The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_05_21_02_Crestridge_Senior_Condo_Housing_ProjectCrrvOF TO: FROM: DATE:. SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEM ERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO DIRECTOR MAY 21,2013 CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-00001)15601 Crestridge Road REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~~u.. Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planne~ RECOMMENDATION 1)Adopt Resolution No.2013-_,certifying the Environmental Impact Report,making certain environmental findings pursuant to CEQA,adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations,and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;and ,2) adopt Resolution No.2013-_,conditionally approving Case Nos.SUB2012-00001and 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 60-unit,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). 2-1 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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 2-2 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 Use Permit,Grading Permit and Tract Map applications associated with the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project. The proposed project applications were originally agendized for the March 5,2013 City Council meeting.Notice of the March 5,2013 meeting was provided via mail to all property owners within 500-feet of the subject property,publication in the PV Peninsula News,and via the City's listserve.At the applicant's request,the public hearing was continued to the April 2nd meeting.Again,at the applicant's request,on April 2,2013, the public hearing was continued to tonight's meeting. SITE DE'SCRIPTION 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 requ irements; • 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 offill. 2-3 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 CODE CONSIDERATION The proposed development project requires the processing of the following applications: .1l 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. ID 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 final 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. 2-4 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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 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, 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. 2-5 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21.2013 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 (18 for the condos and one community building),9 structures will exceed the 16-foot height limit.Of the 9 structures,it was determined that three structures would result in some type of view impairment,whereby 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, the Planning Commission required these structures 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 view impairment impacts have been minimized;and, •The project is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. 2-6 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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. 2-7 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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 mihimize 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. 2-8 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 •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 m'easures 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 Map,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 Subdivision 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. 2-9 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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. 2-10 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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 and record a pedestrian trail easement on the property 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 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 2-11 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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.Ttius,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 completely 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 is 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 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. •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. 2-12 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 •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 adjacent 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,including three units that are affordable to very low income households,thereby 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. 2-13 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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 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 proje'ct,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.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 2-14 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 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. MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED CONDITION OF ApPROVAL REGARDING FOLIAGE: In order to avoid 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 certain residences along Mistridge and Seaside Heights Drives.The line follows the highest visible roof ridgelines of the buildings at the development (see Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No.2013-_).The intent of the condition is to restrict foliage from growing higher than these structures,but 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,based on follow-up discussion with the residents along Mistridge,Ocean ridge and Seaside Heights Drives,several residents have requested that their addresses not be used in the conditions of approval and subsequent CC&Rs for the development.Their concern is that listing their addresses compromises their privacy.After speaking to the City Attorney,Staff believes that deleting specific addresses will not undermine the intent of the condition.As such,in order to address all 2-15 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 of these concerns,Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approved condition be modified to read as follows: "In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive,Ocean ridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,all [private/common]landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No.2013-_).If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any 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. SENIOR HOUSING (55 AND OLDER VS.62 AND OLDER): The developer has always proposed that this project will be a for-sale market rate condominium project that is limited to residents who are 55 years of age and older. During a recent meeting with some neighborhood residents to the south (in the Mesa Palos Verdes neighborhood),residents inquired about the difference between a 55 and older senior housing development and a 62 and older senior housing development. (The existing Mirande/a affordable housing project,which abuts the subject property,is limited to residents 62 years and older.) To briefly summarize,the key statute regulating age 62 and over developments is the Federal Housing Act (Act).There is no limitation on the number of units in this type of project.The Act mandates that such housing may only allow: •Occupancy by persons 62 or over •Employees under age 62 (Le.,care takers)and their families in the same unit that perform substantial duties directly related to management/maintenance (care for the needs of the person that is age 62 or over) •Unoccupied units if reserved for occupancy by persons 62 years of age or over The key statute regulating age 55 and older developments is California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.This State law applies to projects with 35 or more residential units and mandates that such housing must allow: •Occupancy by a person 55 or older •Qualified permanent residents (Le.,spouse/cohabitant)residing with a person 55 or older may continue to reside in the unit after the death of the person who was 2-16 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 55 years of age or older,provided they were residents prior to death of the person who was 55 and older,and they are age 45 or older •Disabled person(s) •Permitted health care resident providing primary physical or economic support to the qualifying senior citizen It is important to note that to qualify as a senior housing project,there must be age restrictions,subject to the mandatory exceptions listed above,and that the CC&Rs must mandate that one person in each dwelling unit is required to be a qualifying senior citizen or qualifying resident.As indicated in previous Staff Reports,the CC&Rs for this development will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and Staff to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and conditions. ON-SITE SILHOUETTE OF PROPOSED PROJECT: There have been several inquiries from residents in the Mesa Palos Verdes neighborhood regarding the silhouettes constructed on-site.The original silhouettes were installed during the Fall 2012.However,due to weather damage,the silhouettes were restrung several months ago,which raised concerns that the project had changed and buildings were being raised.The proposed project's site layout and building heights have not changed since the Planning Commission decision.Further,during Staffs meetings with the community and subsequent site visits to properties along Mistridge Drive,Staff has verified that the existing silhouettes have not changed. 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 on 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 pad,prior 2-17 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 to construction of each building on that 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 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 has begun and fill material for the project will be needed this summer,while the developers of the Crestridge Project are targeting to start on this project at the end of the year. 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.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. 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",and Exhibit "B"titled "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program". •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 2-18 City Council Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project May 21,2013 •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 •Pl'anning Commission Staff Report,dated June 26,2012 •Planning Commission Minutes (excerpt)of the June 26th meeting •Correspondence in response to Notice •Plans (Le.,Tentative Map,site plan,grading plan,etc.)-Hard Copies Only •Final EIR (CD) 2-18A RESOLUTION No.2013-_, CERT·IFYING 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",AND EXHIBIT "B"TITLED "MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM" 2-19 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, 2-20 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 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 continued the public hearing to the April 2,2013 City Council meeting at the applicant's request;and, WHEREAS,on April 2,2013,at the applicant's request,the public hearing was continued to May 21,2013;and, WHEREAS,on May 21,2013,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project,the Final EIR,the Resolution No.2013-_ 2-21 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: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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-22 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 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". Resolution No.2013-_ 2-23 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 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-_ 2-24 PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21 st day of May 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 May 21,2013. City Clerk Resolution No.2013-_ 2-25 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT IJA" 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 May 21,2013 2-26 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 StudyjNotice 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 Verdes2-27 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 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 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 ElK (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 identified in the final ElK 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 Verdes2-28 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 EFR at its hearing of March 5,2013. The Final ErR is comprised of the following elements: •The Final Crestridge Senior Housing ErR,including the responses to comments on the Draft ErR and changes made to the ErR 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 Preparation; 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 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-law-income households, in accordance with the City's inclusionary housing requirements. r 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-29 The proposed townhome-style and single-level living stacked flat 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 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 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 r 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-30 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 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 •13,000-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 •Community garden and orchard sf =square feet Source:Trumark Companies,2012 r 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-31 III EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE 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 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 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 2-32 AIR QUALITY Will the Project: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? 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 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 Verdes2-33 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 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 ofseptic 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 nofintroduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous 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 2-34 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 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 safeh)hazard for people residing or working in the project area?For a project within the vicinih)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 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 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 1DO-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 of loss,injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? r 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-35 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 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 ofmitigating 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 Oty 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 ofavailabilitlJ ofa locally-important mineral resource recovery 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 Verdes2-36 the project area to excessive noise levels?For a project within the vicinity ofa 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. 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 ofreplacement housing elsewhere?Displace substantial numbers ofpeople,necessitating the construction ofreplacement 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 ofnew 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 ofthe facility would occur or be accelerated?Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? 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 2-37 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. TRANSPORTATION/fRAFFIC 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 capacity 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 2-38 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 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 properties along Mistridge Drive and 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 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. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes 12 2-39 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 III,less than significant. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Increased Traffic.Vehide 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. r 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 well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 13 2-40 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 irripermeable 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 Gass 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 Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as City of Rancho Palos Verdes 14 2-41 • • 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. 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 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 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 levels to the maximum extent feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise City of Rancho Palos Verdes 15 2-42 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 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 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 that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further to further improve site circulation and access. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 16 2-43 r 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 intrease 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 2-44 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 Quality,of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGA TION INCORPORA TED. 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 (PMlO).On-site construction-related emissions would also exceed SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for PMI0 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 ElR. 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 2-45 r 2.Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time througlwut 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 2-46 6.The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization ofwheel 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 ofthe day,ifvisible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. 8.Personnel involved in grading operations,including contractors and subcontractors,shall wear respiratonJ protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational SafehJ and Health regulations. 9.All residential units located within 500 feet ofthe construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule ofthe 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 identified in the Draft EIR. Fads 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 ElR. r 20 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-47 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 ElR. 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 2-48 •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 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 MITIGATION INCORPORATED. 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 2-49 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 •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 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. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes 23 2-50 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. Fads 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 2-51 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 ElR. 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 ElR. r 25 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-52 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 expansionpotential 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 ElR. 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 Verdes2-53 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 ElR. 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. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes 27 2-54 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 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 Verdes2-55 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. r 29 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-56 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 Verdes2-57 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 EIR).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 Verdes2-58 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 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,consistenClJ with the existing Institutional Zoning at the site,compatibility with existing development in the area,cost ofland aquisition and existing environmental and view character ofthe 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 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. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 32 2-59 Finding •Specific economic}legal}social,technological}or other considerations}including considerations for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services}provision ofpedestrian trails} compatibility with existing development in the area and existing environmental and view character ofthe 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 Verdes2-60 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 (EIR)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 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 Verdes2-61 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 ElR 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 CihJ 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 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 r 35 City of Rancho Palos Verdes2-62 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 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 Verdes2-63 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 Schonbom,AICP (310)544-5228 Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants,Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura,California 93003 May 2013 2 - 6 4 Crestridge Senior Housing Project ErR 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 2 - 6 5 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AESTHETICS AES-1 Landscape Maintenance.In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive,Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,all [private/common]landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No.2013-_).If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any 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. 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 ridoelines of the development. AIR QUALITY 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. Once prior to issuance of building permits,once prior to occupancy clearance Periodically during grading and construction Community Development Department - Planning and Zoning Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division Review landscape plan for compliance with the measure, and ensure implementation in the field Verification of implementation in the field during grading and construction 3. r 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 6 6 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 altematively 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: rr 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 2 - 6 7 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 (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 sian leaible at a distance of 50 feet must also be r 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 6 8 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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. 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 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.!).30-50 feet for oasserines)should 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 2 - 6 9 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 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 cyc/ops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle),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 rooosed oroiect for Citv review and aooroval shall 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, Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department Community Development Department - Planning and Zoning Division Onsite construction manager, 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 0 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 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 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 r periodically during grading and construction Ongoing during site preparation and grading Ongoing during site preparation and grading Community Development Department - Building and Safety 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 stockpiling 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 1 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 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 slooe maintenance orior to issuance of a aradina oermit. 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. 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 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 Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and 8 Verify implementation during grading and construction Verify that plans comply with measure,and implementation during grading and construction Reviewas-graded report City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 2 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring 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 City. 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: • 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 On site 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 3 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 andlor 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 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 Communitv Develooment Director orior to the mailin,.. 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 2 - 7 4 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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. 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 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. 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 On site construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safety Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development 11 Verify implementation during grading and construction Verify implementation during grading and construction Verify implementation during grading and construction City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 5 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 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 receotors. 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, r Ongoing during project grading and construction 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 Safety 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 Onsite construction manager, Community Development Department - Building and Safetv Division Onsite construction manager, Community Development 12 Verify implementation during grading and construction 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 2 - 7 6 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 Department - Building and Safety Division 13 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2 - 7 7 RESOLUTION No.2013-_, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE Nos.SU82012-00001 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 SU82012-00001 2-78 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 (SUB20 12-00001)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 2-79 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 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 continued the public hearing to the April 2,2013 City Council meeting at the applicant's request;and, WHEREAS,on April 2,2013,at the applicant's request,the public hearing was continued to May 21,2013;and, WHEREAS,on May 21,2013,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence 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: Resolution No.2013-_ 2-80 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 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 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. TENTATIVE 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 "[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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-81 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 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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 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: Resolution No.2013-_ 2-82 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 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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-83 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 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 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 Ocean ridge 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 (Le., Resolution No.2013-_ 2-84 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 Drive.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.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. 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 preseNe 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 seNes 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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-85 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. 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 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 offoliage 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 su bstantially 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 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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-86 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 (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 Resolution No.2013-_ 2-87 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 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. Resolution No.2013-_ 2-88 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 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 cu~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. Resolution No.2013-_ 2-89 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. Section 6:The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,Exhibit "B"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 Exhibits "A"and "B",which are incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No.2013-_ 2-90 PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21 st day of May 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California ) Cou nty 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 May 21,2013. City Clerk Resolution No.2013-_ 2-91 EXHIBIT 'A'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 8.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 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. 2-92 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 Reeorders 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 mitigation 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 2-93 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.In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive,Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,all private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-_).If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any 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 2-94 Restrictions (CC&R's)shall be submitted for review and approval by 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 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. 2-95 •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 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. 2-96 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. 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 add ition 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. 2-97 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: •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 2-98 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. 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. 2-99 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 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. 2-100 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 2-101 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 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 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. 2-102 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» 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. 2-103 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. 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.In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive,Ocean ridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,all common landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive,which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-_).If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any 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. 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. 2-104 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 discouraged 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. 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. 2-105 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. 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. 2-106 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. 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. 2-107 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). 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» 2-108 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 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 2-109 •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. 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) 2-110 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-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 BI0-4(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 BI0-4(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 2-111 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 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) 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 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, 2-112 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» 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» 2-113 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:Ahip 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 2-114 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 on 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 pad,prior to construction of each building on that 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-bedroom 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 2-115 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. 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. 128.The condominium development is a senior housing development for seniors aged 55 and older.The development shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Laws governing senior housing for seniors aged 55 and older. 2-116 :xJ I'D tila c .-+ 0' ::J Za Na f-'"w I ~ in' .-+..,c: m Otl xI'D ~0 c- .., ~.t OJ I'D :xJ I'D tilc: I'D ::Jn I'D 2 - 1 1 7 ~ ~ :::::!,c.. OQro o :::::!.<ro ;0ro V\a: (l) ::Jn (l) ;0 (l) V\ 2-a.,o ::J Zo No...... W I mx=r 0:;:::;: OJ 2 - 1 1 8 ~ rtl VIo c !:!,o :::l Zo Na....w I $: Vi' .-+ ::!.e- m Otl xrtl '=r0 0- -.. ;:::;:<' OJ rtl ~ rtl VI 0: rtl :::ln rtl 2 - 1 1 9 V'l (l) aJ V> 0: (l) :::I: (l) c7Q' :r..... V> o ~.<(l) :::0 (l) V> 0: I'D ::Jn (l) :::0 (l) V>o c !:t.o ::J Zo No ~ W I 2 - 1 2 0 EIR Executive Summary Attachments 2-1 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-1 Attachments 2-2 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary 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-l 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: City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-2 Attachments 2-3 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary •Agricultural and Forestry Resources ..Cultural Resources lit Hazards and Hazardous Materials lit Land Use and Planning ..Mineral Resources ..Population and Housing ,.Public services •Recreation lit Utilities and Service Systems In the case of CulturalResources,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. 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 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; •FoliagelTrees 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. None available. Less than significant Significant and unavoidable. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-3 Attachments 2-4 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 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. 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 PM1 0 and PM2.5.However,with implementation of mitigation, temporary construction impacts would be Class II,significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measures None required. 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. Residual Impact Less than significant. Less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-4 Attachments 2-5 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures 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 (Le.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing, Residual Impact City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-5 Attachments 2-6 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Impact Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Mitigation Measures 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. Residual Impact City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-6 Attachments 2-7 None required. Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures AQ-2 Operation of the proposed None required. 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. AQ-3 The proposed project would None required. be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. AQ-4 Vehicle traffic associated None required. 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 B10-1 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. Residual Impact Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes B10-2 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. B10-3 The proposed Crestridge Senior Housing Project would not be expected to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident r None required. B10-3 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 ES-7 Less than significant. Less than significant. Attachments 2-8 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 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. 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. Mitigation Measures 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(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 molle),Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus Residual Impact Less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-8 Attachments 2-9 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Impact Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Mitigation Measures 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. Residual Impact 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. 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·1 Discovery Procedure.If cultural Less than significant. 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 Less than significant. 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. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-9 Attachments 2-10 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact 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. 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. Mitigation Measures 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. None required. 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 Residual Impact Less than significant. Less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-10 Attachments 2-11 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Impact Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Mitigation Measures 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. Residual Impact 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-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(a)Geotechnical Recommendations.Less than significant. 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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-11 Attachments 2-12 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES·1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures 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 andlor 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. Residual Impact GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GHG-1 The proposed project would None required. 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. GHG-2 The proposed project would None required. 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. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HWQ 1 During grading for and None required. 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 Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. r ES-12 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-13 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures than significant. HWQ 2 Development of the None required. 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 iii 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. NOISE Residual Impact Less than significant. 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;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 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-13 Attachments 2-14 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Impact Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Mitigation Measures 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 Residual Impact City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-14 Attachments 2-15 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary 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 None required.Less than significant. could generate intermittent levels of ground borne 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 N-3 Project-generated traffic None required.Less than significant. 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. N-4 Operation of the proposed None required.Less than significant. 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 CIRCULA TlON T-1 Project-generated traffic None required. 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. T-2 Project-generated traffic None required. would not exceed LOS standards for Crestridge Road.Therefore, impacts to street segments would be Class III,less than significant. T-3 Project-generated traffic None required. would not affect vehicle storage r ES-15 Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-16 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 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. 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-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. T-7 Access to Crestridge Road and the project site during project grading and construction would be provided via Highridge Road and Mitigation Measures 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. 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. None required. None required. Residual impact Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. Less than significant. r ES-16 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-17 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 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. Mitigation Measures Residual Impact City of Rancho Palos Verdes ES-17 Attachments 2-18 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank. ES-18 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-19 PCRESOLUTIONNo.·20 12-22,RECOMMENDING THAT THE·CITVCOO'NCIL CERTIFY THEEIIlFOR THE eRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ADOPTEDSY TaE P.Lt\NNING COMM1SSION ON DEC$MBER 11,2012 Attachments 2-20 P.O.RESOLUTION NO.2012...22 ARE:SOLUTIONOF THE PLANNING·COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PAL.OS VEROESRECOMMENDINGTHATTHECITY COUNCIL eERTIFY ANENVIRONI\IIE.NTAL 1I\llPACTREPORT;I\IIAKING QERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THECALJFORNIA ENVIRONME.NTAL QUALITY ACT;ADC,PTING ASTATEI\JIENToF OVERRIDING CONSiDERATioNS;AND,.A MITIGATIONMONITO~JNG AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THECRESTRIDGE SENIOR ClONDOMINIUIVI.HOUSING PROJECT(CASENOS.ZON2012..00067& 5U82012..00001)LOCATEDAT5601CRESTRIDGEROAD.(APN 7589.. 013-009). WHEREAS,orlFeoruary22,40 12,applicationiS for an Envi ron 111¢f1ta I ASiSe$$rnent., Conditipnal Use Permiti Gr<;;1ding Perrnit·(ZON2012,.,QU067)and Tentative Tract M<;;1p (8U 132012..000(1)were su~mitteq to the Community Development Departmentfor 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a60~unitsenior(<;;1ge re$trlotedto55 years and above)condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-'acre PEiroel located at 5601 Creslridge RQad (APN 7p89-013,.OQ9j;and, V\iHEREAS,afterlhe submittaloT additional infornlatibn,Staff deemed the project applIcations oomplete on April 20,2012,pur$Uanf to the State Permit Streamlioing Act (P$Aj,Government Code Section 85920 etsfJC{.;and, WHEREAS,pursuant tothe PfQVisjoqsoftheCalifornia Envifo?mentai Quality Act, Public Resoufces .CodeSections 2tOOO et.sfj~.("C~C?A"),theState'sCEQA Guidelines, California CodeQf Regulation,Title 14,Seetion150aOetseq.,the City'S Local CE(4A GuideJines,and GoveromentCO<:ie .8eclion65962.5(f}(HazCirdQus V\!asteandSupstqnoe$ St?tement),the City of Ranchq Palos VerdeiS prePEiTed an EhvironmentAll ImPElPfRePort (State Clearinghouse Number20120q1 079)(the "EIR");and, WHERiEAS,fhe Citypreparedan Initial Environmel1fal Study (the "lnitlaIStudY\'}Tor the Projectpursuant toSeotion 15083 ofthe CEQAGuidelinss,and on May 2~,2012,the InitiafStudy(IS)and Notioe of Preparation (NOp)W€ls rele<;;1sed to thepqj)lipandpub1io aganciesfor a comment pe~iod of 31.days (through June291 20t2)..Further)a .~~bUc Notice was mailed on May 29,2012 to theS]properly owners that are withina500,.foQt radius from thesubjectproper1;y.$t..ipsequently ~the Notice Was pt..ib!ishedlnthe Pef1in.sqla News on May3t,2012.Furthermore,the notioe was posted on the City's website,and emaJleq f()the 587 email addresses that are regJstered on the li$t$~tve forthis projeot Lastly,.a copy of the Initial Study was made available at IhepubUc coumteratOity Hall, Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made availahle onthe Gity's websiteforthepublio to download and revi¢w;and, VVHERE:AS,QnJune 26,2012,the ...~lahningC6mmisSionconducted ..ap.ublic scoping meeting to provideaforumforagencies andmetnbers of theoommunify to provide verbal oommentson the IS/NOP,at which firne the PlanningComrnission extended the cpmment period througbJuly 12,20t2;;and, Attachments 2-21 WHEREEAS,aft~r th~NOPcomm~nt periQgended.,the Draft EIR was prepared taking .various comrnentsinto account After completing the DraftEIH,the documenIw<;ts made availabfeto the publicon.August21,2012 fora 48-day public comment period that concluded otl Ootober 8,2012;and, WHEREAS ..on$eptember26,2Q12 the Plqnning COl11mission helga puplic comment session to providelhepublicwith anopportunitylo subrnifVetbalcornrnenf$,in addition to the typical written comments.on tneQraft EIR;and. WHERJSA.S,On October2p,2(j12,the Fin<:l!E:IRwqscompletedand Notice was proviqed vi?!mail ang publication in the Ptt Peninsula News thad a public hearing was scned111edwlth the Planning CommIssion on November 13,20t2 to revieW the Final EIR and the entittement applications fortbe proposed projeet..Subsequently1a notice Was emalledtothe611peopleregisteredontbeCify.s!istserve for this project and, vvHEREAS,after notice was issued pursuanttothetequiremenfsoftheRancho Palos Verdes DevelopmentCodeand CEQA,thePlanning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing On November 13,2012,qfwhich timea.tl jnter~$tedpq!ties weresivenan opportunity to be hea.rd and fqrtherpresenlevidencerega.rdlng the.entitlementsassQciated with the ProJect,the FinfiJI EIRandthe responses tothecornn1ents received regarding the Draft EIR;and, WHEREAS,at the NO\lember t$,.2Q1.2 PlanningCommissiop meeling,tt1ePla nning Gornmi$siondirected StafTtoinclllde conditions tQ a{jdress lighting,lqn~soaping,tr~ilU$e, and tower height,and r~tl.lrn to the Planning Cornrni$siotton December 11,·2.012.with Resolutions for consideration. NOW,THEREFORE,THEPLAN Nlf\J13 CQMIV11SS10N OF.THECITVDF RANCHC)PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FINIJ,IJETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: S~etl()n1 :Pursuant IPCEOASl.lidellne$Seclions1.5Q6#.tand 16081,and based upon information contained in the Initia.IStL!clYf the City ordered theprepa.ratlon or an Environrnentallmpact .Repo!t("EIR"}for the.Project...The .Cityoontractegwith .incfependent conSUltants for the preparation of the technical studiesforthe E1Rafld on May29,20t2, prepared and sent a NotlcepfPreparationpf theEIRto responsible,trustee,andother interesteclagenciesand persons in.qccprdance with (111idelines Slectipo1$Q82{<;lJ. Comments on the Noticeo.f Preparation wereaCGepleddl.1Tlngan extended.45 ..day comment petiodendingonJuly121 2012.Dutln~thesco~lh~period.j.the City held an advertised publicmeeflngon June 26,201.2.,to facIlitate pubHcjnpulregarding the sCope of the SIR Section 2:TheCilycol11pletedtheDraftEIR.,together with those certqin technical appendiCes (the tlf\ppendices"),on Augusl.22,2012.TheCifycirculatedthe[)raftEIRand the Appendices to the pubUcandothet inferestedparties from August 2.2;2012 through OctoberS,201.2,fora 48...day comrnentpedo.d.In addition to reCeiving written comments Attachments 2-22 submitted duting thIs time,publiC comments were teceivedaf theSeptember20,20t2, tegularlYscheduled PlannihgGommIssJon meeting. Section 3:During the Dretft EIR puplic comment period,including at the September 25,2012 Planning Commission meeting,the Gity receivednurnerousJetters and comments.Respbnses to .each oT the indiVidualcomrnents,ihcluding a number of master responses,were prepared and rnadeavaHable on Qctober2$,2012.The comments and responses are fpundJrot11 pages $,..1 through8~83ofthe FinalE1R,.andafe incorporated hereinpy reference.The written responses to cornments were made avaflableforpublic review in the Cotnmu111ty Development Department,at the Rancho Palos Verdes.PubUc Library and on fheCJty's Website,After reviewing the responses to comments,the revIsions to the Draft EIR,and the Pinal EIR,the Planning Commission CQncludes that the informationandissves raised by the comments and the responses thereto do not constitute new information requifingrecfrGlJlatlonof the Draft BIB. Section 4:The Final EIR is comprised of the DtaftEfft b1cluding AppendiCes, and the CornmentsandResponse to Comments on thEt Draft:EIRdated Qctober2Q12; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prqgram. SectionS:The PlannlngCornrnlsslon has independently ·tevieWedl:1nd considered the content of the Final·E1R,the publiocoll1mentsupon It,ahd other evIdence before the Commission prior to making a reCommendation to theCi~y Council on the proposed projeot.The Planning ·CQmmisslon hereby finds fnalfne Fina!!SIR reflects the independehtj.udgment oHhe City as to the Project ThePlannlngComrnissioofyrtherfinds that the additional information proVided itl the staff tepottst in the FinalEIRand the evidence presented in wtiftenand oral festirnonYatthe Planning CommiSSion Hearings, doesnotcof1stitute new information requiring fvrther (ecirCll[atlon.ofthe·EIRqnder GEQA, None ofthe.information preselJtedto the Planning Commlssionhqs deprived the pupligof a meahihgfu!oppo!"tuniW tocomrneht upon a.SUbstantial ehvitohmentalirnpactof the P.rojectorafeaslblernitigafibtl measure otaltetnative thatfhe CitY has decllhedto implement. SectionS:The Plgl1l1lngCommissionfinq$th~tthecomm~nts f(j.lga:rdingtheDrCift EIRanq the;;responses to thosecomm~nts were reCeiVed by the Commission;that the PlanningCommisslbn receiveddocurnentsatldpUblic tesfirnonyregarding the adeqUacy of the EIR;and that the Planning Com.mlsslonhas revleWeqandQonsidered allsqch documents and t~stimony andthe Final EtR pdoffo mf:l!