting landscaping height and prohibiting curbside parking along
Crestridge Road within the identified sight visibility lines.
Resolution No.2013-_
1-83
C.In approving the subject use for age-restricted (aged 55+),Senior condominiums
at the specific location,there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent
property or the permitted use thereof.The use will not be in conflict with other
uses in the area and will add to the mixture of housing types offered by providing
additional senior housing.
Since the project includes structures that exceed 16-feet above existing grade,
Staff conducted view analyses from various residences along Seaside Heights,
Mistridge,and Oceanridge Drives.The residences are located to the south of
the project site,and contain up to 180-degree views over the subject property.
The residences along Ocean ridge and Seaside Heights Drives are at a
.substantially higher elevation than the subject property,and the proposed
development will not project into their views.As a result,the proposed project
would not result in a significant impact upon views (Le.,adverse effect)to the
residences along Seaside Heights and Oceanridge Drives.
The residences along Mistridge Drive are lower in elevation than the residences
along Oceanridge Drive.Consequently,although they are higher in elevation
than the subject property,due to the topography of the area,these residences
do not have a view of the Santa Monica Bay;rather,their views are
predominantly of the Los Angeles basin over the subject property and in a
northeasterly direction over the abutting Mirandela Senior Housing Project.Staff
visited several residences along Mistridge Drive,which have been incorporated
into the Aesthetics section of the EIR with view simulations.There are 9
structures that are above the 16-foot height limit dispersed throughout the site as
follows:
a)four,2-story split level structures that front along Crestridge Road;
b)one,2-story split-level structure along the easternmost side of the
development;
c)one,2-story split-level structure in the middle of the development;
d)one,2-story structure in the middle of the development;and,
e)two,2-story structures at the rear of the development.
Ultimately,of the 9 structures that are above the 16-fo'ot height limit,the two-
story structures (a total of 3 that are identified as "d"and "e",above)result in
some type of view impairment,as the portions above the 16-foot height limit (Le.,
16-feet above existing grade)impair a small portion of the city view at the bottom
of the view frames from the existing residences on Mistridge Drive.The
proposed structures that are along Crestridge Road and the eastern property
line (identified as "a"and "b",above)are at lower elevations than the other
structures on the site;as a result,these structures are in the foreground and will
not project into the view frames from the residences along Mistridge Road.The
remaining 3 structures along the rear of the development and in the middle of
Resolution No.2013-_
1-84
the development (identified as "d"and "e",above)are also above the 16-foot
limit (Le.,16-feet above existing grade).Since these buildings are located near
the center of the site,they are in the middle of the view corridors of the
properties along Mistridge Drive.The heights of these proposed structures,
coupled with the location within the view frames,makes them more apparent
and results in some type of view impairment from the residences along Mistridge
Drive.As a result,these buildings have been modified inthe following manner:
•Reduce the plate heights of the structures containing units 19 thru 22,and
45 and 46 -This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 2-feet.
•Reduce the roof pitch from 3:12,to 1.75:12 for the structures containing units
19 thru 22,and 45 and 46-This reduces the height of the buildings by up to
1-foot
•Change the roofs on the eastern portions of the three buildings from gable
roofs to hip-pitched roofs -This reduces the amount of horizontal projections
and opens up more view.
The modifications will result in a reduction in the structure heights by 3-feet,
resulting in structures that are approximately 23-feet above finish grade,and
reduces the roof massing with incorporation of a hip on these buildings.
Consequently,these modifications minimize the view impairment such that the
buildings will minimally project into the city lights views while maintaining the
larger panoramic view from the residences along Mistridge Drive.
D.The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.Specifically,the goal of
the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan is "to preserve and
enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual
character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the
development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all
present and future residents of the community."Additionally,it is a policy ofthe
General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses
very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites".Furthermore,it is
a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing
developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping,open space,and other
design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality."
The proposed project meets this goal and these polfcies as it provides an
aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land
uses and serves the needs of residents within the community,and is consistent
with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the
approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east ofthe site;
Belmont Village and Mirandela,respectively.Lastly,based upon the proposed
60-unit project,the applicant shall be obligated to provide three (3)dwelling units
(or their equivalents)that are affordable to households with very low incomes.
E.The subject property is not located within an overlay control district.
Resolution No.2013-_
1-85
F.Conditions,which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protectthe
health,safety and general welfare,have been imposed upon this project.
Specifically,as included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and as shown in
the attached Exhibit A to City Council Resolution No.2013-_,and briefly
described below,the project includes conditions that address:
•Limitations on the heights of walls and fences;
•Conditions regarding the placement and type of exterior light fixtures;
•Requirements for marking fire lanes and prohibiting parking therein;
•Requirements for compliance with the City's attached unit development
standards regarding the transmission of sound and vibration through
common walls and floors;
•Requirements for dedication of an easement for trail purposes,consistent
with the Conceptual Trails Plan.
•Requirements for water-conserving landscaping and irrigation;
•Further limitations or restrictions on the height of foliage and trees;and,
•Restrictions on the number and types of signage for the project.
•Limitations on the heights,roof types and roof pitches for the buildings
identified above.
Section 4:Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City
Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Grading
Permit for 147,000 cubic yards of grading related to the development of the proposed
condominium project:
A.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot,as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code.The
proposed project encompasses 147,000 cubic yards of total earth movement
(cut and fill combined)throughout the 9.76-acre parcel.The grading will
substantially lower the existing topography in an effort to maintain views over the
subject property.The site will be lowered by approximately 38-feet on the west
side of the site,which will result in structures that are lower than the existing
topography.Grading ofthe entire site will occur,and will serve to accommodate
the various structures on-site,the internal roadway that will loop through the
development,the community building and the outdoor recreation area.Since
the intent of the grading is primarily to lower the site's topography,there will be
143,000 cubic yards of export.The export will lower the site to provide a better
designed project and will allow the majority of the buildings to be set lower on
the site than could be allowed "by right"without the proposed grading (or with
less grading).
B.The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the visual relationships with,nor the views from,neighboring properties.The
proposed grading results in most structures being lower than would be permitted
Resolution No.2013-_
1-86
"by right"without the proposed grading.Furthermore,while there is some fill
throughout the site,no fill under buildings is necessary and the proposed project
will not significantly affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from
neighboring properties.
C.The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours,and
finished contours are reasonably natural.The existing site topography slopes
from west to east,and the topography is higher than the adjacent developments
(Le.,Belmont and Mirandela).Artificial fill has been identified at the site,which
was placed during grading operations for the construction of Crestridge Road
along the southerly property line.The site also slopes up from Crestridge Road
.to the middle of the site,then slopes down towards the City's Reserve property
to the north.Thus,some of the slopes on the site appear to have been
manmade and are not natural.Nonetheless,the majority of the grading is to
lower the site,and in doing so the resulting structures will be in line with the
developments on either side,which slopes down from west to east.Due to the
existing topography of the site,which is convex in shape,the grading will also
prepare the site for development.The existing contours will be removed,but the
finished contours will ensure a gentler sloping site that continues to slope from
west to east.
D.While portions of the topographic features appear to be man-made as a result of
the construction of surrounding roadways,and not of a natural topographic
feature,the proposed project still considers the topographic features and
appearance of the existing site by creating new slopes that are similar to the
existing slopes.There will continue to be a transitional slope up to Belmont and
down to Mirandela,which aid in creating a stepped development that is in line
with the adjacent developments.As a result,the proposed development would
not be topographically out of scale with the surrounding area.
E.The required finding that,for new single-family residences,the grading and/or
related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,
as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6)of the Development Code,is not
applicable because the proposed project is not a new single-family residence.
F.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and
slippage,and minimize visual effects of gradin'g and construction on hillside
areas.The proposed project is a new residential tract,although it is not a single
family subdivision.This intent of this finding is to minimize the visual impacts
and disturbance of existing vegetation that commonly occurs with cut-and-fill
grading of terraced single-family neighborhoods.The grading will lower the site
and will result in a development that steps down from west to east such that
there is an aesthetic symmetry linking the developments on either side.As a
Resolution No.2013-_
1-87
result,the slopes and pervious areas will contain landscaping to prevent erosion
and create an aesthetically pleasing site.Further,the landscaping will be
conditioned so as to prevent foliage from growing above the heights of the
buildings and creating view impairment to the residents to the south of the site.
Thus,as proposed and conditioned,adequate landscaping will be provided
throughout the site to make the project less apparent.
G.The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of
the hillside.The proposed project involves a private roadway that loops within
the development to provide access to the various buildings,and includes one
ingress/egress point along Crestridge Road.The street will slope with the
.resulting topography and will be of a width that can accommodate two-way
traffic,will prohibit street parking,and will accommodate emergency personnel.
Lastly,beside the ingress/egress driveway along Crestridge Road,the interior
roadway will not be visible from the public rights-of-way.
H.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.A Biological
Resources Assessment was performed for the EIR.According to the
assessment,the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through
disking and grubbing.As such,there is no protected habitat (CSS)present on
site.Further,non-native vegetation is present on the site,which provides for
poor habitat for wildlife species.The site is,however,adjacent to the City's
Reserve property.As such,there are mitigation measures proposed to minimize
disturbance and impacts to the City's Reserve,which includes native
landscaping,especially for those areas that abut the City's Reserve.
I.The proposed project is inconsistent with 3 of the grading criteria contained
within Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9)pertaining to grading on slopes
over 35%steepness,maximum finished slopes,and maximum depth of cut or
fill.
However,a deviation from the criteria regarding grading on slopes greater than
35%is hereby approved because the grading will not threaten the public health,
safety and welfare,since development of the subjeot site will require City
Geologist approval and building permits that will ensure that the proposed
project will not threaten public health,safety and welfare.
Furthermore,a deviation to the criteria regarding maximum finished slopes and
maximum depth of cut and fill is hereby approved because unusual topography,
soil conditions,previous grading and other circumstances make such grading
reasonable and necessary.However,it is important to consider that the subject
site is a vacant parcel with undulating topography and some un-compacted fill
material that was placed on the site previously must be removed and exported in
Resolution No.2013-_
1-88
order to render the site buildable.Lastly,grading down of the site provides
better views and a better visual representation of the project and consistency
with the surrounding areas are circumstances that warrant approval of the
increased depth of cut and fill.
In regards to a deviation from the grading criteria regarding maximum finished
slopes,upslope retaining wall heights,and restricted grading areas,the City
Council finds that:
a)The criteria of subsection (E)(1)through (E)(8)of Municipal Code Section
17.76.040 are satisfied,as noted in A through E above.
b)The project is consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit,which is
1)to permit reasonable development of land,2)ensure the maximum
preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with
reasonable economic use of the property,3)ensure that the development
of land occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands,and 4)ensure
that the project is consistent with the General Plan.Specifically,the
proposed project will lower the site while maintaining a similar topographic
configuration of a flatter area with slopes,thereby helping to preserve views
over the site and not cause visual impacts,which will develop the site in a
manner harmonious with adjacent lands.In doing so the project permits
the reasonable development of land while maintaining the natural scenic
character.
c)Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)of Municipal Code
Section 17.76.040 will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity.
Lowering the site will ensure less than significant view and visual impacts.
Development proposals on large vacant parcels with similar grading have
been approved in the past;approval of this project is consistent with prior
actions on other Institutional uses along Crestridge Road,namely the
Belmont Assisted Living Facility and the Mirandela Senior Affordable
Housing projects wherein those sites were also lowered substantially for
the same purposes.Lastly,departure from the standards of subsection
(E)(9)of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 will not be detrimental to the
public safety nor to other properties,because a geological report for this
project has been submitted to and approved by the City geologist.
Section 5:Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning
Commission and City Council,and consistent with··the Planning Commission's
recommendation,the City Council finds that the Project will create a significant unavoidable
impact to aesthetics (Visual Character and Quality of the Site).This significant impact is
further described in the Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing
Project"of Resolution No.2013-_,which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Resolution No.2013-_
1-89
Section 6:The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program,Exhibit "A"to Resolution No.2013-_,are incorporated into the scope of the
proposed project by this reference.
Section 7:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable shortened periods of limitation.
Section 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Reports and all of the documents that were presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council,the Minutes and other records of the proceedings
related to this application,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
conditionally approves Tentative Tract Map No.71878,Conditional Use Permit,and
Grading Permit (Planning Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067),in
conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact Report,to allow the subdivision of
a 9.76-acre site into sixty (60),age-restricted (aged 55+),senior condominium units,
located at 5601 Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009),subject to the recommended
conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit "A,"which is incorporated herein by this
reference.
Resolution No.2013-_
1-90
PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of March 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,CARLA MORREALE,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby
certify that the above Resolution No.2013-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted
by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 5,2013.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2013-_
1-91
EXHIBIT lA'TO RESOLUTION 2013-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT,
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.71878
(PLANNING CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
General
1.This approval is for the following:
A.A 60-unit,for-sale,age-restricted (55 years and older)condominium housing
complex,distributed amongst 18 individual buildings
B.Three (3)units affordable to "Extremely Low"and/or "Very Low"income
households in accordance with the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements.
C.A private and public trail system in open space areas on the north,and a
public trail through the development connecting Crestridge Road with the
public trail system in open space areas on the north.
D.A 13,000-square foot outdoor community recreation area located at the
northeastern corner of the site.The amenities for this area include a patio,a
community conversation and gathering stage,a sundeck and outdoor ·Iiving
room,barbeque facilities,bocce ball courts,and picnic tables.
E.A 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck
providing secondary,centralized community amenities for the project's
residents.The Community Service Center building will provide a recreation
and lounge area for community gatherings,kitchen,computer center/business
room,office,fitness room,bathrooms,indoor and outdoor fireplaces,outdoor
living area,spa,barbeque and seating area.The Community Service Center
could also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for regular
resident activities like movie nights,book clubs and cooking classes.
F.A gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road.The vehicular entry gate
would have a key pad and call box.
G.A pedestrian entry tower and access point adjacent to the gated vehicular
access.
H.An internal private street that is a minimum of 26 feet wide.
I.A total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site to
supplement the two-car garages available for each condominium unit.
1-92
J.A community garden area at the northwest portion of the site (behind the
existing Belmont Assisted Living facility)for the residents and/or owners of the
Crestridge Senior Housing Condominium project.
2.Within ninety (90)days of this approval,the applicant and/or property owner shall
submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and
agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide
said written statement within ninety (90)days following the .date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
3.The developer shall supply the City with one mylar,one copy,and an electronic
copy of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County
Recorders Office.
4.This approval expires twenty-four (24)months from the date of approval of the
tentative tract map by the City Council,unless extended per the Subdivision Map
Act and Municipal Code.Any request for extension shall be submitted to the
Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map.
5.Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans
originally stamped APPROVED;with the Institutional Zoning District;the mitigation
measures,conditions and development standards contained in PC Resolution No.
2012-22 and PC Resolution No.2012-23;City Council Resolution No.2013-_;
and,the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
6.The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans
and conditions.Otherwise,all other modifications shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
7.All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)contained in PC Resolution No.2012-22 and City
Council Resolution No.2013-_for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)shall
be adhered to.The mitigation measures are repeated herein under the
appropriate subject heading,sometimes with clarifying language that may differ
from the MMRP.Where the conditions differ from the mlfigation measures,the
stricter of the two shall govern.All costs associated with implementation of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be the responsibility of the Developer,and/or
any successors in interest..
8.The Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be subject to review and
modification,as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning Commission
at a noticed public hearing held one year after issuance of a final Certificate of
Occupancy for the last building constructed.At the review hearing,the Planning
1-93
Commission may add,delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed
necessary and appropriate.Notice of said review hearing shall be published and
provided to owners of property within a 500'radius from the entire project's
boundary,to persons requesting notice,to all affected homeowners associations,
and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code Section 17.80.090.As part of the one year review,the Planning
Commission may consider and review compliance with all the conditions of
approval,assess any lighting and noise impacts,and address any other concerns
raised by Staff,the Commission and/or interested parties.If necessary,the
Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to
mitigate any impacts resulting from the review.
9.All private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so not
exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken
from 5649 and 5575 Mistridge Drive (Exhibit B to PC Resolution No.2012-23,and
Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No.2013-_).If it is brought to the City's
attention that foliage in the development continues to impair a view from another
residence along Mistridge Drive,Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive,then
said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view.
10.Permitted hours and days for construction activity (other than the aforementioned
grading activity)are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,with no
construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in
Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special
construction permit.
Tentative Tract Map No.71878
11.The proposed project approval permits 60,age restricted (aged 55+)condominium
units on the existing 9.76-acre subject parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map No.
71878,as approved by the City Council on March 5,2013.
12.Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation,the subdivider shall obtain
clearances from affected departments and divisions,including a clearance from the
City's Engineer for the following items:mathematical accuracy,survey analysis,
correctness of certificates and signatures,etc.
13.The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown
on the Tentative Tract Map.'
14.Prior to approval of the Final Map,copies of the Covenants,Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&R's)shall be submitted for the review of the Director and the City
Attorney.Said CC&R's shall reflect the applicable conditions of approval
contained in this Resolution.All necessary legal agreements,including
1-94
homeowners'association,deed restrictions,covenant,dedication of development
rights,public easements and proposed methods of maintenance and perpetuation
of drainage facilities and any other hydrological improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to the approval of the Final Map.
County Recorder
15.If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map,the developer shall
submit a preliminary guarantee.A final guarantee will be required at the time of
filing of the final map with the County Recorder.If said signatures do not appear
on the final map,a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area
showing all fee owners and interest holders.The account for this preliminary title
report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County
Recorder.
Public Works and City Engineer Conditions
16.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,prior to final
certificate of use and occupancy,the following items shall be addressed:
•Sidewalk must be constructed on Crestridge Road that provides for a total
sidewalk width of 6'from Face of Curb to Back of Sidewalk (to match
existing conditions on Crestridge Road).
•Relocate electrical facilities along Crestridge Road to provide for 4'clear
sidewalk access to match other updated facilities and to adhere to ADA.
•Provide for ADA compliant access across the top of the proposed site
entry driveway on Crestridge Road.
•Indicate the ADA path of travel from Crestridge Rd.throughout the interior
of the site.
•Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in
reviewing the construction plans.
17.Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of
Public Works,the Applicant shall ensure the following to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director:
•No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way.
•All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet
away from driving edge).
•Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the
ROW.
•The engineer shall provide a longitudinal profile of the driveway approach
and driveway centerline depicting vertical curves and slopes.
•Driveway approach slope and details needs to comply with APWA STD
PLAN 110-0 (latest edition)and other applicable drawings.
1-95
•Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a complete hydrology and
hydraulic study (include off-site areas affecting the development)shall be
prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City EngineeL
The report shall include detail drainage conveyance system including
applicable swales,channels,street flows,catch basins,and storm drains
which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff
which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical
1OO-year flood.
•It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain any landscaping in the
abutting public right-of-way and keep it in a safe condition.
•Any cuts made into the existing asphalt roadway of Crestridge Road will
require full width resurfacing of the road for a length to be determined by
the Director of Public Works or his designee.
•All damaged curb and gutter,sidewalk,and asphalt in front of the
proposed property must be removed and replaced in kind.
•All ADA improvements shall be completed by the developer in the ROW.
•Catch basins shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean"painted on them in
the ROWand on the property.
•Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain
inlets,including existing catch basins where a connection to the
development's system is required.
•Plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's)and Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
•Plans shall provide Sewer connection information,and shall be approved
by LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
•Plans shall provide clear sight triangle at driveway per Caltrans standards.
Sewers
18.A bond,cash deposit,or other City approved security,shall be posted prior to
recordation of the Final Map or start of work,whichever occurs first,to cover
costs for construction of and connection to a sanitary sewer system,in an
amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
19.Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider shall submit to the Public Works
Director a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the
design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer.Said approval
shall state all conditions of approval,if any,and state that the County is willing to
maintain all connections to said trunk lines.
20.Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation,dedication
and use of local main line sewer and separate laterals to serve each unit of the
land division.
1-96
21.Sewer easements may be required,subject to review by the City Engineer,to
determine the final locations and requirements.
22.Prior to construction,the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer
improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance
Division.
Water
23.Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work,
whichever comes first,the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in
addition to either:
a.An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by
the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system;or
b.An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer
indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving
water utility to construct the water system,as required,and has deposited
with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of
the water system.
24.There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor
indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be
operated by the water purveyor and that,under normal operating conditions,the
system will meet the needs of the developed tract.
25.At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking,plans and
specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for checking and approval,and shall comply with the City Engineer's
standards.Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of
plans and specifications mentioned above.
26.The project shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall
include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.The water mains shall be of sufficient size to
accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division.The
City Engineer shall determine domestic flow'requirements.Fire flow
requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of
approval by the Fire Chief is required.
27.Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has determined that there is adequate firefighting water and access
available to said structures.
1-97
28.Prior to issuance of the first building permit,the applicant shall ensure that
construction plans and specifications for the project include the following interior
water-conservation measures:
•Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of
a pressure-reducing valve;
•Install water-conserving clothes washers;
•Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are
retrofitted to reduce flow;and,
•Install one-and-one-half gallon,ultra-low flush toilets.
29.Prior to issuance of the first building permit,the applicant shall submit landscape
and irrigation plans for the common open space areas for the review and
approval of the Community Development Director.If the Community
Development Director utilizes a landscape consultant to review the plans,the
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said view.Said plans
shall incorporate,at a minimum,the following water-conservation measures:
•Extensive use of native plant materials.
•Low water-demand plants.
•Minimum use of lawn or,when used,installation of warm season grasses.
•Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low
water demand plants.
•Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil's water-
holding capacity.
•Drip irrigation,soil moisture sensors,and automatic irrigation systems.
•Use of reclaimed wastewater,stored rainwater or grey water for irrigation.
In addition,the landscaping plan shall include the following:
• A pesticide management plan to control the introduction of pesticides into
site runoff.The pesticide management plan shall be approved by the
Director of Public Works.
•Landscaping at or near the proposed driveway that does not obstruct a
driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works
Department.
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to
exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in
Exhibit B,to Resolution No.2012-23,which are the highest visible roof
ridgelines of the development.
Drainage
30.All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities,including gunite,
shall be of an earth tone color approved by the Community Development Director
prior to building permit final of the last building.
1-98
31.Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report
shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.
32.Subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department and
Building and Safety Division,prior to issuance of any grading permit,the project
proponent shall submit a stormwater management plan which shows the on-site
and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project
proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site.
These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current
standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and·Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is
maintained.The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off
the site are adequate to convey storm flows.
33.In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the developer shall coordinate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regarding the required National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for the project.The
developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit
before construction activities begin on the project site.
34.Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs),including sandbags,shall be
used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction
activities.
35.In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the project proponent shall coordinate
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)on the preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for the proposed project.
36.Prior to issuance of any grading permit,the City's NPDES consultant shall review
and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable
requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project
site.
Streets
37.Prior to recordation of the final tract map,the applicant shall post a bond or other
security acceptable to the Director of Public Works for any approved
improvements within the public right-of-way of Crestridge Road.
38.The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (those streets to be determined by the Director of
Public Works)which may be damaged during development of the project.Prior
to issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall post a bond,cash deposit or
1-99
City approved security,in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works
to be sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant
structures as a result of this development.Said streets shall be videotaped by
the applicant and submitted to the Public Works Department on CD prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
39.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project,and subject to
review and approval by the Director of Public Works,the Applicant shall be
responsible for installing 1)a "STOP"sign and stop bar at the project driveway
that intersects with Crestridge Road.This feature shall be shown on all project
plans submitted for building permit review.(Mitigation Measure T-4)
Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Sherriff's
Department,the text of said sign shall be worded in such a way and the location
of said sign shall be placed in such a way that the sign will be enforceable by the
Sherriff's Department.
40.Landscaping,walls or other site improvements at or near the proposed project
driveway shall not obstruct a driver's clear line of sight,to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.(Mitigation Measure T -4)
41.On-street parking shall be prohibited along the property frontage within the
identified sight visibility lines as determined by the Public Works Director.
(Mitigation Measure T-4)
Survey Monumentation
42.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,a bond,cash deposit,or combination
thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an
amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
43.Within twenty-four (24)months from the date of filing the Final Map,the
developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to
the City Engineer.
44.All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the City's Municipal Code.
45.All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act.
1-100
Street Names and Unit Numbering
46.Any street names and/or unit numbering by the developer must be approved by
the City Engineer.
Grading
47.Prior to recordation of the final map or the commencement of work,whichever
occurs first,a bond,cash deposit,or combination thereof,shall be posted to
cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
48.Permitted hours and days for grading of the site,including site preparation,
import and export,shall be limited to the hours between 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,
Monday through Friday,with no such activities permitted on Saturdays,Sundays
or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit.
49.Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety,the applicant shall
submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has
obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million
dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death,
injury,loss or damage,arising out of the grading or construction of this project by
the applicant.Said insurance policy must name the City and its officers,agents
and employees as additional insureds and be issued by an insurer with a
minimum rating of A-VII by Best's Insurance Guide.Said insurance shall not be
canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be
maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1)year following the final
inspection and approval of said work by the City,and without providing at least
thirty (30)days prior written notice to the City.
50.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 147,000 cubic yards of earth
movement,consisting of 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill,
of which 143,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site.Any revisions that
result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Council as a revision to the grading
application.
51.The construction of three retaining walls shall be permitted as part of the
proposed project.These include one,6-foot high upslope retaining wall behind
each of the three structures on the west side of the development,as illustrated
on the approved plans.Subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director,and prior to issuance of any permits,the Applicant shall
provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will
1-101
be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are
aesthetically pleasing.
52.A construction plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of a grading permit.Said plan shall include but not be limited
to:limits of grading,estimated length of time for rough grading and
improvements,location of construction trailer,location and type of temporary
utilities.The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
53.Prior to filing the Final Map,a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and City Geologist.This grading plan shall include a detailed
engineering,geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be
approved by the project's California State Licensed geologist and/or soils
engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them.It shall also be
consistent with the tentative map and conditions,as approved by the City.
54.Grading shall conform to Chapter 29,"Excavations, Foundations,and Retaining
Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code".
55.Prior to issuance of a grading permit,haul routes used to transport soil exported
from the project site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works to
minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from
hauling operations.In reviewing the haul route,the Public Works Director shall
take into account and consideration the school traffic along the haul routes,and
shall have the ability to modify the approved haul route,modify the hours of the
grading operation,and impose any traffic-control conditions in the interest of
public safety,if deemed necessary.
56.The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of
NOx associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment.
a)All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission
standards.
b)Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout
construction.Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than
five minutes.
c)Equipment engines shall be maintained in good cbndition and in proper
tune as per manufacturers'specifications.
d)The number of pieces of equipment oper~ting simultaneously shall be
minimized.
e)Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction
equipment (such as compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
f)The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical
size.
h)Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after
1-102
1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines)shall be utilized
wherever feasible.
i)During the smog season (May through October),the construction period
should be lengthened as permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same
time.(Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (a»
57.The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:
a)All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite shall be watered three
times (3x)daily until completion of project construction to minimize the
entrainment of exposed soil.
b).Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be
graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating
activities.Application of water (preferably reclaimed,if available)should
penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
c)Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation,and construction
activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
•Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from
the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet of freeboard.
•All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active
portions of the construction site,including unpaved on-site
roadways,shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment shall
include,but not necessarily be limited to,periodic watering,
application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials,
and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible.
d)Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
e)During periods of high winds (Le.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to
prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site or
on-site.
f)The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit
track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing,
rumble plates,or another method achieving the same intent.
g)Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day,
preferably at the end of the day,if visible soil material is carried over to
adjacent streets and roads.
h)Personnel involved in grading operations,including contractors and
subcontractors,shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
i)All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be
sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project.
1-103
A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent
and visible location at the construction site,and must be maintained
throughout the construction process.All notices and the signs must
indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as
provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the
construction process and register complaints.
j)Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
k)Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per
hour or less.
I)Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans.
m)These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications.
Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections
by the City.(Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (b))
Common Area Improvements and CC&Rs
58.The community garden area at the northwest portion of the site shall not be
planted with any type of trees,including but not limited to citrus trees,avocado
trees,etc.The individual gardens in this area shall not be enclosed with any
fencing taller than 42-inches in height.
59.All common area landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained
so not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs
taken from 5649 and 5575 Mistridge Drive (Exhibit B to PC Resolution No.2012-
23,and Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No.2013-_).If it is brought to the
City's attention that foliage in the development continues to impair a view from
another residence along Mistridge Drive,Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge
Drive,ther:1 said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs
the view.
60.The Community Service Center shall not be rented to or used by non-residents
or non-owners of the community.Additionally,the Center shall be closed daily
by no later than 10pm.
61.The entry tower shall be limited to a maximum height of 16-feet,as measured
from adjacent finish grade to the highest point of the structure.
62.An improved public pedestrian access trail shall be provided through the
community and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA.Specifically,
the trail system shall be provided for the general public that connects Crestridge
Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail located on the
City's Reserve property to the north.
1-104
63.The pedestrian access point at the entry tower shall not contain a gate or other
similar enclosure that would prevent the general public from entering,or
discouraged from entering,the site to access the trailheads at the rear of the
property or the trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north.Further,
public access shall not be impeded by any gate,fence,or improvement along the
entire length of the public trail easement.
64.The public trail shall be limited to pedestrian use only;and shall facilitate and
ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte
Reserve to the north.
65.The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the City trails
shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the
Community Development Director and maintained by the developer and
subsequent HOA.
66.Directional signage shall be posted along the entire length of the public trail to
guide the general public through the development and to the two trials identified
above.The location and signage design shall be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to installation
67.Any temporary or permanent project signage shall require the approval of a sign
permit by the Community Development Director,and shall be consistent with the
provisions of Section 17.76.050(E)(2).
68.No parking shall be allowed on the internal private street.
69.The internal private street shall be maintained by the developer and subsequent
HOA.
70.A minimum of 31 guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
throughout the development.
Lighting:
71.All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
72.Prior to Building Permit issuance,the applicant shall submit a final site lighting
plan,prepared by a lighting consultant,for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.The lighting plan shall include the location,
height,number of lights,foot candles by area and,estimates of maximum
illumination on site with no spill/glare at the property line.The lighting color
temperature shall be limited to a range between 2,700 to 3,700 Kelvin for lights.
1-105
The lighting plan shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixtures on the buildings
and throughout the entire project site are designed and installed so as to contain
light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way.The light source on each fixture shall be
shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or
adjacent properties.
73.Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low,downcast,bollard-
type fixtures,not to exceed forty-two 42"inches in height and shall employ
downcast and shielded lumieres.
74.No one light fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts,and the light source shall not be
directed toward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel of property or
properties other than upon which such light source is physically located.All
exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to prevent direct
illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles
on public rights-of-way.
75.No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture,if located
on a building is more than 7-feet above existing grade,adjacent to the building,
with the exception of ceiling lights in the ceilings above exterior covered
balconies.
76.Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building,the applicant
shall request that the Director or his designee conduct an inspection of the site to
ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent properties or cause a
negative impact to adjacent properties or public rights-of-way and that the light
sources on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the light source is
not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties.Upon
determination by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact,the
property owner shall modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director.
77.All exterior lighting fixtures on the grounds,pathways and common areas,
including any street lights,shall not exceed 5 feet in height,as measured from
adjacent grade.
78.No internally-illuminated signage may be used on the project site.
79.All proposed lighting shall be shielded so that it is down-cast and does not create
any direct illumination impacts to off-site properties.
1-106
Street Names and Numbering
80.Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved
by the City Engineer.
Park,Open Space and Other Dedications
81.Prior to final tract map recordation,the applicant shall pay to the City a fee equal
to the value of parkland in lieu of the dedication of such land to the City,pursuant
to the provision of Section 16.20.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code.
82.A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedicated to the City and recorded on the
Final Tract Map to connect Crestridge Road with the two existing trails located on
the City's Reserve property to the north.The trail portions at the north of the
development that are not associated with the trail network for project residents
shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the
Community Development Director.
83.The community services building,internal roadway and public trail shall all be
constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,prior to the building permit final for the first condominium building.
Affordable Housing
84.The applicant shall construct three (3)units affordable to households with very
low incomes.The three (3)affordable units shall be similar in exterior
appearance,interior appointments,configuration and basic amenities (such as
storage space and outdoor living areas)to the market rate units in the proposed
project,as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director prior to building permit final of the affordable units.Covenants and
agreements required by Chapter 17.11 of the City's Municipal Code must be
recorded against the three (3)affordable units,which shall be specifically
designated,concurrently with the recordation of the final map or the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy for any building,whichever occurs first.
Geology
85.Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City's Building Official,the
applicant shall obtain final approval of the grading and construction plans from
the City's geotechnical consultant.This review shall include analysis of any
potential impacts resulting from the former landslide condition on the subject
1-107
property.The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal of
all soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical
consultant in order to grant such final approval.
86.All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be
eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the
erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited ..
87.Prior to issuance of grading or building permits,the developer shall submit a
Geology and/or Soils Engineer's report on the expansive properties of soils on all
building sites in the proposed subdivision.Such soils are defined by Building
Code Section 2904 (b).
88.An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on
bedrock.An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for
structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.
89.Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical
studies undertaken at the site shall be required.These recommendations include
maintenance of a uniform,near optimum moisture content in the slope soils,and
avoidance of over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the potential for
softening and strength loss.In addition,slope maintenance shall include the
immediate planting of the slope with approved,deep rooted,lightweight,drought
resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control
devices,and a continuous rodent control program.Brow ditches and terraces
shall be cleaned each fall,before the rainy season,and shall be frequently
inspected and cleaned,as necessary,after each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,
including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should be
minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for
slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit.(Mitigation Measure
GEO-2(a))
90.The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the eastern
boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support the
project and underlying adverse geologic structure.The system requires a design
and depth of embedment that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event
the offsite slope failed.(Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b))
91.An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant following completion of grading.The report shall include the results of
in-grading density tests,and a map clearly depicting buttress fill keyway locations
and depths,removal area locations and depths,sub-drainage system locations
and depths and geological conditions exposed during grading.(Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(c))
1-108
92.If required by the final geotechnical report,as reviewed and approved by the City
Geologist,the applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at the site to
allow the northern slope to be monitored for possible movement following
implementation of the project.The number and location of the inclinometer
stations shall be determined by the City Geologist.The applicant shall submit a
record of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a
geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime of the
project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual readings are no longer
necessary.In addition,readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be
submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2 times average monthly
rainfall)or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of
the project site.If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement
has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the project
applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of
implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to
ensure that the slope remains stable.Further monitoring by inclinometers may be
required,if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-2(d))
93.Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the project applicant
shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geology and
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants (2003)
including:
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade shall
be tested.The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high
expansion potential.Following completion of grading and until slabs and
footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be
periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-saturation is also
recommended.(Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a))
94.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include one or
more of the following techniques,as determined by a qualified geotechnical
engineer and approved by the City Geologist:
•Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils.All
imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical
Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of
differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18,Division III of the
UBC.(Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b))
Utilities
95.Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall provide evidence of
1-109
confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide water,wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal,that current water supplies are adequate to
serve the proposed project.
96.Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall ensure that construction
plans and specifications for the project includes the following interior water-
conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances:
Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a
pressure-reducing valve;Install water-conserving clothes washers;Install water-
conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow;
and,install one-and-one-half gallon,ultra-low flush toilets.
97.All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground,including cable
television,telephone,electrical,gas and water.All necessary permits shall be
obtained for their installation.Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk
line at the developer's expense.
Biology:
98.Site disturbance,including brush clearance,shall be prohibited during the
general avian nesting season (February 1 -August 30),if feasible.If breeding
season avoidance is not feasible,a qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence,location,
and status of any active nests on or adjacent to ..the project site.The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community
Development Department.The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the
site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and
indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.To avoid the destruction of active
nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and
the Fish and Game Code of California,nesting bird surveys shall be performed
twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation
clearance.In the event that active nests are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g.
30-50 feet for passerines)should be established around such active nests.No
ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved
biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have
fledged the nest.(Mitigation Measure B10-3)
99.The following measures shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for
the site:
•Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need
to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the
initiation of construction.
•Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of
disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.(Mitigation Measure BI0-4(a»
1-110
100.No species listed in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006)or identified as
potentially invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP
Subarea Plan (2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the site.Species
listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),
Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus mol/e),
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia),black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia),myoporum (Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.),and pines
(Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the proposed project shall
incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre
passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community gardens in the northern
portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project.Native habitat
elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon,California
sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,native grasses,and native perennial forbs
as part of the planting palette.(Mitigation Measure BIO-4(b))
101.Grading and building plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and
approval shall identify areas for construction staging,fueling and stockpiling.
These areas shall be located as far as practical from the Vista del Norte
Preserve,and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary.(Mitigation
Measure BIO-4(c))
102.Cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to the City's Reserve
property shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species approved by the
PVPLC.
103.Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and
maintenance.
104.Construction adjacent to drainage shall occur during periods of minimum flow
(Le.,summer through the first significant rain of fall)to avoid excessive
sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species.
Cultural Resources
105.If cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction,the
construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are
stopped,and shall notify the City Building and Safety Department immediately to
arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the nature,extent,and potential
significance of any cultural resources.If such resources are determined to be
significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be
identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the
nature of the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,documentation,or
other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.The
1-111
archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and shall the
report to the South Central Coastal Information Center.After the find is
appropriately mitigated,work in the area may resume.(Mitigation Measure CR-
1)
106.Prior to the commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading and excavation.
Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading activities are occurring.
Additional monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be required to provide
adequate coverage if earth-moving activities are occurring simultaneously.Any
cultural resources discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall
be reported immediately to the paleontologist.In the event undetected buried
resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be halted
or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and
propose appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may include testing,data
recovery,reburial,archival review andlor transfer to the appropriate museum or
educational institution.All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or
transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be
determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City.
(Mitigation Measure CR-2)
Noise
107.The applicant shall provide,to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requires all of the
following:
•Construction contracts that specify that all construction equipment,fixed or
mobile,shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers
and other state required noise attenuation devices.
•That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the
project site shall be sent a notice by the developer,at least 15 days prior
to commencement of construction of each phase,regarding the
construction schedule of the project.All notices ~hall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or
posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,
as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents
can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.
•That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit,the Applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment and vehicles,installing temporary acoustic barriers around
stationary construction noise sources,maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied
1-112
residential areas,and electric air compressors and similar power tools,
rather than diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible.
•That during construction,stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise
receivers.(Mitigation Measure N-1(a»
108.During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks and other
construction vehicles shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the
adjoining public rights-of-way prior to the grading and construction hours
specified in condition nos.10 and 48,above.(Mitigation Measure N-1(b»
109.The construction contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment.These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses).This would reduce noise levels associated
with most types of idling construction equipment. (Mitigation Measure N-1(c»
110.All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory recommended mufflers.(Mitigation Measure N-1(d»
111.Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and
to power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker
facilities.(Mitigation Measure N-1(e»
112.Excavation and conditioning activities shall be restricted to between the hours of
8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through Friday and located to maximize the
distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and
institutional uses).(Mitigation Measure N-1 (f»
113.For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site,additional noise
attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum
extent feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not limited to,the use of
sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary
sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors.
(Mitigation Measure N-1(g»
Development Standards
114.Unless specific development standards for the development of the property are
contained in these conditions of approval,the development of the lots shall
comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code.
1-113
115.Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check,the
buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission
dated November 13,2012,shall be modified as follows:
Building containing units 23 and 24:A hip roof shall be added to the East end
of the building so that most of the building is below 16 feet in height in order to
reduce roof mass at the East end of the building.
Building containing units 19,20,21,22:Hip roofs shall be added to both West
and East building ends;the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12,to 1-3/4:12;
and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot,from 10 feet to 9 feet
in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass
at .both ends of the building.Maximum overall building height shall be limited to
24-feet.
Building containing units 45 and 46:A hip roof shall be added to the East end
of the building;the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12,to 1-3/4:12;and the
plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot,from 10 feet to 9 feet in
order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at
the East end of building.Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24-
feet.
116.All buildings shall maintain minimum setbacks of at least twenty-five feet (25'-0")
front and street side setbacks,and twenty (20'-0")side and rear setbacks.
117.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in
the Development Code.
118.The private driveway and parking areas shall meet Fire Department standards,
including any painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane
and turn-arounds.
119.Prior to building permit issuance,the building elevations shall be revised to
provide architectural trim and detailing on any blank 2-story facades of the facing
wings of the building.
120.With the exception of the buildings identified in Condition no.115 above,the
maximum building heights shall be limited to the ridgeline elevations identified in
the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11,2013,and
approved by the City Council on March 5,2013.BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for every building,prior to roof sheathing
inspection.
121.The pad elevations for each structure shall be limited to the pad elevations
identified in the grading plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on
1-114
December 11,2012,and approved by the City Council on March 5,2013.PAD
ELEVATION CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building,prior to
construction of each building on each pad.Further,a FINISH FLOOR
ELEVATION CERTIFICATION for each building shall also be provided prior to
placement of concrete.
122.The approved project shall consist of sixty (60)2-bedroorn condominium units,
age restricted to 55 years and older.
123.The approved project shall provide and maintain a 2 car enclosed garage for
each unit.Further,a minimum of 31 off-street guest parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained.
124.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall be no higher than the minimum
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
125.The following attached unit development standards from Chapter 17.06 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code shall apply to all units in the building:
a.No plumbing fixture or other such permanent device which generates
noise or vibration shall be attached to a common wall adjacent to a living
room,family room,dining room,den or bedroom of an adjoining unit.All
plumbing fixtures or similar devices shall be located on exterior walls,on
interior walls within the unit or on common walls,if adjacent to a similar
fixture or device.
b.All water supply lines within common walls and/or floors/ceilings shall be
isolated from wood or metal framing with pipe isolators specifically
manufactured for that purpose and approved by the city's building official.
In multistory residential structures,all vertical drainage pipes shall be
surrounded by three-quarter-inch thick dense insulation board or full thick
fiberglass or wool blanket insulation for their entire length,excluding the
sections that pass through wood or metal framing.The building official
may approve other methods of isolating sound transmission through
plumbing lines where their effectiveness can be demonstrated.
c.All common wall assemblies which separate attached single-family units
shall be of a cavity-type construction.
d.All common wall assemblies which separate all other attached dwelling
units (multiple-family condominiums,stock cooperatives,community
apartment houses)or a dwelling unit and a public or quasi-public space
shall be of a staggered-stud construction.
e.All common wall assemblies which separate dwelling units from each
other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors,laundry
rooms,recreation rooms and garages)shall be constructed with a
minimum rating of fifty-five STC (sound transmission class).
1-115
f.All common floor/ceiling assemblies which separate dwelling units from
each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors,laundry
rooms,recreation rooms and garages)shall be constructed with a
minimum rating of fifty STC (sound transmission class)and a minimum
rating of fifty-five IIC (impact insulation class).Floor coverings may be
included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings,but must be
retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced
by another insulation.
g.STC and IIC ratings shall be based on the result of laboratory
measurements and will not be subjected to field testing.The STC rating
shall be based on the American Society for Testing and Materials system
specified in ASTM number 90-66t or equivalent.The IIC rating shall be
based on the system in use at the National Bureau of Standards or
equivalent.Ratings obtained from other testing procedures will require
adjustment to the above rating systems.In documenting wall and
floor/ceiling compliance with the required sound ratings,the applicant shall
either furnish the city's building official with data based upon tests
performed by a recognized and approved testing laboratory,or furnish the
building official with verified manufacturer's data on the ratings of the
various wall and floor/ceiling assemblies utilized.