<.ing1ts recommendationtqtheCity Gouncil on the Project.In accordance with GtjideHl1 es Section 1509Q,the Plqf1hing Commission hereby certIfies the FinafEIIR has beencornpleted in cornpHatlce withCEQA as to the Final PtoJ~ct. Section 7:Basedqpon the FinalE:IRand the reGard beforefhe Planning Commission,the Planning Commission finds that the P rojecfwiH not cause anysignfflcanl envirtmmentalimpacfs after mitigafion.except in the area oTaesthetic (Visual Character and Quality of the Site).Explanations forwhy the impaCl$ofherthan tHeft)fl$lgoing were Attachments 2-23 found to be less than significant are contained in the Environmental Findings set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and mOfefuUy describfatf in the FInal EIR. SectionS:Based upon fheFin~1 ElR and recQrdpefQre the Planning Commission,the Planning Commission finds that the Project Will create a significant unavoidable impact to aesthetics (Visual Character .and ..Q.ualItyof the Site)....This significant impactis further described in the attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Con$ider~tionsregarding thia Environmental EJfects for the Crestridge SenIor HO\Jsing ProJey1:",which is attached hereto:and incorporated herein py this reference,and in the Final EIR The findings In Exhibit A explaIn IhataUfeasible mitigation,including project revisions)have heen incorporated to redUce theleVeJ of impact,but thatevfan after mitigation certain imPacts remainsignific<\lnt Section 9:The EIR ciesq'ibes,and the Planning Gommission has fully cOnsIdered,a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project VVithrespecttoeach ottne alternatives analyzed in the EtR,.the City c:ouncH hereby makes the fi~din$s,set forth In Exhib.it "All Which is attached heretoanci incorporated Py reference,On Jhe whole,the Prqject is environmentally sUPfariorfo other feasible alternatives..Assucl},the Planning Commission findsaHotheraltemativss and variations infeasible OF not environmentally preferable for the reasons set forth in Exhibit "Ai'. SE}ction to:For thfasignifica ntandunavoidableimpact)consisting Qfafasfhefics (VisQalcharpcterand Ql,1ality of the site)asidentifieq 1nthe Final EIRfils "significant and unavoid~ple/'the Planning G9mrnjs$ionherepy~q9pts ·tne "Siaternentof Overriding Considerl3tions"asset forth ihExhibit"A",which is s.ttached heretoahd incorporated herein by reference.The CIty-CoUncil fftlds that each aftne cWerriding benefits,by itself,would justify proceeding with the ProJect.despile anys!gnificanf.unavoidable impaclS identified In the Final ElA.or Eilleged tq pe significantin the record QfprQceeciipgs, Section.1t:.The .Planhing ....Commission herebY recommends adoptioh.of the Mitigation lVIonitoringand Reporting Program.attached hereto as Exhibit !'B"and incorporated herein by this ref~rence,~ncilmpqs$$eachmitigationme~surea$a condition oHne Project's approvaL City staffshall Qeresponsiblefor~nforcementand monitoring tl)e mitigation m~asuresa$describecilh Exh ibit "8" Section 12:FortheforegoiflS reasons and based on the lhformatioo and findIngs included in the Staff Report,Environmental .Assessmentand other OQn1POnentsof the legislative record,inthe Final EtR,in theattachE)q Exhibitol,A.",titled'lFacts,Findingsan<1 Statem~nt of Overriding Qonsideratiol}s r~gardjng the EnvjfonmentaJEffectsfof the crestridgeSeniorHou~ingProJect",which iss.ttached hereta<and incorporated herein by this reference,.and in the public comments received by the CommisSion,thePl~nning CommiSSion ·of the City of Rancho Palos ·Vercies.herebyrecommend.s that.the City Council certify fhe Final EIRandadopt the attached Mitigafion Monitoring Program (Exhlbit!~f3") associated with.GEise Nos,SWB2012~00001and Z9N2012-00067,thereby allc>;wing 147,000 cubic.yards of grading to accommodate a 60"'unit senior (age.restricted to 55 P.C.ReSblution No.20t2"'22 Attachments 2-24 years and above)condominium honsIng projeot on a vacant 9.76..acre parcel located at 5601CreslridgeRoad fA-ibN 7589-013-009), PASSED,APPROVED.,AND ADOPTED this 11 th day of December 2012 l by the following vote.: NOES:NQne ABSTENTIONS;None ABSENT:CQmuliss:tQnersLewis ~l'telson.'roniblin RECUSALS:None P.e.Resolution No.2012-22 Attachments 2-25 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONNQ, EXHIBIT IJ A(l tope ResQlu.tion NQ,2012 ...22 FACTS,FINDING8AND STATEMENT OFOVlSR.R.IDING CONSIDERATIONS l{EGARDING THEENVIR.ONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE CRESTRIIJGE SENIOR lIOOSINGPROJECT 5CB #2012051079 Lf;OJ,l Ag¢l1QY: C~t1 of Rancho PalosVexdes 30940 HawtnQ:t'11.¢15pqleY.il.1;g Rancho Palos Verdes,C::aH£ol;:rt£&904.75 C011.tact:·Mr.Edu.atcloScl1onJ:lotl't!..AICl?,.Se:o;1ot.pla:t.uler (310)544",5228 Attachments 2-26 Gtesttldge$el'1ior NOI.J$itlg.Prdjli;lctEHR Facts,Flhdlng$and Statement·of Overriding Considerations--:.......,,_.-=----..,......---_-=._-------~_.-__--- TABtE OF CONTENTS I Introduction ,..,,,..,.,,.",.,,.."".',1 II "Desctiplion ofProj~ct Proposed For Attpt'ovaL "..,!.,•••••••••••.·.,,,.,.•••.•••.••,.",.,.,.,••,••."..,2 III E£fectsDetermined LoBe Less ThanSif.;'11ificanf ul.the lJilitialSttidy!NoHoe Of ]?repatatidll.., ,..,,..••....•.....••'p"".,,••.••,.••"."••,.,,!"","•...:) IV Effects Determined To Be Less 'T'hanSignificant 'H '12 VI Envil'onmental.Effects Which 'RemainSigrrlficantand Unavoidable After· Miti.gationand Find.:ing;s ..........•,...•.•......, ,,,48 VII Alternatives to the Proposed Project <>,.,,,30 VHISTATEMENT OF OVERRIDIWG CONSIDERATIONS ..,..,..",."............•,,••,.$4 .A h1troductinn .,,,,,,,..,..34 C Overriding Considerations .....•."•...........,.,·",,,..34 Attachments 2-27 STATEMENT OF 11ACTS AND FINDINGS I INTRODUCTION Tu¢Ci'lJuOtrrlliE1,1;yrrqtunf:ntal QuaHty Act (CEQA}l'eqttires th~{t lOt L£'etdAge.ncy iSSM¢ hvo 80\$of findings priur hJapproving apro}ect tb.atwiIl gel1et~te it signtticatltimpw:::t on theenvll·onment.The Statement of Facts and.Firtdings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the signifi<antirnpact$~.pre$ents fiKt.S sttPPQr6ng·thr: condttSlonsrea¢hed in theanaIysi$f t11~t[.;;e$one ()t$lpre.pfthJi$:e ffn(,lings fQtei~Cb. impact.and expli.'tinsthe reaso!1ingl,ehmd.fhe agen(:'yls fit~c1ings,. The .follotYitlg statement nffiig:l$and £htdil1gs has been prepared in AtX0idaJtc¢\vith the CaIifQtt1:i;at:a1yh~onmel1talQuaHtyAct (CEQA)an:clPub!it l~eso4n::es Lt)deSettion21Ml. CEQA.GuidelillesSection15091.{a)provides that: No PMlHtc ogency shall appnrfJe Of 01111/outq Pt'tuect/or whitylt tnt Ell?has l?eet~ certified which identifies ·one:or mote signi/lcflnt etfvltdtnnetttfIl efjix::ts.qfthe ptoje,r;t unless the pttb!icrtgetlcy 1tlaKesotreormore'written .filritil~gs fot ll(tt~h of tltosesignijicante:fjectsi ·m:x:oIJIlHrniet'l hg a brie/explanation .olfhe rationale for eac1z.JiNding.. 'There are three possible finding categpriesavailablefor·theStatemenf of Facts and Findings ptttsuanlfct Section 15091 (a).•q{tho CEQAGnidelilles, (1)Cfumges oraltemtions fume been required iu~orincmporated into,.tlteproject whicha1JoidotsHbsftlfl,f:1ally lessentlte sigttifit;(tnten~jitol~nt(mtal?t)'ct.as identified in the final ElR. (},)Stu::hclttrnges oftllfemtions are withiN thexe$fJO~ts.if1ilitllatuiiHrisdiction (tf anotherpublic.ageucJ/and noi'thctlgency rnakitrgtltejihdillg.Snch changes htil}e·beetJadopfed by .suchatherngeNcy m'p1usJtd $t10ltld#e ttdop~eit by $uch otber agerlCfJ< (3JSpecffic eemwmic.,legal,QJCittl,teclmologlral,Of other considerations". ittelutlirtgpro?n$ion.ofemploymeJttopp(wtuniUes fOrhighty tmhrcdn 1otlq,trs, l~mkt:i,u/ftt1.si~Jle t.Ire mitigationmeasttrcs ()rJm~jtt(;t nlternatin(!s ideHt~fied in the final fJK TheseffucHngs relevant to •the project areprcsented.inS$cti,ot!sVand VI. The Statement·or Cr.,ierridulg Considerttt±ons is the second.seto!findings,·Where ~\ ptojecfvvill ctl.1;tseUh<lvpidable significarttimpacts"the Lead Agency may $tin~lpptove the ptcryed where itsb~nefit${Hlrvveigh fheadverse impacts,Further!as:prQvided in the Statement of Overriding COr1siderationsF the Lead.Agency sets forth specific reasoning by ·which.·hertefitsarebal<ilnced against .effects,atlto1 .approves the·projk1ct, 1 Attachments 2-28 The Cityo£Rancho Palos Verdes,the.CEQA Leadf\ge11cY',flnds .andde¢hl¥esl~at the pmpQsed Crestridge Seniq1"Housin~PliojectEnYirot1:nlJmtal Impact Report (EIR)has been completed in compliance with CEQA··a1.1d the CEQA Guidelines.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds and.certiHesthat the EIR was reviewed and inf'brmatiol1 con.tainedin.fheEIR was considered.prlotto apprOVil1.gt11epl'QpQsed cresttidgeSeii,lor HousIng-Project,herein ref~tted t('l as the "'project.!' Based upon its reviewo£theEIR,the Lead Agency finds thatthe EIR iSM adequate assessment Qftnepotential1y significant enVirOl1.n1erttaUmpacts oftne~roposed projetti represe:ntstheindependel1tjuLigment of the Leq.d Agency,m:\tL sets £orthanadeqttate Tangeof altemativestothisproject.On December 11 i 2012,the Rancho Palos Verdes PlanningColl1lTIissiou adopted PC Re501uo011 No.2012~22,rec0nllnetlding that the City COU1.1QiJ.Cettify theEIR ·SupsequentlYf the Ran<;hoPalosVerdes·CityCpuncil certified the E:IRatitshearin.g of .i 2013.. •Thg FtnaiCrest:ddg-gSertim;Housmg BIR,i:t)q111J :l.irtg the t@spol1seslo¢01l'tl'l'terttS on the DraftEIRalld changes made lothe EIR based,011 the comments received, November2012;lP and .,Mitigationmonitorin.g-an.d repottingpI'og:tllIn. III.Ef£ec~s deternnned ~Q be less than sign1J[jcantln<thelni'tia15t:udy,lNotice of Preparationt VI.EnYironmen.faleffecfs that remain.slgnificanf and unavoidable after mitigation and findings; VIII.Statement of Overridin.g Consideratip'I:1.s, Tht?proposed.Crestr$d.geSe1110l'Housing projectwould involve the development of a sernor- restricted (55+yearsofageorolder)fpr~salereside~tial conunUIlity:The proposed project would indude.60attaGhed residex1-tial units atQ:QoveraUliel1sityo¥6,15ll111.ts per atre.Qf the lJO qnits,three units wouldbededkateqaffotdabIeunits ayal1abieto yery"low-in.com,ehouseholds/ in accorda.nce with theOry's inclusibnary<hollsin.g requirements. r 2 Attachments 2-29 Theptoposed t(}wn.horn(H;ty~e\Sfnd$inglewlevelliVing stacked i~qttesidente$wC}uldna.ve t'VI.TO bedrooms emd twobatmoo111.slnslxdiffel'ent floot plans,rangingrwtYrappl'oximately 1(7'00 square feet to 2,100 square feet.The units would be two stories in:heightwith1..lp to five residences per Sln,lcture,The mainatchitect4ral style qf the:teside11ces;?indotherOl1$it¢ $tructttres would.he SpartishColoniat.Elemetltsof tllh;;style i'ndud.e1:he tlseofa.T(:~lieS,tile roofs, window grillest wrou.ghtiron,corbeisl tile or stone decorative elenl:Bnts low--pitched,exterior courtyal'ds,.tiled.parapetsandstuccowalls.OthercompliIT1entary.architectul'alstyleswould also be incorporated in the residential buildillgdes~g:ns.PropO$edlarRtsea.ping include$a.mixot natbreand fl0:r1-11ative plants and t1'e(1:s. Maximum.building heights would he approximately 27 feet lrom.finlshedgrade.Several prop~)$~d l:n,tildiP.gs wotddex<:eed 16 fe¢t In height ~bove ~xi$tirtggradt\ant}tlt~s the proJect fef1l1iresapproval ota Condli$omtl Use permitpul'suant ttJMl1):1icipalCode8eenon T7,26.040,.B. A GeneraI·Plan AmencUnentand Zonmg Ordinance Amendment wottldberequired·to allow the proposed mix of uses and density. Toaccorrtplishtheprojectt the existing slope would be excavated to accommodate flathuilding pads stepping graduallydoWDward from west to east.MuchoHhe ridge itself would be removed andg);l;idedgen.eral1y .rlat.ThernaXlroUt11 de}lth of eKcair atiotlWotilclbeapprQxi:ruate1y 40 feet at~be weste:m porq.onof the site.Site preparatio11 wotikJ.involt~e eXC<;lVation of approxhnately 145,000 cu,bic yards oFrnaterial (~oil and rock)and placement of approximately 2,OOOcubicyards offill material.Theprojeet grading and construction would oecurOYet approxiJ:nately·13:tJ:lontllsartcl be wotild be completedirt2.014.CQn.s:tru¢tion aC¢€sswo'Uldbe £torn Crestl'idg;e Road. The project would include a number ofco:rnutunity ameniti~s,A pnvateG.OlllJUUnity trail systemWottldhe pi\lv1dedill ope~lsp<)cearei;lstn tlteno,rtliernpoifi<JnQf theslteagja,¢entJo..t;he Vista del Nortepi'¢$etve.A POtf::l.qrt Qftl1¢o:p",stfe.:tra.i!st)j¢luqlrtg a ped.e$t1'ianGonn~cti()rt from Cl'estridge Road to the preserve would be opento the pttblic,whichwouldserve to Gonnectthe off-site City trails onthe neighboru1.g Preserve with C'restriilge Road through the proposed development Thecommumty·tta±l$would 1\llso.ac¢ess tl1epropC}$ed it?;QOO"s'ltilil.;re,-]:oot Ot.1tdl>Qi COI.Q.P;1.t1.l1ityrec:tea.nonal'ea loci;lted,atth€northeasfern cOl'r1er of fhesfte.Tn:eameniges proposed for··this areawouldinClude a patio and trellis(acommul1ity conversation and gathermgstage,a sund.eckahdoutdoorlivjngroQm/hat1i~que£a¢ilities/bQccebaU.CQttit$,~i¢f picnic tableS,An app:roxi!11ateI;y2i400~uWe-fo()tCOl.11J11JmitySeryice Cell.ter)ju,ilding and sundeck would prqvide a second,centra.lized community amenity for the residents, Theproposedprojeet would have a gated vehicttlctTiO\cceS$qffof Crll1stddge RqatL trw vel-rltttllil.r entry gafevvould have a key pad andeall boxwiflt SUfficient.stacking distance at the entrance to allowlIlultiplecars to enter withoutimped.ing traffio>()1).Crestridge Road...ReUloteandkeyp.ad. entry·w()111d be ·two optiort$.rorte$identsa¢¢e$$itl.g~he$ite.··through ..theg~te,.·V$sitb;¢$wouIq be able to l.lSe the callpp,*es to call resid.ents toopen~hegate$<Att.lt1J:~ou:nd vyou'l~i be provided shouldvisitors not be able to reach a resident to be allowed inside the community,Pedestrian entry would also beprovided.adjacenf to the driveway;howevel.>itvvoUldbeal1 ~gated pedestrii;lnWalkway withI~rt.entry£eature, Oneeinside the cQ]nmunitytmternalprivatestreetswouldbeclesigl'tedfo be aminhnum of26 feet wide..No patallel.parking would be allowed on thestreets.Gllestparkingwould be r 3 Attachments 2-30 provided 01'31 perpendicular parking spaces distributed throughout thesife toS'upple11l.ertt the two-,cargaragesavailable to eachte$idenL Public pedestri;;m access would be provided throughthecorrl111.unity.A sidevvalkand trail system would be provided that c(mnectsvisitol'S andresidentsfrom Cl'esttidge Road through the site to view poi:qts and to the CitVs p:l'opertyto the north,/\$specified {lbove,.the pedestrian. access wOtllduQthe gated;~his wou1d.faciIitate#l1detl$ttr~puhl~tcltcess thtoughfhe comrrtunitv to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve tothe north, ,.....-··,-c--·--------,----,..-,-----------------....., LolSize 9.76 acres Senior Residential Units 60 Project Square Footage 120~arase spaces(2 per unit) 31·uncovered spaces (0.52 per unit) 151 spaces (2;52 spacesturtit) Community Amenities •CommunltyTq;lf!S -13,OOO-sf outqoor qommunityre¢fe<ltiort l:lfEl<:l o patiO land treHls o c6nver$afiqq?o(igathEtring ~tagEl 9 $Lihd~(*-and outd6orliving room o barbeque faCilities o poocebalf courts 6 picnic tables •,2,400 sf CommulJltyService Center o feqrealiqhartd IdqhgeatEia o kitchen o computer Gent~t/pU$it1ess room o office o fitne$$fQOm o indoorahd otltdoorfireplates o oUtdoor Ijylngarea o $pa o barbeque o $eatihg1;ltep .L.........,....-------L.~.-_c=...·o;;.;.rt'l.:..:.••·;;;:.m:.=Ll::..rj::::itY!..;.g~a::;;r-=d=..liln:.:....:..··~n~tPJ:~tr~I~_._.___._.___._.. sf :::square feet Souroe;.;Trunrwk C"fnptmies,2012 4 Attachments 2-31 In EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE INITIAL S'fUOY,lNOTICE OF PREPARATION The City ofRancho Palos Vetde$cond ttcted an Initial Sh.tdy to d,eterxnihe sigt'iificanfeffects of th~project.In the co\11'se bfthisevaluation,certain1@I>CitdsQf IDe pl'oject were foQI1¢lto be less 1:118.11 significant due to the inability ofa.project ofthis scope to create such impacts Of the absence of projectcharacferistics producing effects of this type~Theeffects.deteru1ined notto be sig11ificant are not included in prtrnatyanaJysj$sections of the EirlaLEIR (refer to Appendix A, faithzl StltdYllud Notlceo.fP1'epamtiQ1t,tn thE:'Dt'aft EIJS.). AESTHETICS Will the projecl": $t{lJ$tantiallydaH{age scenic tiJBOHrces/incft;piin.&/.•"fmt rtpt It'rnitetf tpl··tl'ees;rockoufcroppin.gs:/rmd historic buildings within a state scenic highwl1y? No Impact.There are no scenic resources such astreesj rock outcroppings,.orhistoric buildings on the .site,and there are 110 designated scenic highways in thevici:rri.ty·of the site,Tltere£oJ:e,devti)lopmentofthe ptbjectwQuld.l1dtaifeqt·any·sGtmicre$o4rceswithil1 a stGitB sCe11ie hig11way. AGIUCULTURAL.RESOURCES tllJill the Project: Convert Prime Farmltmd;Lln.ique f4rml11n4j orF"QljttlQfJd ojS{f1fcwifi,e l1ttp01<tance (h'armlmztt)t as shown on t7te l1taps ptepfwed purstuJ.f1£to tlte F"m'l'ltlttndMilpping and Mtniitortl'fgJ?togm1Jl¢!tlte Calijo;rttia Ri3$()#t'e,:i3sAgem:y,t(j l1-00dl,gtiCultural U$¢(. NQ J:o;tpact.Theprojeebarea iS1:l0T loca.tB~;I lnal1area destgJ1ltjtedas :Btl-me or l));trql,ieFarmICitnd,ot within Farrn1~d pfSta¥ewiq:e ItPJJottaI1ce· Conflict with exisfin.gzQ.ning!otagrieultural usedr fIVVilliaii1$OnAotcorUtact;t;Q1tj!ict.·ltlitlt exi$tit~g zarling orTn~{s¢rezOllitlgofJote$tll1nd,prtesyltin alol1sq[fon{sfl'an(1?.. No Impact,Thesuqjecll1I'QpettyisI1ot ZQl1ea(lr otherwise designated for agricu1tttf'ttl U$es,;I:lo:tis the site subjecrtto!'iWil!iEitr'l,SOl1 Act<;:on,tJ;att.The ptbject site isnotlocati?dadjacentto agricultttral.operatiops,and·currently·cQntamsJ1o significant agricultural operations.As.sucu,.no.conflicts with aWi11iamson Act contract or existing zOn1rlgfol'agtlmtlmrafuseWouldoct:ttr,The project would nptitrvplveconverslo1:lpr forest land t01}oxl-fOl'eSfuSits. Inuollie otller clumges in the e$istitlge1t'Qirotlitlentlphiclt~fuet{}tlzeiiJoc(JliQfJ;Qt riatLtie,cottti;lresultilj c()l1ver$iQtt o!Fanulanq,to n0r1:,-qg1'ic1il;ltuml 't/qe? NohnpacL The projectsite is located utan litoal'dzed areaj~1.the Citr of~diO Palos Ven;l.es,As such,projectdevdopIl1entwill not haVe thepotentialto retlUlt ilT the loss or conversion offarmland·to non-agricultural use. =----------------------....-----~-_._----_-..--. CitY ¢fR,at}cho Palos V~rcles 5 Attachments 2-32 AIR QUALITY Will the Project: Creattrobjectfol1t1bleorlors af/ecting a substantial manVel'ofpeople? Less Than Significan.t Itn;t2:agt.the pxpjez;twiUinvolve ac!J:ling60t esi¢1¢utial ttnitsfo!'senlt)rs in the City of Ra.:t;lcho)?alosVerdes.The re.sidel.1t.oia.I u:seof the .....:,;......... property will notgenerate objectionable odors duringnormaloperatiol1s. Thel'erore,.the projectvvill not generate objectionable odors that would ctffecta substan.tiall1Uriiber QfpeopLe:. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Will the Project: PltroensubsfHtttialadverse effect onlef1erttllJJPtotect~tr·t{1etlmtds asdefiuetlVy Section4Q4 0pheCl~nn Water Act (inolud.ing,butnatlbutteel to,ftUlrsh,ver:rza1pool!coasta1!etc.)t/IroughClirqr;t remo'Pl11,fillitt{§, ItlHirologieql intel'rttptioJ"t,or o#ter IttetltlS? Ndlfnpact The project site is located u1.a$ubtll'P&llarea$1:ti"l'oti,ude4.by devjzlopmellt.·ThetearenowaterCOtttsesqt wefltlftdspn.orad.jacentto the project site.The projectdoesnotinvolve developmentinafederallyproted::ed wetlatui anl.1doesnot involve improvements that wouldh:'l.1.paIT ormterrttpt hydrologiCal flowlrtto a Wetla~i~l. CULTURALRE80URCES !Jess·thanSignificant.lmpacti..The proposed prqjectwouldinvolveconstructiouQf fl,eWs!;:t'lJ.<:tUteson.i;'tYacant sltgl,T'hereart'l1.10 histotitsftuctJ"t.r¢slo¢i3.ted t1Uthe adjctcet\tp.ropertie$;tl)Ji~re£dreithe.prbjectw11lt).otaf{ecthi$tOr1¢tEjSOttrc¢'$. Noimpad.Wolnown buriaLsites have been identified wifhin:the projectarea or inthe vlclluty"an.dgivenU1e previous disturbance at the·sitefheIikelihobdot .Hnding hlhflah temail1oSJ.slow,In.theJ.:J.nlik.elyev.entthath:qmaIl):et.naiI)S were d.iscovered ;atthesite,Cal~fornJa I1efl.ltli.an.d.Safefy Qbde $ect1.o11 7050.51'equll'€S that all construction or excavation must be stopped in the eventor an accidental discovery ofany.hurnanremainsuntiltheCOUtityooronerot mediciil.lexal"riJner 4&11 detel.'mine whether the rem.ainRate tho$B ota NanveAtnerkatL GEOLOGY AND SOILS Will the Project: Attachments 2-33 Expose people or.stnwtHres to potentialsubstmltilIttldl!(J~l'Q(?efJit.ct$,.fflt?lt!lilitt~fltefisk vf1o,S'5,illjw'l/'(]1' clerrthi1ttmlvil1g:ntptHreofa k1'lo"(vlleilrthqutike fault;asdelinf0llfed 011 theAlquist~rioloEarth(Jllilke Fault ZoninglVlapor l1ased onother substantialevidettce ofnkito-wnJattlt;orseismiC4elated ground. !nilul'{?,iilduding liqUtiru;tion.? Less than significant.There are no Alquist-PdQloEarthql.take Fault Zones within the City,The·proj~t site is lQcateciapproxiftl,@.tely 0,.8 mil¢$n(1rth:tv'E.1$tof the inacp:veC::a.htillo FaUltaJ1Q,approximately 2,,5 Ilutes $()ttthwest offh13Palos Verdes Fault.Therefore,th:epotential for smfaceruptureat the project area is consideredlow,The project site is located within an al'eathathaslow to no pote,ntial.tor Uque£actiol't.Furthet,prQjett<':Qtl.$tmctionwotlJ.tl be l'¢qti,ited t() con£onntothe Galit'o!nia:BtIilding Godeasa.doptecl}jy the GityirtSectiQfl, 10,04,0;100£the MtmicipalCode,which further reduce any imp.acts caused-by u11stable.soils. Be located on a geologic uuttor soil that is ullstribleas a result ofthe project,and potentially l'csultin on .. oroff-site la11dsliae,li1.tetalspreadi'rig,$ubsid¢'itte,liqUefi1.(tittfJ,oycp1l4pse:? Less than significant.According to tlle California Department ofConservation Seismic Hazard Zones Map"the site is not locateclin an area that is stibjeCUo sett1t.;1ftl,ent dw.~tosei.$:tnic snal;irtg-,.1i'1u.er$lef:h:;p,():I!la.tel'Gllspf$a.dirtg. Hm?RSOiLs incapable o!adequately supportittg tlle use ofseptic tanks or iJUernativeumste zvater disposal $yst¢ntslPhetesew¢ys ate1{(Jt eJ/f,1tIilablefot.t!w.dispqsalofwGsfe ttutter? Less than Sigpi£icant,..Iheproposed devel()pmentwouldbec~nned¢d·tothe City·$ewer·syste:m&nawPttld not use 01;Jt"$ite septitJ systems £p1'wastewate r tte<;ttmeht HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Willtheproject: Create a signfficantJtazartito tlwptlblicormvironmentthrough ..theroutine tmnsport;!use ordfli]1osal()! haza'l'dol-ls intttertaisr Less than significant.The projed w0uld irtvolveconstrtiction 0£60 residential units on vacant land.Byth.eir l1attrre,theproposeareside;q;tial t;l;ses WQuid.not invQlvet!1etratiSpo:tt,use,ord1.sposalofsubstMthiLQl1Gl1,1titi¢sot hazaxd.()us matetiq:l$and.would.not introd.tlp~.qlXlyttrru$ualhazardousmate1'ials to the area. Cteatea signifi¢ai~tl1flzardtq tliept!f1ttr;Ot theem iiroume1#tlttqu$1rtea$()t!ahllltore$peqll~e ttpst;tand nccic!cn,t conditions.in:oolving the release ofhazardous .ml1terials iwto.the ennir011.l1'lent?Emithazardous emissio11s or ~handle ltazaniousoractttely hazardoUs l11tf.tetials,st~bstatJces or rv(J.sfe loithitt ~a·mileo!(lU eXi$iittg 01'prop()sec!school?Be lOCtltedpu.a sitetvhichisittdttiled(jl1 gUst ojJtaz{ft"d,ot/s1f[(j.te:rird$ite$ compiled pursuanftaGO'lJernment CodeSeotio11.65962.5flJtd,{1s(ll'esult t 'wottldit create a signiflcaht 11(11,a1'd to thepui?Ji¢otthe en-oiron111ent? :Less than significant.Theprojed willnofbe locateditlan area with known soil or gl'clundwater contaullnf;ltipJ1,wiU not ¢iXUthazq,ttiQu;s€@ssiol1$ot ll,1vol've ==----------------------_._-----,..,.._,.---_.__.__..._-,.._,.,..,..-,.,.---,.,.---------,.,.._----~ Citj/ofRal1c!16 Palos VetdSs 7 Attachments 2-34 handling of huzardotl.sxuaterials,and·was notdetennined.·tobe·at risk for any hazards in.gEna-se Ip:repa:n~d.tor an 4t%jat~Hit.prt:>f){:ttty.(rh¢r~li:)1'e,.the potHtltial for·.t:he pl"oppsed proJect·to teletlS0·.ha?ata.OtlS t\hlterti:}lfi l;vo'uIJ be e¥t:rern.ely kl\V, rr.lf:tl1IftJjecl locattxfwitfrinal1 aiJport fmtd use phm 01\teben:sut"it tl plhll }twlrnol been ttddpte(l,1tJithin two miles o!ttpuhlicaitpD1't 01'public llse ah}t10ft,would.the pro]ectresutt in a.safety hazanijorpet1ple residingarworkiug ill the pro.iect area?17oraprojecf'within tite viciuitJ.lt:>fa private airstrip,.wonld the t;lfoie:c!t'eHultin a safept litfz,ttrd {orlfict:mle l'esidiu,?tWttJOl'kittf:iIt t&e l1roject ftJ'eil?t 1~.2,',.~"'",_.":,·r,f"",,-,(.,.',.-,--(;,"'-'-,t",,,. NoJll1pad~The pro.jectsi:teJs located over threen:tiles from the nearest aitp&rtillitsttil~~the 'fQ:rranceMunicipal Ait.f1orL No irn:p¥Jcts·i;)re ~i'lHt~ipateG. VVmdd tlIe prlJjectimpair tnq.11ementntion ofor 111ry.sit::alrytntet:!krew#h un miophtd emergem,\v resptmse pliJft·Of t'llh'tgencyetmctmtipfl pltmr No Impact,Th~P~x.)lx.wedprojectwould uotchange thc~ilignmentOiOf acces;.9 thro'tlgh streets serving the project site or sunoundingarea,and thus would not·impair implem¢nretiol1.oft:>t J:1hy$kally u'ltetrerevvith .•~n@,dopted.ext1ergerK'y responSe pltlt1.QI efl)¢:t:gellcyeVqctl,Bl tiQ~lplan, f<\thaldthe project expose tJfople or·stnu.:tlu'esto #significttnt riskofltJss,.infHtl/·01'de/tift .iWtu;lving wiltUttndjiresj indurling'tlJhere itJiltllltHdi;mt·fJdjncenf to lq:banizerlaPeasor tlihete tftsidimces {Jre intermht~d withlHiJ.dlanas? Less thill1 significant~The City ofR~\ncho l'alqs Vetd.e~j m(;:hid,tng .the ptqje.tt$it~,is identified asa High Fire.Hazard Area.Hovveverj Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Cod.e $cction 8,08,010 adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code,Title 32,as the Fh'e Code of the C~ty QtRztud10 I>alos\l¢rdes.Th¢COUi1!:y:n1atntiW.i.S tl.te safety requiret.t1(£lnts, cleve1op:r:ncntstandard.s and :re~t1aHon$,and$tm.1~ii;l:ttlfees,fotnew development, Building.standards for fire hazards,.indudingroof·covermgs,.construcu-on materials" structural components,and dearing ofbnlsh tU1dvegetafive growth,areadministered by the Li\CfDa:nd the City's 'Bu,ild,mg i;tnd.Sftfety Divis,lon,The newres:i<lenual buildings wottld l;1(~teqQit'e<lto becol1sfttWledt<)theCity's mosltecently adopted :BuUding Code, Place housi!tg t{jititf#n·10(]-yearfl.oo4 hazani trred as #wppeil (in 4 feileml :F'MM Hdtnni.Boutt4aty or Flood Iustunnce Rate Nfap orotherflona Imzanidel1neutitm Nmp?P[ace·ndfbin a l(}()-yearjIoo!I huzanf area slrudureswhich'wauld impede or redirect flood/locos,.. iHolm,t1actAccording to the Feden~l Emergency ManagementAgency the project site is located outside the 100~year f1oodzone),Therefore~no sl%Juificant flood i:m.IJa.¢~s are anti.dpa.ted. Expose people oYsfructuresto a significant risk qflass,iniwy,or4eatli innal-fling lloocfing,il1cluding jloodingas an:stdtolau!JidlttteoJa ltroee 01'd.t/.m.? r 8 City ofRancno P.a/os.Verdes Attachments 2-35 No Impact.No.dams orlevees are located in the vicinityQf theptoject site.In addition,th¢~l!ojectatea.does l1Qt lay withl;nany f;:1'lOW11 dahl ilittlJclaupnzpnes. Thus,the potei1ual for floQdingdtte to gi!tm faihu'e is low Expose..people or·structures to a sig11,fficanf riSK ofloss,.iiJjtifJb .or det'{thfr0111 irzuntiation by seit;he, tsunami or ltHtllj7oHl? Less thansignificant.The project site is apptoxitnately tvvo tniles fromtlte Pacific Oce;il1atahelev atiQ;L1 of a1-1proxih1atelyl,167 feetabov'esealeveL .Jtl i:ld.d.itiont the ptqjeCtal'ea is lOCated outside <'I.tS14Uam1 inUli.clatlotl area. LAND USE AND PlANNING Would the Project: Physically di'vide an established communfhj? N o.Jmpact..The project w0tl,lcl inyolvecotl.sh'u):;uot1of 60 resiclent;l\1lIu11ftsOJ.'ta single parcel oflandl:hatissUl'xounded.by residentjal,Qpen SpHGe,and institutional uses.The p:rojectwoltl.dnotphysically divicleanestablished COtlU111rnity.Nobnpa.Gts wotrld result. Conjlictwith any applicaMe land u~eplant policy,or regulationoJafl agelu;y witltjtlrisdiction ovettlie projecf ruflp1-1fe.d for the purpose ofnlitigating.nfl.envi1!()ll 't11f)lfal effir(;t? Less than significant .With al'Ptovalo:£aConditiQl1alUse Permit,tb.e project wotrld15el?oIlslstentWiththe !al'td use .andz~nirlgdesig-tlationsfot.the.site,.Alsof the pr~ject M!ol.lld begf.nep.dly COl1Si stt'ill.1t with the hW~J1Jofth.e Ci'of:t\ancho Palos Verdes C:onceptualTraiIs PlanduetQthe p1'Ovision ofpedestrian pathways through the sitethat linkCrestridge Road with the Vista.Del Motfe Ecological . Pi'esetVe, MINERAL RESOURCES Wouldtlte Project: Reslitt in the 10$$.ofapaillJbJlityo!a .known1Jtitrettll.Y~s()urce tlmf1110uld beofpalueto .tl1e regi,onanclt11# residents ..oftlte state?Resulti~.the..loss.ofavailability ofa locallyAmportantmineral.re:source·recoven.J si.tecJ.elineate.d Olta local genefril pltl11>specfjicplanoY otlwrtqnc1tt$e.plqu? MoJmpact..The Rancho Palos \tel-'des General Plan states.that there are no trtlneta.l.resout'¢espx¢sehtwithi;n!:he (:tn:t:l1'nqn~tytna.Jt\r0'41d be eCOPfc)u1iqal1y JeasibleforextracUon.C0l1sb:'ucuonof60 residentitilunit$on a.vacantsite wouldnotresult:in theloss ()ftheava.ilabi1ity of a knownmineralresourcethat would be.of value locally,regionally,ortotlie State, NOISE For a.f1rojeC.tJoeated u.titlzin 4tlClirport land use plan Or,.W]zet¢$uch aplrm!lqslwtbeefl(idopteat 'tllitltil1 two.miles ofa public airport or public use airporti 'would the projectexpose.people residing arworking in 9 Attachments 2-36 the jJl'ojcI7f'rtrea to exc({$,'iin(1 noiseleuels?[-01'a project J(lifhitt .tltetiicittitljoftt ~1}'irr(lte ttirstrip,IPollld the pmject expiJ$¢:pepple:residi1tgorworking fnthe pro}ecfatefJ,toexeessine ru1iselevels? No hl1pact..Theproject area iSl1Qtindll deq within.all airport land use pla11,anL1 is apprpximately 13 miles from the Los Allge1es?lnd Long Beachairpol'ts,and approximately three miles from TQrrance Municipal Airport.The projE:.'Ctis also not Within the vicinity of a privateairstl'il1.Significant im:pacts relat1ngto aiteraftt\.oise are not i:\llit1cipated. POPULATIONAND·HOUSING f!\1ill the project: Lessthan sigt\if1cant.The currentestimatedpo±,l,tfanonoftheCity is 41A397. W,lih Jmpletnentqtion of theproposedp:roject the PO~?lJ~ation in;tfte City wouk! total 42t 057.Thepopulationpl'OjectionsforRancho Palos Verdes anticipate a population o.f43,215in.2020.Therefore,fiw increase in residents wQUldnot ~xceedpla:ru1ed gJ,'owth.fbrecasts in the City. DisplacesulJstantlal tlumlJerso/existil1g housing,necessitati1'lgtlte.constl'uctiono!1'eplace111enfhousing elsemlzere?Disphlce substantirtlllU11tperS ofpeop~e,necessitaJingtheconsfrgctit;m a/replacement 11Ot/singelse1pltete.? Nolmpact..lropl~lngntatiQnofthepl'opQ$edp~·6j@tw()tlldnQtd~$plaGeany housing orpeoplei (\stftesiteisc;urrelltlyva;~;ant, PURLIC SERVICES Would theprojecl; Res~ltin substantial adversepltysicalimpacts associatetlnJitltfheprovisionolnew orplrysicallyaltered gor;erl1menftlljadlities,needfor .nera orpltysicaJly.alteted ,g0-qe:rft1Tlel1ft1 1tacilitie$,tire (xwsfru:c;tion()! Which could iZatt.Se significant enviromnental·irnpacts/'in O1;iferto rn(lintain acceptable.service ratios, respOllse tithes orotlref perjotNltttlCe objectiiJe$!ofotherpublic sefpiccS( Less 'ThanSignificant hnpact.The proposed project IS nor expected to adversely affect any services. RECREATION Tlji,fltJu;Project increase the:.usco!(rt.isfingneigb.l1()rl1.oQ(lffnilre~ioltarp4rks ot'ot1z?1'recre:ff#(JJ;fXJl facilities Buell tlrat sUbstantialphy~icardeterioratio1'lo!the!acility wouldoccuror.be.accelerated?.Doe~ the·profeet Incluaere crea f;iOl1lllIacilitiespr .re.quire.tlieiZOI1$fmcf;iQn or e~:t1f{n$iOt1ofrecrefJti()flaljjlCilities' 'wllichmigl#11a'{'e an ndtJerseeJfecton tlteel1pironnlent? Less th~);;i$nific~t.Theprojectcqgll:i increl:netltqllyin¢tegsl'!tfteW~eof recreation;alfadlitiestn the prplect vidn:UYr butwouldnot·causesupstantial physical deteriorationo£recreationalfac:i:lities.Theprojecbal'eacontainsexisting Attachments 2-37 residential uses and Is adequately served by recreational Jacilities..tnaddition, the project applicant would be required topayfees putspantto City MUl1icipal Code Section 16.20.100.R~q'~ational atneliitiesan~jncb.tdedm.thE:!pr<:;rj?ct; itnpactsor the construction of these fadlitiesb.ave been addressed as part of the project'spotenttal effects as a whole. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC VI/ill tlte Profect: 1:<t!Sllltinc!tal1ge itl rlirtraffic pattel f1tsl including eitltt!r an irlCrease iiltraffficlevids ora chal1gein ZQ§(1#on Hlat resuItsinsubsttn'ltial safety rishs? UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Will.tlre Project: Ex¢eecl JtUlslewater tterrlmertt requirei1tf/fItso!the (lpplicap/eRt;gitJnalWarerQlmlityC01ttrol Bqqra~ Requireor .re~ult·in.the constructionq!newwater·OYUUISrewater treatnrentfacilitiesor expansiono! existing !aqllities,tlte.cm7structi011o.Twhiclt could·caM$!.?sigt#ji:¢ll.11trfupimnrnetttql effects?l{es#lt·#t a determination by the.Wtlstewatertreatmentp1'Ovider·which se11JesofmllJ/seyt Je.the project that ithas fu;[equflte capacity to sen)c the project's projecteddel1ltJnd in i7,aditionto lheprovidet'se;risting C011Zntitmeltts? Less thatlsig;ti.ificchit.'There is ctll'Nn#y~¥ailAbleca,pi;lcityi1tthe J<>iPtVVa,tGl·;BQl.luq.Qn Control Plant (lWPCP),which wmo..e<!l~wa$feWi;ltet frQln the site._l'nerefoteitl,ip]VVPCP wiU have capacity to treat the additional fIowofwastewaterfrom the project ancLno 1nlprovernents in the wastewater treatment ~Y$tem ~"ill.be ;J.:equired. FfmJesufjic{eni nmter supplies available to serne tlieprojectJro7:Jzexistingentitlemenls andreSOUTCesfor aietrewexpenclederttitlements·.needed? LessfhansignincanL The project will generatedem:and.for approximately·l1pOO gpdor 13.1 aCl'e~feetper:year ofwatet.Based oRcul'terttand.pfpjeded water s:uppliesand dema.rl.dfottn~VVestBasitT MUi1,icipa,l Water I!X~tdc:t,suffkien,t water wiUlie available to meetd~Itlattd a$sQdat~d with tl,ieptoject, Reserved by a .lal1dfiU.1tJitlt sUffici8ttt pefJ1iitteacapttcif1j to (lcCQIH11toaate tlli!projeqt's$olid1vaste (1t:st1Qsal needs?Complywitl1 ji?demh state,a1tt(loc:a{Btaf;tl,feSandregu[atio1ts relatea to solid wqste? LesEithpRSig:nQict't!it.Pu€nte Hills LandfiHist}ieptiiftary lal1dfill used by the City and has approxirn.ately 4r 200 tons per day ofc:tv ailaple <capaGity ,Although th~ptojeQt\N·(tltn:t iuqrel1lentaUy iucl'easesolid w.a.ste ge11.e1'atl(>1l,thedfiilysolid Nvastegel1eratlonbyfhe project will be withintlleavailable capacity at the Puente Hil1$Landfill.. '11 Attachments 2-38 IV EFFllCTS DETERMINED TO BE tESS TH1\NSIGNIFICANT IN THE EIR The City 0fRancho Palos VerdeStOl.l'Ud.tltattJ.'t¢projett Wop.1(llttweC\lessthal1 sjg11itk,mt ill1pa.ct Wit.11 respect tOa t1t~mbet9f~:rrvlr()bmel1fI11topiq$('.fiSCttsseg in th~EIRrwith()ttttheneed for mitigation,A less than.significantenvironnmutalimpaddetermination was ma-deloteaell topic area listed below, AESTHE1'IC$ $.(:elii~V'tews,o;t Vista!';.TheptopQsedptdject iSl¢¢$t¢d iPaiJ.a.te~l WithliolliPg top()grFlphy allowing views QfdevelopedangundeveIQpedhi11siqdS1nseveral directions frompubIic and privateviewpoll'lts.The ..proposedprojectwouldalter the view of theptojecf sitefrom several ofthese Viewpoll1ts,hut wouldnothlock of otherwise haye a st1bst<antial advetseeftectoha.scemc:vi.eWQ1'vi.sm,inCIUi..'Ung fhoseidentifiediIi.the General.Plan.Thi.sisa Class lUi adverse,but less thixn significantimpact.Note that the following mitIgation measure is nonetheless reeotnm:enoed to further reduce impactsonurtpacts from viewpoi.nt$in the SUIToMnding'qrea, AES-l '1'ree Maintenance.AU landsoaping fhroughollfthe development (in both the conUl1.0nal'eas and.in private yard ana balconyar¢Ci\s)shall beroaintairtedso tlQfexce¢d tlw height of the line depicted ortthe photogtlEfphs tak¢tlfl'OIh .......ang .. lYIi$ttidge Drive/and "Seaside He~gltts Drive (Exhibit 'I3,tope Re~01utionNo.2012," 23). PriQ)'to issuanCe or brdlQ.t,ilg p¢l'IPits,theappli¢<artt I3hrillp,t'epfil,te alldsttbtitit for City teviewarwl apptovala.land$capepliilnfor theplJoject slte.The p1a.n shaH dem9nsb;ate that: Foliageltreesareof a t}1>e Qfspede$tha~)canJ,emamtai.neqsQ ¥n~)ttQexc¢e4 thebE:iight of the l:aw illq,sf;ratedaIJd o.~"'Picl:edonl:h.e photoS in Exhibit!),to Resolution No.20[2...-....-t which are the highest visible roof ridgeIinesof the development. I..ightandG~are.Tl:wpropo$eet projeetwouJd rest.l,ltinnew sources of light and glare on and around theprojed site duel:o introduction ofnew bt.t:i1ding~( hatd$capeandas$QciatedJightitl~.SQl11€of then~W light.~mdglatewoUId.btl vis~ble frnrnpublic and private vi.e-w;points.B:QweVeri withxequireqadhetenc¢ tOfhe lightingresl:rictions inCity's2oning OrdnlaTICei impadsrelatedtoIight and glare·.would be Class.lIt lessfhan significant, AIR.QUALl'n( Opetatio~Qf theP1,·oj~¢t.OBm:ationo£thept6BQI3¢a.pr~,iject WQli!-d ~eI1.etate criteria air pollutante:rnissions.However,regional eruissionswouldp.otexceed SCAQMD oper~tionaLsignificance thresholds,Therefore,operational impacts to regional air quality wop.ld be Class II~,less than significant, 12 Attachments 2-39 Consi$t~ncy Wifh R.egipl)J1LPl~tts.The propQsed pl'oJe<1twop,lcl generate populatiprt gJl'Lwvth,btlt 5W:h gtowth is yvithinl$epopJilatton.projeefioTtS upon which the Air QuaIity Management Plan .(AQMP)is based,Therefore,proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP and irtl.pads would.beCl~l$sTII,less than sigtiificant Carbon MOl1oxide Concentrations.from Increased Traffic.Vehidetraffic associated with the.pn"Jposed pl'oject couLd incternentallymctea$!?localized carboll l-noiioxicle (\:0)levels,However,CO leve1.l,>Would pot exceed SCAQMD thresholds £Qr f~t:rthe:r CQ hofspofaualysis .an41 wouLd .ilotbeexpecvedfo exceed federal orstateambientair quality standards.Impacts would be Class ITI,less thal1 sigt1ificant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Onidl4afe,$ensiti'veor Special Starns $l'e~ies.The proposed projectwould )jot h~veasub$tantiatad.yersee£.ted,either directly Qr through habifat rnodf£icatio11S; ouany species identified as a candidate,sensitive;orspeciaLstatusspeciesin local or regit!nalplans,policies,or tegula!:iQl1$,Or byt11¢Cal1tQri1ia DepaJ.~mlel1t ()fFisnartdC;;uneor IJ.S,Fish artd \AlilaHfe Service.TrnpaGtswoiJ1Fi \?eClassIII, less than significant. Rtpatiart l-Iabitat.The ptopo$ei..lproje~twmild.not haveasutJ$t:atitlala;¢b.rerse efre<1tQl1.C!,uy l'.lparianhabitator (It:ner s¢11sitive natt:l.talc().1Xl1'1'lutl~ty idenli£i¢dirt localorregionalplansipolicieSf orregulationsor by the California Department of Fish and Game orU;S.PishandWildIife Service.Impact$woitldbeClassJlI~less tnal1.siglllfic;;lnt. GEOLOGY S¢;l~m~l;aJ1y;"l'l,i,dupedOr()u»d.$:b,~ki:n:g~fkisJ:rri.ca11y ;i,nc1u~ed gro'!Jjjdsl;ta1ti.Dg equId destroy or darnagestructures andil1£rastTucttu'e1 result1ng in loSSQf pl'Op~rty0rri$k tohtuuansafety ....H?Y\{~Yer'Jnandato:tycQmpliaJ.lcewith appUcaple\:ity OfE.i!lI1ch.O Palos Vel'd,eS~tldC::aJi£ornia-a;t,tild.i.PgCoCJ.e requiremen.ts would ;redl1ceimpacts toaCl~ss III,lesstb,al1 s~gnifical1t,leyel. GR.EENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.The proposed project would generate additiottal GHGe:tn.issions'beYOrll:1existi.D,g cQnditid:i:W.HQ\V~ver,caG emissio11sgenerateclpyth,eBtpject W01;ih;l.nQt eX~ee4J.he~PB1i¢abl~$igriifica;nce t1:mesholds~Irnpactswo\ll~l peClass HI,lessthal1$igjjifica;nf.·. C011$l$ten~ywithA4oPtedPlans(Policiesor Regulations ...O~veloplne11t facilitatedpy the proposed projectWQultl resultinan.mcfent¢rtta)J,increase 11) GHGetttission$~However,the proposeq.project would be consisfenfwi(h the GHGreductionstrategies set forth bythe.Z006Climafe Action Team Repottas ...__,-.--.~------__-~--_.~---'--.--_. City of.Rancho fa/os·VJfr(ies 13 Attachments 2-40 well as fhe 2008 AttotllE1)'General'sGl'eenhotise Gas.ReducnQ1'l Measttres. EtltpaCfSw(?uld be Class W,Jess than significant HYDR.OLOGY ANOWATER QUALITY Consll'l.Ntiort Discharge i:trtd5ut£~ce "Va.ter Q-uality.Outing grading for and constructiQflOf the proposed.p(t()jed!the soil surface would be subject to erosion and the downstream watershed,hid.Hdin.g the Pacific Ocean,coul.dhe subject to temporaty sedirn.entationattd dischargesot vl;wious pollutants.Hmvever,with impIementatiqnQf NPDES requirements,.lIUpilcts related to the potential for dlschargeo£various pollutant.s,inChtding secHmenf,vlould be Class HI,less than ...'f·'~Hgnl.1¢ant. Operational Distharge and Site Drain.age.Development of the proposed project would increase thearl1uuntof irrrpeltmeable surfaces on the project.site,and would also generate va~'ious urb~in pQllutants-such as bil,hetbiddes and pestieides,whichCotiltl adversely affed sutt<{ce \-vater quality,Inc:reasecl impermeable .surfaces on the site coulda1..sQ incteasethe flow rate of $tOT;'.n:,"~'\-"ater off·the site etunparedto existing conditicllls reSUlting u\incteased e1'o$10t1.1n clCiWhst1'0atn.draInage chartl1els,However,tNith i:tupletnetdatiOn Qf N:PDES requ.irementsand the proposed.onsite stormwater detention facilities"impacts related to surface water quality would he Class lIt less than significant. NOISE Construction Noise.Project·construction V\tou.1dinte1'1nittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to tnestte.f:J:.t:.tvvever,the project would be required to comply With the City's<regulations pertai11.1ng to the allowable timing of construction activities,and construction noise would not be expected.to exceed typical levels associa.ted with grading and cOllstruetinn.'l'hete£ore,hnpactS wOl.tld be Class III,less than sigtiificar~:t.Note that the £ollovV:1:Qg tiUtigatiott measure is oonetheless reco:mmended to furthel'reduce temporary noise levels associated with project construction.. Reconm,el1t:l¢d Mitigation Measures: N-l(a)Noise Mingat1onandMonitol'ing Program.The appHcantshall prOVide,to the satisfaction o£the Community Development Director$.a Noise Iv1itigationand Jvlonitoring Programthat requires all ofthe£ol1owing; •O:.mstrucnon contracts that specify'that all cohStruction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers anclother state required noise attenuation.devices.. •That property ownel'sahd occupants located within 0.25 miles of the project site shaH be sent a notice,at least 15 dayspliorto comm.encement of constrtlctiOn of each phase,regarding the construction schedule of the project.An notices shall be reviewed and approved by the Cb:mn1.l1nity Development CitY af Rancha P~l(js Wm:Jes 14 Attachments 2-41 D~rectClrptior tofheh1~Jli:ng or posting and shallh1dicat-e the d~te$a:rn::l dttratioh o.€CQfl$ttu~~tionaQt{viti€s,a$vveUas p:rt)videc't ¢ohta¢t1~a:rne and telep'lho:11e humber where residents cattxnqtlite ,ibottt the cc.m.strucB.onprocess and register cort~plaihts . .,That ptiOl'to lS$uande of ilt1'J Gt'ad'l:ng Ql:Building Penuit,the AI,)plicant sh.all demonstrate to theS:atis£~lc:tionof the City's BuHdmg Official hmvconstmction noise reduction methods Stl.c};l .as shutting.off idling eguipmentand vehicles!instal.lirtg tetnpor$.tyacotlst!.c b<.'l'l'tiers attmud st:atitmatycQn$O'u~tion f10ise sou.:tces,lnaxitnizihg the distance betw't."CnconsttUctioll eql.rtpl:rlent staging £Ind patkil1gareas~tnd.Occllpied residential areas,and electtic air .cmnptessoJ7s andsirnila'l'powet tools, tather than ~tieselequiplildnt,shall be usetfwhere reasible. '"Thatdtttittg consftuCt1011,Sh'\:t1onatyco:tlst:rucuot\equipment shalT be placed such that emitted noise is directed aVilay trOll) sensitive noise receivers. N4(h)Construction Vehicle {dUng.During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,ttl1:cks shall not patl\,quette midi 01.' idle at the project site or inth#ad:joiningptib1.ic xights-of-vvay before 7:00 a:rn,Monday through Satutday,in accotdance with the pe:r:mrtted hours ofcol1strucnon. N4(c)Stag111.g Area,TheconsO'uc!::iol1 contractor shall pl'ovidestaging areas ot'l.sife tominhnize of.f-site transportation ofhea'\,:y construction equipmerlt.These areas shaH be located to ma..'Ximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring tesidencesand instittltion;;tl uses).This would l'educenoise levels associated w:i,thmost types of idling construction equipment. N l(d)Diesel EquIpment Muf£lel'$.All dieselequipme:nt$hall 'be operated with dosed engine doors and sh;;tll be equipped with facto!'y recommended mufflers. N lCe)Electrkally-Powered Too}s3nd Facilities.Electrical power shall be usetf to runal!compressors and shrtilarpowe'l'tools :and to power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers 01' caretaker facilities. N-l(£)Restrictions on Excavation and FoundationfConditionlng. Excavation,andCoI'tditioningactivities shall be restricted to hetweentheho.urs oilUS AJ\;:{and 4;15 PM,l'vfDhday through Friday and located to tn.aximizethe dislance behveen activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). N-l(g)Additional Noise Attenuation Techni'll.l€$.ForaHnoise- generating consttuction activity on theptoject site,additional noise attenuation techniques shall be elnployed to reduce noise-____._------------------~~---~--------r..City of Rancho Palos Verdes 15 Attachments 2-42 levels tq the maximum extehtJeasible.Su~:h techniql.leS tnqY i.nclude,but are not limite<;:l to,theus€ofspund blanlKetsonxl,oise ger'l.eratingequipment and-the construction qfternporary sound barriers bdweenconstrucuon sites and nearby sensitivel'eceptots. COl1sfrudionVi.bratio-n.Pro.iect¢ol1Stl'U~t:iQn activities (;olilflgenerate intermittentlevels ofgronndbome vibl'ationaffecting residences and buildings adjace:nt to fheprojectsite.However,these impacts are temporaryihnature and WOn td not exceedexisth1gtht€1$hQlds.Thei'efot'e,impactsWbtlk~be (:lasslH,less tha p$igtl:ifip:l,nt. Traffic Noise.Projechgenerated traffic wouldincrernerttally increasenoisele"i,'els on area roadways.However,thejntreaseUl110isewoulplnot t:t¥Geedsig;rUticanGe thresholds al'td would therefot¢be.Cla$S III,less thansisrn,1f1cffilt. OperatioTla,l Noise,Operatkm oftheproposedproject would generate noise leVelsthfil,tmay p¢:rl.oC;.ikal1y be audible to<~~!$tittg\1,s~s near the project site. Onsite noise sourqeswottld include parking lot noise"deliveries andotlter servi:cevehicles,visitors,andonsite.machinery,Howevef,l1oise£rom these soUtces would be below thethresholds1.ised for this al1alvsi,s an",l consistent with<I. City Codes.Theretofe,irnpaf:ts wop-ld beC~ass III"less t!1.ansign#icant. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Intersections,Project-getleratedtra£fic wouldincrease h<ilfficvolmnesand incrementally reduce levels ofservice ateaen ofthe five studyintersectiol1S. However,the ..level.of.serVi.¢eimpa<:tWouldtlot exceed (:ily'thtes~Qldsa.tany inte),'$~tiorl,Therefore,impacts to st"tn::}yareCl intefSec!;j.qnswot!-ld beClr:\ssII~, less than significClttL Roadw(\y B¢gments.Project"'geneJ;,;ateo'fr<ilffic W0111d:l)olexx:efkl LOS $ti:tn(.i.a~'ds forC:testdflg¢.Road·'thetefpre)imp<ilcts to St;teet$egments woulflbe CIasaUL less than simrificant. Storage Capacity..•Project~geuetatedttaf~$(;w-q\1,l~nqtaff~ct v¢l1i Cle.stota.ge capacity at theinterSeCTIOilO£Crenshaw Boulevard.1C1'estridge .Road.Storage capacity..for thewesthourtd left...turnlaneat tneintersection ofHighridge Road!Hawthornel3oulevard is>ctitrrently .inad.equate andW()tdd remain i:b-a.deq\tate int11e )fear20tS$Genatio.'HPWever,p:toject generated.1;rqf£ic Y\To'IJld not exacerbate issues with storage capac~l)r.Therefore,impacts tointersecnon queuing would be Class IITf less·than significant. Sitli!}\cc¢ssi!.nd Inte1'l1a.ICirculathm,Veh:i<;les eX:lnrtg and e)1tetl11g the.site wou.ld ~xpedellcedelaysequivalentto LOSB during fhe AlvI and PM peak period for Year 2015 traffic conditionS..In addition,xeviev,rofthe Cl,Jttent site plan iht1icate$that the .proposedproject driveway·wouJdprovi4ean.adeqtlGite storagexeservoi;rlo aGGPrntXlOaate vehidesentering the site.The inte;rnal circulation systemis also deemed iobeadequate.TIlererore,im.pacts related to site acces$and internal cixculanoItwouldbe(:lassItl,lesstn,ll1 significant.Note Attachments 2-43 that the fol1oWihgmitigati0l1meMure isno,nethelessreCOtn1'l1elided toJurtitet to £uttm,er iJ;npr{)ve$ife cll.'12Uli;ltl.ortandi;lc(';e$$. ReC011l11il!rtded Mitigation Measure: T ..4 Site Access.Install a stop sign and stop bal'·at the proposed project driveway on CrestridgeRoad.Thisfea.ture shall he shown .onall projectplans$u"btttitted for buildtiig pett11iLreview.Further, lanclscapingat drnear theprpposedqriVewaysnf\Iluot OlJs,tr;u~ta driverts elearHne of site lothe-satisfaction of theCityis Public Works .Departrnent. eMP Atterhd MOi'fitothtg l:ntersectiQll$.1?toje¢t~ge:neta.ted tr~psat il±erdified Congestion Management Program (CMP)locationswould be belmvCMP tl:1reshdlds.£or arterial monitoring tntersectionlocations.Also,there ate naCM? £reewaymol1itOrir\.g locations in ltteviCipityof fhepr{jposed PJ:oject J1'ladti.ition, the existing transit se1'v198 irtfuepl'ojectarea WOttJd adeqttii!tE!lyaccornmodate the ihcreaseofprojed generated transittrips.Impacts would therefore beCla$sII~, less fnansign.i£icant, Construction traffic.Access toCl'€stridge Road and theprojectsite during project gradihg and constructionvvQulcFbeprovidedvia Highrid?e.RQadand C;:tenshaw13oulevard.Although there WQttlcll!ean 'Q.1.creEl,Se oftri1l£.ficq;tl'ring grading and Cl:mSf:ructlbn,co:nstru~'f:i.ol1t1·Gl,£fit:Wottldnot tesult;hi !;lJ:lJ s~gtUfiCctrtt impacts to key stttdyintersections.Therefote:,.irnpacts relatin.gto construction traffic would be Class In,Jess fhansignificant. -_...._--_._...•....~-~~~~-------.....-_._-.._--.-------~-~----~--~~~------..,.......---~..,.......-..,.......--------'r..City ofRancho Palos Vett;/$s 11 Attachments 2-44 EFFECWSPEl'ERMINED TUBE LESS THAN SlGIN1FICANTwrfB MITIGJ\TIOl'I1 ·.ANDFINDINGS TueCity orRauGno Palos Verdes,having l'eviewed.andconsiciet~athetrtfQr~:natiorlcQnt~ine(i itt tlwFinal E:rR,the TEK;nnjq;:1.1Apllenaices(:"Qld the al'l.minjstri;lti:ve rBGord,Jipas,P1.H'Sl1a.nt to CaliforniaPubli<:;l\eSottrcesCode 21081 (a).