126.Fences and walls located within the 25-foot front-yard setback area shall not
exceed forty-two inches (42")in height,with the exception of the intersection
visibility triangle at the driveway and Crestridge Road,where the height of any
fences or walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Department.No perimeter fencing is approved with these entitlements;however,
any future request to install perimeter fencing shall be subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation of any
perimeter fencing.
127.With the exception of solar panels,roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not
permitted.Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear-and side-yard
setback areas,provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in
excess of 65 dBA at the property line.
1-116
Q)
>·Co
Q)
C')
"'C
·C
+-'en.-
~
L()
I"-
L()
L()
1-117
1-118
EIR Executive Summary
ATTACHMENT 1-1
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, the environmental impacts
associated with the project, and mitigation measures recommended to mitigate identified
significant impacts.
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Project Applicant
Trumark Homes
9911 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92618
Contact: James O’Malley, (949) 788-1990
Project Description
The proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project would involve the development of a senior-
restricted (55+ years of age or older) for-sale residential community. The proposed project
would include 60 attached residential units at an overall density of 6.15 units per acre. The
units would be two stories in height with up to five residences per structure. Maximum
building heights would be approximately 27 feet from finished grade. Several proposed
buildings would exceed 16 feet in height above existing grade, and thus the project requires
approval of a Conditional Use permit. The approximately 9.76-acre project site is located at
5601 Crestridge Road in the north-central portion of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
To accomplish the project, the existing slope would be excavated to accommodate flat building
pads stepping gradually upward. Much of the ridge itself would be removed and graded
generally flat. Site preparation would involve excavation of approximately 145,000 cubic yards
of material (soil and rock) and placement of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Project grading and construction would occur over approximately 13 months and be would be
completed in 2014. The northern portion of the site adjacent to Vista del Norte preserve would
be landscaped and developed with a system of paved pedestrian paths.
ALTERNATIVES
As required by CEQA, the EIR examines a range of alternatives to the proposed project.
Studied alternatives include the following alternatives.
No Project (Alternative 1) – The No Project Alternative assumes that development of the
proposed project would not occur. The site would remain an undeveloped hillside. The site
would remain in its current condition and no improvements (including trails) would occur. It
should be noted that the No Project alternative would not preclude development of the site in
the future.
Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2) - This alternative assumes that 12 new senior-
restricted (55+ years of age or older) for-sale residential units would be developed on the
project site. These units would be located along Crestridge Road and would correspond to
ATTACHMENT 1-2
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-2
units 1 to 12 as shown on the site plan for the proposed project. The design and layout of these
units would be similar to that of the proposed project in that they would be townhome-style
and single-level living stacked flat residences. The units would be attached and two stories in
height. As with the proposed project, the height of several of these units would exceed 16 feet
above existing grade; therefore, a conditional use permit would be required. As with the
proposed project, access would be provided through the site to the City-owned lands (Vista Del
Norte Preserve) to the north. The undeveloped portion of the property would be restored with
native vegetation, with pedestrian trails connecting this area of the site to the adjacent preserve.
Open Space Preserve Alternative (Alternative 3) - This alternative would involve
incorporation of the site into the adjacent Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve and maintaining
the site as open space. Recreational amenities would be added to the site for use by the public,
including trails connecting to the existing Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve, which would
replace the existing informal paths used by the public at present. Amenities such as an overlook
area with seating would also be added.
This alternative would require a change in the land use designation and zoning for the site
from Institutional to Open Space. As part of this alternative, the site could be designated as
reserve open space under the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation
Planning (NCCP) Subarea Plan. It should be noted that this alternative would not achieve any
of the project objectives discussed in Section 2.0 (Project Description).
Other Institutional Use (Alternative 4) - This alternative would involve development of an
approximately 18,000 square foot, single-story (16 feet maximum height) building, or strip of
buildings depending on the use or uses at the site, directly adjacent to Crestridge Road. The
remainder of the site would be left in its current undeveloped state. Uses allowed in the
Institutional zone and that could be accommodated by this type of development include, but
are not limited to: minor professional and retail commercial uses, clinics and sanitariums (such
as an animal hospital), educational uses and places used primarily for religious services,
including parochial schools and convents.
Grading at the site would be limited to only what is required to accommodate the building and
the supporting infrastructure; retaining walls would be constructed at the rear of the structure
to limit the amount of alteration required to the slopes north of Crestridge Road. No on-site
parking would be provided as part of this alternative; therefore, all workers and visitors to the
site would be required to use on-street parking.
This alternative would not include provision for a pedestrian link to the adjacent Vista Del
Norte Preserve.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1 summarizes the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts,
recommended mitigation, and residual impacts. Please note that a number of potential impacts
are addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A to the EIR), where they were determined to be
less than significant without the need for further analysis in the EIR. These include impacts
related to:
ATTACHMENT 1-3
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-3
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public services
Recreation
Utilities and Service Systems
In the case of Cultural Resources, mitigation measures were provided in the Initial Study to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and are also included below. Please refer to the
Initial Study, Appendix A to this EIR, for further information related to these issues.
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
AESTHETICS
AES-1 The proposed Crestridge
Senior Housing project is located in
an area with rolling topography
allowing views of developed and
undeveloped hillsides in several
directions from public and private
viewpoints. The proposed project
would alter the view of the project
site from several of these
viewpoints, but would not block or
otherwise have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic view or
vista, including those identified in the
General Plan. This is a Class III,
adverse, but less than significant
impact.
None required. The following mitigation
measure is recommended:
AES-1 Tree Landscape Maintenance. Prior
to issuance of building permits, the applicant
shall prepare and submit for City review and
approval a landscape maintenance plan for the
project site. The plan shall demonstrate that:
The plan shall demonstrate that:
The mature heights of all
landscaping/foliage at the project site
would not exceed the roof ridgeline of the
adjacent or closest structure;
Foliage/Trees selected shall be of a
species that can be maintained at such
heights;
Landscaping at the site shall be maintained
on an on-going basis to ensure that foliage
does not exceed the roof ridgeline of the
closest structure; and
Landscape planting and maintenance
requirements shall be maintained for the
life of the project.
that includes a requirement to undertake tree
trimming at regular intervals, or as necessary,
to prevent trees at the site from extending
beyond one foot above the roof of the adjacent
or closest structure (to the tree/foliage). Trees
shall be of a species that can be maintained at
such heights.
Less than significant
AES 2 The proposed project would
introduce structural development,
new landscaping, and hardscape to
an open and undeveloped site, and
project grading would substantially
alter the site’s slope and ridgeline
None available. Significant and
unavoidable.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1-4
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-4
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
topography. In addition, the site is
identified on the Rancho Palos
Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects
Map as a “canyon and ridge” feature
and as “Undeveloped Lands
Impacting Visual Character;” grading
for and construction of the proposed
project would eliminate both of these
attributes. Impacts to the existing
visual character and quality of the
site and its surroundings would
therefore be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
AES-3 The proposed project would
result in new sources of light and
glare on and around the project site
due to introduction of new buildings,
hardscape and associated lighting.
Some of the new light and glare
would be visible from public and
private viewpoints. However, with
required adherence to the lighting
restrictions in City’s zoning
ordinance, impacts related to light
and glare would be Class III, less
than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Construction activity would
generate on and off site air pollutant
emissions that would exceed
SCAQMD construction thresholds
for NOx and PM10. On-site
construction-related emissions
would also exceed SCAQMD LSTs
for PM10 and PM2.5. However, with
implementation of mitigation,
temporary construction impacts
would be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
AQ-1(a) Construction Equipment Controls.
The following shall be implemented during
construction to minimize emissions of NOx
associated with diesel-fuelled construction
equipment.
1. All diesel construction equipment shall
meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission
standards.
2. Construction contractors shall minimize
equipment idling time throughout
construction. Engines shall be turned off if
idling would be for more than five minutes.
3. Equipment engines shall be maintained in
good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers’ specifications.
4. The number of pieces of equipment
operating simultaneously shall be
minimized.
5. Construction contractors shall use
alternatively fueled construction
equipment (such as compressed natural
gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric),
when feasible.
6. The engine size of construction
equipment shall be the minimum practical
size.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-5
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-5
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
7. Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction
equipment manufactured after 1996 (with
federally mandated clean diesel engines)
shall be utilized wherever feasible.
8. During the smog season (May through
October), the construction period should
be lengthened so as to minimize the
number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time.
AQ-1(b) Fugitive Dust Control Measures.
The following shall be implemented during
construction to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:
1. All exposed, disturbed, and graded areas
onsite shall be watered three times (3x)
daily until completion of project
construction to minimize the entrainment
of exposed soil.
2. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall
include watering the area to be graded or
excavated before commencement of
grading or excavating activities.
Application of water (preferably reclaimed,
if available) should penetrate sufficiently
to minimize fugitive dust during grading
activities.
3. Fugitive dust produced during grading,
excavation, and construction activities
shall be controlled by the following
activities:
• Trucks transporting material on and off
the site must be tarped from the point
of origin or must maintain at least one
feet of freeboard.
• All graded and excavated material,
exposed soil areas, and active portions
of the construction site, including
unpaved on-site roadways, shall be
treated to prevent fugitive dust.
Treatment shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, periodic
watering, application of
environmentally-safe soil stabilization
materials, and/or roll-compaction as
appropriate. Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed
water shall be used whenever
possible.
4. Ground cover must be replaced in
disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
5. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind
speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to
affect adjacent properties), all clearing,
ATTACHMENT 1-6
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-6
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
grading, earth moving, and excavation
operations shall be curtailed to the degree
necessary to prevent fugitive dust from
being an annoyance or hazard, either off-
site or on-site.
6. The contractor must provide adequate
loading/unloading areas that limit track-
out onto adjacent roadways through the
utilization of wheel washing, rumble
plates, or another method achieving the
same intent.
7. Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept
at least once per day, preferably at the
end of the day, if visible soil material is
carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
8. Personnel involved in grading operations,
including contractors and subcontractors,
shall wear respiratory protection in
accordance with California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health
regulations.
9. All residential units located within 500 feet
of the construction site must be sent a
notice regarding the construction
schedule of the proposed project. A sign
legible at a distance of 50 feet must also
be posted in a prominent and visible
location at the construction site, and must
be maintained throughout the construction
process. All notices and the signs must
indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities, as well as provide
a telephone number where residents can
inquire about the construction process
and register complaints.
10. Visible dust beyond the property line
emanating from the project must be
prevented to the maximum extent
feasible.
11. Signs shall be posted on-site limiting
construction traffic to 15 miles per hour or
less.
12. Dust control requirements shall be shown
on all grading plans.
13. These control techniques must be
indicated in project specifications.
Compliance with the measure shall be
subject to periodic site inspections by the
City.
ATTACHMENT 1-7
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-7
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
AQ-2 Operation of the proposed
project would generate criteria air
pollutant emissions. However,
regional emissions would not
exceed SCAQMD operational
significance thresholds. Therefore,
operational impacts to regional air
quality would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
AQ-3 The proposed project would
be consistent with the AQMP.
Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
AQ-4 Vehicle traffic associated
with the proposed project could
incrementally increase localized
carbon monoxide (CO) levels.
However, CO levels would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
further CO hotspot analysis and
would not be expected to exceed
federal or state ambient air quality
standards. Impacts would be Class
III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 The proposed Crestridge
Senior Housing Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
BIO-2 The proposed Crestridge
Senior Housing Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
BIO-3 The proposed Crestridge
Senior Housing Project would not be
expected to interfere substantially
with the movement of native resident
BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.
Site disturbance shall be prohibited during the
general avian nesting season (February 1 –
August 30), if feasible. If breeding season
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-8
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-8
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
or migratory wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. However, native bird
species commonly encountered in
urban areas could nest in the
dispersed toyon shrubs and
Brazilian peppertrees found at the
project site. Impacts would be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird
survey to determine the presence/absence,
location, and status of any active nests on or
adjacent to the project site. The surveys shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist approved
by the Community Development Department.
The extent of the survey buffer area
surrounding the site shall be established by the
qualified biologist to ensure that direct and
indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To
avoid the destruction of active nests and to
protect the reproductive success of birds
protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game
Code of California, nesting bird surveys shall
be performed twice per week during the three
weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation
clearance. In the event that active nests are
discovered, a suitable buffer (e.g. 30-50 feet for
passerines) should be established around such
active nests and no construction within the
buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active
(e.g. the nestlings have fledged and are no
longer reliant on the nest). No ground
disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer
until the City-approved biologist has confirmed
that breeding/nesting is completed and the
young have fledged the nest. Nesting birds
surveys are not required for construction
activities occurring between August 16 and
February 1.
BIO-4 The proposed Crestridge
Senior Housing Project would not
conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance. In
addition, the project site is not within
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan area. However, potential
introduction of non-native plant
species associated with on-site
landscaping could conflict with the
adopted Natural Conservation
Community Plan. Impacts would be
Class II, significant but mitigable.
BIO-4(a) Construction Best Management
Practices. The following measures shall be
employed as part of construction monitoring for
the site:
• Contractors shall be educated regarding
the off-site Reserve and the need to keep
equipment and personnel within the
project site prior to the initiation of
construction.
• Temporary construction fencing shall be
placed at the planned limits of disturbance
adjacent to the Reserve.
BIO-4(b) Provisions for Invasive Species
and Native Habitat Elements in the
Landscaping Plan. No species listed in the
Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006) or
identified as potentially invasive ornamental
species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP
Subarea Plan (2004) will be utilized in the
landscaping plan for the site. Species listed in
the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia
(Acacia longifolia), Sydney golden wattle
(Acacia cyclops), Peruvian pepper tree
(Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-9
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-9
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
terebenthifolia), black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), gum
tree (Eucalyptus spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.).
In addition, to the extent feasible the proposed
project shall incorporate native habitat
elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-
acre passive park with trails, scenic overlooks,
and community gardens in the northern portion
of the Crestridge Senior Housing development
project. Native habitat elements include using
locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon,
California sagebrush, coastal bluff buckwheat,
native grasses, and native perennial forbs as
part of the planting palette.
BIO-4(c) Construction Staging and
Stockpiling Areas. Grading and building plans
submitted for the proposed project for City
review and approval shall identify areas for
construction staging, fueling and stockpiling.
These areas shall be located as far as practical
from the Vista del Norte Preserve, and not
closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction activity would involve
earthwork such as grading and
trenching, which has the potential to
unearth yet-to-be discovered
archaeological resources. Impacts
would be Class II, significant but
mitigable.
CR-1 Discovery Procedure. If cultural
resources are encountered during construction,
the construction manager shall ensure that all
ground disturbance activities are stopped, and
shall notify the City Building and Safety
Department immediately to arrange for a
qualified archaeologist to assess the nature,
extent, and potential significance of any cultural
resources. If such resources are determined to
be significant, appropriate actions to mitigate
impacts to the resources must be identified in
consultation with a qualified archaeologist.
Depending upon the nature of the find, such
mitigation may include avoidance,
documentation, or other appropriate actions to
be determined by a qualified archaeologist.
The archeologist shall complete a report of
excavations and findings, and shall the report
to the South Central Coastal Information
Center. After the find is appropriately
mitigated, work in the area may resume.
Less than significant.
Project-related grading and
trenching has the potential to
unearth undiscovered
paleontological resources in a
sensitive area for paleontological
resources. Impacts would be Class
II, significant but mitigable.
CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to
the commencement of grading, the applicant
shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved
by the City to monitor grading and excavation.
Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading
activities are occurring. Additional monitors in
addition to one full-time monitor may be
required to provide adequate coverage if earth-
moving activities are occurring simultaneously.
Any cultural resources discovered by
construction personnel or subcontractors shall
be reported immediately to the paleontologist.
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-10
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-10
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
In the event undetected buried resources are
encountered during grading and excavation,
work shall be halted or diverted from the area
and the paleontologist shall evaluate the
resource and propose appropriate mitigation
measures. Measures may include testing, data
recovery, reburial, archival review and/or
transfer to the appropriate museum or
educational institution.
All testing, data recovery, reburial, archival
review or transfer to to research institutions
related to monitoring discoveries shall be
determined by the qualified paleontologist and
shall be reported to the City.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1 Seismically induced ground
shaking could destroy or damage
structures and infrastructure,
resulting in loss of property or risk to
human safety. However, mandatory
compliance with applicable City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and California
Building Code requirements would
reduce impacts to a Class III, less
than significant, level.
None required. Less than significant.
GEO-2 The slope stability analysis
prepared for the project site
concluded that the on-site existing
and proposed slopes could be
subject to landslides. This is
considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable impact.
GEO-2(a) Compliance with the
recommendations included in the previous
geotechnical studies undertaken at the site
shall be required. These recommendations
include maintenance of a uniform, near
optimum moisture content in the slope soils,
and avoidance of over-drying or excess
irrigation, which will reduce the potential for
softening and strength loss. In addition, slope
maintenance shall include the immediate
planting of the slope with approved, deep
rooted, lightweight, drought resistant
vegetation, as well as proper care of erosion
and drainage control devices, and a continuous
rodent control program. Brow ditches and
terraces shall be cleaned each fall, before the
rainy season, and shall be frequently inspected
and cleaned, as necessary, after each
rainstorm. Access to the slopes, including foot
traffic outside of designated pedestrian
footpaths, should be minimized to avoid local
disturbance to surficial soils. The City of Ranch
Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall
review and approve all final plans for slope
maintenance prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
GEO-2(b) The proposed retaining wall at the
top of the existing cut slope at the eastern
boundary of the site shall be designed as a
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-11
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-11
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
buried retaining wall to support the project and
underlying adverse geologic structure. The
system requires a design and depth of
embedment that would safeguard onsite
improvements in the event the offsite slope
failed.
GEO-2(c) An as-graded geotechnical report
shall be prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant following completion of grading. The
report shall include the results of in-grading
density tests, and a map clearly depicting
buttress fill keyway locations and depths,
removal area locations and depths, sub-
drainage system locations and depths and
geological conditions exposed during grading.
GEO-2(d) The applicant shall install
permanent inclinometer stations at the site to
allow the northern slope to be monitored for
possible movement following implementation of
the project. The number and location of the
inclinometer stations shall be determined by the
City Geologist. The applicant shall submit a
record of inclinometer readings along with any
recommendations from a geotechnical engineer
to the City every six months during the lifetime
of the project or until the City Geologist agrees
that semi-annual readings are no longer
necessary. In addition, readings and
geotechnical recommendations shall be
submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall
event (>2 times average monthly rainfall) or
following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic
event within 20 miles of the project site.
If the geotechnical engineer determines that
sufficient movement has taken place that
warrants further corrective or preventative
action, the project applicant shall be
responsible for all expenses associated with
the costs of implementing any remediation
recommended by the geotechnical engineer to
ensure that the slope remains stable. Further
monitoring by inclinometers may be required, if
recommended by the geotechnical engineer or
required by the City.
GEO-3 The proposed project is
located in an area underlain by
expansive soils. Impacts relating to
expansive soils are considered
Class II, significant but mitigable.
GEO-3(a) Geotechnical Recommendations.
Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or
Building Permit, the project applicant shall
comply with all recommendations contained
within the Geology and Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Group Delta
Consultants (2003) including:
• Following grading, the expansion potential
of the exposed subgrade shall be tested.
The design of foundations and slabs shall
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-12
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-12
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
consider the high expansion potential.
Following completion of grading and until
slabs and footings are poured, the exposed
soil and bedrock materials shall be
periodically wetted to prevent them from
drying out. Pre-saturation is also
recommended.
GEO-3(b) Expansive Soil Removal and/or
Treatment. Suitable measures to reduce
impacts from expansive soils could include one
or more of the following techniques, as
determined by a qualified geotechnical
engineer and approved by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Public Works Department:
• Excavation of existing soils and importation
of non-expansive soils. All imported fill
shall be tested and certified by a registered
Geotechnical Engineer and certified for use
as a suitable fill material; and
• On-site foundations shall be designed to
accommodate certain amounts of
differential expansion in accordance with
Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1 The proposed project would
generate additional GHG emissions
beyond existing conditions.
However, GHG emissions generated
by the project would not exceed the
applicable significance thresholds.
Impacts would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
GHG-2 The proposed project would
not conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs. Impacts
would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HWQ 1 During grading for and
construction of the proposed project,
the soil surface would be subject to
erosion and the downstream
watershed, including the Pacific
Ocean, could be subject to
temporary sedimentation and
discharges of various pollutants.
However, with implementation of
NPDES requirements, impacts
related to the potential for discharge
of various pollutants, including
sediment, would be Class III, less
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-13
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-13
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
than significant.
HWQ 2 Development of the
proposed senior housing project
would increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the project
site, and would also generate
various urban pollutants such as oil,
herbicides and pesticides, which
could adversely affect surface water
quality. Increased impermeable
surfaces on the site could also
increase the flow rate of stormwater
off the site compared to existing
conditions resulting in increased
erosion in downstream drainage
channels. However, with
implementation of NPDES
requirements and onsite stormwater
detention facilities, impacts related
to surface water quality would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
NOISE
N-1 Project construction would
intermittently generate high noise
levels on and adjacent to the site.
However, the project would be
required to comply with the City’s
regulations pertaining to the
allowable timing of construction
activities, and construction noise
would not be expected to exceed
typical levels associated with
grading and construction.
Therefore, impacts would be Class
III, less than significant.
Impacts would be less than significant;
nonetheless, the following recommended
mitigation measures would reduce the
temporary noise levels associated with project
construction.
N-1(a) Noise Mitigation and Monitoring
Program. The applicant shall provide, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring
Program that requires all of the following:
• Construction contracts that specify that all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile,
shall be equipped with properly operating
and maintained mufflers and other state
required noise attenuation devices.
• That property owners and occupants located
within 0.25 miles of the project site shall be
sent a notice, at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each
phase, regarding the construction schedule
of the project. All notices shall be reviewed
and approved by the Community
Development Director prior to the mailing or
posting and shall indicate the dates and
duration of construction activities, as well as
provide a contact name and telephone
number where residents can inquire about
the construction process and register
complaints.
• That prior to issuance of any Grading or
Building Permit, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City’s
Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-14
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-14
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Building Official how construction noise
reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment and vehicles, installing temporary
acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources, maximizing the
distance between construction equipment
staging and parking areas and occupied
residential areas, and electric air
compressors and similar power tools, rather
than diesel equipment, shall be used where
feasible.
• That during construction, stationary
construction equipment shall be placed such
that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
N-1(b) Construction Vehicle Idling. During
demolition, construction and/or grading
operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or
idle at the project site or in the adjoining public
rights-of-way before 7:00 am, Monday through
Saturday, in accordance with the permitted
hours of construction.
N-1(c) Staging Area. The construction
contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to
minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment. These areas shall be
located to maximize the distance between
activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses). This would
reduce noise levels associated with most types
of idling construction equipment.
N 1(d) Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All
diesel equipment shall be operated with closed
engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory recommended mufflers.
N 1(e) Electrically-Powered Tools and
Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to
run air compressors and similar power tools
and to power any temporary structures, such as
construction trailers or caretaker facilities.
N-1(f) Restrictions on Excavation and
Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation,
foundation-laying, and conditioning activities
shall be restricted to between the hours of
10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, Monday through Friday
and located to maximize the distance between
activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses).
N-1(g) Additional Noise Attenuation
Techniques. For all noise-generating
construction activity on the project site,
additional noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to reduce noise levels to the
maximum extent feasible. Such techniques
ATTACHMENT 1-15
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-15
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
may include, but are not limited to, the use of
sound blankets on noise generating equipment
and the construction of temporary sound
barriers between construction sites and nearby
sensitive receptors.
N-2 Project construction activities
could generate intermittent levels of
groundborne vibration affecting
residences and buildings adjacent to
the project site. However, these
impacts are temporary in nature and
would not exceed existing
thresholds. Therefore, impacts
would be Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
N-3 Project-generated traffic
would incrementally increase noise
levels on area roadways. However,
the increase in noise would not
exceed significance thresholds and
would therefore be Class III, less
than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
N-4 Operation of the proposed
project would generate noise levels
that may periodically be audible to
existing uses near the project site.
Onsite noise sources would include
parking lot noise, deliveries and
other service vehicles, visitors, and
onsite machinery. However, noise
from these sources would be below
the thresholds used for this analysis
and consistent with City Codes.
Therefore, impacts would be Class
III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
T-1 Project-generated traffic
would increase traffic volumes and
incrementally reduce levels of
service at each of the five study
intersections. However, the level of
service impact would not exceed
City thresholds at any intersection.
Therefore, impacts to study area
intersections would be Class III, less
than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
T-2 Project-generated traffic
would not exceed LOS standards for
Crestridge Road. Therefore,
impacts to street segments would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
T-3 Project-generated traffic
would not affect vehicle storage
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-16
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-16
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
capacity at the intersection of
Crenshaw Boulevard/Crestridge
Road. Storage capacity for the
westbound left-turn lane at the
intersection of Highridge
Road/Hawthorne Boulevard is
currently inadequate and would
remain inadequate in the Year 2015
scenario. However, project
generated traffic would not
exacerbate issues with storage
capacity. Therefore, impacts to
intersection queuing would be Class
III, less than significant.
T-4 Vehicles exiting and entering
the site would experience delays
equivalent to LOS B during the AM
and PM peak period for Year 2015
traffic conditions. In addition, review
of the current site plan indicates that
the proposed project driveway would
provide an adequate storage
reservoir to accommodate vehicles
entering the site. The internal
circulation system is also deemed to
be adequate. Therefore, impacts
related to site access and internal
circulation would be Class III, less
than significant.
None required. The following mitigation
measure is recommended:
T-4 Site Access. Install a stop sign and stop
bar at the proposed project driveway on
Crestridge Road. This feature shall be shown
on all project plans submitted for building permit
review.
Less than significant.
T-5 Adequate vertical sight
distance would be provided from the
proposed project driveway to the
crest on Crestridge Road. However,
a motorist’s sight distance could be
obstructed by future project
landscaping and/or hardscape along
the project frontage. This is a Class
II, significant but mitigable impact.
T-5 Maintain Sight Distance. Final project
plans shall show that landscaping and/or
hardscape at or near the proposed project
driveway is designed such that a driver’s clear
line of sight is not obstructed. In addition,
curbside parking shall be prohibited along the
property frontage within the identified sight
visibility lines shown on Figure 4.8-5 of the EIR.
Less than significant.
T-6 Project-generated trips at
identified Congestion Management
Program (CMP) locations would be
below CMP thresholds for arterial
monitoring intersection locations.
Also, there are no CMP freeway
monitoring locations in the vicinity of
the proposed project. In addition,
the existing transit service in the
project area would adequately
accommodate the increase of
project generated transit trips.
Impacts would therefore be Class III,
less than significant.
None required. Less than significant.
T-7 Access to Crestridge Road
and the project site during project
grading and construction would be
provided via Highridge Road and
None required. Less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-17
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-17
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measures Residual Impact
Crenshaw Boulevard. Although
there would be an increase of traffic
during grading and construction,
construction traffic would not result
in any significant impacts to key
study intersections. Therefore,
impacts relating to construction
traffic would be Class III, less than
significant.
ATTACHMENT 1-18
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Executive Summary
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES-18
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 1-19
PC RESOLUTION No.2012-22,RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE EIR FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 11,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-20
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;MAKING CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS;AND,A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067 &
SUB2012-00001)LOCATED AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD (APN 7589-
013-009).
WHEREAS,on February 22,2012,applications for an Environmental Assessment,
Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit (ZON2012-00067)and Tentative Tract Map
(SUB2012-00001)were submitted to the Community Development Departmentfor 147,000
cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and
above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601
Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009);and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012,pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act
(PSA),Government Code Section 65920 et seq.;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079)(the "EIR");and,
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study")for
the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,and on May 29,2012,the
Initial Study (IS)and Notice of Preparation (NOP)was released to the public and public
agencies for a comment period of 31 days (through June 29,2012).Further,a Public
Notice was mailed on May 29,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot
radius from the subject property.Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula
News on May 31,2012.Furthermore,the notice was posted on the City's website,and
emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the listserve for this project.
Lastly,a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall,
Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to
download and review;and,
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public
scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide
verbal comments on the IS/NOP,at which time the Planning Commission extended the
comment period through July 12,2012;and,
ATTACHMENT 1-21
WHEREAS,after the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared
taking various comments into account.After completing the Draft EIR,the document was
made available to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48-day public comment period that
concluded on October 8,2012;and,
WHEREAS,on September 26,2012 the Planning Commission held a public
comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in
addition to the typical written comments,on the Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,On October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was
provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was
scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13,2012 to review the Final EIR
and the entitlement applications for the proposed project.Subsequently,a notice was
emailed to the 611 people registered on the City's listserve for this project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 13,2012,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated
with the Project,the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the
Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,at the November 13,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting,landscaping,trail use,
and tower height,and return to the Planning Commission on December 11,2012 with
Resolutions for consideration.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081,and based
upon information contained in the Initial Study,the City ordered the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")forthe Project.The City contracted with independent
consultants for the preparation of the technical studies for the EIR and on May 29,2012,
prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible,trustee,and other
interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation were accepted during an extended 45-day
comment period ending on July 12,2012.During the scoping period,the City held an
advertised public meeting on June 26,2012,to facilitate public input regarding the scope of
the EIR.
Section 2:The City completed the Draft EIR,together with those certain technical
appendices (the "Appendices"),on August 22,2012.The City circulated the Draft EIR and
the Appendices to the public and other interested parties from August 22,2012 through
October 8,2012,for a 48-day comment period.In addition to receiving written comments
P.C.Resolution No.2012-22
ATTACHMENT 1-22
submitted during this time,public comments were received at the September 25,2012,
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
Section 3:During the Draft EIR public comment period,including at the
September 25,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the City received numerous letters
and comments.Responses to each of the individual comments,including a number of
master responses,were prepared and made available on October 25,2012.The
comments and responses are found from pages 8-1 through 8-83 of the Final EIR,and are
incorporated herein by reference.The written responses to comments were made
available for public review in the Community Development Department,at the Rancho
Palos Verdes Public Library and on the City's website.After reviewing the responses to
comments,the revisions to the Draft EIR,and the Final EIR,the Planning Commission
concludes that the information and issues raised by the comments and the responses
thereto do not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Section 4:The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR,including Appendices,
and the Comments and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR,dated October 2012;
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Section 5:The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
considered the content of the Final EIR,the public comments upon it,and other evidence
before the Commission prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on the
proposed project.The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the
independent judgment ofthe City as to the Project.The Planning Commission further finds
that the additional information provided in the staff reports,in the Final EIR and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Planning Commission Hearings,
does not constitute new information requiring further recirculation of the EIR under CEQA.
None of the information presented to the Planning Commission has deprived the public of
a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the
Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to
implement.
Section 6:The Planning Commission finds that the comments regarding the Draft
EIR and the responses to those comments were received by the Commission;that the
Planning Commission received documents and public testimony regarding the adequacy of
the EIR;and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all such
documents and testimony and the Final EIR prior to making its recommendation to the City
Council on the Project.In accordance with Guidelines Section 15090,the Planning
Commission hereby certifies the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,
as to the Final Project.
Section 7:Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning
Commission,the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not cause any significant
environmental impacts after mitigation except in the area of aesthetic (Visual Character
and Quality of the Site).Explanations for why the impacts other than the foregoing were
P.C.Resolution No.2012-22
ATTACHMENT 1-23
found to be less than significant are contained in the Environmental Findings set forth in
Exhibit A to this Resolution and more fully described in the Final EIR.
Section 8:Based upon the Final EIR and record before the Planning
Commission,the Planning Commission finds that the Project will create a significant
unavoidable impact to aesthetics (Visual Character and Quality of the Site).This
significant impact is further described in the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the
Crestridge Senior Housing Project",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference,and in the Final EIR.The findings in Exhibit A explain that all feasible
mitigation,including project revisions,have been incorporated to reduce the level of
impact,but that even after mitigation certain impacts remain significant.
Section 9:The EIR describes,and the Planning Commission has fully
considered,a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.With respect to each of the
alternatives analyzed in the EIR,the City Council hereby makes the findings,set forth in
Exhibit "A"which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.On the whole,the
Project is environmentally superior to other feasible alternatives.As such,the Planning
Commission finds all other alternatives and variations infeasible or not environmentally
preferable for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "A".
Section 10:For the significant and unavoidable impact,consisting of aesthetics
(Visual character and Quality of the site)as identified in the Final EIR as "significant and
unavoidable,"the Planning Commission hereby adopts the "Statement of Overriding
Considerations"as set forth in Exhibit "A",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.The City Council finds that each of the overriding benefits,by itself,would
justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in
the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings.
Section 11:The Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,attached hereto as Exhibit "B"and
incorporated herein by this reference,and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition
of the Project's approval.City staff shall be responsible for enforcement and monitoring the
mitigation measures as described in Exhibit "B".
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report,Environmental Assessment and other components of the
legislative record,in the Final EIR,in the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the
Crestridge Senior Housing Project",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference,and in the public comments received by the Commission,the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council
certify the Final EIR and adopt the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "B")
associated with Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067,thereby allowing
147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55
P.C.Resolution No.2012-22
ATTACHMENT 1-24
years and above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at
5601 Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009).
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of December 2012,by the
following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Gerstner,Leon,Vice-Chairman Emenhiser,Chairman Tetreault
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Lewis,Nelson,Tomblin
RECUSALS:None
P.C.Resolution No.2012-~
ATTACHMENT 1-25
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT UAU
to PC Resolution No.2012-22
FACTS,FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT
SCH #2012051079
Lead Agency:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Contact:Mr.Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planner
(310)544-5228
December 11,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-26
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Introduction 1
II Description of Project Proposed for Approval 2
III Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Initial Study jNotice Of
Preparation 5
IV Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant..12
V Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant With Mitigation and Findings .......18
VI Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After
Mitigation and Findings 28
VII Alternatives to the Proposed Project 30
VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 34
r
A
B
C
Introduction 34
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 34
Overriding Considerations 34
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-27
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
I INTRODUCTION
The California Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA)requires that a Lead Agency issue
hvo sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact
on the environment.The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings
where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts,presents facts supporting the
conclusions reached in the analysis,makes one or more of three findings for each
impact,and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings.
The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and Public Resources Code Section 21081.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)provides that:
No public agenClj shallllppl'ove or carl'y out II project for which lin EIR hilS been
certified which ide1ltifies ol/e or more significant environmentlll effects of the
project unless tlte pu/Jlic Ilgel/cy mllkes one or 1I10re written findings for ellch of
those significal/t effects,IlCc01l1plll/ied by II brief explanlltion of tile mtionllie for
ellch finding.
There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and
Findings pursuant to Section 15091 (a)of the CEQA Guidelines.
(1)Cltanges or Illtemtions Itllve been required in,or incorpomted iI/to,the project
whiclt Ilvoid or substllntilllly lessen tlte significant environ mel/tal effect as
identified in tlte finlll ErR.
(2)Suclt cltllnges or Illtemtions lire witltin tlte responsibilihj and jl/risdiction of
IlIlOtiler pl/blic Ilgency lind not tlte IlgenClj milking ti,e finding.Such elumges
IlIlve beenlldopted by suclt otlter agel/Clj 01'cllllllnd should be adopted by SUell
otller IlgenClj.
(3)Specific economic,legal,socilll,technological,or otller cOl/sidemtions,
including provision ofemployment opportunities for higltly tmined workers,
mllke infellsible tlte mitiglltion measures or project Illternlltives identified in tlte
final EIR.
These findings relevant to the project are presented in Sections V and VI.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings.Where a
project will cause unavoidable significant impacts,the Lead Agency may still approve
the project where its benefits ounveigh the adverse impacts.Further,as provided in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations,the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning
by which benefits are balanced against effects,and approves the project.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-28
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,the CEQA Lead Agency,finds and declares that the
proposed Cresh'idge Senior Housing Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR)has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information
contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Crestridge Senior
Housing Project,herein referred to as the "project."
Based upon its review of the EIR,the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate
assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project,
represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency,and sets forth an adequate
range of alternatives to this project.On December 11,2012,the Rancho Palos Verdes
Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No.2012-22,recommending that the City
Council Certify the EIR.Subsequently,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council certified
the EIR at its hearing of .2013.
The Final EIR is comprised of the following elements:
•The Final Crestridge Senior Housing EIR,including the responses to comments
on the Draft EIR and changes made to the EIR based on the comments received,
November 2012;);and
•Mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
The remainder of this document is organized as follows:
II.Description of project proposed for approval;
III.Effects determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study jNotice of
Prepara tion;
IV.Effects determined to be less than significant;
V.Effects determined to be less than significant with mitigation and findings;
VI.Environmental effects that remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation
and findings;
VII.Alternatives to the proposed project;and
VIII.Statement of Overriding Considerations.
II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROV AL
The proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project would involve the development of a senior-
restricted (55+years of age or older)for-sale residential community.The proposed project
would include 60 attached residential units at an overall density of 6.15 units per acre.Of the 60
units,three units would be dedicated affordable units available to very-low-income households,
in accordance with the City's inclusionary housing requirements.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
2 ATTACHMENT 1-29
The proposed townhome-style and single-level living stacked Hat residences would have two
bedrooms and two bathrooms in six different floor plans,ranging from approximately 1,700
square feet to 2,100 square feet.The units would be two stories in height with up to five
residences per structure.The main architectural style of the residences and other onsite
structures would be Spanish Colonial.Elements of this style include the use of arches,tile roofs,
window grilles,wrought iron,corbels,tile or stone decorative elements low-pitched,exterior
courtyards,tiled parapets and stucco walls.Other complimentary architectural styles would
also be incorporated in the residential building designs.Proposed landscaping includes a mix of
native and non-native plants and trees.
Maximum building heights would be approximately 27 feet from finished grade.Several
proposed buildings would exceed 16 feet in height above existing grade,and thus the project
requires approval of a Conditional Use permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.26.040.B.
A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment would be required to allow the
proposed mix of uses and density.
To accomplish the project,the existing slope would be excavated to accommodate flat building
pads stepping gradually downward from west to east.Much of the ridge itself would be
removed and graded generally Hat.The maximum depth of excavation would be approximately
40 feet at the western portion of the site.Site prepamtion would involve excavation of
approximately 145,000 cubic yards of material (soil and rock)and placement of approximately
2,000 cubic yards of fill material.The project grading and construction would occur over
approximately 13 months and be would be completed in 2014.Construction access would be
from Crestridge Road.
The project would include a number of community amenities.A private community h'ail
system would be provided in open space areas in the northern portion of the site adjacent to the
Vista del Norte preserve.A portion of the on-site trails including a pedestrian connection from
Cresh'idge Road to the preserve would be open to the public,which would serve to connect the
off-site City trails on the neighboring Preserve with Crestridge Road through the proposed
development.The community trails would also access the proposed 13,000-square-foot outdoor
community recreation area located at the northeastern corner of the site.The amenities
proposed for this area would include a patio and trellis,a community conversation and
gathering stage,a sundeck and outdoor living room,barbeque facilities,bocce ball courts,and
picnic tables.An approximately 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and
sundeck would provide a second,centralized community amenity for the residents.
The proposed project would have a gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road.The vehicular
entry gate would have a key pad and call box with sufficient stacking distance at the entrance to
allow multiple cars to enter without impeding traffic on Crestridge Road.Remote and keypad
entry would be two options for residents accessing the site through the gate.Visitors would be
able to use the call boxes to call residents to open the gates.A turnaround would be provided
should visitors not be able to reach a resident to be allowed inside the community.Pedestrian
entry would also be provided adjacent to the driveway;however,it would be an un-gated
pedestrian walkway with an entry feature.
Once inside the community,internal private streets would be designed to be a minimum of 26
feet wide.No parallel parking would be allowed on the streets.Guest parking would be
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
3
ATTACHMENT 1-30
provided by 31 perpendicular parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the
two-car garages available to each resident.
Public pedestrian access would be provided through the community.A sidewalk and trail
system would be provided that connects visitors and residents from Cresh'idge Road through
the site to view points and to the City's property to the north.As specified above,the pedestrian
access would not be gated;this would facilitate and ensure public access through the
community to the h'ails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north
The table below provides a summary of proposed development.
Lot Size 9.76 acres
Senior Residential Units 60
Density 6.15 dwelling units/acre
Maximum Building Height Approximately 27 feet from finished grade
142,342 sf (units and garages)
Project Square Footage 2,400 sf (community room)
144,742 sf (total)
Building Footprints 90,527 sf (21 %of site)
Streets/Parking/Driveways 62,798 sf(15%of site)
Private Yards 16,404 sf (4%of site)
Open Space/Landscaping 255,394 sf (60%of site)
120 garage spaces (2 per unit)
Parking 31 uncovered spaces <0.52 per unit)
151 spaces (2.52 spaces/unit)
•Community Traits
•13,000-sf outdoor community recreation area
0 patio and trellis
0 conversation and gathering stage
0 sundeck and outdoor living room
0 barbeque facilities
0 bocce ball courts
0 picnic tables
•2,400 sf Community Service Center
Community Amenities 0 recreation and lounge area
0 kitchen
0 computer center/business room
0 office
0 fitness room
0 indoor and outdoor fireplaces
0 outdoor living area
0 spa
0 barbeque
0 seating area
•Communily garden and orchard
sf -square feet
Source:Trumark Companies,2012
r 4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-31
III EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE
INITIAL STUDY/NOnCE OF PREPARAnON
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes conducted an Initial Study to determine significant effects of
the project.In the course of this evaluation,certain impacts of the project were found to be less
than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the
absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type.The effects determined not to be
significant are not included in primary analysis sections of the Final ElR (refer to Appendix A,
Initial Study and Notice of Preparation,in the Draft ElR).
AESTHETICS
Will tlIe project:
Substantially damage scerzic resources,including,but not hmited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.There are no scenic resources such as trees,rock outcroppings,or historic
buildings on the site,and there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the
site.Therefore,development of the project would not affect any scenic resources within
a state scenic highway.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Famzland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agenclf'to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.The project area is not located in an area designated as Prime or
Unique Farmland,or within Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract,conflict with existing
zoning or cause rezoning offorest land,or result in a loss offorest land?
No Impact.The subject property is not zoned or otherwise designated for
agricultural uses,nor is the site subject to a Williamson Act contract.The project
site is not located adjacent to agricultural operations,and currently contains no
significant agricultural operations.As such,no conflicts with a Williamson Act
contract or existing zoning for agricultural use would occur.The project would
not involve conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
Involve other changes in tire existing environment which due to their location or nature,could result in
conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.As such,project development will not have the potential to result
in the loss or conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
5 ATTACHMENT 1-32
AIR QUALITY
Will the Project:
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.The project will involve adding 60 residential
units for seniors in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The residential use of the
property will not generate objectionable odors during normal operations.
Therefore,the project will not generate objectionable odors that would affect a
substantial number of people.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including,bllt not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,
hydrological interruption,or other means?
No Impact.The project site is located in a suburban area surrounded by
development.There are no watercourses or wetlands on or adjacent to the
project site.The project does not involve development in a federally protected
wetland and does not involve improvements that would impair or interrupt
hydrological flow into a wetland.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact.The proposed project would involve construction of
new structures on a vacant site.There are no historic structures located on the
adjacent properties;therefore,the project will not affect historic resources.
Disturb any human remains,including those interred olltside offormal cemeteries?
No impact.No known burial sites have been identified Witllin the project area or
in the vicinity and given the previous disturbance at the site the likelihood of
finding human remains is low.In the unlikely event that human remains were
discovered at the site,California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that all construction or excavation must be stopped in the event of an accidental
discovery of any human remains until the County coroner or medical examiner
can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Will the Project:
r 6
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-33
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk ofloss,injury,or
death involving:rupture ofa known earthquake fault,as delineated on the Alquist -riolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Mal'or based on other substantial evidence ofa known fault;or seismic-related ground
failure,including liquefacti011?
Less than significant.There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within
the City.The project site is located approximately O.S miles northwest of the
inactive Cabrillo Fault and approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Palos
Verdes Fault.Therefore,the potential for surface rupture at the project area is
considered low.The project site is located within an area that has low to no
potential for liquefaction.Further,project construction would be required to
conform to the California Building Code as adopted by the City in Section
15.04.010 of the Municipal Code,which further reduce any impacts caused by
unstable soils.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse?
Less than significant.According to the California Department of Conservation
Seismic Hazard Zones Map,the site is not located in an area that is subject to
settlement due to seismic shaking,liquefaction,or lateral spreading.
Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use ofseptic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for tile disposal of waste water?
Less than Significant.The proposed development would be connected to the
City sewer system and would not use on-site septic systems for wastewater
h·eatment.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Will tile project:
Create a significant hazard to tile public or environment through tile routine transport,use or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Less than significant.The project would involve construction of 60 residential
units on vacant land.By their na ture,the proposed residential uses would not
involve the transport,use,or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous
materials and would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area.
Create a significant hazard to tile public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving tile release of hazardous materials into the environment?Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances or waste within %mile ofan
existing or proposed school?Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or tile environment?
Less than significant.The project will not be located in an area with known soil
or groundwater contamination,will not emit hazardous emissions or involve
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
7
ATTACHMENT 1-34
handling of hazardous materials,and was not determined to be at risk for any
hazards in a Phase I prepared for an adjacent property.Therefore,the potential
for the proposed project to release hazardous materials would be extremely low.
For a project located within all airport lalld use plall or,where such a plan has not beell adopted,withill
two miles ofa pllhlic airport or public nse airport,would the project resllit in a safety hazard for people
residing or working ill the project area?For a project within the vicil1ilt)ofa private airstrip,wOllld the
project result ill a safelt)Iwzard for people residing or workil1g ill the project area?
No Impact.The project site is located over three miles from the nearest
airport/airstrip,the Torrance Municipal Airport.No impacts are anticipated.
Would the project impair implemeutation ofor physically interfere with an adopted emergellcy response
plan or e1llergenCl)evacuation plan?
No Impact.The proposed project would not change the aligrunent of or access through
streets serving the project site or surrounding area,and thus would not impair
implementation of or physically i.nterfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
WOldd ti,e project 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?
Less than significant.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,including the project site,is
identified as a High Fire Hazard Area.However,Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
Section 8.08.010 adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code,Title 32,as the Fire Code of
tl,e City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The County maintains fire safety requirements,
development standards and regulations,and standard fees,for new development.
Building standards for fire hazards,including roof coverings,construction materials,
structural components,and clearing of brush and vegetative growth,are administered
by the LACFD and the City's Building and Safety Division.The new residential
buildings would be required to be constructed to the City's most recently adopted
Building Code.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Will the Project:
Place housing within a laO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard BOlllldan)or
Flood Insurance Rate Mnp or otller flood hazard delineation map?Place within a lOa-year flood hazard
area strucltLres Wllicll would impede or redirect flood flOWS.
No Impact.According to tile Federal Emergency Management Agency tile
project site is located outside the 100-year flood zone). Therefore,no significant
flood impacts are anticipated.
Expose people or structures to a sigllificant risk of loss,injury,or death involving flooding,including
flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam?
r 8
City of Rancho Patos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-35
No Impact.No dams or levees are located in the vicinity of the project site.In
addition,the project area does not lay within any known dam inundation zones.
Thus,the potential for flooding due to dam failure is low
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,inju 11/,or death from inundation by seicile,
tsunami or mudfl07l'?
Less than significant.The project site is approximately two miles from the Pacific
Ocean at an elevation of approximately 1,167 feet above sea level.In addition,
the project area is located outside a tsunami inundation area.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:
Physically divide an established communil1)?
No Impact.The project would involve construction of 60 residential units on a
single parcel of land that is surrounded by residential,open space,and
institutional uses.The project would not physically divide an established
community.No impacts would result.
Conflict with any applicable land use plan,poliCl),or regulation ofan agenCl)with jurisdiction over tile
project adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant.With approval of a Conditional Use Permit,the project
would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site.Also,
the project would be generally consistent with the intent of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Conceptual Trails Plan due to the provision of pedestrian pathways
through the site that link Crestridge Road with the Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Would tire Project:
Result in the loss ofavailabilil1)ofa known mineral resource that would be ofvalue to tire region and tire
residents of the state?Result in tire loss ofavailability ofa locally-important mineral resource recovel1)
site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact.The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan states that there are no
mineral resources present within the community that would be economically
feasible for extraction.Construction of 60 residential units on a vacant site
would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value locally,regionally,or to the State.
NOISE
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within
two miles ofa public airport or public use airport,would tile project expose people residing or working in
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
9 ATTACHMENT 1-36
the project area to excessive noise levels?For a project within the vicinin)ofa pril'llte airstrip,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessil,c noise levels?
No Impact.The project area is not included within an airport land use plan,and
is approximately 13 miles from the Los Angeles and Long Beach airports,and
approximately three miles from Torrance Municipal Airport.The project is also
not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.Significant impacts relating to
aircraft noise are not anticipated.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Will the project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant.The current estimated population of the City is 41,897.
With implementation of the proposed project,the population in the City would
total 42,057.The population projections for Rancho Palos Verdes anticipate a
population of 43,215 in 2020.Therefore,the increase in residents would not
exceed planned growth forecasts in the City.
Displace substantial numbers ofexisting housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact.Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any
housing or people,as the site is currently vacant.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for other public sendces?
Less Than Significant Impact.The proposed project is not expected to adversely
affect any services.
RECREATION
Will the Project increase tlre use ofexisting neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such tlmt substantial physical deterioration of tlre facilin)would occur or be accelemted?Does
the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
wlzich might hmJe an adverse effect on the environment?
r
Less than significant.The project could incrementally increase the use of
recreational facilities in the project vicinity,but would not cause substantial
physical deterioration of recreational facilities.The project area contains existing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
10
ATTACHMENT 1-37
residential uses and is adequately served by recreational facilities.In addition,
the project applicant would be required to pay fees pursuant to City Municipal
Code Section 16.20.100.Recreational amenities are included in the project;
impacts of the construction of these facilities have been addressed as part of the
project's potential effects as a whole.
TRANSPORT ATION(TRAFFIC
Will the Project:
Result in change in air traffic pattel'lls,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact.The project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Will the Project:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
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?Result in a
determination by the wllstewater treatment provider which serves or may sen'e the project that it has
adequate capacity to sen'"the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less than significant.There is currently available capacity at the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant (JWPCP),which will treat wastewater from the site.Therefore,the JWPCP
will have capacity to treat the additional flow of wastewater from the project and no
improvements in the wastewater treatment system will be required.
Have sufficient water supplies available to senle the project from existing entitlements and resources,or
are new expended entitlements needed?
Less than significant.The project will generate demand for approximately 11,700 gpd or
13.1 acre-feet per year of water.Based on current and projected water supplies and
demand for the West Basin Municipal Water District,sufficient water will be available to
meet demand associated with the project.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacih}to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant.Puente Hills Landfill is the primary landfill used by the City and
has approximately 4,200 tons per day of available capacity.Although the project would
incrementally increase solid waste generation,the daily solid waste generation by the
project will be within the available capacity at the Puente Hills Landfill.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
11 ATTACHMENT 1-38
IV EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE EIR
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes found that the project would have a less than significant
impact with respect to a number of environmental topics discussed in the EIR,without the need
for mitigation.A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each
topic area listed below.
AESTHETICS
Scenic Views or Vistas.The proposed project is located in an area with rolling
topography allowing views of developed and undeveloped hillsides in several
directions from public and private viewpoints.The proposed project would alter
the view of the project site from several of these viewpoints,but would not block
or otherwise have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista,including
those identified in the General Plan.This is a Class Ill,adverse,but less than
significant impact.Note that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless
recommended to further reduce impacts on impacts from viewpoints in the
surrounding area.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
AES-l Tree Maintenance.All landscaping throughout the development (in both the
common areas and in private yard and balcony areas)shall be maintained so not exceed
the height of the line depicted on the photographs taken from 5623,5649,and 5575
Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Heights Drive (Exhibit B,to PC Resolution No.2012-
23).
Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall prepare and submit for City
review and approval a landscape plan for the project site.The plan shall demonstrate
that:
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed
the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B,to
Resolution No.2012-~which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the
development.
Light and Glare.The proposed project would result in new sources of light and
glare on and around the project site due to introduction of new buildings,
hardscape and associated lighting.Some of the new light and glare would be
visible from public and private viewpoints.However,with required adherence
to the lighting restrictions in City's zoning ordinance,impacts related to light
and glare would be Class III,less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
Operation of the Project.Operation of the proposed project would generate
criteria air pollutant emissions.However,regional emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD operational significance thresholds.Therefore,operational impacts to
regional air quality would be Class III,less than significant.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
12 ATTACHMENT 1-39
Consistency with Regional Plans.The proposed project would generate
population growth,but such growth is within the population projections upon
which the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)is based.Therefore,proposed
project would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be Class lll,less
than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Increased Traffic.Vehicle traffic
associated with the proposed project could incrementally increase localized
carbon monoxide (CO)levels.However,CO levels would not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds for further CO hotspot analysis and would not be expected to exceed
federal or state ambient air quality standards.Impacts would be Class lll,less
than significant.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Candidate,Sensitive or Special Status Species.The proposed project would not
have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in
local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Deparhnent
of Fish and Game or U.s.Fish and Wildlife Service.Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
Riparian Habitat.The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans,policies,or regulations or by the California Deparhnent of
Fish and Game or U.s.Fish and Wildlife Service.Impacts would be Class lll,less
than significant.
GEOLOGY
Seismically-Induced Ground Shaking.Seismically induced ground shaking
could desh'oy or damage structures and infrastructure,resulting in loss of
property or risk to human safety.However,mandatory compliance with
applicable City of Rancho Palos Verdes and California Building Code
requirements would reduce impacts to a Class lll,less than significant,level.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.The proposed project would
generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions.However,GHG
emissions generated by the project would not exceed the applicable significance
thresholds.Impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
Consistency with Adopted Plans,Policies or Regulations.Development
facilitated by the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in
GHG emissions.However,the proposed project would be consistent with the
GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 Climate Action Team Report as
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
13
ATTACHMENT 1-40
well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures.
Impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Construction Discharge and Surface Water Quality.During grading for and
construction of the proposed project the soil surface would be subject to erosion
and the downstream watershed,including the Pacific Ocean,could be subject to
temporary sedimentation and discharges of various pollutants.However,with
implementation of NPDES requirements,impacts related to the potential for
discharge of various pollutants,including sediment,would be Class III,less than
significant.
Operational Discharge and Site Drainage.Development of the proposed project
would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the project site,and
would also generate various urban pollutants such as oil,herbicides and
pesticides,which could adversely affect surface water quality.Increased
impermeable surfaces on the site could also increase the flow rate of stormwater
off the site compared to existing conditions resulting in increased erosion in
downstream drainage channels.However,with implementation of NPDES
requirements and the proposed onsite stormwater detention facilities,impacts
related to surface water quality would be Class III,less than significant.
NOISE
Construction Noise.Project consh'uction would intermittently generate high
noise levels on and adjacent to the site,However,the project would be required
to comply with the City's regulations pertaining to the allowable timing of
construction activities,and construction noise would not be expected to exceed
typical levels associated with grading and consh'uction.Therefore,impacts
would be Class III,less than significant,Note that the following mitigation
measure is nonetheless recommended to further reduce temporary noise levels
associated with project construction.
Recommended Mitigation Measures:
r
N-l(a)Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program.The applicant shall
provide,to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that
requires all of the following:
•Construction conh'acts that specify that all construction
equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers and other state required
noise attenuation devices,
•That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles
of the project site shall be sent a notice,at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each phase,regarding the
construction schedule of the project,All notices shall be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
14
ATTACHMENT 1-41
•
•
Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the
dates and duration of construction activities,as well as
provide a contact name and telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and
register complaints.
That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit,the
Applicant shall demonsb'ate to the satisfaction of the City's
Building Official how construction noise reduction methods
such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles,installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary consb'uction
noise sources,maximizing the distance between construction
equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential
areas,and electric air compressors and similar power tools,
rather than diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible.
That during consh'uction,stationary construction equipment
shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receivers.
r
N-l(b)Construction Vehicle Idling.During demolition,construction
and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park,queue and/or
idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way
before 7:00 am,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction.
N-l(c)Staging Area.The construction contractor shall provide stagin.g
areas onsite to minimize off-site transportation of heavy
construction equipment.These areas shall be located to maximize
the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses).This would reduce noise levels
associated with most types of idling construction equipment.
N 1(d)Diesel Equipment Mufflers.All diesel equipment shall be
operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory recommended mufflers.
N l(e)Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.Electrical power shall
be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers or
caretaker facilities.
N-l(f)Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning.
Excavation,and conditioning activities shall be restricted to
between the hours of 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through
Friday and located to maximize the distance between activity and
sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses).
N-l(g)Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques.For all noise-
generating construction activity on the project site,additional
noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
15
ATTACHMENT 1-42
levels to the maximum extent feasible.Such techniques may
include,but are not limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise
generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound
barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors.
Construction Vibration.Project construction activities could generate
intermittent levels of groundborne vibration affecting residences and buildings
adjacent to the project site.However,these impacts are temporary in nature and
would not exceed existing thresholds.Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less
than significant.
Traffic Noise.Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels
on area roadways.However,the increase in noise would not exceed significance
thresholds and would therefore be Class lit less than significant.
Operational Noise,Operation of the proposed project would generate noise
levels that may periodically be audible to existing uses near the project site.
Onsite noise sources would include parking lot noise,deliveries and other
service vehicles,visitors,and onsite machinery.However,noise from these
sources would be below the thresholds used for this analysis and consistent with
City Codes.Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less than significant.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Intersections.Project-generated traffic would increase traffic volumes and
incrementally reduce levels of service at each of the five study intersections.
However,the level of service impact would not exceed City thresholds at any
intersection.Therefore,impacts to study area intersections would be Class III,
less than significant.
Roadway Segments.Project-generated traffic would not exceed LOS standards
for Crestridge Road.Therefore,impacts to street segments would be Class III,
less than significant.
Storage Capacity.Project-generated h'affic would not affect vehicle storage
capacity at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard/Crestridge Road.Storage
capacity for the westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Highridge
Road/Hawthorne Boulevard is currently inadequate and would remain
inadequate in the Year 2015 scenario.However,project generated traffic would
not exacerbate issues with storage capacity.Therefore,impacts to intersection
queuing would be Class III,less than significant.
Site Access and Internal Circulation.Vehicles exiting and entering the site
would experience delays equivalent to LOS B during the AM and PM peak
period for Year 2015 traffic conditions.In addition,review of the current site
plan indicates that the proposed project driveway would provide an adequate
storage reservoir to accommodate vehicles entering the site.The internal
circulation system is also deemed to be adequate.Therefore,impacts related to
site access and internal circulation would be Class lll,less than significant.Note
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
16
ATTACHMENT 1-43
that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further to
further improve site circulation and access.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
T-4 Site Access.Install a stop sign and stop bar at the proposed
project driveway on Crestridge Road.This feature shall be shown
on all project plans submitted for building permit review.Further.
landscaping at or near the proposed driveway shall not obstruct a
driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public
Works Department.
CMP Arterial Monitoring Intersections.Project-generated trips at identified
Congestion Management Program (CMP)locations would be below CMP
thresholds for arterial monitoring intersection locations.Also,there are no CMP
freeway monitoring locations in the vicinity of the proposed project.In addition,
the existing transit service in the project area would adequately accommodate the
increase of project generated transit trips.Impacts would therefore be Class III,
less than significant.
Construction Traffic.Access to Crestridge Road and the project site during
project grading and construction would be provided via Highridge Road and
Crenshaw Boulevard.Although there would be an increase of traffic during
grading and construction,construction h·affic would not result in any significant
impacts to key study intersections.Therefore,impacts relating to construction
traffic would be Class III,less than significant.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
17
ATTACHMENT 1-44
V EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH
MITIGATION,AND FINDINGS
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Final EIR,the Technical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to
California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(l)and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(l)that changes or
alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the proposed project which would avoid
or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR in the following categories:Air Quality,
Biological Resources,Geology,Traffic and Circulation.The potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City Council finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a less
than significant level after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR.
The Draft ErR is incorporated by reference.
AIR QUALITY
The project's potential impacts with regard to air quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise
less than significant are discussed in Section 4.2,Air Qualihj,of the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED,
Construction-Related Air Emissions.Construction activity would generate on and off site air
pollutant emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)construction thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NO,)and particulates less than 10
microns in diameter (PMlO).On-site construction-related emissions would also exceed
SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for PMIO and particulates less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM,.5).
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project thnt avoid or
substantially lessen tlte significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft ElK
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts to air quality from construction activities have been eliminated or
substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation measures identified
in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-l(a)Construction Equipment Controls.The following shall be
implemented during construction to minimize emissions of NOx
associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment.
1.All diesel construction equipment sJuzll meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission
standards,
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
18 ATTACHMENT 1-45
r
2.Construction contractors slUlll minimize equipment idling time throughout
construction.Engines SIUlll be turned off if idling would be for more tlUlIl
fil 1e I1linutes.
3.Equipment engines shall be liiaintained in good condition and in proper
tune as per IIlmzufacturers'specificntions.
4.The number ofpieces ofequipment operating simultaneously shall be
minimized.
5.Construction contractors shall use altenzatil!ely fueled construction
equipl1lent (such as compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
6.The engine size ofconstruction equipl1zent shall be the minimum
practical size.
7.Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after
1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines)shall be utilized
wherever feasible.
8.During the smog season (May through October),the construction period
should be lengthened so as to minimize the number ofvehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
AQ-l(b)Fugitive Dust Control Measures.The following shall be
implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:
1.All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite shall be watered three
times (3x)daily until completion ofproject construction to minimize the
entraimnent ofexposed soil.
2.Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be
graded or excavated before commencement ofgrading or excavating
activities.Application of water (preferably reclaimed,if available)should
penetrate sufficiently to lninimize fugitive dust during grading
activities.
3.FugitilJe dust produced during grading,excavation,and construction
activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
•Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from
the point oforigin or must maintain at least one Jeet offreeboard.
•All graded and excl11mted material,exposed soil areas,and active
portions of the construction site,including unpl11Jed on-site
roadways,shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment slzall
include,but not necessarily be limited to,periodic watering,
application of emJ iron men tally-safe soil stabilization materials,
and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall be done as
often as necessanJ and reclaimed water shall be used WllCnelJer
possible.
4.Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
5.During periods ofhigh winds (i.e.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,
and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessanJ to
prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site
or on-site.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
19
ATTACHMENT 1-46
6.77ze contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas tizat limit
track-out onto adjacent roadways tIzrougiz tize utilization ofwizeel
waslzing,nimble plates,or anotlzer metizod aclzieving tlze sa/lle intent.
7.Adjacent streets and roads slzall be swept at least once per day,preferably
at tize end of tlze day,if visible soil material is ca1'l'ied over to adjacent
streets and roads.
8.Personnel invoilled in grading operations,including contractors and
subcontractors,sizall wear l'espiraton)protection in accordance witlz
California Division of OCCllpatiozwl Safeh)and Healtiz regulations.
9.All residential units located witlzin 500 fret of tlze constructiozt site must
be sent a notice regarding tize construction sclzedule of tize proposed
project.A sign legible at a distance of50 feet must also be posted in a
prominent and visible location at tlze construction site,and must be
maintained tIzrougizout tize construction process.All notices and tile signs
must indicate tlze dates and duration ofconstmction activities,as well as
provide a teleplzone Illl/llber wizere residents can inquire about tlze
construction process and register complaints.
10.Visible dust beyond tlze properh)line emanating from tlze project must be
prevented to tlze maximum extent feasible.
11.Signs sizall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per
Izour or less.
12.Dust control requirements sizall be slzown on all grading plans.
13.77zese control teclzniques IllUSt be indicated in project specifications.
Compliance witiz tlze measure slzall be subject to periodic site inspections
by tlze City.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project's potential impacts with regard to biological resources that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATiON INCORPORATED.
Wildlife Movement and Corridors.The proposed project would not be expected to interfere
substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildIi£e corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.However,native bird species commonly encountered in urban areas could nest in
the dispersed toyon shrubs and Brazilian peppertrees found at the project site.
Finding
•Cizanges or alterations Izave been required in,or incorporated into,tlze project wlziclz avoid or
substantially lessen tlze significant environmental effect as identified in tlze Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts to wildlife movement associa ted with the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation
measure identified in the Draft EIR.
r 20
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-47
Mitigatioll Measures:
BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.Site disturbance shall be
prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 -
August 30),if feasible.If breeding season avoidance is not feasible,a
qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey
to determine the presence/absence,location,and status of any active
nests on or adjacent to the project site.The surveys shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community
Development Department.The extent of the survey buffer area
surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to
ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.To
avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive
success of birds protected by MBT A and the Fish and Game Code of
California,nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week
during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance.
In the event that active nests are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g.30-
50 feet for passerines)should be established around such active nests
and no construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified
biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g.the
nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest).No
ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the
City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is
completed and the young have fledged the nest.Nesting birds
surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between
August 16 and February 1.
Consistency with Natural Conservation Community Plan.The proposed project would
not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance.In addition,the project site is not within an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan area.However,potential inh'oduction of non-native
plant species associated with on-site landscaping could conflict with the adopted
Natural Conservation Community Plan (NCCP).
Finding
•Challges or alteratiolls have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substalltially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified ill the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts resulting from conflicts with the NCCP associated with the proposed
project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of
the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.
BIO-4(a)Construction Best Management Practices.The following measures
shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for the site:
r City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21
ATTACHMENT 1-48
•Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and
the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site
prior to the initiation of consh·uction.
•Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned
limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.
BIO-4(b)Provisions for Invasive Species and Native Habitat Elements in the
Landscaping Plan.No species Iisted in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant
Inventory (2006)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental
species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan (2004)will be
utilized in the landscaping plan for the site.Species listed in the
Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),Sydney
golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinlts molle),
Brazilian pepper tree (Scllinlts terebenthifolia),black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia),myoporum (Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus
spp.),and pines (Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the
proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the
landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with h'aiIs,scenic
overlooks,and community gardens in the northern portion of the
Crestridge Senior Housing development project.Native habitat
elements include using 10caIIy sourced native shrubs such as toyon,
CaIifomia sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,native grasses,and
native perennial forbs as part of the planting palette.
BIO-4(c)Construction Staging and Stockpiling Areas.Grading and building
plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and
approval shall identify areas for construction staging,fueling and
stockpiling.These areas shall be located as far as practical from the
Vista del Norte Preserve,and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve
boundary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project's potential impacts with regard to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix A to the Draft E1R.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Will tile Project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofan archaeological resource as defined in
§15064.5?Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Potential to Disturb Undiscovered Archaeological or Paleontological
Resources.Previous archaeological studies in the project area and at the site
itsel£have not identified any archaeological resources.In addition,the site and
surrounding areas have been extensively disturbed over the years.Therefore,
the potential for archeological resources,unique paleontological resources or
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
22
ATTACHMENT 1-49
unique geologic features to be found onsite is low.However,construction
activity for the residential units would involve earthwork such as grading and
trenching,which has the potential to unearth yet-to-be discovered archaeological
and paleontological resources.However,potential impacts to previously
unknown resources are likely mitigable with standard mitigation measures and
procedures to be followed if resources or remains are discovered during grading
and site preparation.
Finding
•Cilanges or alterations ilave been required in,or incorporated into,tile project widell avoid or
substantially lessen tile significant environmental effect as identified in tile Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts resulting from conflicts with the NCCP associated with the proposed
project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of
the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.
CR-l Discovery Procedure.If cultural resources are encountered during
construction,the construction manager shall ensure that all ground
disturbance activities are stopped,and shall notify the City Building and
Safety Department immediately to arrange for a qualified archaeologist to
assess the nature,extent,and potential significance of any cultural
resources.If such resources are determined to be significant,appropriate
actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in
consultation with a qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the nature
of the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,documentation,or
other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.
The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and
shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center.After
the find is appropriately mitigated,work in the area may resume.
CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring.Prior to the commencement of grading,the
applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to
monitor grading and excavation.Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever
grading activities are occurring.Additional monitors in addition to one
full-time monitor may be required to provide adequate coverage if earth-
moving activities are occurring simultaneously.Any cultural resources
discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall be reported
immediately to the paleontologist.In the event undetected buried
resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be
halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the
resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may
include testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review and/or transfer
to the appropriate museum or educational institution.
All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or transfer to to
research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
23 ATTACHMENT 1-50
determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the
City.
GEOLOGY
The project's potential impacts with regard to geology that can be mitigated or are otherwise
less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4,Geologtj,of the Draft EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFlCANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Slope Stability.The slope stability analysis prepared for the project site concluded that the on-
site existing and proposed slopes could be subject to landslides.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts from slope instability as a result of the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of a mitigation
measures identified in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure:
GEO-2(a)Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous
geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shall be required.These
recommendations include maintenance of a uniform,near optimum
moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of over-drying or
excess irrigation,which will reduce the potential for softening and
strength loss.In addition,slope maintenance shall include the
immediate planting of the slope with approved,deep rooted,
lightweight,drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of
erosion and drainage control devices,and a continuous rodent conh'ol
program.Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall,before
the rainy season,and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned,as
necessary,after each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,including foot
traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should be
minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.The City of
Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and
approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
r
GEO-2(b)The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the
eastern boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining
wall to support the project and underlying adverse geologic structure.
The system requires a design and depth of embedment that would
safeguard onsite improvements in the event the offsite slope failed.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
24
ATTACHMENT 1-51
GEO-2(c)An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project
geotechnical consultant following completion of grading.The report
shall include the results of in-grading density tests,and a map clearly
depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths,removal area
locations and depths,sub-drainage system locations and depths and
geological conditions exposed during grading.
GEO-2(d)If required by the final geotechnical report,as reviewed and approved
by the City Geologist,the applicant shall install permanent
inclinometer stations at the site to allow the northern slope to be
monitored for possible movement following implementation of the
project.The number and location of the inclinometer stations shall be
determined by the City Geologist.The applicant shall submit a record
of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a
geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime
of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual
readings are no longer necessary.In addition,readings and
geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City
following a heavy rainfall event (>2 times average monthly rainfall)
or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles
of the project site.
1£the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has
taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the
project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with
the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the
geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable.Further
monitoring by inclinometers may be required,if recommended by the
geotechnical engineer or required by the City.
Expansive Soils.The proposed project is located in an area underlain by expansive soils.
Expansive soils swell or heave with increases in moisture content and shrink with decreases in
moisture content.The shrinking and swelling of soil beneath structures can potentially result in
cracking of foundations and other structural damage.
Finding
•Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts from expansive soils as a result of the proposed project have been
eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Draft EIR.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
25
ATTACHMENT 1-52
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-3(a)Geotechnical Recommendations.Prior to issuance of any Grading
Permit or Building Permit,the project applicant shall comply with
all recommendations contained within the Geology and
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants
(2003)including:
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade
shall be tested.The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the
high expansion potential.Following completion of grading and until
slabs and footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrock materials
shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-
saturation is also recommended.
GEO-3(b)Expansive Soil Removal and/or Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce
impacts from expansive soils could include one or more of the following
techniques,as determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer and
approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department:
•Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils.All
imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical
Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain
amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter
18,Division III of the VBC.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The project's potential impacts with regard to traffic and circulation that can be mitigated or are
otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8,Traffic and Circulation,of the Draft
ElR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGA TION INCORPORA TED.
Sight Distance.Adequate vertical sight distance would be provided from the proposed project
driveway to the crest on Crestridge Road.However,a motorist's sight distance could be
obstructed by future project landscaping and/or hardscape along the project frontage.
Finding
•Changes or alterations Trave been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The potential impacts related to sight distance have been eliminated or substantially lessened to
a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measure identified in the Draft EIR.
r 26
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-53
r
Mitigation Measure:
T -5 Maintain Sight Distance.Final project plans shall show that
landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the proposed project
driveway is designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is
not obstructed.In addition,curbside parking shall be
prohibited along the property frontage within the identified
sight visibility lines shown on Figure 4.8-5 of the EIR.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
27
ATTACHMENT 1-54
VI ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION AND FINDINGS
The EIR for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project identifies potentially significant
environmental impacts within one issue area which cannot be fully mitigated and is therefore
considered significant and unavoidable ("Class 1").That impact is related to Aesthetics.The
City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final ElK Teclmical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to California
Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(3)and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(3),that to the extent this
impact remains significant and unavoidable,such impact is acceptable when weighed against
the overriding social,economic,legal,technical,and other considerations set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations,included as Section VIII of these Findings.The Class I
impact identified in the FEIR document is discussed below,along with the appropriate findings
per CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
AESTHETICS
SIGNIFICANT AND LlNAVOlOABLE IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION.
Visual Character and Quality of the Site.The proposed project would introduce sh'uctural
development,new landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site,and project
grading would substantially alter the site's slope and ridgeline topography.In addition,the site
is identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a "canyon and
ridge"feature and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character;"grading for and
construction of the proposed project would eliminate both of these attributes.
Findings
•SpecifiC economic,legal,social,technological,or otller considerations,including considerations
discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects;therefore tile adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable.
Facts in Support of Findings
The existing visual character of the project site is defined by both its undeveloped,open
condition and its topography,which consists of a moderate to steep slope and a ridgeline.The
General Plan's Visual Aspects Map (General Plan Figure 41)identifies the project site,together
with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve,as "Canyons and Ridges"and as "Undeveloped
Lands Impacting Visual Character."
The proposed project would substantially alter the visual character of the site related to its
topography by grading the existing slopes into stepped,relatively fIat pad areas,and by removing
the site's natural ridgeline.The existing open,undeveloped visual character,which is
accentuated and made more visible to the public by the site's sloping topography,would be
completely altered to a fully developed condition.The substantial alteration of the visual
character of the project site and proposed removal of the visual aspects as identified in the
General Plan would result in a significant adverse impact related to the visual character and
quality of the site.Mitigation measures are not available to reduce the impact of the proposed
project to the visual character of the site.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
28
ATTACHMENT 1-55
The overriding social,economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of these findings.Any
remaining,unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set
forth therein.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
29 ATTACHMENT 1-56
VII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Draft EIR,in Section 6.0 Altematives (incorporated by reference),discusses the
environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project.A description of these
alternatives,a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project,and the
City's findings are listed below.These alternatives are compared against the project relative to
the identified project impacts,summarized in sections V and VI,above,and to the project
objectives,as stated in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR.In making the following
alternatives findings,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certifies that it has independently
reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in tlle Draft EIR,including
the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto.
A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that development of the proposed project would not occur and tllat the
site would remain an undeveloped hillside.The site would remain in its current condition and
no improvements (including trails)would occur.
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximittj to senJices,consistCIIClj with the existing
Institutional Zoning at the site and compatibilittj with existing development in tire area,as
discussed in tire Statement of Oveniding Considerations,render this altemative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
The No Project alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable
aesthetics impact as it would not change the visual character of the site.The proposed project's
potentially significant but mitigable aesthetic impacts,such as light and glare,impacts to
biological resources related to nesting birds and non-native plant species,geology impacts
related to slope stability and expansive soils,h'affic impacts related to sight distance at the
project entrance,and construction impacts related to air quality,would also be avoided.
However,the No Project alternative would not provide new senior housing opportunities in
Rancho Palos Verdes or the pedestrian trails that would connect Crestridge Road to the Vista
Del Norte Ecological Preserve.As such,this alternative would not meet the objectives of the
proposed project or the Institutional Zoning in place at the site.Implementation of the No
Project alternative would not preclude future development on the site.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
B REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes that 12 new senior-restricted (55+years of age or older)for-sale
residential units would be developed on the project site.These units would be located along
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30 ATTACHMENT 1-57
Crestridge Road and would correspond to units 1 to 12 as shown on the site plan for the
proposed project (see Figure 2-4 of the Draft ErR).As with the proposed project,the height of
several of these units would exceed 16 feet above existing grade;therefore,a conditional use
permit would be required.Access would be provided through the site to the City-owned lands
(Vista Del Norte Preserve)to the north.The undeveloped portion of the property would be
restored with native vegetation,with pedestrian trails connecting this area of the site to the
adjacent preserve.
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,tecllllological,or other considerations,including considerations
for the provision of senior housing in proximity to senJices,and cOl1lpatibilil1j with form and scale
afexisting development in the area,as discussed in tire Statement of Overriding Considerations,
reuder this alternative infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
The intent of this alternative is to provide the public and City decision makers with a
comparative analysis between the impacts of the proposed project and a reduced project which
would reduce but not avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable visual character
impacts.The Reduced Project Alternative would introduce structural development,new
landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site.While the intensity of grading
required for this alternative would be substantially reduced when compared to the proposed
project,alteration of the site's slope and ridgeline topography would likely still be required to
accommodate development of this alternative at the project site.
Due to the reduction in grading required,this alternative would also reduce impacts related to
aesthetics,air quality,biological resources,geology,greenhouse gases,hydrology and water
quality, noise and transportation and circulation;however,with the exception of air quality,
these impacts are already less than significant with implementation of the proposed project.
This alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics associated
with the proposed project.This alternative would achieve some of the objectives of the
proposed project,but not to the extent desired by the applicant.In addition,the reduced
density of this alternative may not be economically feasible.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
C OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative involves incorporation of the site into the adjacent Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve and maintaining the site as open space.Recreational amenities would be added to the
site for use by the public,including trails connecting to the existing Vista Del Norte Ecological
Preserve,which would replace the existing informal paths used by the public at present.
Amenities such as an overlook area with seating would also be added.
r 31
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-58
This alternative would require a change in the land use designation and zoning for the site from
Institutional to Open Space.As part of this alternative,the site could be designated as reserve
open space under the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Plamling
(NCCP)Subarea Plan.
Finding
•Specific ecollomic,legnl,socinl,leclllwlogicnl,or ot/ler cOllsideratiolls,illcllldillg cOllsiderations
for the prol'isioll of senior llOllsing ill proximity to services,consisteJlCl)wit/I the existing
Illstitlltional Zoning nt the site,colllpntibilih)with existing del'el0plllel1l ill t/le nren,cost oflnnd
nqllisitioll alld existing wvirolllllelltnl nlld view character of the nren,as discussed in the
StntellleJlt of Overriding COllsiderations,rwder t1lis altemative illfensible.
Facts in Support of Finding
This altermitive would avoid the significant impact to visual character that would result from
implementation of the proposed project.However,it would not achieve any of the project
objectives discussed in Section 2.0,Project Description,of the DEIR.For example,as noted in
Section 2.0 Project Description,the proposed project provides market rate and affordable senior
housing.In addition,the proposed project would provide a residential community that is of a
scale and density that is consistent with the adjacent senior housing facilities.This alternative
would not fulfill the intent of the existing Instihltional Zoning at the site and would require a
change in land use designation and zoning to accommodate formal open space at the site.
Finally,this alternative would require the expenditure of funds to acquire the site;there are
other properties that would be higher priorities for acquisition for these purposes based on
superior aesthetic,recreational or biological resources.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support fm the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
o OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USE
This alternative would involve development of an approximately 18,000 square foot,single-
story (16 feet maximum height)building,or strip of buildings depending on the use or uses at
the site,directly adjacent to Crestridge Road that would be occupied uses allowed under the
site's Institutional Zoning.The remainder of the site would be left in its current undeveloped
state.Grading at the site would be limited to only what is required to accommodate the
building and the supporting infrastructure;retaining walls would be constructed at the rear of
the structure to limit the amount of alteration required to the slopes north of Crestridge Road.
No on-site parking would be provided as part of this alternative;therefore,all workers and
visitors to the site would be required to use on-sh-eet parking_
This alternative would not include provision for a pedestrian link to the adjacent Vista Del
Norte Preserve_
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
32
ATTACHMENT 1-59
Finding
•Specific economic,legal,social,teclznological,or other consideratiolls,including considerations
for the provision of senior hOllsi ng in proximitl)to semices,prollisi01"1 of pedestrian tmils,
compatibility with existillg development in tlIe area and existing enllironmental alld 7.Iie1l1
character of the area,as discu sed in the tatelllent of Overridi ng Considerations,render this
al ternati'l e infeasible.
Facts in Support of Finding
While this alternative would not achieve the project objectives stated in Section 2.0,Project
Description,it would reduce the significant unavoidable impact related to the change in the
visual character of the site to a less than significant level.However,it would not continue the
senior housing and services development of the area,and a project at the small scale
contemplated in the alternative might not be economically feasible.
The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the ovelTiding social,
economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further
consideration.
r 33
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ATTACHMENT 1-60
VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines provide in part the
following:
•CEQA requires that the decision maker balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether
to approve the project.If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental
effects may be considered"acceptable."
•Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report (ElR)but are
not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency must state in writing the
reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in
the record.This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the
finding under Section 15091 (a)(2)or (a)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines.
•If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines).
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project (the project),
Responses to Comments and the public record,adopts the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a
decision on the project.
B SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Although mitigation measures have been included where feasible for potential project impacts
as described in the preceding findings,there is no complete mitigation for the following project
impact:
•Aesthetics -Visual Character and Quality of the Site.
Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact are discussed in the Crestridge Senior
Housing Project EIR and are summarized in Section VI,Environmental Effects Which Remain
Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation,and Findings,in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
C OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed action involves discretionary actions needed for approval of the Cresb'idge Senior
Housing Project.Analysis in the EIR for this project has concluded that the proposed project
would result in an impact to aesthetics that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
34
ATTACHMENT 1-61
All other potential significant adverse project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant
level through mitigation measures in the Final EIR.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that the significant unavoidable adverse
project impacts,which would remain significant after mitigation,are acceptable and are
outweighed by social,economic and other benefits of the project.Further,the alternatives that
were identified in the Final EIR would not provide the project benefits,as summarized below,
to the same extent as the proposed project:
1.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that alJ feasible mitigation measures have been
imposed to lessen project impacts to less than significant levels;and furthermore,that
alternatives to the project are infeasible because while they have similar or
fewer /reduced environmental impacts,they do not provide all of the benefits of the
project,or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the
project,as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
2.The project is consistent with the Cih)of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plnn land use
designation and Institutional Zoning,with approval of the requested Conditional Use
Permit.As such,development of the site with senior housing is consistent with the
City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved
development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;Belmont Village
and Mirandela.
3.The project is compatible in form and scale with the adjacent senior housing facilities
and as such would complement the pattern of development in the area.Conversion of
this site to designated open space would require a land use designation and zone change
and potentialJy require a financial outlay by the City that could potentially be directed
more beneficially elsewhere.
4.The City's Housing Element (2010)encourages and facilitates development of senior
housing through density bonuses for new housing that provide at least 50%of all units
for seniors.Further,the project will provide for additional affordable senior housing to
qualified lower-income households,consistent with the City's inclusionary housing
requirements and the City's certified Housing Element.
5.The project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing public pedestrian
pathways that link Crestridge Road to trails on the Vista del Norte Ecological Preserve
to the north.Further,the inclusion of this pedestrian link between Crestridge Road and
the trails on the Preserve will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan.
Signage will help direct the public through the project site to the public trails and
trailheads.
6.The determination that the proposed project will result in an unavoidable adverse
impact on the visual character and quality of the site is based on the identification of the
project site,together with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve,as "Canyons and
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
35
ATTACHMENT 1-62
Ridges"and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character in the Visual Aspects
Map of the City's General Plan (General Plan Figure 41).These designations were
placed on the site in 1975,at a time when the environmental and view character of the
surrounding area were different from present.While at one time there may have been
expansive views of the site and its associated ridgelines from Crenshaw Boulevard and
beyond (as identified in on General Plan Figure 41)much of these views of the site have
been blocked by development along Silver Spur Road since the General Plan was
adopted.As such,while the existing designations necessitated an impact finding of
significant and unavoidable,the conditions that prompted the inclusion of those
designations in the 1975 General Plan exist to a lesser extent today.
7.The project will add new senior residential units,increasing the availability of this type
of housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to serve local seniors.The location of the
project site will allow creation of a residential community in walking and bicycling
distance to services to the north and thus has the potential to result in reduced per-
capita greenhouse gas emissions.
8.Any development at the project site will require substantial grading activities to lower
the site to maintain views from the upslope residential properties to the sou tho
Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of development at the site would
not be economically feasible given the amount of earthworks that would still be required
to accommodate development.
Therefore,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final EIR,Technical Appendices and the public record,adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations that has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in
reaching a decision on this project.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
36 ATTACHMENT 1-63
Exhibit "B"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
ATTACHMENT 1-64
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Crestridge Senior Housing Proj ect EIR
Prepared for:
City of Ranchos Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,California 90275
Contact:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP
(310)544-5228
Prepared with the assistance of:
Rincon Consultants,Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura,California 93003
October 2012
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
6
5
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6).The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to
ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation.For each mitigation measure recommended in the EIR,
specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur.In addition,a responsible agency is
identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
To implement this MMRP,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will designate a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator
("Coordinator").The coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with
during project implementation.The coordinator will also distribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agencies identified in the MMRP,
which have partial or full responsibility for implementing certain measures.Failure of a responsible agency to implement a mitigation measure
will not in any way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed project.
The following table will be used as the coordinator's checklist to determine compliance with required mitigation measures.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
6
6
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Comoliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Freauencv PartV Compliance Initials Date Comments
AESTHETICS
AES-1 Landscape Maintenance.All landscaping Once prior to Community Review landscape
throughout the development (in both the common areas issuance of building Development plan for compliance
and in private yard and balcony areas)shall be permits,once prior Department -with the measure,
maintained so not to exceed the height of the line to occupancy Planning and and ensure
illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from clearance Zoning implementation in
5623, 5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Division the field
Height Drive (Exhibit B,to Resolution No.2012-~.
Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall
prepare and submit for City review and approval a
landscape plan for the project site.The plan shall
demonstrate that:
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be
maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line
illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B,to
Resolution No.2012-_,which are the highest visible
roof ridaelines of the development:
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 (a)Construction Equipment Controls.The Periodically during Onsite Verification of
following shall be implemented during construction to grading and construction implementation in
minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel-fuelled construction manager,the field during
construction equipment.Community grading and
Development construction
1.All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Department -
Tier 4 EPA emission standards.Building and
2.Construction contractors shall minimize equipment Safety Division
idling time throughout construction.Engines shall
be turned off if idling would be for more than five
minutes.