(1)ClndCEQA Guidelitles15091 (a)(l)thatcllanges or alterationsnavebeernequired in,or incorporated into,theproposedptoject which yyould avoid or Sllbstantially lessen tobelowaJevelo£sig'nific~nlce thefol1owmg potentially sigiWicant eUViJ!on.il1e:tttalcllects ige:().tmed in the Fh1q l EIR in tUe Jqllowing cqtegqries:AirQualitp"; 13iologic(ill~e$6urces,Geology;1'raf£icaxnj Cireulation.TheJ?otentially significant adverse emtir~nmentalimpactsthatcanbe tnitigatedarelisted below,..The City of~al1Cho Palos 'lerdes C~ty Coun~ilfitld$thatthe$epotetttiallr significanta.tiver$eimFactsqqnhe~ti$ia:ted to\illess than sign:l.fiqant level afterimpleme1.1taijon of In,!tigatiqu measures irlentifiedil:t the Final EIR. The IJraft·EIR is iucorporatedby·reference. The}J~oject's potential irnpactswith regard to airqua1itJ:that can be.nUtig~tedQr ate otherwise lesstha.l1sigtUfic;a;tJt are discu$s.edin Secilou4,21 Air QttfJlityro£the pratt EI~. LESS THAN SIGNIFICA.NT IMPACT lA/ITR".MITIGATION INCQRPORATED, COh$b:uction~J{.ehd;ed Air Emisslotl:s.COl1stttlction activity wouktgenera.te 011 and offsiteair pollutant emissions that would exceed.Sen-ltn Coast Air qualify 1VIanagem7nfDistiict (SCt\qNIDlconstructi(}nthresholdsJof.njtrogen oxides (NOx)andp~rticulates.·lessfha1.1 JO m;i.Ctons indiarl,1.efer (PMwh On..site COl1strt:tctiou-fell:ltederpissiQusl-ypuld also exceed. SCAQ1>4P·Loca.li.?:e<.l$ignincanceihresllolds (LSTs}fqr PJvnOa.fKlpad:l.cuIat:esless tha1l.2J3 microns in diameter (l?lVb,;j-). ..Cltange~Qr alterations hetoebeenteqrtirecl itl,.orittcOipormetJitlfo,t!@project that arJoido]' substantifJllJI lessen the signifipqnt fJ.JJ17ironm entalJ:f!et't t:J;si(ientijie4 i·lJtlte [)raftEIRc~ The potential impacts to air·quality 11'omconsb:uetion activil-ieshave been elintinated or suhstantially lesS€1ned to a less fua"tl sign.i.fica..nt:level hy yirtQe o£;nutigatibnnl¢a$"(.tresi<LentiHed. iuthe Draft EIR.. AQ71(a.)Consttttct~pn 'Ec.ruipmerttC911tvols.The fDllo-wingshall pe implemented during construction to minimize emissions oINO:" <:lssociatedWith(iic$ebfuelledcQttstructionequipmettr 1.All diesel·COlls!ructidrt equipmfittt sball meet TnttrimTier4 BP1iel~1is~'i(J1t standards. 18 Attachments 2-45 2.Crmstrtwtiou cm1Jrndors s[wU nlirrihlizl!equif}tuent idling time throughout QJl1st!Wqti()}!-Engines sll1t$lbeturnedo.ffifidling tlMuldbefbr mote thau fi'llf3 1:ninntes. 3,E'1tliplltertffJltgiHess}urllbe fNr#ttft#Heditlgoad couditioniHuiin proper trmt!tl$pel'JI/iumjhcturers'specifications.. 4.T'lllf fltultber of pieces 0/equipl1umt op!Jlnting Sit1t1iltal1!JmuHy shall be lni11.iHtited. 5,Ccursfwuctioncontractor$shall use altenwtivelllJueled construction eqttipuu;nt (such tlfj crnupressed nat-uraI gas,liqnefied urttural gas,or electric),udwn feasible, 6.'Elle engine.size (if'coustructionequipnlcnt shall be the mihimum practical sf;:.¥:. 7.Heru.ry'-chlty diesel"pomerf3d ·eollstruction.··equipmel1t tlttut.ttfactured t~f1:ef 1996 (rl!itlt.fitdr:!1tJlly lIiilufIated clean dieselengitlKS)shall be utilized wherever jkl1sib[e, 8.DttJ'ingtbe smog Setl$On (1Vlaythtougl1 October)}the ccmstnictiottperiod should 11e leagateued so as to minimize t11eHttmber ofvehicles an",l equipment opetttfiltSlJf the sa.'tl1etime. AQ..l,(.f.;,)F'litgitive DU$t Cont1'ol Meawur«<s.The following shall be iU'lplernented dUring construction to minimize fugitive dust eUiJSsJOUS; 1,A.ll exposed,disfuil,ed;and gradet'/,are4so!'tsife51ml1 be 'watered three times (3;:(Jd.aily utttilcoutpletiou of ptojecfcmlstnu:tioft towinintize Hte ent"1'aimnent ojexposedsoil; 2.Pl'e~gracling/excff{)(rtion(/ctir.#tie$s!tallincludewatering the area to be gmded oteXctwated before conVNencenzento.fgratiing·orexcavating activities,AppLication atwater (preferably reclt1it11ed,~f available)SllOulti ptfnelrate sufficiently to mil1illtize fitgititt{f dust duringgradil1g l1ctipities, 3,Fugitive dustprodiwed during grading,excavation}and.construction actit.lities shall be controlled by the jolltm#rrgacti'vities: It Trucks trmtEiporting materntl Olit111d offthe site must be tarpedfram t/l£pOt1tcf %rigi11 ormust ma#linin af leftst one fitetoffreeboard. It An graded and excavatedmaferiat exposed soil are-tI.s}ami fictive portions o/tIte construction site,inclndingunpmted on~s#e 1'0admaY$,shall be treated to prer.JentfitgitizJe dust.TreatmentsJmll include,but rtvt 1'ttrcessmily be limited tOi l1etio4ic ·Watering. application olerroironl1lentally··,sftjk soil stabilization l11tlterials, and/or roll-compaction as mppropriate.l/Vt1tering slm.l1}1e dt')ne as often as necessarytJrtd reclaimed 'Water shall be usedw!temrver possible, 4.Gtound cqlle-r titHst he feplilcfd in disturbed I1reasas qi1ickly as possible. 5.During periods oj Jdgh winds (i.e"wind speedslf:fficient to causefugitit18 /lustlo affect adj(J.('£tlfpropertie$),all clearing,grading,earth lHOl)ing, and ex;cazmtion operations sltall be cUl'tailedto.the degref necessary to preventfugitiz1e dust from being mt mltlOymzce 01'hazard,either ojfsite 01'on -site, City ofRancho Palos Verdes 19 Attachments 2-46 6.71Ut contillctor11lust prot1i4eltdeqt{nteloru1ingfUnldadingal'elt$tlttlt lihtit trt/{;k-ottf OJtto .•atljar:eni:.··,t:!qqlLJUy$.···t11touglt··.t!lt.;··tt·tilizntiott.ohvtteel Tuashing,rtI.1nble plafes1oranother nretltoclncllievillgtlJe .sa1lle.intent. Adjqcent $lreetstmd fQqd$shall besJoi?ptatlRf15t01tCe perifay,prejemJ1ly attheentiafthe dnlhiftlisihle soil l1raterial is carried over ·to adjacent streets and roads. 8.per$qltneliutfolned in grcuItng operati01fs,incJt,tdi!tg C(lntnusiQrsaud stlbco~trtlctors,.slmll.wear ··l'BspiJ'tlfor}/protecti011in ~ccordancew)ith Califarttia Dit1isipl1 of Occutn'ltlolml $a!etyrtl1d·Fl'eiIlthregulatfQn$; 9,All residential units lqcaimi within 500f¢ei of t!le constructifm sitemust be se11.ttJ tzoticeregtttdiugthe cortstl'lJct/brtsclti!dttle oftlwproposed, project.A $ignJegi1:!leattlrlist~mtJA of~Ofeetlnust also bepQ$teliil1 11 prorninent andpisible location at theconstructionsife,and must be nminttli11.ecitft1vuglwl-!t .the C(JIlStl'llCtlO)l fJfQe¢s$.AlIJlo#ce,$and.tile sIgNs 11tUst indicate thede/fes.and duration ofmnstructimr activities,as well.as pl'Ot#4eIJ.telephottR ·tf;lt11lVef'wlterl1 residen tSCt1;IJ inqtciw {tbout the CQ.1Zstrttc#onprocessquil r(jgisti4f complaints. 10.Visibledustbeyonilfhepropetty Hile .etntmatingfl'ot1ltJ'teproj¢cf I'I2Usfb& pre'lIfJnted ttl tile llUJxiulglll extentfrJasibk' 11.Signs slmltbe postedon..sitelimiting construction tmffido 15 miles per !tout or less. 12.Dust c01'ltrol r.equirementsshafl"be shown On allgrailingplans, 13.TltesecQntrQl.·teclmiqlles·musf behtdicated liz ptojectffpecijications. COJllpliance with t!UJrtleaSlWB Slt411 be subject tt)p(fJ'icuficsiteiuspeetion$ bytlwCit}/.. The projecf$.poterrtialim.pacts with l'egard.to biologicaLtesotitcesthatcaitbe niitigatedor are otherwise less than significan.tare dis0tlSSel:.i·in Sectipp4;.$;~iqlosicqlB;gs(Jutt:!eslo£t1te:D~~a.ft EIR. LESS THAN SlGNIFIGAlVTJMPACTWrrH Mf1'lGA1'10N INCORPORATED. '\I\Tild1ife1\t};pvem~nt andC01'l1idfJrs.Theptop9sed projectw9uld J:lotbeexpectedlointerfere substantially with the rnovemenlof native resident Of lnig:ratory wildlife species or with esta'blisned1'1.ative resident oruJigratotywil<JUfe Qorri<Jqts,OTlttipetletI-te uSeofrtanVgwilmlfe nttrsi?:rysites.Howevet:,hagvebit"l$pecii?:$cotI;J;X:ti,)0WY foiItc{)Up.teteg irlutpa,nateaseo-u'¥d.nesllt, the dispersedtoyon shrubs and Brazilian peppertreesfound at the project sife. Finding o Cht1l'lgeso'tfllteratiotl$lmIle been required i11,oritu:t;n110rtJ,red,iflto,tlti::pt'oject '(vlu't;7i 41Joid 01' sub,stanti41ly le$sentl1e Slgtti!ic:al1tenviro!tmetttr/1 eJjifPt asi4eft iiJieil £ft tl~e PrqjtE(F{, Facts in Bupportof Finding The potential impacts to wildlife movement associate d with the pr()posed proje:thave been ehm.i.natedot substantially lessened·to a less than significant JeveJhy virtite ottnemitigation tlleasllte identified in the braft EIR. ~..,...--------------~------------------_._._--_~.r·....Ci1yQfRai}Cch.PPafos 'Ver:i:fes 20 Attachments 2-47 Mitigation Measures; BIO ...3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance•.Sitectistutbi1lnceshq l1be prohibited during the gertetal avian I1estiI:tg$eq.sort (Fep~uary 1- Al1gtJst 30),if £0<;\5ib1(;:.Tfbreedillg season avoidanceis not feasibJEl,H qualified biologist snaIl L%mduct a preconstructionnesting bird survey to detetmil1€thepresencelabsence,10catioD"atld st£tf:usofany active nests on or adjacent to the project site.The surveys<snaH.bEl conducted by a qualified bio19g1stapproved by theCo.rnmunity Development Department.The extent.ofthesurvey buffer area surrounding the site shaI1be established by the qUl:llified biologistto ensure thl:ltdIrect and indirect effects to :nestin,gbitds areavp$d.ecl,To avoid the destructiol1 of active nests and to protectthereptoductive success of birds protected by META and fheFishand Game Code of C91ifo1'l1ia"uestlngpird surveys shanbepetformed tWice 11er week during the three weeks priQI'to the schechtled vegetation cIearal1ce, In the event that active nests .are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g.30.. 50 feedor passerines)should he established.arot.tnd.such active nests and:no COJi$tftlction within the btt£f¢t l)lJ16wed ®til aqu;alified biologi$t hi:l$detennined thatthertestisnoJongeractive{e.g,the nestlingshavefledgedand.areno.longer reHarttol1.the.l1:st).No ground.distnrbing activities shalloccu.r wifhin.111is buffer until the City~approvedbiOl()gist·has¢on.fitmed··thal breedipg7nes~n$·is cnmpleted and the young have fledged the nest Nesting birds surveys are not required for construction activities occuxri:qgbetween Au.gUst 16 atidFebrtiary 1. Consisten~ywith ~a.tural Conserva.t~o:nCommut'dty Plan.Tlw propose4'tproject would nobconflidwith any local policies orordina:ncesprotectingbiological resources/such as a tree .preservatioupolicYOl'ordinance.In Addit:icm,th¢pToje¢tsit¢is .nQtwithil1 an adoptect l'fabitat Cpnsery;at1Qn Plan area,Howeve}",pQtentiqljn.t+'ot;iu~tiQi10f nQrt';l1ative pl;:\pt species associated with .Otlrsite landscapingcou.1d conflict "Withfhe adopted Natural Conservation COIIl1Uunity Plan (NO::::r:r}. Finding •Cltnnges or alte1'fttii).fts1ttrpe been-required in,orincorpOffttedinto,tlwproj?cfmltii;lt4ZiQid or substantially lessen the significant environmental ejject.as identijiedintll.e Draft Ell?. Facts inS4ppOtt of )fi:nding Thep(Jtentiatimpa.ct$resultingfromcon£1ktsvvithtneNCCIJa.ssociated }\lith the proposed proje<:t have been e1in:U,n.a.ted OISttb.stantially lessened fOa lessJIlan sig:qjfitantJeyel by virhleQ£ fhel;lutigation measures identifi\2ldiu.theDrctftEIR. BIO~4(a)CQAStru¢tlollBest Martagel.11¢ntFtacti¢es.Tl:teJbllc,:wmgu1eawq.res shall be employed as part ofconstru.ctionm.onitoring forthe site; City of RanchclPalos Verdes 21 Attachments 2-48 •ContradorsshaTl be educated regarding the off~siteRese:rve and the need w l<eepeq'uiprrl¢nt a11dpetsQ:tITtt:'!Witninthe ptojectsite pdor to thel.11iliiittiql1 of t:Pli~tt\.tctiD1i. •1'emporarYCQliStrl~ctionfertdng$hall be placedatth~pla11ned limits ofdisfurbanceadjacenttQ theReseI've, BIO-4(b)PtQvisions tor.Inva$ive Speqiesan<l Ni:l,liveH;'I.bitatUl¢:til¢I1tl~~n.th¢ Landsca.pingPlan.No species listed in the Cal,-!PC Invasive Plant Inventor)'(2006)oridentified as potentianyinv~'lsiveornametrtal spedesin the Ra:ncho Palos \!erdes NCCp E;'upa:r¢a Pli:)'!1 (ZOO'l)will b~ u!;:i1i$ed intheJendscapingplan fP:t'the$ite~Specie$T1sted in .the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (AcacialO1~gifolia),Sydney golden wattle {Acacia cyclops),Peruviah pepper.b:ee.(Scl1imlsmollc), Brazilian pepper tree (Sc,hinl/slerebentltifo{ta),p14Ck 1qcu5t (Robiniq ps.eudo-acacia),my<yporttttt (lYIygpprunl la(;rttnl),gtull tree (Buc(jlyj}tus spp.),and pines (Pinus spp.).In addition,totneextent·feasib1e the .F'foposedproject shalHncorpQratenativeh,abitat elernextts t:ntothe lartdscapitlgp1anror the 1."67'cacl"¢passive park vv-it1.}tri'4l$t$¢~nic overlqoks(andcortttnuluty gardeusin.thenorfhernportion of the Crestridge Senior Housing developrrtent ptoject.Native habitat elements i:t1cl-ude -using lqcallysotti'c¢q:t;\ative shntll$such a,s.toyon, California sagebru$h,cOi:};$tal bll1ffbuckwheat,nativegtasses,and native perennial forbs as part ofthe plantingpaletfe. BJO"4(c)ConstJ;tlctio:ll.Sla~irt~md StQckpilip,gAtea.s,Gtadihilanq buj1<:ting pli;lll;ssubn:riJ:ted.torthePtoposed project forCtty J;'eVi~w;ana.... approvalshallidenti.ty areas for construction staging,fueTingand stockpiling.These areas shall belocatet1.as farasptacticaL£1"omthe V1$ta4el t\Ic))"te Brt>setve,.an¢lJ\~)tclo~¢r f:l;U'lrt?O feet.frotI;lthe !?tesel've bottttdary. CIJLTl1RALRESOtTRCES The proJect's<potentialimpacts wit~regard to GWtuialresourcesthatcanbernitigated orate otherwise less than significant aredisc11,ssE!d.in.tl1.e.Irtitj,iitI gtgdy,Appendix A·to tkteDt9£t'BJR. LESS TH.AN·SIGNlFICANT IMPACT Vv'lTHMITIGATIC)NINCQRPORATED. Walthe Projed: Cause asul1stantialadtJerseclmngei1ftlpe $igniJicanceo{all.atdweological resource as tk:finedin §15064.57 Directlyorindirectly·des.troya unique FU~leontologic(l.lres(JHn;e or site or uniquegeo!ogic f¢a.tute? J?ot¢nt;iaI to Di$ttttb J.1ndiscQveredAr¢hae()lQgic;;ilQKP~I¢O!ltoIogicaI Resotttc¢s.J:t¢viousi3\l'chaeologicaLstI;lqies 1l1the prgject area,al1d aHhesite itselfhavenotidentified any archaeolOg1calresources;In addition,the site and sttrrounding areas have b¢:n extensivelydi$ful'oed Qvertheyei;lr~..TherefQre, the potential for archeqlogical resources,U'l'li,quepaleoptologiGq,1 reSOtu'cesor -,---------,----------"-"~-------------_-_._..-.-..-~---.-----"-"'--~~-~--~-"'---"...-~-=---::--"'---~r......C;jfY,ltRtft1choPalos VfJrdfjs 22. Attachments 2-49 unique geologicfeatures to be fOlll1donsiteis low<ti0wev:rt constttiction activity for the xestdential1Jnits wouldinvolv(6)ct.'ltthworl<slJ.chas grttding.1ui.d trenching,Whi~h hasfhepotential to uncarthyet-to~bedi$cov~redarch?-eologicaI and paleontologicalresources.However,potentialimpacts to previously unknown resources arcTikely mitigaolewith standard mitigation meaSttres aTH...l procedures to pc fQl1ovv-ed if reSQurces or rel;l;t<itns &;teqis(:overed dUringgtading arn:l site prepqtatic)11. Finding II!Changes pf·altern#ons hmNbeen·requireitil1ror im::orporatedintoj the·l1tojed tohich t!voidor stlbstmitially lessen the sigl1ijicfl1ttenuirouuteMale!..fect as id.el1ti/iedin tile X/m/t E:IR., Facts in Support ofFindittg ThepotentiaJhrtpacts resqltingJ rOrtlColtfliets with th~Necp a.$$ociatedwifh the proposed, ptojeet have been eliminated or substantially lessened to aJessthan significant level by virtue of the mitigation measuresidenti£ied intheI)raftEIR. CR-l Discovery P:rocedttr~.lfeultttral resqurces a.reencouptel'eddttting construction,the construction manager shall ensure thatall ground disfttrpauceactivitiesare stoppectahd.shall.noUfy.tneCitY'13uHUh-lgartd, Safety Depa,rtment itluuedia.teJy·toa.trall.geJ'ox aqualifie~iarChae()Jqgi~tt(j aSSeSS the naturel extent,and potentials:ignificance of any cultural resources..If such .r€sources are determined tooesignificant,appropriate actions to rm:tigat¢iTripacts to the resources rUu$tbeictentiiied in consultation 'V\tithaqqaIifiecl~tr6ha.eolq~$t.J)¢.pel1<i;iltgttPOn .tAerlatt.tte ottl1efind,su.cu nritigliltion mayinclu<le avoidance,documentation!or otherC\ppropriateactions to be·deternlinedbya.quali£ied arc~aeQl~gi$t. The archeologistshqHcotnplete arepQrtof eXcavations andfu1dint9Stand shall the report to the $out4 CentralCOf}$taJ I;nf'Q:I;r'11ati(jn Center.After the find,iSq,ppropriately mitigated/workin the aI'ea mayresume. CR w 2 PaleontoldgicalMoliitotmg.PtiQT f(j thetohtme1'lc¢tnent9IgI'adfrtgt the applij:antshi;lll retC\llJ,.a qualifje!£iPOilepl,1tologist appl1oved,PXthe City to monitorgradin,g andexcavatio11..Monitoring ansite shall occurwherlever grading activities are occurring.AdditionaLm.onitorsin additiofitbbne full...time ntonitqr maj'pe requ.ireg to:provj.d©a,deCJ,.-uat¢cov€l'agE;'if eaxth" moving activities are oq::grl'ingsiJ:1tuiltaneously.Apy cvltuJiairesources discovered byc0J.1str~ction:l?ersonnelorsuocontractotsshallbereported immediately co the paleontologist,In the eventtlndetecteduuried resou:r¢~$<:l.Te eqcPt:(rtteredduti;ng gtaginga..ti.UexC;;l)Vttf;lqrl-,wod:;s:haJl be halted Or diverfedftamfue areaartd>the paleont()Iogislshal1evaluatethe resource and proposeappropriat;emitig~tionmeasures;.Measuresrnay include testixtg,datarecavery,relill,rialtarcbival review ai1d,jorITam;rer to the apptoptlate.mu,(';etlm pr edt;tcatiqrw1 itl$tlt:u.tiorh r AU testing,.datatecoverYt"l'epttt!<:l.l,archiv<!ill'eyieWox tt&l1sfet toto research instimtions related tor:nonit()ring.discoverie$$h~ll09 ._--~,.._-_.-_",---..-.-_. Pity o.f R/,lncl)a Palo.s VergeS 23 Attachments 2-50 Lterem1illed by theqtUillified.p&leonfologistartd$hal1 h~report¢qtt?~h.~ City, GEOLOGY Theprofect's potential im.pactsvvith.regard to geology +hat can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4,Ge.ology,of the DraftEIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT·WI'TH.MITlGATION-INCORPORATEf). Sl(lp.e StahiHt;y..TIW$14rp€$talJ:flityanalysis p't'(2pated.rox the ]?xoJeqtsitecortcluL1eg!!:'l.tiif the 011;- siteexistingap.d proposed slopescottld be subject to la:ndslicles' •~lumges.or alterationsltatR?been .l'equil'editt,.01'incorpo1'afediilto,·tlte -proje:a ~phicb _ttl1oidol' 5U,f:Jfftll1ttially ltJsselt thesignijjcantetlVirQll1uental elfex;t as iilentified..in t~{e Dt-a]}EJR.. Facts in Support of Fineting The potential impacts from slopemstability as a result of the propQsedprojecthavebeen eliminateclor substantiallYlElssened to a less thanstgni£ici:U:1.tlev~rpy virtue ora llutigati.ort IneasuresiderttUled in the DraftETR. Mitigation Me({.sure; GEQ..Z(<;\)C(1mpliancewiththe:J:ecomo;tendaJifon$tncltltle<i,irl.the p:revious geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shallbe required,These tecon:m;tendationsirtdl,1dernamteil.anceofatinlform,ue.at Qpti;xUU)ll tn()i$!;tq~e ¢Q:ntentult11e$IQpesQils.,i;lp.daVpiqi;1:/JPflQf oVete-illryifj,g oJ: ex.c~$$itrig9tJ,t):11,whic.1t.witL:redu;cethepotentialfor.softening.and strength loss,In add.ition,slopemaintenance shallinclude the lrnntediate ;Pli;lJ.1ting of the S"IOpe1Adfh_approveo,deepi60ted, liglttweig;bt,dfOl,1ght.tesistant.v~~etl;1ti9n,-as weijasproper·Cqreo£ erosion and drainage control devlces,andacoritinuous l'odentconttol progl1am.Brow ditcnesand terraces shall be cleaned eachfall,before the tall1.)'Seasol1,Glnoshallbe fre¢luehtlyjrt~pe¢tecliin.l1¢le aneg,as necessary,aftereaqh ra1nst0r111.A:ccesstotJ:\e slt)p~$,.·iil.cludi.!1g foot traffic outside of designatedpedestrianfoo~a:th~hshould be minimized.to 2tvQid .1o¢aLClismtbartceJo $u'r£iCialsoils.Tltec;ity6£ !<Cll1Ch PCllp$Vercf,~$J?ub1ic lVp?t!<s O¢pat@etl.f$hall reView8"tlcf, i;lpprove all final plansf(Jf slope Naintena;nce prior to·issuanceofa grading permit. GEO,.2(tJ)Thepl'oposedretaining wallatthe topot the~Xi$tingcufslone a,t tfte easternhoundary ofthesite sha:llbedesigned as ahuried retaining wall tosttpporttneprQjeCtand u.nderlyin.gadvers¢geo16gicstrtitli:tre. Titesystem requires.a desjgn.al1d depth ofEimbe4m¢p.t thatwowd safeguard anstte-improvements luthe ·event·theoffsi±e slope failed, --.--.,.-,.;.------------------~----~----~---------------------,,----,,----T--r-·Citr of Rancho PaJCJsVe-rdes .24 Attachments 2-51 GBO"2(.c)An as..graderlgeQt~cl:tnici3.1 re.pqrt $l:talthe .prepi;ll'edby ~hepl'Qject geotQchnicalcol1sultant·following complenonof grading,The report shall include the results.of .in-'gxadin.gdensity tests,and a map dearly depictil1g huttre$s.fillkey~q11otations~ndd:epthf;,removal area locations and deptl:t$,stiD-dl'ainage sY1ilterTI 10jeations a.nclctepths artcl geol()g~cal.conditionsexposecLdu:ring grading. GEO-2(cl)Iftequited byJhe finalgeotechliicalreport,asre\T:iewed and appr9ved h"ythl:1City Geologist,theappli~an.tsh'illlinsj;a.ll pe'1,'1J,lanen.t inc1inorneferstafih:ms at the site toal1owt'he northern slope to be monitored forpossiblemoveIXl~ntfoll0'Wingil'nPlementationoHhe project.The nUrrtberand Ioccttiol1 of the inclinomElter stations>shaJlhe d:tel'mined by t:he City Geologi$t 11'"e applil:;arttsl:ti3.ll submit al.tecord of inclinometer readings along with any l'ecommendations £Tom a geotechnical engineer to the City every six mOJ.'tths dU;!.'ing the Iuetime pftl:t~J")roject01'utltil the·CityGeblog;isfi3.g;tee$thats¢111i..alp;rnfa1 reftcling$are no longer neces.sary.Tnadditiol1,readingsand geotechnical recommendations shall be sub:ntitted fothe City follOWing ah¢avy ra~nfall ¢vertt(;>2ti1uestiVeragl;1monthly rafufall) or following &1 rnagp.itucleo.Qpr grectter seistniceyent withip.201'1liles o~theprojettsite, If the geotechnical e:ngbl.€l;1T deferrpil1es t.hat$llffidentn.10Yemehf has takenptace that wartalt~sfttrtI:1ettq).'r¢<::tiy¢()r'pr¢v¢ntlirtivea,ctit,'llt,the proje¢tappltcantshal1beresponsible.for allexpensesasso~iated.with the costs of implementing anyremediationrecornmended by the geoteChnical engineer .to·.en$~re thatthe slQperetnailiS$taule,FtH'Hiet monitoring by im;linornetersfpct)'lYe requj,re<1,•.ifrecommen<,ied Py the geotechnical engineer or reqcuiredhy the City.. ExpansiveSQUs •.Thepropo$ed..pro.jectisl()ca~eqJn @ areA tt:t):q;edainbyexpa:tl$iv~$oiIs~ ExpaJ}$ivesQilf3 swell or heave with increases in moisture contentand shrink with decreases in moisture content.The shrinking and swelling ofsoil beneath stl't;lCtun::Js can potentially result in !ii'ac'kibg df£o'l.l:teld<ltio~:ts artdql;"herstj'tlCtutaJ dama$;¢. Finding C!1{f41gesoralteratiol1$lurpel'een required in,QrincorpQ1'fJfed into,tlteprojeotTPlticha'ooirtor substantially Jessen the signiJicwnt environmentalef!ecfosid.entijiedintlte Draft ElR. Facts in Suppo:rtof Einding The pol:errna,l intpa.cts £rom expa,tlSive soiI$Yi:l$a t~$~lr()£th¢proposedprqje!:t haYe been eli111inaleq.otsgpstantially lessened toa less than.s$gn.ifican.flev~l by vil'tueofn'liHga,tion measures identified inthe Draft ElR. r .-..-...._.__.._----------..-----._.-....-.--~------.•.-.-.~---~-----~-----~::--......"..,...--.,.-,,--.......-- CitY of RatlcQo Pa!osVetde$ 25 Attachments 2-52 GEO<;(a)Geotechnical ReeommenrlaHQns.Prior to issuance of 9ny Grading Penuit or Bttilding Permit,•the pl'ojeq.t et}?pliCalTtshaU CClt:J.1ply with. aU.l'eCm:J.11Il.Cl1datiQIl.S t.:ontairted vvtthirt the Geology and Geotechnicallnvestigationpl'epa:red by Grou'p Delta Consultants (2003)induding: ..Following grading,the e);:pausion potenti~llqf thcexposed sl,lbg¥utle shall belested,The design.flf fQUl1datlons and slahs sh~ul to-tlsidet the high expansion potential.Following completion of grading and until slabs and fOOuttgsat€Pottt€\t the exposed soil an.d b(:.~dtock materials shall be perxbd1¢allYVyetted·to p:tevertt.tht>tn fr()1'r1 dl'yhtg but.Pte~ saturation is alsorecol1unended. GEQ:-<3(h)ExpansiVe Soil Removal <1rtdjor T:reatment.Suitrtl:lle :rnea.sures to reduce in:111aCts frorn expansive SQilscould in~-:lud.e onc or more of the foUo\>ving techniques"asdetennitlod.by a qua1:ifiecl.geotechnical engineer and approved by the City ofR.a11CnO Pa.los Verdes Puhlic "'\larks Departr:n:ent: ..Excavatitm·of existing soils and impottatiQn o[rton~0xpansivc sons,A11 imported.nllshaU be tested and certified by a registered Geoteeh111cal Engineer and.cerH:fied for use as a suitahle fill material;and. •On.,site rm.lndanons shall he designed to aCCOl11l11odate certain al11()un.ts of diffei'etltiJ.)lex;pansioninaccotqattc~with Chaptet 18"Diviskm lIT offhe UBC TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The project's potentialiInpacts with regard to traffic and circulation.fhat can be mitigated.or are otherwise less than sigrri.ficanf ai'e dis<.:ltssed :in SeCD..ol1 4$,Trafjil'·ami Circulation,of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFlCANT IMPACT 1'\l118 MITlGA.TrON INCORPORATED. Sight Distance.Adequate vertical sightcl.istance would be provided.from the·ptoposed project driveway to the crest em Crestridge Road.However,a 11wtorist's sight distance could he 6bstrncted by futttxe project landscaping and/or haxdscape al0l'lg the project ftontage. Finding III Clttmges 01'altetaurms lU1J)e"beett tequired iu,or incorpQrtttedinto,the projertwhichfH/oirJ or 5ubstmttitdly lessen the sigrtificantentdtcmnumtt?leffect as identified itt the nraftEIR, Fads in.Support of Finding The.potentialulJ.pacfS related to sight distance have becn e.11nul1ated orsubstantiaHy lessened.to a less than significant level by virtue offhe mitigation measure identified in the Draft EIR. r ._~-------------_._...._.._.._...._._....•-....._.•....."....~",.~".•......,."".".. City ofRancho Palos Verdes 26 Attachments 2-53 T ~5 Maintain Sight Dist/;lllC~.Final profect plans shan show that landscaping and/or hardscapeat or near the proposed project driveway is designed such that a driver's cleat line of sight is not obstructed,In additlon,curbside parking shaH he prohibited along the prop€~rty frontage within the identified sig;ht visibility lines shownonPigure4.8-5 ofthe EIR. ~('~1 ,~Jo' _.~--~~-~~~----~----~-----~~~~-------- ..City af RanchaPafas VerdesIf27 Attachments 2-54 VI ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGA'tlON AND FINllIN'GS The EIR fOl'theCtestridge 8e11101"Housing Prpject i¢!.enHfiespOfe11.tially significant environmentalimpacts withul ono lssueal'ea whicncannofbe fUI1ymitigated andisthel~efol'e eonsidered.significant and·unavoil.:table ("Class 1")..Tha.timpact isrelated to .Aesthetics,The City ofR~lt1Cho Palos Verdes,havh1greyiewe¢land considel'edthetrUorrnatiQncont;:i.iu¢dfnthe Final EIR,Tec:hnical Appendices andtheadP,1inistr;:i.tive recofcLJinds,put~mlnt to CaUfomia PublkResoUl'ces Code.21081 (a}(3)andCEQA Guidelincs 15091 (a)(3)(that tofheextentthis impactrell1ftins sigl.ufitatib and.unavoidable,isuchirnpact isacceptablewhetlWeighedagaiust the overtiq;u1g sodal,econo:t.r'1ic,Je.gat technical,an.d.othereonsiderauQl1s set fprth in the Stateme~ltofOverriding Considerations,ll1duded qS SectipnVIn ()ftneseFindings.The C:fass r impactidentified in theFEIR document isdiscttssedbelow,along with the appropriatefindfugs per CEQA GllideJinesSection 15091. AESTHETICS SIGNIFICANT AND LTNj\VOIDABLE IMPACTj\FTER MITIGATrON. ViS11.;11 Chata(;tetartdQua,lity ofth~Site,Theptopo$edpl'Qjectwo41ahtu'odultesttuctutal development,neW landScapin$'andhardscape toanopt!n atld imdevelPI'<ausite'and ptojecf: grading WDuld substantially alter the site's slope and ridgelinetopography,In addition,the site is identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a "canyon and ridge"feattttlJana as flUndeveloped Lqrtd$ImpactitlgV1s1talQtai'ader;"gtad.irtg£p:t~n¢!. constructipnof ·tlie.ptoposed project wquldelinrlnate both of theSe attributes, Findings ..SpeciJfc econontic.,legdl,social,technological,or other considerations,including considerations ili,5cU1i$e:4 in flu:BtatetttentojCYoerrifHng lQ1!$idertltions,otl t'Wtigl~ill¥?rnumoiqdb1(!Cl.at;etsl? e:npir.Otlmentalef!ecfs;tl1erifJQre Hreaavers¢:el1~)i7:oumentalf-ffects (J.re·qonsi~teref-rflcceptabl(? Faets in SUPJ?orlpfFi:A~;Ufi~& The existing visui:t1cbaraeterof the project site ($d.~tihedb}'bQthjt;s undevelQped,open cQPdi~on a+1dits topograwhYI whiqh consists ofarooderateto ste~pslOpea+1daddpelm~,The General Plan'sVis~aIA?pectsMap(General I"lanFigure41)identffiesthe project site~together with.the adjacent Vista del Norte.Preserve/as {j Canyons and Rki;ges rl a.nd as "1Jndevelo.ped Lands ImpactittgVi$~lalChal'l;lctet." The proposed project would substanfiallyalterthe "visual character ofthe siterelated to its t9pog:r~phy .by.·gra~ingtheexistin$slQpeSintosteppedlrelative1yf1at.pi'dareas~•.and.byremoving th.e site'S natural ridgeline .Th.eexisWlgQp~n,l111developed yisualch:a+acter,whiqhis i3!ccentuatedam1.P,1ade I11orevis~ble to the public by the site'ssIoping tpPQgraph-y,wouldbe completely altered to a fully developed condition.The substantiala1teration oithe visual character oftneprojectsiteand pro~osed remoyaloftne Visuala$pectsas idetttftiedinthe General J?lanwquh3.resultin a$igrWic;antadvetseiI11P~~trelatedtQthevisual cnari:\cter a1i.(,1 qucdityof the site.Mitigation measures are not i:\va!Jableto reclttcetheimpactofthe proposed. projedto the visual character of the site. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-55 'rheove:ri·!.cU11g soCialr ecouomic;alld oth.er con.sideranm.'ts setJeu·th intheStat$mentof Overtidil1g Considerations providead~lit:ionalfacts itl S'-lppottof t1ws~.fitlding$.Any re1Xlaining~Ullavojdable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the factsset forth···therei:n. 29 Attachments 2-56 VII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The DtaftEIR,in SectioiI6.QAlterUf/tiv¢s (UJcQ.tpota.tl;d.by rcfereIice)j discutlses the envitpnmentalcffcttsotqltcrft;;rtlVes to the p:r<rppsed p~'Qje~t A dei)cl'iptiOll of thes12 alternativesj a comparison ofthekenvironmental impacts to fheproposed project)and the City's findin.gs areJisted below.These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the.identified ptoject iU1"pacts ,sUrtunarized in SQctiopsVandV!,abo\re,<:111dtotheptoje¢t pbj<::,ctives,a.sstated inSection:Z.O Ptcifect Descrjt,fion of the Dtaft EIR,Inn;takingtheJollowfng alternatives .findings,the City ofRancho Palos.Verdes certifies that ithas mdependently reviewed.and considered the information onalternatives provided.in the OraftEIR,ind-u..ding tneinfortnation provi~1edinthecoh;uneJ,1ts on tho DraftEIl\and therest1ol,1se:$th¢feto. A NO.PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This;;thetuaQve assmnesthat .dev~lopmeIltof th~P~'opt)St:wlproject would.no toccur <;lnd t11at th.e site would remain an loUldeveloped hillside.The site\..."ould rerna:inin its current conditionand noimpl'ovem.ents (includingbJails)"vould occur. l'indiJ,lg •Specific eX;otlomic,legal.,social,..technologiq 1,/,..()tQflIet·cprtsifi¢iatio11,s;.i#dtldin$.cottSidera,tirms for .tlte pYOtlision··ofseniqr ho:nsing in.pro:rimity·to·servicesrcol'lsistencywUlt the existing Institutional Zoning at the site and compatibilihjwith existing developmentintlre tZrea,tlS disc:us$#d in the Statemento!01.Jerrit!iug (;onsiti!etqtiot1.s,ren.der this (lltenmtive infeasible, Facts in Sttppo:rtof Finding TheNo Project .alternative would.avoi~th~propo~edprQject's.sif¥lifkantand.ullavoidable aesthetics itnpa~tasit would.not change the visual dl;;tr~wtero£tJ;ie$ite,Thepropose(lproje~t's p:oteni:i<;tlIj1 significant but mttigableaesth~ticirnpactsis·p.ch~sUght andglal'e,impa~t$to biolQgical resourcesrelate:d to ne~tirtg birds and non..nativeplantspeciesrgeologyimpacts related to slopestabilityan~e'1pansive Soil1httafficimpacts related to sightdistance at the project entrant;~,aJ;td.constructiotl.impacts related to a~rqp:a1.ity,wQlJld·alsQ he aVQi4e<.:l., However,theNo ProjectaIternative would not proVide new senior housing opporfunities in I,<anchoPalc)sVer4eso:r the pedestriantrails that·woulclcOMect Crest:ddg¢I~oadto the Vista Del NorteEcolQgic@.lPreserV'~.As $'tiCh,this altl?tl1atlV<::,would not rneett:hep'bjectiVes offJ1e proposed project Of the InstltMHon;;dZonin.g in plaq~at the site.linplen')centafionoNhe No Project alternative wouldnof preclude future development onthe site, nt8 findmgs for.the proJ?os.¢d .pxpj.ect s~t forfhh\this doeu.wen.t:art"ltheover1"ipHngsoclal, eqonomic an.cl otherconsiclerations setrorthill.theStatement ofOverriding Considerations provide 5upport.fortheproposedprojectand the elimination ofthisaltel'llativt:lttOtn further consideration., B REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TIiis alternative assumes fhat.12 new seroor...restti¢ted \p$+years.or age or older)Jor..sale tesidential umtswould he developed ontheprojectsite.These unitsiwould belocateda.long =:------__-------~-------------_.._·w····"·························r 30 CitY ofRtil)chb Pi;f/o$ve,.qes Attachments 2-57 CrestridgeRoad and would corresp~n(ltounits1 to 12~sshov\'n()nthesifeplafJ forthe proposed project{see Figure 2~4 ofthe Draft ElR).As withtheptoPQs~dproje~t,the hei~htof several of these units wouldexceeci.16 feet above eXistirtggxa"'-le;theretore/<iconditional use permit would be required.Access would be provided through the site to theCity"owmed lands (Vista Del Norte PreseI've)to the 11oI'th.The undeveloped pnrtion of the property would be re$toredvvlthnative vegetation,with pedf$U'ian trails connecting this area oft1:tesit¢to the adj;;}~ent pteserve.. Finding Specific eC0I1()111ic,legall social/.ft?cluI(jlogicttl;orotlreyconsidertzttons,including considerations forthe ~ro'{'ision of~eniorh()using in proximity t~semices,fJr1dCQIuptltibility wifhfonl1an(l scale o!cxistingdevelopment irt the.area,as discuss({rl ill tlreStatetll:ento.fOperri($ing O:nrsideratioN$( renderfhis alternative infeasible~.. Fadsi.n Support of Finding The intent of t1:tisalternatj:ve is to provide.the!,ttblit ~ndCi~y cl.ecislotl ffi9}<el;;>yvitha compaxat1;ve analysisbehveen the i:rnpacts of the proposed project anda.reducedprojeetwbich wouldreduce butuoravoid thepl'Oposed project's significant and unavoidablevisuaLcharacter impacts.The ReducedProjectAlternative wolildintrot-l-uce stTJ.t¢WI'alqevelo}irt\ent,new landscaping,ancl hardscape tOgn open.ancl·tl~~velopedsit~,While theulteh$ity of.gr a dil1g required fot this alternative would be sUbstantiallyreetuced when compared to the proposed project,alteration of the site's slope and ridgelinefopographywoiildlikely still be reqUited to accommodate development of thisaltel'nativeat the prqJ€ctsite.. p1te to thel'educUOn mgradingrequired,thisaHelmativewould a.lsoreduce impadsrela.lted to aesthetics;air quality,biologicalresoufces,geology,greenhousegases,.hydtolpgyandwatet qualii;y,fJoise and transportation atl:dcir~uratiott;however,wif1itheex¢e.ptiotLofairgn$tliry, theseunpacts ate aheady.l¢s&tllatt s~~ific®t"vithjmplentel1tatipnoftl1eptppqsedptoject, This alternativewould110f avoid the significantand unavuidableimpacttoaesthetlcsassociated with the pl'oposedprojed,This alternativewou1dachieve $omeoftheobjecpVeso:fthe. proposedp1'oject,ptitnotto tneexft;ttt deSiredhy the appUcant;u1ad&itjon/tl1.e tet'tuc¢& densiry Qtthi$;;tlfernative maynotpeeCOnqIIric<illyfeasible, The findingsfot the pl'oposed project set fotthiil this 4iocl1rnel'tfandthe overriding $ocHal, econotnic Clndotht;tconsi4erations Set £01'thin tll¢State'J1iel1fQfQvettidingt::o:!J$1ci.el';;1J:jons provide support forthe proposecl.l'J:'ojectand the elimination ofthisalte1'nanve from further consideration, Thisalternativeinvolvesincorporationoftne.siteinto .theadja¢ent Visfa12elNorteI:k~plogicaf l!teserveanLl :tnai11tainil1g·the site as open Spet¢t';l{ecreatiQrtalametdtij;)swog1q l;>e••a<;lcl.eqto the site fQJ:use byrne pUblic/including trails connecting to<fueexistlngVisfaDel Norte Ecological Preserve,which would replace the existing informal paths used by the publicafl't'8sent. Amenities such as an overlook area.with $eatirtgWoUlda.lso be aeltlt;d, 31 Attachments 2-58 This aJtel'naUVe wouh1.requfre <;'I'Change 1:nthl::~lillno USE:designation and zoningfor the site from Institutional toOpe:nSpaC€,Asp~'n'tof thisaJtt'ernot1ve,fhe sitecouktbedesigl1iilted as reserve openspnce ttnder the,Rtulthq P~k>s.'Vordes.Natll.tal CornnI1.'l1iitiesC"t1setvanOn Pla.twl.ing (NCCPjSubareaPlqu, Finding •Spectfice-cOHO!1tic"liJgal,SOdHi,tedtHo.logiarl"or othercansiderntians,ittduding('.olf$idt~rHtipn$ jot me provision olsettior housing in proximity tn servit:es"(;f'HlsisletK1f 'with the €xistilig ftt$tittttimtlli Lotlingat-,t1w siU\cmnt1tltibiiitymitlt.e:xisting'd¢peh1pW0?ttht tile ateiJ,f..XJ$!'o{1.t11ui aquisition fmdexisting eUPiroumelltal tInti'ldem clmracter oJtl1B m'e{f,!as discas.sed-in the SfatenttmLo,fOt,lerr-itiingO>ushle11#itH1Sr rentiet tlti${I;ltetnati'nit'tllfet15ibl(~, Facts.in Support of Finding This alternative wouldavoidt11.e significant llxlpad to visual charader that ,vould re$uit fram. irnplot1wntati<m ()fthe pro};1osedprojecL HoyVever,it'wouldnotad1ieve any ()fthe l,roject o~~ective$diSCUSsed inSe.ctiQU 2.0,Pnrjert.D(1SCripticm"of th.eDEXEt,Fqr eX~l:rnpletns noted in, Secuonl,O Pn~ect J)escri;ption,the.proposed Ptoi£'ttprovh:te$11l.at:k:~tn~teal1daffotdahlesel1iOf housing.In addition,the proposed project would.provide a residential co:r:nmunity th:a.tis of a scale ftndGe11sity tha,tis<::ot1.Si$tet1t\vith..th.eadj~K'ent Sgn101'lu:.11,1sittg,radlities.Thisaltemative wOl11cl not fulfiUthe lhtt:!J,itof the eX:l.$tittghtsti±ttti~jtl;al Zqningattne site atntl t'Voula te~1l1i'f\0a change in land use de.signatio:n and zoning to accornmodate fqrmal QI?errSpace ,at the£$ih1. FinaIly,ehis alternative would require the expenditure offunds.to al;~quire,thesitei there ate otherproperttes thatwoul"'\;')e higherpriotiues (o1'a<::quisieion fot these,pUtppsesbase-aQn su.petioraesthetit,tec:re\ill:lonal ol'bi<.Jlogical fe-$OutC¢$, The fil1di:ngs{t)'r the proposed projedset forth in this docunient and the ov-etridingsooal, e-cqf.1Q!11:.k:and,other'conside-ranol1ssetJol'th·in 111e St~lten1.ent.of QvetridingCqnsideranpl1s providest.tpportfor the proposed project and.th.e elU:nina.tit,1D,Qfthisalte-manve from rt{rther consideration. D OTI-IERINSTI11J'nONAL USE This a,lternative wouldinvulvedevelopme11.fQfan approxin"iate-ly lSAJOO$qua,re-f(,10t,single- stQrJ'(16 feeLm.axmmnl beigbt)buildingr ofstripofbtli1illngS d¢pendJ-ng Qn the use qr 1,;l$eS at the site,(".·Hrectly adjacent toCrestddgeRoadtl1at wou.ld be occupied -usesal1Qwed uXlder th,e site's Institutional ZonIDg~The remainder of the siteVlOtddbeleft inits cu:rrenfundev€!oped. state.Grading ¢!tthe$ite would be limite"to oilly tvna~jsteqt;tir~d toaJ;),;Ql111110(i?:lie the building and.tnesuppo-rti:nginfras.t:rucfure;retainin})1valls wauld he tonstructedattherearof the strllcturetn limit the amount of alteration required to the slopes norfh ofCtesfridgeRoad,. No on~sit€parkil1g wOtdd be-provided as.parlor this aItem.alive;theretore,an~"l()rkers and visitors in the site "I,voo.ld be requited to l.lseorhstreetparking. Thisaltemanve would.not include provision fo-r apedestrian link to the adjacent Vista Del Norte Preserve. City QfR'<fnfJhQ Palos Verdes 32 Attachments 2-59 Finding ..5peci,fic eClH10mic,legal,sodat,f:eduwlogictit or otherconsidemtions,including consit.WraUons jhr ttl!)'Pl'mJisi(J1!ofsenioy housing in proximit}!.to services,pPOVisief11:t1fpetfestriantrai'ls, comprttt1tilif1/'tpith existing development in the area mItl existing environmental nud view clmmcter oj'the area"at,d.iscussed in the StutemenfofCJFerriding Gmsidemtimt5~remter this attetmtth!e ..infimsill1e, Facts in Support of Finding VVhile this alternative wnukt l1;utac!1ievetheprojectdhjectives Btated.i.n S$~cti0n 2'(;},Pro}ed lJescrirrtion,it \vould reduce the sign,ifkant.un~woidahleimpactrelated to the chtHlge in the visual chatacter of the site to it less than signitkallt level However,it would 11010 continue thfOl senior h(ltt$in~and services development of the area,and a project at fhe small scale cnnten'tplated in the .altematl'lle •might·notbe econonucally feasible. The findiJlgs forthe pl'opose-d project set forth in tlttis Qm:umentand 111e uverriding sodaI" econornic and other c.onsiderations set forth in the StatHment·uf Overriding Considerations provide strpportror tIle-propQsed project a,nd theelin;rinanon of lhisalterttative tlX!nl further (of'lsid,\}l'ation, ,~~""~""w,"'-_"_ 33 City of Rtmcho P~/o$Verdes Attachments 2-60 VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following: It CEQAre<luites.that thededsionmak.er balanc:et11e benefttsofa proposed project agAinst it$uttavoidableenVito.t}Irterttall'lsk$hl.detel'rti.1ning Whether to APpl'ove the project.If th;e benefits qfthe proposed pl'oje d outweigh the unavoidable adverse emrirol1rnental effects,·the adverse environmental effectsmay.beqonsidete¢l."acceptable." It Where the ,"tecislcrn ofthepublicag¢!lcYallowsthe oCC4ttenceof signifkant effects that are identified in I:b.e Envirorl1nental Impact Report (EIR)but are not ..avoid.ed ~rsubstantially lessenel;tthe a~ency niuststatein writingthe reasOl1sto suppo:rt its ?ction1:>aseo..ontl}e }EIRand/or.other:i:nform~tioJl in t:he terpid..This st;aternent may be necessary if the agency also mak.esthe finding under Secfion .15091 (a)(2)or (&)(3)0£the CEQA Gtll'delines, •Ii allA~ency maKes Ci$taten;t~I110£()y-ertid4ncg consiclexl;ltiorts,Ute statement sho"t~ld L1e 41duded.irtthe record oftI1eprqjectapptovalartd$hould be mentioned in the·Notice of Determination (Section 15093 ofthe CBQA Guidelines)., 1h~City or1Rl;1n~ltq Pa,I(j$Verdep,having reyieyved anqcpnsietere dfhejnfqr:rtlatlO11.cont&ineetin the Environrnental Impact Report (EIR)for the Crestridge Senior I-Iousing Project (the project)" Responses toCo~tune~1tsaJ1d thepublicrecord....adqpt$tfH~.tollowing.St~tenlentQfc:hrettidin,g ConsidCTa,tionsJ:hat howe 1:leen hal anced again:st the :tmavoida1{leadverseimpactinrea('];ting q qeciS!()l1on fhe pr9}ep#, B SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IlVIPJ\CTS Althbt~gh .tttitigf\tionn;tea$utes.nave been irtc14tqeq wherefeasl1>Iefor potentii'tl·projectimpact$ ?$described in the precedirtgfinc1.ings,there is no Gompletemitigation for thetollowing prQject impact: Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact are discussed intheCtestridgeSeJru.or Housirtg·PtOject EIRan~ate sununadzed·.itt SectiQll VIr EntiirotiltlF:f1taLfiffict$0lJZtclt Rernttbt 5ignifi canta.mitJrtfl.'lIOidable Aft?"Mitigation,and FinCling$,in the Statern~ntofr9ic:tsand F41 dUig$; C OVERRIDING.CONSIDERATIONS The proposed action il1volVesdisctetional'yactiottsrte~dedfor approval 01 the Cl'e$tridge$el1iot HousirtgprqJ~ct.AnalY$isitltheE1RfottJ;tiSprojecthas t;:tll,1r;lud¢1:.1 thalthe pr(j{t19 s¢d pro}e¢t would result in animpact to aesthetics that cannotbe mitigated toalesst:han signifiCantlevel. ==----------._-------___-__._. 34 Attachments 2-61 All othei'pQtential $igr'l.uiruntadverssprojectinipaGts (jan be rn5fig~'l.ted to .i;llessthan signifkartt level fh1;OtlghmUigi1l:tiqn 11:1¢i;'l.StU'es in the PittalElIZ. The California Envitonmental Quality Actl'equil'esfhe lead a~ency tobalaI'\Ce thebeheHtsofa propo$sdprojectagaitlst its ttntfvoidable etiVitQli.nieht~l t1sksJi1.dete1!@ning whether tt'! appnwethe project The City of Rancho PalosVe1'l..1.eshas d.etetnuned tll.at the sigttuicarHttfIavoidable 1;lli:.lvetse pl'ojectimpacts,which would rernalll si~tiifkantaftetrnlfigat1dn,a:reaGgeptable.Gllld.ate o'4tw:eighed by social.eCQnol4lic and.other benefits pi the project Furfh.er,the alternatives that were identified in the FinalEIR wouldnotprovide theprojecfbenefits,as summarized below, to the same extent as thep;roposedproject: 1.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that all feasiblernitigaoon measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to less than significantlevelsf andful'fhennore,that altet.nanves t{i th¢ptQjectareinfeasible beCat,lSe while tltey havesimilat or t~wex/redti.Cedenvi:rO:Ql4l¢ntal it:npact,~hth¢y do 110t pr¢rvidei;'l.llqf the pdl1efit$of the project,oral'eQtherwisesociallyor economically infeasible when compared 10 the pWject,asdesctibed in the Stafement of Facts and Fi11dings. 2,The project is consistent with tlte City qfRati.GltoPdlos \ierdesGeneral1?lanlanduse designation and InstitutionaLZoning,with approval ofthe.requested Conditional Use Permit,i\ssuch,.d.evelopmentQf the site with seniOfhouSltig i$ct1risistentwith the City'svision forthesiteemt1 surrotlndi;rlgal'ea a$evidencedby the apprQved development pattern ofs€niQr hOttsing to thewestap;d east oEthe site;13ebnont Village and Mirandela. The projecti$¢ompatib1eittfornt.apd..SCale VV1th.th~;;tdj<ttceht$ehiot ht::Yusmg facilities ~n~l~ssuch would cQmpiementtl1e patt~l'n ofdeveloprnenf in thearea.Ct)twer$~onof this site<to designated openspace wo:uldrequireaJand.use d~sigl1ationand zone change and·porentiallyreqAii'ea fiI1~ndal Quflay'byt:hEjCity1:ha..fcou1t1.potel1tiallyne·clii'ected more Pei'l¢£kiallyeise-w'here. 4.TheCity"sHousingEle rnent.{2010}:ncouragesandfadlitatesdevelOpnt~tof$erUor housing t1w ottgh density'DOllJ1SeS for neW housing fh,;'l,t pi'Qvideai::leastpO%Qf.allunits for seniors.Further,thepl'oj¢d:tvillproy:iq,e fO:l'add.1ti9nal affor~iabJ.esenior 110using tip qualified lower"income householdsl consistent withtne City"sincIusionaryhol.tsing requirements and the City's certified I-rousing Element. 5.The project will enhance·the pedestrian en vironmenthy providingpublkpedestrian pathways that linkCrestl'idge Road to trails onthe Vista d.elNorte Ecological Preserve to<the horth.Further,theindusior1 of this peetestriai"11.i~1.kbetWeenqre$tddgeRQ1;\cl<')Jlcl thetrailspu the Pteserv~wilI£aCilitateh1;l.p~emetltaticmof ;the LOl1,Ceptttal 'TtailsP~n. Signage·willhelp cfirectthe pubHcthrovgh the project site to.the ·publictrails and. trailheads. 6.The detetrn1nationthaHhe.proposed project¥,iUl'e$ult i1;lB-n.lJtlavoidal:J1e adve~'$e impactonthe visual character and quality oHhe site is based onthe identification ofthe project site,together with the adjacent Vista delNOlte PreserVetM "Canyons 1;\1:1d ,.....-c:----'---'.__~__.._~__ City of ~ancho Palos Verdes Attachments 2-62 Ridges"'ancl.as "Ulldeveloped Lands Impac::ting\!isual Charactel'in theVisual Aspects Mapofthc City's Gelleral Plp.l1(OenerwI?laJ;i Fig41'(41).These desighatiQl1S W01'E' plaged on the sHein 19'75,.i:1r atitne When theenviro:nmen~t:11and view ch.aractel'of the sm.-rounding area were different fJ;oIn present.V\1hile at onetime there may have been expansive views oEtlle site and its associatedddgelinesfroIn Crenshaw B01.clIevarcl.and beY0f'\d (as idE:lutified in on Gel1eral Plan.Figure 41)mtlch of these Views of the site have beetl blo9k,edl1y develQpn18nla,long Silver Spur Rpat,;LsincetheGener(il Plan.was adopted.As such,while the existing designatiol1snecessitated an impact fintlingof significant and unavoidable,the conditions that-prompted the indt~sionofthose desig-nations in the 1975 Genetal.Pla11E'}{ist to .a l¢$serextent today. 7,The project willadd new senior residential units,increasing the availability of this type of housu:rg in the City of Rancno Palos Verdestoserve locals~.niofs,The locatio:tlQ£the prpjed site will allow·.crea tion of a l'esidentii;tl cQI11±11unityin walking.a:n4.bicy<:1ing di~tance to services tothellorfh and thus 'has the potential to result in reduced per'- capita greenhouse gas emissions. 8,Any development at theprojectsite will requitesubstantialgtadir\.g.llct1yitiesto lower the site to maintain views from·the upslope residential ptopertiesto fhe SQuth. Redudngthenul11ber ofresiclencesor altering the type of developmentat the site would 1'10t be eCOJ;loinkaUy feasible giventl1e amoi;l.trtofeal'thwo;rks thatwoUl<lstillbe reqiJired to accomfilociat¢development. Therefore,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,havingreviewedancl cOnsidel'edthein£ormatiofl contairtedinthe Fu)a1 EIR,T¢cl1nical Appendices lu).d the puplic.recQtdillclQptSfheStatetnentQ£ OverrttiingdOn$iaeta;l;ibnsthat na,sbeen balancedagai11,.<rttl1et,l;l;!(iVp:h:ila,ble a,dverseimpax:1;sii'l reaching a delclSiononfhisprojec:t... 36 Attachments 2-63 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachments 2-64 Mitigation Monitoring and Reportin.g Program Crestridge8enior Hotts'ing Project EIR Prepafedjor: City of R.anehosPalos Verdes 30940 HaWthorne Boulevatd. RanchQPalbs\letdes,CalifQrmia 902.75 Cott1;acI;'BduardoScho11.bot11.,A.ICP (310)5414:"5228 Prepared 'with the l1$s~sfmrge of. Rincon CQnst11tant$.i Inc~ 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura,Cali£prnia .'93003 OdoUer2012 A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 6 5 Gre$!jiqg?SeniorHqU$ing Project SIR Mitigation Monitoring iil1dRepontl'l9 Program MITIGATIONNIONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM OEqA requires th~t a reporting or monitorlngprogram be adoptedfpr the comiitlonsor project apPfovalthatare necessary to mitigate Qravolq signifioanteffects on theenvironmel1t (Public Resources Code 21081,0).The mitigation monitoring~nd reporting program is desIgned to ensure compliance with adopted mitigstion measures durIng pfOje~t implementation ...For each mltigationmeasqre recommended in the EIR, specifications are made hereIn that Identify the set/on required and the monitoring that must occur.In additIon,a responsible agency is identified for verifying compUance with IndMdual conditions of approval contained in the MItigation MonItoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), To implementthisMMRP,theOity<ofRancho Palos Verdes willdesig;hate a Project MitigatIon Monitoring andReporting Coordinator ("Coordinator"),The qoordio~torwlll be respoosibleforeO$uring tnaHHe mitigation measures incorporated Into the projeet arecomplieqwith during project implemerttation.The coordinator wlllalso dIstribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agendes identified in the MMRP1 which havepartJal or full responsibility Tor Implementing certain measures.rai!ureofarespoosible agency to implements mitigation measure will not in ahy way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed projeot. The folloWing table wUlbe used as the coordinator's bheckJist to determine complIance with required mitigation measures, r-·-~.........,~.""'~.'~~"'-'.'.'. 1 City of RancflO PaloS Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 6 6 CresfrldgeSenior Hquslhg Projectf;lR MitfgatiorlMonitoringandReportlng Program M'U.t'........MOriitorin9 I-Res potl$lb,e ..<.....•< ....·.·.·l ~..•.ct••...1.0..nM!fla$Ur~lCOl1tfrtionoLAPpr.ov.al •••~...•.....••.......•...·...•..·M.•...•.il...•e·.··..·.•.s.·.··.•·.t..•.·.•...o•.•....•"....•.e·.·..'·..A.<.·.•.··•·.•··•·•·•·.··.··.··.•.......·••..•...Aet.ionl.n.0.1.0.ct..ti.og .•.........•..Compliance Vertflcatlon....•..•••..>..••....gencyor C..···...•..., 'AESTHETICS........__._.._...••.~._._.Fregueney _....Pa··.......•..pffiphance Ihiti;als;Date j Commefits AE$..1 I..ahds¢apc Mah')t~nance,AU lahp~caping throq9houtthedl;ivelqpHtlent (in both the tommonateas and in private yard andbalconyaretils).shall be maintainlaP .sQrrotto exq¢ed lqeh§igntbf(he Jjne illustratedandd.donthe photographs taken from 'Hlel-gn•.t.g.ri.Je.{~~hibit B.~~~~;~~~~eN~~~012~J:aSjde Prlor to issl.JanceefbUilqil19 per/nits,theappllc8otshal! prepareandsulJmit torc;ity.review and .apprQvala ··1· JahC:!scape plan .for the proJeetslte.The plan shaH I demonstrate that I ..fOlja g.e.ftree.s.~r.e.·.O.f8....ty.p..e.Of.•.(S.~.eCie.~.than.c.a.··.n ..be.•.·1malntamedseasnottoexceedtheheightoflhehne. lUU$1tafed anqqepjctedqrt thet>hOtq$tn EXhjpit.S,tQI Resolution Mt 2012~--.:;,.wnicnarethe highestvislble I roof rh::lgelines oftbEi develQpmeot.I Qi1¢e prigr to issuance ofbulldiQ9 l?$rmits,once prior to occupancy clearance Commllni~Y Development D$partmenl .... PlanrHrtgahd ZOf'1itJg Dhtisioh Rev:j~[andSCC1Pe plan fOfcompliance \Nithttlen'!easure, afldehsure implementatloh in the field AIR QUALITY !Ooslteiconstruction I manager,i Community !pevelopment i Department-l Building and i Safety Division :, AQ.1{a).COrIstrU$tl(;jt1EqyiprnentCohtroJs,The IP~r19dlc~nyauril1g fol.loWir}9(;haU be implemented dqringcQl1strtlcfion to .19radloga.nd minimize emissions of NOxassociafed withdieseHuelled I <;Qnstruetlon cbnstrupfiol1eqw ip(l1¢nt.I 1.AU diesel cbnstruet!onequipmenfshall meet Interim Tiet4 EPAernission standards. 4.Construction cOnttactorssl1all ri)inlml:zeequtpment idling tlmethrOI.l~l1outconstructJon.Engjnesshall PEl tqrne.d off if idling would be for more th~n five minutes. 3.Equipmehtenglhesshall bemaJnt$lned ingdod conditionanllin proper tunea.s per manufacturers' specifications. 