3 Equipment engines shall be maintained in good
condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers'
specifications.
4.The number of pieces of equipment operating
simultaneously shall be minimized.
2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
6
7
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments
5.Construction contractors shall use alternalively
fueled construction equipment (such as
compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
6.The engine size of construction equipment shall be
the minimum practical size.
7.Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment
manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated
clean diesel engines)shall be utilized wherever
feasible.
8.During the smog season (May through October),
the construction period should be lengthened as
permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time.
AQ-1(b)Fugitive Dust Control Measures.The Periodically during On site Verification of
following shall be implemented during conslruction to grading and construction implementation in
minimize fugitive dust emissions:construction manager,the field during
Community grading and
1 All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsile Development construction
shall be watered three times (3x)daily until Department -
completion of project construction to minimize the Building and
entrainment of exposed soil.Safety Division
2.Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include
watering the area to be graded or excavated before
commencement of grading or excavating activities.
Application of water (preferably reclaimed,if
available)should penetrate sufficiently to minimize
fugitive dust during grading activities.
3.Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation,
and construction activities shall be controlled by the
following activities:
.Trucks transporting material on and off the site
must be tarped from the point of origin or must
maintain at least one feet of freeboard..All graded and excavated material,exposed soil
areas,and active portions of the construction
site,includino unoaved on-site roadwavs,shall
3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
6
8
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Freouencv PartY Compliance Initials Date Comments
be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment
shall include,but not necessarily be limited to,
periodic watering,application of
environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials,
and/or roll·compaction as appropriate,Watering
shall be done as often as necessary and
reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible.
4.Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas
as quickly as possible.
5.During periods of high winds (i.e.,wind speed
sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent
properties),all clearing,grading,earth moving,and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the
degree necessary to prevenl fugitive dust from
being an annoyance or hazard,either off·site or on·
site.
6.The contractor must provide adequate
loading/unloading areas that limit track·out onto
adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel
washing,rumble plates,or another method
achieving the same intent.
7.Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least
once per day,preferably at the end of the day,if
visible soil material ;s carried over to adjacent
slreets and roads.
8.Personnel involved in grading operations, including
contractors and subcontractors,shall wear
respiratory protection in accordance with California
Division of Occupational Safely and Health
regulations.
9.All residential units located within 500 feet of the
construction site must be sent a notice regarding
the construction schedule of the proposed project.
A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be
posted in a prominent and visible location at the
construction site,and must be maintained
throughout the construction process.All notices
and the sions must indicate the dates and duration
4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
6
9
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Freauencv Party Compliance Initials Date Comments
of construction activities,as well as provide a
telephone number where residents can inquire
about the construction process and register
complaints.
10.Visible dust beyond the property line emanating
from the project must be prevented to the maximum
extent feasible.
11.Signs shail be posted on-site limiting construction
traffic to 15 miles per hour or less.
12.Dusl controi requirements shail be shown on ail
grading plans.
13.These control techniques must be indicated in
project specifications.Compliance with the
measure shail be subject to periodic site
inspections by the City.
BIOLOGiCAL RESOURCES
BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance.Site Once prior to Community Verification of
disturbance,including brush clearance,shail be initiating grading or Development completed surveys,
prohibited during the general avian nesting season construction;if work Department -if applicabie;
(February 1 -August 30),if feasible.If breeding season planned during Planning and verification that
avoidance is not feasible,a qualified biologist shail nesting season,Zoning prescribed
conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to periodicaily during Division measures taken if
determine the presence/absence,location,and status of grading and species observed
any active nests on or adjacent to the project site.The construction
surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
approved by the Community Development Department.
The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site
shall be established by the qualified bioiogist to ensure
that direct and indirect effects to nesling birds are
avoided.To avoid the destruction of active nests and to
protect the reproductive success of birds protected by
MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California,
nesting bird surveys shail be performed twice per week
during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation
clearance.In the event that active nests are discovered,
a suitable buffer (e.g.30-50 feet for passerines)should
be established around such active nests.No ground
disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the
City-approved biologist has confirmed that
breedinq/nestinq is completed and the vounq have
5
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
0
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
Monitoring Responsible Action tndicating Comoliance Verification
Mitestone/Agency or
Freauencv Party Compliance tnitials Date Comments
fledned the nest.
BtO-4(a)Construction Best Management Practices.Once prior to Onsite Verification in the
The following measures shall be employed as part of initiating grading or construction field that education
construction monitoring for the site:construction,manager,takes place and
.Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site
periodically during Community fencing erected and
grading and Development maintained
Reserve and the need to keep equipment and construction Department
personnel within the project site prior to the initiation
of construction..Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at
the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the
Reserve.
BIO-4(b)Provisions for Invasive Species and Native Once prior to Community Review landscape
Habitat Elements in the Landscaping Ptan.No issuance of grading Development plan for compliance
species listed in Ihe Cal-I PC Invasive Plant Inventory or building permits,Department -with the measure,
(2006)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental once prior to Planning and and ensure
species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea occupancy Zoning implementation in
Plan (2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the clearance Division the fietd
site.Species listed in the Subarea Plan include
everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),Sydney golden
wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus
molle),Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenlhifolia),
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia),myoporum
(Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.),and
pines (Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the
proposed project shall incorporate native habitat
elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre
passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community
gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior
Housing development project.Native habitat elements
include using locally sourced native shrubs such as
toyon,California sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,
native grasses,and native perennial forbs as part of the
planting palette.
BtO-4(c)Construction Staging and Stockpiling Once prior to Onsite Review plans for
Areas.Grading and building plans submitted for the issuance of grading construction proper staging,
proposed project for City review and approval shall or building permits,manager,fueling and
identify areas for construction staging,fueling and periodically during Community stockpiling
stockpiling.These areas shall be located as far as grading and Development locations,verify
practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve,and not construction Department -compliance in field
Buildinn and
6
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
1
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation MeasurelCondition of Approval Milestonel Agency or
Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments
closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary.Safety Division
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1 Discovery Procedure.If cultural resources are Ongoing during site Onsite If potential cultural
encountered during grading or construction,the preparation and construction resources are
construction manager shall ensure that all ground grading manager,encountered,verify
disturbance activities are stopped,and shall notify the Community that work is
City Building and Safety Department immediately to Development stopped and found
arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the Department -materials are
nature,extent,and potential significance of any cultural Planning and properly assessed
resources.If such resources are determined to be Zoning and addressed
significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the Division
resources must be identified in consultation with a
qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the nature of
the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,
documentation,or other appropriate actions to be
determined by a qualified archaeologist.The
archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and
findings,and shall the report to the South Central Coastal
Information Center.After the find is appropriately
mitioated,work in the area mav resume.
CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring.Prior to the Ongoing during site Gnsite Verify that qualified
commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a preparation and construction paleontologist is
qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading manager,retained and on
grading and excavation.Monitoring onsite shall occur Community site during grading,
whenever grading activities are occurring.Additional Development and that all
monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be Department -measures are
required to provide adequate coverage if earth-moving Building and taken if resources
activities are occurring simultaneously.Any cultural Safety and discovered
resources discovered by construction personnel or Planning and
subcontractors shall be reported immediately to the Zoning
paleontologist.In the evenl undetected buried resources Divisions
are encountered during grading and excavation,work
shall be halted or diverted from the area and the
paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and propose
appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may include
testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review andlor
transfer to the appropriate museum or educational
institution.
All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or
transfer to research institutions related to monitoring
discoveries shall be determined bv the aualified
7
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
2
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating ComDliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Freauencv Partv Compliance Initials Date Comments
paieontologist and shall be reported to the City.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-2(a)Compliance with the recommendations Once prior to Onsite Verify
included in the previous geotechnicai studies undertaken issuance of grading construction impiementation
at the site shall be required.These recommendations permits,ongoing manager,during grading and
include maintenance of a uniform,near optimum during project Community construction
moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of grading and site Development
over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the preparation Department -
potential for softening and strength loss.In addition,BUilding and
slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting Safety Division
of the slope with approved,deep rooted,lightweight,
drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of
erosion and drainage control devices,and a continuous
rodent control program.Brow ditches and terraces shall
be cleaned each fall,before the rainy season,and shall
be frequently inspected and cleaned,as necessary,after
each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,including foot
traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should
be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.
The City of Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works
Department shall review and approve all final plans for
slaDe maintenance orlor to issuance of a aradina oermit.
GEO-2(b)The proposed retaining wall at the top of the Once prior to Onsite Verify thai plans
existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site issuance of grading construction comply with
shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support permits,ongoing manager,measure,and
the project and underlying adverse geologic structure.during project Community implementation
The system requires a design and depth of embedment grading and site Development during grading and
that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event preparation Department -construction
the offsite slope failed.Building and
Safetv Division
GEO-2(c)An as-graded geotechnical report shall be Once following Onsite Review as-graded
prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following completion of construction report
completion of grading.The report shall include the grading manager,
results of in-grading density tests,and a map clearly Community
depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths,Development
removal area locations and depths,sub-drainage system Department -
locations and depths and geological conditions exposed Building and
durina eradino.Safety Division
GEO-2(d)If required by the final geotechnical report,as Once following Onsile Verify
reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,the completion of construction implementation
applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at grading;every six manager,during grading and
months durina the Communitv
8
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
3
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestonel Agency or
Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments
the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for lifetime of the project Development construction
possible movement following implementation of the or until the City Department-
project.The number and location of the inclinometer Geologist agrees Building and
stations shall be determined by the City Geologist.The that semi-annual Safety Division
applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings readings are no
along with any recommendations from a geotechnical longer necessary
engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime
of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-
annual readings are no longer necessary.In addition,
readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be
submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2
times average monthly rainfall)or following a magnitude
5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project
site.
If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient
movement has taken place that warrants further
corrective or preventative action,the project applicant
shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the
costs of implementing any remediation recommended by
the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope
remains stable.Further monitoring by inclinometers may
be required,if recommended by the geotechnical
enoineer or reouired bv the Citv.
GEO-3(a)Geotechnical Recommendations.Prior to Once prior to Onsile Verify
issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the issuance of building construction implementation
project applicant shall comply with all recommendations or grading permits,manager,following grading
contained within the Geology and Geotechnical once following Community and construction
Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants completion of Development
(2003)including:grading Department -
Building and
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the Safety Division
exposed subgrade shall be tested.The design of
foundations and slabs shall consider the high
expansion potential.Following completion of grading
and until slabs and footings are poured,the exposed
soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically
wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-
saturation is also recommended.
GEO-3(b)Expansive Soil Removal and/or Once prior to Onsile Verify
Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from issuance of building construction implementation
expansive soils could include one or more of the or grading permits,manager,during grading and
followinq techniques,as determined bv a oualified periodically during Community construction
9
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
4
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Comoliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/Agency or
Freauencv Partv Compliance Initials Date Comments
geotechnical engineer and approved by the City grading Development
Geologist:Department -
Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-
Building and•Safety Division
expansive soils.All imported fill shall be tested and
certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and
certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to
accommodate certain amounts of differential
expansion in accordance with Chapter 18,Division
III of the UBC.
NOISE
N-1 (al Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program.Once prior to Onsite Review and
The applicant shall provide,io the satisfaction of the issuance of grading construction approve plan,verify
Community Development Director,a Noise Mitigation and and building permits;manager,implementation
Monitoring Program that requires all of the following:ongoing during Community during grading and
project grading and Development construction·Construction contracts that specify that all construction Department -
construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be Building and
equipped with properly operating and maintained Safety Division
muffers and other state required noise attenuation
devices.
·That property owners and occupants located within
0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice by
the developer,at least 15 days prior to
commencement of construction of each phase,
regarding the construction schedule of the project:All
notices shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director prior to the mailing
or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of
construction activities,as well as provide a contact
name and telephone number where residents can
inquire about the construction process and register
complaints.
·That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building
Permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as
shutting off idling equipment and vehicles,installing
temporary acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources,maximizina the distance
10
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
5
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval
Monitoring Responsible'Action Indicating Comoliance Verification
Milestonel Agency or
Freouencv PartY Compliance Initials Date Comments
between construction equipment staging and parking
areas and occupied residential areas,and electric air
compressors and similar power tools,rather than
diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible..That during construction,stationary construction
equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
N-1 (b)Construction Vehicle Idling,During demolition,Ongoing during Onsite Verify
construction andlor grading operations,trucks and other project grading and construction implementation
construction vehicles shall not park,queue andlor idle at construction manager,during grading and
the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way Community construction
prior to the grading and construction hours.Development
Department -
BUilding and
Safety Division
N-1 (c)Staging Area.The construction contractor shall Once prior to On site Verify
provide staging areas onsile to minimize off-site grading and construction implementation
transportation of heavy construction equipment.These construction;manager,during grading and
areas shall be located to maximize the distance between ongoing during Community construction
activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences project grading and Development
and institutional uses).This would reduce noise levels construction Department -
associated with most types of idling construction Building and
equipment.Safety Division
N 1(d)Diesel Equipment Mufflers.All diesel Ongoing during Onsite Verify
equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors project grading and construction implementation
and shall be equipped with factory recommended construction manager,during grading and
mufflers.Community construction
Development
Department-
Building and
Safetv Division
N 1(e)Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities.Ongoing during Onsite Verify
Eiectrical power shall be used to run air compressors and project grading and construction implementation
similar power tools and to power any temporary construction manager,during grading and
structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker Community construction
facilities.Development
Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
N-1 (f)Restrictions on Excavation and Ongoing during Onsite Verify
Foundation/Conditionino.Excavation and conditionino project grading and construction implementalion
11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
6
Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification
Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestonel Agency or
Freauencv PartY Compliance Initials Date Comments
aclivities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:15 construction manager,during grading and
AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through Friday and located to Community construction
maximize the distance between activity and sensitive Development
receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses).Department -
Building and
Safetv Division
N-1 (g)Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques.For Ongoing during Onsite Verify
all noise-generating construction activity on the project project grading and construction implementation
site,additional noise attenuation techniques shall be construction manager,during grading and
employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent Community construction
feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not Development
limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise generating Department-
equipment and the construction of temporary sound Building and
barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive Safety Division
receptors.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
T -4 Site Access.Install a stop sign and stop bar at the Once prior to Onsite Review plans for
proposed project driveway on Crestridge Road.This issuance of building construction compliance with the
feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for permits,once prior manager,measure.and verify
building permit review.to occupancy Community implementation in
Development lhe field
Department -
Building and
Safelv Division
T-5 Maintain Sight Distance.Project plans shall show Once prior to ansiIe Review plans for
that landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the issuance of building construction compliance with the
proposed project driveway is designed such that a permits,once prior manager,measure,and verify
driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed,to the to occupancy Community implementation in
salisfaction of lhe Director of Public Works.In addition,Development the field
curbside parking shall be prohibited along the property Department -
frontage within the identified sight visibility lines shown on Building and
Fioure 4.8-5 of the EIR.Safety Division
,..
12
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
1
-
7
7
PC RESOLUTION No.2012-23,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE ENTITLEMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 11,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-78
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THATTHE CITY COUNCIL
CONDITIONALLY APPROVE CASE NOS.SUB2012-00001 AND ZON2012-
00067 FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067 &
SUB2012-00001)LOCATED AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD (APN 7589-
013-009).
WHEREAS,on February 22,2012,applications for an Environmental Assessment,
Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit (ZON2012-00067)and Tentative Tract Map
(SUB2012-00001)were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000
cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and
above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601
Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009);and,
WHEREAS,after the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012,pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act
(PSA),Government Code Section 65920 et seq.;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079)(the "EIR");and,
WHEREAS,the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study")for
the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines,and on May 29,2012,the
Initial Study (IS)and Notice of Preparation (NaP)was released to the public and public
agencies for a comment period of 31 days (through June 29,2012).Further,a Public
Notice was mailed on May 29,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot
radius from the subject property.Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula
News on May 31,2012.Furthermore,the notice was posted on the City's website,and
emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the Iistserve for this project.
Lastly,a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall,
Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to
download and review;and,
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public
scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide
verbal comments on the ISINOP,at which time the Planning Commission extended the
comment period through July 12,2012;and,
ATTACHMENT 1-79
WHEREAS,after the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared
taking various comments into account.After completing the Draft EIR,the document was
made available to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48-day public comment period that
concluded on October 8,2012;and,
WHEREAS,on September 26,2012 the Planning Commission held a public
comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in
addition to the typical written comments,on the Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,On October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was
provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was
scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13,2012 to review the Final EIR
and the entitlement applications for the proposed project.Subsequently,a notice was
emailedtothe611peopieregisteredontheCity.siistserve for this project;and,
WHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on November 13,2012,at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated
with the Project,the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the
Draft EIR;and,
WHEREAS,atthe November 13,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the Planning
Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting,landscaping,trail use,
and tower height,and return to the Planning Commission on December 11,2012 with
Resolutions for consideration.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed project includes 60 age-restricted (aged 55+),for-sale
condominium units accessed by one driveway at the southwestern portion of the site.The
60 units will be located within 18 different buildings distributed throughout the site,where
some buildings will be two-story structures and others will be split-level,two-story
structures.
The proposed project also includes a 2,400 square foot community building for the
residents of the development;a community garden area for the residents at the northwest
portion of the site;an outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the
site;and a series of public and private pedestrian trails.Three of the condominium units
are proposed to be made available to qualified very-low-income senior households in
accordance with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements contained in
Chapter 17.11 (Affordable Housing).
To facilitate the development,a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed,which
includes 145,000 cubic yards of cut (143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-80
of fill.The topography of the site will be lowered by as much as approximately 38-feet on
the western side of the property to create a flatter and lower site.This grading will result in
the structures on the west side of the property being well below the maximum 16-foot
height limit,as measured from existing grade.
TENTA TlVE TRACT MAP
Section 2:The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.71878to subdivide the 9.76-
acre site for a 60-unit,age-restricted (aged 55+),condominium project:
A.The proposed map and the design and improvement of the proposed
subdivision are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan.The
goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan "to preserve and
enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual
character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the
development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all
present and future residents of the community."Additionally,it is a policy of the
General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses
very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites".Furthermore,it is
a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing
developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping,open space,and other
design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality."
The proposed project meets this goal and these policies as it provides an
aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land
uses and serves the needs of residents within the community,and is consistent
with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the
approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;
Belmont Village and Mirandela,respectively.Lastly,based upon the proposed
60-unit project,the applicant shall be obligated to provide three (3)dwelling units
(or their equivalents)that are affordable to households with very low incomes.
B.The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed
in that the subject property measures 9.76-acres in area and is sufficient in size
to accommodate the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project.The
buildings are sufficiently spaced,the project provides for open space,outdoor
recreational areas for the future tenants,complies with applicable setbacks,and
has a density of approximately 6 units to the acre.
C.The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat,nor are they likely to cause serious public health
problems.The subject property has never been developed and has remained a
vacant parcel.Further,there have been past approvals and proposals that call
out the subject property for the use that is now being proposed.There are no
sensitive plant or animal species;no known historical,archaeological or
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-81
paleontological resources;and no known hazardous materials or conditions on
the subject property.In the event that any of these are encountered prior to or
during construction of the project,the recommended mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will reduce any potential impacts upon the environment,
fish and wildlife,sensitive habitats or public health to less-than-significant levels.
D.The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.There are no known public access
easements across the subject property that should be preserved as a part of this
project.However,since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)calls for a trail
to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road below,the project will provide
and record a pedestrian trail easement through the development,consistent with
the City's CTP to connect Crestridge Road with the trails in the City's Preserve
property to the north adjacent to Indian Peak Road.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Section 3:The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a conditional use permit to;1)establish a seniorcondominium
residential development project on the subject property;and,2)to allow certain building
heights to exceed the Institutional District's development standards of 16'-0"tall and one-
story:
A.The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and
for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other features
required by Title 17 (Zoning)or by conditions imposed under Section 17.60.050
to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood,
such as:
1.The proposed structures will comply with and exceed all of the required
setbacks of the Institutional zoning district.
2.Parking throughout the site will be provided to residents of the facility within
dedicated 2-car garages for each unit,and visitor parking will be available
throughout the site.
3.The proposed project will contain landscaping throughout the facility and will
be conditioned to minimize view impairment by requiring the landscaping to
be maintained,and the appearance of the buildings will not be apparent due
to the landscaping.
4.The subject site will be lowered by up to 38'from existing grade to create the
proposed building pads,internal roadway and parking area,and will create a
manageable slope for the site to accommodate the development,which
would continue to slope from west to east,but it would be less of a dramatic
slope.Further,lowering the site will bring the western portion of the project
closer in elevation to the adjacent Belmont Assisted Living facility,which was
also lowered substantially from its pre-construction grade;and,lowering the
site also reduces the height of the existing slopes along the roadway,which
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-82
will be planted as part of the project,and will minimize the use of retaining
walls along the street.Furthermore,lowering the site substantially and
reducing the height of some of the structures reduces the potential view
impacts over the site from the upslope residences to the south along
Mistridge Drive.
5.The building designs are of a residential character,with a mix of two-story
structures and split-level two story structures,and will be consistent with
other residential type structures along Crestridge Road,such as the Belmont
Assisted Living Facility,Mirandela Senior Apartments,and the Canterbury
Congregate Care Facility,as well as the residential character of the existing
single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the site.
B.The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry
the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.The project takes
direct access from Crestridge Road,a collector roadway connecting Crenshaw
Boulevard and Highridge Road.The project plans and traffic study have been
reviewed by the City's traffic engineer.The traffic study considered five
intersections and focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the
morning and evening commute peak hours and found that the five (5)key study
intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an
acceptable LOS with project implementation.The cumulative projects analysis
also found that the five (5)key study intersections are forecast to continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic.
Construction traffic was also assessed since construction includes 143,000
cubic yards of export,and concluded that the increased traffic generated by the
project will not exceed the impact threshold.Lastly,sight distance impacts
related to the project's access way onto Crestridge Road is adequate due to a
mitigation measure limiting landscaping height and prohibiting curbside parking
along Crestridge Road within the identified sight visibility lines.
C.In approving the subject use for age-restricted (aged 55+),Senior condominiums
at the specific location,there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent
property or the permitted use thereof.The use will not be in conflict with other
use in the area and will add to the mixture of housing types offered by providing
additional senior housing.
Since the project includes structures that exceed 16-feet above existing grade,
Staff conducted view analyses from various residences along Seaside Heights,
Mistridge,and Oceanridge Drives.The residences are located to the south of
the project site,and contain up to 180-degree views over the subject property.
The residences along Oceanridge and Seaside Heights Drives are at a
substantially higher elevation than the subject property,and the proposed
development will not project into their views.As a result,the proposed project
would not result in a significant impact to view (Le.,adverse effect)to the
residences along Seaside Heights and Oceanridge Drives.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-83
The residences along Mistridge Drive are lower in elevation than the residences
along Oceanridge Drive.Consequently,although they are higher in elevation
than the subject property,due to the topography of the area,these residences
do not have a view of the Santa Monica Bay;rather,their views are
predominantly of the Los Angeles basin over the subject property and in a
northeasterly direction over the abutting Mirandela Senior Housing Project.Staff
visited several residences along Mistridge Drive,which have been incorporated
into the Aesthetics section of the EIR with view simulations.There are 9
structures that are above the 16-foot height limit dispersed throughout the site as
follows:
a)four,2-story split level structures that front along Crestridge Road;
b)one,2-story split-level structure along the easternmost side of the
development;
c)one,2-story split-level structure in the middle of the development;
d)one,2-story structure in the middle of the development;and,
e)two,2-story structures at the rear of the development.
Ultimately,of the 9 structures that are above the 16-foot height limit,the two-
story structures (a total of 3 that are identified as "d"and "e",above)result in
some type of view impairment,as the portions above the 16-foot height limit (i.e.,
16-feet above existing grade)impair a small portion of the city view at the bottom
of the view frames from the existing residences on Mistridge Drive.The
proposed structures that are along Crestridge Road and the eastern property
line (identified as "a"and "b",above)are at lower elevations than the other
structures on the site;as a result,these structures are in the foreground and will
not project into the view frames from the residences along Mistridge Road.The
remaining 3 structures along the rear of the development and in the middle of
the development (identified as "d"and "e",above)are also above the 16-foot
limit (i.e.,16-feet above existing grade).Since these buildings are located near
the center of the site,they are in the middle of the view corridors of the
properties along Mistridge Drive.The heights of these proposed structures,
coupled with the location within the view frames,makes them more apparent
and results in some type of view impairment from the residences along Mistridge
Drive.As a result,these buildings have been modified in the following manner:
•Reduce the plate heights of the structures containing units 19 thru 22,and
45 and 46 -This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 2-feet.
•Reduce the roof pitch from 3:12,to 1.75:12 for the structures containing units
19 thru 22,and 45 and 46-This reduces the height of the buildings by up to
1-foot
•Change the roofs on the eastern portions of the three buildings from gable
roofs to hip-pitched roofs -This reduces the amount of horizontal projections
and opens up more view.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-84
The modifications will result in a reduction in the structure heights by 3-feet,
resulting in structures that are approximately 23-feet above finish grade,and
reduces the roof massing with incorporation of a hip on these buildings.
Consequently,these modifications minimize the view impairment such that the
buildings will minimally project into the city lights views while maintaining the
larger panoramic view from the residences along Mistridge Drive.
D.The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.Specifically,the goal of
the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan is "to preserve and
enhance the community's quality living environment,to enhance the visual
character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the
development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all
present and future residents of the community."Additionally,it is a policy of the
General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses
very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites".Furthermore,it is
a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing
developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping,open space,and other
design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality."
The proposed project meets this goal and these policies as it provides an
aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land
uses and serves the needs of residents within the community,and is consistent
with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the
approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;
Belmont Village and Mirandela,respectively.Lastly,based upon the proposed
50-unit project,the applicant shall be obligated to provide three (3)dwelling units
(or their equivalents)that are affordable to households with very low incomes.
E.The subject property is not located within an overlay control district.
F.Conditions,which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the
health,safety and general welfare,have been imposed upon this project.
Specifically,as included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and as shown in
the attached Exhibit A,and briefly described below,the project includes
conditions that address
•Limitations on the heights of walls and fences;
•Conditions regarding the placement and type of exterior light fixtures;
•Requirements for marking fire lanes and prohibiting parking therein;
•Requirements for compliance with the City's attached unit development
standards regarding the transmission of sound and vibration through
common walls and floors;
•Requirements for dedication of an easement fortrail purposes,consistent
with the Conceptual Trails Plan.
•Requirements for water-conserving landscaping and irrigation;
•Further limitations or restrictions on the height of foliage and trees;and,
•Restrictions on the number and types of signage for the project.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-85
•Limitations on the heights,roof types and roof pitches for the buildings
identified above.
Section 4:The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a Grading Permit for 147,000 cubic yards of grading related to
the development of the proposed condominium project:
A.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot,as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code.The
proposed project encompasses 147,000 cubic yards of total earth movement
(cut and fill combined)throughout the 9.76-acre parcel.The grading will
substantially lower the existing topography in an effort to maintain views overthe
subject property.The site will be lowered by approximately 38-feet on the west
side of the site,which will result in structures that are lower than the existing
topography.Grading of the entire site will occur,and will serve to accommodate
the various structures on-site,the internal roadway that will loop through the
development,the community building and the outdoor recreation area.Since
the intent of the grading is primarily to lower the site's topography,there will be
143,000 cubic yards of export.The export will lower the site to provide a better
designed project and will allow the majority of the buildings to be set lower on
the site than could be allowed "by right"without the proposed grading (or with
less grading).
B.The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the visual relationships with,nor the views from,neighboring properties.The
proposed grading results in most structures being lower than would be permitted
"by right"without the proposed grading.Furthermore,while there is some fill
throughout the site,no fill under buildings is necessary and the proposed project
will not significantly affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from
neighboring properties.
C.The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours,and
finished contours are reasonably natural.The existing site topography slopes
from west to east,and the topography is higher than the adjacent developments
(i.e.,Belmont and Mirandela).Artificial fill has been identified at the site,which
was placed during grading operations for the construction of Crestridge Road
along the southerly property line.The site also slopes up from Crestridge Road
to the middle of the site,then slopes down towards the City's Reserve property
to the north.Thus,some of the slopes on the site appear to have been
manmade and are not natural.Nonetheless,the majority of the grading is to
lower the site,and in doing so the resulting structures will be in line with the
developments on either side,which slopes down from west to east.Due to the
existing topography of the site,which is convex in shape,the grading will also
prepare the site for development.The existing contours will be removed,but the
finished contours will ensure a gentler sloping site that continues to slope from
west to east.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-86
D.While portions of the topographic features appear to be man-made as a result of
the construction of surrounding roadways,and not of a natural topographic
feature,the proposed project still considers the topographic features and
appearances of the existing site by creating new slopes that are similar to the
existing slopes.There will continue to be a transitional slope up to Belmont and
down to Mirandela,which aid in creating a stepped development that is in line
with the adjacent developments.As a result,the proposed development would
not be topographically out of scale with the surrounding area.
E.The required finding that,for new single-family residences,the grading and/or
related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,
as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6)of the Development Code,is not
applicable because the proposed project is not a new single-family residence.
F.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation and
introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and
slippage,and minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside
areas.The proposed project is a new residential tract,although it is not a single
family subdivision.This intent of this finding is to minimize the visual impacts
and disturbance of existing vegetation that commonly occurs with cut-and-fill
grading of terraced single-family neighborhoods.The grading will lower the site
and will result in a development that steps down from west to east such that
there is an aesthetic symmetry linking the developments on either side.As a
result,the slopes and pervious areas will contain landscaping to prevent erosion
and create an aesthetically pleasing site.Further,the landscaping will be
conditioned so as to prevent foliage from growing above the heights of the
buildings and creating view impairment to the residents to the south of the site.
Thus,as proposed and conditioned,adequate landscaping will be provided
throughout the site to make the project less apparent.
G.The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize
grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of
the hillside.The proposed project involves a private roadway that loops within
the development to provide access to the various buildings,and includes one
ingress/egress point along Crestridge Road.The street will slope with the
resulting topography and will be of a width that can accommodate two-way
traffic,will prohibit street parking,and will accommodate emergency personnel.
Lastly,beside the ingress/egress driveway along Crestridge Road,the interior
roadway will not be visible from the public rights-of-way.
H.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.A Biological
Resources Assessment was performed for the EIR.According to the
assessment,the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through
disking and grubbing.As such,there is no protected habitat (CSS)present on
site.Further,non-native vegetation is present on the site,which provides for
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-87
poor habitat for wildlife species.The site is,however,adjacent to the City's
Reserve property.As such,there are mitigation measures proposed to minimize
disturbance and impacts to the City's Reserve,which includes native
landscaping,especially for those areas that abut the City's Reserve.
I.The proposed project is inconsistent with 3 of the grading criteria contained
within Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9)pertaining to grading on slopes
over 35%steepness,maximum finished slopes,and maximum depth of cut or
fill.
However,a deviation from the criteria regarding grading on slopes greater than
35%is hereby approved because the grading will not threaten the public health,
safety and welfare,since development of the subject site will require City
Geologist approval and building permits that will ensure that the proposed
project will not threaten public health,safety and welfare.
Furthermore,a deviation to the criteria regarding maximum finished slopes and
maximum depth of cut and fill is hereby approved because unusual topography,
soil conditions,previous grading or other circumstances make such grading
reasonable and necessary.However,it is important to consider that the subject
site is a vacant parcel with undulating topography and some un-compacted fill
material that must be exported in order to render the site buildable.Lastly,
grading down of the site provides better views and a better visual representation
of the project and consistency with the surrounding areas are circumstances that
warrant approval of the increased depth of cut and fill.
In regards to a deviation in the grading criteria regarding maximum finished
slopes,upslope retaining wall heights,and restricted grading areas,the Planning
Commission finds that:
a)The criteria of subsection (E)(1)through (E)(8)of Municipal Code Section
17.76.040 satisfied,as noted in A through E above.
b)The project is consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit,which is
1)to permit reasonable development of land,2)ensure the maximum
preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with
reasonable economic use of the property,3)ensure that the development
of land occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands,and 4)ensure
that the project is consistent with the General Plan.Specifically,the
proposed project will lower the site while maintaining a similar topographic
configuration of a flatter area with slopes,thereby helping to preserve views
over the site and not cause visual impacts,which will develop the site in a
manner harmonious with adjacent lands.In doing so the project permits
the reasonable development of land while maintaining the natural scenic
character.
c)Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)of Municipal Code
Section 17.76.040 will not constitute a grant of special privileges
p.e.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-88
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity.
Lowering the site will ensure less than significant view and visual impacts.
Development proposals on large vacant parcels with these types of actions
are consistent with prior actions on other Institutional uses along Crestridge
Road,namely the Belmont Assisted Living Facility and the Mirandela
Senior Affordable Housing projects wherein those sites were also lowered
substantially for the same purposes.Lastly,departure from the standards
of subsection (E)(9)of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 will not be
detrimental to the public safety nor to other properties,because a
geological report for this project has been submitted to and approved by
the City geologist.
Section 5:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Sections 16.08.020,17.60.060,
17.68.040(0)and 17.76.040(H)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such
appeal must be filed with the City,in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee,no later
than January 7,2013.
Section 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report,Minutes and other records of proceedings,the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council
conditionally approve Tentative Tract Map No.71878,Conditional Use Permit,and Grading
Permit (Planning Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067),in conjunction with
certification of an Environmental Impact Report,to allow the subdivision of a 9.76-acre site
into sixty (60),age-restricted (aged 55+),senior condominium units,located at 5601
Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009),subject to the recommended conditions of approval
in the attached Exhibit 'A'.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-23
ATTACHMENT 1-89
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of December 2012,by the
following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Gerstner,Leon,Vice-Chairman Emenhiser,Chairman Tetreault
NOES:None
ABSTENTIONS:None
ABSENT:Commissioners Lewis,Nelson,Tomblin
RECUSALS:None
Planning Commission Chairman
P.C.Resolution No.2012.23
ATTACHMENT 1-90
EXHIBIT 'A'TO PC RESOLUTION 2012-23
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT,
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.71878
(PLANNING CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
General
1.This approval is for the following:
A.A 50-unit,for-sale,age-restricted (55 years and older)condominium housing
complex,distributed amongst 18 individual buildings
B.Three (3)units affordable to "Extremely Low"and/or "Very Low"income
households in accordance with the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements.
C.A private and public trail system in open space areas on the north,and a
public trail through the development connecting Crestridge Road with the
public trail system in open space areas on the north.
D.A 13,000-square foot outdoor community recreation area located at the
northeastern corner of the site.The amenities for this area include a patio,a
community conversation and gathering stage,a sundeck and outdoor living
room,barbeque facilities,bocce ball courts,and picnic tables.
E.A 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck
providing secondary,centralized community amenities for the project's
residents.The Community Service Center building will proVide a recreation
and lounge area for community gatherings,kitchen,computer center/business
room,office,fitness room,bathrooms,indoor and outdoor fireplaces,outdoor
living area,spa,barbeque and seating area.The Community Service Center
could also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for regular
resident activities like movie nights,book clubs and cooking classes.
F.A gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road.The vehicular entry gate
would have a key pad and call box.
G.A pedestrian entry tower and access point adjacent to the gated vehicular
access.
H.An internal private street that is a minimum of 25 feet wide.
I.A total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site to
supplement the two-car garages available for each condominium unit.
ATTACHMENT 1-91
J.A community garden area at the northwest portion of the site (behind the
existing Belmont Assisted Living facility)for the residents and/or owners of the
Crestridge Senior Housing Condominium project.
2.Within ninety (90)days of this approval,the applicant and/or property owner shall
submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and
agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval.Failure to provide
said written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
3.The developer shall supply the City with one mylar,one copy,and an electronic
copy of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County
Recorders Office.
4.This approval expires twenty-four (24)months from the date of approval of the
tentative tract map by the City Council,unless extended per the Subdivision Map
Act and Municipal Code.Any request for extension shall be submitted to the
Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map.
5.Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans
originally stamped APPROVED;with the Institutional Zoning District;the mitigation
measures,conditions and development standards contained in PC Resolution No.
2012-22 and PC Resolution No.2012-23;and,the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code.
6.The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans
and conditions.Otherwise,all other modifications shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
7.All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)contained in PC Resolution No.2012-22 for the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)shall be adhered to.The mitigation measures
are repeated herein under the appropriate subject heading,sometimes with
clarifying language that may differ from the MMRP.All costs associated with
implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be the responsibility of
the Developer,and/or any successors in interest.
8.The Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be subject to review and
modification,as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning Commission
at a noticed public hearing held one year after issuance of a final Certificate of
Occupancy for the last building constructed.At the review hearing,the Planning
Commission may add,delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed
necessary and appropriate.Notice of said review hearing shall be published and
ATTACHMENT 1-92
provided to owners of property within a 500'radius from the entire project's
boundary,to persons requesting notice,to all affected homeowners associations,
and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code Section 17.80.090.As part of the one year review,the Planning
Commission may consider and review compliance with all the conditions of
approval,assess any lighting and noise impacts,and address any other concerns
raised by Staff,the Commission and/or interested parties.If necessary,the
Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to
mitigate any impacts resulting from the review.
9.All private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so not
exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken
from 5623, 5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Heights Drive
(Exhibit B,to PC Resolution No.2012-23).
10.Permitted hours and days for construction activity (other than the aforementioned
grading activity)are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,with no
construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in
Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special
construction permit.
Tentative Tract Map No.71878
11.The proposed project approval permits 60,age restricted (aged 55+)condominium
units on the existing 9.76-acre subject parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map No.
71878,as approved by the City Council on ,2013.
12.Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation,the subdivider shall obtain
clearances from affected departments and divisions,including a clearance from the
City's Engineer for the following items:mathematical accuracy,survey analysis,
correctness of certificates and signatures,etc.
13.The Finai Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown
on the Tentative Tract Map.
14.Prior to approval of the Final Map,copies of the Covenants,Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&R's)shall be submitted for the review of the Director and the City
Attorney.Said CC&R's shall reflect the applicable conditions of approval
contained in this Resoiution.All necessary legal agreements,including
homeowners'association,deed restrictions,covenant,dedication of development
rights,public easements and proposed methods of maintenance and perpetuation
of drainage facilities and any other hydrological improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to the approval of the Final Map.
ATTACHMENT 1-93
County Recorder
15.If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map,the developer shall
submit a preliminary guarantee.A final guarantee will be required at the time of
filing of the final map with the County Recorder.If said signatures do not appear
on the final map,a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area
showing all fee owners and interest holders.The account for this preliminary title
report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County
Recorder.
Public Works and City Engineer Conditions
16.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,prior to final
certificate of use and occupancy,the following items shall be addressed:
•Sidewalk must be constructed on Crestridge Road that provides for a total
sidewalk width of 6'from Face of Curb to Back of Sidewalk (to match
existing conditions on Crestridge Road).
•Relocate electrical facilities along Crestridge Road to provide for 4'clear
sidewalk access to match other updated facilities and to adhere to ADA.
•Provide for ADA compliant access across the top of the proposed site
entry driveway on Crestridge Road.
•Indicate the ADA path of travel from Crestridge Rd.throughout the interior
of the site.
•Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in
reviewing the construction plans.
17.Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of
Public Works,the Applicant shall ensure the following to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director:
•No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way.
•All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet
away from driving edge).
•Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the
ROW.
•The engineer shall provide a longitudinal profile of the driveway approach
and driveway centerline depicting vertical curves and slopes.
•Driveway approach slope and details needs to comply with APWA STD
PLAN 110-0 (latest edition)and other applicable drawings.
•Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a complete hydrology and
hydraulic study (include off-site areas affecting the development)shall be
prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.
The report shall include detail drainage conveyance system including
applicable swales,channels,street flows,catch basins,and storm drains
ATTACHMENT 1-94
which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff
which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical
1DO-year flood.
•It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain any landscaping in the
abutting public right-of-way and keep it in a safe condition.
•Any cuts made into the existing asphalt roadway of Crestridge Road will
require full width resurfacing of the road for a length to be determined by
the Director of Public Works or his designee.
•All damaged curb and gutter,sidewalk,and asphalt in front of the
proposed property must be removed and replaced in kind.
•All ADA improvements shall be completed by the developer in the ROW.
•Catch basins shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean"painted on them in
the ROWand on the property.
•Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain
inlets,including existing catch basins where a connection to the
development's system is required.
•Plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's)and Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
•Plans shall provide Sewer connection information,and shall be approved
by LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
•Plans shall provide clear sight triangle at driveway per Caltrans standards.
Sewers
18.A bond,cash deposit,or other City approved security,shall be posted prior to
recordation of the Final Map or start of work,whichever occurs first,to cover
costs for construction of and connection to a sanitary sewer system,in an
amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
19.Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider shall submit to the Public Works
Director a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the
design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer.Said approval
shall state all conditions of approval,if any,and state that the County is willing to
maintain all connections to said trunk lines.
20.Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation,dedication
and use of local main line sewer and separate laterals to serve each unit of the
land division.
21.Sewer easements may be required,subject to review by the City Engineer,to
determine the final locations and requirements.
ATTACHMENT 1-95
22.Prior to construction,the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer
improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance
Division.
Water
23.Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work,
whichever comes first,the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in
addition to either:
a.An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by
the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system;or
b.An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer
indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving
water utility to construct the water system,as required,and has deposited
with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of
the water system.
24.There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor
indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be
operated by the water purveyor and that,under normal operating conditions,the
system will meet the needs of the developed tract.
25.At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking,plans and
specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for checking and approval,and shall comply with the City Engineer's
standards.Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of
plans and specifications mentioned above.
26.The project shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall
include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.The water mains shall be of sufficient size to
accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division.The
City Engineer shall determine domestic flow requirements.Fire flow
requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of
approval by the Fire Chief is required.
27.Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire
Department has determined that there is adequate firefighting water and access
available to said structures.
28.Prior to issuance of the first building permit,the applicant shall ensure that
construction plans and specifications for the project include the following interior
water-conservation measures:
ATTACHMENT 1-96
•Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of
a pressure-reducing valve;
•Install water-conserving clothes washers;
•Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are
retrofitted to reduce flow;and,
•Install one-and-one-half gallon,ultra-low flush toilets.
29.Prior to issuance of the first building permit,the applicant shall submit landscape
and irrigation plans for the common open space areas for the review and
approval of the Community Development Director.If the Community
Development Director utilizes a landscape consultant to review the plans,the
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said view.Said plans
shall incorporate,at a minimum,the following water-conservation measures:
•Extensive use of native plant materials.
•Low water-demand plants.
•Minimum use of lawn or,when used,installation of warm season grasses.
•Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low
water demand plants.
•Extensive use of mulch in all iandscaped areas to improve the soil's water-
holding capacity.
•Drip irrigation,soil moisture sensors,and automatic irrigation systems.
•Use of reclaimed wastewater,stored rainwater or grey water for irrigation.
In addition,the landscaping plan shall include the following:
• A pesticide management plan to control the introduction of pesticides into
site runoff.The pesticide management plan shall be approved by the
Director of Public Works.
•Landscaping at or near the proposed driveway that does not obstruct a
driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works
Department..
•Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to
exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in
Exhibit B,to Resolution No.2012-_,which are the highest visible roof
ridgelines of the development.
Drainage
30.All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities,including gunite,
shall be of an earth tone color approved by the Community Development Director
prior to building permit final of the last building.
31.Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report
shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.
ATTACHMENT 1-97
32.Subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department and
Building and Safety Division,prior to issuance of any grading permit,the project
proponent shall submit a storm water management plan which shows the on-site
and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project
proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site.
These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current
standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is
maintained.The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off
the site are adequate to convey storm flows.
33.In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the developer shall coordinate with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regarding the required National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for the project.The
developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit
before construction activities begin on the project site.
34.Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), including sandbags,shall be
used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction
activities.
35.In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the project proponent shall coordinate
with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)on the preparation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)for the proposed project.
36.Prior to issuance of any grading permit,the City's NPDES consultant shall review
and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable
requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project
site.
Streets
37.Prior to recordation of the final tract map,the applicant shall post a bond or other
security acceptable to the Director of Public Works for any approved
improvements within the public right-of-way of Crestridge Road.
38.The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets in the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (those streets to be determined by the Director of
Public Works)which may be damaged during development of the project.Prior
to issuance of a grading permit,the developer shall post a bond,cash deposit or
City approved security,in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works
to be sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant
structures as a result of this development.Said streets shall be videotaped by
ATTACHMENT 1-98
the applicant and submitted to the Public Works Department on CD prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
39.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project,and subject to
review and approval by the Director of Public Works,the Applicant shall be
responsible for installing 1)a "STOP"sign and stop bar at the project driveway
that intersects with Crestridge Road.This feature shall be shown on all project
plans submitted for building permit review.(Mitigation Measure T-4)
Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Sherriff's
Department,the text of said sign shall be worded in such a way and the location
of said sign shall be placed in such a way that the sign will be enforceable by the
Sherriff's Department.
40.Landscaping, walls or other site improvements at or near the proposed project
driveway shall not obstruct a driver's clear line of sight,to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.(Mitigation Measure T-4)
41 .On-street parking shall be prohibited along the property frontage within the
identified sight visibility lines as determined by the Public Works Director.
(Mitigation Measure T -4)
Survey Monumentation
42.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,a bond,cash deposit,or combination
thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an
amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
43.Within twenty-four (24)months from the date of filing the Final Map,the
developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to
the City Engineer.
44.All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the City's Municipal Code.
45.All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act.
Street Names and Unit Numbering
46.Any street names and/or unit numbering by the developer must be approved by
the City Engineer.
ATTACHMENT 1-99
Grading
47.Prior to recordation of the final map or the commencement of work,whichever
occurs first,a bond,cash deposit,or combination thereof,shall be posted to
cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer.
48.Permitted hours and days for grading of the site,including site preparation,
import and export,shall be limited to the hours between 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,
Monday through Friday,with no such activities permitted on Saturdays,Sundays
or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit.
49.Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety,the applicant shall
submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has
obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million
dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death,
injury,loss or damage,arising out of the grading or construction of this project by
the applicant.Said insurance policy must be issued by an insurer with a
minimum rating of A-VII by Best's Insurance Guide.Said insurance shall not be
canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be
maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1)year following the final
inspection and approval of said work by the City,and without providing at least
thirty (30)days prior written notice to the City.
50.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 147,000 cubic yards of earth
movement,consisting of 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill,
of which 143,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site.Any revisions that
result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Council as a revision to the grading
application.
51.The construction of three retaining walls shall be permitted as part of the
proposed project.These include one,6-foot high upslope retaining wall behind
each of the three structures on the west side of the development,as illustrated
on the approved plans.Subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director,and prior to issuance of any permits,the Applicant shall
provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will
be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are
aesthetically pleasing.
52.A construction plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director
prior to issuance of a grading permit.Said plan shall include but not be limited
to:limits of grading,estimated length of time for rough grading and
ATTACHMENT 1-100
improvements,location of construction trailer,location and type of temporary
utilities.The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
53.Prior to filing the Final Map,a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer and City Geologist.This grading plan shall include a detailed
engineering,geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be
approved by the project's California State Licensed geologist and/or soils
engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them.It shall also be
consistent with the tentative map and conditions,as approved by the City.
54.Grading shall conforrn to Chapter 29,"Excavations,Foundations,and Retaining
Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Grading of the Uniforrn Building Code".
55.Prior to issuance of a grading permit,haul routes used to transport soil exported
from the project site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works to
minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from
hauling operations.In reviewing the haul route,the Public Works Director shall
take into account and consideration the school traffic along the haul routes,and
shall have the ability to modify the approved haul route,modify the hours of the
grading operation,and impose any traffic-control conditions in the interest of
public safety,if deemed necessary.
56.The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of
NOx associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment.
a)All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission
standards.
b)Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout
construction.Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than
five minutes.
c)Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper
tune as per manufacturers'specifications.
d)The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be
minimized.
e)Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction
equipment (such as compressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,or
electric),when feasible.
f)The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical
size.
h)Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after
1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines)shall be utilized
wherever feasible.
i)During the smog season (May through October),the construction period
should be lengthened as permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same
time.(Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (a))
ATTACHMENT 1-101
57.The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:
a)All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite shall be watered three
times (3x)daily until completion of project construction to minimize the
entrainment of exposed soil.
b)Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be
graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating
activities.Application of water (preferably reclaimed,if available)should
penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities.
c)Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation,and construction
activities shall be controlled by the following activities:
•Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from
the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet of freeboard.
•All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active
portions of the construction site,including unpaved on-site
roadways,shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment shall
include,but not necessarily be limited to,periodic watering,
application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials,
and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall be done as
often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever
possible.
d)Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
e)During periods of high winds (i.e.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive
dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing, grading,earth moving,and
excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to
prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site or
on-site.
f)The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit
track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing,
rumble plates,or another method achieving the same intent.
g)Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day,
preferably at the end of the day,if visible soil material is carried over to
adjacent streets and roads.
h)Personnel involved in grading operations,including contractors and
subcontractors,shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations.
i)All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be
sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project.
A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent
and visible location at the construction site,and must be maintained
throughout the construction process.All notices and the signs must
indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as
provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the
construction process and register complaints.
ATTACHMENT 1-102
j)Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be
prevented to the maximum extent feasible.
k)Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per
hour or less.
I)Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans.
m)These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications.
Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections
by the City.(Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (b))
Common Area Improvements and CC&Rs
58.The community garden area at the northwest portion of the site shall not be
planted with any type of trees,including but not limited to citrus trees,avocado
trees,etc.The individual gardens in this area shall not be enclosed with any
fencing taller than 42-inches in height.
59.All common area landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained
so not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs
taken from 5623, 5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive,and 5525 Seaside Heights
Drive (Exhibit S,to Resolution No.2012-23).
60.The Community Service Center shall not be rented to or used by non-residents
or non-owners of the community.Additionally,the Center shall be closed daily
by no later than 10pm.
61.The entry tower shall be limited to a maximum height of 16-feet,as measured
from adjacent finish grade to the highest point of the structure.
62.An improved public pedestrian access trail shall be provided through the
community and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA.Specifically,
the trail system shall be provided for the general public that connects Crestridge
Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail located on the
City's Reserve property to the north.
63.The pedestrian access point at the entry tower shall not contain a gate or other
similar enclosure that would prevent the general public from entering,or feeling
restricted from entering,the site to access the trail heads at the rear of the
property or the trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north.Further,
public access shall not be impeded by any gate,fence,or improvement along the
entire length of the public trail easement.
64.The public trail shall be limited to pedestrian use only;and shall facilitate and
ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte
Reserve to the north.
ATTACHMENT 1-103
65.The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the City trails
shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the
Community Development Director and maintained by the developer and
subsequent HOA.
66.Directional signage shall be posted along the entire length of the public trail to
guide the general public through the development and to the two trials identified
above.The location and signage design shall be approved by the Community
Development Director prior to installation
67.Any temporary or permanent project signage shall require the approval of a sign
permit by the Community Development Director,and shall be consistent with the
provisions of Section 17.76.050(E)(2).
68.No parking shall be allowed on the internal private street.
69.The internal private street shall be maintained by the developer and subsequent
HOA.
70.A minimum of 31 guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
throughout the development.
Lighting:
71.All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
72.Prior to Building Permit issuance,the applicant shall submit a final site lighting
plan,prepared by a lighting consultant,for the review and approval of the
Community Development Director.The lighting plan shall include the location,
height,number of lights,foot candles by area and,estimates of maximum
illumination on site with no spill/glare at the property line.The lighting color
temperature shall be limited to a range between 2,700 to 3,700 Kelvin for lights.
The lighting plan shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixtures on the buildings
and throughout the entire project site are designed and installed so as to contain
light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way.The light source on each fixture shall be
shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or
adjacent properties.
73.Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low,downcast,bollard-
type fixtures,not to exceed forty-two 42"inches in height and shall employ
downcast and shielded lumieres.
ATTACHMENT 1-104
74.No one light fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts,and the light source shall not be
directed toward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel of property or
properties other than upon which such light source is physically located.All
exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to prevent direct
illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles
on public rights-of-way.
75.No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture,if located
on a building is more than 7-feet above existing grade,adjacent to the building,
with the exception of ceiling lights in the ceilings above exterior covered
balconies.
76.Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building,the applicant
shall request that the Director or his designee conduct an inspection of the site to
ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent properties or cause a
negative impact to adjacent properties or public rights-of-way and that the light
sources on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the light source is
not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties.Upon
determination by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact,the
property owner shall modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director.
77.All exterior lighting fixtures on the grounds,pathways and common areas,
including any street lights,shall not exceed 5 feet in height,as measured from
adjacent grade.
78.No internally-illuminated signage may be used on the project site.
79.All proposed lighting shall be shielded so that it is down-cast and does not create
any direct illumination impacts to off-site properties.
Street Names and Numbering
80.Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved
by the City Engineer.
Park,Open Space and Other Dedications
81.Prior to final tract map recordation,the applicant shall pay to the City a fee equal
to the value of parkland in lieu of the dedication of such land to the City,pursuant
to the provision of Section 16.20.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code.
ATTACHMENT 1-105
82.A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedicated to the City and recorded on the
Final Tract Map to connect Crestridge Road with the two existing trails located on
the City's Reserve property to the north.The trail portions at the north of the
development that are not associated with the trail network for project residents
shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the
Community Development Director.
83.The community services building,internal roadway and public trail shall all be
constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,prior to the building permit final for the first condominium building.
Affordable Housing
84.The applicant shall construct three (3)units affordable to households with very
low incomes.The three (3)affordable units shall be similar in exterior
appearance,interior appointments,configuration and basic amenities (such as
storage space and outdoor liVing areas)to the market rate units in the proposed
project,as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director prior to building permit final of the affordable units.Covenants and
agreements required by Chapter 17.11 of the City's Municipal Code must be
recorded against the three (3)affordable units,which shall be specifically
designated,concurrently with the recordation of the final map or the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy for the building,whichever occurs first.
Geology
85.Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City's Building Official,the
applicant shall obtain final approval of the grading and construction plans from
the City's geotechnical consultant.This review shall include analysis of any
potential impacts resulting from the former landslide condition on the subject
property.The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal of
all soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical
consultant in order to grant such final approval.
86.All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be
eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the
erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited.
87.Prior to issuance of grading or building permits,the developer shall submit a
Geology and/or Soils Engineer's report on the expansive properties of soils on all
building sites in the proposed subdivision.Such soils are defined by Building
Code Section 2904 (b).
ATTACHMENT 1-106
88.An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on
bedrock.An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for
structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.
89.Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical
studies undertaken at the site shall be required.These recommendations include
maintenance of a uniform,near optimum moisture content in the slope soils,and
avoidance of over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the potential for
softening and strength loss.In addition,slope maintenance shall include the
immediate planting of the slope with approved,deep rooted,lightweight,drought
resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control
devices,and a continuous rodent control program.Brow ditches and terraces
shall be cleaned each fall,before the rainy season,and shall be frequently
inspected and cleaned,as necessary,after each rainstorm.Access to the slopes,
including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should be
minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils.The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for
slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit.(Mitigation Measure
GEO-2(a»
90.The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the eastern
boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support the
project and underlying adverse geologic structure.The system requires a design
and depth of embedment that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event
the offsite slope failed.(Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b»
91.An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical
consultant following completion of grading.The report shall include the results of
in-grading density tests,and a map clearly depicting buttress fill keyway locations
and depths,removal area locations and depths,sub-drainage system locations
and depths and geological conditions exposed during grading.(Mitigation
Measure GEO-2(c»
92.If required by the final geotechnical report,as reviewed and approved by the City
Geologist,the applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at the site to
allow the northern slope to be monitored for possible movement following
implementation of the project.The number and location of the inclinometer
stations shall be determined by the City Geologist.The applicant shall submit a
record of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a
geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime of the
project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual readings are no longer
necessary.In addition,readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be
submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2 times average monthly
rainfall)or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of
the project site.If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement
ATTACHMENT 1-107
has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the project
applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of
implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to
ensure that the slope remains stable.Further monitoring by inclinometers may be
required,if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City.
(Mitigation Measure GEO-2(d))
93.Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the project applicant
shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geology and
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants (2003)
including:
•Following grading,the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade shall
be tested.The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high
expansion potential.Following completion of grading and until slabs and
footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be
periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out.Pre-saturation is also
recommended.(Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a))
94.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include one or
more of the following techniques,as determined by a qualified geotechnical
engineer and approved by the City Geologist:
•Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils.All
imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical
Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and
•On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of
differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18,Division III of the
UBC.(Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b))
Utilities
95.Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall provide evidence of
confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide water,wastewater
treatment and solid waste disposal,that current water supplies are adequate to
serve the proposed project.
96.Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall ensure that construction
plans and specifications for the project includes the following interior water-
conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances:
Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a
pressure-reducing valve;Install water-conserving clothes washers;Install water-
conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow;
and,install one-and-one-half gallon,ultra-low flush toilets.
ATTACHMENT 1-108
97.All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground,including cable
television,telephone,electrical,gas and water.All necessary permits shall be
obtained for their installation.Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk
line at the developer's expense.
Biology:
98.Site disturbance,including brush clearance,shall be prohibited during the
general avian nesting season (February 1 -August 30),if feasible.If breeding
season avoidance is not feasible,a qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence,location,
and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site.The surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community
Development Department.The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the
site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and
indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.To avoid the destruction of active
nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and
the Fish and Game Code of California,nesting bird surveys shall be performed
twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation
clearance.In the event that active nests are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g.
30-50 feet for passerines)should be established around such active nests.No
ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved
biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have
fledged the nest.(Mitigation Measure BI0-3)
99.The following measures shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for
the site:
•Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need
to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the
initiation of construction.
•Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of
disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.(Mitigation Measure BI0-4(a))
100.No species listed in the Cal-I PC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006)or identified as
potentially invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP
Subarea Plan (2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the site.Species
listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),
Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus mol/e),
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia),black locust (Robinia pseudo-
acacia),myoporum (Myoporum laetum),gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.),and pines
(Pinus spp.).In addition,to the extent feasible the proposed project shall
incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre
passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community gardens in the northern
portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project.Native habitat
ATTACHMENT 1-109
elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon,California
sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,native grasses,and native perennial forbs
as part of the planting palette.(Mitigation Measure BIO-4(b))
101.Grading and building plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and
approval shall identify areas for construction staging,fueling and stockpiling.
These areas shall be located as far as practical from the Vista del Norte
Preserve,and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary.(Mitigation
Measure BIO-4(c»
102.Cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to the City's Reserve
property shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species approved by the
PVPLC.
103.Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and
maintenance.
104.Construction adjacent to drainage shall occur during periods of minimum flow
(Le.,summer through the first significant rain of fall)to avoid excessive
sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species.
Cultural Resources
105.If cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction,the
construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are
stopped,and shall notify the City Building and Safety Department immediately to
arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the nature,extent,and potential
significance of any cultural resources.If such resources are determined to be
significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be
identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist.Depending upon the
nature of the find,such mitigation may include avoidance,documentation,or
other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist.The
archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and shall the
report to the South Central Coastal Information Center.After the find is
appropriately mitigated,work in the area may resume.(Mitigation Measure CR-
1)
106.Prior to the commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading and excavation.
Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading activities are occurring.
Additional monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be required to provide
adequate coverage if earth-moving activities are occurring simultaneously.Any
cultural resources discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall
be reported immediately to the paleontologist.In the event undetected buried
ATTACHMENT 1-110
resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be halted
or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and
propose appropriate mitigation measures.Measures may include testing,data
recovery,reburial,archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or
educational institution.All testing,data recovery,reburial,archival review or
transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be
determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City.
(Mitigation Measure CR-2)
107.The applicant shall provide,to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director,a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requires all of the
following:
•Construction contracts that specify that all construction equipment,fixed or
mobile,shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers
and other state required noise attenuation devices.
•That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the
project site shall be sent a notice by the developer,at least 15 days prior
to commencement of construction of each phase,regarding the
construction schedule of the project.All notices shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or
posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,
as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents
can inquire about the construction process and register complaints.
•That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit,the Applicant
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how
construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling
equipment and vehicles,installing temporary acoustic barriers around
stationary construction noise sources,maximizing the distance between
construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied
residential areas,and electric air compressors and similar power tools,
rather than diesel equipment,shall be used where feasible.
•That during construction,stationary construction equipment shall be
placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise
receivers.(Mitigation Measure N-1(a))
108.During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks and other
construction vehicles shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the
adjoining public rights-of-way prior to the grading and construction hours
specified in condition nos.10 and 48,above.(Mitigation Measure N-1(b))
ATTACHMENT 1-111
109.The construction contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment.These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring
residences and institutional uses).This would reduce noise levels associated
with most types of idling construction equipment.(Mitigation Measure N-1(c))
110.All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory recommended mufflers.(Mitigation Measure N-1(d))
111.Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and
to power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker
facilities.(Mitigation Measure N-1(e))
112.Excavation and conditioning activities shall be restricted to between the hours of
8:15 AM and 4:15 PM,Monday through Friday and located to maximize the
distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and
institutional uses).(Mitigation Measure N-1(f))
113.For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site,additional noise
attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum
extent feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not limited to,the use of
sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary
sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors.
(Mitigation Measure N-1 (g))
Development Standards
114.Unless specific development standards for the development of the property are
contained in these conditions of approval,the development of the lots shall
comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code.
115.Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check,the
buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission
dated November 13,2012,shall be modified as follows:
Building containing units 23 and 24:A hip roof shall be added to the East end
of the building so that most of the building is below 16 feet in height in order to
reduce roof mass at the East end of the building.
Building containing units 19,20,21,22:Hip roofs shall be added to both West
and East building ends;the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12,to 1-3/4:12;
and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot,from 10 feet to 9 feet
in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass
ATTACHMENT 1-112
at both ends of the building.Maximum overall building height shall be limited to
24-feet.
Building containing units 45 and 46:A hip roof shall be added to the East end
of the building;the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12,to 1-3/4:12;and the
plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot,from 10 feet to 9 feet in
order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at
the East end of building.Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24-
feet.
116.All buildings shall maintain minimum setbacks of at least twenty-five feet (25'-0")
front and street side setbacks,and twenty (20'-0")side and rear setbacks.
117.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in
the Development Code.
118.The private driveway and parking areas shall meet Fire Department standards,
including any painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane
and turn-arounds.
119.Prior to building permit issuance,the building elevations shall be revised to
provide architectural trim and detailing on any blank 2-story facades of the facing
wings of the building.
120.With the exception of the buildings identified in condition no.116 above,the
maximum building heights shall be limited to the ridgeline elevations identified in
the plan approved by the City Council on ,2013.BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building,prior to roof sheathing
inspection.
121.The approved project shall consist of sixty (60)2-bedroom condominium units,
age restricted to 55 years and older.
122.The approved project shall provide and maintain a 2 car enclosed garage for
each unit.Further,a minimum of 31 off-street guest parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained.
123.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall be no higher than the minimum
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
124.The following attached unit development standards from Chapter 17.06 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code shall apply to all units in the building:
a.No plumbing fixture or other such permanent device which generates
noise or vibration shall be attached to a common wall adjacent to a living
ATTACHMENT 1-113
room,family room,dining room,den or bedroom of an adjoining unit.All
plumbing fixtures or similar devices shall be located on exterior walls,on
interior walls within the unit or on common walls,if adjacent to a similar
fixture or device.
b.All water supply lines within common walls and/or floors/ceilings shall be
isolated from wood or metal framing with pipe isolators specifically
manufactured for that purpose and approved by the city's building official.
In multistory residential structures,all vertical drainage pipes shall be
surrounded by three-quarter-inch thick dense insulation board or full thick
fiberglass or wool blanket insulation for their entire length,excluding the
sections that pass through wood or metal framing.The building official
may approve other methods of isolating sound transmission through
plumbing lines where their effectiveness can be demonstrated.
c.All common wall assemblies which separate attached single-family units
shall be of a cavity-type construction.
d.All common wall assemblies which separate all other attached dwelling
units (multiple-family condominiums,stock cooperatives,community
apartment houses)or a dwelling unit and a public or quasi-public space
shall be of a staggered-stud construction.
e.All common wall assemblies which separate dwelling units from each
other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors,laundry
rooms,recreation rooms and garages)shall be constructed with a
minimum rating of fifty-five STC (sound transmission class).
f.All common floor/ceiling assemblies which separate dwelling units from
each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors,laundry
rooms,recreation rooms and garages)shall be constructed with a
minimum rating of fifty STC (sound transmission class)and a minimum
rating of fifty-five IIC (impact insulation class).Floor coverings may be
included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings,but must be
retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced
by another insulation.
g.STC and IIC ratings shall be based on the result of laboratory
measurements and will not be subjected to field testing.The STC rating
shall be based on the American Society for Testing and Materials system
specified in ASTM number 90-66t or equivalent.The IIC rating shall be
based on the system in use at the National Bureau of Standards or
equivalent.Ratings obtained from other testing procedures will require
adjustment to the above rating systems.In documenting wall and
floor/ceiling compliance with the required sound ratings,the applicant shall
either furnish the city's building official with data based upon tests
performed by a recognized and approved testing laboratory,or furnish the
building official with verified manufacturer's data on the ratings of the
various wall and floor/ceiling assemblies utilized.
ATTACHMENT 1-114
125.Fences and walls located within the 25-foot front-yard setback area shall not
exceed forty-two inches (42")in height,with the exception of the intersection
visibility triangle at the driveway and Crestridge Road,whereby the height of any
fences or walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works
Department.No perimeter fencing is approved with these entitlements;however,
any future request to install perimeter fencing shall be subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation of any
perimeter fencing.
126.With the exception of solar panels,roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not
permitted.Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear-and side-yard
setback areas,provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in
excess of 65 dBA at the property line.
ATTACHMENT 1-115
Exhibit B
P.C Resolution 2012-23
5575 Mistridge Drive
ATTACHMENT 1-116
Exhibit B
P.C Resolution 2012-23
5623 Mistridge Drive
ATTACHMENT 1-117
Exhibit B
P.C Resolution 2012-23
5649 Mistridge Drive
ATTACHMENT 1-118
Exhibit B
P.C Resolution 2012-23
5525 Seaside Heights
ATTACHMENT 1-119
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,DATED DECEMBER 11,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-120
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF T~~~_~I~G COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVr~T DIRECTOR
DECEMBER 11,2012
CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT
(ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)156?-5;~tridge Road
Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schon born,AICP,Senior Plan~
RECOMMENDATION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Adopt PC Resolution No.2012-_,recommending that the City Council certify the
Environmental Impact Report;and,adopt PC Resolution No.2012-_,recommending
that the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-
00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior
Condominium Housing Project.
BACKGROUND
On November 13,2012,the Planning Commission considered a Final EIR and the
associated entitlements for the proposed Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing
Project.At the meeting,the Planning Commission opened the public hearing,took
testimony from the applicant and the public,and discussed the merits of the project.
However,there were several issues that the Planning Commission wanted addressed
before making a recommendation to the City Council on the project (please see Draft
Planning Commission Minutes for November 13,2012 - a separate item on tonight's
Agenda).In summary,the Planning Commission directed the applicant to make
adjustments to the entry tower,provide a construction timeline,and clarify the
phasing/parcelization of the proposed subdivision.In addition,the Commission directed
Staff to include additional conditions of approval regarding lighting,trails and updating
the height line on the photo simulations.The public hearing on the project was
continued to the December 11,2012 Planning Commission meeting to allow further
discussion of these issues.
ATTACHMENT 1-121
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
December 11,2012
DISCUSSION
As indicated above,the Planning Commission continued the item in order for the
applicant and Staff to address several issues raised by the Planning Commission.Staff
has categorized the issues below with a discussion as to how the issues have been
addressed.
TRAILS:
The Planning Commission directed Staff to incorporate a condition that designates the
public trail through the site to be a pedestrian-only trail,consistent with the City's
Conceptual Trails Plan.Staff has added condition no.64 to note that the trail is for
pedestrian use only.Further,Staff conducted a site visit to establish where the future
public trail on the subject property shall connect to the trails on the City's Reserve
property to the north.Specifically,connection to the Vista del Norte Trail will be at the
northwestern portion of the subject property,and will be accessed via a decomposed
granite trail through the community garden area.Connection to the Indian Peak Loop
Trail will be at the northeastern portion of the subject property,and will be accessed via
the area of the project's outdoor recreational area.Directional signage will guide the
general public through the subject property,from Crestridge Road to the two trails on
the City's Reserve property to the north.Staff has added condition nos.62 thru 66 to
address the trails and signage issue.
ENTRY MONUMENTITOWER:
The Planning Commission expressed concern with the height of the proposed entry
tower adjacent to the vehicular entry driveway.As a result,the tower element has been
re-designed and lowered from 25-feet to 16-feet.The lower entry element provides for
more of a pedestrian-scaled element.The applicant has submitted plans (attached)that
illustrate the re-designed entry feature,and Staff has added condition no.61 to limit the
height of the entry feature to a maximum height of 16-feet.
LIGHTING:
The Planning Commission expressed concern with the potential exterior lighting impacts
of the project,and directed Staff to incorporate additional lighting conditions,including
conditions regarding color temperature and light sources.Staff has proposed conditions
71 thru 80,which include regulations on light shielding and color temperature.Further,
the applicant has consulted with a lighting consultant who has indicated (see attached
email)that a color temperature between 3,000 and 4,500 Kelvin is a standard range that
can be incorporated into such a development,and proposed condition no.72 addresses
this issue.
ATTACHMENT 1-122
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
December 11,2012
Staff has also added a condition (no.76)that requires Staff inspection of the site to
ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent property prior to building permit
final for each building.In this manner,if there are any impacts,the developer would be
directed to correct such impacts prior to occupancy of the buildings.
PERIODIC REVIEWS:
The Planning Commission directed Staff to include conditions regarding review of the
effectiveness of the exterior lighting conditions,as well as a 1-year review of the
operational aspects of the entire development.Staff has included condition no.76 to
provide for review by the Community Development Director of the lighting prior to
building permit final and occupancy the each building as opposed to gO-days after
permit final as originally proposed.Further,condition no.8 has been included to
provide for a 1-year review by the Planning Commission of the operational aspects of
the development.The review will be conducted 1 year after a certificate of occupancy is
issued for the last building.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP:
The Planning Commission raised a concern regarding the original proposal to subdivide
the subject property into g distinct lots to accommodate the development.The applicant
has modified the Tentative Tract Map to provide for 60 condominium "air parcels"
distributed among one common lot.
DRAFT CC&Rs:
The applicant has provided a sample of the language included in their CC&Rs regarding
landscape maintenance,which they have used in their other developments (attached).
It is important to note that condition no.14 requires that the CC&Rs be reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map.The CC&Rs will be
required to include the pertinent conditions of approval associated with the
development,including language regarding landscaping maintenance.
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE/PHASING:
The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding construction
timing and phasing of the proposed development.The applicant has indicated that
construction of the entire project will occur over a period of up to 30 months (2 1/2
years).The applicant speculates that the grading operations (which includes rough
grading,export,precise and final grading)could take up to 8 months,while construction
of all buildings could take up to 22 months.Although the economy could affect the
ultimate build out of the project,Staff believes that a 30 month construction timeline for
project build-out is a reasonable amount of time.
ATTACHMENT 1-123
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
December 11 ,2012
Although it is in the applicant's interest to construct the amenities of the development as
a selling feature of the project,the City must also ensure that the improvements are
constructed and that the City's infrastructure is protected.As such,Staff has
incorporated a condition (no.84)requiring that the community services building,internal
roadway and public trail all be constructed and completed prior to building permit final
for the first condominium building.Further,Public Works Staff has also included
conditions that require the posting of appropriate bonds for work in the public right-of-
way,installation of water systems,and sewer system connections,which are required
either prior to permit issuance or permit final,depending on the requirement.
PHOTOS ILLUSTRATING LANDSCAPE HEIGHT:
During the November 13 th Planning Commission meeting,Staff explained its proposed
method for limiting the height of landscaping on the subject property by requiring that all
landscaping not exceed the height of the line depicted on photographs taken by Staff
from the residences at 5623,5649,and 5575 Mistridge Drive.The line follows the
highest visible roof ridgelines of the buildings at the rear of the development,which are
also the highest structures on the site.The intent was to restrict foliage from growing
higher than these structures,while providing some flexibility in the foliage type and
allowing the foliage in the foreground (I.e.,the foliage closer to Crestridge Road)to grow
taller,but not to the point that would be higher than the line depicted in the photographs.
The Planning Commission directed Staff to close all the gaps on the lines in the
photographs.Staff has updated the photographs accordingly (see attached),and the
condition is listed as condition nos.9 and 59 to account for both private landscaping and
common area landscaping.
April Steiger,a resident from along Mistridge Drive expressed concern with the
conditions presented in the November 13th Staff Report,in that it does not provide
specific heights for foliage.As a result of discussions with Ms.Steiger,Staff has come
up with the language contained in condition nos.9 and 59.It is important to note that
the conditions restrict the height of landscaping,yet provides flexibility for the
landscaping planted throughout the development,which is reinforced by condition no.
29 that requires foliage/trees to be of a type of species than can be maintained so as
not to exceed the height of the line.
As indicated in Ms.Steiger's email (see attached),she believes that condition no.9 can
be further edited to include language that is inclusive of more residents than just the 3
residences identified in the condition.Further,she believes that the "line"must be
defined.Staff believes the 3 residences provide an adequate sample of the residences
along Mistridge Drive.Although Ms.Steiger disagrees,Staff believes that condition
nos.9,29 and 59,as written in the attached PC Resolution achieves the intent of Ms.
Steiger's request by ensuring that landscaping does not grow above the height of the
development and impairs views of the LA basin from the residences along Mistridge
ATTACHMENT 1-124
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project
December 11 J 2012
Drive.Furthemorer,the condition allows landscaping in the foreground to grow higher
than the structures closer to Crestridge Road;however,it continues to ensure that
landscaping does not ultimately project into the view,which is what Staff is intending to
protect with said condition.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
After the November 13th Planning Commission,Staff received an email from the
representatives of the adjacent Congregation Ner Tamid,expressing concerns that the
proposed project would create privacy impacts to their playground area.The proposed
community garden component of the project abuts the Congregation's property at the
location of their playground;as such,the representatives have requested that an 8-foot
high fence be constructed to ensure privacy for the playground area.Staff has walked
the site of the proposed community garden and believes that although there is some
visibility towards the school building,there is sufficient landscaping and fencing on the
Congregation's property that obstructs direct visibility to the school.The proposed
project does not intend to remove said fencing or landscaping,as it is not on the subject
property.Further,Staff does not believe that this component of the project will intensify
what is already visible on the Congregation's property.As such,Staff does not believe
that conditioning the project to install a privacy fence is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the issues raised by the Planning Commission during the November
13th meeting have been addressed and conditioned appropriately.As such,Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution No.2012-_,
recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report;and,adopt
PC Resolution No.2012-_,recommending that the City Council conditionally approve
Case Nos.SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for subdivision and development of
the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project.
ATTACHMENTS
•PC Resolution No.2012-_,recommending that the City Council certify the EIR
for the Crestridge Senior Condominium Project
•PC Resolution No.2012-_,recommending that the City Council approve the
entitlements associated with the Crestridge Senior Condominium Project
•Correspondence from April Steiger
•Correspondence from Congregation Ner Tamid
•CC&R sample language (submitted by the applicant)
•Information from the applicant's Lighting Consultant
•Updated Tentative Map,site plan,landscape cross sections,conceptual
drawings of the entry tower
ATTACHMENT 1-125
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE DECEMBER 11TH
MEETING
ATTACHMENT 1-126
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2.Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos.ZON2012-00067 and SUB2012-00001):
5601 Crestridge Road
Senior Planner Schon born presented the staff report,giving a brief description of the
project and reviewing the direction given by the Planning Commission at the November
13,2012 meeting.He explained how the Commission's concerns had been addressed
by both the applicant and by staff,which included the issue of the entry tower,the
construction timeline and phasing,the parcelization of the Tentative Tract Map,
conditions of approval regarding the trails at the site,conditions regarding the lighting at
the site,photo sims to illustrate maximum foliage height,a condition included requiring a
one-year review of the operational aspect of the development,and a condition requiring
the CC&Rs be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.He discussed a letter
received from Congregation Ner Tamid expressing privacy concerns and staff's opinion
that an eight-foot tall privacy wall,as requested,is not warranted to address this issue.
Director Rojas added that,while there is a condition of approval regarding a review of
the exterior lighting,he explained that staff and the developer's emphasis and focus is
making sure the lighting placed on the buildings is adequate and meets the City's
requirements.He pointed out an added condition that requires a lighting plan be
submitted to the City for review.
Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.
James O'Malley (applicant)stated he has embraced and appreciated all of the
comments from the neighbors on this project.He stated that he endorses the staff
report and the conditions of approval.He commented that he looks forward to moving
ahead with this project and making the community a part of the City.
Steven Millet (representing Congregation Ner Tamid)explained the property touches
the project site on the northwest side,noting this has not been mentioned in any of the
documents.He would like this to be noted.He was concerned with staffs
recommendation that no fencing was necessary in the area,as the brush will be cleared
and will leave the area open to dust and contaminants from grading and construction.
He was also concerned about people looking over at the children in the pre-school
playground,which is why they are asking for a minimum eight-foot tall fence.He would
like to ask the exact use of the community garden and if there will be any type of
chemical or insecticide use near the children in the pre-school.
Director Rojas displayed a site plan showing the proposed project property as well as
the Congregation Ner Tamid.He pointed out the proposed community garden area and
the existing fence line and substantial landscaping area between the two properties.He
stated that during a site visit to the community garden area he was not able to see over
the fence and landscaping to see onto the playground.He also showed the public trail
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1-127
area,noting the community garden will be between the trail and the Congregation Ner
Tamid property.
Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights)discussed the height of the trees.He asked
that a provision to the conditions of approval be added that in the event the foliage is
close to more than one structure,the foliage height shall not exceed the lowest roof
ridge.He felt this would help the developer to determine approximate mature height
foliage to be planted and would enable the HOA to gauge and self-regulate the foliage
heights.It would also ensure that any off-site viewing property,no matter what their
angle of view of the development,would see foliage no higher than the roof ridge line.
He did not agree with staff's suggestion that the foliage be kept at a level below the
yellow line depicted on a photo simulation.He felt this method may increase the
likelihood of issues and disputes,as this method seems too imprecise and subject to
misinterpretation.He also felt that black and white copies of such copies given with the
CC&Rs would have a diminished quality.He also did not think the HOA would be able
to achieve self-regulation in regards to foliage heights.
Chairman Tetreault asked Mr.Rockoff to clarify how his method of determining
maximum tree height is different from staff's suggestion.
Mr.Rockoff explained that his idea limits the height of the trees to the height of the
ridgeline of the roof on all buildings.
Chairman Tetreault asked from what perspective this height would be determined.
Mr.Rockoff answered that it could be determined by just driving down the street and
see if the foliage is higher than the roof.
Linda Davis (5575 Mistridge)stated her concern was that her view be completely
preserved.She commented that when Belmont was constructed it was discovered
there was a bunker under the property and the building height was therefore raised to a
level much higher than the residents anticipated.She hoped that there would be no
issues with this project which would result in higher building heights.She hoped the
foliage would be limited and maintained to the roof ridgelines to preserve the views of
the neighbors above.She referred to staff's photo with the yellow line drawn on it,
noting it was taken from her yard.She questioned if city staff would have to enter her
yard every time there was a question as to whether or not the foliage was in
compliance.She also discussed the hours of operation and grading,and hoped that
these hours took into consideration the residents and the school hours.
James O'Malley (in rebuttal)stated that,in regards to Mr.Millet's comments,the
community garden is the most passive use of the land that he has ever created on a
project and felt it would work quite well at the site as proposed.In regards to Mr.
Rockoff's comments,he felt that there are numerous methods that can be used to
gauge the height of the trees,but was satisfied with staff's suggested method.He
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1-128
noted that one of the most important aspects of the vegetation will be the species of tree
that is selected,He also stated that comments by Ms,Davis were well taken,
Commissioner Leon asked Mr,O'Malley if he had plans to put any type of fencing
around the community garden area.
Mr.O'Malley answered that he did not plan to put fencing around the community
garden,
Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted Mr.Millet's concerns in regards to the privacy issues
surrounding the children's playground at Congregation Ner Tamid.He asked Mr.
O'Malley if he had any solutions to that particular issue,
Mr.O'Malley did not see this as an issue at all.He felt there is a natural grade break as
well as an existing fence and existing vegetation,He could not think of a more passive
use for the area and a nice addition to the community.
Director Rojas displayed a photo showing the proposed garden area,the existing
vegetation,and the fencing behind the vegetation,He stated that staff did not see what
the developer could do to enhance that area since the playground is already screened.
Chairman Tetreault asked if the photo taken by staff shown on the screen was depicting
finished grade,
Senior Planner Schonborn explained that the photo depicts finished grade and the the
existing finished grade may be slightly lower after the area is cleared and grubbed.He
added there could be a condition of approval that any grading in this area will be only to
grub the site,He also referred to the grading plan,which shows no grading at that area,
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff what remedies will be available to the residents if
there is grading or construction occurring outside of the approved hours,
Senior Planner Schon born clarified that there are two separate aspects to the project,
grading and construction,The grading component has more restrictive hours of
operation,that being 8:15 a,m.to 4:15 p,m.Monday through Friday.
Director Rojas added the City will require the developer to post a sign on the property
giving a phone number to call if there are any concerns regarding the construction at the
site.If there is no remedy,the resident can then call the City,
Commissioner Gerstner asked to go through condition Nos,71 through 80,which
address the exterior lighting.In looking at the conditions he noted that what the City
should be looking for is a foot candle estimate for the entire property,In regards to the
color temperature,his recommendation was to get all of the lighting within a certain
range rather than the lighting ranging from 1700 to 4500.He felt a reasonable range
was 2800 to 3700.He particularly liked the sentence describing how one should not be
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1-129
able to see the light source,but rather the light was shielded and one was seeing
reflected light.He thought that should be reiterated in condition No.76.
Chairman Tetreault asked staff to discuss condition Nos.75 and 7,specifically the 42
inches above existing grade height limitation versus No.77 which states any exterior
lighting shall not exceed five feet in height.
Senior Planner Schonborn explained the intent for condition No.75 was more
applicable to lights on a building,where No.77 addresses lights throughout the facility
not on buildings.
Chairman Tetreault felt that No.77 should be better defined.
Chairman Tetreault referred to Ms.Davis'comments regarding grading during the
periods of time when school lets out,and asked staff to comment.
Senior Planner Schonborn explained this was looked at in the environmental process,
which resulted in the recommended 8:15 to 4:15 hours.He stated that if there are
additional measures the Commission would like to add this can be discussed with the
Public Works Department where they may want to add conditions of flagging during
certain hours or other mitigation measures as needed.
Director Rojas explained that haul routes are reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department,and if the Planning Commission would like to emphasize their
concerns with school traffic,the Commission may want to add a condition of approval
that directs Public Works review the haul routes and traffic situations at the site on an
ongoing basis.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that he has no issues with the Environmental Impact
Report,as he felt it adequately covered the issues at the site.He explained that his
issues are with the specifics related to the conditions of approval.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation,seconded
by Commissioner Leon,noting that he expected there would be discussion on the
conditions of approval.
Commissioner Gerstner offered an amendment that the conditions of approval be
modified such that where there is discussion about the front gate remaining unlocked for
the purposes of the trail easement,that any rear gate or fence be named in the same
condition.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted that amendment,seconded by Commissioner
Leon.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11 t 2012
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1-130
Senior Planner Schonborn suggested the following language be added to the end of
condition No.63:Public access to the trail shall not be impeded by a fence,gate,or
any other structure.
Chairman Tetreault referred to condition No.55,asking that language be included that a
review of the hours or other mitigating factors with respect to construction hours takes
place when necessary.
Commissioner Leon expressed concern about trucks driving by the high school.He felt
8:15 adequately addresses the morning arrival at the high school.He noted,however,
that the high school day ends at 3:00 at was concerned that trucks will still be hauling
dirt past the high school at that time which he felt will dramatically impact the traffic.
Senior Planner Schonborn felt that adding more restrictions to the export will prolong
the grading well past the projected eight month time period.He also noted that this was
addressed in the EIR through a traffic sampling,which concluded that even during the
peak afternoon hours there will not be a significant impact to the traffic.
Chairman Tetreault asked that,in regards to condition No.55,there be some review of
these issues as the project is going on,and if it is determined there is a public safety
issue,modifications can be imposed upon the developer.
Senior Planner Schonborn added that Belmont and Mirandela used this same truck
route when they did the grading on their properties.He looked in the files and spoke to
Public Works,and found that there were no impacts associated with those grading
projects.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the Chairman's friendly amendment.However
Commissioner Leon preferred to have stronger wording so that the issue was not just
between Public Works and the developer.He suggested wording that the schools have
some sort of ability to comment on the subject.He therefore did not second the friendly
amendment.
Chairman Tetreault moved on to the possible conflict between condition Nos.75 and
77,noting staff will change the wording in condition No.75 to make it consistent with the
wording in condition No.77.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested modifying the language in condition No.75 by
striking the words "with no eaves"and adding at the end of the condition "excepting
recessed light fixtures in the ceilings above exterior balconies."
Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the amendment,seconded by Commissioner Leon.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested the requirement in the last sentence of condition No.
72 be added to the items the Director is looking to review in condition No.76.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1-131
Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the amendment,seconded by Commissioner Leon.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested changing the word "lighting contractor"to "lighting
consultant"in condition No.72.He also suggested removing the words "estimates of
maximum illumination on the site"and replacing it with "foot candles by area."
Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Gerstner also suggested removing the words "high pressure sodium
lights"and replacing them with "light fixtures".He also suggested changing "less than
4500 kelvin"to "a range of 2700 to 3700 kelvin".
Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Commissioner Leon accepted the amendment.