4.Thenump~rof pieces of equiprnel1tdp€lt?ting simuftaneouslyshaU be minimized. Vetiffc~tiQtlof Implementation in :t\:leneltj during grading and ,con$tructioh I I 'I II I 1I'•"IillI1I I·Iii, i IIi1i'I ' I I!....L.-..-.__ r 2 CityofRanC;l]o Palos V$rdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 6 7 Cr~$trI0ge Senior HOllsing Project ElF: Mitigation MQflitol'ing and Reporting Program Complial'lt'ie veiifita:tlon Is. 6. 8. MJtigatiQrI I';1tla$ur'¢ICQnditiQflQf Approval Construction contractors shalf US.6 alternatively fueled construction equiprrwmt (such as compressed nafuralg$ls,liqWtfied natural gfJs,Qr alectrichwhert feasible. The en9inesize of constl1lctlon equipmontshall be the minimym pradtic(:ll size, Heavy~dlJ1y dieseJ~pOWf;lred cOflstruotloneqUipment manufactun~daftar ·1996 (Wifhfederally mandated Ole<:ifi di¢$el ehfjlf'1es)shall be l,ltlIlted Wherever feasible. PurinS the smog season (May.through Oclqber), the .;;onskucl!on Period $hQuld be lengthenedi;)$ PeW1IUf;ld by the City's MunlcipalCoo@ scas to I'ninlmize the number of vehictes andequipn1el"lt operating at thasame time. Monitoring Milestone! Prequency Responsible Agency or f><irtY. Aetionlndica:tlng Compliance lolttals I Date!Comments I \ ! I Verification of implementation!n thefiekldurlng grading and construction Ohsite construction manager, Community Development OepaftmeOt- Builclingand Sarety Division Periodically during grading and construction AQ4{b}Fugitive Oust Control MeasureS.The fpl!oWirtgshali be implemented (luring construction to minimize fugltivedust emissions; 1.All exposed,dls(url:led,andgraded areas onslte shall be watered three times (3x)dally.until completion ofproject construction to minimize the errtnilinmer'ltol~xpO$eds(Jll. 2.Pre;.grading/excavaflorl acti\/ltlesshall include watering the area to be gradedol'excsvated berore commencement ofgriildlng orexcavatlng acthtitles. Application of water (preferably reclaimed,If aV!illfatM)should psnstratesl1fflGlt)ntlY to mltlimlze fugitive dust during grading activities, II a.Fugifivedl.#sf ptoQl1ceddurlrl9 grading,lf1xcavatlt1l'l, I and construcbon adUvltl~s shall Decontrolled by the lfo!lowingactlvitie$;; I!•TrwckstranspDrtln$j matlilrlaion and off the~me I must betarped from tha point of 01'1911'101'must!maintaloat feast one feet of freeboard. i •All gradedat1dexc!ilvafed material.,$xPOsedsol! i are.w,and active portlof)soHhe construction j $lte.includinguP12filVedon·slteJ:2.§9m§,shaU I..@@,,,...•...........,,..!!! r 3 City ofRanchQ Palos V$rdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 6 8 Cr£lsttidge S~hlor HotlSing Project EIR Mitigation MOl1nOfingal1d ReporungProg.ram !MI~i~:~'::~ea$uretCQndltion of A~:~:~~·~···--~-r. 1-~~~~~~··b;;·trear$(nttprevent.·fu@iti\Je.dust Tw~tm~t)t IShaHinch,Kie,but riot necessarily be limited t<;1, 1 periodic watering,IilPptlc.atiol1 e;f 1 environmentally-safe soH stabilization matertats, II:<f:l..t1...d.l.Of r.Q.Il«<.~,.o.rn.pau.".tio.h.s...$.<ill'.pf...OP.Jl<il.·.l.a...w.•..••aterln@shallheqOnillasoftenasnec~$Sarya_fllj I re.c.I.a.,im.ed water shail be used whenever possIble, I 4.Groqrlo cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as qu!cklY<as possible, 5,Ouriritl periods of high winds (Le"wind speed sufflclent to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent pwpertieS),an cl~arlng,grading,earth lYlovln(1,and ¢xoavat!onoperatloflS shall becurtalled totne degree neG~s$ary topreventfuglflvedvst from heln@ an arll10yance or hazatd,aitharoff,sl!eor on- site. 6,The e-entractor must provide aqaqunte !Qlilding/uhloadingareas that IImfttrack,out onto adjacent madways through tha utlllzation of wheel washing,rumble plates,or another method aChieving the same Intent 7,Adjacent&tre€tsancltQad$$haU be swept atlel!.l&t once-per day,preferably at theena anile-day,if vialbl$S9ilrnatarial is carrieel over to adjaCent streets.and roads, S.Pefsonnelinvolved ittgradlng operathms,Including contractors arH:l sl,lbconlracto(s,shall wear respiratory profection in accordance with California PiII!sioRQf OccupatiOhal safety and Health regUlations, 9,All residential units located within 500 f¢et of the ctlhstmbtion sjtemustbe sent a notice resardlng the-construction schedule of the proposed pmject A si\;loJ$9ibl$at a distanc¢of 50 feet .mustfllso be posted in a prominent and vis!blelocQUon at the CPostructiplls!te,and.must be mainti;linad ,throughout the construction proces$-.All notices l a.tlpIhelsigU::lrnps-Undicate \h~da.!flSand duration r .I\IlQIlitQrin9 Milestone} l;;~qti~n6Y Responsible Agency or Party 4 Action.IndIcating Compliance Compliance Vet!ff~tion ~~. lhitial$I Pate I Commenf$ -<---l City of Rancho Palos Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 6 9 f·...'·'·;-.,._··..,.·,,~.......,.,.,.·..·......·~~_··~··~·-~-~-~"""",""""",",. Crestridge Senior Housing ProjectE;IR MitigatlQI1 lV!onitoringand Reporting Program~,~~__, _~__'_"__~~~__'_W~~~'~N_~"~__ 1 Monitoring Responsible i Mitigat!on Me<!svre/t)Qndinonof Approval I ~~e~~=:f A9~:CY or AC::~=:~::ngi!--In-U-ia-'s-...;;,;==~;;:;.,Comments of construction activities,as well as provide a r--~CfH~.,_.,"....._-_._~-""...~...,,".....,-,--~.-,--""""-_t.-----t----t--------4 telephone numbetINnere residents Garl ingVlre !1 I abQut the.CQnstftlGHop pmcess andJlilf;llster !l' cornpfaint$,i ! to,Visible clusfbeyoodfhe property line emanating i ! from the pnjjeqt must bepn~vented to the maximum extent feasible,i! n,?lgnsshall be,postedon,slte limitlngeo(lstruqUOt1 I j traffic to 15 rrHlee per hour or less,i j 12,bust cQntrolrequirementsshaU be shown on alt l I grading plans,1 I 13;Thesectlntroltechn!ques must be Indicated in I I projeclspeclfications.C(ttrlpnance with the:1 measure shall be sUbject to periotjlc.site j i inspeclionsby the City.!! ~BiBr.OG1CAL··RE$Otl~CE$·~~"""~'m,,""'>""""""''''»'''~~'''_~_'''_.._'__,,~'",,~~~l.». ._.._.m'J.-__._··_··.,,,.,,d.,,,,,.•.~.~..•.•..•.....;,",,..•,,~,,~._--"'-"'->""1 "-aici':S''''t4estfng'eird$urveys and Avo~:-Si1e""~"Once pilot to Community 'r"V;ancallon of I 1 i disturbance,lrwJudihg brush clearance,shall be initiating gradlngCff Development cOmpletedsufVeys,l; prohibited during thegeneml avian nestingseatH:)fi.construction;if work Department~I if appllcable; (FeoruarY1 ~AtlgU$t30),iffes$fble,tfb(eedingsea$cm planned during Planning antI !verification that aVoldanoeI$not feasible,a quaJtfled biologist shall nasting season,Zoning Iprescribed oonduc..ta.p.r.ec.o.....n.....structi.o...r.1 nestln.9.b.lrd.•.SU.rv.·..e.y.t.o...p..•..e.•.r.l.o.....diC.a.•.uyctUdng DNtsion measures.t.ak.en i.fdeterminethepresence/absence,loc@tlon,andstatu$of gr?dlng arid species opserved any active:nests on or adjacent to the project site,The construction surveys sha!lpecondubie(l pya qua!lfjedbiologl$t approved bythe Community DeVelopment Dtilpartment I , I I I ! The-extent ofthesurvey bu1'ferareasurroundlnij the site ;! shaH beestabHsherl by Ihe qualifled biolo~ist to ensure thatdirectand inctirecteffects to nesting birds are I I I I' avoiqeQ.To avoid the de$tmction ofactive nests liH1dto protect the reproductive success ofbirds protected by MBTAandthe Fishanct Sarfle Coctl';j of ceHtorrHa, nesting birdstlrveys.el1'@ll be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the schaduledvegetatlQo clearance,ln thee\jennh~t acHv€:nests an~dlseov$n~d, asuitabte buffer(e,g,3o..5Q feet forpasscrioes)sMuld oeestabllshed around such acttvenesls,No ground disturbing actMtiesshatl occur within this huffer untH the Cily"approved blologiat has confirmed that breedit)fnestln is comleted ~nd the ·oun·heve _..__.._~~_,,,<.~.,,,,.,w~,..•.................,w ••.•~..! r 5 City of RanchQ Palos Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 0 Crestridg.e SaniorHousing pmjectglR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting prQg~!!!.--_,-,...._ City of Rancho Palos Verdes 1 I '_._."=_"_>~"""""'","'·N.·'.·'···,····,····'·ll.•...@x"@""'''.+=~»»»»»~»»'~''~~._x,_w ....x.....,' Reviewplan$for 'I p.rope..r $.....t.a..s.ing,1.'I'fueling and l stockpiling I locations.verify .I compliance in n€Jld ~","..l""M.mwm ..L I 6 Tetl1poraty COflSltlJ¢tlQI"I fi;lt1Cit'lg shall be placed at theplanneo Umits of distutbanceadjacent to tbe Reserve. 810-4{bJ PtoviSl9M$for i;;~';;e$~~~T~-;andN~ijve ?nc!iptiorto .., Habjtatel¢rtH~nt$llltheLaf'ld$qaping Plan,No lsswa~c,e pfgra~trlg species listed inlhe CalAPG invasive Plsnt Inventory ofbWld~ng.permits, (2000)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental ~nce pnor to species in the Ranc!1QP",los Verd¢~NGCP SUbarea ..occupatWY Plan (2004)wlU be utilized In tile landscaping plan for the clearance $ite.Species listed inlhe Subari;lsPlan Im::IUde averblo(lming 8cmcia {Acacia loltfjifdtJe),Syoneygolcten wattle (Acaoia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (SChiml$ mofle),8razfHan pepper tree (Soh!nu$Jerobenihifo/ia), bJackJocust (Robinia pseudo~aGaci~h myopoH.JHl (N1yopOflJm.faetpm»gum.tree (EucrnJYPtIJs spp,),and pines (Pim;sspp.).In adctHiolT,to the extent fea$jblethe proposed project>shaH incorpormtensfiva habitat elements into theland$oaplt19 plal1J(Wthe 1J57"'Qcre passive park with trails,scenic overlOOKS,mndcomm~nity gardens in the nprthern portion of the Creslrklge Senior Housing development project Native hapitat elements Incll.1de l.1sins looaHysOUfced native shrubs suchQS toyon,CalifornIa sagebrtlsh,CQastaJbluff buokwheat, native grasses,and native penmnlalfQros QS part Of the plattting palette,: I ---...Once plIoI'to Onslte i$suance of grading construction or btJUdHlg permits,manager, periOdk::allydurlrtg Community gradihg ang Development construction Department~ Buildinaand 8104{p)ConstructlonStaglngand Stockpiling Areas ••Grading and bUliding plans'submittedforthe pl'pposed pfCljecfforCltytevle....t and approval shall lqenllfy .areasforconstrwctlon staging,fUi;1Hngand stockpiling,These areas snail be Jocatedas far as practical frort1 tM VH~ta del Nort~Preserve,and not IIL~_._~~-'''Qf~-r=~-~~~als~~-~.~..~. fledqea tn\}nest l I I BIO-4(a}Construction Best Managemertt Practices.19~?e)jritlrto ..'Onslte,Verlticatfonin lh~l The..•fOllowing.m.ea.$....1.1.f,.esshal.Tbe employeda$part of lflIU8.•.tl.O.@.....~ra.,...tjlng....or c.o.•.ns.t..·.ru.ct•..lonnel.d fha..t ed...uca.tlQr'l Iconstructionmonltoringforthesite:construction,manager,takes place and I '.'.....'..'....'.,."periooicaUydur!ng Communityfenclng erected and I QontractOfs ~hallbeeducated re9~rdrng the.off-site grading and Oevelqpment maintained I Reserve and the need to keep eqUiprnentand construction Department i perf/onnel With!.n the project slle prior to the Inlt!aHon 'I' ofconstrucliOI1 , ! .!I 1:1communitY_·m_t'"Revl~wViand$~pi~l I I I Development I plan forcompll~nce ! Department~I wlththemea$Ufe, Planning and lano ef1$ure Zoning I implementation in Division I thefleltl I I r A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 1 Crestridge $Elrl·iot Hl:JL!Sltlg Ptoject SIR l\IIitigli\tion IVh:mitotingand Reponing Program ftl8 ·1'"'..R·s·..p..,;""j ..le,.,.CQmnllanee \!tH1flcatfon -I",?n~Orm9 e "'...Aetlonlndmatlng~j~.;.tf....•....'T.•.•...•.."••......"w.-... !MltigationMeasurefCondUionQf Approval Mlle.•st.0.".6.'...Ase.l'lC..'fOf.Compliance Initials I Date 1 Comments I ...................Fre~ef)£~~.__...Pa".._........!.t I c!oserthan 70 feet from the Preserve b~.wnqary.Safety DNISlen '~M_~.__~i !i CWl-TVRALRESOURCSS ,"w ••_.__~•.... CfM PIs¢Qveryprocedur~,If cultutal resouroes are encountered during grading or CQfW;tructh;m,the cOf'lstructi9nn1lll!1lll9&rs!1lll!l &n$lma that all gtound disttntmnce actlvltie$arestqpfJed,lilnd shall notify the City Building and$a.fety Department Immediately to armngl:lfot&('tuallfiedarcl~aeolqghtt t6aSSess the natur$,extent,~nd potent(al$lgniflc~mce ofany cultural resources.If such resources aredetennlned to be signifiCant,approptiateaot!orw to mitigate impacts tQ the resources must beidentiff~d !ll consultation with a qoalifiedarch$¢ologist Depending uPQl1ihe nature pf thenna,such mltigafionmay iholudeavoidance, i t;locUtl'lel"ltatiotl,or otneraPPfOptiateactiot1s to be 1determined by aqu~!lfl¢q archaeQI@gist the!af¢heologi$t shaH complete $report .of excavMlgflS$nd 1findings,angshaH theteport to the South Gentral Coastal I Information CenteL After the find is appropriately l ..lliit!gl:'ltl?l;h'Nt:)Tk ..inth§l~r*~.m~wr~§lime, CR·2 Paleontological Monitorilig.Prior to th* commenoemerRofgradins,the applleant shall retain a qualified pl\lleontblogist approved by theCitytQ monitor gradlngam:l excli1vatioo,Mordtorlog()f)sile $halloccur whenevergradJng actlviiiesare occurring,Additional monitots inadditiotltb onefull·timemonltor may be required to provide adequsle coverage if earth·movlng activities are •OOOl1rflrl!J$imulwn€H::HJ$ly,Any (l\,.tlt\.m;'.ll resources discovered byeQnstruction personnel or supcontrac1ors shaH l:ierapoctn(j immediately to the paleontologist In the ever'itundetecfed burl¢dresources are encountered during gtadingand excavation,Work shall be halted or diverted from the area and the paleQntolpgistshaH evaluatfJ the ffJsourceand propo~e appropriate mitigation measures,.fIIIeasuresrnay include testing,data recovery,reburial,archival ffivleWandfor transfer to the appropriate mUSeum or educational instltutiofL An tesUng,ctata recovery,reburial}.arehival review or transfertQ research ihstitutJon$r*latedlCl monltorifl(;1 discoveries shall be determined bV the QuaJifle<l r ~ I Ortgoingdurin@ slt¢ preparation and grading Ongoing during sitE! prlilparatlonand 9fi:ldlHg Onsite ,construction manager, Oommunity Oevelopment Q¢Pi'lrtment- Planning and Zqnihg· DiviSion Onslte construction man~ger, Community Development Department .... aUfldJngand Safetyanq Planl1ingand Z<)Pihg OMsions 7 ...................................,,..-·.····..··:---··.·..·_··r··'''M_..'MM..'"'..~..t·~wifpotentialcultural!! resources are 1 i encountered,verify 1 i thatwQrk is I stopped andfound materials are properly assessed and addressoo VedfYib~fqijalffleq paleontologlsfls retained and on site during grading, and thai a!! measures are takenifrGnources dlscovereq I ,l~~_~J City of RanctwPaJos Ver(JeS A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 2 Crestridge Senidr Hol1s1n@.Projec:tEIR MitigatIon Monitoring and Reporting Program ;..•.•..;..•.•.IO.•.~d.~.••·.2.e.··•..{.d.·.TJ>.t.••.·e.-.~.::.f::....•~.~:.c~n.t.•.~.c..~~:.l~d.c.i.:.••...·.~.·.••••.~.·.n.~.~.•,d:~~.b::~.s.••.••~.:.•..·•.a.......•••..n...•.~.r•.e.j...•.O...~.•••..f.t...••O.g••·..•...r.,adjng ··~••·•.o.~.•.s.·I.:.•.~•..u.c.t...·.j~.;-l-~.~....e...•.•.~...~:.;.•.~.·•.·.~.•.·•.•.n.•l..•a..•.•.,tlo.·.n.•.•·~·~-l··-'·-~_·,c,~._.c ....,.._--'-.---'-.r'...~--~._.,...,...__..,.,....._....,.....,.,-,~,...j at (he slteshalJ be required.These recommendations permlts,ongomg manager,·dunnggradlngand i include maintenanceofa uniform,near optimum .....during project..Community .oQ!1structloni moistl1fecontel1t in the slop~soHs,andl;woidanceofgratling and site Developtpent over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the preparation Dep~rtment ... potentlalfoLsoftenil1gSlndstret19!hlo$$,lrr~ddmQh,...8qikjinQfilnq slope m~intenal'1qe$hall indqdethe hmnediateplanting Safety Divlsloo of theslopewith approved,deeprooted,lightweight, drought resist~nt vegetatiqp,?s weU~$prQpercarej)f erosion and drainage control devices,anda oontinuous rodenlt:bnttolprQgram,BroW ditchesandterrliloes spall be cleanegeachJaU.before the rainy seasbn,.·and shaU be frequently inspected and cleaneo,asnecess?!ry,after each rainstQrm.Accesstolheslopes,!nc1ud!p9 foot traffic outside ofdesignatedpedestrian footpalBs,shoUld pe minimized toavoidJ9cai dislurbal1ye tQsumcial soHs. the City ofRanch Palos Verdes PUhlicWorks Departmenfsl1all t~\ljliiW~rjd apprp\iean finalplclnsfor slQpel11aintenancepriortoisstlanceof a grading permit verify tna\plEln$ ¢Qmply\i\lfth measure,€Ina ithpJerr\e(1t~ti9n dUrins·gradins ·and ¢cHls(h,lction GtO..2(b)The proposed retaIning wall atthefdp Oflhe 9hce prior.tq ...Qnsite ex\stingcut sIQP~atthe easternbounctary of the site iS$uaf"ice ofgfading COflstnictiQrl shall be designeda.s a!?uried retaining Wa.U tO$Upport permits,ongoing mana.~er; the projectaod underlyingadverse~eQlogicstfllct!.ife,.dllrin~project Gotnmul)lW 'j"hesystem reQllireSCl (jesign and depth ofembeqmer"lt €lrading and site DevelopmEmt thatwould safeQuardonsite improvements in theavent preparation Qepi3.rimeot - the offsitesJope faned.BuUdingand I ......•.'....•.......SCl'fetUivisiPl'l '..""."..__.13EO~{cl An as-Qfaded €Jeqfeohpical TElp0rtSh<;iUbe Once folloWing Gnsile ...RevieW>as-graded prepared py the projectgeotechnical CO(ls(.dtantfollow1Q9 completlonof co~strucnon report completion of gradIng.Thereponshal!include the grliigipg manager, resultsofin·gtadlng gensltyte!:>ts,and a map olearly Community depicting buttress flU keyway locations and depths,Development retnovalarealoc<;itlonsand qepths,sub.gfalnage systet"f:l DeP<trtment- tocatlonsand depths a-nd geological conditions exposed BqUding;:md duringgracling,S~fety DMsion GEO·t(d)If requiYeQqy thefioqlgeofechnlcal report,ae OhcefdUOW!fl9 Onsite revieweq andapPfoved by the City Geologist,the completion of ........construction appHcantshall install permanent incUnometerstationsat9P;iqing;ey~rysi~manager,. .months durinnthe Community Verify implementation gul'io!':l grading i:lnd "8 City of RancnoPaJos Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 3 Grestridge SeniOfHousing ProjectElR Miti!;lation lVIonitoringand Reporting Program I GEO"3(i'J)GeQtechrtic~!~c;()mmenq~ti()I1$.Prlorto issuance of anY Gra~ing Permit or Stlitding Permit~tHe I. p.r.0.1e..•.o.tla.p.p.•..•.'.ica.l1t.s.".8.1.'...0.•..••...0..m..•.••.P..ly.....W.it.h...•..Ia..I.I.•...f.••..s.•..C..••.0.0101..6.•.0.d.a.tiOOscontainedWithinJheGeologyandGeoteqhnlcal. I Investigation prepared by Group Delta ConsUltants (2003)ihclUding: Mitigatiol'l·I\Ilf;l~9refpol"lditionofApproval -the-sRato allowlhe northerrrslope·tobemonitoredJor possiblem6vementfoUowing implem(;)otsijonof the project .The numberf,ll1dlocqtiOI1 oftheillclinometer st!!ltions soallbedeterrnlnedbytheGiW Geologist.The applicant shall $l;ltlmit <:\·reCordof Inclinometer·r~a"ings along With any recommendations from a geotechnical engineer to the Cityevery~ikmol1thsl;lu(ingthelif$tltne oithe projector until the CliYGeoJogislagrees thalsemi- ahhual readings are no longer nec$SSary,InaddlHon, readil'lgsal'ld~eotechnicalreCdmmendationss.hall be submitted to the Cityfo!lowinga .heavyrainfall month·.(>2 timeS8verage monthlY r$lnfall)orfcHlowinga Itlagnitjjd$ 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles ofthe project site. Ifthe g~otechnicalengll1eerdetermine$that$td'fident mQ\tementhas takenpl$lce(hat warr;:tnt$fwther ¢Qrrectl\t~Qr preventtiltiveaetfop,the prdject l:l!JpHci;lnt shall be responsible Tor all expenses associated with the costs of impl¢rnentingany reme¢i<:~tldDre¢6mmelidedQY tpegeotechi"\lcsl eh~lnesrtoel'lsure thaJtheslope remains stable,Forthermonltoring by incl\qomet¢r$trlay be rsquited,ifreCQltlli1el1tjed bytbegedtechnlcal en~ineer .or reQuiredbV lheCltv M?nifQrtng R¢~Pon$Ib'eAqtiqn'6~i~~fjn9~..qpmptiance V$rifteatlQI1:~:~:=:~.AS;:c y or _~OqJplia~:=~_.•.1 ..lni~.~,~_~~,~I __...~__!.~~~=~.._.___.1 lifetlmeoflheproJect Development construction otqotU ins Oity Oepartm~nt-.I (Seoiogistagrees 6l.lildirtgand thatMmi"annua!Safety DiVision l'eadingsare no longer necessary •FolloWing grading,the expan5ionpotential oftM expbSed sUbgradestlaUbe tested.The design of foundations and $h.QS shailcQnsiderthehigh expansion potenti~l.Following completion of grading and unUl slabs aodfootings are poufed,Jhe exposed sdiland bedroCR/n\i1terials sh;jH.be p£:l{lodil::aHy wetted to preventthemfromdrylng out Pte.., satLiration isefso recommended, Qnpe prior to issuance ofbuildll1g or grading Permits, once fbHowlng completion of grE\dlng Or!slle construction martaget, CommuniW D¢vefQpment f.)epartml:}nl~ Bl.dldin9and S~feW Divls!on Verify implementation follgWlng grading andconsttuction GEQ-3{Q}.expal'1$iv~$oil Retrtc;>y$lart(ifor ...Once prior to .....Onsila...VerifY ;:.•.:.~.S\~~.t..~.•.~.i~.~.~.a~L.j.dj.n.e~.:.~~.•~...:...•.~.•.e.•.r.~..••c:.··.Je.imo....r.·.·~.·•.c...~t..$...(fOrn~~r.;~..~t,~f:,a:;.:,iO.n .~~•.~.e.::~.:~~n~lrld t.I I I followil'lgtechnigqes,~sdetermihed b~(a gualified penodlcallydunng Community construction 11._---_._-----,-'---_.._j_._-~------~_.....-' r 9 City Uf~iimchoPa/osVerde$ A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 4 CrestridgeSeniotHOLJslng ProjebtEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ._-_.........._~~-- Review and Elpproveplan,\I$r'ifij implementation duringgraplligand .construction I I I I IIII I I.-.-J'II . l\II.ittg~tionMEla$ureICond!tj9l'l9tAp!>royal M~nltorlng R,e~ppl'l$ibl~A¢tiQrj Inpiea~il1g complian~eV~rification ....~~~~~=~Ag::9t Compli~!'1C;:~lriitials ID~tel CQmtoen~ 1l;jl9otephnlcal engineer and approved by the CIty gradIng'Development r l··_-~-I Geologist:(J-epartrnent....i i ..Excava~lon 0feXls¥o9MiIs ahd irnportattonof Boh-~~i~t~b~7~on JI expSl1slVesolls,Alhmported fillsna!lbetesteq and i i certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and Ii c:eriifiedfot use as a sbitablefiU rnaterial;and I I! , ..On"slte foundatiQ!I$:;;nallbe d~$ign~d to '.'.j I accommadatecertaln.amounts of differential....II exp<:tl1slon in aqcprdance with Chapter18,OMsienj ! III oHM usc.II I NOISE ---1 N~1(aJ"---N';i;;MjtigationahdMonitoring ProfJram.1 ~nce prtorto "•....•'.!O~$1te .......• The applicant shaH·provide,to the salisfacti611 Of the .JJ$slJanse-,ofgragll~~..Iponstructlqn Commqnity DevelOPment Directpr,a NoiseMiti9<3tiqn ~bc11and~Ui:dln~,permits;I manawer\ Manito.rin.•.g...•.pr.c-g.t.am.t..h....a.fr.e.'.q.u.·.ires.a..lI O.ft.h...<e following:1.°...09.0.....109..•.d....p.r.ln.g........"I.c.....0.....m.m.....u.....rn.t.•. y.•·.·.,.project gradiogand I Developmet;1t •Construcfion co~tractsthat $pe-cifY th~t Ell!....Iconsltuction joepa.rtment .... coostrlJChoneqUlpment,fixed Of mObile,spallpe II.SUllt!lngii\8d eq...U.ip...pe.d With.p.T.O..•..pe.rJy..o.per..<:t,ting 1:1h?maintain.e.".~.".'.11 i Safety Divisionmuffle-rsand other state reqUlfeo nOlseatleouatlon I devices. ! •That ptopertyowners anpbccupantslocatedWilhln , O.2Srnilesoftheprdject site shall besenta notice by i the developer,atleast15days prlotte ........I j commencement ofGonstrt.lctionofeachphase,.Ii regardin~lthe construction scheduleoftheprojeGt.All I' notices shall peteviewed;:ll1qappr6y~dby thfil..i j Community Devel.opment [}frector prior to the mailing or P9§tlfl~.andshaU lndic;atefhadatesanddura.Ubtr ()f construction.activities,as Well as provide a contact name and te!epHQnetl\..imber Where fegroen!s Q;ln inquire $bbuHhe GOt)$trucUtin process aoclregister complaints. •That prior t9 issuance Off;jnV Gradii)90rBuUqing Permit,theApplicantshall demonstrate tothe sati$faGtionQf the City's Buik,UngOffici;l1 how cq!JstruCliolitloise reduction methodsSlJcha.s . S•.h..•U.t.t•.in g.••••Off.rd.l.ing e.q•.u.iPrne.n..t~md v...•.e.·.h l.C!es,.i.n..s.•••.t8...•.m.119·•I 1[.temporary acoustic parriersarou(ldstationary i constructignnoise sources,maximlz:ing the distance I r 10 CitYdfR'$f/Cho Palos Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 5 Crestridge Senior Housing Prc1eot EIR Mifigafkm Monitoring and RlJponingProgram _.-dH , ".."".....",.,."."""'__...._...._,,""'''''...,_._..._:_ I Once prior to 1 grading andIconstruction; i ongOing dunngIprojectgrading and i construction I N.1{c}Staging Area.,The construction contractor snail provide staQi!lgareasof!site to mlnlrflize off~site transportatJonof neavyconstruet!O!1 equipment,These araasshall pa located to.!11axirnize the dlstahCe betWeeh activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences €lm::llnsfitutional Q$$sL l'hlsWQulq reduGe no!eelevels <:!ssoc!ctted with mosttypes of idllr\9constrnction equipment. ~~Of~1 ==~~.~:.~=r~~--- r ...o.e.tween cqm~tr.uctI9n¢qUiPmel1t st~g.ing..and.parkmg •areas and occupied residential areas,and electric air compressuJ'sand similar power tools,ratherthan "~diesel equlpmenl,$hall be W,;Sq where feasible,I! That duringco!'\structlon,statianarycot1structlol1 !I eqqipmentshall baplac;edsljchfnat emltteq noisels i 1 directed away from sensitive noise receivers.r'i...""M'.'.~.~<__~.....~_,-:-w......w ·.'w.,_~~."w.·.w.·w'".w._#.~ NAto)Construction VehicllJ Idling.Puring demolition,Qngoin9qurjng Onsite Verify i Coh$trvqtion ang/or 9r~qi!looperliltiOn$,trucks and ethsr prQjectgradin9 and construction Iimplementation I I con$tr~ction,vehiC;1es$hen,n?tJ)l:lrk,q~filu~andlor idlest construction manager:I during gr~ding and the prOject $lte or tl1the$djojf\Jng pubhc nghts"of·way Commumty ,construction prior to thel;lradtt1~J and COfl$tfuctlonhotlrs.Development Departm~llt- Building...•.~.D~....Iii..I·f DIVISIon Vorify ~-~~-_....- imp!ernenfati6t1 . during grading and construction constructiOn manager, Commun!ly Development D~partrnent ~ Building and Safely Division ......................_._~~._~~......~..~....."•.._._,._._~- N1 (d)OleseIEqulpment Mufflers,AUdlesol .Ongoihg during ..GosHe.verify ~qulpment$h@lIbeoperated with cloSed engine door$Project9t;ad ing @rJ<l Gonstruction implementation and shall be equipPed with factory recommended constructlOI1 manager,during grading and mufflers.Community construction Development Department- BlIilding al1Q I Safety Division Iii 1 N 1(e)electrleal!y;'Pow~m~dTool$and Facmties,Ongoing during Onsite ..Verify ..•..,.,W<,.,,.,,,w.,_< ~le~trlcal power shall be used to nmal!compressQrs arld prQjeclsr.adff1g and construction implementation ,SImIlar powerloQ!s and to pOWef.eny temporary construction manager,during gradihg and I.stru.ct.u.r.es,st.lchas construction trail~rsur caretaKer c.ommunlt y .construction facUlties,Development i Department-j i I ~-If--_.'.'WM.'·'··'.·••_."W<W·"<<<<<<<Saf$fy.DIVision I IIN•1(f)RestrlctionsOI1 cxcavatlQhand OnlIlolng during .Onsite.Verify .."=.=..•=~"W'"'',·,····t··..··..·,·..···..=.»¥·j'- 1 Foundation/CondlttoninCl.ExcavaUonandcondltioning projl1lct 9mdingand COm':ltrucUQf1 implen:e~!~~~,_-'-I "-l ~_ r 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 6 Crestridge Senior Housing Prqjeqt EIR MltigatlQtl MonltQrlngand Reporting Program __~Y._",,_,.,_,,=«,««_._....=._ ,.._~.'~..-~.'-'-..",_,,,w_"~_'.'."._.'."'_.'_"""""""_""""····"'·'r.·.···..·,·,··.·«.··-...··~....·~..-»'-c-~«''"r _-.w ··_\Once pdor to f OnsUe Review plans for iS$Uanbeoft;lullolog [Col'"l$truction compllanqe with the permlts,onceprlor :manager,measure,and verify tooccupangy l ComrnunItyknplernentstlon in ".1 Development the field iD~partme!Jt -I 'BtilldingahdISafetyDivisionc··cc···c·········c·.,·················c········.····.·..·...·c ....········'c·....,w+",wT·5MalnfainSlghtDistanee,Project piat1$$h~lI show Qnceptlqrto I Onsite Review plans for I thst.!an..•....d.'..$..c.S.p.J.t.l.9..·.a..•.n....?'..o....t h.•a~d.·...sc.a.•.~.s.·.a.to..r l'l.sa.'.r t.h..e...·....i.S."'Su.e...~.ceo Q.f.·..buf.l.~l.n...g c.0.,rJ.s...t.ttl.c.t.lQn C.o.m.p.'.I.I.S.n..ce....w...lth..t.I,le.IproposedprojectdrivewayISdeSignedsuchthataperrmts.once pnor manager,measure,and venfy drivl;lf's plear Une ofsijJht is notobstructeQ,to the .tOQ(";cupancy Community implementation 'nl satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.In addition,Developrnent the field; curbside parkJngshall be prohlbjted~lottg th~pr()perty Department -j fronh~ge Within theldentlflfld sight visibility lines shown on 811i!ding and j F1Qure 4,8..5 ofthe 121ft Safety Oivi~iQn ~~N_m j , N-=-f(sfAddftlol1aIN'QlsQ Attenuation 'teclmlques,Foi lOngoing during '.GnsHa i Verify aU nojs~genera;tingGonstfllot!onaotlvlty on the project 1 prOjectgraqingand construction implementatiOn ~lle,apclitional Mise attenuation teGhnique$sh~1l be i COr1.struct\O(1 manager,during grading and employed to reduce noise levels tothe maximum extent i Community CQostructkm feasible.Such techniques inay Inclqde,tfuFarB not 1 Development limited to,Jhe u$eofsound blartK(ilts on noise generating j Department - ~uipmefltan(jthe construction oftemporarysound .1 !BUildingal1d barriers between COM·truction sltesandliearbys(:wl$ithle i I Safety PMs!on receptors,j w_.'!'.......~.,_,»»"L""««...",«....._._..;••>~»»>..>.,·.·»,,.J.....w~.~.'~"-'_.<---,---...1 TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlATION T4S1te.Access,tl1staU'astop slgnsnd stop baratthe proposed project driveway on Ctestrldge Road,This feature shall be soowrrQtl all project plans submItted for blJildtng permit r~view, '-'--.-------._,~",__.w'"'_".....!M.onlto.rih".·.R~sp'onsible I .A··..·I .'Ind'.<.comoliitnciMtaiO'n'------,.',........~......on ..Ie n .,,,--_._..._.-', MitIgation MeasurelCondltiQn of Approval .1 .Mtlestonet Ag6.nC)1"orl .~"'m';'~'I'a';'~~9 t 't'I*'"'"_""......."~.j!.F"~Quency Party i "-'''''''I .....'''l1Ita 5;va"""vommen~I I aCtlvltie$$hall.bBrestfi.ctf$(n6Eetw~I;Theholfr$"'ore;151COtlstruction manager,f during grading and "'-""~_M'M0··-··-··1 AM and4:t5 PM,MondaythfOU{Jh Frioayand loeat(:)dto!Community.1 construetlOI1 i ma::<imlzethe pi~tanC$between QctlvitYandsensWve i D~velopment l I j teCepiom (nelghboflhl;l resldonces ahd In$titut!onall1Ss$),r Department -l j 1 SuHdingano i ; i Safety Division i r......"'.,=''''''''''City of Rfl¥1Cho Palos Verdes 12 A t t a c h m e n t s 2 - 7 7 PC RE$OLUTIONNo.2012-23, RECOMMJINDINGTHATTHECITYCOl1NCILAPPROVE THE ENTITLEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THECRESTRIDGESENIORCONDOMINIUMPROJECT AnOPTED BVTFIE PLANNING CoMMISSION ON DEC:EMBER 11,2012 Attachments 2-78 P,C.RESOLUTION NO,2012-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COl\ItIVUSSIQN of THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDINC3THATTHE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLYAPPROVECAsE NOS.SUB2012~00001 ANDZON2012- 00067 FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CRESTRIDC3ESENIOR CONDOMINlUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE NQS.ZQN2()12..Q0067& SUB2012-()0001J LOCATED AT 5601CRESTRIDGERfJ)\D(APN7589- ot3..0(9). WHEREA8,on February 22,2012,applioations for anEnvjronmen~al Assessment, Conditional Use ..Petrnit,Grading Permit (ZON2012~00067)and Ten~atjve ..Tract Map (8U82012-00001).were sub mitied to the Community Development Depsrtment for 147,000 cubIc yal'ds of gradIng toaccommodste a60-uniJsenior(age rel1itricfed to 0$years and above)condominium housing project on a.vacant 9.76...acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge Road (APN75S9;..013.,On9);and, VVHEREA8,aft;er the submittal of sdditionslinform;ation,Staff deemed the project applipatiQlJs complete on.ApriI 2·0,:20t2,pursuant to the$tate PermitSfrearn1ining Act (PSA),Government Code 8ectlon65920 efseq.;and,. WHEREAS j ..pl..lfSuantto theprovisionsoftheGalifornia6nvltonmenfai Quality Act, Public Resources Code Secfiol1s21 OOOef..seq,{"CEQJ.\J'),fheStateJ sCE.QAt3uidelines, <;1alifornia Code of Regulation,Title 14,Sec,*on 1$OOQ eLs,eq.,theCjfy's L.oGal CEQA GUidelines,and GoyernmentCode 8eotion65962;.5(f)(Hazardous \J\lasteand 8 uOsfances Stafernent),fheCUyof Rancho Palos Verdespreparedatl Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse N.umber 20t2051 (79)(the ~'EIR');and, VVHEREA,SjtheQify prepared an [nltial EnvitonrnenfalStucJy (the "lnitiaIStudym}for the.Projectpursuantto SectfQ?·.15063 offheGEQf\,?uiqelinesJ •and on M~y 291 2012j the Initial Study (ISj and Notice of Preparation (NOP)was released to thepubUc and public agencies for a comment pe~iodof31 days (fhroughJune29 ,2012).Further,a PUblic Notiqe \Nc;lS mailed on M9y2~.2,012 to the $7 property Qwnef$that ar~within a QOO~foQt radius from thesqj;;)ject property,$l.JpsequentlYi the Notice\N8ls pubfishegJnthe Pf:1oinsula News onMa)'31,2012..Furthermore,thendtice Was posted ontheGitY!s vvebs ite ,and emaUed to the 587 email addresses that are refJisteredon the listserve forthls project Lastly,a copy ofthe Initial Study was made available at th~pubHc Counter at City HaH., Hesse Park,thelocsl libraries,and made ;avCiila,ble On the City's vvebsiteforthepubHp to dovvnlQadand review;and, WHEREA8j oI1June.26,2012,thePlannlngCommissionoonducted a pUblic sopping meeting to provicleaforumforagencies anclmembers ofthe>comrnunitytoprovidf; verbal cOrnrnentscm the IS/NOP,at whioh time the Planning Commission extended the comment period through July 12.2012;and, Attachments 2-79 WHEREAS,after the NOP comment period ended,the Draft EfR was prepared taking various oommentslnto aocount Aftercomp!eting the Draft EIR,the document was made available to the public on August 21,2012 for a 48,.day pubUocomment period that conch,Jded on October 8,2Q12;and, WHEREASiot!September 26;2012 the Plannif1g Commission held apubllG comment sassiof1 to provide thepubHc with an opportunity to submit verbal comments,in addition tp the typical writtencomments~onthe DraftEtR;anq~ WHEREAS,On October 25,2012.,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was prOVided via mail andpubUcationin the PV Peninsula News thafa pubHc hearingl was schedUled wnh the Plal1ningCommission On November 13,2012 to reView the Fina!EfR and the entitlement applications for the proposed project .Subsequently,a notice was emailed to the 611 people registered on the City's llstserve for this project;and. WHEREAS;after notice was iss.uedpursuant to the requirements of the Rancho PalosV~rdes QevelopmentC;ode and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a dUlynQticed public hearing on November 13,2ot2,~t which time alI interested part:ies were given an opportu 11 ity to be heardandfUrthetpresentevidence fegardh19 theentitlaments associated with thePtoject,the Final EIRana the responsesfofhe comments receivedregardfngthe Draft EIR;andl WHEREAS,atthe Novemt:>er 13,2012 Planning Cornmissionmeeting,the Plannirtg Commission directed Stafffo incJudeconditionsfp>aqdrsss lighting,landspaping,traIl use; and tower height,and return to the Planning Commission on December 11,2012 with Resolutionsforcoosideration, NOW,THEREFORE,THEPLANNINQ COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOESHERESV FIND,DETERMiNE,ANDRESOL'VE.AS FOLLOWS: Sectipn1:The propos.ed project includes 60.age-restricted·(aged 55+),.for-sa:Ie condominium units accessed by one drivewayatthe.southwestern.poliion of the site,The 60 unitswilfbelocated Within 18 differentbuildingsdisttibuted thtoughoutthe.site.where some buildings •win be {Wo.-story structures and others wm be split-level.two*story structures. The proposed project also includes a 2,40Qsquate foot community building for the residents of the development;a community garden .area forthe residents anhe northwest portion of the site;an outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the site;and til series of public and private peqestrian trails;.Three of the qpndominium units are proposed to be made available to qualified.very-lOW-inCome senior nouseholdsin accordance with the City's Jnclusionary affordable housing tequkerrteniseontained in Chaptet17.11 (Affordable Housing), To facilitate the gevelopment,.a total of 147,000·cubic yards of grading.·is proposed,which includes 145,OOOcLlbicyardsofcut (143,000 cubIc yards ofexport)and2,OOO cUbic yards P.C.ResolutionNo.2012-23 Attachments 2-80 of fill.The topography of the site wHlbe lowered by as much as approximately S8-feett)f1 the western side of the property to create a flatter and !ower site.This grading wil!result in the structures on the westsIqEl of the property being well below the maxImum 1Q~foot height lImit,as measured from existinggrade< TENTATiVE TRACTMAP Section 2:The Planning Cornmi$sit;H'l rrrakesthefQUowirrg findings of factwith respectto the application Tor \lesting TentativeTractMaP No.71878 to Subdivide the~t76 acre site fOf a 60.,.vnlt,age-restricted (aged 55+h condominium project A.The proposed map .and the designandimptoVehlentof the proposed subdMsionare·consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Ph.tn.The goal of the Urban EnvironmentElemerit oithe General Plan "to pmserve and enhanoe the community's quafity liVing envirottlt1$t1Z;to enhance the visual oharacter andphysical quality of existirig neighborhoods;and to encourage the development of hOUsing in $mannerwllionad@quaffily serves thf3lt1f.$eds of at! presentand future:reside:nts ofthe OOmmtlf,jty,r,AdditionaIly.itlsa polley of th~ (Senaral Plan to "Reviewtl1e location and site deMsign offotljre jn$tifu#qnalljs(i)s veryoarefullyto ensure theirqompEPtibifity withadjaoe-httfiites",Furthermote,ills a Housing Ac:tivity Policy of the City'S General Plan to "lteqoirejafJ newhotJsinfj clevetopecl to incltJdf:Jsuitableand adequate landscaping,open space)and other design amenities if.)meet tf)ecommanity slanQarr:Js of mlVironmiE1ntal qva/ity,/I TheprQPosed project m~ets this goaL and th~se policies as it.providasan aesthetically pleasIng senior housing projectthat is compatible with existing land uses and serves the needs of residenfswithihthe cornrnunity,and is consistent with the City!s vIsion for the site.and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved development pattern of seniorholJsing tothe westand east of the site; Belmont Village and Mirandefa.•respectivel'y.Lastly,.PasEldUPQfl the proposed eO-unit project,the applicant shall be obligated to provide three (~)dwelling uni~s (or theIr eqUivalents)thatareaTfordable to households With very low incomes, B.The site Is physicafly suitable for the type and density of development proposed in thaHhe sublectproperty measures 9.76-acresinarea ahd is sufficientin size foaceommodate the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project The buildings are sufficiently spaced,the Project providesfof open space,outdoor recreations.!areas for the future tenants,complies with applicable setbacks,and has a density of approximately 6 units to the acre, 0.The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are noinke!y to cause substantia!environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or theIr habitat,nor are they likely to cause sarloys pupllc health problems.The subject property has neverbeen developed and has remained a vacantparcet Further,there have been pastapprCiva.ls arid proposals that tall .out the subject prope.rtyforthe use that is nowberng proposed.There are flO s~nsitive plant or animal species;no known historical,archaeolog!caiof p.e.Resolution No.2012-23 Attachments 2-81 paleontological resources;ahd no khown hazardous materials or conditions on the subject property,In the event that any ofthe$e are encountered priQr to or during construction of the pfClject,the recotnmendedmitigl;tfion measures anq conditions of l;tpproval wiH reduoeany poleht!sl itnpactsupon the environment, fish and wildlIfe ,sensitive habitats or publio health toless4han"signlflcant levels, D.The deslgnof the subdivision or thE!type of improvements wHI notoonflictwith easements,a.cqiJired by the PlJbUcaf large,for aCOeSS throLl9h or use of, property within the proposed subdiVision.There are no knownpbblic access easements across the .subjectproperty thafshould bepreservedasaparfoffhis project.However,since the Oity's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP)oalls for ?1 traU to oonnect CrestridgeRoad to ImtiJan Peak RoaqpelClW,the project willproviqe and record apedestrian trail easemenfthroughthe development,consistent with the City's CTP to connect Crestridge Road with the trans in the Ctt,ls Preserve property to thenorthadjacel11 to Indian Peak Road. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT Section 3:..The Planning Gommissibhmakes the following findingso!fact With respecttothe·appllcation·.for a conditional usepermitto.;1)estabHshaseniorcondominium residential deve.lopment proJect on the subJect property;and,2)lbaHpw certain building heights to exceed the Institutional District'sqevelopment st?1ndarcjs of 1a'~O}'tall and ooe- story: A The sIte is adequate inslze and shape to accomrnodate the proposed use and for all of the yards,setbacks,Walls,fences,landSCaping and other featl.,ffes required byTitle17 (Lqning)Qr bycol1<1itionsirnpqsed under Section 17 ,6P ,050 to integrate said use with those on adjacent la(ldand Within the neighborhood, such as: 1.The propOsedsttuctl.lfeS will cornplywithand exceedal!of the reql.,flred sefbacKsofthe InstitlJtiqnal zonlngdistript 2.Parking throug hout the site win beproy'ided to residents ofthefaciIity within dedicated 2,"cargarages for each Unit,andVisifor parking willbeavaHable throughout the site. 3.The proppsedproJect will contain ..landscapingfhroll€Jhout the fl;tpility anGWili pe conditioned to minimize view impairment by reqljiril]g thel?l]dscaping to bemaintaihed,ahd the appear-anceofthe buUdingsWill not beapparentdue to the landscapIng.. 4,The subjectsitewiH.helovveredbYlJp to3Btfr~m existing grade to crea~e.the prqposed building pads,intf?rl'laIToadwaYapq~arkingarea,~md wUI Greatep man(lgeable slope for the site toaccornmodate thedevelopmentj which woUld continue toslopefromwestto east,butitwould be less of adramatid slope.Further.loweringfhesite will bringthewestem por1iOl1ofthe project closer in elevation tothe adjacent Belrnont.Assisted LivingfacHity,whlch was also Jovvered sLlbstantiallyJrom its pre.,constrqotiongrade;and,IQvvering.the site also reduces the height oftheexisfingslopes along the roadwaY I.Which· P.C.Resolution 1\10.2012 ..23 Attachments 2-82 wiHbe planted as part of the project and vvill mihimizethe use of retaining waHsaJong the street Furthermore,lowering the site sUbstantially and reducing·the height·ofsornebf the structures redllces the·potential view impacts over the .site from the upslope residences to the south along I'v1lstridge Drive. 5.The bUilding desIgns are of a residential character,With a mix of two"stdry strucfuresahdspHf-level two story structures,and WiH be consistent with other residential type structuresalohgCreslridg.e RClad,such as the 8elmoJlt Assisted Living FacilitY,Mirandela $eniorApartrnents,and the CanteroLiry Congregate Gare F aciIity,asweHasfhe residential character of the existing sing1e..;family residential neighborhoods to theeest and south ofihe site. B.The site for the proposed LIse relates tostreels and highwayssufflcientto Gafry the type and quantity oHraffiG gener;i::lted by the sUbject use.The project t;ilkes .direcfaccessfrom Grestridge Road,a collector roadway cormectin9 Crenshaw Boulevard and Highridge Road.The project plans and traffic study have been reviewed by the Oity's traffic engineer.The traffic studY Gonsiclered five intersections and fpGus.ed ona$sessing .potenti;i::ll traffic impacts during the morning and evening commutepeakhonrs ahd foundthatthe five.(5)keysludy intersections cuttentlyoperate anclarefbtecast to cOl1tinue to operate at an aCceptable LOS withprqject implementation.ThecumulatiYe projects analysis also found that the five (p)keystUdyintersections aH~forecast to continue to operate fit an acceptalole LOS with the addition afpraject generated traffic, Construction .traffic.was a leo assessedsihce constn..lcfiohlhbJudes 143,000 cubic yards of expot't,andconbIUdedthat fheincteased frafficgeneratedbythe project will not exceed the Impact threshold.Lasuy,sightdi$tance impacts relateclto the project's aPcess Way onto Qreslridge F{oad fsadequfite duetoCl mitigEltioD measure.•liflJitihg·landscaPjngheightanclprohibitin9curbsidep.<atking along Crestridge Hoad within the identified sightvisibilitytihes. C.In approving the subjectusefofage-restric~cI{aged 55+},SeniofPondQminiUnlS at the specific locfition,.therewil.rpeno.signifIcant adverse .e~ect on adja~ent property or the permitted use thereof.The use will notbein conflict with other use tn theatea ahd wiJladd to the mb{tureof housing types offered by providing additional senior housing. Since the pfoJectinoludes sfructures that exceed 16..feel abbveexistinggrade, Staff conducted ..view analysesfrom·various .•.residencesalonfJ.Seaside Heights, Mistridge,andOceanrid(iJe Drives.The reskl.encesare locatecl to the south of the prpjecLsife,;i::lnd conf;i::l!nup to.1aO-de(iJreE$Views pyerthesuQ~ect property, The resIdences along Oce;i::lnridgeand 8e;i::lsIcle HeigHts Driyesare;i::lf .CI substantially higher .elevation than .•the SUbject property,and .the.proposed development will not project into their views.As aJesult.the proposed project would not resultina significant impact to view {i.e.,adverse effect)to the residenpes ;i::lIQngSeasicie HeightsqnqOceanrldge Drives, P.e.Resolution No.2012~23 Attachments 2-83 The residenCes along Mistridge Dri\fe are JoWer in elevation than the residences along Oceanrid~e .Drl\fe~COhsettuently,alfhough theY are higher.inelevatiol1 than thesubjeot property,due to the topography of the area,thtase residenoes do not have a view of the Santa Monica Bay;.rather,their views are predoMinantly.of .th6 Los Angeles basin overthe subject property and ina northeasterly directionover the abutting JVlirandeJa Senior Housing ProjecLStaff visited several residences along Mistrldge Drive,wHich have been incorporated into the AestHetics section of fheEIR with vtewsimulalions.There are $ ~tructuresthatareabovethe 16..fo01 height limit dispersed throughout fhe/siteas follows: a)toll r,2...story s pHi level structures that fronfalongCrestridge Road; b)one,2..storysplit..levelstruQlure along the easternmost side of the development; .c)one,.;Z"'story spUt"'levelsftUcture inihe middle of the development; d)one,2..storY struClorein the middle of thedev~lopment;andJ ~)two,2-sfory$truQturesat the rearofthe d~velopmenf, Ultimately,of the 9 structures that ate above the t6400t height limit,the two- story structures (a iota I of S thatateidehtified a$"!dijand\le'\abov~)resLllt in sornetypeof view impairment,ssthepori;lotls above the 164ootheightlimltCi,e'i 16-feetaboveexisting grade)impair.asmt:tll portion qfiha'city viewaUhebottQfT1 of ihe View frames .from the existing •.residences 01'1 Mistridge DrIve,The ptoposedstroctures that are along CtestridgeRoad and fheeastern property lIne (identifieda.s "a"and \!b",aoQve)are at lower elevations than the ofher sfruotl.,lres on the site;as a result,thesestructYIeSare inth~f()regroUndand will not projt;)C\intotOe viewfrCi1mesfrom the residences along Mistridge Road •.Tot;) ternainln€13 structures along the tear dithe devel~prnentandtnthe rniddJ~of the development (identified as "d"and "e",above)are also abovethet6-foot limit (i,e.,t6-feetabove.existinggrade).SlncefOese buHdlngsarelopated near the center ofthesjte,theyan;irtthe middle of the \{i~\lVcorrldors of the properties <along Mistridge DriVe.The heights of thesel'foposedstructures1 coupled With the location Within the VieW frames,makeslhe.m rTloreappateht and resultsin some type pfviewlmpairmentfromJoe residences along Mistriclge DriVe,AscrresuJt these bui1di09s havebe~rlm9cfifierjjnthefQllowing manner: •Rt;)cjuoe the plate helghtsofthestrllctutescQntaining uMits19 thrt!22,and 45 and 46-This reduces the he1ghtof the buildings byl..lp to 24eeL "Requce the roofpitch from 3:12,to1.75:12 forthestrl..lctUrescohlainihg unIts 19 thru22,and 45 and 46-Thisreduces the height ofthebuildings byupto 1..foot .. •Change the roofs on thee(istem portlonsofthethree bt.llldi 11 GS frorn gable roofs to.hip-pitched foofs ......This red UOeS Ihe arnountofhorizontal.projections and opens UP more vieW. P.C.Res.olutionNo..2012-23 Attachments 2-84 The modifications will result inaredLlctiol1il1 the structure heights by 3~feet) resultlnginstructures thai are approximately 23~feetabovefinishgrade.af1d reduoes the roof massing withincorporationofa hip on these puilding.s. Consequently,thesemodific<;ttionsminimize the yiewimp<;tirrnenl$uch that the buildings will·minlmaJty project into the city lights viewsWhilernaintalning the largerpanoramic view from the resIdences along Mistridge Drive. D.The proposed LISe Is not contrary to the GeneralPlan.$pecificaHy,the gOal of the Urocan Environment Element of the General Plan #~~tto preserve8,t1d eOh8,ope theoamrnunity's quality lfvingenvironment;to enhance thel/lstlal chara,cfet ancl physical quality of exfsfihgneighborhoods;antJtoetJcoutelgefhe development of housing in a manner whichadequatelysenles the needs of af! presentanclfatfJreresidentsof thfl'commanity."Additionally,it is a policy ofthe General Plan to I~Review thf!laoat;opanos!te design pfftfturelnstilutioflfjl fJ$es .VefYGtff&fullY to ensure fheir.compatlb!li(ywit!Jfjdjao.enfs,ites".Furlberrnore,Ills a .H$UsingAcllVity Polioy of the City1sGenera'.Plan to "[requite}all newhousitlg developed to inolude.suitabJeantJ adeqUcatelandscaping,open space,anrJolher design amenities ta meet the <community standards of enviroFT.mental quality.." Theptoposeo project meets this goal and theSe p()lid~S9S it provid~s.an aesthetical1ypleaslng seniorho~sirlg projecUhatis corppatipJe with eXisting land uses ~nd serves the needs of residentswithinthe cornmunity,andis consistent with the Gity's vision for the site andsurroundfng area as eVidenced by the approved development pattern ofsenio~housing fa the westanoeastoflhe site; Belmont VUIa;geand Nlifa;ndela,~espeqtivety.Lastly,bFtsepl.lPOn the prOPosed 60"un itprojeqt,the appHcantshaH be obligated to provitle three (g)dwellihg gnits (ot theitequivalents)thatateafford.able to households With very low il1comes. E.The subjectpropertyis notloc.atedwithinanQv~ilqycontroldi$tdot F.Gonditipp§,.whjcb the PIfi\hnfMg Comrniss1onfihds to be neoes$arylo proteetthe health,.safety and general welfare,.hay€:)been imposed upon Ihisproject Specifically,as .•included in the Miligation Monitoring Programand$$shown in the attached Exhibit A,and briefly desQribeP pelQW,the proJectlncllld§1s cQnoUionslhat address ••Lilrritcationson the.heIghts of walls and fences; ..Conditions regarding theplacemel1tal1d type of exteribf light fixtures; ..Requirements for marking fire lanesandprohibjlingpar'king therein; ..ReqUirements for compIiancewith the ejty~sattqQheo unit development stt:lr)dard$t~g~rding the transmissiohOfsbUl1d al1dvibration through cammonwal!sahdfloots;. •Requiremeritsford~dicatibnofah easemel1tfof traU purposes1consistel1t with the Conceptual TraUs Plan. o Requlrements.forwater~cohservinglandsc.aping ·and ..irrigalion; ..Further limitations or restrictions on the helght.of foliage and trees;and, ..Restrictions on the.nurnberand typesofsignage for the project P.e.Resolution No.2012~23 Attachments 2-85 ..limitations on the heights,rooftypesand roof pJtcnesJof the buildings identified above. S~ction 4:.The Planning CommissIon make-sthe following findings of fact with respect to the application fora Grading Permitfor 147,000 cubic yards of grading related to the deveiopmentofthe proposed condominiunl project A.The-grading does nofexceed that which is necess;3,ryfor the permitted primary use ofthe kj{.as defined in$ecfion 17J1l6.2210 oftne Development Code.The proposed project encompasses 147,000 cubic yards of total earth movement (cut and ffU combined)throughout the 9,76-acreparcet Ihe grading will sUbstantially lowerthe existing topography in an ettorno maIntain views over the subiectproperty,T~esit7 wiHpe loWered by approximately 384eeton 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,andw!Hserveloaccoftlmodate the various stfUctureson..site~the internal fpadwayfhat will loop through the development,the cqmmunity bUilding and th~outdoor recreation area,Since theintenlof the grading is primarily to lowerthesite'$topography,therewiHbe 143,000.cubic yards of export The export will l.ower the site to provide a better designed project and wUlaUow the majority of the buildings to be set lower on the-site thanc.ould be allowed Uby rightll withoqt the propo$edgrading (orwith less grading). B.The grading ano/or related cot'lstru.ction dOes hofsignificantlyadverse.1yaffect the Visual relationships with/nor the viewsfrom~neighboring properties,The proposed grading results in most structures being lowerthan would he permitted noy right"without the proposed grading.Furthermore,whlle there IS50me fill throughouHhesite,hO fiU under buildings is necessary and the proposed project win notsignfficantlyaffect the visual relEitiooships with,nor the views from neighboring properties, C,The naturao!the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours,and finished contoursa:re reasonably natural,The existing site fopographY slopes fromwesf to east,and the topogr~PhY is higher than theadjapent developments O,e"Belmont and Mirandela),Artificial·fijl baSi been igenUflect attl1esite,Which was placed during grading operations for the cons{ruct!f>h of Crestridge R.oad along the southerly property line.Thesiie a!soslopesuprrom Crestridge R.oad to the middle oftne 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 manmadeahdare.not naturaL Nonetheless,thetnajorityofthe gradIng is to lower the site,and in doing so the resulting structures will be in Hne with the developments on eithefside,which stopes dowl1 from west toellet Due to the existing topography of the site,which is c.onvex in shape,the grading will also prepare the site for development The existing contours willbe removed,butthe finished contours wiHensure agentter sloping site thafebl1tll1u$s to slope from westio east p.e.Resolution No.2012..23 Attachments 2-86 O.While portions onhe topographlcfeatur€ls appear to be man~made asaresult of the cqnstruction ofsurrQunding roadways,and not of a natural topographic: feature,the proposed •projeetstHl considers the topographic features and appearances of the existing site by creating neW stopes 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 acfJacentdevelopments.As a re$t,l!