Commissioner Leon noted there had been several public comments in regards to tree
height,and how it is measured.He discussed staff's proposed yellow line and felt it
was the appropriate way to measure tree height,but thought it should be called
something other than the yellow line.He suggested wording saying the trees would be
limited to the height of the ridgeline of the specific condominiums on the ridge.
Senior Planner Schon born noted there are different buildings and different ridgelines,
showing that all of the highest ridgelines are not all concentrated in the back.
Director Rojas explained that 20 years ago staff may have attempted to write conditions
as described by Commissioner Leon.However,through technology staff has found that
drawing a line on a photograph has been successful.In addition,once a tree is trimmed
there is usually a trim line on the tree for future trimming.Staff feels in a project such as
this with multiple buildings and multiple ridgelines that can be misinterpreted through the
years with someone trying to read a condition,that this is a better option.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked if the yellow line is based on the highest ridgeline of
the development.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the yellow line is based on the highest visible
ridgelines,as viewed from each of the points.
Chairman Tetreault noted that the City is trying to protect views,not keep trees below a
certain height,and in order to do so it is not a fixed point that is being discussed.The
view will be dependent on wherever the view is being taken from.
Commissioner Gerstner felt that if staff feels this is the easiest and best way to enforce
the tree issue,he will support their recommendation.He also felt that allowing other
trees that don't cross this line to grow up taller to help obscure the light and other
impacts of this development is beneficial to the neighbors.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1-132
Chairman Tetreault suggested additional language for condition No.55 as follows:
Public Works takes into consideration school traffic along the haul route and has the
ability to modify the haul route and times of operation or impose other conditions in the
interest of public safety.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the proposed amendment,seconded by
Commissioner Leon.
Chairman Tetreault re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant to address and
comment on the Planning Commission's discussion.
Mr.O'Malley felt that everything discussed is smart and has the proper intent.He
stated that he had previously talked to the principal at the high school who stated she
did not have any concerns or issues with the previous two projects adjacent to this
project during their grading and construction phases.The principal also explained that
the peak traffic period at the school is the morning drop-off period,while the afternoon
traffic is much more sporadic.He asked the principal to witness the traffic patterns
during the grading period,and if there are problems to contact Senior Planner
Schonborn.He discussed the dust and air quality at the site,noting that it is a major
issue for the contractors,and he was confident there would be no problems.He
discussed condition No.72 and felt the current condition was clear and concise.He
stated that they will definitely comply with all city regulations and will shield lights at this
project and be sensitive to both the local and long distance neighbors.
Commissioner Gerstner noted balconies that extend out from the building,and asked
Mr.O'Malley what type of lighting would be on these types of balconies.He noted that,
from his point of view,he was not sure there should be lighting on this type of exterior
balcony.
Mr.O'Malley explained this is an example of an area that an exterior light may be
required on these balconies per the Building Code,however if the Code does require
lights they will be shielded.He also noted that the Building Code may require balcony
lighting at a certain height.
Chairman Tetreault discussed the height of lights and the Commission agreed that the
height of the lights on buildings would not exceed seven feet,and the lights not on
buildings would not exceed five feet in height.
Dan Withee wanted to make sure that this condition will still give him the ability to put
down lights in the covered balconies upstairs.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested changing the wording slightly to allow for a ceiling
light in the second floor covered balconies.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 1-133
The motion to recommend the City Council certify the EIR (PC Resolution 2012-
022)and recommending the City Council conditionally approve the project,as
conditioned (PC Resolution 2012-023),was approved,(4-0).
r any existing structures,
Deputy Dir tor Pfost presented the staff report,explaining staff has be
quite a few q stions from the public regarding the background of the proposed
changes and y staff felt these changes were necessary.With th ,he gave a brief
presentation on e General Plan's discussion of hazard designati s within the City.
He discussed the ning Code and the Zoning Map,which are t implementation tools
of the General Plan.e explained that in updating the Gener Ian staff identified a
variety of inconsistenc s between the Zoning Code mappin and the General Plan
mapping.He stated tha taff asked the City Geologist to aluate the Open Space
Hazard area designations d boundaries,and explaine the criteria used by the City
Geologist in doing so.He e ained that the result of t s evaluation was that there are
slightly over 1,000 properties i he City that require ome sort of adjustment.Of those
1,000 properties,approximately o-thirds require adjustments where the boundary
would be taken off of the property 0 off of devel able areas and the remaining third
would actually be an expansion of bo dary.e briefly reviewed the Planning
Commission's direction to staff at the S te er 25th meeting.He explained that staff
would be reviewing proposed changes WI the Planning Commission over a series of
meetings,and that tonight's objective w cover 260 properties,focusing on three
different canyon areas.He displayed erial p otographs of the canyons reflecting the
current designations as well as the oposed c nges.He noted that these proposed
changes are not final,as this will a Planning mission recommendation on a
General Plan update to the Cit~ounci!.
Commissioner Gerstner as
balconies,or patios.
3.
Deputy Director Pfos nswered that the proposed new line d s not cross over any
structures or impro ments.
Commissioner on noted that it appears this was done at a relativ y small scale and
felt there wer a few instances where the line was placed right over roperty to make
it into a con stent line at that scale.He therefore recommended the mmission go
over this ry carefully,expanding the scale and looking at the aerials to ake sure no
patios 0 structures were affected.
Dep'y Director Pfost explained that staff has gone over this several times at larger
s e,noting that it would take a lot of time to present 260 individual properties
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11,2012
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 1-134
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,DATED NOVEMBER 13,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-135
STAFF CITYOF
REPORT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
PHONE:
LANDOWNER:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMM~
DEVELOPMENT DIREVOR
NOVEMBER 13,2012
CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067 &
SUB2012·00001 (FINAL EIR,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
GRADING PERMIT,&TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP)CRESTRIDGE SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT
5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD
(THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A-1)
TRUMARK HOMES
ATTN:JAMES O'MALLEY
9911 IRVINE CENTER DR,SUITE 105
IRVINE,CA 92618
(949)788-1990
FIRST CITIZENS BANK &TRUST
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A·1 PHONE:(~/1
STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP,SENIOR PLANNE~
REQUESTED ACTION:APPROVAL OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)AND
ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT,WHICH CONSISTS OF 60 CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR
SENIORS (AGED 55+),CLUBHOUSE BUILDING,OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS;
INCLUDING A TOTAL OF 147,000 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO
THE CITY COUNCIL,CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR AND APPROVAL OF
THE ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS,AND DIRECT STAFF TO
RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH RESOLUTIONS THAT
SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
I (INSTITUTIONAL)&OH (OPEN SPACE HAZARD)
VACANT
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
I'LANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228/BLJILDINC,&SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800 /DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL PLANNING@RPVCOM /WWv\l.PALOSVERDESCOM/RPV
ATTACHMENT 1-136
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
GENERAL PLAN:INSTITUTIONAL &NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD
TRAILS PLAN:RADIO TOWER TRAIL (F2)&CRESTRIDGE TRAIL (B2)
SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A
CEQA STATUS:PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACTION DEADLINE:APRIL 20,2013
P.C.MEMBERS
WITHIN 500'RADIUS,NONE
BACKGROUND
Originally,the subject property was part of a larger vacant parcel measuring 33.97 -acres in
area.Over the years,the larger parcel has been subdivided,and development has been
proposed,approved and constructed on the site.As that history has affected the design of
the current proposal,Staff has provided a background that summarizes the issues and
actions that took place since the original approvals granted in 1989:
1989 -The City conditionally approved a project to allow the construction of a mixed use
senior living facility for the Marriott Corporation on the 33.97 -acre lot.The approved project
included 250 independent living units,a 100-bed health care facility (consisting of 50
assisted living beds and 50 skilled nursing beds)and a 26,000-square-foot community
center building.In approving the Marriott project,the City also certified an associated Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR No.27).Although City entitlements were obtained and
the City successfully defeated a legal challenge to the approved project,the approved
entitlements expired in April 1995.
September 23,1996 -The property owner at the time (Marriott Corporation)submitted
new applications to subdivide the 33.97-acre lot into two separate lots (a 4.57 -acre parcel
entirely within the City's designated institutional zoning district and a 29A-acre parcel
partially within the Institutional and Open Space Hazard zoning districts),and to allow an
assisted living facility referred to at the time as "Brighton Gardens".
February 2,1999 -The City certified a Supplement to the EIR that was certified in 1989
and conditionally approved the Brighton Gardens project to allow the construction of a 122-
unit assisted living facility for seniors on the 4.57-acre parcel.This 4.57-acre parcel is
where the Belmont Assisted Living Facility was constructed and now operates.
June 15,1999 -The City approved Parcel Map No.25271,further subdividing the
undeveloped 29A-acre parcel into two separate parcels consisting of:1)a 19.63-acre
parcel at the comer of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (the current location of
the City's Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing project);and,2)a 9.76-acre parcel (the
ATTACHMENT 1-137
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
subject property)between the corner lot and the 4.57 -acre parcel that is now the Belmont
site.
August 28,1999 -The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to
review the concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by a
developer on the 19.63-acre lot.At that time,the lot was privately owned and a proposal
was presented to develop the site with a 73-unit affordable senior housing facility.
March 2000 -The City's Redevelopment Agency purchased the 19.63-acre parcel from
the developer;and in August 2001,the Agency Board decided not to enter into a new ENA
with the developer and thereby discontinued negotiations.The Board also directed Staff to
consider other options for the development of the Agency's parcel.
May 7,2002 --A joint workshop between the Council,Planning Commission and Finance
Advisory Committee was held to review proposals from private parties and discuss options
for the RDA's 19.63-acre parcel.At the workshop one of the proposals presented was
from Standard Pacific,which included combining the Agency's 19.63-acre vacant parcel
with the adjacent 9.76-acre vacant parcel (the subject property).The development concept
was for a proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project with an affordable
housing component on the combined site.At the workshop,the City Council authorized
Standard Pacific to move forward with the project.
August 2003 -The City was informed that Standard Pacific was no longer pursuing
development of the project and that the then-property owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)of
the 9.76-acre vacant lot was looking for other developers to proceed with the proposed
senior housing/senior center/passive park project.
October 2005 -The City was formally notified that Laing Urban would be the developer
moving forward with the conceptual project presented to the City Council at the May 7,
2002 workshop.The project proposed by Laing Urban continued to propose development
of both lots,and would include up to 100 senior condominiums (including 5 affordable
housing units),a building pad forthe Peninsula Seniors to develop a "Senior Center"and a
public open space area with public trails.The proposal included a parcel that would be set
aside for the future development of a Senior Center operated by the Peninsula Seniors.
June 7,2006 thru January 2007 -Laing Urban submitted a revised plan in response to
comments received during the public scoping process.Key changes included a reduction
in the unit count (from 100 units down to 97);an increase in the number of townhouse style
units;a decrease in the number of the large buildings and a re-orientation of the buildings;
a reduction in the overall grading quantity,from 265,000 cubic yards to 150,200 cubic
yards;and,relocation of the passive park/overlook area from the eastern portion ofthe site
(adjacent to Crenshaw)to the western edge of the site.In January 2007,additional
revisions were submitted to the City,which included an increase in the unit count (from 97
ATTACHMENT 1-138
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012·00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
units,up to 102);a further reduction in the amount of overall grading;and modifications to
the building heights and retaining wall layout throughout the site.
May 2007 -The City was formally informed that Laing Urban was no longer pursuing
development of the project.As a result,while the property owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)
tried to identify other potential developers to proceed with the proposed senior
housing/senior center/passive park project,the City Council directed Staff to pursue an
affordable housing project on the Agency's 19.63-acre site.As such,the property owner
pursued development solely on the privately owned 9.76-acre lot.
December 17,2008 -Revised applications for the "Crestridge Senior Villas"development
and senior center on solely the privately owned 9.76-acre parcel were submitted.
July 16,2009 -The project applications were deemed complete,and the environmental
consultant was retained to commence work on a Draft EIR.
December 2009 -The consultant requested additional information to complete certain
sections of the analysis;however,the applicant did not respond to the request for
additional information.
March,2010 -Notices were published in the PV Peninsula News indicating that the owner
of the 9.76-acre lot (Crestridge LLC)was in default with the subject property.As a result,
processing of the project applications was suspended.
January 26,2011 -The applications were withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
February 2012 to present -The 9.76-acre parcel is now owned by First Citizens Bank &
Trust.Trumark Homes is currently working with the bank to finalize their purchase of the
property.The current proposal for development of the property was submitted by Trumark
Homes in February 2012.The proposed project includes a total of 147,000 cubic yards of
grading to accommodate a 50-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above)
condominium housing project.After the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed
the project applications complete on April 20,2012,and subsequently retained Rincon
Consultants to prepare the necessary environmental documentation for the proposed
project.
On June 25,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to
provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to comment on the Initial
Study and Notice of Preparation,a precursor to the forthcoming EIR for the proposed
project.On August 22,2012,the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)was
completed and circulated for public review and comment until October 8,2012.Within the
circulation period,on September 25,2012,a hearing was conducted by the Planning
Commission for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Draft EIR for the Crestridge
ATTACHMENT 1-139
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012·00067 &SUB2012·00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
Senior Condominium Housing Project from the general public and from the Planning
Commission.
On October 25,2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was provided via mail and
publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was scheduled with the
Planning Commission on November 13,2012 to review the Final EIR and the entitlement
applications for the proposed project.Subsequently,a notice was emailed to the 611
people registered on the City's listserve for this project.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project,which has been termed the Crestridge Senior Condominium
Housing project (the "Project"),is proposed on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel.The property is
zoned Institutional (I),and contains Open Space Hazard (OH)zoning along the rear of the
site.The subject property,which is currently owned by First Citizens Bank &Trust,is
located along Crestridge Road;and is bounded by the City's Vista del Norte Reserve to the
north,by the Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing project to the east,and by the Belmont
Assisted Living facility to the west.Other uses along Crestridge Road include the PV Art
Center,a convalescent home facility with independent living units (the Canterbury),and
churches of a variety of denominations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applications related to the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project include
a Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,Tentative Tract Map,and an Environmental
Assessment.The project includes 60 for-sale condominium units accessed by one
driveway at the westernmost portion of the site.The proposed condominiums will range in
size from 1,700 square feet to 2,100 square feet in floor area.The 60 units will be located
within 18 different buildings distributed throughout the site,where some buildings will be
two-story structures and others will be spilt-level,two-story structures.
The proposed project also includes a 2,400 square foot community building for the
residents of the development;a community garden area for the residents at the northwest
portion of the site;an outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the
site;and a series of public and private pedestrian trails.Three of the condominium units
are proposed to be made available to qualified very-low-income senior households in
accordance with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements.
To facilitate the development,a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed,which
includes 145,000 cubic yards of cut (143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards
offill.The topography of the site will be lowered by as much as approximately 38-feet on
the western side of the property to create a flatter,and lower site.This grading will result in
the structures on the west side of the property being well below the maximum 16-foot
height limit,as measured from existing grade.
ATTACHMENT 1-140
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
CODE CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION
The proposed development project requires the processing of the following applications for
consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a future public hearing.A
brief description of these entitlements is as follows:
•Conditional Use Permit -To allow the proposed use and development of the
proposed project.Additionally,approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to
allow the proposed 27-foot high,2-story buildings to exceed the Institutional
District's Development Standard of 16'high and one-story.
•Grading Permit -To allow the proposed 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic
yards of fill.
•Tentative Tract Map -To subdivide the site to accommodate 60 condominium
parcels,distributed throughout 9 lots.
•Environmental Assessment -To comply with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA),via certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)that assesses
the proposed project's environmental impacts.
Although the Planning Commission typically makes decisions on Conditional Use Permits
and Grading Permits,the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project includes a Tentative
Tract Map because the project proposes individual for-sale condominiums.The Planning
Commission's role in reviewing a tentative tract map is advisory since decisions on tract
maps must by made by the City Council.As such,the Planning Commission's role is to
consider the project and make a recommendation to the City Council on the entire
application package.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (I.E.,EIR)
INITIAL STUDY &NOTICE OF PREPARATION:
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),and
based on Staff's review of the project and discussion with the applicant,City Staff
concluded that the proposed project necessitated the preparation of an EIR.As such,on
May 29,2012,the City distributed an Initial Study to the public,accompanied by a Notice of
Preparation (NOP)for preparation of the EIR,initiating a 30-day public scoping period that
was extended by the Planning Commission and concluded on July 12,2012.The purpose
of the NOP was to indicate formally that the City was preparing a Draft EIR for the
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing project and,as Lead Agency,to solicit input
regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR.To provide more opportunity to the
public,the Planning Commission held a public scoping session June 26,2012 to provide
the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in addition to the typical written
comments,on the Initial Study and NOP.The NOP was distributed to all Responsible
Agencies,as well as other agencies;property owners within a 500-foot radius;the 587
ATTACHMENT 1-141
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TIM)
November 13,2012
email addresses registered on the listserve for this project.The Initial Study and NOP
were also posted on the City's website.As a result,approximately 15 written comment
letters were received from persons,agencies,or organizations in response to the Initial
Study/NOP.
DRAFT EIR
After the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared taking in account the
various comments received during the Initial Study/NOP phase.After completing the Draft
EIR,the document was made available to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48-day
public comment and circulation period that concluded on October 8,2012.The
environmental concerns raised during the NOP comment period were addressed in the
Draft EIR.The purpose of this circulation period is to allow the public and agencies to
provide input on the content and analysis contained in the Draft EIR.To provide more
opportunity to the public,the Planning Commission held a public comment session
September 26,2012 to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,
in addition to the typical written comments,on the Draft EIR.
As indicated in the Initial Study and reiterated in the Draft EIR,it was determined that the
project would not result in or create any significant impacts,or have less than significant
impacts to Agricultural Resources,Hazards/Hazardous Materials,Land Use/Planning,
Mineral Resources,Population and Housing,Public Services,Recreation,and Utilities and
Service Systems.However,through the scoping process and preparation of the Initial
Study,nine environmental factors were considered potentially significant and were
analyzed in detail in the Draft EIR.The attached September 25,2012 Staff Report
provides a summary of the issues and impacts identified in the Draft EIR.Further,the
impacts and mitigation measures related to these environmental factors are summarized in
Table ES-1,in the Executive Summary section of the Final EIR.The Executive Summary
is attached for easy reference.
FINAL EIR
The City received 18 comments letters on the Draft EIR.In addition to the written
comments,the City held a public meeting to take verbal comments on the DEIR.The Final
EIR contains responses to both written and verbal comments submitted by the public on
the Draft EIR.As part of the Final EIR,the document contains a new section titled
"Response to Comments",which contains each of the written comments submitted and a
response to each comment.
Additionally,there is one comment letter (attached)that was inadvertently left out of the
Final EIR,which Staff has addressed under the "Additional Information"section below.
Notwithstanding,as a result of the comment and circulation periods associated with the
Initial Study and the subsequent Draft EIR,no new impacts have been identified to warrant
recirculation of the document or significant amendments.
ATTACHMENT 1-142
Planning Commission Staff Report
lON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
Most notable is a form letter that was submitted by a number of residents along Mistridge
Drive.The comments have resulted in refinements to the mitigation measure regarding
trees and landscaping on the subject property to ensure that landscaping is maintained at
a height that does not exceed the ridgeline of the closest or adjacent structures.Additional
modifications include adding mitigation measures in the cultural resources section to
address the issues raised by the Native American Heritage Commission and reiterated by
the Planning Commission.Lastly,mitigation measure T-5 was also modified to prohibit
curbside parking along Crestridge Road to address comments regarding traffic visibility.
The Final EIR document mirrors the Draft EIR in format.The key difference is that the
Final EIR contains a "Response to Comments"section and contains some minor
modifications to the text for clarification or edits that were a result of the comments
received.The text modifications are shown in underline for language added and
stfikethrough for language deleted.Modifications to the mitigation measures are also
summarized in Table ES-1 of the Executive Summary section of the Final EIR,and are
also shown in underline for language added and strikethrough for language deleted.
Notwithstanding,as a result of the comment and circulation periods associated with the
Initial Study and the subsequent Draft EIR,and with the edits made to the Final EIR and
responses to comments,no new impacts have been identified to warrant recirculation of
the document or significant amendments to the analysis contained therein.
EIR FINDINGS
Pursuant to CEQA requirements,the City is required to adopt two sets of findings prior to
approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment:1)Statement
of Facts and Findings,and 2)a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Statement of Facts and Findings:The Statement of Facts and Findings identifies the
significant impacts,presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis,
makes one or more of the following three findings for each impact,and explains the
reasoning behind the City's findings.The possible findings are as follows:
1.Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR.
2.Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding.Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3.Specific economic,legal, social,technological,or other considerations,including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained works,make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
ATTACHMENT 1-143
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
The attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing
Project",provides draft findings for each of the impacts identified and provides the
necessary supporting evidence.In summary,Staff believes that Finding NO.1 can be
adopted since changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified
in the Final EIR.Based upon the mitigation measures identified in the EIR document,this
finding can be made and adopted.
Statement of Overriding Considerations:The Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required when a project will cause an unavoidable significant impact that cannot be
mitigated.The EIR prepared for the proposed project identifies potentially significant
environmental impacts within one issue area related to Aesthetics,which cannot be fully
mitigated and is therefore considered significant and unavoidable.Specifically,in regards
to Aesthetics,the proposed project would introduce structural development,new
landscaping,and hardscape to an open and vacant undeveloped site;and,project grading
would substantially alter the site's slope and ridgeline topography.In addition,the site is
identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a "canyon and
ridge"feature and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character;"grading for and
construction of the proposed project would eliminate both of these attributes.
As a result,a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted,(ultimately,by the
City Council for this project).In adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations,Staff
believes that the following finding can be made:
1.Specific economic,legal,social,technological,or other considerations,including
considerations discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects;therefore the adverse
environmental effects are considered acceptable.
Staff believes that to the extent the Aesthetic impact would remain significant after
mitigation,this impact is acceptable and outweighed by social,economic and other benefits
of the project.Further,the alternatives that were identified in the Final EIR would not
provide the project benefits to the same extent as the proposed project.Below,Staff has
provided its reasons for adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations:
1.Staff believes that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen
project impacts to less than significant levels;and furthermore,that alternatives to
the project are infeasible because while they have similar or fewer/reduced
environmental impacts,they do not provide all of the benefits of the project,or are
otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the project,as
described in the Statement of Facts and Findings.
ATTACHMENT 1-144
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
2.Staff believes that the project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan land use designation and Institutional Zoning,with approval of the
associated Conditional Use Permit.As such,development of the site with senior
housing is consistent with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as
evidenced by the approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and
east of the site;Belmont Village and Mirandela,respectively.
3.Staff believes that the project is compatible in form and scale with the adjacent
senior housing facilities and as such would complement the pattern of development
in the area.Conversion of this site to designated open space would require a land
use designation and zone change and potentially require a financial outlay by the
City that could potentially be directed more beneficially elsewhere.
4.The City's Housing Element (2010)encourages and facilitates development of
senior housing through density bonuses for new housing that provide at least 50%
of all units for seniors.Further,the project will provide for additional affordable
senior housing to qualified lower-income households,consistent with the City's
inclusionary housing requirements and the City's certified Housing Element.
5.Staff believes that the project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing
public pedestrian pathways that link Crestridge Road to trails on the Vista del Norte
Ecological Preserve to the north.Further,the inclusion of this pedestrian link
between Crestridge Road and the trails on the Preserve will facilitate
implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan.Signage will help direct the public
through the project site to the public trails and trail heads.
6.The determination that the proposed project will result in an unavoidable adverse
impact on the visual character and quality of the site is based on the identification of
the project site,together with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve,as "Canyons
and Ridges"and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character"in the Visual
Aspects Map of the City's General Plan (General Plan Figure 41).These
designations were placed on the site In 1975,at a time when the environmental and
view character of the surrounding area were different from present.While at one
time there may have been expansive views of the site and its associated ridgelines
from Crenshaw Boulevard and beyond (as identified in on General Plan Figure 41)
much of these views of the site have been blocked by development along Silver
Spur Road since the General Plan was adopted.As such,while the existing
designations necessitated an impact finding of significant and unavoidable,the
conditions that prompted the inclusion of those designations in the 1975 General
Plan exist to a lesser extent today.
7.Staff believes that the project will add new senior residential units,increasing the
availability of this type of housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to serve local
seniors.The location of the project site will allow creation of a residential
ATTACHMENT 1-145
Planning Commission Staff Report
lON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
community in walking and bicycling distance to services to the north and thus has
the potential to result in reduced per-capita greenhouse gas emissions.
8.Staff believes that any development at the project site will require substantial
grading activities to lower the site to maintain views from the upslope residential
properties to the south.Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of
development at the site would not be economically feasible given the amount of
earthwork that would still be required to accommodate development.
Therefore,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR,
Technical Appendices and the public record,Staff believes that a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a
decision on this project,and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations can be
adopted.
As indicated above,the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior
Housing Project",provides the details and justification for making the necessary findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
The table below summarizes the project's consistency with the Institutional
development standards,as established by the City's Development Code.
Institutional Standard Required Proposed
Minimum Front Setback 25'-0"32'-0"to 56'-0"
Minimum Rear Setback 20'-0"68'-0"to 144'-0"
Minimum Side Setback 20'-0"23'-0"east sidef43'-0"west
side
Building Height 16'and one-story,except with 16'-0",up to 26'-10"
approval of a CUP by the (two story and split-level
PlanninQ Commission structures)
Minimum Parking Spaces
1-bedroom o (no 1-bedroom units nfa
proposed)
2-bedroom 120 spaces 120 spaces
Guest parking (25%of 30 spaces 31 spaces
Total Required
Total Parking 150 spaces 151 spaces
As with most uses proposed within the Institutional Zoning District,the proposed project
use requires approval of a CUP.Additionally,because the proposed 26'-10"tall two story
ATTACHMENT 1-146
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012·00067 &SUB2012·00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
and split-level structures exceed the Institutional District's development standards of 16'-0"
tall and one-story (see table above),a CUP is required to allow said building heights.In
considering a CUP application,Section 17.60.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code (RPVDC)requires the Planning Commission to make six (6)findings in
reference to the property and project under consideration (RPVDC language is boldface,
followed by Staff's analysis in normal type):
1.That the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use
and for all of the yards,setbacks,walls,fences,landscaping and other
features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to
integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood;
The subject 9.76-acre parcel will be subdivided into 9 parcels that will range in size from
0.43-acre to 2.11-acres.The 9 parcels will accommodate the 18 structures where the 60
condominium units will be located,in addition to the community building.Generally,the
rear portion of the site is zoned OH (Open Space Hazard)and contains a geotechnical
setback line.These areas result in development being concentrated towards the middle
and front of the subject property.
Proposed Use:
The proposed project includes many design aspects that will integrate the proposed use
with those on adjacent lands and within the surrounding neighborhood.First,as shown in
the table above,the proposed structure will comply with and exceed all of the required
setbacks of the Institutional zoning district.Parking throughout the site will be provided to
residents of the facility within dedicated 2-car garages for each unit,and visitor parking will
be available throughout the site.Since the parking will be available within the facility,no
parking will be visible from the street and public rights-of-way,and will not be located within
the front yard area of the property.
Secondly,the proposed project will contain landscaping throughout the facility and will be
conditioned to minimize view impairment by requiring the landscaping to be maintained at a
height that does not exceed the height of the adjacent structure.The appearance of the
buildings will not be apparent due to the landscaping,which will be consistent with the
adjacent uses.
Proposed Height (exceeding 16'-0"and one-story):
Thirdly,the subject site will be lowered by up to 38'from existing grade to create the
proposed building pads,internal roadway and parking area.The project site slopes down
approximately 40-feet from west to east,and much of the proposed grading is necessary to
lower the west side of the lot and daylight at the east side.This will create a manageable
slope for the site to accommodate the development,which would continue to slope from
west to east,but it would be less of a dramatic slope.Further,lowering the site will bring
ATTACHMENT 1-147
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
the western portion of the project closer in elevation to the adjacent Belmont Assisted
Living facility,which was also lowered substantially from its pre-construction grade.The
proposed grading will reduce the visual impact of developing the vacant parcel,and will
ensure that the development is in symmetry with the adjacent developments by stepping
with the topography of the site and with the topography of Crestridge Road.Furthermore,
lowering the site also reduces the height of the existing slopes along the roadway,which
will be planted as part of the project,and will minimize the use of retaining walls along the
street.Lastly,lowering the site substantially and reducing the height of some of the
structures reduces the potential view impacts over the site from the upslope residences to
the south.
Fourth,the proposed building designs are of a residential character,with a mix of two-story
structures and split-level two story structures.The architectural style of the proposed
structure will be consistent with other residential type structures along Crestridge Road,
such as the Belmont Assisted Living Facility,Mirandela Senior Apartments,and the
Canterbury Congregate Care Facility,as well as the residential character of the existing
single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the site.Staff feels that
these proposed design components help integrate the proposed age restricted (55 years
and older)use with other residential type Institutional uses along Crestridge Road as well
as those within surrounding residential neighborhoods.As such,Staff feels that this finding
can be made.
2.That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to
carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use;
Proposed Use:
As part of the EIR document and for the proposed project,a traffic impact analysis 1 was
prepared to address the potential traffic impacts and circulation needs associated with the
proposed project.The traffic study is contained in Appendix G of the Final EIR.The traffic
study considered five intersections and focused on assessing potential traffic impacts
during the morning and evening commute peak hours.The 5 intersections include:1)
Crenshaw Blvd.at Indian Peak Road,2)Crenshaw Blvd.at Crestridge Road,3)Crenshaw
Blvd.at Crest Road,4)Highridge Road at Hawthorne Blvd.,and 5)Highridge Road at
Crestridge Road.
The traffic impact analysis found that all five (5)key study intersections currently operate at
acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.The proposed project is
forecast to generate approximately 480 daily trips,with 33 trips (4 inbound,29 outbound)
produced in the AM peak hour and 44 trips (28 inbound,16 outbound)produced in the PM
peak hour on a "typical"weekday.As a result,the "Existing Plus Project"analysis indicates
1 It is important to note that the traffic consultant coordinated with the City's Public Works Staff to verify
intersections for analyses,and that the methodologies were consistent with industry standards.
ATTACHMENT 1-148
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
that traffic associated with the proposed Project will not significantly impact the five (5)key
study intersections,when compared to the LOS standards and significant impact criteria
specified in the report.Thus,the five (5)key study intersections currently operate and are
forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with project implementation.
The Traffic Study also anticipated cumulative impacts resulting from a variety of projects in
the City and in the City of Rolling Hills Estates,which borders the project site.There are
twenty-five (25)cumulative projects that are expected to generate a combined total of
18,480 daily trips,with 1,331 trips (493 inbound and 838 outbound)forecast during the AM
peak hour and 1,904 (1,167 inbound and 737 outbound)during the PM peak hour.The
cumulative projects analysis also found that the five (5)key study intersections are forecast
to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic.
The traffic study also analyzed potential sight distance impacts related to the project's
access way onto Crestridge Road.Although sight distance was deemed to be adequate
due to a proposed mitigation measure limiting landscaping height,the mitigation has been
modified to also prohibit curbside parking along Crestridge Road within the identified sight
visibility lines.The study also found that site access and internal circulation for the project
site plan is adequate and that adequate vehicle queuing/storage is provided for the
proposed project's gated entry area along Crestridge Road.Further,curb return radii have
been confirmed and are adequate for small service/delivery (FedEx,UPS)trucks,trash
trucks and fire trucks.However,the following improvement is recommended and included
as a mitigation measure to ensure that adequate access and egress to the Project site is
provided:
•Install a "STOP"sign and stop bar at the Project driveway on Crestridge Road.
Lastly,construction traffic was also assessed since construction includes 143,000 cubic
yards of export.Construction occurs in 3 phases,which includes clearing and grubbing;
rough grading;and,site preparation.Of the 3 phases,the most impactful occurs at the
rough grading phase,where most truck trips are expected to occur due to the quantity of
export.As a result,the assessment focused on the potential impacts associated with
rough grading,and export occurring between 8:15am to 4:15pm,Monday through Friday.
The results of assessing the existing situation plus construction traffic indicates that all five
(5)key study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service during the
AM and PM peak hours for existing plus construction traffic conditions,therefore no
construction traffic impacts associated with the rough grading construction component are
anticipated.Given that no construction traffic impacts are anticipated forthe rough grading
construction component,it can be concluded that the remaining construction components
(Le.clearing/grubbing and precise grading/site preparation/underground)will also have no
significant impacts at the five (5)key study intersections,because they have a lesser trip
generation potential than that of the rough grading construction component.In summary,
according to the analysis in the Final EIR (pages 4.8-25 thru 4.8-28),which is based on the
ATTACHMENT 1-149
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
traffic impact analysis,the increased traffic generated by the project will not exceed the
impact threshold and is thus not a significant impact.
As such,based upon the discussion above,Staff feels that this finding can be made.
Proposed Height (exceeding 16'-0"and one-story):
The proposed height of the structures and the two-story designs do not impact this finding.
As a result,this finding does not apply.
3.That,in approving the subject use at the specific location,there will be no
significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof;
Proposed Use:
The proposed use will be consistent with other uses on adjacent property and along
Crestridge Road.Staff believes that the use will not be in conflict with other use in the area
and will add to the mixture of housing types offered by providing additional senior housing.
Thus,there will be no significant adverse effect from the use.
Proposed Height (exceeding 16'-0"and one-story):
In meeting with the applicant,Staff made it clear that it will be important for the proposed
project design to consider both visual and view impacts that the project may cause to
surrounding existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These were similar issues
raised when the now-existing developments on either side of the subject property were
being assessed.To address these potential impacts,the applicant has taken the following
steps in creating a project that will ensure no significant visual and view impacts:
o Fully landscaping the area between the front property line along Crestridge Road
and the proposed buildings.
o Providing one,common driveway off Crestridge Road to serve as ingress/egress for
the community.
o Incorporating landscaping along the slopes within the project site.
o Reducing the grade of the site by up to 38',thereby lowering it significantly such that
the structures on the west side will be lower than the existing grade,and the
majority of the structures on the east side are within 16-feet above existing grade.
o Designing the architectural style of the structures with undulating facades,varying
roof planes,balconies and alcoves,stucco trim,metal railings,decorative windows
with awnings and shutters,tile roofing material,stucco finishes,and an earth-tone
color scheme.
ATTACHMENT 1-150
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
In August 2012,silhouette frames of the proposed project were constructed on the project
site to illustrate the locations of the buildings.Due to the amount of cut on the west side of
the site,the structures proposed on the west side could not be silhouetted because the
resulting structures will be lower than the existing grade.The heights of the frames
represent the maximum height of the buildings at those locations on the property.The
proposed heights of the structures vary,depending upon the type of structure and location.
Notwithstanding,the Development Code allows a maximum building height of 16-feet
above existing grade.When assessing the proposed buildings,Staff identified that 9 of the
19 total structures are above the 16-foot height limit,which includes:
a)four,2-story split level structures that front along Crestridge Road;
b)one,2-story split-level structure along the easternmost side of the development;
c)one,2-story split-level structure in the middle of the development;
d)one,2-story structure in the middle of the development;and,
e)two,2-story structures at the rear of the development.
Staff conducted view analyses from various residences along Seaside Heights,Mistridge,
and Oceanridge Drives.The residences are located to the south of the project site,and
contain up to 180-degree views over the subject property.The residences along
Ocean ridge and Seaside Heights Drives are at a substantially higher elevation than the
subject property,and the proposed development will not project into their views,which are
panoramic views that include the Santa Monica Bay to the Los Angeles basin,and towards
the Long Beach area.As a result,the proposed project would not result in a significant
impact to view (i.e.,adverse effect)to the residences along Seaside Heights and
Ocean ridge Drives.
The residences along Mistridge Drive are lower in elevation than the residences along
Oceanridge Drive.Consequently,although they are higher in elevation than the subject
property,due to the topography of the area,these residences do not have a view of the
Santa Monica Bay;rather,their views are predominantly of the Los Angeles basin over the
subject property and in a northeasterly direction over the abutting Mirande[a Senior
Housing Project.Staff visited several residences along Mistridge Drive,which have been
incorporated into the Aesthetics section of the EIR with view simulations.As indicated
above,the project includes a total of 19 structures,whereby 10 of the structures will be
lower than the 16-foot height limit (i.e.,16-feet above existing grade)and 9 of the
structures will be above said limit.It is important to note that some of the structures that
are less than 16-feet above existing grade will impair views from along Mistridge Drive.
However,since the structures would be within the maximum building height,Staff's
analysis focused on the 9 structures that are above the 16-foot height limit.
U[timately,of the 9 structures that are above the 16-foot height limit,the two-story
structures (a total of 3 that are identified in "d"and "e",above)result in some type of view
impairment,as the portions above the 16-foot height limit (i.e.,16-feet above existing
grade)impair a small portion of the city view at the bottom of the view frames from the
ATTACHMENT 1-151
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
existing residences on Mistridge Drive.The proposed structures that are along Crestridge
Road and the eastern property line (identified as "a"and "b",above)are at lower elevations
than the other structures on the site;as a result,these structures are in the foreground and
will not project into the view frames from the residences along Mistridge Road.The
remaining 3 structures along the rear of the development and in the middle of the
development (identified as "d"and "e",above)are also above the 16-foot limit (Le.,16-feet
above existing grade).Since these buildings are located near the center of the site,they
are in the middle of the view corridors of the properties along Mistridge Drive.Staff
believes that the heights of these proposed structures,coupled with the location within the
view frames,makes them more apparent and results in some type of view impairmentfrom
the residences along Mistridge Drive.As a result,Staff met with the applicant to discuss
modifications to these buildings to minimize the impairment.
As a result of the meeting,the applicant has offered to modify these buildings in the
following manner:
•Reduce the plate heights of the structures containing units 19 thru 22,and 45 and
46 -This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 2-feet.
•Reduce the roof pitch from 3:12,to 1.75:12 for the structures containing units 19
thru 22,and 45 and 46-This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 1-foot
•Change the roofs on the eastern portions of the three buildings from gable roofs to
hip -This reduces the amount of horizontal projections and opens up more view.
The modifications will result in a reduction in the structure heights by 3-feet,resulting in
structures that are approximately 23-feet above finish grade,and reduces the roof massing
with incorporation of a hip on these buildings.Staff believes that these modifications
minimize the view impairment such that the buildings will minimally project into the city
lights views while maintaining the larger panoramic view from the residences along
Mistridge Drive.As a result,Staff has included a draft condition that specifies these
modifications to these three buildings.
Therefore,Staff believes that approval of the project at the location,will not result in a
significant adverse effect on adjacent property,and this finding can be made.
4.That the proposed use is not contrary to the general plan;
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
For example,it is a goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan "to
preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment;to enhance the visual
character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods;and to encourage the
development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and
future residents of the community."Additionally,it is a policy of the General Plan to
"Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure
ATTACHMENT 1-152
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
their compatibility with adjacent sites".Furthermore,it is a Housing Activity Policy of the
City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing developed to include suitable and
adequate landscaping,open space,and other design amenities to meet the community
standards of environmental quality."The proposed project meets this goal and these
policies as it provides an aesthetically pleasing project that is compatible with existing land
uses and serves the needs of residents within the community.
Therefore,Staff believes that this finding can be made for the proposed project.
5.That,if the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control
districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts)of this title,
the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter;
and
The subject property is not located within an overlay control district.Therefore,this finding
does not apply to the proposed project.
6.That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph,
which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health,
safety and general welfare,have been imposed:a.Setbacks and buffers;b.
Fences or walls;c.Lighting;d.Vehicular ingress and egress;e.Noise,
vibration,odors and similar emissions;f.Landscaping;g.Maintenance of
structures,grounds or signs;h.Service roads or alleys;and i.Such other
conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and
efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in
this title.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project,Staff would recommend
inclusion of appropriate conditions to ensure the protection of public health,safety and
general welfare.These conditions would include the mitigation measures identified in the
attached Final EIR for the project.Examples of conditions and mitigation measures
include (but are not limited to):
•Limitations on the heights of walls and fences;
•Conditions regarding the placement and type of exterior light fixtures;
•Requirements for marking fire lanes and prohibiting parking therein;
•Requirements for compliance with the City's attached unit development
standards regarding the transmission of sound and vibration through common
walls and floors;
•Requirements for dedication of an easement for trail purposes,consistent with
the Conceptual Trails Plan.
•Requirements for water-conserving landscaping and irrigation;
•Further limitations or restrictions on the height of foliage and trees;and,
ATTACHMENT 1-153
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
•Restrictions on the number and types of signage for the project.
•Limitations on the heights,roof types and roof pitches for the buildings identified
above.
In conclusion,Staff believes that all of the necessary findings for the approval of the
conditional use permit to establish a residential condominium complex can be made forthe
proposed project.
GRADING
The table below summarizes the proposed grading associated with this project:
Cut Fill Total Earth Export
Movement
145,000 CY 2,000 CY 147,000 CY 143,000 CY
Within the proposed building footprints,the maximum depth of cut proposed is
approximately 34'at the westernmost portion of the site,while the fill will be conducted
throughout the site primarily for the interior roadway and ensuring a consistent slope
throughout the site.The proposed grading also includes the three retaining walls along the
rear (upslope)of the structures on the west side of the site.The maximum height of the
retaining walls is proposed at 6-feet.
In considering a grading permit application,RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)requires the
Planning Commission to consider the following criteria in reference to the property and
project under consideration (RPVDC language is boldface,followed by Staff's analysis in
normal type):
1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot,as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development
Code.
The proposed project includes 147,000 cubic yards of total earth movement (cut and fill
combined)to accommodate the proposed project on the 9.76-acres property.As noted
above,the grading will substantially lower existing topography in an effort to maintain views
over the subject property.The site will be lowered by approximately 38-feet on the west
side of the site,which will result in structures that are lower than the existing topography.
Nonetheless,grading of the entire site will occur,and will serve to accommodate the
various structures on-site,the internal roadway that will loop through the development,the
community building and the outdoor recreation area.Since the intent of the grading is
primarily to lower the site's topography,there will be 143,000 cubic yards of export.The
export will lower the site to provide a better designed project and will allow the majority of
the buildings to be set lower on the site than could be allowed "by right"without the
ATTACHMENT 1-154
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
proposed grading (or with less grading).As such,Staff believes that this criterion can be
made for the proposed project.
2.The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect
the visual relationships with,nor the views from,neighboring properties.
In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing
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,
as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8)of this Title,is lower than a structure that
could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction
(existing)grade.As discussed above,the proposed grading results in lower structures
than would be permitted "by right"without the proposed grading.Furthermore,while there
is some fill throughout the site,the fill serves to align the interior roadway,ensures a
consistent slope throughout the site and provides for transitional slopes between buildings;
as a result no fill will be placed under any of the building footprints in order to raise the
grade to accommodate a structure.As such,the proposed grading will not significantly
affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from neighboring properties because no
grading will be done to raise the grades at the buildings.Therefore,Staff believes that this
criterion can be made for the proposed project.
3.The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours,and
finished contours are reasonably natural.
The existing site topography slopes from west to east,and is higher than the adjacent
developments (i.e.,Belmont and Mirandela).Artificial fill has been identified at the site,
which was placed during grading operations for the construction of Crestridge Road along
the southerly property line.The site also slopes up from Crestridge Road to the middle of
the site,then slopes down towards the City's Reserve property to the north.Thus,some of
the slopes on the site appear to have been manmade and are not natural.Nonetheless,as
indicated above,the majority of the grading is to lower the site.In doing so,the resulting
structures will be in line with the developments on either side,which slopes down from west
to east.Due to the existing topography of the site,which is convex in shape,the grading
will also prepare the site for development.The existing contours will be removed,but the
finished contours will ensure a gentler sloping site that continues to slope from west to
east.Slopes down to the roadway,down to the eastern property line,and up to the western
property line will continue to exist,although smaller in height.Therefore,Staff believes that
this criterion can be made for the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 1-155
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
4.The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any
manmade or manufactured slope into the natural topography.
While portions of the topographic features appear to be man-made as a result of the
construction of surrounding roadways,and not of a natural topographic feature,the
proposed project still considers the topographic features and appearances of the existing
site by creating new slopes that are similar to the existing slopes.There will continue to be
a transitional slope up to Belmont and down to Mirandela,which aid in creating a stepped
development that is in line with the adjacent developments.As a result,the proposed
development would not be topographically out of scale with the surrounding area.
Therefore,Staff believes that this criterion can be made.
5.For new single-family residences,the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,as defined in Section
17.02.040(A)(6)of the Development Code.
The proposed project is not a new single-family residence.Therefore,this criterion is not
applicable to the proposed project.
6.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation
and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion
and slippage,and minimize visual effects of grading and construction on
hillside areas.
The proposed project consists of a new tract,in the sense that 9 new lots will be created to
accommodate 60 condominiums,open space areas,community building,and the
infrastructure of the proposed development.As indicated above,the grading will lower the
site and will result in a development that steps down from west to east such that there is an
aesthetic symmetry linking the developments on either side.As a result,the slopes and
pervious areas will contain landscaping to prevent erosion and create an aesthetically
pleasing site.Further,the landscaping will be conditioned so as to prevent foliage from
growing above the heights of the buildings and creating view impairment to the residents to
the south of the site.Thus,as proposed and conditioned,adequate landscaping will be
provided throughout the site to make the project less apparent.As such,Staff believes
that this criterion can be made.
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.
The proposed project involves a private roadway that loops within the development to
provide access to the various buildings.The proposal includes one ingress/egress point
ATTACHMENT 1-156
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
along Crestridge Road.The street will slope with the resulting topography and will be of a
width that can accommodate two-way traffic,will prohibit street parking,and will
accommodate emergency personnel.No street lights are proposed,and Staff
recommends a condition that prohibits street light standards.Lastly,beside the
ingress/egress driveway along Crestridge Road,the interior roadway will not be visible from
the public rights-of-way.As such,Staff believes that this criterion can be made.
8.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of
natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.
A Biological Resources Assessment was performed for the EIR.According to the
assessment,the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through disking and
grubbing.As such,there is no protected habitat (CSS)present on site.Further,non-native
vegetation is present on the site,which provides for poor habitat for wildlife species.The
site is,however,adjacent to the City's Reserve property.As such,there are mitigation
measures proposed to minimize disturbance and impacts to the City's Reserve,which
includes native landscaping,especially for those areas that abut the City's Reserve.As
such,Staff believes that this criterion can be made.
9.The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes,creation
of new slopes,heights of retaining walls,and maximum driveway steepness.
RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)(9)establishes additional grading criteria.The table below
summarizes the proposed project's consistency with these criteria.
Development Standard Grading Criteria Propos"ed
Grading on slopes over 35%Permitted on vacant lots Grading occurs on slopes over
steepness created prior to the City's 35%steepness
incorporation,based upon a [Not consistent]
finding that the grading will not
threaten public health,safety
and welfare
Maximum finished slopes 35%steepness,unless next to Some new slopes at 50%
a driveway where 67%grade are proposed
steepness is permitted [Not consistentl
Maximum depth of cut or fill 5'depth,unless based upon a Approximate 38'cut
finding that [Not consistent]
unusual topography,soil
conditions,previous grading
or other circumstances make
such grading reasonable and
necessary
Restricted grading areas No grading on slopes over No grading occurs over slopes
50%steepness exceeding 50%
ATTACHMENT 1-157
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
Retaining walls One 8'-tall upslope wall One upslope retaining wall
behind three structures,up to
6'tall proposed
One 3Y.'-tall downslope wall Not applicable
One 3Y.!'-tall up-or downslope Not applicable
wall in each sidevard
One 5'-tall up-or downslope Not applicable
wall adjacent to
Drivewav
Retaining walls within building Retaining walls up to 9'
footprint may proposed
exceed 8'
Driveways 20%maximum slope 10%driveway slope proposed
permitted,with a single 10'-
lona section up to 22%
67%slopes permitted 35%adjacent to driveway
adiacent to drivewavs
The proposed project is inconsistent with 3 of the criteria shown above.However,it is
important to consider that the subject site is a vacant parcel with undulating topography
and some un-compacted fill material that must be exported in order to render the site
buildable.As noted in the table,grading on slopes greater than 35%may be permitted
based upon a finding that the grading will not threaten public health,safety and welfare.In
this particular case,the minor slopes throughout the site are being eliminated to lower the
topography of the site.A geological report has been submitted that supports the
development of the proposed project,which has been reviewed and conceptually approved
by the City's Geologist.Based upon the analysis thus far,and since development of the
subject site will require adherence to the recommendations of the geological report and
building permits that will ensure that the proposed project will not threaten public health,
safety and welfare,Staff believes that this finding can be made.
Furthermore,a difference from the cut and fill criteria may be approved based upon a
finding that unusual topography,soil conditions,previous grading or other circumstances
make such grading reasonable and necessary.Staff believes that the proposed grading
down of the site to provide better views and a better visual representation of the project are
circumstances that warrant approval of the increased depth of cut.
Forthe other item in which the proposed project is inconsistent,Section 17.76.040 permits
projects to exceed that noted in the table,provided that the following findings can be made
(bold text for finding and normal text for Staff analysis):
ATTACHMENT 1-158
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
a.The criteria of subsection (E)(1)through (E)(8)ofthis section are satisfied;
and
As discussed above,Staff feels that all of the noted criteria are satisfied.As such,this
finding can be made.
b.The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of
this section;and
Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of the Grading
Permit,which is 1)to permit reasonable development of land,2)ensure the maximum
preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic
use of the property,3)ensure that the development of land occurs in a manner harmonious
with adjacent lands,and 4)ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
Specifically,the proposed project will lower the site while maintaining a similar topographic
configuration of a flatter area with slopes,thereby helping to preserve views over the site
and not cause visual impacts,which will develop the site in a manner harmonious with
adjacent lands.In doing so the project permits the reasonable development of land while
maintaining the natural scenic character.As such,this finding can be made.
c.Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)of this section will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity;and
The proposed project site requires a significant amount of re-compaction.Additionally,
lowering the site will ensure less than significant view and visual impacts.Development
proposals on large vacant parcels with these types of actions are consistent with prior
actions on other Institutional uses along Crestridge Road,namely the Belmont Assisted
Living Facility project wherein that site was also lowered substantially for the same
purposes.As such,Staff does not feel that the proposed deviations will grant special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and this feels
that this finding can be made.
d.Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9)ofthis section will not be
detrimental to the public safety nor to other property.
As noted above,a geological report has been submitted that supports the development of
the proposed project.Further,the 50%slopes that will be created are transitional slopes
from one structure to another,which ensures that the site will slope with the topography of
the area.Based upon the analysis contained above,and since development of the subject
site will require it to adhere to the geology report's recommendations and building permits
that will ensure that the proposed project will not be detrimental to public safety nor to other
property.
ATTACHMENT 1-159
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
In conclusion,Staff believes that all of the applicable grading findings can be made for the
proposed project.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
As shown in the attached Tentative Tract Map,the Applicant proposes to subdivide the
existing 9.76-acre site into 9 separate lots to accommodate the 60 condominium units.
Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act (SMA)lays out the findings against which
any tentative tract map shall be evaluated (SMA language is boldface,followed by Staffs
analysis in normal type):
(a)The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Government Code Section 65451.
(b)The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
For the reasons discussed above,Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent
with the applicable goals and polices of the land use and housing elements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes General Plan.Further,the subject property is not located within any specific
plan area.
(c)The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
(d)The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The subject property measures 9.76-acres in area and is sufficient in size to accommodate
the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project.The buildings are sufficiently spaced,
the project provides for open space,outdoor recreational areas for the future tenants,
complies with the applicable setbacks,and has a density of approximately 6 units to the
acre.As such,Staff believes that the site is physically suitable for the type of development
and density of the project.
(e)The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f)The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The subject property has never been developed and has remained a vacant parcel.
Further,there have been past approvals and proposals that call out the subject property for
the use that is now being proposed.There are no sensitive plant or animal species;no
known historical,archaeological or paleontological resources;and no known hazardous
materials or conditions on the subject property.In the event that any of these are
ATTACHMENT 1-160
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012·00067 &SUB2012·00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
encountered prior to or during construction of the project,the recommended mitigation
measures and conditions of approval will reduce any potential impacts upon the
environment,fish and wildlife,sensitive habitats or public health to less-than-significant
levels.
(g)The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.In this connection,the governing
body may approve a map ifit finds that alternate easements,for access or for
use,will be provided,and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public.This subsection shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body
to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no known public access easements across the subject property that should be
preserved as a part of this project.However,since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)
calls for a trail to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road below,the applicant will
provide and record a pedestrian trail easement consistent with the City's CTP.In
conclusion,Staff believes that the proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the City's
subdivision regulations,as well as the zoning and General Plan land use designations for
the site and the State Subdivision Map Act.Furthermore,the draft map has been reviewed
by the City Engineer,the City's consultant traffic engineer,the City's drainage consultant
and other public agencies.As such,the Tentative Tract Map may be approved.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT
This project is subject to the inclusionary housing requirements of Chapter 17.11 of the
City's Development Code.Based upon the proposed 60-unit project,the applicant shall be
obligated to provide three (3)units affordable to very low income households and a
condition has been included that requires the provision of these 3 residences.This is
consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan Housing Element.
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM
According to the applicant,the new community will provide a supportive services program
consistent with the Institutional Zoning requirements.The City's Municipal Code Section
17.26.030.E allows age-restricted for-sale housing provided certain services are provided
for the residents of the community.The Code lists a number of services that qualify but
none are prescriptive.The services listed in the Code that are relevant and appropriate for
ATTACHMENT 1-161
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13.2012
the proposed Crestridge community are the following services:
1.Social/recreation programs,
2.Educational programs,and/or
3.Health and nutrition programs.
The Crestridge HOA would create regular programs focusing on the three areas listed
above to offer to residents in the community service center building.Some examples of the
programs include community farming classes in the classroom and in the community
gardens,exercise classes in the fitness room,instructor lead indoor and outdoor yoga,Tai
Chi and pilates classes,computer classes,healthy eating seminars and cooking classes,
nature walks along the onsite and adjoining trails,wine tasting and food pairing classes,
book clubs,movie nights and various other educational and recreational classes.As the
programs grow and residents get more involved,the HOA would likely form a community
programs subcommittee made up of residents and a part-time programs director to assist
in developing topics for the programs,inviting speakers and organizing events.Given the
layout and amenities that are planned in the service center and onsite,these programs can
easily be accommodated onsite.
The activities would be supported within the Community Service Center building.The
2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck would provide a
second,centralized community amenity for the residents.The Community Service Center
would provide a recreation and lounge area for community gatherings,kitchen,computer
center/business room,office,fitness room,bathrooms,indoor and outdoor fireplaces,
outdoor living area,spa,barbeque and seating area.The Community Service Center could
also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for regular resident activities
like movie nights,book clubs and cooking classes.Ultimately,a condition of approval has
been added to ensure the availability of the aforementioned services.
COMMENT ON DRAFT EIR
During the comment and circulation period of the Draft EIR,the attached comment from
Mr.De Lorenzo was inadvertently left out of the Final EIR.As such,Staff has opted to
respond to the comment in a manner consistent with the responses to comments
contained in the Final EIR.It is important to note that the comment does not directly
challenge the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR.Thus,the following is in response
to Mr.De Lorenzo's email:
-Comment 1,re density:see Response 6.1 in the Final EIR
-Comment 2,re traffic:it is acknowledged that traffic would increase;however,according to
the traffic section of the EIR,the increase would not exceed the City's thresholds for traffic
impacts.
ATTACHMENT 1-162
Planning Commission Staff Report
ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM)
November 13,2012
-Comment 3,re density again:see Response 6.1 in the Final EIR.
-Comment 3a,re size (scale and character):refer to the aesthetics section as well as
Response 6.1 in the Final EIR
TRAIL THROUGH THE PROJECT SITE
During the public comment meeting for the Draft EIR,a question arose how this proposal
would connect the City's Reserve with a mid-block-crossing along Crestridge Road.
Currently,there is no mid-block-crossing,and the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)does
not call for a mid-block-crossing along Crestridge Road.As such,installation of a mid-
block-crossing is not being required.
Notwithstanding,consistent with the City's CTP,the applicant will dedicate an easement for
a pedestrian trail through the project site to connect the abutting City's Reserve property
with Crestridge Road.The route of the trail is depicted on the proposed tract map and an
easement would be recorded on the property;however,the exact location to connect with
the City's Reserve trails will be finalized by Staff.Further,appropriate signage would be
provided to direct the public through the development.Originally when the CTP was
adopted in 1990,the trail connection was classified as an "equestrian/pedestrian"trail.
However,in 1993 the City Council adopted an amendment to the CTP,which deleted the
equestrian designation and provided for a pedestrian only trail.As such,a pedestrian
easement through the site will be recorded on the Final Map to ensure that a pedestrian
connection is provided between Crestridge Road and the City's Reserve property to the
north.
ATTACHMENTS
•Draft Conditions of Approval
•Draft Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project"
•Site and Architectural Plans
•Crestridge Senior Housing Project Final EIR
•Public Comments received on Draft EIR
ATTACHMENT 1-163
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE NOVEMBER 13TH
MEETING
ATTACHMENT 1-164
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioner Nelson and Vice Chairman Emenhiser returned to the dais.
2.Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos.lON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001):
5601 Crestridge Road
Senior Planner Schon born presented the staff report,briefly explaining the scope of the
proposed project and the necessary entitlements for the proposed project.He stated
that in looking at the Conditional Use Permit and the entitlements,staff felt the
necessary findings can be made.He noted that one of the findings within the CUP is if
there is an adverse impact.Therefore,when looking at the development staff took into
account views from surrounding neighborhoods,noting concerns with some of the
proposed buildings that are over 16 feet in height as measured from existing grade.He
showed photos from a variety of residences on Mistridge Road,and explained that staff
worked with the developer and architect to minimize the view impairments.He briefly
explained some of the modifications that will be made to address the view issues.He
discussed some of the concerns raised by the public during the public comment period,
including foliage and landscaping height and trails.He noted that the consultant has
included mitigation measures to address these concerns.In regards to the grading,he
noted the 147,000 cubic yards of grading will help reduce the height of the existing
topography and lower the overall height of the project.He briefly discussed the issues
analyzed in the EIR,including aesthetics,air quality,biological resources,geology and
soils,greenhouse gas,noise,and traffic and circulation.Mr.Schonborn explained that
with any EIR there are certain significant impacts that are identified,and with this
proposed project there is one unavoidable significant impact that was identified,which is
aesthetics.He explained that this is a vacant piece of property and there is a
development proposed on this parcel,which is an unavoidable aesthetic impact.With
that,the City Council will have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations,which
specifies their reasons for accepting that unavoidable significant impact.With that,he
reiterated staffs recommendation,which is to review the project and recommend to the
City Council certification of the final EI R and approval of the entitlement applications.
With that direction staff would come back with the appropriate Resolutions at a future
meeting.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
James O'Malley (Trumark Homes)stated they are in full concurrence with the staff
report and the draft conditions of approval.He gave a brief detail of the overall project,
showing how the project is set on the property.He discussed the community service
center and how important he felt it will be to this particular community.He discussed
the architecture of the project,showing pictures of the style of the design.He
concluded with a short video simulation of the proposed project.He felt this will be a
very attractive community and bonds very well with what is in existence today and the
entire theme of the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 3ATTACHMENT 1-165
Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr.O'Malley if he could show the elevation of the units
from along Crestridge Road,as he was concerned about how close they appear to be to
Crestridge Road and the associated bulk and mass issues.
Mr.O'Malley displayed a computer simulation of the project from Crestridge Road,but
said he would get the plans with the actual elevations and setbacks.
Commissioner Tomblin noted that there did not appear to be any walls separating the
units and asked Mr.O'Malley if there were walls proposed for the area.
Mr.O'Malley answered that there will not be any perimeter walls associated with this
project
Dan Withee (Withee Malcom Architects)stated there will not be a perimeter wall around
the property,however at each patio there will be a low wall just to separate the units.
Commissioner Leon stated that one of the areas of greatest concern to him is the
massive quantity of grading that is proposed.He was not sure that Highridge Road or
Crestridge Road are well suited for the number of truck trips that are anticipated,and it
appears the math is rather optimistic for getting all of the trucks in and out in the 80
days specified.He asked Mr.O'Malley what he has done to try to minimize the amount
of grading required.
Mr.O'Malley explained that at this particular site they are in a bit of a frame or a box,
explaining Belmont and Mirandela are on either side of the property and at the rear of
the property is an OH boundary with geologic issues.With that and the City's building
restrictions and height limitations he has maintained the slopes at a minimal proportion
where possible,minimized retaining walls where possible,and has designed buildings
that adhere to the grades.He also pointed out that Crestridge Road and Highridge
Road have both survived the construction of the Belmont facility as well as Mirandela
and to his knowledge the trucks created no damage to the streets.He also noted that
he has met with the principal at Peninsula High School to discuss the issues and will be
working with her to make it safe for her students and parents dropping off students.
Commissioner Leon asked if having a bit more building height variation within the
project that adheres more to the sloping topography would decrease the amount
grading.
Mr.O'Malley answered that they were very much focused on adhering to the drop of the
overall height of the buildings.He also pointed out that they wanted to make the
community as flat as possible since the community will be for ages 55 and over.
Bob Washington (RBF Consulting)explained the site is not flat by any means.He
stated that the grade for the road that runs from east to west is about at the maximum
grade possible,which is 5 percent,to get the driveways to work properly.He stated
they tried to adhere to the shape of the site as much as possible.He noted the grading
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 4ATTACHMENT 1-166
for this proposed project has been significantly reduced when compared to projects
previously proposed for this site.
Commissioner Lewis noted a comment in the EIR from Rolling Hills Estates that they
would like to see a condition of approval limiting the activities in the community center.
In his review he did not see such a condition of approval,and asked the applicant if he
would be amenable to such a condition being added.
Mr.O'Malley answered he would be agreeable to such a condition.
Commissioner Lewis asked the applicant if there has been any discussion with the City
in terms of naming the main street leading into the development.
Mr.O'Malley stated he would be open to anything that would be in concert with the
theme of the City.
Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights Drive)stated he submitted a letter to the City,
and in that letter there are questions in regards to the landscaping plan,landscape
maintenance,lighting and glare,roof top equipment,vehicular entry gates,and on-site
trash collection sites.He felt the developer has answered most of the questions in a
positive way,however he had an additional request.He asked that items be considered
in the proposed project's requirements homeowners association CC&Rs.Further,he
asked that the CC&Rs be made available for public comment to ensure the
requirements are enforceable through the life of the project.
Linda Davis stated she moved to her home for the view and the rural aspect of the
wildlife that is there.She felt the proposed project is very dense and she would prefer
the project would be lower so that it wouldn't be so visible from the homes above.She
would prefer to have more grading at the site to accomplish this,and suggested adding
trees to the front of the development to help obscure the view of the condos.She was
also concerned about the 55 year age limit,as she felt it was quite generous.She felt
62 is more in line with what is considered a senior.She asked the Commission
consider raising the age limit to 62.She stated there will be six units above the 16-foot
line which will impact her view.She stated she sees red tail hawks in the area,and
would like to see more open areas and the buildings separated by more trees.
Ken Dyda noted that on the northwest the property is going to be graded down by some
fifteen feet.He stated that in a prior development the property was graded down to only
twelve feet.At that time the geological setback line was further back and there was an
intent to put a building there with 20-foot setbacks.He was not aware that there has
been any new geology and he didn't know why the geologic setback line has changed.
He asked that be reviewed.With regards to the Institutional zoning,he noted that
things like housekeeping and meal services should be provided,which he does not see
happening at this site.Therefore,to say there is no need for a zone change or a
General Plan change because it meets Institutional zoning may not be correct,and he
felt the proposed project only meets the requirements partially.He felt to be consistent
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 5ATTACHMENT 1-167
and preserve the zoning it would be appropriate to make a zone change,which would
make the project not in conflict with any other provisions and would be adhering to the
basic concept as to why this City was formed.
Director Rojas clarified on the map the location of the geologic setback line.
Steve Saporito stated his property concern is from along Seaside Heights.He stated he
was always concerned when a high density development is proposed in an area of
mostly single family residences.He referred to staff's photo of the project site with a
yellow line drawn on to show the sixteen foot height and proposed ridge heights.He
asked that pictures taken from Seaside Heights be included to show the visual line of
sight from the residences on this street.He noted that from his residence on Seaside
Heights anything above the current silhouette,including rooftop equipment,flags,
chimneys,and satellite dishes,will start to obstruct his view of the queen's necklace.
He felt that everyone has a right to develop their property,he just hoped this
development will stay within the theme and theory of the surrounding area.
Luella Wike stated she lives on Ocean ridge Drive and looks down over this project.She
asked that the trail plan not be changed from pedestrian to incorporate the horses.She
stated there are three churches and two retirement homes where people use walkers
and wheelchairs on the sidewalks and she did not feel the horse riders cleaned up after
themselves.She was also concerned about the lighting and asked the lights be kept as
low and as few as possible to protect the night light views of the residents above.She
also asked that the age limit be raised to 62 years rather than 55.She felt the front row
of the proposed condos are too close to the street and are not in sync with the other
developments on the street,which are set back from the front and have more
landscaping.She did not feel there was enough greenery for an upscale project such
as this one,and suggested taking out a few of the condos to make a wider setback
between them and adding greenery.She also mentioned the very tall tower for the
gate,and felt it would be much more in keeping to lower it to a one-story level and plant
greenery around it.
James O'Malley (in rebuttal)stated he preferred to keep the age restriction starting at
55 years.He suggested he prepare a detailed landscape plan to help address some of
the issues and concerns that have been raised.He explained that he is sensitive to the
concerns,especially those along Crestridge Road,and wants the landscaping to be
consistent and match the surrounding landscaping.He stated he would make a draft of
CC&Rs for the development and make those available to the public,suggesting they
may want to be attached to a future staff report.In regards to the geology,he noted his
geologist is in the audience and will be more than happy to address any specific
questions about the site.He explained the building setback line has moved and
accurately matches the site plan,adding that they are incredibly advanced in regards to
the soils and geology on this property.He stated that they have adhered to the support
services,and the services provided to the homeowners will be fun and interesting.He
noted that density was discussed,and he explained that this development will be six
units per acre,while Belmont is 20 to 22 units per acre,Mirandela is 11 to 12 units per
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 6ATTACHMENT 1-168
acre,and Mesa Palos Verdes is 4 to 5 units per acre.He supported the suggestion of
keeping the trail pedestrian only,and would be very sensitive to the lighting of the
community when planning for the lighting.Lastly,in regards to the tower,he agreed
that it is too tall and will be adjusted.
Commissioner Lewis asked Mr.O'Malley if he was prepared to commit to a maximum
height limit of the two towers.
Mr.O'Malley answered he will present to the Commission a redesign and specific height
of the new towers and gate.He stated he would be open to suggested heights and
designs.
Commissioner Tomblin explained he still has concerns in regards to setbacks and the
density on Crestridge Road.He was concerned about noise problems between the
units because there are no buffers,and could anticipate owners planting hedges and
other types of noise mitigations.He discussed lighting,and was disappointed that
comments and concerns expressed in regards to the lighting have not been addressed
in the EIR.He asked the applicant if,other than the market,there is a reason he
doesn't want to limit the age at 62 rather than 55.
Mr.O'Malley answered they do not want to limit their market.
Mr.Withee explained that the setbacks are on the map,noting the minimum setback on
Crestridge Road is 25 feet.The actual setback along Crestridge Road varies from 32
feet at its closest up to 56 feet at its greatest distance.
Commissioner Lewis noted the condition of approval that three months from the
certificate of occupancy the lighting would be reviewed by the Director.He asked Mr.
O'Malley if he would be agreeable to an additional condition that one year after the
certificate of occupancy lighting,noise,and all other operational aspects of this
community will come back to the Planning Commission for review,giving the community
an opportunity to comment.
Mr.O'Malley had no objection to such a condition.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Mr.O'Malley if he was willing to have height limits
placed on the trees.
Mr.O'Malley had no objection,suggesting having his landscape architect discuss with
the City the types of trees that would be acceptable.He also suggested that as a basic
guideline there be a condition that the trees do not exceed the height of the building
ridgeline.
Commissioner Gerstner discussed the applicant's proposal to subdivide the property
into nine lots.He asked where the separate lots are on the property.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 7ATTACHMENT 1-169
Director Rojas displayed a map showing the Commission where the separate lots are
located on the property.
Commissioner Gerstner noted that now the applicant has to comply with setback
limitations for nine separate lots,and asked staff if the applicant was in compliance with
all of these setback requirements.
Senior Planner Schonbom explained that staff is looking at this as one large lot rather
than nine separate lots for purposes of the condominium development.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that there are either separate lots or not separate lots
and there is either a setback or not a setback.He stated that he was a bit surprised the
developer was choosing to subdivide the property,especially if they are doing so to
phase the project.
Director Rojas agreed that if these are separate lots they have to comply with all City
requirements,and staff will look into that.
Commissioner Gerstner commented on the vegetation as shown on a displayed slide,
and felt that the yellow line depicting the foliage height should not have gaps.
Commissioner Leon asked staff if they were aware of the grading quantities when
Belmont or Mirandela was developed,and if either approached the 150,000 cubic yards
proposed for this project.
Senior Planner Schonbom answered that Mirandela had approximately 25,000 cubic
yards of grading on their two acre site.Belmont initially had 60,000 cubic yards of
grading,but submitted a supplemental application for additional grading.He pointed out
that both parcels are smaller than the subject parcel.
Director Rojas pointed out condition No.33 which requires the developer to be
responsible for repairs of the roadways due to any of the truck trips.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted that Mr.Dyda had commented on the Institutional
zoning,and asked staff to comment.
Director Rojas stated the Code was amended by the City Council to allow these types of
developments in Institutional zones.The code says that to meet the test,the project
must have a city approved supportive service program,and gives examples of such
programs.This project is proposing social/recreational/educational /health
programs.If the Planning Commission or City Council feels that is not enough to
warrant consistency with the zoning,the City can ask for more programs.
Commissioner Tomblin commented on the lighting,noting the amount of lumens,the
coloring of the lights,and the deflection of the light needs to be specifically addressed.
Planning Commission Minules
November 13,2012
Page 8ATTACHMENT 1-170
Director Rojas agreed,noting this is staff's initial attempt at draft conditions of approval,
and staff will come back to the Commission with new and more specific conditions as a
result of the comments from this meeting.
Commissioner Lewis did not feel the Commission had enough information to
make a recommendation to the City Council,and therefore moved to continue the
public hearing to allow the developer and staff to address the following issues:
1)a condition of approval preventing equestrian use of the trails;2)either
reducing the height of the tower or eliminating the tower;3)the addition of tighter
lighting conditions;4)a one year review of the project,while retaining the
Director's three month review of the lighting on the site;5)clarity on the issue of
subdividing the property into nine lots;6)a condition that ties the existing Indian
Peak trail to the Preserve trails;7)the opportunity for the developer to present a
landscape plan if he so chooses;and 8)closing the gaps in the photograph with
the yellow line.The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson.
Director Rojas noted the earliest this item could come back to the Commission would be
the December 11 th Commission meeting,however he did not know if that would be
agreeable to the applicant.
Mr.O'Malley understood the additional questions and concerns but also asked if the
Commission could let him know if they are generally in favor of the project or not in
favor of the project.He agreed with the December 11 th continuance.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser felt the applicant has been very responsive to the issues
raised by the neighbors and the City.He felt that if these issues raised can be resolved
at the December 11 th meeting that the applicant will find some support from the
Commission.
Commissioner Gerstner discussed the issue of lighting,noting that staff has clearly
made an outstanding effort on addressing the subject in a way that is consistent with
what the Planning Commission has discussed at previous meetings and referenced
condition Nos.58 through 64.He asked that the color temperature of the lights be
addressed,explaining that with the combination of street lighting,walkway bollards,and
lights on buildings there will be a variety of color temperatures that may not look good.
He stated he was not particular about the color temperature,although he felt it should
be in the warmer range.He felt a condition was needed to define the color temperature
of the exterior lights to a specific range.He also noted that staff has quite a bit of
description in regards to light sources shining down and light shields.He suggested
describing the lighting in a way that says an observer from off the property won't be able
to identify a light source.He explained that he was ok with light being seen from off of
the property,however he felt it was best if that light was indirect by being bounced off of
something else.With that he felt the developer would have a very successful project
and the neighbors would have the absolute minimum amount of light from the
development.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 1-171
Commissioner Lewis stated he was generally supportive of the project and felt that staff
will be able to craft conditions of approval that would address each of the issues
specified in the motion.He added that if staff can satisfactorily address the issues in
the motion he should be able to make all of the necessary findings to support the
project.
Commissioner Tomblin stated he is also generally supportive of the project.He added
that he would support the age limit of 55 and above as the quality of this project and the
price point of the homes will support a lower age limit.He was still concerned about the
look of the project and the density of the condos from Crestridge,but hoped
landscaping will help shield the condos from the street.
Commissioner Nelson stated he is supportive of the project,and felt that staff,working
with the developer,will be able to incorporate the concerns expressed in the motion into
the cond itions of approval.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Commissioner Lewis to restate his motion before the
vote.
Commissioner Lewis stated he would restate his motion,but would modify the motion
with three new items.
Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to December 11 th,for
staff and the developer to work together to address the following issues:1)a
condition of approval preventing equestrian use of the trails;2)either reducing
the height of the tower or eliminating the tower;3)the addition of tighter lighting
conditions;4)a one year review of the project,while retaining the Director's three
month review of the lighting on the site;5)clarity on the issue of subdividing the
property into nine lots;6)a condition that ties the existing Indian Peak trail to the
Preserve trails;7)the opportunity for the developer to present a landscape plan if
he so chooses;8)closing the gaps in the photograph with the yellow line;and the
additional items 9)a condition to discuss the color temperature range of exterior
lighting;10)a condition on how the light source will be masked;and 11)clarify
how this project is going to be phased,with the inclusion of a timeline for the
project.The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Nelson.
Approved,(6-0).
3.date -Review ro osed chan es to the existin Land Use
Deputy Director Pfost presente taff report,explaining that during a May 22,2012
meeting the Planning Commission had ed staff not to change the land use
designation at six specific park sites.At that ti e Planning Commission had
expressed that the park sites were small and felt the la e could be dealt with in the
existing residential zoning designation of each.Mr.Pfost also ined that at the
October g,2012 meeting,the Planning Commission went into a more . d
Planning Commission Minutes
November 13,2012
Page 10
ATTACHMENT 1-172
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,DATED SEPTEMBER 25,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-173
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DE~ENT DIRECTOR
SEPTEMBER 25,2012 \j
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DRAFT EIR)FOR
THEPROPOSEDCRESTRIDGESENIORCONDOMIMUM
HOUSING PROJECT (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)15601
Crestridge Road nnG.....-
Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planne~
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)for the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing
Project from the general public and from the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
Originally,the subject property was part of a larger vacant parcel measuring 33.97-acres in
area.In 1989,prior to the larger parcel being subdivided,the City conditionally approved a
project to allow the construction of a mixed use senior living facility for the Marriott
Corporation on the 33.97-acre lot.The approved project included 250 independent living
units,a 100-bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 skilled
nursing beds)and a 26,000-square-foot community center building.In approving the
Marriott project,the City also certified an associated Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR No.27).Although City entitlements were obtained and the City successfully
defeated a legal challenge to the approved project,the approved entitlements expired in
April 1995.
On September 23,1996,the property owner at the time (Marriott Corporation)submitted
new applications to subdivide the 33.97-acre lot into two separate lots and to allow an
assisted living facility referred to as "Brighton Gardens".The proposed land division would
create a 4.57-acre parcel entirely within the City's designated institutional zoning district
and a 29.4-acre parcel partially within the Institutional and Open Space Hazard zoning
ATTACHMENT 1-174
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
districts.On February 2,1999,the City certified a Supplement to the EIR that was certified
in 1989 and conditionally approved the Brighton Gardens project to allow the construction
of a 122-unit assisted living facility for seniors on the 4.57-acre parcel,which is where the
Belmont Assisted Living Facility was constructed and now operates.
On June 15,1999,the City then approved Parcel Map No.25271,further dividing the
undeveloped 29.4-acre parcel into two separate parcels consisting of:1)a 19.63-acre
parcel at the comer of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (the current location of
the City's Mirandela project);and,2)a 9.74-acre parcel (the subject property)between the
corner lot and the 4.57-acre parcel that is now the Belmont site.Subsequently,on August
28,1999,the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the
concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by a developer on the
19.63-acre lot.At that time,the lot was privately owned and a proposal was presented to
develop the site with a 73-unit affordable senior housing facility.In March 2000,the City's
Redevelopment Agency purchased the 19.63-acre parcel from the developer;and in
August 2001,the Agency Board decided not to enter into a new ENA with the developer
and thereby discontinued negotiations.The Board also directed Staff to consider other
options for the development of the Agency's parcel.
On May 7,2002 a joint workshop between the Council,Planning Commission and Finance
Advisory Committee was held to review proposals from private parties and discuss options
for the RDA's 19.63-acre parcel.At the workshop one of the proposals presented was
from Standard Pacific.Their proposal was to combine the Agency's 19.63-acre vacant
parcel with an adjacent 9.76-acre vacant parcel (the subject property).The development
concept was for a proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project with an
affordable housing component on the combined site.At the workshop,the City Council
authorized Standard Pacific to move forward with the project.In August 2003,the City was
informed that Standard Pacific was no longer pursuing development of the project and that
the then-property owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)was looking for other developers to
proceed with the proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project.
In October 2005,the City was formally notified that Laing Urban would be the developer
moving forward with the conceptual project presented to the City Council at the May 7,
2002 workshop.The project proposed by Laing Urban would include up to 100 senior
condominiums (including 5 affordable housing units),a building pad for the Peninsula
Seniors to develop a "Senior Center"and a public open space area with public trails.The
proposal included a parcel that would be set aside for the future development of a Senior
Center operated by the Peninsula Seniors.
On June 7,2006,Laing Urban submitted a revised plan in response to comments received
during the public scoping process.Some of the key changes included a reduction in the
unit count (from 100 units down to 97);an increase in the number of side-by-side units
(townhouse appearance)from 25 to 29;a decrease in the number of the large buildings
that contain multiple units from 5 to 4 and a re-orientation of the buildings;a reduction in
ATTACHMENT 1-175
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
the overall grading quantity,from 265,000 cubic yards to 150,200 cubic yards;and,
relocation of the passive park/overlook area from the eastern portion of the site (adjacent
to Crenshaw)to the western edge of the site adjacent to the property line that is shared
with the Belmont Assisted Living facility.In January 2007,additional revisions were
submitted to the City,which included an increase in the unit count (from 97 units,up to
102);a further reduction in the amount of overall grading;and modifications to the building
heights and retaining wall layout throughout the site.
In May 2007,the City was formally informed that Laing Urban was no longer pursuing
development of the project on the combined 29.4-acre site.As a result,while the then-
property owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)tried to identify other potential developers to
proceed with the proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project,the City
Council directed Staff to pursue an affordable housing project on the Agency's 19.63-acre
site.As such,the property owner pursued development solely on the privately owned 9.7-
acre lot.Revised applications for the "Crestridge Senior Villas"development and senior
center on solely the privately owned 9.75-acre parcel were submitted on December 17,
2008.
On July 16,2009,the project applications were deemed complete for processing,and the
environmental consultant was retained to commence work on a Draft EIR.However,in
December 2009,the consultant requested additional information to complete certain
sections of the analysis,which included visual simulations,hydrology and geotechnical
reports,among other miscellaneous information.The applicant did not respond to the
request for additional information.
Subsequently in the March 4,and March 11,2010 PV Peninsula News,notices were
published indicating that the owner of the 9.7-acre lot (Crestridge LLC)was in default with
the subject property.As a result,processing of the project applications was suspended,
and on January 26,2011,the applications were withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The 9.7-acre parcel is now owned by First Citizens Bank &Trust.Trumark Homes is
currently working with the bank to finalize their purchase of the property.The current
proposal for development of the property was submitted by Trumark Homes in February
2012.The proposed project includes a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading to
accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above)condominium
housing project.After the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012.Subsequently,Rincon Consultants was retained
by the City to prepare the necessary environmental documentation for the proposed
project.
On June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to
provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to comment on the
environmental issues that should be addressed in the forthcoming EIR for the proposed
ATTACHMENT 1-176
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
project.In accordance with CEQA,a Draft EIR has been prepared and is now circulating
for a 48-day public review and comment period.
A Public Notice was mailed on August 21,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a
500-foot radius from the subject property.Staff also expanded the radius and sent the
Notice to the property owners along Oceanridge Drive that overlook the subject property,
and to the residences on Pinecastle Drive,Moro Bay Drive and Newstar Drive.
Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula News on August 23,2012.
Further,the notice was posted on the City's website,and emailed to the 602 email
addresses that are registered on the Iistserve for this project.Lastly,a copy of the Draft
EIR has been made available at the public counter at City Hall,Hesse Park,the local
libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to download and review.
Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to the Planning Commission under separate cover
on August 23,2012.
The purpose of this item is to conduct a public hearing to allow the public to provide
comments on the Draft EIR in a public forum.No other action on the project is to be taken.
All comments presented this evening,as well as written comments received during the
public comment period,will be responded to in writing in the Final EIR.
DISCUSSION
INITIAL STUDy/NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City and its environmental consultant (Rincon Consultants)began the CEQA review
process by evaluating the project's potential impacts based on an environmental checklist.
As a result,an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with CEQA.The City distributed
the Initial Study to the public,accompanied by a Notice of Preparation (NOP)for
preparation of the EIR,on May 29,2012,initiating a 3D-day public scoping period that was
extended by the Planning Commission and concluded on July 12,2012.The purpose of
the NOP was to indicate formally that the City was preparing a Draft EIR forthe Crestridge
Senior Condominium Housing project and,as Lead Agency,to solicit input regarding the
scope and content of the Draft EIR.The NOP was distributed to all Responsible Agencies,
as well as other agencies;property owners within a 500-foot radius;the 587 emails
registered on the Iistserve for this project;and posted the Notice on the City's website.
Approximately 15 written comment letters were received from persons,agencies,or
organizations in response to the Initial Study/NOP.Copies of these letters can be found in
Appendix A of the Draft EIR.The following agencies and organizations provided
comments during the scoping period:
•South Coast Air Quality Management District
•California Department of Fish and Game
ATTACHMENT 1-177
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
•County of Los Angeles Fire Department
•County Sanitation District
•Department of Toxic Substances Control
•Metropolitan Transportation Authority
•Native American Heritage Commission
•City of Rolling Hills Estates
The remaining comments were received from individuals who reside in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
DRAFT EIR SCOPING PROCESS
After the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EIR was prepared taking various
comments into account.After completing the Draft EIR,the document was made available
to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48-day public comment period that concludes on
October 8,2012.The environmental concerns raised during the NOP comment period are
addressed in the Draft EIR.The Draft EIR contains a summary table of the environmental
concerns raised during the scoping period and where they are addressed in the document
(Table 1-1,page 1-1 of the Draft EIR).In addition,copies of the Initial Study,Notice of
Preparation,and letters received in response to the NOP are included in Appendix A of the
Draft EIR.
DRAFT EIR ANAL YSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
As shown in the attached Initial Study,the project will not result in or create any significant
impacts,or have less than significant impacts to Agricultural Resources,
Hazards/Hazardous Materials,Land Use/Planning,Mineral Resources,Population and
Housing,Public Services,Recreation,and Utilities and Service Systems.However,
through the scoping process and preparation of the Initial Study,nine environmental
factors were considered potentially significant and are analyzed in detail in Section 4
(Environmental Impact Analysis)of the Draft EIR.The impacts and mitigation measures
related to these environmental factors are summarized in Table ES-1,in the Executive
Summary section of the Draft EIR.The Executive Summary is attached for easy
reference.The conclusions of the impact analyses for these factors are summarized as
follows:
•Aesthetics
The Draft EIR identifies visual impacts that may arise as a result of developing the
existing vacant parcel.These visual impacts are associated with the change from a
vacant undeveloped parcel and its associated appearance,to a developed
appearance.This change is considered significant and unavoidable.A secondary
impact identified was on scenic views and vistas;however,it was determined that the
ATTACHMENT 1-178
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
impact was less than significant.Mitigation measures are being considered that
would reduce visual impacts to less than significant (the analysis can be found on
pages 4.1-1 through 4.1-23 in the Draft EIR).
•Air Quality
The Draft EIR identifies impacts relating to air quality based on short-term impacts
resulting from project construction.In terms of these short-term impacts,the Draft
EIR states that mitigation measures can reduce the impacts to a level of less than
significant.These mitigation measures include methods to control fugitive dust and
construction equipment controls.The air quality analysis can be found on pages 4.2-
1 through 4.2-17 in the Draft EIR.
•Biological Resources
The Draft EIR identifies potential impacts to bird nesting activity.Although the site
does not contain any protected habitat (I.e.,coastal sage scrub)and protected bird
species are not present,there are native bird species that could nest at the site in the
existing disturbed shrubs and trees found at the project site.Further,since the
subject property abuts the City's NCCP Nature Preserve,the Draft EIR identifies a
potential introduction of non-native plant species onto the Preserve from on-site
landscaping.However,with the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures,impacts are expected to be less than significant.The biological resources
analysis can be found on pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-14 in the Draft EIR.
•Geology and Soils
The Draft EIR evaluates geologic and soil conditions in terms of slope stability,
erosion,soil contamination,faulting and seismicity,liquefaction,and bedrock
subsidence.A substantial amount of geotechnical reports and studies have been
prepared for the various past development proposals.Based on these historical
reports along with recent geotechnical reports that are specific to the proposed
project,the Draft EIR identifies that with the implementation of recommended
mitigation measures,the impacts identified could be reduced to a less than significant
level.The analysis discussion can be found on pages 4.4-1 through 4.4-16 in the
Draft EIR.
•Hydrology and Water Quality
The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts on hydrology,water quality and water
supply as it relates to existing conditions and changes resulting from the project.The
Draft EIR also evaluates the conditions relating to hydrology and water quality on a
short-term and long-term basis.Mitigation measures are recommended that are
intended to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.Such mitigation measures
ATTACHMENT 1-179
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
deal with construction related impacts,measures to minimize sediment discharge and
stormwater treatment.The hydrology and water quality analysis and discussion can
be found on pages 4.6-1 through 4.6-13 in the Draft EIR.