~(the proposed development would not be Iopographicallyout of scale with the surrounding area, E The reqvlrednnding that,for new single-family residences.the grading and/of related 90nstruction is compatible with the Immediate neighborhood character, as definedlnSectlon17.02.040(A)(6)of the Development Code,is not applicable because the proposed project is nota neW single-farnily residence. F.In new re~idential tracts,the grading inch,ldes pfovisionsfor the preservation and intrQductionof plant materials so as to protect slopesfrorn soil erosion and slippagerand minirnize visual effeQts of gradIng andcoDstmctioo on hillside areas.The proposed project isa new residential tract,although It is not a single family SUbdivision.This Intent oTthlsfinding is to minimize the visual impacts and distvrbance of eXistingvegetatiol1 tpafcornmonly oQcuts With cut-aqd:-,fill grading offettacedslngJe-famllyheIghborhQods.Tnegrading will lower the site and will result ina deve.loprnemt thalsteps down from west to east suCh that there.Is an aesthetiC symmetry linking the developments on either side,As a resplt,the slopes and perviousfilreas WiH contain ltfindscapingto prevent erosion and create an aestheticallY plefilsing site,Fqrthar,the landscapIng will be condiUonedso as to prevent foliage from growing above the heights of the buIldings and creating view impairment to the resIdents to thesoutho.f tha site. Tl1us,as proposed and conditioned,aclequ~te l~ndscaping will be provided throughout the site to make the project less apparent G,The grading utilizes streetdeslgns and improvements whtch senie to minimize gradingaltematlves and harmonize with the natural contours and cnaracterof the hillside.The proposed project involves a private roadway that loops within the development to provide accesS to the various btdldings.and Includes one ingress/egress point along Crestridge Road.The street will slOpe with·the resulting topQgraphyand will be ofa widtb that can accommodate two~wa.y traffic.will prohipit street parking.,andwiU accommodate el11ergencypersonneL Lastly;beside the ingress/egress driveway along Crestridge Road,the interior roadway wi.1l not be visible from the pUbfic rights~()f~way, H.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance ofnatural landscape or wildlife habitat thro4gh removal of vegetation.A Biological Resources Assessment was performed for theEIR According to the assessment,the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through disking and grubbing.As such,there is no protected habitat (CeS)present on site.Further,non-native vegetation is present on the.site,which provIdes for p.e.Resolution No.2012·23 Attachments 2-87 poor habitat for wildlife species.The site is!Dowever,adjacent to the City's Reserve property>As such,there ate mitigation measures proposed to minitrHze disturbance and impacts to the City's Reserve,which includes native landscaping,especially for those areas that abut the City's Reserv€t L The proposed projectisinco11sistent With 3 of the grading criteria contajn~d within Municipal Code Section1T76.040(E)(9)pertaining togradingons!opes over 350/0 steepness,.maxlmumfinist1ed slopes,and maxImum depth of cut or fill. However,a deviationrrom the criteria regarding.grading on slopes greaterthan 35%is hereby-approved because thegradingwiU not threaten the public health, safet¥and welrare,since developrrH~nt of the subject site wiH require City Geologist apprQvafand building permits that will ensure that·the proposed .projectwill rtotthreaten publichealthl safet¥and welfare. F'urthetmore,a deviation to the oriteria regarding maximum finished slopes and maximUm depth of OlJt and fill is hereby approved because lJOV$ualtopography; soil conditions,previpusgradingpr othf;:rcirqumstances make such grading reasonable andnec6ssary.HOWeV€lI\ilis irnporta.ntto ccmsiderthatthe subject siteisa.vacant parCel withundulatfng topography a.ndsome un~compactedfiH material that must be exported In order to render the sIte buildable,Lastly, graging dpwn oftht;:l site provides better views and a better vl$481 representation oftheprojectan(j consIstency with the surrounding atElae arebirCUFl1sfances 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,an.qrestricted grading are<ilS,the Planning Commission finds that a)The·criteria of subsection (E)(1)throUSfl (E)(a)of Municipal Code Section 17;76,040 satisfied,as noted in A throl,Jgh E above. oj The project is cOl1sist~ntwiththe purpose of the Grading Permit,wh!chis 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 th~proPlarty,3)ensl,Jre that the development of land occurs in a.manner harmoniQus Witt)adjacent lands,and 4}ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan.Speclfk:aUy,the proposed project will lower theelte while maintaining asimil.ar topographic eonfiguratiQl1ofa flatter 8reawith slopes,thereby helping iPpreserve views over the site and not cause visual impacts,which will develop the site ina manner harrnonkms with adjacent lands,In doing so the project permits the reasonable development of rand WhIle maintaining the natural scenic character. c)Departure from fhestandards in subsection (E)(9)of Municipal Code Section 17.7€t 040 wiH not constitute a grant of special privileges p.e.Resolution No..2012 ...23 Attachments 2-88 inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Lowering thesile win ensure less thansigniftcantviewand visual impacts, Development proposals ol1largevcaccanf parcEfls with these types ofactions are conststenfwith prjoractfol'lspn other Institljti onal useS alongOrestridge Road.,namely tMeBalmontAssisted Living FacilIty and the Minandela 8eniorAffordabie Housing projects where in those sites were also lowered sUbstantially for the same purposes.LastlVi departure fromfhestahdards of sUbsection (E)(9)df Municipal Oode Section 17]6.040 will l10tbe detrimental to the pUblfcsafety nor·to other properties,pecalJSe ·a geologIcaJ report for this projeqthasbeen slJPmitted to and approveq by the City geologist Seetibn5:.Any interested person aggrieved by thiscfec!SiPn or by any portion of this dedsion may appeal to the City Council.PIj[suantto Sections 16.08.020,17.60.060, 17.68.04'0(0)and 17.76.04Q(H)of the Rancho PalQS VerdeS MLll1lcipaiCode,ahysuCD appeal must be filed with the City,in writing and with fhe apptoprlate appeal feel no later thart January 7,2013. Seetion 6:Forfhefovegoing reasons.and basedQn the infQrmational1dfinctlnQs inclUded in the$taff Report,Minutes and other reGQrd§:l of proceeding?)the P1Ciinning Commission of tMeCity ofR.gncho Palos Verdes hereby recornmertdsthattheCity·CoUIlcil co nditio naHy approve Tentative TractMap No.71878,Conditional Use Permit,andGracllng PerlTlii (Planning Case Nos,.SLJ820t2"00001.al1d ZON~012-00(61),.incQpjunction with cerflfi.cationof an Environmental Impact Report,toallowthesubcfivls(Q!1 qfa9,07q-aore site into sixty (60),age-restricted (ageq .55+),Seni.QfCOndomin(urPtJnits,.located at 5601 Crestridge.ROad (APN.7689.;;01·3",009),au bjecUotherecommel1ded·conditions.ofapprovaI in the attached Exhibif'A:. P.C.ReSblution No.2012..,23 Attachments 2-89 PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 11 ili day of December 201:2,by the following vote: A8STENTIONS:None Pa·1 T eauIt'~~ Planning Commission Chairman p ,c.Resolution Np~!012..23 Attachments 2-90 EXHIBIT 'A'TO PCRESQ.LUiION2012..23 CONDlilONS .QF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.71678 (PLANNING CASE NOS.ZON201.2..00067 &SUB2012-00Q01) General 1.This approval lsfor the following: fA.AaQ-unlt,fot;'$al¢}.,.age-restricted (55 years.ando(der).condomJniurn housing cornplex,disfribuled amongst 18 individual buildings 13,Three (~)unIts affordable to "ExlrernelyLow"ahd/or "Very Low"lncotne households ihaccordance With iheCify!$lncIUslooaryHousitlg requirements. C.A private and pubUc fraU system in open sp(lceareason the l1orth,(;lnqa pUblic trait through the development cOhnecting Crestr'idge Road With the pUbllctrallsystem iJ1 of:)eTl space areas on the north. D,A 13 i OOO-square foot outdoor community recreation area located at the nbrtheasferhcol"Tler of fhe site.The amenities for this afeB include a patio,a communilyconversalionand gatheringsfage,a sundeckand outdoor living room,bprbaqua facilities,booce ball oOLlrt~,pnd plcnictable~. E A2,400square..foot Community ServIce .Centet buHding and sundeck pl"Ovidingseconaary ,centralized Cd rnmu rHty amenities for the projeces residents,Iha Community Sarvioa Genterp\dflcHng wiHproyida a recreatiop and Ip\jQge8reg fQrcqmmunify g;:athering~•.~jtchen,c:;ornpytercenter/pqS}iness room,off!ce,fitness room,bathrooms,·indbor8hdoutdbor·fireplaces,outdoor [jyIngal"e8,spa,barbequeand Seating area ..rhe OommunityService Center couJd;:alsope used for communifygatherings <:ina asasoci~l venue for regular residantactivitiesHke movie nights,bOQK clubs and cooking classes, F.A gated VehiculataccessoffofCresfridgeRoad.The vehicUlar entry gate would haYea key pad and call box. G.A pedestrian entry tower·and access poil1tadJacent to the gated vehicular access. H.Art internal private streetth?t is a minimum of 26 feet wide. I.A.total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout thesifa.to supplement themo-car garages available foreachcondominlurn unit Attachments 2-91 J.Acommunitygardfan area at the norfhwesf portion of the site (behind the existing Belmoht ASSisted Living facility)for the re$identsand/or owners ofthe Orestridge Senior Housing Oondominiumpro]ect. 2.Within ninety (90)days of thisappro\fal,the appljc~nt andlor property owqersha!! submit to the Oity a statement,in writing,that they have read,.understand and agree.to all conditionsofapproVaIconfained in ·thi$appl"ovaL Failure to .provide said written statement withinninefy (90)daysfoUo\IVing the date of this approval shall render this approval nuH and void. 3.The developetshallsupply the Oity with cfnemylar,ohecopY,ahdanelectronic cop¥of the map after the·final map has bfilen filed with ··tnfil Los Angeles County Recorders Office. 4.This approvalexpirestwenty~four (24)months fromihe .date ..ofapproval of the tentative tract map by the City Council 1.unless extended per the Subdivision Map Act and Municipal Code.Any request for exteos;iOl'lShaU oa supmitted to the PI;anning Department in writing prior foiheexplration of the map. 6.COhstroction.of the approved project shaU substantiaUY cO.rI1ply with the plans originallystaropeo APP~OVEO;with the Institwtion~l.zoninQDistrict;theroitigatjon me(lisqres,conditions 9l'ld devfalopment st9noarq~cpntaineq Inpe:;RespItltion No, 2012-22 ahd PC Resolution No,2012..23;aoo,.the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 6.The ...Community.Developm~nt Director i~avthpri~eot9qpproVe.minor modificati6nsto the·approved plansoral1yofthe conditions if suchmodificatiohs achieve substantially the same results.as wowldstrrct compliance with said plans andconditiotls;,Otherwise,all othermodificationsshaU b~$ubjectto review and approval by the Planqing CornmissJon, 7.All mitigation measUres contained.ihthe~pPtc.wed MitiQafiemrvlonitorlngand Reporting Program (MMRP)contained In PC Res;olutlon No.2012..22 for the Environrnentallrpp<lct Report (E1R)shall be adhered toj •The mitigation meaS".trf3S ar€!...repeatecJ.herein ..under the .8PPtoPtiatesubjeet heading,..sometimes.with clarifying language that may differ .from tlieMMRP....All .costs associated with implementation of the Mitigation MonItoring Program shall pethe responsibility·of the •.Developer,and/oranYSLlccessorsininterest. 8.The ..Conditions of Approval contained herein ..shall be SUbject to review and 111 odification ,as deemed necessary and appropriate bY the PlanningCommis$ion at a noticed public hearing held Qne year after i$sttance(jfa final Certificate of Occupancy for the la$t buildil'lgc(jHstructed.At the reviewhearingl th.e Planning Commission l11aY<:tdd,delete ot .modify any condltiohs of approval as deemed necessary anoapptopriate.Notice.of said reVIew hearihgshall be pubUshedand Attachments 2-92 provided to owners of property withina50Q'radius from theentireprqJect~s boundary,to personS requesting notice,foall affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordanee with Rancho Palos Verde5 Development Code 8ectlon17.80.090.As part of th~One yee:af review,the Planning Commission may o005ider and rElvIewcomplianoe withal!the conditions of approval,assess any lighting and noIse impacts,and address any other concerns raised by Staff,the Commission andlorinterested parties.If neoessary,the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and COl1ditiOl1s to mitigate any Irnpacts resulting from the review, 9.All private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintaihedso not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted ontl1e.photographs taken from and Mistridget:)riVEl,and _Seaside·Heights Drive (EXhibit Sf to PC Resolution No.2012~23). 10.Permitted hours and daY's for constrl..lctionactivity (other thah theaforel11entioned gradIng activity)are 7:00 AM to ]:f)O PM,Monday through Saturday,With no construction actiVity permitted on $unc;fays oron~he legal holidays sPeoifieci in Section 17.96.9.20 of the R.ancho Palos Verdes MUhicipal Code without.a special construction permit TentativeTract Map.No.71878 11.The proposed projeotapproval permits 60,age restrioted (agf3d55+}condominium uni~son theexisting9•.]6,.acresupject parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 71878,as approved.by the City Council on ,2013. 12.Prior to submitUng the Final Map for recordation,the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departmentsang divisions,includinge:a clearance from the City1s Engineer for the following itefTIs:rnathernaticalacctlracy,survey .analysis, corr~ctnessof certificates and signatUtes,etc. 13.The Final M<;ipshall be in o<mforrnf,lnce With the 10tsiz:eand poofigurationshown on the TehtativeTract·Map. 14.Prior to approval of the Final Map,.copies of fhe Covenants,Com:Jitions.and Restrictions (CC&R's)shall be submitted for the revIew of the Director and ~he City Attorney,SaidCC&H!s Shan reflect the applicable conditionsof:,approVe:a1 contained Ih this R.esoIUtion.Allnece$sarylegalagreethents,including horneownets'associatlol1 1 deed teskicfioJ1S,CoveJ1anf,dedication of development rights,pubUpeasementsand prOPO$ed rnetnodsofrnalntenance ang petpetua~ion of grainage faciUtiesand any other hydro!ogJqalimPfQvemenlsshalf pesLibrnitted for review and approval prior to the approval afthe Final Map. Attachments 2-93 County Recorder 15.lfsignatures of record title Ihterestsappear on fhetioal rnaprfhe developefshsll sl.Ibmita prelIminary guarantee.A finaL guarantee wiH Pe required at the time of filing ofthe final rnapwlth the County Recorder.lfssid signatures.do not appear on the final mapla ptellmrnarytitle report/guarqrtfee Is needed thatcov(\lrs the ar~a showing all fee owners and interest holders.The account for this preliminary title repott.guaranteeshaH remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. PUblic Works and Cif¥Engineer Conditions 16.Supjeqtto review and approvpl by the Director of PqbIic Works,prior to final certificate of use and occupancy,the follOWing itemsshaU be addressed: ,.SideWalk mustbe constructed on Crestfidge Road that proVides fora total sidewalk width of6'from ..Face of Curb to Back of Sidewalk (to match exIsting conditions on Grestridge Road), ,.Relocafeelectrical facilities along ($rastridge Road to provide Tor 4'clear sidewafk/i;l.ccess to match other updated faciHtiesanq to adhere to ADA. •Provide for AOA compliant accessacfossthetopof the Proposed site entry driveway on CrestricigeRoad, ..Indicate the ADA pa~hof travelftdrt'1 Cresttidge Rd,throughout thethterior of theslle. •Any other reqUitementsmade by the PUblicV\{orks Department in reviewing the construction plans.. 17.Per theOepartmehtof ~ublicVVorksandsubJecttoapprovalby the.Director of PubHc Works,the.Appficant shall ensure the-folloWing to the sa.ttsfacfionof the Poblic Works Director: ..No above ground utilities perrnittedln thePublicRi~htQrWay. •AU utilities must be oulsideofthedrivewayapproach (mlnimurn2feef away ftomdriving edge). •Only cemenfconcrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed In the ROW. •The engIneer shaH provIde a longitUdinal profile of the driveway approach qnd driveway Centerline depicting ve.rtical curvesancislopes.. #I Driveway approach slope and details needsfgcornplyWith APWASTD .PLAN 110..0 (latesfedition)ar'ldother appUcabledrawir'lgs. *'Prior tothe Issuance of agradir'lg permIt,<Elcomplete hydto!ogyand hydraulic study (includeoff~siteareas affectingtnedev(\lloprnent)shall be prepared bya qualifiedcivHengineet and approved QY the City Engineer, The rePort shaH Include detail drainage convey-anpe.syslemincludlng appHcaple swales,channels,street floWs,catch basil1s.,andsform drains Attachments 2-94 whIch will allow buHding pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff which rnay be expected from al1storl11$up to and includihg the theoretical 1OO~year flood. ..It isthe property owner's respohsibilitYtomaintainany landscapihgihthe abutting public ril;1ht-of~waY and keep it in a safe condition, III Any cuts made into theexisUhgasphalt roadWay of Ctesfridge Road will require full width resunacingof the madrQfS length to bedeterminOO by the Director of Publi.c Works or his designee. ill All qal11agedcutb and guttee sidewalk.and asphalt in front of the proposed property must be femovedand replaced in kind. III All ADA improvements shall becompleled by the developer in the ROW. III Catch basins shall havenNODumping~Drain toOceao"painfeq on thernln the ROW··and on the property. •Filtering and Water QuaHty devices shall be installed in allstortn drain inlets j includihfJ existing catch basins where a connectIoh to the development's system is required. 1Il Plans.sbaU provide Best Management Practices (E$MP'$)and Wafer QualitYtVlanagement Plan (WQMP),• •Plans shall proVide$ewerpol1nectioninformafioo,and$haH be approved py LA County Public Works Departmentprior to approval.by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. ..Plans shall ptovidecleatsightttiahgie atdrivewayperealtrans standards. Sewers 18.A botid,..cash d~po$it,or other eityapprovSdsscutify,shall be posted·priotto recordation of the Final Map or start of work,whicheverpccurs firsty to cover cQsts fOT constructiQl1ofand connection toa sal1itaryseWer sYStEH11 1 in an arrJountto be determined bythe Director of PublicWork.s, 19.Priortoapproval of the final map,thesubd iyitler shj3H submit to the PLlbHc VVork.s Director a written statement from the County Sanitation DIstrict approving the design or the ttact with regard to theexistihg trunk line sewer.Said approval shaU state all conditions ofapprovaJ,ifahy,and state that fheCounty is wflling to maintain all connections to said tCLlnk lines.. 20.Approval offhissubtliYlslol1ofJandi$contingentupon thein~tallati()nj dedication and use of local main Hnesewerand separate laterals to serve each unit of the land division. 21.Sewer easements may be required,subject to review by the City Engineer,to detern'line the final locations and reqUirements, Attachments 2-95 22.Prior to construction,thesybdivider !$haitobtain approY<:t 1 of the sewer improvement plansfrorn the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance Division. Water 23.Prior to recordation of the Final Map or pri.or to commencement of worK whichever CQmes first,the subdivider·must sYbmita labor ane!materJals.bondln addition to either: a.An .agteemenfand a faithful·performa.lloo bond in the amount estlmatedbY theCily Englneerandguatanfeelng thelnstallationofJhe watefsystem;or An agreement and other evidencesatisf<:tcfory to the City .Engineer indicating that the subdivider has entered Into a contract with the serving water utilltytoconstruct thewatersysternt as requJrad,and has deposited with suCh wafer utility security tJuaranteelngpayment for the lnstt:illation of the water system... 24.There shall be filed With the City Engineer a statement from the waterr:>urveyot indicating that the proposed water rnainsand any of her reqklired fa.cilities will be oPerated ·by the water purveyorano that,l.fndernprmaloPE;lratingconqitiQn~,the ~y~tem will meettbe nE;lsq$ofthedavelopedtrac.t. 25..At the time the final land divisIon map Is ·submittedforcbeokin9,planSta l1 d $pecifications for the water systems facilities shall be sl.JQllJitteq tp.the City Engineerfof Gheckin9.andap~roval,ahd..s~allcomplY with the Oity Engineer~s standards.ApprovalfQ[fiUn~of the tand division is co htin gent upon approval of plans !lnd specifications mentic:,lOedtilQQVe. 26.The project shall~e servedbyade<1uately~izedwater systemfacHities that shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined hyihe Los Angeles County Fire Department.The Wtater mains shaH bePTs·uffieientsize to acoommodate the total domestic and fire flpwsteqY1redfQr the land division.The City Engineer shall determine domesficfl9W reqYiremehfs.Fire flow reqUirements shall be determined by the Fire Depammenta.nd e'\lidenoo of approval by the Fite ChiefJsreQUited. 27.Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Lps .Angeles GoYntyFire Department has determined that there is adequate firefighting Water and access available to saidsfrucfures. 28.Prior.t9 .issU<:toce of the first buildingpermit;fbeappHoantsbal.lensure.thEit oonstruction plEll1s <:tnPspecific<:tfionsfor the project include the follOWing interior water-Conservation measures; Attachments 2-96 Reduce water pressure to 50 POUn(jSPersqLlare Inch or les$.by means of a pressure-reolJqing valVe; •Install water~conserving clothes washers; o InstaJI water-conserving dishwashersanolo(spray emitters lhatare retrofitted to reduce flow;and, ..Installone-an(j~one-halfgaUonlultra~lowfl\Jsh~QUets, 29.Ptlot to issuance.af the firstbllilding permit,the applicanl snail SLI bmit landscape ahdirrigatIan plans for the cornmonopen spacea.reas farihe revieW and appraVellof the Comm\Jnily Developrrllant Direptor.If the Community Development Director utiliz:esa landscapeco!1sultant to review the plansl the applicant shaH be respohslble ror all costs associated with said VieW.Said plans shall incorporate ,ata rninImum,the Tollowing Waler;.conservatioh rneasures: ..Extensive use of native plantrnaterials, ..LoW waler..dernal1d plants. •MinIm urn use of lawn.0(,whenused,insrallation ofWarm seaso.ngrasses. •Gtoupedplantsofsirnilat water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low watet demand plants. •Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to irnprovelhesQIVs waiet- holding capaqity~ ..Drip irrigaticm,.$011 mqisture sensQf$,ancl aQfqm;:ttic irrlg?tipn sYstems! •Use Qfreclaimedwastewaler,stQfe<:1 rainwater or grey water forirrigatiq!1. lhaddltion,tbe landscaping plan shaH incfllde thefoHowing: ..Apesticldernanagement plan {aconttol the introdOction of pesticides into site runoff.The pestlcidernanagernehf plan shall be approved by the Dire:ctorof Public Works. •l.-andscaping eli or near fheproposed driveway that dQes ootopstructa driVer's clear HneQfslte tolhesatlsfactioh of the Oity's PPOliC\NOfk;s Department' •Foliageftreesare of a tYpe ofspeciesthancGlnbemainfalnedSbas not to exceed the height of the litle iUusttafedand dep(ctedoh the photos in EXhibitS,to Resolution Nc>•.20t2~_..,wniqh are the highest visible roof ri(jgeUnes oithe development. Drainage 30.All drainl'ilgeswa1e:s aodany 9fheron4gtCldeclrainage:facilitles,.inclUding gl,.lnite .. shall be of ~nearth lone color approved by the.Community Development Director prior to building permit final oUhe last building. 31.Site surface drainage measures included in the proJect's geologyano soils report shall be implemented by the project developer duringprdject construction. Attachments 2-97 32.Subject to reView and approval by the City's Pl,IblipWprks Departrnentand BuHding and SafetyDiyision,prior .toissuance.of any grading permit;the project proponentshaU submit a stormwatermanagemeht plan which shows theon-site and off..sltesformwater conVeyancesysteni that Will peco.hstn.fpted by theptoject proponent for the purpose of safelycohVeyingstormwaterof(of the project site.. These drainage structuresshaU be.(lesigneclin·ac.pordaope with the most current standards and criteria of the Director of Public Worksahd Los Angeles County Department of PubJicWorks to ensure that default .drainage .capacity .is maintained.The plan shall also shoW whetherexisttng storrnwater facilities off the.site are adequate to convey storm flows. 33.In accordance With the Clean Water Act•.the developer shall coordinate with the R.e~ionaI Water Quality Control Boar?(RWQCBJ ..regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for the project The developer shall obtain this pefmif(ilndprQvide thfi}City-With prOQf of the p.fi}fmit before constrvctloh activities begin on the project site. 34.Appropriate Best MlinagemehtPraptlces (BMPs).inoilldingsandbags,shall be used to helpco!1trpl runoff from the project site during prqject construction activities. 35.In apcordancewith the eleahWalerAct.the project proponent shall·coprdinate with the RegIonal W(ilterQuality ContrQISoard (RVVQCB)oothe prepaf(iltionof a Storm water Pollution Prevehtlon Plan (SWPPP)fottheproposed ptojett. 3ft Prlorto Issuance ofahygradlng permit,theClt¥'s NPQE$consultantshaJI review and apprpve the projec;tt()ensuretha~the project will cOmply with aU applicable requirements for the control and treatment oferosionatld run..pffffomthe project site. Streets 37.Prlorto recordatiOh of the final tractmaPt the applicant shall posta bond or other securifyaccapfable to the Director·Qf Pl.lplic Works for any approved improvements within the public right,.,of~wayof CresttidgeRoac:L 38.Theconttactor shaUberesponsiblefor repairs to any neighbotingsfreefs in the CifyofRancho Palos Verdes (those streets to be detfi}rrnined by the Qirectorof Ppblic Works)""hlch may be damageddurin9qeyelQpmenfof the project.Prior to issuance of agtadingpermit,the developershaU posta bond,cashdepositor City approved security,In an amount determined by theDlrectof tif Publlc Wtitks to be sufficient to COVer the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant strucfuresf;ts(il result of this devfi}lppmen~"Said~~reetsshan be videotaped by Attachments 2-98 the applicant and submitted to th~l?gbHc Wotks Department on 00 prior to issuanceofa grading permit. 39.Prior to JssuanceofanyCertificateof Occupancy forthe project ,andsUbjeGt to review and approval by fne Direcfpr of Public Work$,the .Applicant shall b(i} responsible for instadling 1}a."STOP"sign and stop bar at the prQjecf driveway that Intersects with Crestridge Road,This featgreshall be shown on al1prQject planssubrniUed for building permitreview~(Mitigation Me.8sul"e T..4) Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public WorkS ano the Sherriff's Department,the text of said sign shall be woroed in such a WaY ~nd the location of said sign shall be placed in such a way that the sign will be enforceable by the SherriffsDepartment. 40.Landscaping,.walls or ot.her siteimprovem(i}nts at or nearth(i}·proposed projed driveway Shall not obstruct a driver'S clear litle ofsighti to the satisfaction of the Dlrectorof Public Works.(Mitigation MeasureT-4) 41.On~street parking shall be prohibited along the PfOP(i}rt;yfrontage within the identified sight Visibility lines as determined by the Public Works Director. (Mitigation MeasureT-4) SurveY Monul11ehfation 42.Prior to recordation of the Final Map.a.b<,md,cashdepos.it,or combination thereoTshallP(i}posted to cover costs toest~bHsh sllfveyroonurnen1ation tnan amount to be determihed by the City Engineer. 43.Within twenty-four (24)months from the date of filing the Final Map,the developershaUsefsurvey monumeJlt~:;and tie poInts and fqrrIish the tienqtesto the City Engineer. 44.All lot.cornerS ·Sh;3l1 be referenceOwith permanent survey markers in accordance wi.th the City's Municipal CodEl. 45.All corners Shall be referenced With permanent.suwey markers In accordance With the Subdivision Map Act StreetNames and UnitNum bering 46.Any street namesandfor unlfngmbering by th(i}developer must be aPproved by the City EngineeL Attachments 2-99 Grading 47.Prior to recordation of the final maportheoommencementof work,whichever OOCqfS first,a bond,cash deposit,otoombinatio!'l thereof,shall be posted to cOVer the oosts ofgr61dlng J061namounHo be determined py the City Engineer. 48.Permitted.hours and days for grading of thesite,lndudingsite preparation, import andexpo~,shaII be limited to the hours between 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Mondayfhrollgh Friday;with no such activities permitteq on Saturdays,SlIndaYs or on the legal holidays specified in Section1?.96.920 of the Ranoho Palos Verdes Municipal.Code Without a special .construction permit 49.Prior to issuance of agrfildlng>permit by aqUding;blnd Safety,theappliQanfshaH submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applIcant h<i$ obtained a general liability insurance polioyin afiamoUl1t not less than5miHion dollars per occurrence and in theaggregafe to coVer awatdsfor anydeath, injury,lossordamage,arising outo!the grading or oon.s-tructionof this project by the applicant.SaId ins.urance policy must be issued by an insurer with a minimum rallngofA-VII by Best's Insurance GUide.Said insura.nce snaUnotbe canceled or reduced during the grading orcOhstrucfiol1 work and snaIl be maintained in effecffofa minimum period 9f one(1)ye61r foUowingthe final inspection and approval of said work py the City,and without provid1l'lgat least thir'ty(30)days priorwriften notice to the City. 50.A-pproval of the .prpject$hgUgHq\Al 1;\1 folglpf 147.000 cubic yarq$of·earth 1110vement,consi$ting of 145,000 cybicyards of cpt and 21000 cLlbicyardsdr fill, of Which 143,OOOoLlOIc yards will be exported from thesitEt Any revisions that result in a substantial increase to the aforel11enfionedgradingquantiUesshaHbe reviewed and approved by theQityQpun¢i!asg·reyisiqn to fhegrading application. 51.The construction of three retaining walls shall be permiftedas pattofthe proposed prpject These include one,6-fopt highups{ope retaining wall behind each of the three strqqturesol'l the westside of the developmentlas illustrated on the approved plans.SObject tpreview and approval by the Community Development Ditector,al1dpfiot to Issua.nceofaby p.errnits,the Applicant shaH provide a landscape planand/orotherplaf1 showing hoW the retaining walls \Alill heaestheticanyscreened by .use Of lal'ldsQapingand wallm(3.terialsthat~re aesthetically pleasing, 52.A constructIon piahshall be submitted to the Oommunity Development Qirector prior tois$uance ofagrading permit..$aid plan shan Tnolude bqf not be limited to:limits of grading,estimated length of tirnefor rough grading apd Attachments 2-100 improvements,locatiQPof construction traiJer i locatIon anq type of temporary utilities,The use of rock crushers Shall be prohibited. 53,Prior to filing the Final Map,a gradi.ngplfi(1 shall be revieWed and Glpproved by the City Engineer and City Geologist..This gradIng planshaUinciudeadeta.ile<l engineering,geologyanci/orsoils engipeering report and shaU specifically be approved .by the project's .California Btate U~ensedgeologistandlor.soils engineer and show all recommendations submItted by them.tishall also be oe>nsistentwith the tel1tative map and oond itions ,as aPProved by tneClly. 54,Grading shall conform to Chapter 29,IIExcavations ,Foundations,ahd Retaining Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Gra.dingof the Uniform Building Code". 55.Prior to issuance ora grading permit,haul route $used to transport soil exported from the projectsiteshaU beapprQved by the Director of PUblic Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse hoise levels·from hautihgoperations.In reviewing the haul fouter the Publio\NotksQiteotQfShall takeintoaGcountandconsiderationth~$phool traffic aJongth~haul routes,and shall have the ability to rnodify the approved haul route.rnodlfy the hours of the gradihgoperation,andil11pose any ttaffic';conttol conditions ih theihtetestof public safety,if deemed necessary, 56,The foHovvirlQsh~lI.be implemented duringconstrqctioo VI')mihimIze emissions of NOxassociafed withdiesel"fuelledcohstroction equipment. a)All diesel QOh$ftUotlon equipment.shallmeet Int~tim TIer 4EI?,A.emission standards. bJ COnstruction contta~tors sh~lll11i~ll11ize.eqUipmentidnng ..time ..thtoug~out construction,Engines shall be turned off if.idling would be for more than five minutes,. 0)Equipment engines shall.Pe mj;lint?\ll1ed in good Gonditional1din proPer tune as per rnai)lJfacturers'$pe9jfic?~ions, d)The ·nurnberofpieces of eqttiprl1ertt operatingsirnultaoeouslysnallbe minimized. ~)Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueledcol1structipn equipment (such as compres$ec::l naturalmas,ljqyefi~q n2:ltuta!gas,or electric),when feasible; f)Theenglhesize.of constructiohetjulprnentsnaU be the minimum practioal size. h)He?\vY~Qutydlesel~povveredconstructioneqyiprneht l11antlfactur~d .after 1996 (with federally mandatedclaan diesel engines)shall bedtllized Wherever feasible, i)During thesm~gseason (May through October),thaconstructionpefiod should be lengthen~q .as permItted.by the Qity'sMLJflicip~IQod~soas to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.(Mitigation Measure AQ4(a}) Attachments 2-101 57.The foUowing shall bSimpiemel11edduril1gcohstruction to minimize fugitive dust smissiohS: a)All exposed,disfurbsd,•and graded areas Qnsiteshall be Watered three· times ($X)daily until completion of .projecfooQstruction to rninirnizethe entrainm€mtof exposed soil. b)Pre"gtadinglexoavatibnact/viUes shall include watering the area tb be graded or excavated befOreoomrtlentemen{afgtacllngotexcavating activities,Applicationpf water (preferably Teclaimed,ifavailtilble)should penetrate sl.Jfficientlylo mlnirnizeft!gitive dt!st duringgraqingactivities. c)Fugitive dust produced.during ..gtading,.exoavation,andcohsttuction activitiesshaU be controlled by the following activitiss: •Trucks ttanspor'tihgmaterialonandoi"ffhesiternusf be tarped from the point oforigin of must maintain atleast onafeet of freeboard . .,All gtadedand excavaled.matetial,exPosed soil areas,andactive portions of the oonstructions.ite.·InciudinguJ1paved Qn"'site road\tVays,shall be treated topreventfugifive dust..Treatment shall inolude)but not necessarily be Urrrited to,periodic watering, application of envi"'onmentally~safesollstabiHzationmate"'ials, afld/orron,.compactiona~appropria~e~WateringshaH be donfi)as often as necessary and reclaimed water shaH be used whenever possIble. d)GroUl1dcoyer must berepfaced In disturbedlZireas asquiQkJYa~possible. e)During peri(Jd~Qfhigh winds (Le".wihdspeedS4ffio]enttocausE.1 fugitive dust toaffeet a<:lja¢ent prope;rties),sUclearing,gradlng,earth moving,and exoavation operations shall becurtai.led to thedegreehacessaryto prevent fugitive dust from beinganannqyanca or hazard ,eitheroff..slteor on-site. f)Theeontractot must provideadsCjuate lbading/unloading areas.that .limit tracK..~utontoadjacentroadways through the utilizalionofWhae!Washing, rumble plates,oTanother method achieving the same ihtent g)Adjaeentstreets and roads Shall bE.1 swept at least once •Per day, preferably at the end of .the day,if visibleso1!material iscal"riedovet··to adjacent streets.and roads, h)Psrsonnelinvolvedingradingoperations.,inclUding contraotofsand sUbcontractors,shall wear respiratory protection iri accordance.with California Diyisionof OccupatianalSafetyand Health regul~tiom). i)All residential units Iooated Within 500 feet of thedonstrudtioh sitemustbe sent a notioo tegardl~g the cohsfrubtion schedule of the proposed prqject A sign legibleata distance of $0 feetmqst al$obe POsfedlna prominent and visible location at theconstn,Jctlon sIte,and m4!iit be maintained throughout the construction pfooess;AII notices and the signs must indicate the dates and durationo!.construcflon ·acfivities,as well as provide afelephol1e number where residents can inquire about the oonstruotIon process and register complaints, Attachments 2-102 1)Visible dust beyond the propertylineerngnating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. k)Signs shall be posted on ..site ·Illlliting cdnsfructiolt traffIC t(liS miles per hour or less. I)!Jllst control requirements shaH be shown on alJgrgdlngplans. rn)These control techniques rnLlst be indicated in proJect specifications. Compliance with the measuteshaU be subject to periodic site Inspections by the City.(Mitigation Measure AQ~1(b» Common Area Improvements and CC&Rs 58.The commUl'tity garden area at the northwest portion of the siteshalJ not b.e planted wUh a.ny type of trees,inclvding but npt lImited to cItrus trees,avocado trees,etc.The individual gardens in this area shall not be enclosed wlth.any fencing tallefthan42~inchesin height. 59.All common area landscaping throughput the developrnentsnallbe main~ained So not exceed the height of the llneillustratedand depleted on fhephofographs taken f'torn _and MistridgeOthie,and Seaside HeIghts Drive (Exhibit H,to Resolution No.2012..23). 60.TheyornrTIUnity ServIce Centersh$1l not be rehted to or used by Ron"tesidehts orndn"oWhetsofthe corrnnUtlity.A.dditIonally,the Center shall beClosedda.ilY by no laterthan 10pm.... 61.Th~entry toWer.sh~ll.~e limited to ..~maxirnumheight oft6~feet,as measured from adjacent finish gradato the highest point of fhesttUcture. 62.An improved put,)U¢ped~$tri?naPGeSS trail shanbs proviclecl through the comrrn.mity p.hd maintainedt,)y thedeveloperahd subsequent HOA.Specifically, the trail systemshallbepro\iided for thegeneralpubHc fhatconnects Ctesftidge Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the IndiallPeak Loop Ttaillooated on thE} City'S Reserve property to the north. 63.The pedestrlanaccess point at Iheantry tower shaJlnotcontaina gate or other simHarenClosurethat Would prevent the general public from enferihg,or feeling restricted ftomenterin9,the site to ?Gces§the traiIheads.at the reafof the property or the traUs located on the City's Reserveproperfy to the north.Further, public access shall notbe impeded·by any gate.,fence,or imptovementalong the entire length of the public traHeasement 64.The Pklblic trgUshall be limited to pedestrian lJseon1y;and shaH faciUtateand ensure public access through the communl~y to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north. Attachments 2-103 65.The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the City trails shaH be constructed using decomj:)osedgrahite or other material approved by the Community Development Director ahd maintained !:)ythe developer and subsequent HOA. 66.Directional signage shaH 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 slgnage design shaU be approved by·the Community DevelopmentDirec.tor prior to installation 67.Ahy temporaryorpermanenl ptojecisignageshall require the appr()val dfasign permIt by the CommUnity Development Dlreclor,<and shall be consistent with the provisiOns ofSecilon 17.76.050(E){2). 68.No parking shall beaUowed on the ihtetnalprivafe street 69.The internalptlvfllestreel shaH be maintained bylhe developefano sl.,lbsequent HOA. 70.A minImum of 31 guest parking spaCes shall be provided and maintaihed throQghouf the development Lighting: 71.All exterior.lighting shallbelh cornp!iacnce with the Standards of Section 17..56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes .Devel.oj:).ment Code. 72.Prior to auUOihg P~rmlt IssQ:€InQ~,theappnc:~ntshaHs\;.l~mjt ··.~fimill siteUghting plan,prepared by 8.lightlngcol1sult~.htl fortherevjew and approval of the Ciommunity.Development Director.The lighting plan snaIl include the .Iodatlon, height,.number of lights,foot.candles by area and,.estimates ()fma~lrnurn lUuminatlononsite with .no spilllgtareat .t118 property line.The .lighting .polpr temperature sDall be Hmit~d to l2l.range between 2,700 to 3,700 Kelvin for lights. The lighting.plan shall also demonstrate thataUlighting fixfuresofl the buildings and throughout the entire proJecfsiteare.designed and inslaUeoSoas to contain Iighlonthesubject property and not spill over or beolrected to\tVC:lr<.iadjac~nf Pf9pertieSQf public rights-of-way.The lightsoQrceon eaph fixfQre shall be shielCledsuCh that the Tight source is not visible from the pUblic rights-of-way or adjacent ptoperties. 73.Exferior HghtingfixtiJresin the landscapean~ashan be loW,downcastbp1l8rd., tYPe fixtures,not to exceed f()rtyAwo 42"inches in height and shall employ downcast and shielded lurnieres. Attachments 2-104 74.No one Ught nxture shall Elxceed1,200 watts,and the light source shall not be directed toward or result In directiHOmiMatioo of an adjacent parcel of property or propediesofhet than upon which such lIght source is physically located.All exterior Ughtingshall be arranged and shielded so as to prevenfdirect illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction ofdrivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way. 75.No outdoor lighting shflll be pernti1ied where the light source orfixtttre,if located on fl.buIlding is more than 7""feet above existing grade,adjaQentto the building, with the exception of ceIling ligh~s in theceillngs above exterior coveted balcohi.es. 76.f'riar to issuance of a Certificate ofOccupanQY IOfeaph PlJilding,the applicant shall reqVElst that the Director or his designee candLlct an il1sPectian ofthe site to ensure thflt there Is nO$pill-over of light onto adjacent propeftiesot cause a negatiVei.mpacr to adjacent properties orpubl.ic rlghts~of",way and thaf the lIght sourceS on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the !ightSouFceis not visible from the public righf$H)f~wflY or adjacent proper1je$.Upon determination by the Director that any insfalledUghtitlgcreates ahirnpact,the property owner shallrnodlfy said lighting to.the salisfactionof the Director. 17.AII~l<t~ripr lighting fixtures on the grounqs;pathw?:ysandcomm9D areas; including any street lights,shall not exceed Sfeetih height,as measured from adjacent grade. 19.All proposed lighting·.shall be shielded so that it isdown-casfand does not create any direetillumination impaGt$lo off-sit~pfopertie$. Street Names and Numbering 80.Any street name$and/or house numberingpy thed~veloper mLlst be approved by the City Engineer. Park,Open Space and Other Oedlcatlon$ 81.Priorlofinalttact map recordation,the applicahtshaU pay to the City a fee equal to the valueofparklalid In Heuof the dedieation ofsuehland tofheCifY,pttf$Uant to the provision of Section 16.2CL10QoftheB.ancho Palos Verde$Munidpal Gode. Attachments 2-105 82.A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedIcated to the CitYClnd recQrded on the Final Tract Map to connectCrestridge Road with the two existing traUslocatedon the Gitts .Reserve property to .the north.The trail ...portibhsaf the north of the development that are not associated with the traU network for project residents shall becoflstructed using decomposed granite or other maierialaPproYed by the Community Development Director. 83.ThecbrnrnLU1ity services bUIlding,Internal foadwayand public·frail shall all be co nstru cfed and cornp.leted to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director,prior to the building perrniff{nalforfheftrstcondorninium building. Affordable HoUsing 84.The applicant shaH construct three (3).',Jrlits affordable to households with verY low incomes.The three (3)affordable units shall pesimilar in eXterior appearahce,interiorappoifltments,conftguratlon and basic)amenities (such as storage space and outdoor Uvingareas)to the .mat.ket rate unitsinlhe proposed project.as demonstrated to thesatisfaGtionofthe Community Development Director prior to building pefmitfin~1 of theaffordai:)le units,Covenants and agreements required.by Chapter 17.,f10f theCliy's Municipal CiOdemUst be recorded against the three (3)affordable units,whiCh shall be specifiCally designateP,ooncurrently with the f)Zc9rd~tlon Of the fin91map ortMe lSslJanceof the certificate ofoccupanoy for the bUildIng,whichever occurs first. Geology 85.Prior to fheissuance ota buildIng ·perrnit by the City's Buildihg OffiCial,the apptlcantshal[obtain final.approvalof the 9.radinganQCom~tructiQnplansftom the City's geotechniCpl QonsultpnL.This revlewshall.inqlude anEilysis of any polentialimpacts .resultingfrorn Ih:.f?rmer.lanq~liqe conditional)the sybject property.The applicant shall be respansiblefor the preparatlort and submittal of all soH engineeringand/orgeologyrePorfs required by the CIty's geotechnical consultant in order to grantsuch fin~l approval. 86.All .geologic hazards .associated ..with this.proposed.developmeht.shall .be eliminated or the City Geologist shalLdeSignete a restricted Ltsearea in which the ereetionpf buIldings orotherstrQcturesstlaH be prOhiPited. 87.Prior to issuance ..of grading or building permifs,the developer shallsubm it a Geology and/or Soils Engineer's report on the expansive properties ofsoHs on aU buIldingsifes in the proposed subdivision.$uohsQils are defined by Building Code$ection 2904 (b). Attachments 2-106 8fL Ana$..builtgeologic~1 report shalf besu/:)rn1ttedfofstructu(es founded on b.edrock.An as-b.uilt solIs ~nclcom()action report shaH besu/:)rnitted for structures founded on fill as well as tor all engineered fill areas. 89.Compliance with the recommendations inclydeqin the previous geotechnical stQqies IJndertakenat the site shall be reql.lire;cl.These recommendations inclUde maintenance ofa uniform,near optfmurnt'noisture contentin the slope soils,and avoidance ofover..dryinQor excess Jrrlg~tton,which wiU reduce the.potenti~lfor softening and strength loss.In addition,slope maintenance sh~lI include the immediate Planting of the slope With approved,deep footed,lighfweight,drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care ofefoslon and dfainagecontrol deVices,and a contihuous rodent control program.Brow ditchesahdterraces shall be cleahedeachtall,before the raihyseason,andshall he freqUehtly inspected and oJe.aned,as necessary,after each rainstorrn ..Accessto Iheslopes, including .foot traffic outside.of designated .pedestrian footpathsJ ...should be minimized to avoid focal disturbance to surficial soils.The City of Rancho.Palos Verdes PublIc Works Departrnant shall reView~ndapproveall fihal planS-for slope malhtenahce prior tohs$u~nceof agrao[ng permit.(Mitlg(itiQn Measqfe G80-2(a» eo.The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existingcuf slope at theeastem bound~ry of the site shall be designed as a bpried retaJning wall·to 'Support the Pfojectand underlying adverse geolpglc structL/re.Thesystern require~Ci:l design alid depthofembedrhent that woUld safeguard onsite 1m provemel1tsin the event theoffsite slope.failed.(Mitlgatiotr MeasureGEO-Z(b)) 91.An;,as ..gradedgeotechnfcal report sh;atl be prepared by the prqject geotechniyal consultant foUowfhgcompletioh.ofgradihg.The.report shaUinclUde the results of ·in-grading density fests,anda.mapclearly depictinQ buttress fill keyway locations and depths,.remoyalarea looatioosand depfhslsuPcdrainagesYslem locations and depthsanq geofogigaicondItlons exposedguringgradin9,(Mitigation Measure <360..2(0» 92.If required by the finaigeotechnlcal report,as reviewecland.~pprovec!bY the City Geologist,theappUcantshaUinst(iU Perrn~nent inclinometer stptiqnsat the site to allow the l1orthernslope to be rhonitoredfor possible mov~ment follOWing implemehtationof the project ThenlJrhberand location of the inclinometer stations shall be determined by the City Geologls{..The applicant shalf sUbmit .a regordo!Inolinometer readIngs along With ·Pf1Y Tecomme:ndation§frqm a geoteohnioal engineer to the Gity every six montbs during thelifetimebf the projector until the Gity Geb!ogist agte.es that semi-annual readings are no lo.nger hecessary.Inaddltiotl..readings and geotechnlcaltecommendatiof1s$hall be submitted to the City following a he.~vy rainfall month (>2 timesavenagemonthly rainfall)or following a magnitude!5.porgre~terseismJcevent within 20 mHesof the project site.If the geotechnical engineer determines thatsuffibient movement Attachments 2-107 hastak~fl place that warraotsfurther correc:tiveorpreVenfativeactioD,the project applicant shall oe re~poDslble for allexpE3nses ;::j;ssociated with the costs of implementing any remedIation recommended oy thegeotechnic;alengineer to ensure that the slope remains stable.Further monitoring by inbUnometersrnaybe reqUired,if recommended by·the geotechnical ettgitteerol"requited by ·the Glty; (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(d}) 93.Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or BundIng Permit,the projeclapplicant shalL comply with all recommendations contaihedwithin the Geology and Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants (2003) inclucUng: •FoUowinggrading,theexpaosionpo{enfial ofthe exposed Sopgn.'ideshaJl be tested.The design af foundliltlcmsjiindslabsshallconsider the high eXpansion potential,FoHawingcompletion of grading and untH slabs and footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrocktnafel"ials shall .be Periodically wettedio prf;lvenf thert!from tiryingout.Pre-saturation [satao rec.omm~nded,(Mitigation Measure GEQ-~(a») 94.