•Noise
The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts relating to noise on a short-term
(construction impacts)and long-term basis.The analysis describes existing noise
conditions within the project area and estimates future noise levels based on noise
modeling.Based on the analysis conducted,the Draft EIR concludes that both long-
term and short-term noise impacts are less than significant.Utilizing noise level
estimates from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)Construction Noise
Handbook,the short-term construction noise levels would not exceed the Handbook's
85dBA threshold.However,mitigation is recommended to ensure that construction
hours are within the City's allowable hours,notice is sent to property owners prior to
certain construction phases,prohibiting vehicle idling and general construction
methods.The noise analysis can be found on pages 4.7-1 through 4.7-16 in the Draft
EIR.
•Traffic and Circulation
The Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the proposed project to result in significant
impacts on traffic and circulation during construction and operation,including the local
and regional roadway system,intersections,and ingress/egress to the project site
entrance.The analysis contained in the Draft EIR is based on a traffic study prepared
by Linscott,Law and Greenspan Engineers (See Appendix G in the Draft EIR).The
Draft EIR concludes that adequate vertical sight distance at the proposed project
driveway may be compromised by future landscaping along the project site's frontage.
However,appropriate mitigation is recommended,which includes a stop sign on the
driveway for vehicles exiting the site,and designing landscape and hardscape to not
obstruct a driver's clear line of sight.As a result,the traffic and circulation impacts
would be less than significant.The traffic and circulation discussion can be found on
pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-28 in the Draft EIR.
DRAFT EIR COMMENT PERIOD
The Draft EIR is currently being circulated for public review and comment for 48 days,
which is slightly longer than the minimum 45-day review period required by CEQA.The
Draft EIR became available on Wednesday,August 22,2012 and the comment period will
end on Monday,October 8,2012.A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR has been
transmitted to the State Clearinghouse,Responsible Agencies,local interested parties,and
listserve subscribers.Hard copies of the Draft EIR are available to review and/or purchase
at City Hall.In addition,copies are available for viewing at Hesse Park and the local
ATTACHMENT 1-180
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
libraries.Furthermore,the document is available on the City's website to view and/or
download.
As indicated above,the comment period will conclude on Monday,October 8,2012.Until
then,all interested agencies and parties have the opportunity to provide written comments
on the content of the Draft EIR.In addition,the public has an opportunity this evening to
provide oral comments on the Draft EIR in a public forum.All written comments received
by the City will be given equal consideration as any oral comments received this evening.
All written comments and oral testimony received during the comment period will be
provided to the City's environmental consultant for response in the Final EIR.The Final
EIR will contain formal responses to the comments received during the Draft EIR comment
period,including any changes to the EIR text as a result of the comments.Depending on
the extent and quantity of comments received from the general public and from public
agencies,Staff anticipates that the Final EIR could be completed relatively quickly and
presented to the Planning Commission as early as November 13,2012,along with the
project's entitlement applications.Nonetheless,after the Planning Commission reviews the
Final EIR and the project's entitlements,the Planning Commission will make a
recommendation that will be forwarded and presented to the City Council.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ESTIMA TED PROCESSING STEPS AND TIMELINE
At the conclusion of the Draft EIR comment period,all verbal and written comments will be
reviewed,assessed and responded to in the Final EIR.Provided below is a summary of
the processing steps that will follow this evening's meeting.This time line is an estimate
and may be subject to changes based on the number of comments received and the scope
of the issues raised.
•September 25,2012 -Planning Commission Hearing to receive comments on the
Draft EIR.
•November/December -Planning Commission Hearing on the project applications
and recommendation to the City Council.
•January/February 2013 -City Council hearing and decision on the project
applications and certification of the Final EIR.
The role of the Planning Commission at the scoping meeting is to provide the forum for the
public to provide verbal comments on the Draft EIR.No decision or recommendation on
the project applications will be made at the scoping meeting.Therefore,comments on the
merits of the project should be held until the public hearing(s)on the project applications
are conducted.Such hearings will be held after the completion of the Final EIR,most likely
ATTACHMENT 1-181
Planning Commission Memorandum
Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR
September 25,2012
in November at the earliest.All interested parties will be notified of those hearings in the
same manner in which this scoping meeting was advertised.
Staff envisions the scoping meeting to involve a brief presentation by staff and/or the EIR
consultant describing the project and EIR process,followed by the opening of the public
hearing to hear comments from the public.At the conclusion of public comments,the
Planning Commission will have an opportunity to offer their own comments regarding the
Draft EIR.
ATTACHMENTS
•Summary Table of Environmental Impacts
•Public Comments received as of September 19,2012
•Crestridge Senior Housing Project Draft EIR (under separate cover)
ATTACHMENT 1-182
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE SEPTEMBER 25 TH
MEETING
ATTACHMENT 1-183
1.Coastal Permit,Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case NO.ZON2012-
00141):3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
Director Rojas noted this item was before the Commission at their last meeting at which
time the Commission approved the proposed new home.Before the Commission is the
Resolution that memorializes the Commission's decision.
The Commission approved the Resolution as presented,5-1,with Vice Chairman
Emenhiser dissenting since he voted to not approve the project as presented at
the last meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Crestridge Senior Housing Draft Environmental Impact review scoping
meeting (Case No.ZON2012-00067 and SUB2012-00001):Crestridge Road
Senior Planner Schonborn began by introducing Jennifer Haddow from Rincon
Consulting,who was instrumental in helping with drafting the document before the
Commission.He briefly described the proposed project as well as the necessary
entitlements for the project.He explained the draft EIR is currently being circulated and
the entitlements and merits of the project will be considered at a future meeting.He
touched on the purpose of the CEQA analysis involved with the project.He also
discussed the purpose of the public comments meeting,noting where the City currently
is in the process.Mr.Schon born noted issues identified as less than significant in the
Initial Study,and noted issues identified as potentially significant and analyzed in the
draft EIR,as discussed in the staff report.
Commissioner Leon asked staff how they considered the extensive grading required for
this project to be mitigatable.
Senior Planner Schon born explained that there will be a designated haul route that the
contractor must follow.In addition,staff had to take into consideration that this is almost
a ten acre site,primarily hillside,and the main function of the grading is to lower the
height of the site which will then reduce the height of the buildings.The trucks going
down Hawthorne Boulevard would be a short-term impact.He estimated 144 truck trips
daily during the short term phase for the excavation and grading of the property.He
explained that was looked at in comparison to the level of services at each of the key
intersections.He stated that even 144 truck trips per day did not result in a level of
service that would be deemed to be a significant impact.
Commissioner Tomblin stated he did not see any discussion in the staff report in terms
of outdoor lighting.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the outdoor lighting was found to have a less
than significant impact,and additional measures can be incorporated in terms of
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25,2012
Page 2ATTACHMENT 1-184
requiring the lights be spread down towards the site.The plans do not call for any tall
light standards and the lights are proposed to be low-voltage,low-lying that are more
ambient to the site.
Commissioner Tomblin stated he would like to see a more detailed discussion about the
outdoor lighting at the site.
Commissioner Nelson noted that on either side of this proposed project are
developments of similar nature.He asked staff if there is anything unique about this
proposed project that was not considered for Belmont or Mirandela.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there is nothing unique to this project when
comparing it to Belmont or Mirandela.
Chairman Tetreault referred to correspondence received from the Native American
Heritage Commission and their concern with possible encounter with native american
artifacts during the construction phase.He asked staff what will occur if that does
happen.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that typically the Native American Heritage
Commission or the specific Native American group will have a protocol on how to
handle artifacts found at construction sites.
Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.
Sunshine stated she was very pleased that the writer of this draft EIR is recommending
a mid-block crossing.She referred to a map showing a north-south cut-across trail
route and explained the city's General Plan says the trails are to be arterial in nature
and the trail alignments should avoid being along roadsides.She stated only half of the
3,000 feet of Crestridge Road needs to be modified when the roadway is reconstructed.
She showed the trail and explained the different entities that maintain the trail.She felt
staff was presenting to the Commission the prelims to shut down non-motorized
circulation at a future date.
Chairman Tetreault asked Sunshine to clarify how the project before the Commission
affects the trails.
Sunshine explained the project was in the middle of the trail and will cause a blockage
of the trail.
Chairman Tetreault asked Sunshine what it is she is concerned about that she felt
should be reviewed and dealt with in the final EIR.
Sunshine pointed out the area where the consultant is recommending the mid block
crossing.She also pointed out this development proposal does not include the trail that
connects the nature preserve to Crestridge Road.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25,2012
Page 3ATTACHMENT 1-185
Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to display a map showing the trail and the mid block
crossing discussed by Sunshine.
Senior Planner Schonborn displayed the map,explaining there currently are trails on
the preserve property and the idea is to connect Crestridge to the hillside via a trail
through this development.He pointed out the proposed connection and the dedicated
easements on the property.He noted that the trails that traverse the preserve are not
equestrian trails and the connection proposed is for pedestrian use.He pointed out on
the map the areas that are dedicated to equestrian.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if trucks traveling down Crenshaw Boulevard was
an option to help take some of the pressure off of Hawthorne Boulevard.
Director Rojas answered that Crenshaw Boulevard has been determined not
appropriate for trucks,noting even Mirandela had to use Hawthorne Boulevard.
Commissioner Nelson commented that he and the Vice Chairman went through the
building of Terranea and their cement trucks,and even with 20,000 cubic yards of
cement being delivered there did not appear to be any difficulties using Hawthorne
Boulevard.
Commissioner Leon requested that when a traffic analysis is performed they analyze
what will happen if there are times during the day that trucks should not be using
Highridge or Crestridge Roads,as well as some type of reasonable nighttime restriction.
He requested this be included in the final EIR.He also requested alternatives be looked
at that will reduce the amount of grading,including a balanced site.
Senior Planner Schonborn explained that there were some assumptions made when
preparing the draft EIR,including the assumption that there will be a five-day work week
starting at 8:15 a.m.and ending at 4:15 p.m.
Commissioner Leon understood,but suggested mitigation measures to avoid truck trips
when school is starting in the morning and ending in the afternoon.
Chairman Tetreault stated he is interested in the mid-block crossing mentioned by
Sunshine and how that could be included,or at least have her comments addressed.
Chairman Tetreault reminded the public that the public comment period for the draft EIR
is open until October 8.
3.General Plan Update -Revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map
pertaining to the Hazard Land Use boundary
Senior Planner Pfost presented the staff report,giving a brief background on the subject
and recapping what was discussed at the previous meeting on this item.He stated that
Planning Commission Minutes
September 25,2012
Page4
ATTACHMENT 1-186
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,DATED JUNE 26,2012
ATTACHMENT 1-187
STAFF CITYOF
REPORT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A-1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT
ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
PHONE:
LANDOWNER:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,~t>I'ff'Y
DEVELOPMENT~IRECTOR
JUNE 26,2012
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR
THE PREPARATION OF A PENDING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR)FOR THE CRESTRIDGE
SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING
PROJECT (ZON2012-00067 &
SUB2012-00001 )
5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD
(THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A-1)
TRUMARK HOMES
ATTN:JAMES O'MALLEY
9911 IRVINE CENTER DR,SUITE 105
IRVINE,CA 92618
(949)788-1990
FIRST CITIZENS BANK &TRUST
PHONE:~V
STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHON BORN,AICP,SENIOR PLANNE~
REQUESTED ACTION:OBTAIN PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE
ANALYZED IN THE FORTHCOMING EIR FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION:OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM
HOUSING PROJECT;AND RECEIVE ANY INPUT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE PROJECT EIR FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.
REFERENCES:
ZONING:
LAND USE:
I (INSTITUTIONAL)&OH (OPEN SPACE HAZARD)
VACANT
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD.!RANCHO [JALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING &CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310)544-5228 !BUII.DING &SAFETY DIVISION (310)265-7800/DEPT FAX (310)544-5293
E-MAIL PLANNING@I,[)VCOM/WWW['ALOSVERDESCOM/f,PV
ATTACHMENT 1-188
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Seoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
GENERAL PLAN:INSTITUTIONAL &NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD
TRAILS PLAN:INDIAN PEAK TRAIL (B1)&CRESTRIDGE TRAIL (B2)
SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A
CEQA STATUS:PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ACTION DEADLINE:APRIL 20,2013
P.C.MEMBERS
WITHIN 500'RADIUS:NONE
BACKGROUND
Originally,the subject property was part of a larger vacant parcel measuring 33.97-acres in
area.In 1989,prior to the larger parcel being subdivided,the City conditionally approved a
project to allow the construction of a mixed use senior living facility for the Marriott
Corporation on the 33.97-acre lot.The approved project included 250 independent living
units,a 100-bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 skilled
nursing beds)and a 26,000-square-foot community center building.In approving the
Marriott project,the City also certified an associated Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR No.27).Although City entitlements were obtained and the City successfully
defeated a legal challenge to the approved project,the approved entitlements expired in
April 1995.
On September 23,1996,the property owner at the time (Marriott Corporation)submitted
new applications to subdivide the 33.97-acre lot into two separate lots and to allow an
assisted living facility referred to as "Brighton Gardens".The proposed land division would
create a 4.57-acre parcel entirely within the City's designated institutional zoning district
and a 29.4-acre parcel partially within the Institutional and Open Space Hazard zoning
districts.On February 2,1999,the City certified a Supplement to the EIR that was certified
in 1989 and conditionally approved the Brighton Gardens project to allow the construction
of a 122-unit assisted living facility for seniors on the 4.57-acre parcel,which is where the
Belmont Assisted Living Facility was constructed and now operates.
On June 15,1999,the City then approved Parcel Map No.25271,further dividing the
undeveloped 29.4-acre parcel into two separate parcels consisting of:1)a 19.63-acre
parcel at the comer of Crestridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (the current location of
the City's Mirandela project);and,2)a 9.74-acre parcel (the subject property)between the
corner lot and the 4.57-acre parcel that is now the Belmont site.Subsequently,on August
28,1999,the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review the
concept of a proposed Senior Affordable Housing project presented by a developer on the
19.63-acre lot.At that time,the lot was privately owned and a proposal was presented to
develop the site with a 73-unit affordable senior housing facility.In March 2000,the City's
ATTACHMENT 1-189
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Seoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
Redevelopment Agency purchased the 19.63-acre parcel from the developer;and in
August 2001,the Agency Board decided not to enter into a new ENA with the developer
and thereby discontinued negotiations.The Board also directed Staff to consider other
options for the development of the Agency's parcel.
On May 7,2002 a joint workshop between the Council,Planning Commission and Finance
Advisory Committee was held to review proposals from private parties and discuss options
for the RDA's 19.63-acre parcel.At the workshop one of the proposals presented was
from Standard Pacific.Their proposal was to combine the Agency's 19.63-acre vacant
parcel with an adjacent 9.76-acre vacant parcel (the subject property).The development
concept was for a proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project with an
affordable housing component on the combined site.At the workshop,the City Council
authorized Standard Pacific to move forward with the project.In August 2003,the City was
informed that Standard Pacific was no longer pursuing development of the project and that
the then-property owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)was looking for other developers to
proceed with the proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project.
In October 2005,the City was formally notified that Laing Urban would be the developer
moving forward with the conceptual project presented to the City Council at the May 7,
2002 workshop.The project proposed by Laing Urban would include up to 100 senior
condominiums (including 5 affordable housing units),a building pad for the Peninsula
Seniors to develop a "Senior Center"and a public open space area with public trails.The
proposal included a parcel that would be set aside for the future development of a Senior
Center operated by the Peninsula Seniors.
On June 7,2006,Laing Urban submitted a revised plan in response to comments received
during the public scoping process.Some of the key changes included a reduction in the
unit count (from 100 units down to 97);an increase in the number of side-by-side units
(townhouse appearance)from 25 to 29;a decrease in the number of the large buildings
that contain multiple units from 5 to 4 and a re-orientation of the buildings;a reduction in
the overall grading quantity,from 265,000 cubic yards to 150,200 cubic yards;and,
relocation of the passive park/overlook area from the eastern portion of the site (adjacent
to Crenshaw)to the western edge of the site adjacent to the property line that is shared
with the Belmont Assisted Living facility.In January 2007,additional revisions were
submitted to the City,which included an increase in the unit count (from 97 units,up to
102);a further reduction in the amount of overall grading;and modifications to the building
heights and retaining wall layout throughout the site.
In May 2007,the City was formally informed that Laing Urban was no longer pursuing
development of the project on the combined 29.4-acre site.As a result,while the property
owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)tried to identify other potential developers to proceed with
the proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project,the City Council directed
Staff to pursue an affordable housing project on the Agency's 19.63-acre site.As such,the
property owner pursued development solely on the privately owned 9.7-acre lot.Revised
ATTACHMENT 1-190
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Seoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
applications for the "Crestridge Senior Villas"development and senior center on solely the
privately owned 9.75-acre parcel were submitted on December 17,2008.
On July 16,2009,the project applications were deemed complete for processing,and the
environmental consultant was retained to commence work on a Draft EIR.However,in
December 2009,the consultant requested additional information to complete certain
sections of the analysis,which included visual simulations,hydrology and geotechnical
reports,among other miscellaneous information.The applicant did not respond to the
request for additional information.
Subsequently in the March 4,and March 11,2010 PV Peninsula News,notices were
published indicating that the owner of the 9.7-acre lot (Crestridge LLC)was in default with
the subject property.As a result,processing of the project applications was suspended,
and on January 26,2011,the applications were withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The 9.7-acre parcel is now owned by First Citizens Bank &Trust.Trumark Homes is
currently working with the bank to finalize their purchase of the property.The current
proposal for development of the property was submitted by Trumark Homes in February
2012.The proposed project includes a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading to
accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above)condominium
housing project.After the submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project
applications complete on April 20,2012.
Rincon Consultants was retained by the City to prepare the necessary environmental
documentation for the proposed project.Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the project's environmental impacts will be assessed
through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).The purpose of tonight's
scoping meeting is to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to
comment on the environmental issues that should be addressed in the forthcoming EIR for
the proposed project.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed project,which has been termed the Crestridge Senior Housing project (the
"Project"),is proposed on a vacant 9.75-acre parcel.The subject property,which is
currently owned by First Citizens Bank &Trust,is located along Crestridge Road;and is
bounded by the City's Vista del Norte Reserve to the north,by the Mirandela Senior
Affordable Housing project to the east,and by the Belmont Assisted Living facility to the
west.Other uses along Crestridge Road include the PV Art Center,a convalescent home
facility with independent living units,(the Canterbury),and a variety of places of worship.
ATTACHMENT 1-191
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Scoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project applications related to the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project include
a Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,Tentative Tract Map,and an Environmental
Assessment.As illustrated in Figure 4 of the Initial Study,the project includes 60 for-sale
condominium units distributed throughout the site,and accessed by one driveway at the
westernmost portion of the site.The proposed condominiums will range in size from 1,700
square feet to 2,100 square feet.The proposed project also includes a 2,400 square foot
community building for the residents of the development;a community garden area for the
residents at the northwest portion of the site;an outdoor community recreation area;and a
series of public and private pedestrian trails.Three of the condominium units are proposed
to be made available to qualified very-low-income senior households in accordance with
the City's inclusionary housing requirements.To facilitate the development,a total of
147,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed,which includes 145,000 cubic yards of cut
(143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards of fill.
DISCUSSION
CEQA -INITIAL STUDY /SeOPING MEETING
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),and
based on Staff's review of the project and discussion with the applicant,City Staff
concluded that the proposed project necessitated the preparation of an EIR.As such,the
City entered into a service agreement with Rincon Consultants to prepare the EIR for the
project.
The first step of the CEQA process is to complete an Initial Study and Notice of
Preparation.The purpose of the NaP/IS is to provide public agencies and the general
public an opportunity to comment on what should be evaluated in the forthcoming DEIR.
On May 29,2012,the Initial Study (IS)and Notice of Preparation (NaP)informing the
public that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)will be prepared for the proposed
project was released to the public and public agencies.A Public Notice was mailed on
May 29,2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot radius from the subject
property.Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 31,
2012.Further,the notice was posted on the City's website,and emailed to the 587 email
addresses that are registered on the listserve for this project.Lastly,a copy of the Initial
Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall,Hesse Park,the local libraries,
and made available on the City's website for the public to download and review.
According to CEQA,the public comment period for the NaP/IS shall be at least 30-days,
during which time the City may elect to conduct a scoping meeting.To provide for ample
time for comments from other agencies and from the general public,the comment period
for the Nap has been established at 31-days (May 29,2012 through June 29,2012).
ATTACHMENT 1-192
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Seoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
The purpose of the scoping meeting is to provide the public with an opportunity to submit
verbal comments,in addition to the typical written comments,on environmental issues
associated with the proposed Project.Comments should be focused on what
environmental issues should be analyzed in the forthcoming DEIR document.The minutes
from the scoping meeting and written comments received during the NOP/IS comment
period will be forwarded to the City's EIR consultant.The EIR consultant,working with City
Staff,will then ensure that germane environmental issues identified by the general public
and public agencies are addressed in the forthcoming DEIR.The DEIR is expected to be
completed and circulated for public and agency comments sometime in the Fall of 2012.
The role of the Planning Commission at the scoping meeting is to provide the forum for the
public to provide verbal comments on the NOP/IS.In addition,the Commission has the
opportunity to provide its own comments as to the environmental issues that should be
addressed in the forthcoming EIR.No decision on the project applications will be made at
the scoping meeting.Therefore,comments on the merits of the project should be held until
the public hearing(s)on the project applications are conducted.Such hearings will be held
after the completion of the Draft EIR,most likely near the end of 2012.All interested parties
will be notified of those hearings in the same manner in which this scoping meeting was
advertised.
Staff envisions the scoping meeting to involve a brief presentation by staff and/or the EIR
consultant describing the project and EIR process,followed by the opening of the public
hearing to hear comments from the public.At the conclusion of the public comments,the
Planning Commission will have an opportunity to offer their own comments regarding the
NOP/IS.
CITY ENTITLEMENTS
Aside from the EIR preparation,the proposed development will require the processing of
the following applications for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council
at a future public hearing:
•Conditional Use Permit
•Grading Permit
•Tentative Tract Map.
Although the Planning Commission typically makes decisions on Conditional Use Permits
and Grading Permits,the proposed Cresridge Senior Housing project includes a Tentative
Tract Map because the project proposes individual for-sale condominiums.The Planning
Commission's role in reviewing the tentative tract map is advisory since decisions on tract
maps must by made by the City Council.As such,the Planning Commission's role in the
review of the project applications is to consider the project and make a recommendation to
the City Council on the entire application package.Anticipated dates for future public
hearings on the above development applications are listed in the following section.
ATTACHMENT 1-193
Planning Commission Staff Report
Public Seoping Meeting (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)
June 26,2012
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
TIME liNE
Attached is a tentative project schedule for the completion of the project EIR.Furthermore,
below are the anticipated dates for the various public hearings on the project application
and EIR:
•September 2012 -Planning Commission Hearing to receive comments on the Draft
EIR.
•November/December -Planning Commission Hearing on the project applications
and recommendation to the City Council.
•January/February 2013 -City Council hearing and decision on the project
applications and certification of the Final EIR.
ATTACHMENTS
•Crestridge Senior Housing Project Initial Study
•EIR Schedule
•Public Comments received as of June 19,2012
•Site and Architectural Plans
ATTACHMENT 1-194
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE JUNE 26TH MEETING
ATTACHMENT 1-195
written to include the morning peak and theDirectorRojassuggestedtheconditio
afternoon peak.
Chairman Tetreault noted there could be more than one pp"jlooool'l'l"iiur during the day,such
as a peak morning hour and a peak afternoon hour
Commissioner Leo ved to approve the revision as recommended by staff,
with the adde dition that the truck traffic avoid the peak hour or hours on
Palos Ve Drive as appropriate,seconded by Chairman Tetreault.The motion
was roved and PC Resolution 2012-12 was approved,(4-1)with Commissioner
son dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Initial Study scoping meeting -Crestridge Senior Housing (Case No.
ZON2012-000067 and SUB2012-00001):5601 Crestridge Road
Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report,beginning with a very brief history
of the property on Crestridge Road.He explained the scope of the proposed project
and the necessary entitlements for the project.He noted the environmental process is
currently underway,with a Notice of Preparation that has been issued.He explained
the purpose of this scoping meeting to inform the public of the proposed project and the
City's intent to complete an EIR and to obtain public and Commission comments
regarding potential environmental issues of concerns associated with the construction
and operation of the proposed project.He briefly reviewed the issues that will be
addressed in the EIR and the process the City must go through in reviewing and
distributing the EIR.
Commissioner Nelson referred to pages 21 and 22 of the Initial Study,under geology
and soils,and questioned if the checked boxes could be changed from "Potentially
Significant"to "Less than Significant"in order for the text to be consistent with the
boxes.
Senior Planner Schonborn understood Commissioner Nelson's comments,noting that it
may be more appropriate to change the checked boxes to "Potentially Significant unless
Mitigation incorporated",and that mitigation being adherence to the Building Code.
Commissioner Nelson referred to page 23 and the green house emissions.He asked if
any consideration had been given to putting solar panels on this project as a mitigating
feature.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that he was not aware if the applicant had
considered solar panels or not.
Planning Commission Minules
June 26,2012
Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1-196
Commissioner Leon noted that there are quite a few senior housing and assisted living
facilities on Crestridge Road has quite a few senior house and asked if the EIR will
address the consistency of the project with the General Plan and whether,as a
community,we want to have the Crestridge Road area become the senior area of the
City.
Senior Planner Schonborn explained that as part of the CEQA analysis there is a land
use section which discusses the project will have a less than significant impact to the
area,the zoning for the area is Institutional,and this is a conditionally permitted use.
He also noted that along Crestridge Road there are several places of worship as well as
the PV Art Center.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked staff to double check the calculations for open space,
as he felt the open space on the property looked less than that when looking at the site
plan.He also asked if there will be a preference for Rancho Palos Verdes residents in
terms of admission to or purchase of units.
Director Rojas explained that the City cannot exclude people from other communities,
however if the project is approved,many residents in the City will be aware of the
project and inform family or friends.
Chairman Tetreault was concerned that the comment period was ending so quickly,
noting that this meeting will be televised after the close of the comment period.
Director Rojas noted that there has been the typical 30 day comment period,and
unfortunately this meeting could not be scheduled until near the end of the comment
period.He added that the Commission has the ability to extend the comment period out
an additional week or two if they desire.
Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing.
Director Rojas stated that no decision will be made at this meeting,as it is a forum for
public comments.Public comments made will be incorporated into the draft EIR.
Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights Drive)stated he did not get a notice of this
meeting,and as far as he knew other residents on his street did not get a notice of this
meeting.He questioned why residents on Seaside Heights did not receive a notice of
the meeting.He stated he looks directly at the property from his home.He asked if the
silhouettes in place represent the proposed roof tops of the project.He stated he was
very concerned about the height of the trees and did not feel the City conforms to its
own Ordinance.He wanted to make sure the trees do not block the view he currently
has.He was also concerned about the potential traffic problem and the flow of traffic
out of the property.
Chairman Tetreault asked staff about the public notification of this meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26,2012
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1-197
Director Rojas stated that residents within 500 feet of the project were notified of the
meeting,noting Mr.Rockoff's property is approximately 930 feet from the property,
which is why he didn't receive a notice.He stated that this project and the public
hearings are just beginning,and noted that notices are sent to the surrounding HOAs.
He stated staff is just beginning to get the word out to the public and hoped that
residents not in the 500 foot radius would hear about the project through the
newspaper,their HOA,through word of mouth,or from the City's listserve or website.
He also noted that anyone who speaks,writes a letter,or an email about the project
becomes an interested party and will receive all future notices.
Linda Davis stated the silhouette flags were very helpful to see the density of the
project,noting the project appears to be quite dense.She felt there are a lot of
buildings close to the street and there doesn't seem to be adequate space between the
buildings.She didn't see any open areas where one could look through the buildings.
She would like to see a smaller project built.She was concerned about limiting the age
to 55 and over and how that could be enforced with a private developer.She discussed
the preservation of the open space,noting the open space appears to be at the rear of
the structures so there would not be much open space visible from the street.She
stated she used to see red tail hawks in the area and already doesn't see as many as
she used to.She was concerned about the noise associated with the access gate into
and out of the development,as well as the backup of traffic getting into this gated area.
She was concerned about the added light pollution,as the buildings will be very visible
from Mistridge Drive.She would like to see more open space,and questioned how the
City's Conceptual Trail Plan would work if it is a gated community.
Luella Wike stated she lives on Oceanridge Drive and looks down on this proposed
project.She stated that if the stakes on the property truly represent the height of the
buildings,then she felt quite a few views will be preserved.She explained that in the
Mesa Development where she lives views are of great concern and asked that the
Commissioners will eventually come to the properties and look and see if there are any
views being blocked.She explained from her residence she has a beautiful view which
includes green trees.She hoped the developer would be able to take the grade of the
project down enough so that she can still see the tops of the green trees as she looks
down over the project.She was also concerned with lighting,noting that staff should
look into putting limits on the outside lighting that people can use.She noted the more
lights down there the more it impacts the night view of the City,which may be one of the
biggest selling points of the homes in her development.
Harold Craig wanted to make sure all of the silhouettes have been erected on the
property.He also questioned the contouring on the map staff used in their power point
presentation.Lastly,he expressed his concerns with the ambulance trips that are
happening more and more on a consistent basis,with the inclusion of sirens.He asked
that there be a report prepared showing how many calls go out on that area,as it will
obviously increase.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26,2012
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1-198
Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the silhouettes at the site represent the tops of
the proposed buildings,noting that sorne buildings are not silhouetted since they are
proposed to be below the existing grade.He showed a drawing of the existing grade
and how the proposed buildings will be incorporated into the area.He also noted that
the contours on the rnap slope down.
Beth Stallkamp stated she lives on Mistridge Drive,was not notified of this project,and
wanted to ensure she was added to the interested party list to receive all public
notifications.She questioned why more senior housing was needed in the City.She
asked if any consideration was given to the residents who look down on Mirandela and
how Mirandela has affected them since it was completed.She noted that she gets quite
a bit of amber light from Mirandela up into her residence in the evening.She asked if
there will be stairs up to the second story,noting that may be difficult for seniors.She
asked if there has been any consideration in putting trees along Crestridge Road to help
block the views of the buildings.
Chairman Tetreault asked if this is City owned property or a private development.
Director Rojas answered this is a private development,and the parcel has always been
privately owned.
Chairman Tetreault asked if the City will get any type of affordable housing or senior
housing credits from the State for this project.
Senior Planner Schon born answered there are three low income housing units
proposed as part of the project to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of the
City's Code.
Director Rojas added the City foresees public trails on the property as well as other
public improvements warranted by the project impacts that may be identified in the EIR
analysis.
Chairman Tetreault asked if there will be exterior access stairs to the second floor.
Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there will be interior stairs,and each unit will
also have an elevator to the upper level.
Leo Kopsombut stated he has not seen the actual layout of the units,and questioned if
the silhouettes are accurate.He noted that with the large amount of grading and then
putting up the buildings,he questioned what the view will really be like for the
surrounding residents.Also,being that this is a privately owned development,he
asked if the voices of the residents and the City will be taken into account if the project
continues,or is this something where the developer is just fighting for permits.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26,2012
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1-199
Chairman Tetreault asked staff if there was a way to get rather detailed renderings of
the project,taken from a number of different vantage points.This may help the
community see what the finished project will look like in greater detail.
Senior Planner Schonborn explained that as part of the EIR,the aesthetic section will
have some view simulations of the project site included.He added that many of the
speakers were concerned that they had not received public notice of this meeting,and
he offered his email address so that any resident who would like to be included as an
interested party and receive notices can request to be added to the list.He also noted
that he is currently compiling a list of properties to visit and conduct a view analysis
from,and any resident who would like him to visit their property should notify him.
Commissioner Leon stated he would like the EIR to address some degree of
coordination between the different projects on Crestridge Road.He understood the
need for coordination between this project and all of the other projects in the area is not
really the responsibility of this applicant,however as the projects get larger in size
having several separate and distinct and uncoordinated large projects on Crestridge
Road is not advisable.He therefore suggested that as part of the EIR it address traffic
and other environmental issues looking at all of the developments on Crestridge Road
as opposed to looking primarily at this one in isolation.
Commissioner Nelson noted several comments have been made about the lighting,and
suggested they go to Terranea and look at how they did their lighting for the community.
He felt their lighting is invisible to the neighbors,yet the paths are very clearly lit.He felt
that good lighting is possible,as proven by Terranea,and it will be addressed as the
project moves forward.
Chairman Tetreault noted that,given the number of residents who have expressed
concern that,because they are out of the 500 foot radius they did not receive a public
notice for this meeting,that the public comment time be extended by at least a week.
Commissioner Nelson suggested extending the public comment period until the end of
the business day on Thursday,July 12.
Senior Planner Schon born agreed that extending the public comment period to the end
of the business day on July 12th would not adversely affect the project schedule.
Code Amendment -Hed e hei ht in the front ard setback Case No.
Z 93
Associate Planner Kim presente staff report by giving a brief history of the code
amendment and explaining that the Ci ncil is now very specific in their direction by
stating that an applicant wishing to have a hedg r the code limit of 42 inches should
burden the cost of that request.The Council directed s nd the Planning
Commission to create a discretionary permit process that cou w hedges over 42
inches in the front yard setback.Based on that direction and as a sta'oint for the
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26,2012
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 1-200
CORRESPONDENCE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE
ATTACHMENT 1-201
City of Rtncho Palos Verdes
FEB 252013
City Manager's Office
Dear Honorable Coundl Members:
February 25,2013
We live in the Mesa Palos Verdes community,and our home address is one of the four homes that is
identified in the landscaping Conditions for the Crestridge project (Ref.P.C.Resolutions 2012-22 and
2012-23.
WE APPRECIATE the City's goal of preserving our views by establishing a zero tolerance rule that would
Prohibit landscaping heights from exceeding our view "lines"which trace the highest visible roof
RIDGElINES at Crestridge as viewed from our backyards.
OUR FIRST CONCERN is that the project's actual grading may be higher than the planned grading.thus
resulting in the stuctures exceeding the proposed view line because the ground level will be higher.
ACCORDINGLY,I RESPECTfULLY REQUESTTHAT THE HEIC~T LIMITS ON THE STRUCTURES BE OffiCIALLY
fROM THE APPROVED PLANNED GRADING LEVEl.
The reason is that if the Structures are built on a higher than planned grading level,it will negatively
Impact the VIEWS.Clarifying that THE HEIGHT limits for the structures is from the plan approved
Grading limits will ENSURE that the buildings are not accidently above the proposed view lines because
the grading is higher than planned.The goal should be to prevent any argument that the view line
can be exceeded by an error on the grading level.
OUR SECOND CONCERN is to protect our privacy and TO ENSURE that nothing the city does gives the
impression or right of third parties to ENTER our property without permission and that no easement
or right of passage will be created for anyone to enter OUR property to check the view lines without
OUR consent and permission.
OUR POSITIONS ARE,
1.WE DO NOT AGREE TO HAVING OUR ADDRESS AND NAMES DISCLOSEO IN THE CONDITIONS
AND IN THE C,C,&R'S'
2.WE ARE AGREEABLE TO HAVING OUR HOME'S SIMULATED VIEW PHOTOGRAPH INCLUDED
AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE CONOITIONS (EXHIBIT "B")AND IN THE e.C &R'S PROVIDED THAT
OUR ADDRESS AND NAME ARE NOT IDENTifiED ON THE PHOTOGRAPH.
3.BY INCLUDING OUR HOME'S SIMULATED VIEW PHOTOGRAPH,IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE
ARE GRANTING OTHERS PERMISSION TO ACCESS OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WE RESERVE
THE RIGHT TO REfUSE SUCH ACCESS AT OUR DISCRETION.
4.THAT THE VIEW LINE SHOULD REfERENCE THE APPROVED GRADING LEVel,SUCH THAT ANY
ERROR IN THE GRADING LEVEL SHALL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VIEW LINE (5)
S.THAT THE fOREGOING DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE AGREE TO LESSEN IN ANY WAY OUR
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO ENfORCEMENT Of THE 2ERO TOLERANCE VIEW "LINE"RULE fROM
OUR BACKYARD'S PERSPECTIVE OR PROVIDE ANY OTHERS ANY PERMISSION.WE TRUSTTHAT
THE CITY WILL ACT IN GOOD fAITH TO ENfORCE THIS ZERO TOLERANCE RULE ON BEHALf Of
OURSELf AND OTHERS IN THE MESA AREA Of RANCHO PALOS VERDES.
Thank you for your time,understanding and consideration,
ATTACHMENT 1-202
February 25,2013
Dear Honorable Council Members:
We live in the Mesa Palos Verdes community,and our home address is one of the four homes that is
identified in the landscaping Conditions for the Crestridge project (Ref.P.c.Resolutions 2012·22 and
2012-23.
WE APPRECIATE the City's goal of preserving our views by establishing a zero tolerance rule that would
Prohibit landscaping heights from exceeding our view Hlines n which trace the highest visible roof
RIDGELINES at Crestridge as viewed from our backyards.
OUR FIRST CONCERN is that the project's actual grading may be higher than the planned grading,thus
resulting in the stuctures exceeding the proposed view line because the ground level will be higher.
ACCORDINGLY,I RESPECTFULLY REQUESTTHATTHE HEIGHT LIMITS ON THE STRUCTURES BE OFFICIALLY
FROM THE APPROVED PLANNED GRADING LEVEl.
The reason is that if the Structures are built on a higher than planned grading level,it will negatively
Impact the VIEWS.Clarifying that THE HEIGHT limits for the structures is from the plan approved
Grading limits will ENSURE that the buildings are not accidently above the proposed view lines because
the grading is higher than planned.The goal should be to prevent any argument that the view line
can be exceeded by an error on the grading level.
OUR SECOND CONCERN is to protect our privacy and TO ENSURE that nothing the city does gives the
impression or right of third parties to ENTER our property without permission and that no easement
or right of passage will be created for anyone to enter OUR property to check the view lines without
OUR consent and permission.
OUR POSITIONS ARE:
1.WE DO NOT AGREE TO HAVING OUR ADDRESS AND NAMES DISCLOSED IN THE CONDITIONS
ANO IN THE C,C,&R'S
2.WE ARE AGREEABLE TO HAVING OUR HOME'S SIMULATED VIEW PHOTOGRAPH INCLUDED
AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE CONDITIONS (EXHIBIT "B")AND IN THE C.C &R'S PROVIDED THAT
OUR ADDRESS AND NAME ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE PHOTOGRAPH.
3.BY INCLUDING OUR HOME'S SIMULATED VIEW PHOTOGRAPH,IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE
ARE GRANTING OTHERS PERMISSION TO ACCESS OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WE RESERVE
THE RIGHTTO REFUSE SUCH ACCESS AT OUR DISCRETION.
4.THAT THE VIEW LINE SHOULD REFERENCE THE APPROVED GRADING LEVEl,SUCH THAT ANY
ERROR IN THE GRADING LEVEL SHALL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VIEW LINE (5)
S.THAT THE FOREGOING DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE AGREE TO LESSEN IN ANY WAY OUR
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZERO TOLERANCE VIEW "LINE"RULE FROM
OUR BACKYARD'S PERSPECTIVE OR PROVIDE ANY OTHERS ANY PERMISSION.WE TRUSTTHAT
THE CITY WILL ACT IN GOOD FAITH TO ENFORCE THIS ZERO TOLERANCE RULE ON BEHALF OF
OURSELF AND OTHERS IN THE MESA AREA OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES.
Thank you for your time,understanding and consideration,
~~~ertRockO
5525 Seaside Hts.Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.90275
ATTACHMENT 1-203
Crestridge Senior Housing Project
Dear Honorable Council Member:
palOS \lerdes
CItY 01 RaneM
tE\3 2 Ii 1.\\\3
,office
Cit'{\IIIanager s
,Joe (;::dJ ctS Y
&)lJlS (ivsl
2-24-13
I am concerned about the height and density of the buildings as well as preservation of the views which
would include the foliage height,lighting,and open space.
How will the construction as proposed comply with the height limitation in the case of unknown
geological features or man-made features being encountered such as the Bunker under Belmont which
caused a height increase?
I appreciate the planning commission recommendation to lower the elevation and roofs of units
19,20,21,22,4S,&46 which I believe are in rows 3 &4.(P.c.Resolution No.2012-2013,Conditional
Use Permit,sec.3C.)In light of the changes,do the flags and the landscape view line drawings
represent and incorporate these new heights?If not,I would request that the flags and the view line
drawings be changed as soon as possible to allow the residents adequate time to assess the new
conditions.If the flags have changed to incorporate the changes,some flags in rows 3 &4,as now seen,
still impair the view.i would respectfully request that the elevation be lowered.
My home address was one of the four homes mentioned in the planning commission resolution and
hearings to determine the landscape view line drawing.(Ref.P.c.Resolutions 2012-22 and 2012-23.)
How will the city enforce the views by using the 4 homes?What would it entail?I appreciated the City's
goal of preserving our views.My concern is to protect my privacy and not give the impression that
persons can trespass on my property.While I agree to the home simulation view photograph in order to
be used to preserve the view,I wouid respectfully request that my name and address not be used in the
Council's determination,exhibits,and the C,C,&Rs.I wouid additionally request that my name and
address be redacted from current review and previous considerations.I incorporate by reference the
attachment.Is there any other alternative to establish the landscape limit heights in order to the
preserve the views?
The proposal opens it up to other occupants who are less than 55 years old such as teenagers.How
does this comport to institutional zone?It appears that the project is high-density residential zoning.
Mirandela Senior Housing restricted the age to 62 yrs.old.This is more in keeping with the senior limit.
I would respectfully request that the age limit be increased to 62 yrs.old or that all the occupants be 55
yrs or older.
I would like to see open space,greenery between the buildings,and preservation of the views.In
conclusion,less is more.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
RECEIVED
Linda
FEB 25 2013
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
ATTACHMENT 1-204
Eduardo Schon born
From:
Sent:
To:
SUbject:
Joel Rojas
Wednesday,January 23,20137:56 PM
Eduardo Schon born;Ron Dragoo
FW"Dirt"
From:Ken Delong [ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent:Wednesday,January 23,2013 3:45 PM
To:CC
Cc:PlanningCommission
Subject:lIDirtl1
A project currently being developed is the Crestridge Condominium Project (ZON2012-00067)located at S601 Crest ridge
Rd in RPV.Current planning documents report that the plan is to export some 143,000 cubic yards of dirt from the
property apparently to some location off the Peninsula.The San Ramon Storm Water Drainage project is going to
require some large amounts of "dirt"for backfilling the canyon once the tunneling and other construction items are
completed.Most likely there will be recoverable "dirt"from the tunneling phase but it seems likely more "dirt"will be
needed.
We wonder,why not save and reuse the "dirt"from Crestridge for backfilling the San Ramon project?Is there something
environmentally unfriendly about the Crestridge "dirt"that precludes reuse?Seems like reusing RPV "dirt"would be an
environmentally sound and logical proposition.Reuse would eliminate significant heavy truck traffic as "dirt"could be
moved less than a mile on Crenshaw and stored in the Preserve area.
Hopefully,staff will recognize that saving the Crestridge "dirt"and reusing this "dirt"on the San Ramon project is
environmentally sound and cost effective concept and can develop an implementation process.
Ken Delong
1
ATTACHMENT 1-205
ATTACHMENT 1-206