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive solis coUldincluae Ot1e<Jr mor~of th~folloWing techniqu6S,(1S determined by a qualified geotechnicaJ engineer and approved by the City <3eQlogist: •ExcavatioDofeXlsfing soils and ilTlPprtatiofl ofnpn-6xp.ans ivesol!$.AU impotledfill .sh~ll.be festedahd ..oettifieo ..bY afegistereej GeotechnIcal Engineer and certJfied for useasa.suitabl.e flU materiaf;and .On-sitefoUodatiohSshall be designed tQaccornmodate cenainamoutttsof differenUalexp.ans.ion in accordaf1f.1ewith(3hapter t~,.()htlsioo III of the USC.(Mitigation MeasureGEO-p(p)) Utilities 95.Prior to building permIt iSSUance,the applicant shall provide eVidence.of confirmafibtlfrom.the applicable .serviceprovidersthatproVidfjwafer,Wastewater treatment andsoUd waste disposal,that current water supplIes are adequate to serve the proPosed project. 96.Prior to buUdihgpermit issuance,the applicant shall ensure thatconstrlfction plans and specifications for the project InclUdes the following Interior wafer- conservation measures forihe folloWing plumbing deyicesandappHa.nces: Reduce water pressure t9 50 pounds persqujiireInch or less]:>y means of a ptessure-redycing val~e;Im~tall watet--conserving clothes Washers;Install water- conservln~dishwashersand/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow; and,install one-and"one-halfgaUon,ultra-lowflushtoUets, Attachments 2-108 97,AIl\Jtilitie$i to and pn the property ~hall be provided underground,includingqaple television,telephone l electricaCgas and water.All necessary permits shaH be obtained for their installatforL Cable teleVision shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer's expense, Biology: 98.Site disturbancS,ihCI\Jding brush clearance,shall .bepr;ohibited during the general avian nesting sea$ion (Febrl.!ary.1 -A\Jgusf30),if feasiple.If breeding season avoidance is oot feasible,aquaHfied biologist shall condueta preconstrucfion nesting bird survey to deterrr'tinethepresehcelabsenee,location, andstatu$of any active nests on ..ot adjacent fotheptojectsite.'The surveYs shaUbeconducted bya quaIified biologist approved by the Cpmmunity OevelQPrnenf Department,The extent pf the swvey bUfferare;;l surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist toenslirethat direct and indlrecteffects to nesting birds are avoided.To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect·the reprodUQtNe sUcce$$ofblrds protected!?y MarA,$nd th~Fishanq.GameCo(I~of California,n~stirtg bird surv~ysshaH be performed twice per week during .•the three weeks prior to thescneduled ve~etation clearance.In theevel"lt that active nests ate disoovef€ldla suitable buffer (e.g, 30-50 feet forpgsserlnes)shO.IJldpE1 established aro\Jnci such active n~sts.N9 groum:1disturbingactivities shall 9ccur within this buffer liotH theCity-appro\l~cJ biolqgisf has confirmed that.breedlhglhestirl~is cdmpletedand the young haVe fledgedlhe hest.(Mitigation Measure 1310..3) 99,The following measuresshaJl peemploy~das pt:itrfof construGtipf1 rnonltoringfor thesile: G Contractors shaH be educated regatdingtheo'ff-site Reserve and the need to keep equipmel"llal"ld personnel .vvithinthe project site prior to the initiation ofconstruction. G 'TE1mporary consln:,1ct!<)n f~nQing shall be placE1d pl the planned limits pf disturpance a<iJacent.to the Reserve +(Mitigafipo MeasqreBIO-4(a)} 100.Nosp€lcieslist€ld •.in the .Oal-I PC Invasive Plant .Inventory (200~)or identified·~s potenti.aUy invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Pglos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan (2004)willpeutilized in the Il:;inosoaping plan for the~ite.$pecres listed in the Subarea Plan includeeverploomingacacia (Aoacia longifolia}, $ydneygolden wattle (Acaciacyclof!Js).PerlMan pepper tree (Schlnus molle), E3razilia.n p~pper tree (SohJnus ter()b-(()othifdJ/a),blacklopust(Robinia f1$$udo- aoapiif!},rnyoporum (Myoporum faf;JturrJ),ggm tree (Euoalyptus spp;},and.pines (Plnusspp.).In addition,to the extent fea$iple the .proposed .projeotSihaU incorporate native habitat elements into the.landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trailSt scenic ovetlooks1and community gardel1s1n the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior HQusing deveJqpment proJE1Gt Native habitat Attachments 2-109 elements Include using !ooaHysouto$d nativesnruoS$uchas toyon,California sagebrush,coastal bluff buokwheat.na,tiyegrass$s,anq native Perennial Torps as part ofthe planting palette.(MitlgatiQn!\t1e<:iSure BID.,4(b)) 1 01.GradIng and building.planssubtnltted for theptoposedpr()jecf for.Cit~reYieWand approval shall.Identify areas for construotionstaging,fuelinQlandsfockpliing, These areaS shall be located.as tar as practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve,cand not closer than 70 teet from the Preserve bounqary.(Mlligation Measure 810.,4(c}) 102.Cutlfill.slopes notsubje.ctfo fuel modification and adjacent to theOity's Reserve property Shall be re,.vegetated withappropriale native speoiesapPl"oved.by the P;YPLC, 103.Avoid sidecastlng of matetiaJsduring road andufUltyponstructionand maintenance. 104.Construction adjacent to.dtainageshall ocCur during periods ofrninimurnfioW (Le.~summer through thefirstsi9oificant.rain of fan)to avoid ..excessive Sedimentation and erosion andtoavoldimpaot$todrail1age,-dependent species. Cultural ResourceS 105.Ifculturat resources ~reencounter~d dutlnggradihgor constructi()n,the construction .manager ...shall ensure.that all .~rouhd.disturbance.a.ctivjliesare stopped,andshaUnotify the City Bwl/ding an<fSafetyOepartmentimme(.Jlately tp arrange for a qualified archaeologIst toa.SSess theflattlre,exfenljanq P9tel1tlal significanceofanycultvral resources.IfsucntesourbeS are determined to be significant,appropriate actions to.mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in consultation With ·.a·qualifieclarc.naeologist,t>ependil1g tlPonthe nature of the find,sl,Ich mltigationrnayinC1uq!'a aypk:!t;lnCei documentation;or other appropriate actions to be·detertrl ined by a qualified .archaeologist.The archeologist shall complete a report or excavationsandfindil)gs,andshall the report to the South Central.Coastal Information Center,After the find is appropriately mitigatecl,work in the area may resume.(l'y1itig~,tionMeasurei CR,. 1) 106..Prior to the cOO'1O'1e hdement of grading,fhe ap.~licant shalf retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to Olonitorgradingandexcavation. Monitoring onsile.shallooour whenevergracling activities are QccurrioQ. Additional monitorsinaqdition to onefuH-tirfie monitor may.berequired to provide adequate coverage if earth-moving activities ate occurring simultaneously;Any Gultural resources discovered by construction P19fsonne1or subcontr;:lctorsshall be reported immediately to the paleontologist In the .event undE;teGt~dburied Attachments 2-110 resourcesareencounteted during gtading?lnd exc?iy?fion,work shall be halted or diverted from iheare?and the paleontelogtst shall evaluate the resource and propose appropriate mitigation.measures.Measures may include testing,.data recovery,reburial,archival reviewandtor transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institvtion.All tesfing,dafa recovery,reburial,archival reyiewor transfer to research institutions related to mODitoting discoverie.s shall be determined by the qualineQ palEilontologjst and shaH be reported to the City. (Mitigation MeasUre CR-2) Noise 107.Theapplibantshall provide,to the satisfacfien of the Community Development Director,a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requir6sallofthe following: •Construction contracts that specify that aJl construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properlyoperatihgandmainfalhed mUfflers and other state requIred noiseatfenuation devioes. •That propertyownersandoccupanfslooated within 0.25 miles of the proJept site shall l;>ese.nta notice bythedeveloperjatleast 15 QEiYs prior to ..•cqn1mencernent ...of ..constructi?J19feach phase,.regatding the construction schedule of the project All notlcesshaH be r'evieweaand approved by the Community D(;!velopment Director ptiorto the mailin~or posting ana shall indicate the oatesanq dqration of construction activities, as welt as provide acont?ipt narne lllnd telephone .numfuer Where residents can inquire about theconsttucfion ptocessantftegister oomplaints. •T.hat.P.·.f.iO.f.·.t.o is.·.s.·.uan..·ce ..·.o..·.f .a.·..o.·•.y.•.•....<3....T.a.·.d.ih9.o.······r....8U.II.O.•..i.h.9.··.··P.e.·.T.m.•·....·.i.t,·tl1.8.•··•.•.,...A.p...pl.tba.•ht shall demonstrate to the satisfactipn of the CltY'sSuilding Qffiplal trow Qonstructionnolse reduction rnetl1odss!Jch as shutling Off idling eqViprnent and vehicles,installing temporary acoustic batriersaround stational'ycdnstrubtiol'lnolsesourbes,ma><!mizing thedistarlce between consttuctionequipment staging and parking areas ...and occupied resldentia.1 areas,and electric aircompre.$sorsandsimi)ar power tools, ratberfh?ndieselequipment.sha:!1 be>used where feasIble. •That during construction,statiqnary COl1struction equiprne!1tshlllll be Placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitiVe noise receiVers.(Mitigation Measure N"'l(a») 108.Duringdemoli{ion,constructionand/or grading q@erations,trucks and oth€lr construction vehicles shaIl not P9fklqueue and/of idle>~ttheprojectsite or in the adjoining public rights-of"way prior to thegradingandcoflstruction hours specified In oonditionnos.10and48.,abov~.(Mitigation Measure N..t(b)) Attachments 2-111 109.The oonstructioncontractorshaU provide slagingareas ensite to minimize pff:.site transportation of heavy construction equipment.Theseareats shan be located to maximize the distance betweenactlvity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residehcesandinstitutibnal uses).This would reduce noIse levels t;lssbciated withmt>st types bf idling COf,stroction equIpment (MitigatlonMeasure N-1 (0» 11C}.Ail diesel equipment shall be operated withqlosed engine doors andshaU be equipped with 'factory reoommended ·mufflel"s,(Mitigation Measure N-1 (d» 111.Electrical powershaU be used to J"unaircompresst>rsand simi!(:w power tools and to power any temporary structlJreslslJchas construction trailers or caretaker facilities,(Mitigation Measure N~l{e}) 112.Excavation and conditioning activities shall be restricted to between the hou($.of 8:15 AManQ 4:15 PM,Monday ft1r'ough Ftldqy and located tomaxirnlz€l the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses).(Mitigatlbn Measure N~t{f)) 113..For qll noise-generating constructIon actiVity on the prQltlc:fSife,additionq!noise attenu;ltion techniques shaH be employed to redUCe noise levels tolhe m;axitnum extent feasible.Such techniques may include,but are not Ilmlted to,the US60T sound blankets on noiSe generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between constructi.on sites and nearbYsensifive receptors. (MittgatlonMeasLJreN-t(g)) Develogment Standards 114.Unless specific development standards for the development of the property are cotltainedln these conditions of approval,the development of the lot$sha1l oomplywllh the r'equ!rements of Title 17 of the City'S Municipal Code. 115.Prior to submittal of plans to the BuUc:Hng 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 hlp rot>fshall beaddad to the East end of the buildIng so thatrnostof the building is beiow1.6 iSelin heighHn Qrder to reduce tOPT mass aithe East enaOT the bUikling. Building containing unit$191 20,21 ~22;Hip rooTS shan be added to both West and East bUilding ends;the roof pltchshaU be changed fromS:12.to 1~3f4:12; and the plate heights of the units shall be redUCed by1foot.from 10 feet to 9 feet in order to reduce the overal.1 building heIght byS feet and reduce the roof mass Attachments 2-112 at both ehOS of the building.Maximutnbverall building heightshaJI be limited to 24-feet. BuildingcQi1tainingunits45and 46:A hip roofshall 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 th~units shaH be reduced bY1foof,from 1Q feet t!'::JQ feet in ord~r to reduce the overaHbuilding height by 3 feet and re(1uce the roof rnass.at the East enoof building.Maximum overall builcHhg heightshaU be limited to 24.. feet. 116.All buildings shall maintain minimum setbacks of at le.asttvventy..flVefe£:)t (25'*0") front ano street side setbacks,and twemy (20'-0")side ahd rearsetbacks. 117.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum20..percel1t standard set forth in the DevelopmentCod~. 118.The private driveway andparklt1g areasshaU meet Fire .~epartment standards, including any palhting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existenceasa Fire Lane and h..lm..arounds. 119.Prior to ...building permit issuance,the building elevations shall be.revIsed ..to provide~rchjtectural trim and detaiHngon .any blank.2..sfory fa¢ades of thefaaing Wings of the building..... 120.vviththeexceptloh~f the bUildingsid~nfifiedIn conditioh no.t16800Ve,the rnaximumbuildlng heights shall be limited to the tidgeline etevatlQns identjfiedin the plan.approved.by the City Cpu neil 00 ..,2013.BWILIJINGHEI(3HT CER.TIFIQATION REqUIRED fore~chb4ildingf priQf to roof sheathll'lg inspection. 121.TheaPPtoVed project shall.consisf ofs,ixty (p())~~bedroom congominitJmunits, age restricted to 55 years and older. 122.The approvedprojecfshaH provide and maintaih a2catenclosedgarageifor each lJhit.Further,a minimum of 31off..street guest Parkingspac€lsshal.1 be prOVided and m:::iintained. 123.Chimneys,Vents and other simnarfeatot~sshanbe no higher thah thernil1lrnum requitemenfsof the Uniform .8uUdingCode, 124.ThefqHowing attached unit development standards fromOhapter 17~06 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code shaH apply foalrunifsJn the building: a.No plun1bit1S .fIxture or .othersuch perm:::ineOtdevicewhich genliPrates noise or vipration shall be attc:!che.q foc:!common \iVall adjacent to a living Attachments 2-113 room,famlly roorn,oining room,d~n or bedroom of an adjoining unit.All plumbing fixtlJres or similardieviQes shall be located on exterior walls,on interior walls within the unit or on common walls,if adjacent toa similar fixture or deVice. b.AU walersupplylInes.Withlncomrnon walls and/of floors!ceilingsshall be ISQI·ated from Wood or ffif:ilal framing with pipf3is.oJators$pepific@Hy manufactured for that purpos$i.:lndapproved by the cIty's bulldlngofficial. In.multistory.resldenfialstructures,all vertical drainage.pipes shall be surrounded by three~quarter~jnch thickdenS6 insulation board or full thick fiberglass or wobl blanket insulstion for their entire leogth,~xGludingthe sections that pass through wood or matsl foaming.Th~bLInding official rnayapproveolher mefhodssf isolafingsoundtransmissibn through plumbing JInes wherelheir effectiveness can be derrttmstratecL c.AU common wailassernblies Which separateattaGhed sin91e..famHyunits shaH be of a cavity-type cc>ostrLIctioO: d.AII common wall assemblies whIch sep@rateallother attached dwelling units (multiple"farrtJly condominiums,stock cooperatiVes,camrnunity apartment hOLlses)or a dwelllnQl.Ihit and .j;i PUbUQQf (tUj;isi~pubHG$pace shall be ofa staggereq~studpons.trL\ction, e,All common w~lIassembUeswhich separate dwelling units from each other or from .pUblic or (tuasi-\JubUcspaces (interiorcotridors,laundry rooms,tecreationroomsand garages}shaH be.ponstNcted with a minimum rating offifty...f!ve STQ(squ110 tr?lnsmi§si911 pl?lss). f.AU common floor/ceiling @ssembHes whiCh separate dwelling units from each other or frompubticor quasl..pubHc spaces {intetiorcorridors\laund~y tooms,recreation rooms and garage;s)sha:ll beConstnlcted wIth a minimum rating of fjfty STC (soum:itra nismissiol'1 class)and a minimum ratIng of fifty-five He (lmpapt insulation class),Floor-coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the reqlJired ratings,but must be retained as a Permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced by another·insulation , g.STCand lIc ratings shall be based on the resurtal laboratory measurements and will not be SUbjected to field testing.TheSTC rating shall be based on the:Amel"lcal'1,soQietyrorTesting and Mattlrialss}'stem specified in ASTM number 90"p6f Of equlvalenf.The 110 ratin9$haH be baseq on ~hesysteminqseattheNa~ionaJBureau of$tanqardsor equival!nL Ratings obtained from other testingprocedureswIU ..require adjustment to the above ratingsystent$..In documenting walland f1oor/ceilinQ compliance with the requited sound ratings,the applicant ShaH eIth.erfurnish tnacity's DuifdingoffiGilill with data based upon tests perforrned bya recognIzed and approved testing laboratorYforfurnishthe building official with verified manufacturer's data on the ratings of the various wall and floor/ceHinga.ssembliesutilJzed, Attachments 2-114 125.Fenc$sand walls located within the 25-foot fion~yard setback areashaJI not exceed rorty*twolnches {4Z'I}in height,wRIT the $xceptloncf theintersecUon visibility trif;lngleli:lt the driveway ·and .Orestriqge R.oeq.,Wh~reby the height of any fences or W~US shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department.Noperimeterfahcirt@ isappr6ved With theseel"ltiUements;howevar, any future request to lhstall petimeter fencing shall be subject to revlew and approval by the Community DevelopmentOifeotor prior to installation of any perimeter fencing. 126.With the exception of solar .panels,roof~mounted mechanical equipment is not permitted.Mechanicaiaquipmenf may encroach upon the rear-and side-yard s~tbackareas>provided that such equipment (1pes not generate noise leveleih eil¢ces$of65dBA at tneproperty Hne. Attachments 2-115 Q) >.- co M ...,N;.eN ~rlx a UJN co '':; ::J o Vl OJa:: U 0.: Attachments 2-116 Q) >'Co Q) en "'C 'C +-'en.- ~ co M ....N :.eN.-rl~o~N Co .~ ~ o V'l Q) C': U Q.. Attachments 2-117 Q.) >.-L..o Q.) C') "'C.-L.. +-'en.- ~ Attachments 2-118 en +-'..c 0) "-Q) I Q) "0 "en co Q) C/) I COM .....C";J :EN.-rl.s::.oXN UJ c: o .~ ~ "0 VI Q) ~ ~ 0.. Attachments 2-119 Attachments 2-120 Crr'(OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJEOT: CHAIRMAN &.MEMBER$OF ~...•.....t.....A.••.•.N....N..1NG COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEV1~ttl~TDIRECTOR DECEMBER 11,2012 CRESTR1DGE SENIOR CONiJOMIN1UM HOUSING PROJECT (ZON2Q12..o0067&SUB20t2...QOO(1)15601.~$tridge Road Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn~AICP,Senior Plann RECOMMENDATION 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 Z()N2?t2.. 00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge St3nior Condominium Housing Project. BACKGROUND On November 13,2012,the Planning Comrnission considered a Final EIR and the associated entitlements for the proposed Crestridgfi1 Senior Condominium Housing Project.At the meeting,the Phmning Commission opened the public hearing,tooK testimony from the applicant and the pUbHc f 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 Plt;tnning Commission Minutes for November 13,2012 ~a separate item on tonightts Agenda).In summary,the Planning Commission direoted the applicant to make adjustments to the entry tower,provideaeonstructiort timeUne,and clarify the phasing/parcelization of the proposed subdivision.In addition,the Commission directed Staff to.include addltional.conditiol1s0f approval regatdinglightlng,trails and updating the height Une on the photo simulations,The public hearing on the project was continued to the December 11,2012 Planning Commissi<m meeting to allow further discussion of these issues. Attachments 2-121 Platlrring~()mmh:n~;ion Memorandum Crestrir;tgeSenlor Condominium Housing Project December 11 ,2012 DISCUSSION As indjcatedabove,the Planning Commission Gontinuedthe item In order for the appHcantand Stafftoaddres$several issuesraised bythe Planning CommissIon.Staff has categorized the issues below with a discussion as to how the issues have been addressed .. TRAILS; ThePlahnInQJ COn1rt1issIondirecfed Staff to ihcorporaleaCdnditioh that designates the public trail through .thesite to be a pedestrian-only traJl,consistent.with the Gity1s Conceptual Trails Plan.Staff has added conditionno.fi>4 to note thalihe traU is for pedestrian use only..Further,Sta~conducted a site Visit to establish Where the future public fraU On the subject property shall connect to the trails on the City's Reserve property to the north.Specifi<>ally,·connection to the Vista del Norte Trail win be at the northweslt3fn portion of the SUbject properfY,arv.:f will P!3 aCC!3s sed via.a.decomposed granite trail through the cornrnunltygarden .area.Gonnecl!pn to the Indian Peak Loop Trail·wiU be althe northeastern •portion of the subject property,and will beaccass.ed v.ia the atea of the project's outdoor recreational area.[)irectjotla!signage WiHguidethe genefli;tl pupIic throygh the sIJbjeQt propedY*Trom CrestddgeROE\qto the two trails on the City's Reserve property to the north.Staff hasaddegcondltion nos,62thfU 66 to aqdress the traUsand signage issue. ENTRY MONUMENTITOWER: Tbe Planning Commission expressed concern withine he[gbtofthe proposed entry toWer adjacentto the vehicUlar entry driveway.As a result,the tower element has been re~desjgned and loweredfrom25~feetto 164ee1.The lower entry elemenfprovidesfor more ola pedestrlan-sQ:alliadelliamkmL Th!3applicant hasslJPrnitt.ed plans (attached)·thf;lt iUustrate tht3 re--designed entry feature,and$tqff has added condition no..fi>1 to limil the height oftheehtry feature to a maximUm·height of ie-feet liGHTING: The Planning Gomtrtissione)(pressed concern with the potentlalexterior lighting impacts of theprqject,a~ddirected Staff to incorporate additional UghtingcbliditIons;.InclUdihg conditions regardingcolorfemperatuTeand li~htsources.Staff.hasproposed conditions 71 thrlJ 80,which.include regulations on lig.ht shielding andcolortemperafure.Further, the applicanf has consulted witb a Ijghtingconsult?ntwbo has indicated.(see attached email)that a colQr temperature befween3,OOOalid 4,500 Kelvfnis a standard range.that can be incorporated into sUCh a development,and propdsedconditIonlib.72 addresses this issue.. Attachments 2-122 Planning Commi$$ionlVf$mora ndum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Projept December 11 1 20t2 Staff has also addeda.condition (no.76)that reqUiteS Staff itlspeetjonof .the site to ensure that there is no spill-over of lighfonfoaqjacent property prior to pulltling permit final for each building.In this manner,jf there are any impacts,th~developer woulq be directed to correct such impaots prior to oocqpancy qfthe buildings. PERIODIC REVIE.WS: The Planning Commission directed Staff to include Oontlitlons r~gan:;iing review of th.e effectiveness of the exterior lighting co nq ilions ,as well as a1.:year review of the operational aspects of the entire devel.opmeilt.Staff ha.sitlcludetlcontlition no.16 to provide for review by the Community Development OirecIofofthe lightin~prior to bLlilding permit final and oQcupanc:y thee.ach ·oLiildingasOPPPsfi3d to 90,.days aftfi3r permit final as otigiqaHy proposed,Further,condition no.8 has been ihcluded to provide for a i--year review by the Planning COtl1li1issibhbf the operational aspects of the deveiopmEH1t The review will be conducted 1 year after acertificateofoccLJPancyis issueqfor the last building. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: The Planhln~Cotnmi$sion raised a ~ohcem regarding the original proPosal to subdiVide the SUbject property Into 9 distinctlotsto )aqcommod~tethe dfi3velopment.Thea;pplicant has modifieq the Tentative Tract Mapio provide for 60cpndqminium f 'air parce!$l' distributed among one common lot DRAFT·C0&Rs; The.applicant has r;>tovided 8sarnple of the language itlclLided in theirCC&Rs regarding landscape.maintenance,Which theY have used in their other developments (aftached). It is important to note that condition no·14 requir;es that theCC&,R$be reviewed and approvedoy the City Attorney prior toaPPfovalof the:Final Map.The CC&Rs will be required toitlclqde the pertinehtcond1tibhS of aPproval associateq with the development,including language regardlhglandscaping maintenance. CONSTRUCTION••TIMELINE/PHASIN($': The Planning Commission requested additional Ihformafibn regarding construction timing and phasing of the proposed development The applicant has tf'ldicatedthat COO$tructloo of th~enUre project will Qccur bvera period of up to aOmonths(2 112 years).TheappHcant speculc:ltes that·th~grading QP~rations (yvhichincltldes rough grading,export,precise and finalgrqt!Ing)could take upIQ8 months,While consfruq.tiof1 of all buildings could take up to 22.rhonths,Althou~h the ecohomy coufdaffect the ultimate bUild out of the project,Staff believesthata:30month constructiontimellne for project buHd-outJsa reaspnableamount oftime. Attachments 2-123 Planning Comrnis$ionM~rnprandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Dcacember11,2012 Although it is in the applicant's interest to construct the amenities oNhe development as aselllngfeatufe of the project,the City mustalsoenswre that theirnprovementsare constructed and that the City's infrastructure is protectecl.Afi?such,Staff has incorporated a condition (no.84)reqUiri.ng that the community serV\cesbulldiMg,..infernal roadway and public trail aU be constructed and completed prior to bUilding permit final for the first condominium building,Further,Public Works$taffhasalsQ included conditions that require the posting ofapPfQpriate bond$-for work in thepqbHc rlght~of~ way,installation of water systems,and sewer system connections,which are requireq either prior to permit issuance or permit final,depending on the reqUirement. PHOTOS ILLUSTRATING LANDSOAPE HEIGHT: During the November 13th Planning Gommissionmeeting,Staff explained its proposed method for limiting the heightof landsc~pin!;J on the subject property by requiring that aU landscaping not exceed the height of the linedepiotedon phqtographs taken PvStaff from the residencesa,t and _rVlistridge Drive..Tnel.ine follows the highest visible roof ridgelines ofthebullcUngs~ttherear ofthe development,which ate also the.highest structures on th~site.The Intent was to restrictfoliage ftorn growIng higher than these structures,wnHeproviding some flexibility in the.foliage type and aHowing the foliage inlne foreground (Le'1 the foliage olo$er to CrestridgeR.oad)fqgrow tE:lllec.but notto the poinHhatwot.i1cl be higherthan th13 Une>dep.ictedin the pbqto9fa.ph~, T~e Planning Comrnjssion~ireoted Staff to close all the gaps ofr .•the.lines in the photographs.Staff has updated the pnotographsaccordingJy (seeattacned)lsnd the condition is lisledas condition tlos.9and59foaGoount for both private Jandscapinga,nd cpmmonarelii landsG9ping. April Steiger,a resident tremalong MisttldgeDri've expressed ..cQl1cerriwith the conditions presented in the Novernber 13th staff Reportl In that it does not provide specific heights fQr foliage.ASlii resullofdi$cu$sions·with Ms.Steiger,$talff h~sCQme upwiththelangvagecontained inconditipl'l nOS,Hand 59.It IS important to note that the conditions .restr1ct the heighfof.landscaping,yet.provides flexibiUtyfor the landscaping planted throughout the development,whiCh is reinforced by condition no, 29 that requires foliage/trees to beofa type of species than can be malntainl$d so as not to exceed the.heIght of the line. As .ihdicatedin Ms.Steiger's email (seeattac~ed),shebeHevesthatconditionno.9 can be further edited to include langua~e that is inclusive.of more resident$than just the 3 residences identified in the condition.FlJrthecshe beHeves that the "line".must be cfefinect 9taff believes the 3 residences pro¥ldl3:?lh aqequate$-arnple of the residences along.Misttidge Drive..Although ..Ms..Steiger dIsagrees,Staff.beHeves that condition nos.9,29 andS9,aswritten in the attached PC Resolution a,chievesthe intent of Ms, Steiger'$-request by ensuring that landscaping does not grow above the height qfthe developrnentand impairs views of the LA basIn from the resiqencesalong·Mistrldge Attachments 2-124 Platu,ing Commi$$jorl M_mQrandum Crf1stridg~·SeniQrCondominium Housing Project December·1t,2012 Drive,Fufthemorer,the conditionallowslaru)sCaplng In the foreground to grow higher than the .sttuctures closer to Creslridge Road;however1 it continues to ensure that landscaping does not ultimately project iota the view!which Is what Staff is intendJng to protect with said condition> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION After the Npvember 13fhPlanning CommiS$fOn,Staffn~ceivedanemail from the representatives of the adjacent Congregation Ner Tamld,expressingconcems that the proposed project Would create prlvacy Impacts to their playground area,The proposed community garden component of fhe project abuts the Congregation's property at the locafipn of their playground;as such,the representatives have requested thaf an 8,.foot high fence becoflstructed 10 ensure priva.cy fpr the pll:,1yground area;Sta.ff has walked thes·ite of tl1eproposedc.ommunity gard~nandpf;!lj!i:!vestha.lalthough there is some Visibility towards theschao!buiJdlng y there is sufficIent llandscapingand fencing on the Congregatioo'sproperty that obstructs dIrect VIsibility to the schooL The proposed project does not intf;!nd to remove said fencing or landscaping,aSI!is not on the sut>jept property_Further,$t~ff does not believe that this oorpponent of.the pnoject will inten$ify what is l:,1lready viSible ol1the Congtegation'sprqperty,As SUChy Staff Qoes not beHeve that conditioning the project to install a ptivacyfence ls.watranted. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the issues raised by the Planning CommissIon during the November 13th meeting have been addressed and conditlonedapptopriately,As such,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC~esolution N().2012~;,....,.., recommending that the City Council certlfythe Environmental ImpactReport;and,adopt PC Resolution No.201.2.._.,recommending.ihat the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos.SU82012..00001 .and ZON2012..00061 for subdivision and development of theCrestridg$SaniorCondominium HousinfJProjeC(, ATTACHMENTS •PC ReSOlution 1'40..2012,._·.1 recommending that the Clily Council certify the EfR for the Cresttidge Senior Condomin.ium Project ..PC Resolution No,201Z-:._,recommending that theCiiy Council approve the entitlements associated With the CrestridgeSenior Condominium Project •Correspondence from April Steiger ..Correspondence from Congregation.Ner lamia ..CC&R sample language (submitted by the applicant) •Information from theapplicanfs Lighting Consultant •Updated Tentative Map,site plan,landscape cross sections,conceptUal drawings·of the entry tower Attachments 2-125 PLANNINGCOMM1SSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE DECEMBER 11'fH MEETlNG Attachments 2-126 CONTINUED BUSINESS 2.Conditional US$P~rrnit{Ca$~No$.·ZQN2012~QQ061 t30d SUBZ0124JOi,1011: 5601 Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonborn 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 Commisslon'sconcemshad been addressed by both the applicantandhystaff,which included the issue of the entry tower,the construc.tiontimeline and phasing,the parcelizationofthe Tentative Tract Map; conditions ofapproval regarding the trails attlie istte,conditions regarding the nghtingat fhesite,photo sims to illustrate maximum foliage height,a conditionincloded requiring a onewyear·review of the operational aspect of the development,and a condition requiring the GC&,RS be revIewed and approved by the City Attorney,He discussed a letter received from Congregation Net Tamid expressing privacy conooms·andstaffsoplnlon that an eight-foot tall privacy waU,as requested,is notwarranted toaddr~ss this Issoe. Director Rojas added that,while there is a condition of approval regarding a review of the exterior IIght.ing,he explained thatstaff and the developer's emphasis and focus is makIng sure the lighting placed on thebulldingslsadequafeandtneets the Citts requirements,He pointed out an added condition that requIres a fighting planoe submitted to·the City for review. Chairman Tetreault opened the poblic hearing. James O'Mane~(appHcant)stated he has embraced and apprepiated all of the comments from the neighbof$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 Tamld)explained the property touches the project site on the northwest side,noting this has not been mentioned in any of the documents,He would Hke this to be noted.He wa.s concerned with staffs recommendation that no fencing was necesssryln the area,as the brush will be cleared and win leave the area open to dust and contaminants from grading and construction, He was also concernedabgut people looking over at the children in thepre..school playground.which is why they are asking for a minimum eight~fo()t taU fenoe.He would like to ask the exact use of the community garden and if there will be any type or chemical or insecticIde use near .the children in the pre-school. Director Rojss dIsplayed a site plan showing the proposed project property as well as the Congregation Ner TamJd.He·pointed out the proposed community garden area and the existing fence Uneand substantial landscaping area between the two properties.He stated that during a site visit to the community garden Glfe8 he was not able to see over the fence andlandscapJng to see onto the playground.He also showed the public trail Planning Commission Minutes December 11,2012 Page 2 Attachments 2-127 area,notIng the community gatdeh will be between the trail and the Congregation Ner Tamia property, RoQ.~rt Rockoff (5525 Seaside Heights)discussed the heighfot'the trees,He asked that a provision to the condItions of approval be added that in the event the foliage is cfose to more than one structure,the fofiage height shaH not exceed the loWest roof rIdge,He felt this would help the developer to determine approximate matIJre height foliage to be planted and would enable the BOA to gauge and self~regufatethe foliage heights,.It wouldaJsoensure that any oTr'-sIte vieWing pmperty,I1O matter whattheir angle of view of the development,would see follage no higher than the roof ridge Hne. He did not agree with staff's suggestion that the foJiage be kept ata revel below the yellow Hne depicted on a photo sImulation.He felt this method may increase the likelihood of issues and disputes,as this method seems too imprecise and subjecfto misinterpretation,He also felt that black and White copies of such c.opies given with the CC&Rs would have a diminished quality,He also dirl not think the BOA would be able to achieve self~regutatiQn in regards to foliage heights, Chairman Tetrealdt 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 fhe rldgeUneof the roof 00 aU bUildings, Chedrmao Tetreault aSked from what perspective this height would be determined. Me Rockoff answered that it coufd be determined byjustdrivihg down the street and see ifihe foftage is higher than the roof. stated her concern WElS that her view be completely preserved.She commented that when Belmontwas constructed it W$Sdiscovered 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 staWsphoto with tile yellow line drawn onit, noting it was taken from her yard.,She questioned ifcity staff would have to enter het yard every time there was a question as to whether or not the follage waSlh 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 MLMiIlet'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 weH 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 P1anningCqmM!ss.l¢m Minl.ltes Deootnber 11,2012 PageS Attachments 2-128 note9 that one of the most important aspects·ofth~n·will be the species of tree that IS selected.He also stated that comments by _were well taken. Commissioner Leon asked Me O'Malley if he had plans to put any type oHenclng around the community garden area, Me O'Malley answered that he did notplan toptlt fencing around the community garden, Vice Chairman Emenhlser noted Me MilIet1sconcerns in regarels to the priva,cyissue$ surrounding the children's playground at Congtegatiol1 NerTal11id.He asked Mr- O'Malley if he had any solutions to that particUlar issue. Mr.O'Malley did not see this as an issue ataI!.flefeltthereisa natural gracle break .as well asa.nexIstingfence and eXisting vegetation.He cawldnot think of a more passive use for the area and a nlceadditkm to the community. Director Rojas displayed a<photo showing the proposed garden area,the existing vegetation,and the fencing behind the vegetation.He st¢ltedthat staff diel.noisee what the .developer could do to enhance thatareasihbethe playgroLlndisafreadyscreened. Chairman TetreauJtasked if the photo taken by staff shown on the screen was depicting finished grade. Senior Planner $chonborn explained that the photodeplctsfinighedgradeand the the existing finished grade may be slightly lower after the area is clearedahdgrubbecl.He added there could be a condition of apprOYal thatanygradjng in this area Will be only to grub the site.He also referred to the grading plan,which show~no gradingatthat area. Vice Chairman Emenhiserasked.staffwhat remedies WiH be available to the resIdents If there is grading or construction occwrringoutSJde of the approved hours. Senior PlannerSchonborn clarified that there are {wo separate aspects to the project, grading and construction.The grading component hasfl10re 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 cbncernsragarding the construction at the site.If there is no remedy,the resident can then call the City. Commissioner Gerstner asked to go through conditJonNos.71 thfQl.lgh $0,which address the exterior lighting.In looking at the condItions he noted that whatthe City should be looking for is a foot candle estimate forthe entire property..In regards to the color temperature,his recommendation WaS to getall .cfthe lighting within a certain range ratherth¢lH 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 Plaflriing Commission Minufes Dfilcembet 11,2012 PagtH Attachments 2-129 able to seethe light source,but rather the light was shielded and one WEls$e~ing reflected light He thought that shoUld be reiterated in condition No.76. Chairman Tetreault asked staff to dIscuss condition Nos.75 and 7l speCifically the 42 inches ahove existing grade height Hmitation Versus No.7?whiCh states any exterior Ilghting shall not exceed five feetih height. Senior PlannerSchonborn explained the intentfc>r conditioll No.75 was more applicable to lights on a bUilding,where No.77 addresses lights thrQughoutthe facUity not on buildings. Chairman Tetreaultfeltthat No,77 should be better d.efined. Chairman Tetreaultreferred fa _comments rega,rdlng grading duringthe periods of time when school lets out,and asked staff to comment Senior Planner Schonhorn explained this was looked at .in the ehvlronmentalprocess, which resulted in the recommended 8;15 to 4:15 hours.He stated fhatIHhereare additional measures the Commission would like to add this can be cHscussedwith the Public Works Department where they may want to add conditions of flagging dutihg certain hours or other mitigation measures as needed. Director Roji::ls explained thi::lthaul rOlltesarereviewedandapproved by the Public Works Departmel1t,andifth~Planhing.Gommissioowould like.toemphaS!ze their concerns with school traffic,the Commission may want to add a condition of approval that directs Public Works review the haul ralites.and traffic situations at the sife011 ah ongoing basis, Commissioner Gerstner stated thaf he has no issues withthe Environmental Hnpact Report,as he feltitadeqUatelYCovered the issues at the site.Heexplaihed that his iS$uesare with the specifics related to the conditions of apprOVaL ViceChaitman Emenhiser moved to approve $taffs~ecommendation*seeond~d by Commissioner Leon~noting that he expected there would be discussion on the conditions of approval. Commissioner Gerstner offered an amendment thattheconditionsofapprovaJ be modifi.ed such that where there is discussion about the front gate remaining unlocked for the·purposes of the trail easement,that any rear gate or fehce be named in the same condition. Vice Chairman Emenhiseraccepted that amendment,seconded by Commissioner Leon. PlailningCommiSSiol'l Minutes DeQertlpetl1,2012 page $ Attachments 2-130 Senior Planner Schonborn suggested thefoJlowlhglanguage he addedtb the endbf concUtion No.63:Public access to the traUshall not be impeded by a fence,gate,or arty other structure, Chail1116tfl Tetreault referred to condition No.551 asking that language be included that a review ofthehours 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 aUhehighschooL He noted,hovvever, that the.high school day ends at 3:00 at was concerned thattrucks··wiU still he·hauling qirtptilstthehigh SChool aHhat time which he Teltwill dramaticallyimp<:lct the traffic. Senior Planner Schonbom feltJhat adding more restrictions to the export Win prolong the gradipg weH past the projected eight month time period.He also noted that this was <:lddressed io.the EIR through $traffic s$mpHng,which concluded that even during the peak afternoonhOl,Jrs there will not bea significant Imp<:lct to the tnjlffic. Chaitl11anTetreau It asked that,in regards to condition No.55;there be sortie reView of tlle$eJssues as the project is goIng on,$nd if itisdetermined thereJea public safety issue ,modifications can pe imposed upon the developer. Senior Planner Schonbdrn added that Belmohtand Mirandela used this same truck route when fl1eydid the grading on their·properties.He looked in the files and spoke to Public Works,and found that there were no impacts$$$ociafedwlth thosegr$ding projects. Vice Chairman Emenhiser accepted the Chairrnan'sfriendly amendment.However Commissioner LeO.h preferredto have strongerwordin9 sotha!the issUewas not]u8t between Public Work$and the developerl1esuggested wording.that the schools have $omeson of ability to comment on the subjeCt.Hetherefotedld not second the friendly amendment Chairman Tetn~tilult moved on to the possibleconfHct betweencondi'Uon Nos.75 and 77,noting staff will change the wording·in condition No.·75 to make it 90nsistent with the wording In condition No.77 . Commissioner Gerstner$uggested modifYing fhelanguage in condition No.75 by striking the words "With no etilves"and.adding .·at the end of the condition 'iexCepting recessed light fixtures in the ceilings above exterior balconies." Vice Chairman Emenhiseraccepted 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. PlanningCornm!S$jon.Minutes December 11,2012 Page 6 Attachments 2-131 Vice Chairman EmenhIser acceptedfheamendrnenl,secondedby CommissIoner Leon. Commissioner t3erstnetsuggested changing the 'Word "lighting contractor"to "llghting consultant"in condition No.72.He also suggested removing thevvor<;fs ~!estimatesof maximum illumination on the site"and replacing it with "foot oandlesPy area." Vice Chairman Emenhiser and Oommissioner Leon accepted the amendment Commissioner GerstneraJso suggested removing the words J'high pressuresoctium lights"and replacing them with "lighlfixfqfes".He also suggested changing "less than 4500 kelvin"to "a range of 2700 to 3700 kelvin", Vice Ohairman Emehhlser and CommissIoner Leon accepted the amendment Comrnis~ionerLeotI noted there hadbeen several public comlnents in regardS to tree height,and how it is measured,He discussed staff's .proposed yellow.Une and felt it was the appropriate way to measure tree height,out thoLl9 ht it shoUld be called something other than the Yellow line.He sllggesled wording saying the trees would be lImited to the heIght of the ridgeline ofthespecific cotldomiflltJmS On the ridge. Senior PI~nner Schonborn noted there are different buildingssnd different ridgelines, showing thatallofthe hIghest ridgelinesarenot~IJconcentratedin thaback, Director Rojas explained that 20 years ago stafltnay have attempted to write conditions as described by Commissioner Leon.However,through technologystaffhasfound that drawing a Uneona photograph has been successfuL In addition.,cncaa tree is trimmed there is usually a trim Hne on the tree for future trimming.StaffleeIs in a proJeGtsuch as this with multiple buildings and mUltiple ridgelihes that can be misinterpreted t!lroLigh the years with someone trying to read a conditIcm,thaUhls isa.betleroptiort Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked if the yellow Une is based on the highest ridgeline of thedeveloprnent Senior PlannerSchonborn answered thaUhe yellow line is based on the highest visible rid gellnes,as viewed from each of the points, Chairman.Tetreault noted that the City is trYIng to protect views,not keep frees below a certain height,and in order to do so it is not a fixed polntthaf is being discussed.The view will be dependent on whereverthe view IS belOg taKen from. Cotnmissioner Gerstner felt that if staff feels thIs is the easiestand besfway t9 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 lightand other impa.cts of this development is beneficial to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes Oecember11,2012 Page? Attachments 2-132 Chairman Tetreault slJgge~ted additional language for conciition NQ.p5asfol1ows; Public Works takes·into consideratibnschool traffica!bng the haul route and has the ability to rnodifythe haul routealid tImes ofoperatidhbrimposebfhefcondltiohSl1i the interest of public safety. Vice Chairman Emenhiseraccepted the proposedall1endmelit,s6conded by Commissioner Leon, Chairman Tetteault·re~oPened the public hearing to allow the applicant to address and comment on the Planning Commission's discussion. Mr.O'Malley felt thaLeverythihg discussed is smart and has the proper Intent He stated that he had previously laJked·to the principalafthe high schoo!Who statedshe did not have any concerns orissues with the preVious two projects adjacent to this projeelduring their grading and conslructiotlphases,The prihcipaialsoexplained that the peak traffic period at the school Is thertlbrningdrop'"'offpetiod,while the afternoon traffic is much morespbradic,He asked the principal to witness the trafflcpatleths during fhegrading period,and If there are problemS to contact$enior Planner $chonborn.He cHscussecithedust and air quali~yatthesite,noting thali~is a m<;lJor lssuefotthecol1tractbrs,and he was confident there woUld be no problems.He discussed condition No.12 and felfthe current cbntfifion Was clearand concise.He stated that theywiU definitely comply with all city regulations.andwillshield lights atthis project and be sensitive tohoth the localaoq IQng qlstance neighbors, Goml11issionerGerstner hoted balconies that extendoutfrom the building,and asked Mr.O'MalleY What typedf Iighfingwould be on these types of balconies.Hendted that, from his point ofview,he was not sure there should be lighting on this type .of exterior balcony. Mr.Q'MaHeyexplainedthis is an example of an area thafaneXierior light may be required on lhese bafconiesper the Building Code,however if the Code does require lights theY will be shielded.He also noted that the Building Code may require balCQny lighting ata certain height. Chairman TetreaUlt discussed the height .of lights and the Comthissi.on agreed thatthe height of the lights on buildings would notexceed sevenfefPt,and thfP lights not on buildings woufdnotexceed fi\Jefeet 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 upstair~, Commissioner Gerstner suggested changing the wording slightly to allow for a ceiling light in the second floor covered balconies. Plal'lnil19 ComrnillsiorjMinlltes DeGl'lrnblitI'11,.2012 P~ge8 Attachments 2-133 The motion to recommend the City Coulicileertify the ~fR (PC Resoflltion 2012- 022)a0<1 recommending the City Council conditionally approve the.project,as conditioned (PC Resolution·2012-023),was approvsd,(4-0). rany existingstructu res, 3. Deputy Dir tor Pfostpresehted the staff report,explaining staff has be receIving quite a few q ·stions fromthepubHc regarding the.background of the .proposed chal1gesand Ystafffeit these changes were necessary,With th ..,heg.avea brief presentation on ··e (jeneral Plan's discussion Of hazard designati ...·.s within the City. He discussed the I1Ihg Gode and the Zoning Map,WhichClre implementation tools of the G~neral PlatL eexpJaihed that il1 updating the Gener Ian staff identified a variety .of inconsistehc·s betweeh the ZOhingGode lTlappinand the General Plah mapping,He>stated tha taf1asked the GltyGeqlogist to aluate the OPen SPace Hazard area designations dboundaries,and explain e ctitetiaused by the City Geologistin doing so.He e ained that the result of t sevaluatiol1 was that there ate sHghtlyove(1)OOO propartiesi he City that require .5ome sort of adJustment Of those 1,000 ptoperfies,approXimately o~third$require/adjustments where the boundary wouldbefaken off of the property 0 off ofdevel..ai;)Je Cilreas and the remClining third would acfua\lIy be an expansion of bo dary.eprief1Y revieWed the Planning Commission's direction to staffatthe fe·at 25thmeetil1g;Heexplaihed thatstaff would be reViewing proposed changes WI··the Planning Cothmissibnovera series of meetings,and that tonight's objective w·lpover260 •properties,focusing on three different canyon areas.He displayedetial otographs.oHhe canyons reflecting the current designations as well as the oposed c nges.He noted that these proposed changes are notfinal,as this wIll a Planning mission tecothmendafionol1 a General Plan update to the GIt~oundl. ColTlmissioner·Gerstner as balconies,or patios. Deputy Director Pfos nswered that the proposed newline dsnot cross over any structures at impro ments. Commissioner on noted that itappeats this waS.done at a fatatlv y small scale and felt there wer a few instances where the line was placed right over roperty to make it into aeon stent line aithat scale.He therefore recommended the mission gO over this ry catefully,expanding the scale ahdlookingaUhe/aetialstoake sure rio patios 0 structures weteaffected. Oeg y Director Pfost explained that staff has gone over this several times at larger s e1 hating IhaUtwould take a lot oftime to present260 individual properties Planning Cl:lmmissiol1 Minutes December 11,2012 Pagel\~ Attachments 2-134 PLANNING Co.MM.ISSION STAFFREPoltr,DATEn No.VE1VIBEtt 13,2012 Attachments 2-135 STAFF CITYOF E 0 eXJfvlf">1UNITY DEVELOPfV1ENT DERART(\1ENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT; PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLJCANT: PHONE: LANDOWNER: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSlON JOEL ROJAS,.COMM~ DlM;LOPMENT ~.•• NOVEMBER 13,2012 CASE NOS.ZON2012-o00G7 & SU82012«00001 (FINAL EIR. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT,&TENTATlVE tRACT MAP}¢RESTRltJGE!SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSJNSPROJlECr 5GO"l CRESTRIDGEROAD (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A*1} TRUMARK HOMES ATfN:JAMES O~MALLEY 9911IR\lINE CENTER DR,SUfTE105 IRVINE,CA92$1S (949)788-1990 FIRSt CfilZENS BANK &TRUST RECOMMENDATION: THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A~1 PHONE:~E i/to ..STAFF COOROINATOR~EOUARDOSOHONBORN~AIOP,SENIORPLANNE~7 REQUESTED ACTION:APPROVAL OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR)AND ASSOCIATED ENTITLEMENt APPLICATIONS FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT,WHICH CONSISTS OF 60 CON.DOMINIUM UNITS FOR SENIORS (AGED 55+}.CL\JBHOUSE BUILDING;OPSNSPACSAND TRAILS; INCLUDlNG A TOTAL OF 147,000 CUBIC YAROS OF GRADING. 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. REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: I (INSTITUTIONAL)&OH (OPEN SPACE HAZARD) VACANT 30940 HAWTHQRNE:13LVU!R/li''iCHOF'ALOS \)EHOES.Gf\90275-5391 PLANNli'lO /'}eCOle Ef"FOf~()E!'lErTrD]\jjSIOI'l (310)544-~3;228/8UILDING &SAFETY'DM3':ON (31m 265-7BOO i (XVI FAX OW)544<:;Zi3 E·MI1>,IL.PLANNING@RPVCOf\1 i WVVWH\LCS\lERDtSCOl'1/RPV Attachments 2-136 PlanoiogOQrnmissiooStaff fl~PQrt ZON2012~()QO$7 +&StJB2012~OOQ01 (FEIR,OUP,SR,&TTM) NQv(;)mber 13.2012 GIENERALPLAN:INSTITlJTIONAL&NATlJRAI..ENVIRONMENT/HAZAR.D TRAILS PLAN:RADIO TOWE.R TRAII..{F2)~C~ESTRIDGf:TRAIL (B2) SPECIFIC PLAN:MfA CEQASTATUS:PENDING ENVIRONME.NTALIMPACTREPORT ACTION DEADLINE:APRIL 20,2013 P.C.MEMBERS WITHIN 500'RADIUS:NONE BAC.KG.ROUN·O Originally•.·thesubject.property was partofa latgerVacantparcel measuting33 ..97 ...acres in area.Over the years,the larger parcel has beenslIbdivided,and devsIOP!'r1E;l1t has beeD proposed,approvedtilnq constructed on the site,Ar;tha.thistoryhasaffectEPg thEPQEPsign of thecurtent proposall Staff has provided a baCk.ground that sUll1matizesthe isstJesand actions that took place since theotiginaJ approvals grahtedint989: 1989 ,....'The City conditionally approved a projecttoallowthe construction of:::tmixeOus6 r;enior living facility forthe Marriott Cgrpof:atiqnon th~~;q.f)1~acre lot.The approved project IhCluded.250lnOependent living units,·a1QQ-4;}EPd hEPa,ltb care facility (COnsIsting of 50 assisted living beds and50skiJled tlursing .bedsl and a 26,000",squ~re,"foot communIty center building>Jnapprovlng the MarriottproJect,the City also certifledan assocl:ated Final Environmentallmpt;lctReport (FEIFtNo.27).AlfhoughCityentitl~mEPnt$wereoptained and the City $uccessft.JJly defeated a Jegal challenge to thet;lpproved project,thet;l,pprqvec;! entitlements expired in Apti11995. $~ptemb(;)r23,.1996 -The.property oWner af fhe time (MartiottCorpQrafion)$ubrttitted new applications tO$ubdividethe33.97-acre Iofinfo two separate lots {:a4,oy,:acre pa,roel entirely within·the CIty's ·desigmatedinstitutionaJ zoning ·qistrlcl and a 29A~:acre pqrcel partially within the Institutional ahd OpenSpace Hatard zoning districts),and to alldwan assisted living facility referred to atthe tirheas !'8rightohGardens". F(;)b r uary2,1999 -Thecity~rtifieda Supplement to the EIR that WaS certified in 1989 andconditiontilHyapprovedthe ·afighton.Gardens project to allowthe cons~ructjqnqfZlt22,: Uhitassisted .living facility for senIors on the 4;57"acteparceL ..This 4.57..acteparcel is where the Belmont Assisted living FacUity was constructed andno'Woperates. June 15,1999 ,....The City approved Parcel Map NO,2.5271 tfuttharsubdiV'iding the undeveloped 29A-acre parcellnto two separ:a~e parcelsc;onsisting.of:t)a19.6S-:aCre parcel at the comer of Cresttidge Road and CrenshaW Boulevard (the eu rrentlocationof the Oityts Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing project);andl 2)a9.76-acre parcel (the Attachments 2-137 Pla.hhing CommissiOIlStaffR.epol"t ZON2012 ..()O()67&SUB2012-()()()01 (FEIR,C.(JP,GR,&TtM) November 131 2012 subject property)between the corner lot and the 4.57-9cre parcel tl1l;1ltis now the Selmont site; August 28,1999 '-The City Council.and Planning Commission held ajointwotkshOP to review the concept .of a proposed.SenIor Affordable Housin¥JProJect presented.by a developer on the19.~$-acre lot,AUhattirne;the lotwas privately owned and a proposal was presented to develop the sitt;1 with a 73+Unit affOH;:labIe senior housing facility. March 2000 -The City's Redevelopment Agency purchased the 19.63-acra parcel.ft'?m the develQper;and inAugust2Q01,theAgency 80arddecided Dotto enter into a new ENA with the developerqnd thereby discontinued ne9Qtiatipns.The Board also qirecfedStafffo consider ,other options for the development of theA-geney's parceL May1,2()02 --Ajoin!worksHop between the OOUncll,PI~nnlngComrni$si~nan~Fin~nce AdvispryCommitteewas hald to reviewprpposalsfrom private parties andt1i$cusS options for the RDA's 19.63...aofe parceL At the worKshop one of the proposals presented WaS from Standard Pacific i Which included combining the Agehcy's19.63"acre vacanl parqet withfheadl1;lcenf 9.76 ..acrevacant parcel {the subject property).Thedeveloprtlentconcept was for a proposed senior hPusinglseniorcenterfpassive parkproje.ctWithanaffotdable hpusing component on the combined $Ite.At the workS!1op,the CityCouncUauthorlzed Standard ·P(;lcific to mOVe forward with the Project Augus12003 -The Gity.was informad thatSfandatd .Paoificwasno.longetpursuing deve.lopmentof the project and that the then~prQpertyowner (Cresttidge Estates LLC)of fhe9..7.6~~lcre vacant Jot was looking for ofherdevelopefS to proceed with the proposed $enior housing!sepiorGenterlpassNeparkproject. October 2005-The City V\las formally notified that Laing Utbanwould be the developer moving forward with thecoDceptua[project ..presented foihe City OouncHat the May·?j 2Q02workshop.The project propPsed by .Laing UrbanoontinlJedto.propose development of both lots,and WPlJld ipcllJde up to 100seniorconqominilJrn~(inoluding ..~.li;lffordaplta housing units)..a.bUildingpadforthe PeninsulaSenjorstodevelopa"SeniQrOent~ru.and a public open space area with pubUctraJls.Thepro()osal includedaparce.l that\l\lould beset aside fpr thefufuredevelopmentofa SeniorPentef oper(;lted by the PeninsulaSenio(s. June 7 f 2006tbfU Jan4a:ry2Q()7 ~Laing Urpan subrnitteda revised pl9tl in respollsetp comments·.received dUtingthepUbHcscopingproce$S,.Keychange$lnclutjeda.reduetiop in the unitcQunt (from 100 units down to 97);an increase in the number oftownhouse style unifs;a decrea$elnthenumberof the large buildings and a na~orjenfationofthebundlng$; a reduction in the overall gradingquc::lntity,from265iOO()cubiQYard~10 15P;4PO .cu610 yards;and,relocationofthe passive Park!overlookareafrorn the e(;l~tern portionofthesJte (adjacent.to Crenshaw)tothevvesternedgeof the site ..In January 2007,additional revi~ionsweresubmitted to the City,which inclUded an increase in the unitoount(frQtn97 Attachments 2-138 PlanningCommi$sipnS.iaffRf)port ZON2012 ..0()()67lft.SUE.l20f2..QO()01 (FE:IR,OUP,GR,&T1M) November 13,2012 units,up to 102);afl1rtherreductlon in the amountof overall grading;and tnodIfications to the buildingheighisand retaining walliayoutfhtoughoui;the site. May 2007 ~.The City Wi:lS formally informea that Laing Urban was no longer pursuipg d!3!velopment otthe project As a result,while the property oWner (Crestriqge Estatesll,.C) tried.to identify other potehtial developers to proceed Withtheprqposed senior housing/senior center/passive park project,the City Council direcfed8tafffoputsuean affordable housing prqject On the Agency's 19.o3.;acresite..Ass(Jch,the property owner PUrsLled Q!ifPVeloprnent solely On the privately oWned EJ.•76.,acre lot OecembEW 17,2008"'"Revised applications for the "Cresttidge Senior VHI as"development and seni~r center on solely the privately owned 9.76 ..acre parcel were submitted. July 16,2009 ~The project applications were .deem~d complete.,and the environm~ntal consulfantwas retained to corn menCe work on a Draft EtA.. Decernber20m~-The consultant requestedadditlonalinforrnation tocornplete certain sections of thearialysis;however,the.appHcElnt did hot respond to th$requesf.for additional·information. lVi~rchi 2010 >'-Notipes vvere published in the PVPfll1.insula Newsihdicatlog tnattheowner of the 9.76'-acre 10t(Crestridge LLC)wasih defaulfWitti the subjeCfptopetly..As a reSUlt, processing of the projectapplicatior1swassuspended. February 2012 to pre$ent~Tbe9.76-acreparcel is novvQwned by FirstCitizens 88nl<& Trust.Trurnatk Homeslsdurrently Worldng With lhe bank fofinaUze their purchase ofthe property.The (}urrenf proposalfordevelopmeniofthe property was submitted by Tmmark Homes in Fepruary2012.The proposed projectinclqdesafofaJ of14!,00p Gubic yards of grad1ngto accommodate a 6Qe-unitsenior (age restricted to 55Yeans anel above) GOlidorniniurnhousingproject..After thesubmittaLof adcfitlonallnfotmation 1 Staff deemed the project applications complete em April 20,2QtZ,and subsequentlY retained Rincon Cons·qttants to prepare the necasaaryenviroom$ntalqopumentationfpr the proposeq project.. an June 26,2012 j the Planning Commissio.nconduct$da pUblicScopirigm~eung to prbvldeaforum for a~enciesand member-a of the community to comment 00 the Initial Study and Notice of Pr$paratiqn,aprecursorto thefodhcoming EJRfQrth~proposed project.an August22 l 2012,the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dta~EIR)was completed arid circulatedfbt'publicteviewandcornmentuntil October 8,20t2.Within the circulation period,ori September 251 2012)a hearing wascooclucted by the Planning Commission for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Draft EIR for the Crestridge Attachments 2-139 P.lanningCommi$$ionSfaff ~epQrt ;ZON2012 ...00067 &$U8201~-OO()01 (FEI~,eup,GR,&1TIVI) Novembe.r 13,2D12 Si£mior Condominium Housing Project from the genetalpubJicahd from the Planning Oommission. Qn October 25.2012.the Fin~l En,was completed and Notice was provided viamaHand pUbfloationin the pV Peninsula News tha~a public hearing was scheduled wii:h the Planning Commission on November 13,2012 toreviewthe Final E1R and the entitlement applications for the proposed project.SUbsequently;a notice wasemailed to the 611 people registeredort the Cityls Iistservefar this project SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed .project.which has been termed the.GrestrJdge.Senior .Cohdomihium Housing project (th~"Project'~),is pfoposedonav~lcantg.76 ...acre.parceL The property is zOOEld Institytional (I).and contains Open SPace Hazard (OR)zoning along therear oUhe site.The sU.bjeot.property,Which.is cUfrenflyoWned by FirsfGitizens Bank &Trust.Is locatedal~ngGrestridge Road;and is bounded bythe City'S VistacJelNorteReservetothe north,bytheMlrandela SeniorAffordable Housingprojectto the east!and by the Belmont Assisted Living facility to thewest Other uses along Cirestridge Road include the PV Art Genter,a convalescent homEl facIlity with independe;ntlivlng units (fhe Canterbury),and churchesofa V(ilriety of denofrrihations i The projectappHoafions re1atecf to the proposedCresJridse$enior Housing project jnQ[yde a Conditional tJ$e Permit,Grading Permit,TertCi:l;ive Tract Map.l:lndan EnVironmental Assessment The projectinclwdes fSOfor..,siliecohd6mlnlum units.accessed byona driveWaY atthe .westetl1l11ostportionof theslte,.rhe proposed.condominiums •••Will range.ltl size from 1.,700 squareTeatfe 2,)1 00 sqUare feetin floor a.rea,The eo t.lnitswiHba IqGafed within 18 ciJfferent bUlIdingsdistriputed throY9ho4ttheslte,whe;fesome buil(jlngsWUr be two-story structures and others will be splIt..,level.two"storysfructutes. The proposed project also..includes a2,40Qsquare .foot communitybvilding for thE,7 rElsidents oHhe development;a cpmmynitygarclenCire;8 fer theresid9ntsaUhenorthwest portionof the site;•an ?ytdoof community recteationareaatthe.hor'theast portion ofthe site;and a series of public and prIvate pedestriantraHs.Three ofthecondominiumtlnits c:lre proposed to be madec:lvailable to qualified very-low~incomesenior hOuseholds in aocordance With fheCityisinclusionaryaff<m:labIEl hOY$ing reqqirElmElnts. To facilitate thedevelopmentf a total of 147 iOOOcobic yatdsofgradingJsproposedtwhich includes 145.,000 cubic yards afcut (143,QOOcUbicyards ofeXpor't)and.2,OOOcubicyards. of fill.Thetapogr;;tphy olthe site will b~lowered by as rruJchasapproxirnate1y38"feet on the western side of the pfoPElrty1o creatEla flatterfandlowersitet This grading Will res!J1t in the stryctures on the westsi¢ie of theprbperty being \lVell below the maximum 16..foot height limit,as measured from existinggtade. Attachments 2-140 Planning G<:Hl1mis$ion Staff Rep()rt ZON2012 ..00061&SUB2Q12-0Q001 (FEIR)CUP ,6R,&TTM) November 13.20t2 GODE CONSIDERAnON AND DISCUSSION The proposed development proJect requires fhe processil1g dUhe followil1gappllcations for consideration by the Planning Commission and City CounCil alafuturepubUc hearing,A brief descriptIon of these entitlements is as follows: •Conditional Use Permit -Toallovv the proposed u{i)eand development of tDe proposed project Additiol1ally,approval of a Gonditional Use Pertriifis reqUired to allow the proposed 27 ..foot high,2-story bUildings to .exCeed the fl1stitutionaI District's Development Standard of 16'high and one-story. •Grading Permit - Toallowthe proposed 145 j OOOcubieyatdsof eutal1d 21000 cubic Y~rdsoffUL III Tentative Tract Map -To subdivide the site to accommodate 60condorninium parcels,distributed throughout 9 lots, •Environmental Assessment -·Tocomplywith the California Environmental QqaHty Act (CEQA),via certification of an Environmel1tallmpactRepoft(EIR}that assesses the proposed project's enVifonmel1tal.irnpacts. Although the Planning Commission typically makes decisions on ConclitionalUsePerrnlts and Grading Permits,the proposed Crestridge Senior Houslngprojecf includes a Tentative Tract Map becausethe project proposes indlvidUalfof"salecondominiums ..ThePlannil1g Commissionl s role in reviewing a tentative tra.ctmap is advisotysil1ce decisioos.ori tract maps mwst by made by the City Council,A,{i)SUCh,the Planning CommissiQn'srole is iQ considElrthe proJeGt and make a recommElnqation totheClfy Council on the entire application package. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE$SIVU:NT(t.e.,·EIR) INITIAL STUOY &NonCE OF PREPARATION: Pursuant to the tequitementsoT the Califbrnia EhvironmentalQuality Act (GEQA},and based on Staff's review of the project.and disc.ussioriWith the ·applicant,.Cify Staff conclUded that the proposed project necessitated the preparation ofanEIR,As SUch,on May29,2012,the City distributed an Initial Studyto the publici;:tCcOrnPaniecfbya 190ticepf Preparation (NOP)for preparation oftheEIR,initiafinga30"daypublic seoping petiodthaf was extended bythePlannihgComrtrfssiOnatld Cbhcludedon July 12t 2012.The purpose of the NOP Was tbihdicate formfllly that the .city wasptfi;lparing at Draft EIR for the Orastriqge Senior Condominiurrr Housing prQj§ctana.,as LeadAgenQy,tosQUcitinput rEwarding the scope andcqntent of the IJrqff EIR,To provide more QpporfLtnity to the public,the Plannjng Commission held a publicScoping session June 26 1 2012 to provide the public with an opportunity to submitveroaJ commenis,in addition !ofhetyplcalwritfen comments,on the lnltialStudyand NOP,The NOP wasdistrihuted tQall Responsible Agencies,as weH as other agencies;prQPerfyowners within a$OO ...foot T?<:Ous;the 5&7 Attachments 2-141 Plannin~l Commission Staff Report ZON2012-00061 &SUS2012..fl0001 (FEIR,CUP~GRl &TTM) November 13t 2012 email addresses registered on the listserve for thJsproject The Initial Study andNG? were also posted.on the City's websitELAsa result,approximately 15 written comment letters were received from persons,agencies,or organizations in response to the Initial StudylNGP. DRAPTEIR Afterthe NOP comment period ended 1 the DraftEfRwas prepared taking inaccountthe various comments received during the.Initial StudyiNG?phase.After completing the Draft EIR,thedocumentw8s made availahieto the public on August 21,2012 for a 4~H:taY public comment and circulation period that concludet:;f .on October 81 2012.The erwironmental conCerns raisEKiduring the NOP comment period were address.edin the Draft ErR.The purpose of this circulation period is toaUow the public and agencies to provide input on the content and analysis contained in the Draft EIFt To provide more opportunity to the pUblic,the Planning Commission.held at public comment session September 26,20 1:2 to prqvfde the publlcwithan opportt,tnity to submit verbal comments, In addition to the typical written Cortlments,oh the Draft EIFt As indicated in the Initial Study and reiterated in the Draft EIR,it was determInedthat the projectwouldnot result in Of create any significant impacts,Or have less than significant impacts to AgricUltural Resources,HazardslHazardous Materials,Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources,POPUlation and Housing,Public Services..Recreation,and Utilities and ServIce Systems.However,thmu.gn the scoping process and preparation 01 the Initial Study,nine environmental factors were considered potenfiallysignificant and were analyzed in detail In the DraftEIR The attached September 25,201:2.Staff Report provides a summary of the ·issues and impacts identified in the Draft:EIR Further,the impacts and mitigation measures relatedtothese ~nvitonmentalfactors are summarized In Tahle ES~t,in the Executive Summary section of the Fina!EIFt The Executive Summary is attached for easy reference. FINALEIR The City received 18 comments letters on the Draft ErR.In addition to the written comments,the City held a pUblic meeting to take verbal comments on the DEIR.The Final EI.R contains responses to both written and verbal comments submitted by the public on the Draft 81Ft As part of the Final EIR,the document contains anew section titled "Response to Comments",which Contains eachofthe written comments submitted ahOe response to each comment. Additionally,there is one comment fetter (attached)thatwas inadvertently left out of the Final EIR,which Staff has addressed under the "Additional lnformation"section beloW, Notwithstanding,as a result of the comment and circulation periods associated with the Initial Study and the subsequent Draft ErR,no new impacts have beenidentffied to warrant reCirculation of the document or significant amendments. Attachments 2-142 Planning Commission Staff Report ZON2012;..O()()61&SUB2012..00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR:,&T1M} November13!2012 Most notable is a fOfrnletter that wassqbmitted·bya ntlmi;)er of residents along·Mistridge Drive,.The comments have .resulted .in refinements to.the mitigation .measure reg~rdih~ trees and landscaping on the subject property to.ensure that landscapingismaintained at a heightthat does not exceed the ridgetine of the closestorsdjacent structures,Additional modifications include adding mitigation measures in the cultural resources section to address tnelssues raised by the Native American HeritageCommissio.n and reiterated by the Planning Commission.Lastly.mitigation measure 1'-5 was also modified to prohibit curbside.patklngalong Crestridge Road toaddres$comments regarding traffic Visibility. The Final EIR document mirrors the Draft EJR informal.The key difference is that the Final ElF.<contains a "Response to Comments"section and containssomeminof modifications to the text Tor clarification or edits that were a result of the comments received.The text modifications are shown in underline forlanguageaddeqand $ttIkethfQugh for language deleted,Modifications to the mitigation measures are also summarized in Table ES~1 of the E:xecutive$ummary section of the Final EIR,and are also shown in underllhefor language .added ahdstrikethtougl=lJof language deleted. Notwithstanding,as a:rssultonhe comment.and circulation periods assoclaJed withthe IhitialStudyalld thesubsequel1t Draft EIR,and with the edits made to the Fihal EIR and responses to comments,no new impacts have been ldehtifiedto wartantrecirculatiol1 of the document Or sIgnificant amendments to the analysis contaIned therein, EIR FINDINGS Pursuant to CEQA requirements,theCi!y is required to adopt two sets of findings prior to approving a projecHhat will generateasigniftcant impact on the environment:1)Statement ofFads and Findings,and 2)a statement of Overriding Considerations, Statement of Facts and Findingtt<The Statementbf Facts and Findings.identifies the significant impacts,presents facts supporting the conclusions reached In the analysis, makes one or more o.f the follOWing three findings for each impact!and expl.ains the reasoning behind the City's findings.The.possibleftndlngs are asfoUows: 1.Changes ora-Iteration·have been requlredln,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantiaUylessen the significant environmental effect as Identified In the Final EIR. 2,Such changes oralteratiel1s are within the responsibility and Jurisdictioh ofan other public agency and not the agency making the finding.SLlch 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 rnIflgation measures or project alternatives idehtlfiedlt1·the Final EIR Attachments 2-143 PlanoJng C()t11missiQn Staff Report ZON2012;"OOO~7&SUB2012~00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM) November13J 2012 The attached Exhibit "A",titled "Facts,Findings andStafemel1f of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effeotsfot the Crestrldge Senior Housing Project'!,provides draft fIndings foreaoh aT the irnp4lcTsldenfified;::tnd provides the necessary supporting evidence ..In summary,St~ffpeUeves·th~t Finding NQ.1c~n be adopted sInceohangesor~lterations.have been fequired in,ot incorporated into,the projectwhichavoidotsubstantially lesserlthesIg nificant environmental effectas identified in the Final EIR.SaSed uptlnlhe mitigation measutesidentrfledin theEIR dOQLJmenf,this finding CEin be mEide and adopted. Statement of Overriding Considerations:The-Statement ot.Overriding ConSiderations.is required when a project will cause an.unavoidable significant impact that cannot be mitigateq.The EIR prepared for the prpposeq project identifies Pofentiallysignincant envlronm~ntal impacts within one iSSLlearea related to Aesthetics,which cannot be fully rniti~atecland is therefore considered significantartd unavoidable.Speoifically,in regards to Aesthetics,the proposed project would introdUce structural deVelopment,new landscaping,and .hardscapefo an open and VaCal1twnQevetoped $ite;·and,projectgradll1~ wowrdsubsfantiaHyaJferthe site~~$lope ang ridgeHnetopography,In addition,.the site is idenfitledoh the.Rancho Palos.Verde$GEmeral ..PI~nVisuaIAspects Map as a "cariyonand ridgel'featureand as "Undeveloped Lands Impaoting Visual pharacter;;'grading for and construction of the proposed prqjeciwoulcleHminate both of these attributes. Asaresi,Jlt,a Statement pfPverrlgingGon:;ideratipns rtlusfpe agopteq,(qltimately,bylhe City GonncHforthis project),Ihadopfiflga·Statemehfof OverridirlgCohsideratiorls\Sfaff believes that the folloWing findIng Can be Iliade: 1.Specific economip,le~al,soCial,technologiPaJ,or othercpHsidefations j inqlqq{ng consideraiioos discussed in t:he Statel'l1ent QfOverrid in9 Considerations,ol.Jtweigh the uhav'(.>idable adverseenvironmenfaleffects;therefore the adverse enVironmental effecfs are considered acoeptable, StaffbeHevesthat to Iheextent theAestheticitnpactWoUlcl rel11alrisi9nIficantEift~r mitigation,.fhisimpact.is acceptable andoutweighed~Y$()cial,economicand .otherbenefits of the.projeQt.Further,thealternatfves that wereidantifiec(in the Final EIR wpuld .n01 provide the projeqf b€lflefits to the same extent as the proposed project.aelpw,Sfaff has provided its reasons for adopted .the Statement of Overricjjng .ConslderaiiQos: 1.Staff belieVe.sthat allfeasibletnitigatidn measures .haVe been imposed ttl leSsen prtljectimpacts to l.ess .thansignificant levels;and.rurthertnore,thatalternatiYes to the proJeQt are infeasibJf;?pecal.;/se While they have sll'l1il.?lf or fewer/reduced environmental impacts,theY do not provide all oHhe benefJtsofthe project,orare otherwise socially oreconomicallyinfeaslbfe When compared to the prtlJectjas described ioihe Statement ofI=actsanclFindings, Attachments 2-144 Planning Commission Staff Report ZON2012..00067 &SUB2012..00001 (FEIR,CUP~GR,&TTM) November 13,2012 2.Staff be Hev13s that the project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos VercJes General Plan land use designation anc!Institutional Zoning,with .approval of the associated Conditional Use Permit.ASSUGh,devlPlopmenf of thes-ite withsenipr housing is.consistent With the City's vision for the site and sUffoungihg ~reaa~ evidenced by the approved development pattern of senior housing to the westand eas{of the site;BelmontVUlageand Mirandela,respectively, 3,StaffbeHeves that the project Is cOtnpatibleinform and scale with theaqjacent senior housing facilities and as such Wouldcomplementthepattern of development in the area.COflversionof this site to designated open spaCewooJdtequirea land use designation.and zonecnange and potentially reqUire a financial outlay by the C~ty th9.tcpuld potentially be directed more beneflcial!yelsewhere ,. 4,The Cifts Housing Element (201Q)erlCbl..ltages and facilitafes developmedlof Senior housing through density bo·r1usesfor new hOI.J$ll1g that provide atleasLSO% of all units for seniors,Further,th~prpJect wiH pf()vlq~for additional affordal:>le senior housing to qualified lower-income househblds,cons{stentwith the CitY's ihcltlsibr1ary hoUsing requirements and the City's certified Housing Elemeht 5,Staff beHeves that theprojectwlll en?ancethe pedesfri.an environment I:>Y providing public.Pedesfe ianpathwaystnatlitlK(3re$trjdge Roaqto traH$onthe Vi$tadel NQrte Ecolqgical Preserve to lhe.north.Further,the Inclusion ofthis pedestrianllnk between Cresfridge Roacland the traHson the Preserve·will facilitate implementation of the Goncepfual Trails Plan.Signage will help directthe public through the proJectsite to the public trails and irai/heags. 6.The determination thatthe proposedptojebtWill result ihan unavctidable adverse Itnpaclol1 tnevi$ualcharacter and qualityofthesite 1s basedonlheidentificationof the projeet site,togefherWifh theadjacent\lisfa del Norte Preserve,g$"CanYons and Hidges"gncfas!'Undeveloped Landslmpacting\lisuaJ Chgracter!lin the \/i$ual Aspects Map of fheCity'sGenetaIPlan(<ieneral Plan Figure 41).These designafior'ls.were placed onthesiteih 1975,atafime wnenlhe enV ironttlehtaI and view character of the surrounding area w~redjfferent from presentV\lhile atone time theremayhave.been expansive vieW$oftbesite and !ts associated ri(JgeUnes from Crenshaw BoW levardand.beyond (as ide~tifled in on C3lPneraJ Plan FIgtlre 41 ) much of these views of the site have been blocked bydevelopmentalongSUver Spur Road since the General Plan was ad<mtecL As SUCh,whiletheexisfing designations necessit<;ilted an impaclfindingofsignificanfandunavoida:tble,th~ conditions that prompted the inc!U$ipnofthose de$ignal!ons in the19756eneraJ Plan exJstto alesset extent today, 7.Slaff believes that the project will add new senior re$identil3lunits,Increasing the avaHl3bUity of this type of housing in the City ofHancho Palos Verdes to seryelocat senIors,The location of the project site will allow creation of a residential Attachments 2-145 PlanningCommissiQn Staff Report ZON2012 ..00Q67&$UB2012..00001 (fEtR,CQPrGR,&11M) November 13.2012 community in walking and bicycling distance to services to the north and thus has the potential to result lrt reduced pet~capitagreenhouse gas emissions. 8.Staff believes.that any development at the project site win require substantial grading activities to lower tnesite to maintain views from the upslope residential properties to the south.Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of development at thestte would not be economically feasible given the amount of earthworK that wpuld stmbe required toaccommodafe development. Therefore.haVing revieWed and considered the informatio!'1 contained il1 the Final EIR, Technical Appendices and the public record t Staff believes that a Statement of Overriding Consider.atioos 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,theaUached Exhibit "A'!,titled "Facts,Findings and Statement of Overriding Gonsiderations regarding the EnvironmentaJ Effects for the GrestridgeSenior HousIng Project",provides the details and justification for rnakil19 the necessa.ryfindings and State rnentof Overriding Considerations. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) The table below summarizes the project's consistency with the •Institutional development atandards,as established by the City's Development Code. o/a 16'andone-.stQry,except with 16'-0",up to 26'~10" approval of a CUP by the (two story and split..level Plahnin Cqrrtm.i~~i.qf.l .._.__..._..__.....strt,H;;:tures) Minimum Parking Spaces i-bedroom !3uilding Height o {no l"bedroom units roposed}_.w ___-_.-l--=~__------i 2-bedroom 120 spaces I 120 spaces Guest parking (Z5%:or······..·..·-..3(Fsp.ace·-s--~·····_·..··..·········1,·--3T..spa-ce-s-·-.-~._..--..---'".._._- lr=-_T,.I?~al Required Total Parking HiO spaces 151 spaces As with most uses pnjppsed Within the Institutional Zoning District,the proposed project use requires approval of seup .Additionally,because the proposed 2QI~1 0"taU two story Attachments 2-146 PJanning COl)1mis$ioo$taff Report ZON2012~0()067&$UB4012-00001 (FEn:~teUp,GR~&TTIVI) November 13.2012 and split-level structures exceed thel nstitutional DistrIct's development staridarcls of 16'..{)1I tall and one.cstory(see tableabove),a CUP is.requJredtoaUowsaidt>wiJdingheIghts.In considering a CUPappliGation,Section 17.60,05Q of the Ranc;hoPalos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC)requires the P1canning Commission to makesix(13)findings in reference to the property and project uhderconslderation (RPVDClanguage is boldface} folloWed by Staffs ahalyslsih normal type); 1.that the site i$adequate in sizeal1d$hap~toaCt;;ommQ¢lale the proposed use and for all of the yards,setbacks,waUs,f~mces,landscapingando~her features required by this tjtl~of by oonditions irnposedunderthissecfion to integratesaidU$e with those on adjacentlandand Within the neighborhood; Thesubjecf 9.76'-acreparcel wiHbesubdivided into 9.parcelsthafWill range in size frpm 0.43.cacre to 2.ii-acres.The 9 parcels will ~cGornmodate the 18 strpctures where the 60 condominium units will be located,in addition to thecomrnunitybl1Uding.Generally,the rear portidnof the site is zoned OH(Open Space Hazard)ahcl contains a geotechnical setback Une.These areas result in developrnentbeitlg concentrated towards the middle and front of the subject property . PtxJ:Qosed •Use: Thepropdsad projectincludeSl11any design$specfs fhalwHlintegrate the propo$edl1se with those onaclJacent Jandsand Within the surrouncjing neighborhood,First,a!3 shown in the t;:ib1e above,the proppsedli>fructure wiHcomply with ange~ceedall·of the reqpired setbacks of the ·lnstitutjonalzoni~gdjstrict..Parking throughoutthe siteWUJbe provided to residents of the facility within dedicated2~car garages .foreach uoii;;:lndvis!totparkingwHI be available.throughout the site.Since the.parklngwIUbeavaUaple wIthin thefaoility,flO p~rking wiH be visible.frpm the·street and pubHq:rights-of~w?ly,andwm npibe IOGPlted within the frpnt yard area of the proPerty.. Secondly,theproPQsed proJecfWiH contain landsG~pjn~throl.Jghoutth~J~clnty anclwHlbe conditioned to minimiz:eviewirnp~irment pyrequiring theland$c:apil1gtobe maintainecjat a height that doe$not exc.eed the height oftheaqJacenfsfructure.The appearance of the bUildings will .hot be apparent due to the landscapihg,Which will beconsi$tent wifhtne adJaCel1tus$s. froposed Height (exceeding 16'.,Q"andone,.story); Thirdly,the subjebtsite will be lowered byupfo 38l tromexistil1g grade focteate the proposed buHdil19pacls,internal roadway and parking area.The project site slopes down approximateJy4Q·4eetJrortrwesttoeasf,andrnwoh ofthe.prpposedgraclil19 is necessarytp lowerthewestslcje Qfthe lot and daylighfat the e~stside,This will create a manageable slopeforthe sitetd accommodate the developmenl,which Wduldcol1finue to slope from west to east,but it would be .Ie$$ofa dramatic slope.FlJriher,lowering the sitewiIJ bring Attachments 2-147 Planning ·CommissiottStaff·Report ZON2012*00067&SUB2012 ..00001 (FerR,CUP,.G.R,<&TtM) Novemb(tr 13,2012 tha western portion of the project closer ineleMation to theadjacel)t Belmont Assisted livIng facilitYl which was also 10weredsubstiantl13llyfrorn Its pre.,constrv.ction 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 adjacentdevelopments by stepping with the topography of the site and with the topographY of Crestridge Road.Furthermore, lowering the site all$'(lreduces the heightof the exhiitings.lopesalongthe roadway,which will be planted as part of the proJectland wlUmlnlrnlzethe useqfretaitilng walls along the street.Lastly,Joweringthe site substantiaHyand reducing th~height of some .ofthe structures reduces the potential viewlm pacts ovedheslte from the upslope resideH'lCeS to the south. ~ourth ,the proposed building designs are of a reSidential character,with a mixoftwo"st0l"Y structures and split-level two story structures.The architectural style of the proposed strQcture will be consistent wIth other residential typesttuctures along CrestridfiJe Road, slIchae the Belmont AEisisted liVing Facility,Mirandela Senior Apartments,and the CanterbUry Congregate Care FacilityJ€1s well aEi the residentiaJcharacter oftheexisting single4amUy residential neighborhoods to the eastandsouthof thasite ..Stafffeeis that these proposed design components help integrate the pro PQs ed age restrict~d (o5 years li;lndolder)UEie with other residential type Imi>titutional uS6salongCrestridge Road as well ast~ose within surround!ng residential neighborhoods ..As such,Stafffeels~ha,tthis finding cah be made. 2..Thatthe$ite forthe proposed use relate$tQ$treets and hignways$Ufficientto carry the type and quaotity of traffic generated bythesubjeet U$6.; ProposedVse: AS part ofthe ElF<docull1ent and for theptoposed project!atrafficill1pacLanalysis1 was prepared to <adqress the potential traffic impa ctEi and circulation needs associated with the proposed project.The traffi c study is contained in Appendi)(GoftheFinal EIRe The traffic study considered.five intersections andfocusednnassessingpotential traffic impGt9ts during the momingand evening commute peak hours.Thea intersections include:1) Crenshaw Blvd.at Indian Peak Road,.2)Crenshaw Blvd,afCre$tridgeRoaq!~)Crenshaw BlVd.at Crest Road!4)Highridge Road9tHawt~qme B!Y9,.,iand 5)Highridge Roaq at Ctesiridge Road. Thetrafficirnpact analysis foundth atallfive (5J key study intersections currently Qperate at acceptable LOS Dot bettecduring the AM and PM Peak hours.·The proposed project!S forecastlo gener13.teapproximateIY4~Qdailytrip$!with~3trips (4 ihpound,290utbound) produced in theAM peak hour and 44trips (28ihbound,16 outbound)produced in the PM peakhour on a "typical"weekday.As a reSUlt,ihe#Exlsfing Plus Project"anaJysisindicates 1 It is Important ton(jte that the traffiC COI1$qlt~nt cQCm;jihatedwith the City's Pulilic WOfksSt$ff to verify intersections for analyses,and that themethodplogies wereCotisistehtWithihdustryStandatds. Attachments 2-148 Planning Gommission$taff Report ZON2012~00061 &SU62012*00001 (FEIR,GUP,GR~&1tM) November 13,2012 that ttafficass.ociated wIth theptoposed Project will not slgnificantlYirnpactthefive (5)key study intersections,when compared to the LQSstaOdardsal1dsigl1.ificant irnpact criteria specified in the report.Thus,the five (5)key studylntersectkmscurrently operateahdare forecastlo cQntiOY6 to operate a!an acceptaple lOS with proJecfjrnplernentatlon. The Ttaffic Study also anticIpated cumulativeirYlpacts resultingftom a variety of projects in the Cliyand in the City of Rolling HiUs Estates,whiCh borders the project sfte.There are tVltenty..,five (25)curnulative projec:tsthafare expecfed togenerafeacombil1ed total of 18,480 daHyfrips,with 1,331 trips (493 inbol,Jnd and e38 outbol,Jnd)forecasfduringlh€;lAM peak hour and 1,904 (1,167 Inbound and 737 outbound)during the Pf\t1peak hour.The cumulative proJects analysis also found that the five (5)key study intersections are forecast tocontin~etooperate at an acceptable LO$with the addition of projecf fJeneral;ad traffic, The traffic sfUdy also al1alyzed potel1tial sight distanCe imp~cts related to th€;l project's aCC€;lSS way onto CrestridgeRoad,Althoughsi~lhtdjstancewasdeemed t6 be adequate <iue toa proposed mitigation measure limiting landscaping height,the mitigation has been modified foalso prohibit curbside parkIng along Cres;tridgeRolil<:l within theidentifledsigbt Visibility lines,The sfudyalsofound thlilt site~ccess .and Jnternal.circul.afion for tl1eproject site plan is adequate and that adequate vehicle queuing/storage .is provided for the proposed project's gated entry area along Cresttk~geRoad..Furthet,curb retumradiLhave been cpnfirmedand are adequate for small serviceldel.ivery .(FedEx,UPS)trt.Joks,trash trucks and fire trLjcks..Hqwever,t!1e folloWlngimprovemenfisrecpmmendedand inclt,.u:fed asa mitigation measure to ensure that adequate accessanq egress to the Projectsit€;lis provided: Lastly,constn..lction ff.(1:1ffic wasals...0 a.ss€;lssedslnce construction Jnclu..··.aes 143 ..000 cubic..... .. .........,".... yards ofexport.Construction occurs in 3 phases,WhichinclHdes clearing and grubbing; rough grading;and,site preparation,0fthe 3phaaes,the/most impactful occutsaf the rough grading phase,Where mosttruck ttips are exp~cted to occur due to the quantl~YOf export Asa f~sult,the assessment focuse(l on the pqtentiplit"l1pactsass;pc;tated with rough grading,and exportoccurfihg between 8:15am to 4:15pm,Mon<laylhrough Friday, The re.suJtsof assessing the exisfingsituationplus construction traffic indicates that all five (5)keysfudyintersections are forecastto QP€;lrale atacce ptableleve 1$ofservice during fhe AM and PM peak hOllIS for existing pluspqnstruQtiontraffic conditions,therefore no construction traffic impacts associated withine rough grading GPi"lsfructio·11 cornponentare anticipated ..·Given thatt10 construction traffic impacts are antiCipated fotthe tbllghgrading construction component,it.canbe concluded that the remai.ning constructiol1 oomponel1ts (i.e.c1earingfgrl.lbbing and precisegradlng/sitepreparation/imderground)wHlalso hav€;lno significant irnpactsat the five (5)key study intersections,becauS€;ltheyha.vea IeSsertrip generation potential than that of the rough grading constr'u.ctloncomponebt InsumrnGlry i according tofheanalysls in the FinafSiR(pages 4.8-25thtU4.8..28)lWhichis based ohthe· Attachments 2-149 Planning Commission Staff Report ZON2012 ..()()061&$UB2012..0t)·()01 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&TTM) November 1.3,2012 traffic impact analysis,the increased traffic generated by the project wiH not exceed the impacUhreshold and is thns nota significant impact As such,based upon fhediscussion above,Staff feels.that this finding can be made. The proposed height offihe strocturesand the two-stdrydesigns do nat Impact this finding. As a result,thisftnding does not .apply., 3.That,in approving the subject use at the specific locatiorhthere wiUbe no signlfieantac;tvfirseeffect 011 adjaeentpropertyor ~epermitteduse thereof; Proposeci.Use: The proposed·use will be consistent with other uses on adjacent property and ·along Crestl"idge Road.$taffPelieve$that the use will notbe In confHctwithotheruse in the area and will add tothemb<:tuteof hoUsing types offered byp.roviding additional senior hOUSing. ThuSrtherewHI be J1Qaigtliucant adverse effectfroth the use. Prof,?osed H.eight (exceeding 16'..0'"and one ..storyJ: In.tneeting with the appUcanf l Staff made it cleat that It wHIbe importantforfhe proposed project design to consider both ·visual and view impacts that.the project may cause to surrounding exisfingsingle,.ff;lmily residential neighborhoods.These were similar issues raised when the now-existing developments on either side ofthe SUbject property were being assessed.Toaddrss$these potential.impacts.the applicant has takenthefoUowing steps in creating a project that will ensure no significant visual and view impacts: •Fuilylandscaping the area between theftont property tine along Qr$stridge Road and the proposed buildings. •Providing one,common qrivewaYoff Crestfidge Road to serve .8S ingress!egressfor the community. •IncQrporating landscaping along the slopes within the project site. •Reducing the grade of the site by·up to·38\thereby lowering it significantly such that the structures on the west side wiHbe lower than theexistinggfade,and the majority of the structures on the east side are withIn 16~feetaboveexistlnggtade. •Designing the architectural style of the structures withuruJulating facades.varying roof planes,balconies and alcoves.stucco trim,metal railings,decorative windows with awnings and shutters,tile roofing material,stucco finishes,anclan earth~tone color scheme. Attachments 2-150 Pl~nning ·Cornmission StaffR~pprt ZON2012.,()OQ67 .~Sl.JB2012 ..00001 (FElR,CUP;GR,&111V1) NoVember ·13.20t2 In August 20 i2,silhouetfefrarnesof the proposed projectWereconstructed on the project site to illustrate the locationsefthe buildings.Due to theamolJnt of cuton the Westside of the site,the str\,lctures proPosed en the westsJde CO\,lld not be silhouetted because the resul\ingstructqres 'Nilloe lower than the existinggradel.The,heights of the frames represent the maxitnurn he1gl1tof the buildings at those locations on the property.The proposed heighlsonhestructutes vary,dependins .uponthe type of.structOte and location. Notwithstanding,the Development Code allows a maximum building height of i6-feet above,existing gradeLWhenassessing the proposed bUildings,$taffidentified th.at9 ofthe 19 lotal structures are above 1he16400t height limit,which includes: a)fQur,2-storyspUtlevel s1rucfuresfhaffrontalong CrestridgeRoad; oJ,one,2..;storysplit,.level structurealongfheel;lsiernmosl.side of thedeYelopmenf; c)one,2~story split4evelstrvclure in.themidqle of the development; d)one,2-storystructure in the middle ofthe deve10 pmeht;and, e)two 1 2-'story structures at the reatofthe developrnent. Staff conducted view analyses from various resideQcesi2dongSei;tsideH·e,igbts,Mis~ridge, and Oceahtidge DriVes.The residences afe located tothesQuth of the proJecfsite,and contain up to 180-degree views over the sUbject pfoperty.The residences along Oceanridgeand Seaside HeIghts Drivesareata substantiallY higheteleva,fion than the subjectpraperty;i;tnd the proposed developmentwiH opfprpject intotheirviews,Which are panoramic viewS that include the $anta l\JlonicaBayto the hPsAngeles p(:"lsin,8ndtowargs the Long Beach area.As aresultith~proposed project would not resllit inaslgnifiQapt impact to view (Le.,adverse effect)to the residences along SeasIde Heights and Ooeanridge Drives. Theresidehces a~ohg Mistridge Driye are lowerinelev~1;iOf1 than thereside!?ces along OceantidgeDrive.90nsequentlYI .althou9 0 they ate hIgher in elevatioh.than the SUbject proPerty,due to the topography of the atea,these residehcesdb not have a view of the $antaMoniGa Bay;rather,their vieWsarepre,OQp1in?\ntlyofthe Lps Angeles basin overthe subject propertY~l1d.ina northeasterly directionovE9f.the90uttin9 Miranoela$E9(l19f Housing·ProJect.Staffvisiteds6veral.residences along Mistridge.Drive,which .haVe been incorporated into the Aesthetics seotiohof theElR with view simulations.As indicated apove,the projectincludE9sa total of t9structUfe,Sl wher~by 1001 thestruotureswiU be loWer than the16"foo~.heIght limit (Le.,.i6..feetab9ve .existing grade)and 9 .ofthe structures will be above said limn:.Itls impo~antto 110te that some of the structures that are less than 16-feetaboveexisting grade will Impait viaws fromalon~Misfridge Drive. However,since the structures would be within the maXirnumbuildinQ height,Staffs analy$isfoQ\,lsedon the 9 structures that are above the 16..;foot nei9htJirnit. UI.litnately,of the 9 .structures thalare.aboVefhe i6-foot height limit,th~two~storY structures (atotalof3that are identified in "d"and i'e'\aoove)result insornetYpeofview impairment,as theporflonsC)bavE9 thet6~footheight Ii/nit (Le.,i6.;feefaboveexisfing grade)impair a sroall portion of theciiyvjewat thepottom oftheviewfr<;lf)'1esfrom the Attachments 2-151 Planning QQl11m i$$lonStaffRepprt ZON~012..00()67 &$JJB2012~(j0001 (FEI~,CUP,GR,&TTMl Novel11ber13.2012 existing residences on Mistridge Drive.The proposedstructureslhalarealong Crestridge Road and theeastem property line {identifieclas "a"and "0",above)areat lowerelevations than the other structures on the site;asaresulf,thesestruet:ures are in the foregrouncl ancl will not proj¢!ct.into the view fra.mes from the residences alOng Mlstridge Road..The remaining 3 structures along ~he fear of thecle\telopmentandin the middle (If the developtnent{identifiedas "d"and "e"i above)are also above the 16-foot Iimit(Le,,16-feet above existinggracle),Since these buildings are located near theceflter of the site,they are-in the middleoftha view corridors of the prop e.rti es along .Mistridge DriVe...Staff believeslhfilt the heights of theseprqposeclsfrucfures,Qoupledwith the location wjthinthe viewframes,makes them rnoreapparent and results lhsornetypeofView impa.irmentfrom the resIdences aJong Mistridge Drive.Asa.result,Staff met with the applicant to discuss modifications tQthese buildings·to minimize fheitTlpairment As a result of the meeting,the applicant has offerecl to mqcHfy these buildings rnthe following manner: •Reduce the plate heights of the structuras conte.lningunits19 thru.22.!and 45 al1d 4(:1 -This reduces the height ofthe buildings by up to2'-feet ,.Reduce the roofpitch from3:12!to 1.75:12 forfhe structures containJng units 19 ihn.!22,and 45 and 46-This reduces the.height qf the bl1Hdings by up to1 ...foot •Ohangethe fOOTS orr.theeastem ••por1:ionsoffhethreebu ilcJlngs·fromgable.foofsto hlp ~This reduces·the amount of horlzQntal projections and .OPens up InQreview, The modifications wiU resultin a reduction in the structure heights by 34eet,resoltin;g in structures that•.are·approXimately23~feetabovefil1ish ..grade,andreduces the Joof massin9 with incorporatiQnQf 1;1.hip qn these Quilding$.$taffbelieves tha..t these modifil.::atiqns minimize the viewimpairmenfsLlQh that the ·bLlilclings will minirnaHyprojectintQthecity lights VieWs While maintaining the.larger panotamic VIeW from the residences along fv1istridge Drive.·P1s...a result,Staff hasincludedaclraft condition that speclfies 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 onadJacehtptopel1:y,ahd this finding can be made. 4.That the proposed use iSrtoicontra.ryto the general plan; The proposed project .lsconslstentwifh the goals8ndpoHcies of the City's Gel1era!Plap, For examplet it is a goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan ;'(0 preserve and ennanoethE!·oommunify'sC/U(fllity livll1genYironmeof;toennance the yisu'$! chfjracter I4nd physicsJ qqaHtyof eXisting neig/]borl'1pQ<;!s;anclro el1Poqrageth(j; de:veloprnentQfhotlsingina rnf)nner whi9hacqJJquatelyservesfheneegs ofqll present and future tesidentsof the cOfnfnUnifjl'"Additionally,it.isapoIicyoftheGeneral Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses veJY carefUlly to ensure Attachments 2-152 Plaoni.ngComrnissionStaff Report ZON.2012 ..Q0067 &SU821112 ..00001 (FEIR,.CUP,GR.,&TTM) November 131 2012 theIr compatibility with adjacent sites",Furthermore,it is a Housing Activity Policy of the Cityts Genetal Plan to "[requirejafl new housing cfevefoped to include .$uitable and adequate lemdscaping,open space,and o{h(;;r designamenltiesfo meet the community standards of environmental qualify.II ThepfoposfPd proj~ct meets this goaJancl these policiet?as it provides an ae'Stheticatly pleasingprpject thati$compatiblewitheXistingland uses and serves the neecls of residents within the community. Therefore,Staff believes thatthis finding can be made for the .proposed project. 5.Thal,if the site of the proposeq \I$e is within any of the overlay control districts estabUshedby Chapter 17.40 (OverlaY Control DJstricts)ofthis title, the proposed use complies with allapplict\blerequirements of that chapter; and The subject property is not located withinalJ oV€lrlaycontroJ cHstriot Therefore,thi$finding doe$l1otapply to the·proposed project... 6.That.conditions rl:lgarding any of the req.uirements listed in this pa.r~sraph, which the Planning Cornmissionflndsto be necessary to protect the.health, safety and general welfare,have beetl imposed:a.Setba.cks and buffi:lts;b. FencesorwaUs;.c.Lighting~d ..Vehicular ingress and egre$s;e.N<>]se! vibr.ation,o('1otsandsimilar emissions;f.Landscaping;g,Ma,ntenance<>f structures,grQunds or signs;h.Service roads o.ra.ne¥~;an(Jh$..Qch other conditions as wiH rnake possibledeveloprnentof the.City lnanorderly and efficient manner and in e-onformity with the intent and·P4H>oses set fodhin this title. If thefOlannlng Commissiolt recommends approval o.f the project,Slaffwould recommend inclusion of appropriate conditions to ensure the protectiol1ofplJ.blic health,safetyancl general welfare.These conditions would inclqqe tbe mitigation mea$-vres iqentifieclin the attached Final EIR for the project.Examplesofcohditiohsand rrHtigatioh measures include (but are not limited to)~ •Litnitatiohson the heights of waHsandfence$; 4'Conditions regatding the pla.cementandtype ofexteriof right fixtures; •Requirements formarkingfite latles and prohlbitingparkihg therein; •ReqUirements forcornpliance With theCltytsatfached unit development standards regarding the transmisslorlQfsovnd and vibratiQn throughcotrlmon walls and floor$; •Requirements for dedication ofaneat?ernentfor trail purposes,Gonsistent with the Conceptual Trails Plan. o Requiremeni$forwater.,conservil1g lanclscaplng and irrigation; •F!jrther Iirnitationsor restrictions on the heIghtoffoHage anqtrees;and, Attachments 2-153 PJ.anning Commission Staff Report ZON2Q12-00067 &SUB2012..00001(FEIR,CUPI SRI &TTIVf) November 13,2012 •Restrictions on the number and types ofslgoage forthe project ..Urnitations on the heights,moftypesand roofpitchesfor the buildings identified above. In conclusion,8taff belieVes that all of the necessary ftndll1gsfor the approVal of the conditional.use permitto estabHsha residentialGondorniniurn complex canba made forth a proposed proJeGt. GRADING The table below summarizes the proposedgr(itding91ssocfatep with this project Within the proposed building footprints,the maximum depth of cut proposed is approximately 34'at the we§ternrnost portion of the site,while the fillwiJl be conduotep throughout the site primarily for the interior roadway and ensuring a consistent slope throughoutthesite.The proposed grading also inCludesthethfeeretaining wa.lfs alO!lg the feaf (upslope)ofthestructUfeSon the west side ofthesite.The maximum height ofthe retain ing waHsis proposed at 6..feet. lnconsideringagradingperrnitapplieatioo,RP\lDC Seotion 17.76.040(8)requires the Planning Commission taoonsider the.foHaw[ng critetiain rererenceto thepfQpertyand project under consideration fRPVDC language Is boldface,followed bYSfaffsanalYsisin normal type):...... 1.The grading does not exceed that which is hecessaryfor the permitted primary L1sGof the lotjas defined ifl Section 17.96.2210·of the Development Code. The proposed projectinGIudes147,OPO Gubic yards of tota1ea,rth rnovemen~(Gqta,npffll combined)to accommodate the pt9Posed proJectoD the 9.76-aore8 property.As hoted above,the grading will sUbstantial.ly loWer existing topography In an effort tbmaihtainviews over the subject property.The sIte wifl he lowered byapproxirnafely 38.:.feetorl the west side of the site,which willresult instructurestbat are lower than the existing topography. Nonetl1eless,grading of the entire site WUroccur,a,nd willservefoacqoITlmodate the various structureson..:site,the internal roadway that will loop through the developmenf,the community buiIdingand the outdoor recreation area.Since theinteni of the grading is primarily to lower the site's topography,there wiH be 143,()()()cuPic Y<itrdsofexport.The export will lower the site to proviQfaa betterdesigned pfoJecland wIH <itllowthemajority of the puildingsto be set lower on the site than could be alloWed 'lby right"Without the Attachments 2-154 PI~noing CQrnmissipo Staff R~p()rt ZON2012"0006.7.&StJB2012-00001 (FEIR;CUP,Ga.,&TTM) November 13%2012 proposed grading (or with less grading}.As such,StaffbeHeveslhat thisctiterioncan be made for the proposed proj~ct. 2.The grading and/or related constrm;tiQodpesnotsigoificaotly.adversely affect tb~visual relationships with,nor the views from,neighporing properties. Incases where gradIng is proposed for a neW residen.oeoran adclition to an existing residence,this finding shall be satisfied.when the proposed grading resUlts In a lOWer finished.grade underthe building footprint such that the haightof the prQposedstructure, as measured pursuant to Section 17,02,040(8)of this Title,is lower thana structure that could have been built in the same 100atiol1on the lot ifrneasuredfrorn preconstruction (existing}srade.As discussed abOVe,the proposed grading results In lowerstOJctures than would be permitted "by right"withoutthe proPQ$~<;Igr~ding,F\..rrth~rmore,wnH~there issorneflU throughout the sIte,the fHlserves to align the interior roadway;el1sures a consistent slope througholltthesite ahdprovides fortrahsitional slopes betWeen buildIngs; as a result no.fiU wIll be placed under any.of the building.footprints In order to r~ise the grade to aocommodate a structure.lAs such,the proposedgra<;ling WUI notsi9ni ficant.ly affectthe visual relationships with,nor the vjewsfrorn neighboring properties because no grading will be doneto raise the gracles attheb\,JIldings,·Therefore,Staff believes that this criterion can be made for the proposed project.. 3.ThenatUteaf the gtadlngrnio.imi%~sdistutban(;~t()the nat~taJ QOl1tours,and finished contours arereaspnaply !"lafutal. TMeexistingsite topography slopes fr0 rrl .\Nestto east,ahd is higher than the adJacent developme~ts {Le.}BelmontandMirandela)..Artifioial fill has been idehtified at.the site. whicnwas placed during grading operationsforth~oonstruQtion ofCrestridge Roadaloog .the southerly property •.line.The site also slopes up from Crestrld.geHoad totnemi<;ldle of the site,fMe\1sIQpesdowntowards the City's Reserve property to the north.Thus,some of the slopes orfthesite appear to have beenrnal1made and are notnattlraL NonetheleSS,as indlcateoabQVe,the rtlfiljorityof thegradinQ Is to Iowertha site,.JndoingSQ;there$ultin~ structures wHi be in line with the developments on eithefside,whl.ch slopes <;Ioyvnfrom west to east.Due toihe existing topography of tpeslis,Whlchisco~ve)(jn$ha~e;fhegradlng wiIJ also prepare the site for development The existing cotltourswiHbe removed,·bufthe finished.contours will ensure a gentlersloping sifethafconttnuestoslope ffomwest to east,Slopes down tothe roadway,downto the ec:lstern property-line..and up tQthe western property line will continuetQexist,althnugh sr)1aHerin height TherEiffore,Staf'f beUevesfhat this criterion can be rn?tdefor the prf;>posed·project. Attachments 2-155 Plannitlg·ComrnissionSt;rffReport ZON2012 ..00067&SUB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP ,GR,&TTM) November·13.2012 4.The grading takes into account thepreser'V"ationof ·natutal.topographic features and .appearances by means of lal1dsculptihgso as to blend any manmadeQt manufacturedslopeihtofhe natUral topography. While portions of the topographic:feat!Jr~sqppearto i::>e man~rrH:lde as a result of the consfructionof surrounding roadways,ahd not ofe hatl1raltopographic featt..lre,the proposedp!oject still considers the top~gtaphic fe~turesendappearancesoftheexisting sit13bycreatingnewslopes that are simiIarfotheexistingslopes.There.wHI continUe to be a transitionalsloP13 up to 13elmontanq down to Mirandelp,which ~aid in creating a stepped development that is in line with the adjacenfqevelopments.A$a·.re$utt,the proposed development would not be topographically out of scate With the suftoundingarea. Th(;;refore,Staff beHeves that this criterion canbemade. 5.For newsin.gle...familyresidences,fhe gradingandlqy related coostruction l$ compatible with the immediateneighbQrhoQdcharacfertas definef:iin Section 17.02.040(A)(6)ofthe Development Code. The proposed project Is nof a neW single-famlly residence.Therefore!this ctiteritm is hot appliqable to theproposeq projec:f. 6.In neVI(residential.tract$.,th~grading incllJges provisi9ns {qtthepreservatipn ahd introduction of plea 111 matefjaJsSoQS tOPfot*'3ctsloPesfrOmsQil erQsiQn andsUppage1 and minimi:te visual effects ofgradingat1dcQr1stru;etio!1on hillside areas. The propo~eq proj(;;ct consists ofanew tract,In the sens13th9t9new lpts Will becreqtedto accorn!ilodate6Q condominjums\opensp~ceprea$,cornmunltybuilqing,and the infrastructure .oftheptoposed developrnent.AsindicElted.aboveithegraaing Will.lower the site and will result in a development that steps down from westlo easfsuchthatthereisan aestheticsymrnetry linking the dev(;;lopmenfs on either side,Asa result,the slopes and pervIous flreas Will contain lam;lscaping to .preventergsiQnandcrealean aesthetically pleasing site.Further,the landscapihgWiH be conditioned soastopreyent foliagefrorn growing above the..helg htsofthe buildings and creating view.irnpairrnent to the residentsto the south of th(;;site.Thus,as proposedaod conditiooeql.adequate landscaping wUI be provided throughout the site to make the project less apparent As suph,StaffbeH(;;ves that this cr'iterlonpan be made.. 7.Thegradi119 ..utilizesstJ'eet designs and improvements which serve to mInimize grading alternatives aod harmonize with the natural contours and cnaraoterofthe hillside. The proposed projeqt iovolVesaprivate roadway that loops within the developm(;;Of to provide access to the various buildings.The proposal includes one IngressfegfesSpoint Attachments 2-156 Planl1ingCommi$siQo Staff Report ZON2.01'2-()OOp7&~OB2012-00001 (FEIR,CUP,GR,&11M) November 13,2012 along Crestridge Hoad.The street willslopewifh the resultih9.lopographyand will be ofa width that can accommodate two~way traffic.wiUprohibit street parkingrandwlll accommodate emergency personnel.No street lights ate proposed,and Staff recommendsa.condition that prohibits stre~t Iightstandarcis.Lastly,1;)esid~the ingresslegressdriveway along Crestddge Roqd,the interior roadway will notbevisiblefrorn thepublicrights"of~way.As SUCh,Staff beHevesthatthiscriterioncan be made. 8.1hegradingwould Itotcause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through r(i:}movaJ of vegetation. A Biological Resources Assessment was performed for the EIR.According to the assessment.the subject property Is regularfyclearedand maintained through diskingahd grUbbing'.!\:ssuch,there is no protected hapitat(CSS)present po site.Further,non..natiVe vegetation is present on the slte j which provides for POPf habitalt fofwUdlifespecies.The s11eis,however,adjacent to the City's Reserve property.As such,there are mitigation measures proposed tominirnlze dIsturbance andiolpacts to the City's Reserve,Which includes nafivelands.caping,especiaUy for thQse areas that abut the City'S Reserve.As such,StaffbeJieves that this criterion can be made. 9.Thegl"ading conforms to the City's sti:lndardsforgradlng on slopes.,c.r~atiQf'l of neW slopes,heights ()ftetai"iogwaUs.,and maximum dtiv(i:}way $teepness. RPVf)C Section 11.76.040(E)(9)estabHshesadditipnalgradingcritetia.Thefablebelow summarizes the propOsed project's conslstencYWlth these criteria, Grading accl4Fs!:'n 13lopescwer 3$%steepness [Not consistent] Maximum d~pthQf cut pr fill Gr(:ldfng on slopes over 35% ste~pness Permitted.on vaCl3nt lots cteat~d priortothe City's lneorporatlon,based wpdna finding that the grading will not threaten.public:health,·safety and Welfare . Ir-:-::--:-~=---:-:--..,..,.....--;-,,----+-=~,,=-;,==----;-,,-~-..---+-=---~--+--·-·~~·--·~··--··---······-Maxll11urnfinished slop~s 35%st~epness,un.l~ssnextto $omeneW$lope$at 50% .'"driveway Whewef67%grad$"'re pmpo$ed steepness i$pefmitted Not.con$ist~nt] 5'depth,un1e$S b",sequpon.$A,pprqxirn<;tfe3$'cuf-·_·······- finding that [Not consistent] unupual.topoggaphYi sofl conditions,prt;lViClU$grading or other circumstances make $uchgrading reasonable and neces-saIt-=~~-----:c---::-"-----+-:-~';";=-'-+"~-~~-~---+-:--;-,,-----::--·~-~·-~""_·..~._...."......~.. Restricted grading areas No grading on slopes Qver No grading occurs over slopes 50%steepness exceedingf;50% Attachments 2-157 P1anning CQmmi$sion Staff Repprt ZON2012 ..00Q67 &SUB2012 ..0(J001 (FEIR,CUPfGRf &TTMl November 43,2012 Retaining walls One8'4all·upslope waH One upslope·retaining w~n behind threesttuctures,LIP to 6'tl;lliproposed One31h '-taU dOWd$IOPe waH One 314'..,tall up'"'or downslope walt in eG,lc;Q$iqeYettd One 5'·.tall up,..or downslope wall adJetcentto Driveway R.etaining walls within building footprint may exceed 8' NotappHcable Not·applicable Retaining walls up to 9' proPOseq I--.......-..-.....,-------t-=";"""""-:-----c:-~---_+_.=~.:_:_--,------41 Driveways 20%rhaxirl1lJrtlslope 10%driveway slope proposed permitted,with a single 10'- longsec;ticm qp to 22% 67%slopes permitied ......~qt~.~~.m t~.:~.~~y.!YV~Y$ 350/0 adjacent to driveway The proposed project!SInconsistentwith 3 ofthecrir¢ri~shown¢lpoVe~HQw?yer,itis important to consider that the subject site isa vacant par?el With undulating topography }i:lod some un-cornp}i:lcfed fill mater!al that mustoe exported in Qrder to render the site bqildable.As noted in the tE\ble,grading on$lopes~reater than 350/0 may be permitted based upon.a findingthatth!grading will notthreqten public health,safety and welfare,..In this particular case,the minorslopes throughoutthesite ~re beingelimi~atedto lower the topography of the site.A.geological report has beensUbrnitted thatsqpports the developrnentofthe ProposedProjectl vvhich has been reviewed and cQnceptuallyapproved by the City's Geolqgist..Bqsedupon thean61lyslsthusfar.and sinc6developrnent pfthe subject site will require adherence to the recommendations of the geological report and building permits that willenstlte thatthe proposed project will not threaten public health; safety and Welfare,Staff beHeves thatthis finding Can be made. Furthermore,.8 difference from thecut~ndfiH ¢rjte~i.atn<:lYbeapprovedb~sedupona findingthatl.lnusualtopography,soilconditlon,s,previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary ...StaffbeUeves that the proposedgtacung down of the site to provioe betterviews ano a better visual representationoftheproj~ctare circumstances that waltantaPproval qNhe increased depth of·clJt. Forths other it~m !n WhIch the proposed projectis 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 norn1¢l1 text for Staff analysis): Attachments 2-158 Planning·Commissipn Staff Report ZON2012",00067&SUB2012*Q0001 (FEIRfCUP S GR1 &11M) November 13 1 2012 a.The criteria of subsection (E}'1)through (E}(8)of this section are satisfied; and As discussed abov~,Staff feels that alf of the noted criteria aresattsfied.AS$uch,thIs finding can be maqe. b.The approval is consistent with the purposes set fortbinsubs$ct.ion Aof this section;and Staff believes that thepr<>posed project is consistent with the purpos6of the Grading Permit,which is 1)to permit reasonable development of land,2)ensure the maximum preservation of natun:dscetllc character of the area cOrlsistent with reasonable economic use ofthe property,$)el1SUre that the development dflandoccursin a manner harmonious withadjacentlands,and 4)ensure that the project Is consistent with the General Plan, Specifically,·theproposed proJect Will lower tMe site while·maintaining a simUartopographic configuration of a flatter area with slopes,thereby helping to preserve views overthe site and not cause visuallrnpacts,which will develop the site in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands,In doIng So the project permits the reasonable developmenfof land while maintaining the naturalscenicchatacter,As such,this finding can be made, c.Oepa.rturefrom the standards in subsection (El(9)of this section will not constitute a grant ofspecial.pt'ivUeges·inconsistentWiththe limitations upon other pre>pertiesin the vicinity;and The proposed project site requires .•·a significantamol.lnf of re~compaction,Additionally, lowering the site wiUensure less thansignlficant view and visual impacts~Development proposals on large vacant parcels with thesetypasof actions are consIstent with prior actions on other InstitutIonal uses along CresiridgeRoad,namely the Belrnont Assisted Living FacUity project Wherein that site was also loweredsubstantiaUy for the same pLfrpO$e~h As such,Staff does not.feel that the proposed·deviations will grant special prMleges inconsistent with the Ifmitatiotl$upon other properties in the VIcinity andtnis feels that this finding can be made, d.Oepartureftortl the standards of subsection (E)(9)of thissectionwiU 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.Funher,the 50%slopes thatwill be created are transitIonal slopes from one structure to another,whichehsures that the sitewm slope with theJopographydf the area,Based uppnthe analysis contained above,and since development of the subject site win require it to adhere to the geology report's recommendations and building permits that wHlensure that the proposed project will not be detrimental to pUblic safety norto other property, Attachments 2-159 PJ;1oning Commission SbiffReport ZON2012-00067&SUB2012..00001 (FEIR,cup,GR.,&TTM) November 13,2012 In conclusiou1 Staff be lieves that all Clftheapplicable gradif1 g.findings can be made for the proposed project. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP As shown.in the attached Tentative Tract Mapl fheAppllcalitproposes to subdivide the existing9.76",acresiteinfo9 separate lots to accommodate the 60 conQominiumunits, Section 66474 ofthe State Subdivision Map Act (SMA)lays ol.ltthe findings against which anytentatfve tract map shall be evaluated (SMA language is boldfitce,follOWed by Staffs analysis in normal tYpe): (til)The.proposed map isconsistentwithappHcable gellefat afldspecificplans as specified in GOVernment Code Section 654.51. (b)The design or improvement Q1 the propOsed subdIvision is consistenf With applicable general andspeciflc plans.• For the reaSOns discl.JssedabClve,Staff believes fhatthe proposed project Iscohsisfenf wIth the applicable goals and polices of the landuseahd hOHsin.g elements of the Rancho PalQs\lerdesGenE;ral Plan,Further,thE;subject property is not located within any specific plan area. fo)The site lsphysicallysuitable for·the typeoT dev:el~pment. (d)The site is physically suitable for tile..pro.posed density of development. The subject property measures 9]p-acres in area andissuffioientinstz:el()sccornmooste the pfoposedSeniorHoysing c~ndominiumproject Thebuildin9s?respfficient1yspaced, the project provides for open space,outdoor recreationalatessfot the future tenants, complies with the applicable setbacks,and hasa.det1s!ty of approximately 6 units to the acre.As such,Btaff beHeves thaHne site is physically $uitabJef<>rthe tYPepf development and denSity of the project fe}The .desl~nof the•.subdivisiOI1.or the ·proposedimpfovemel'1mare notlikely.to oam:lesubstantialenvlronrnental darnageot"substantiallyandavoidablyJnjure fiahor wUdlifeorthelr habitat. (f)The design of the subdivision or type of improvoments is not Hkoly to cause seriolis Pliblic ·h~alth prQblems. The subject property haShever been devefopect~nd has remained a Yqqaht parcel, Further,there have been past approvals and proposalsfhat call ouUhe subjectpfopertyfor the us.e that is now being proposed.There are no sensitive plant or animal species;no known hlstoricaI,archaeolQgicaI or paleontological JI3$ources;and no known hazarOQus materials or conditions on the subject property.In the eventtpatarlY of these are Attachments 2-160 PlanQing Commission S~ff Report ZON2012~00061&SUB2012-00001(FE1R,CUP~GR,&TTM) November 13,2012 encountered prior to or during construction of the project,the recomrnended mitigation measures and conditions .ofapproval.will reduce any potential impacts upon the environment,fi$h and wHdlife,sensItive habitats of public health to less,.than,.significant levels, (g)The design of the subdivision orthe type of imptovementswHlconfliot with easetnehts,acquired by the public at latt:tesforaccessthrougnor use of, propet"tywith in the proposec:lsubdiVision ..Inthisconnection,the governing body may approve a..map if itfinds thataltcarnateeasetoents,for aceessor for use,win be provid$d,and that these wi'l be sUbstanfiaHyequivalenttooraes previously acquirEo,d by the public.This .$ubsectionshaUappIYQnly.to ei:lsementsof recordQrtoeasementsestabUsh~dbyjudgmentof a court of tompetenlJurisdic1:ion and no authority is herebygrc;lnte~[to ale:gislativebody to determine that the public at large has acquiredeQsemenfsforaccess through or Use of property within the proposed subdivision. There are noknQwn publicaccesseE1lsementsq;crQ$sthesubject propedy thatshQuldbe preserved as a part ofthis projeqt,However,sjncetheCity'sCQnceptqaITrail~lF>lan{CTP) calls for a traU to connect Crestridge Road to fndlan Peak Road below,theappHcanlwm provide and .tecord .a pedestrian traileasementc~nsistentwith.the City's (?TP...If! conclusion,Staff believes thatthe.prqposed tentatiVe tract map Isconsistenfwitht~eGityls subdivision regulalions,8s well asfhez:oning and General PlanlanPusedesignatiOnSTbf the siteanci the State Subdivision Map Act.Furthermore,the draft map has bean reviewed bythe Qity.Eh~lneer,the CitYls consultant traffic engineer,the Gity'sdrainage consL/ltar'll andpfher PUblic~gencies,As.such,theTentatiVe Tract Map may be approved, ADDITIONAL INFQRMATION INCLUSIONARY HOUSING RSQUlarttMENT This project Is subject to theinQlusionary hPu$jntl.r~qQire01entspf Chapter 1],11 ofthe City's Developm~ntCode,l3laseq uponthepropQsed 60"unitproject,theapplicantqhall ~e obligated to provide three {3.)Uhitsaffordable to~ety I~w IncOmeh?ust;holqs an~a condition has been included that requires the provisl'onof these 3 residences.This is consistent withthe goals and policies pf fhe CiW's General Plan HQusing Element. SUPPORTIVe SERVICES PROGRAM AccQrdfngfo the applicant.the.hewcomrnunitywitlprovfdeasupportiveservicesptogtam consistent with the Institutional Zoning requirements,The Glty's Municipal GOqa Section 17.26.030.E allows age-restricted for-sale housing prqvidedcertain .servicesare provided fbr the residents ofthe community,The Godelistsa nurnberofservices thai:qualify but nOne are prescriptive.The services listedin the CQdethatarerelevantand appropriate for Attachments 2-161 PianningCQI11mlssipn Staff Report ZON2012·00067&SUB2012-00001 (FE1R,CUP,GR,&TIM) Novembar13.2012 the proposed Crestridge cOl11rnunityarethe following Services: 1.$ocial/recreation programs, 2,Educational programs,and/or 3.Health and nutrition programs. rhe CrestrIdge BOA wQuldcreale regular progra;rns.fQcusingon the three areas Hsied above foofferto residents in the comm4nity servicecenterbuj!dlng,Someexamplesofth~ programs .include community farming classes in the classrbom and inthecomm4ni~y gardens)exerciseclassesJnthe fitness room,instructor leadindoorand outdooryogat Taj Chi and pHates classes,computer classes,healthy eating seminars and cookIng Classes, natLlre walks along the onsiteand (ildjoIning trails;wine fasting and food PairingC:l.asSel:>. book clUbs,moVie nights and varions othereduc~tjopaland recreafionalclasses./Asthe prograrnsgrowand residents get morei~volved,the HOAW?uld.HKelyformacornmunity programs sUbcommittee made up ofresidentsand apart..time programs director to assist io developing tppics lQrthe.programs,inviting .$peaKersand orgClni~ingevents.<3iven.the layout and amenities that are planned in the service center Cl!1d onsite,these prQgrams can .easily be accomtrlodatedonsite. Theacti',titieswouldpe supported within the GpmmunItyServlceOenter bUilding.The 2.400 square,-foot GommunityServlceCenterp4Ilding(i1ndsundec!s .\NowJd pfpvicIe a second)centraHzedc0rllmunityarnenityforth~tesid~nt$,..The C0rllfnunilYServiceGenter would.provide a recreation andlounge area forcornrnunity gatherings.kitchen;computer center/business rppm,office,fitness room,oathrooms,indoor and outdoor fireplaces; outdoor li",in~ares,spa,barbequ6aod s6Cltingarea.TheComrnunitY~ervjGeOentercoUld <:11$OOe usedfQrcomrnunit¥.gqthering~and 8sasodalvenue for regular resIdent aotivities like movie nights,book clubs and cooking classes.Ultlmately,a condition ofapproval has been added fo ensure the avaHabilifyof the afotementionedservfces. [Juring the comment and circUiafion periOd oHhe Draft SIR,theattached c:omrnentfrom Mr.De Lorenzo was inadvertently left.out of the Flnal 6J RAssuch,Staffhasopfed to respond to the comment.in a manner PQI1s1stent with the responses toqornments contaIned inthe Final EIR.It is irnportanttonotethat fhecolTlrneflt does nQtqirectly challenge the analysis or conclusions oUhe Draft EIR.Thus,thefol!owing Is in response to Me De Lorenzo's emaH: -Comment 1,fe densIty:see Response 6~1in the FinqlE1R -Comment 2.,.•re traffic:itlsacknoWledged that1rafficwoUld increase;howev8r;.acCOfdlnQ to the traffic section ofth.e EIR,theincreasewQuldnotexceedtheCitylsthresholdsfor traffio impacts, Attachments 2-162 PlanningCommi-ssion St~ffRepQrt 20N2(124)0067&5U82012-00001 (FEIR1 CUP,GR,&TIM) NO\{$mb(W13.2012 ~Comment.3,fe density again:see Response 6,1 In the Final EJR -Comment Sa,resize (scale and character):f13Terto theaesthetic$s13Gtionas well as Response.6.1 in the Final E1R TRAIL THROUGH THE PROJECT SITE During the pubUccomment meeting for the DraftEIR,e.quest(onarose hpw this proposal would COnnect the City's Reserve with a mid,.plock-ctossing along Cresttidge Road. Currel1tiy,ther€Hs no mid"blocK-cfOsslng,and the City's GonceptuaJ Trails Plan (ctP)does not can fora mid-block-crossing along Crestridge Road.As such,installation of a mid- b!oqk..cfC!sslng is.not being required. Nolwiihsfal1ding.,consistentwith theCity's CTP,the appUcanf will.dedicate an etlsement Tor a pedestriantraU through the project site iooOhl1ect the abutting City's Reserve property with Cresttidge Ro~d,The route of the tr~il is depicted on the proposed tract map and an easement wo.ulg berecordeq on the property;however,theexaot lopation to connect with the·City's ReservetraHsWill beflnaUzed by Staff.FUrfher,af>propriate signage Would be provided Indirect fhepublic through the development.Originally when th€rCTP was adopted liT 1990,thettail connectioh wssclsssifiedas an'iequestrian/pedestrisn'l traIL However,in 1993 the City Coum:::il adopteg anamendmenUothe OfP,which del(3ted the equestriandesjgnation and provid~d for a pedestrian only traiL Assuqh,a pedestrian easement thtough the site will be recorded on the Final Map to ensure that a pedestrian connectioh is provided between CtestridgeRoad and the City's Reserve property to the north, ATTACHMENTS It Draft C()nditions of Approval It Draft Exhibit "A",tjtlt~d"Facts,Firujihgsand Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housins Project" ..Site and Architectural Plans It Crestrkj"g$$i!!mior Housing Project Final EIR ..Public Comments teceived 011 Draft:EIR Attachments 2-163 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE NOVEMBElt 13TH MEETlNG. Attachments 2-164 PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Nelson and Vice Chairman Emenhiserretl.lrned to the dais. 2.Conditional Use Permit (Case Nos.ZON2012-00067 &SUB2012-000(1): 5601 Crestr'idge Road Senior Planner Schonborn presented thesfaff report,briefly-explaining thescopeofthe proposed pfpJect and the necessary entitlements for the proposed p.rojectHestated that in looking at the GonditionalU.se Permit and the entitlements,staff felt tbe necessary findings can be made,He noted that oneaf thefindillgs Within the CUP is if there is an adverse impact.Therefore,when looking at the development staff tookil1to account views frornsurrounding neighborhOods!noting cOhcernsWithsome prihe proposed buildingsfhat are over 16 feet In heighLas rneasuredfrome?<isfinggraOe,.He showed photos·from a variety of residences on Mistridge Road,and explaihed that staff worked with the developer and atchitecUominlmize the view impairments.He briefly explail1edsome ofthe mOdifications that wiH be made to address the view issues,He discusseo $ome of the concerns··raised pytheptJbHc opring .the pwbllc comment peripo, including foliage a,nd landscaping height and trails.He notecIthaf the consLlltanfha$ included mitigation measures to address these concerns..lntegafdsto thegradlhg,he noted the 147,000 cubic yards ofgrading will help reduce.the height of the.existing toppgraphyand lower the overall height of theproiect He brieflydiscu$$ed the issues analyzed in the EIR.,inclUding ae.stl1ettcs,airquality,biologIcal resoqfces,geologyand solis,greenhouse gas,noise,and ttafficandcircUla,tion.MriSchonbbrnexplained tha.t with allY EIR there are certain significahtimpacts Ih13f13reidehlified,and with this proposed project there is one unavoidable sigl1ificant irnpact that was identified,which is aesthetics.He explained that thi$ls a.vacant piece ofproperl;y and there is a development proposed on this parCelj which [San unavoloabfeaesfhetic impact With thatj tl1e City Council will have to adopt a State.mehfdfOverridihg ConSiderations,Which specifies their reasons foracceptil1g that unavold~bleslghificantimpact.With thatj he reiterated staff's recommendation I which is to reView the project and recommend to the City Counci[certificatlon of the final ElR and approval of the entitlementapp1icaiions. With that direction staff would come back with the appropriate Resolutionsata future meeting. Vice Chairman Emenhiser opened the publiche:ar!lJg. James O'Malley (Trumark Homes)stated they are in full concurrence with the staff report and the draft conditions of approval,He gave a brief detail of the overall project, showing how the project is seton the property,Hediscu$secftheGommunityservice center and how important he felt it wiH be to thi~particular community.He discussed the architecture of the project,shOWing pictures of the style at the design..He concluded with a short video simulation of the proposed project.He felt this wHlbea very attractive community alJd bonds very weH with What is in eXisfencefodayand the entire theme of the City, Planning COITlmissil:m Minutes Novempet 13,2012 PageS Attachments 2-165 Commissioner Tomblin asked Mr.Q'Malleyif he could showtheelevationofthe units ftol11 along Crestridge Road ,as he was concerned about how dose they appear to be to Crestridge Road and the assoCiated bulk and mass issues. Mr.O'Malley displayed a computersimulation of the proJec;tfrom Crestridge Road,but said he would get the plans with the actualelevcatiol1s<andsetbacKs. Commissioner TOmblin noted that there did not appear to be any walls separafing the units anoasked Mr.01Malley if there wewe walls prop()sed forthearea. Mr.O'Malley answered that therewUl hot be any perimeter walls associated With this project Dan Withee (Withee Malcom Architects)stated there Will .110t be a .•perimeter wall around the property,however at each patio there Vilill be a low waH just tossperate the units. Commissioner Le.on stafed that one of the areas .of greatest concern to him IS the massive quantity ofgracHng that is proposed.He was notslJre that Highridge R.oad or CrestfJdgeRoadare well suited for the number of truck ttips that are anticipated ,andit appears the math Is rather optimisficfot getiingaUof the trucksihand out In fhe80 days specified.He asked Mr.O'Malley What he has done to try to minimize theamOLlllt of grading required. Mr.O'Malley explained thatat this particular site they are ilia bit ora frame ora box) explaining BeJmont .and Mirandela are on either side ofthe property and at the rear of the property is an OH boundary with geologic issues.With thatandthe City's building restrictions and height limitations he has maIntained the slope-sat a minimal proportion Where possible,minimized retaining walls Where possible,and has designed buildings that adllsreio the grades.He also pointed out thafCfestridge Road and Hightidge Road have both survived the construction otthe Belmont faciHtyas 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 isstJessndwmbe working with her to make it safe for her Studehtsand parents droppJngoffstudehfs. Commissioner Leon asked if having sbit more buHdingheight variati.on withlnthe project that adheres more to the sloping topography w04lld pecrease thearn04lnt grading, Mr.O'M.alley answered that they Were very much focused on adhering to the drop of the overall heIght of the buildings.He also pointed outthatthey wf:inted to make the community as flat as possible since the communitywiH beforages55ahd over. Bob Washington (RBF ConSUlting)explained the site isnotflatbY any means,He stated that the grade for the road that runs from east to west i$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 4 Attachments 2-166 for this proposed project has been significantly reduced when compared to projects previOLlslyproposed for this site. Commissioner Lewis noted a comment in the EIH from fR.oHing Hills Estates that they would like foseea condition of approval Urniting the activities in thecornmunity center. In his review he did not see such a concntion ofapprov<:11,and askeq the applicant lfhe would be amenable to SLlch a condition being added. Mr.O'Malley answered he would be agreeable to such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked theappHcantif therep<:1s been anydiscLlssion With the City in terms ofnamihg the main street leading info the development Mr.O'MaIJey stated he would be open to anything thafwould be in concert with the theme or the City, Robert Rockoff (5525 Seaside HeIghts btrve)stafed he submitted a letter to theCify, and Jnthat letter there are questions in regards to the landscapingpJan,tand.scape maintenance,Iighllng and glare,roof topequiprnent,vehicUlafenfrygafes,anpion-site trash collectlohsites.He felfthe developethasanswered most ofthe questions ina positiveway,howeverhehad anadditionalrequsst.Hessked that items be considered in the proposed project's requirements homeownerS8ssoQlation c.C&t<s.-Further,he asked that the CC&Rs be made available for pubHccpmmenttoensure the requirements are enforceable through the Hfeof the project stated she moved to her home fot the view and the ruralaspecf of the Wildlife that is there.She felt the proposed project is very dense and she would prefer the project would be Jowerso that it wouldn't be so yisfblefrom the homes above.She WoUld preferto have moregradihgat the site to accomplish this,Cll1dsuggested adding trees to the front of the development to help obscure the view oUhe condos,She was also concerned abbutthe 55 year age limit as she felt!t was qUite generous ..She felt 62 is more in line with what is considered asenloL She.asked the Commission consider raising the age limit to 62.She stated there will be six units above thet6400t line Which will impact her view.She stated she sees red taU hawks in the area,and would Hketo see more open areas and the buildings separated hymore trees., Ken Oyda noted that on the northwest the propertYisgoil1g fobegradeddown by some fifteenfeet He stated that ina 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 puLa building there with 20-footsetbacks.He was notaware that there has been any new geology and he didn't know whythegeolQg!c setbackJJhe has changed> He asked fhatbe reviewed.With regards to the Institutional zoning,he noted that things like housekeeping and nieal services should be provided,whIch he does not see happening at this site.Therefote,to say there is no need fora zone change ora General Plan change beCause It meeIslnstitutional zoning maynot be correct,and he felt the proposed projec;t only meets the requirements partially.He felt tobeCOl1sistent Planning Commission Minutes Novemt;ler 13,2()12 Page 5 Attachments 2-167 and preserve the zoning it would be appropriate to.makea zone cha~ge,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 setbacklih.e, Steve Saporitosiaiecl his property concem is from alo.ng.Seaside HeiQhts,He stated he was;alwaysconcerned when a high density development is proposed in an ;area of mostly single family residences.He referred to staffs photo·oftbe project site with .a yellow line drawn on to show the sixteen foot height.andproposedfidge heights.He asked that pictures taken from Seaside Heights be Jncluded roshoW the visual Une .of sightfrom the resideflces on this street.Hen.oted that from his residel1ceoflSeaside Heights anything abovethecurrentsilhouette,inclVding rooftop eqqipment,flags, chimneys,ahdsateJlitedishes,will start toobstruot his\fiewof thequeen'Sflecklace. He felt that everyone has a right to developtheit property.;he just hoped this developmeflt wiUstay within the therneand theory of thesutroundihg area. LueIlaWikesfated she Iivesoh OceanridgeOtiveahdlooks dowhover thIs project .She asked that the traU plan not be changed frol11 pedestrian to incorporate the horses,She stated there are three churches .and two tefirementhomes where people use walkers pnd WheE:;'llchairs on the sidewalks and she did not feel the horse riders cleaned up after themselves.She was also concerned Eibout the fighting t3nqaskecl fheJights be kept as low and as tewas possible to protect the night lighfvieVis oftheresidentsabove.She also asked that the age limit be raised to 62years rather than 55.She felt the front row of the proposed Condos are too close to the street ahd are not Ins¥nCWith 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 rewof the condos to make a wider setback betWeen them and adding greenery.She also mentioned the very tall tower for the gate,and felt if would be much more in keeping to lower ilto a one-story level and plant greenery around it. James O'Malley(in rebutlal)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 concems that have been raIsed.He explaIned that he is sensitive to the concerns.,especially those along Crestrldge Road,and wants the landscaping to be consistent and match the surtoundinglandscaping.He stated he would make a draft of CC&Rs for the development and make those available 10 the pubHc,suggesling they may want to be attached to a future staff report.fn regards to the geology,he noted bis geologist is in the audience aMt will be morefhanbappyto address any specific questIons about the site.He explaIned the bUildihgsetbaCk line has moved and accurately matches the site plan,adding that they are incrediblyadvan.ced in regards to the soils and geology on this property.He stated thaltheY have adhered to the support services,and the services proVided to the homeowners will peJunand jnt~rcesting.He noted that density was discussed,and he explained tharthis development will be siX units per acre,white Belmont is 20 to 22 units per acre,Mirandelais 11 to 12 units per Plarthing Commission Minutes November 13,2012 PageS Attachments 2-168 acre,and Mesl::I PaJosVerdesis4 to 5 units per acre,He supported thesuggestionaf keeping the traU pedestrian only,and would be very sensitive to the lightingofthe cortlrtlunitywhen plantlingfor the lighting.Lastly;in regards to the tower,he agreed that it is too tallandwIH be adjusted. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr-O'Malley ifMe was prepared to commit to a maximum height limit of the two towers. Mr,O'Ml::IUey answered he will present to the Comrnissiona redesIgn and SPecific:height of the new tqwets ahd gate,.He stated he would be open to suggested heights and designs, Commissioner Tomblin explained he still has concerns in regards to setbaoksandthe density on Crestfidge Road.He was oonoernedabout noise problems between the Units beoause there arena buffers,andcoUldantidpate ownets planting hedges and otherfypesof noise mitigations.He discussed fighting,and.was disappointed that comments and conoerns expressed in regards to the lighting have notoeen addressed in the EIR He asked the appliQant if,other ihanthe market,there iSH reason he doesn't want to Iirrfit the age at 62 rather than 55. Mr.C>'MaHey anSWered they do not want to IitnIUhe!rtnarket. Mr.Withee explained that the setbacks are on fhernap,notfngthe rninimum setback on Grestridge Road is 25 feet.The actual setback alohg Crestridge Road varies from.32 feet at its closest up to 56 feet at its greatestdistance. CommissIoner Lewis noted the cC)l1cHtion of approval thaJthreemonths fromthe 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 Hghting,noise,and aU .0theroperationa.1 aspects ofthis community will come back to the Planning Commission for review,giving the community an opportunity to comment. Mr.O'Malley had no objeotio.n to such .a condition. ViceChairmati Emenhiser asked Mr.O'Malleyifhe Was willing to have height limits placed on the trees. Mr.O'Malley had no Objection,suggesting having his landscapearchiteotdisGusswith the City the types of trees that would be acceptable.He a.lso suggested thatasH.basio guideline there bea condition thafthetrees do flotexceed the height of the building ridgeJine. Commissioner Gerstner disoussed the applicant's proposal to subdivide the prOPerty into nine lots.He asked where the separate Ibts afe on the property. Planning CommisSion Minutes Novembet 13;.2012 Page? Attachments 2-169 Director Rojas oIs played 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 Hmitations for nine separate lots,and askedstf;lffiftheappllc;ant was Incompliamcewith all ofthese setback requirements. Sehior Planner S.chonborn explained that staff is lookIng .atthisas one large lot rather than nine separate .lots for purposes of the condominium development Comm issioner Gerstner stated that there are either separate lots or not separatelots and there is either a setback or nota setback.He stated that he Was a bit surprised the developer waschoosfng tO$ubdlvide the property,especiaUyiftheyare doing so to phase the project Director Rojas agreed that if these are separate lots they haVe to cbmplyWifhaH city reCjulrements 1 and staff will look ihto that. Commissioner GerSfn(21T commented.on the vegetati9h as shoWhon adisplaYed slide, and feltthatthe yellow line depicting the foliage height should not have gaps. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they were awareofthe9rading qUantities When Belmont or Mirandela.was oeveloped,and if either approached lhet50,OOQ cubic yards proposed for this project. Senior PlahnerSchonborn answered that Mirandela had approXimately 25,bOO cLlPic yards of grading on their two acre site,Belmont initially had60,OOOoublc yards·of grading,but submltteda supplemental applioation for additionalgtiElding.He pointed out that both parcels are smalletthan the subjeclparceL Direotor Rojas pointed out condition No..33 which requires the developer to be responsible for repairs of the roadways dYE}to (:lnyofthe truck trips, ViCe Chairman Emenhiser noted that Mr.Oyda had commented on the·!nstitutional zoning,and asked staff to comment. Director Rojas stated the Code was amended b)lthe CityCouflCii to allow these typesot developments in InsfitLltional·zones,The code says that to meet the test,the project must have a city approved supportive service pfogram,andgivesexamplesof such programs,.This project·is proposingsooiaJ I recreational /edqc;ational.f hea Ith programs.If the Planning Commission or City Council feels that Is Dofehough to warranfconsistencywith the zoning,the City can ask for more programs, Commissioner Tomblin commented on fhelighting,noting the.amount of lumens,the colofingof thla Hghts,13ndthe defl.ection of the light needsto be specifically addressed. Planning CommiSSIOn Minutes November '13,2012 P$ge8 Attachments 2-170 Director Rojas agreed,noting this is staff's initial attempt at draft corlditions of approval, and staffwil!come back to the Commission with new and more spe.cific cohditions asa result of the comments from this meeting, Commissioner Lewis did not feel the Commission hadenoughinformafion.to make a recommendation to the CJty·Council,ana therefore moved·to continue.the pUblic hearing to aUowthe.developer and staff to addtess the foUowil1gissues; 1)a condition of approval preventingequesttian Use of fhe.trails;.2)either reducing th~l height of the tower or ~Hminatingthe tower;3)theadditiol1 of tighter lighting conditions;4)a one year review of the project,While retainingihe Director's three rnonthrevieW of the tighflngol1 tile site;5)clal'ity on the issue of subdividing the property into l1ihelots;6)a condition thafties theexistingllidian Peak trail to the PreservetraHs.;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 Commissiol1er NelsOfl. Director Rojas notedth~eiarliesUhisitem Goljld Corne back to the CommissIon would be the December 11 lh Commission meeting,however he did not know ifthat would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr..O'Mafiey understood the additfonal questions and concerns but also asked ifthe Commission could let him know if they are gellerallyillfavor oHheprojeclor not in favor'of the project He agreed with the December 11 th continuance, Vice Chairman Emenhlser felt the applicant has been very responsive to lheissues raised by the neighbors and the City.He feltthat iUhase issues raised can be resolved at the December11th meeting that theapplioant will find some support from the Commission. Commissioner Gerstner discussed the issue of lighting,noting that staff has clearly mad.el;ln outstanding effort on addressing the subject in away that is cOI1,sistentwith whatthe Planning Commission has discussed at previous meetings and referenced condition Nos.58 through 64.He asked that the color ternperatureof the lights he addressed,expla.ining that with the oombinationofstreetJighting,walkway bollards,and lights on buildings therewHl.be a variety of colortemperiah.JresthatmaynotJook 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 quiteabifof description in regards to light sources shining down and light shields,Hesuggested describing the lighting in a way thalsays l;ln qbserver fromoffthe property won't pe able to identify a light source.He explained that he was ok with Hght being seen from off of the property,however he felt it was best if that light was indirect by being bounced offbf something else.With that he felt the developer would have a very successful project and the.neighbors would have the absolute minimum amount of IIghtfrqm the development Planning Commissioh Minutes November i 3,2012 Page 9 Attachments 2-171 Commissioner Lewis stated he was generally supportive of the projectahd.feltthatstaff will be able toeraft cOhditions of approVal that would address eaehofthe iSsues sp.ecifled in the motion.He added that if staff can Satisfactorily adOre55.the issues in the motion he should be able to make all oOhe necessary findings to support the project Commissioner Tomblin stated he isalsogenerallysupporfive ofthe project He added thElt he would support the .age limit of55 and apove as the quality of this project and the price point of the homes will support a lower age limit.He wasstm cohcernedabopt the look of the project and the density of the COndos from Crestrldge,but hoped landscaping will heJpshield the condos from the street. Commissioner Nelson stated he is supportive of the project,and feltthatstaff,working with the developer,will be able to Ihcorponate the concerns expressedih the motion into the conditions ofapproval. Vice Chairman Emenhiserasked Commissioner Lewisio restate his motion before the vote. Oommissioner Lewis stated he Would restate hiSh'lotion,but would modify the motion with three new items. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the pUbficheartng to December 11 th,for staff and the developerto work.togetherto address the foUowingissues:1)a condition of approval preventing equestrian usepf thetraUs;2)either redUcing the height of the tower or eliminating the t()wer;3lthe addition of tighter lighting conditions;4)a one year review of the prQjecf,while retaihingthe Director~s tbree month revieW of the li.ghting on thesite;~)clarity(mthe issueofsubdividihg the property into nitte lots;6).a condition that ties the eXistina 1l1dlan Peak trail to the Preserve tralls;7J the oppoFtynityfor the developer 'tQ present a landscape plan if he $0 chooses;8)closing the gaps in the pHotogr21ph With the yellow Une;andt.lle additional items 9)a condition to discuss the color temperature ra.nge of exterior lightina;10).a COndition on how the IightsoUtcewili be masked;and 11)clarify how this project is going to be phased,with the inclusion Qfatimelloefprthe project.The amended motion Was seconded by Commissioner Nelson, Approved,(6~O), 3. Deputy Director Pfost presente aff report,explaining that during a May 22,2()12 meeting the Planning Commission had ..e.dstaff not to change the land use designation at six specific park sites.At that tiePlanning Commissipn had expressed that the park sites were small·and felt the la e could be dealt within the existing residential zoning designation of each,Mr.Pfost also lned tMatat the October 9,2012 meeting,the Planning Commission went into a more .·d Planning Commission Minutes November 1.3,2012 Page 10 Attachments 2-172 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFRgpOR:T,DArgn SllPTEM.BER 25;;Z012 Attachments 2-173 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RJ\NCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: .SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY ~ENr DIREctOR SEPTEMBER 25,2012 \J DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ORAfTEIR}·fOR THE PROPOSED CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINiUM HOUSING PROJECT (ZON2012-00067&SUB2012..000(1)15601 CrestridgeRoad (l/)'J-.- Staff Coordinator:Eduardo SChonbom.Aiel>,Sllnior P1ann~ RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing for the purpose of obtaining comments on the Draft Environrnentallmpact Report (Draft EIR)for the Crestrldge Senior Condominium Housing Projectfrom the general public and from the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Originally,the subject property was part of aJarger vacant parcel measuring 33,97..acresin area.In 1989,prior to the larger parcel being subdiVided,the CityconditionaUy approved a project to allow the construction of a mixed use senior Hving factlity for the Marriott Corporation on the 33,97-acre lot The approved projectinc1uded 250 independent living units,a 100"bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 skilled nursing beds)and a 26,OOO-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 entitlem~nts 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-aore parcel entirely within the City's designated institutional zoning district and a 29.4-aore parcel partially within the Institutional and Open Space Hazard zoning Attachments 2-174 Planning Cornmission.Memorandum Ctesttidge Senior Condominium Housing PtojeatOrsftEIR Septembet25,2012 districts.On February 2 1 1999,thi;3City certified a Sqpplf.i}menftotheEIH thatwascertified ih 1989 and condItionally approved the Brighton Ganjens projecHoaUowfhecoflstructipn ofa122-unit assisted Jiving facility for seniors on the 4.57f'acreparcel,which is Where the Belmont Assisted Living Facility was constructed and now operates. On June 1$,t999,the City thena.pproved Paroe!MaP No.25271,further dividing the undeVeloped 29.4-acre parcel into two separate •parcels .consistingQf:1)a 19.0(3,;,acre parcel at the comer of Crestridge Road and CrenShaw Boulevard (the currentJocationof the City's Mirat1delaproject);and,2)a9.74--a.cre parcel (thesubj$clproperfy)betweeh the corner lot andthe4.57..acre parcel thatis nQW theSelmontsite.SubseqUently,on August 28,1999,the City CQuncHand Planning Commission held a joint workshoptP review the conceptof a proposed Senior Affordable Housil'1fl projectpresehted byad~veloperon the 19.63-l:1cre lot At that time,the lot was privatelyawhed and a proposal.was presented to develop theslte with a .7'S~unitaffordable senIor housing facility.In March200nttheCity~s Redevelopment Agen9Y purchaseq the 1S.63-acre parcel from the developer;and in August 2001,the Agenpy Board decided not to enter into a new ENA with tl1edeveloper and thereby discontinued negotiations.The Board also directed Staff {ocansIder other Qptionsfor the development of the Agency's parcel. On May 7,2002 a joint workshop between the Council,Planning CommissionahdPinance Advisory GornmitteeWas held to review proposalsftom private parties and discuss options for the ROA's 19.63-.acre parcel.At the workshop one ofthe proposals presented was from Standard Pacific.Their proposal was to combil1ethe Agency's 19.63-acre vacqnt parcel with an adjacent 9.76-acrevacaht parcel (the SUbJect property).The development cQncept was fora proposedseniot housing/senIor center/passive park project with an affordable housing compooentonthe com.binedsite.At the workshop,the City Council authorized Standard Pacific to move forward with the project.InAqgqst 2003,the Gitywss informed that Standard PacIfic was nO longer pursuing developmenlofthe ptojectand that the then-property owner (Crestridge Estates LLG)Was looking for other developers to proceed with the proposed senior housinglsehior cehter/passivepark project. In October2005,fhe.Gity wasformaUynotiffed that Laing Urban wouldbe 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 iOn senior condominiums (including 5 affQrdable hOUsing units),a building pad for the Peninsula Seniotsto develop a "SeniorCenter"and apubliqopenspace area withpuplictraUs.The proposal included a parcel that Would be set aside fortheftlturedeveloprnentofaSenior Center operated by the Peninsula Seniors. On June 7,2006,Laing Urban submitted a revised plan in resPQOse tocomtnents received during the pUblic sGoping process.Some of the key changes included a reduction in thf;} 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 fe-orientation of the buUdings;a reduction in Attachments 2-175 Planhing Commission Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housillg Project Draft EI R September 25.2012 th!3 overall grading quantity,from 265,000 cubic yards to 15d,200 cubic-yards;and, relopation of the passive park!pv!3rlookarea frpmth!3eastern portion pfthesite (adjacent to Crenshaw)to the western ~geof the site adjacent to the property Hne that is shared With the Belmont Assisted Living facility.In January 2007,additional revisions were submitted to the City,which in.cludedan increase in the unitcoLlnt (from9:?units,up to 102);a further reduction in the amount of ovetaUgrading;and modifications to the building heights and retaining walllayoutfhrQughoutthesite, In May 2007,the City was formally informed that Laing Urban was.no longer pursuing development otthe project on the combined29.4-acreSlte.Asa result,while the then- properly owner (Crestridge Estates LLC)tried to identify other potentialdevefoperSfO proceed with theproposedseniorhouslng{seniorc:enter/passive ipark project,the City Council directed Staffto putsuean affordable housIng projecfontheAgency's 19.63",acre site.As such,the property ownetpursued developmenfsolelyon the ptivatelyowned 9.7- aeretot Revised applications for the "Crestridge Senior Villa$"developrnentandsenior center on solely the privately (lwned907S-apre paroel weresubrnitt,ed on Dec.ember 17, 2008. On July 16,.2009,the prQjectappllcations were deemed corn.pletefor processing,and the envirqnmental consultant was retained topommenoe \'York on a DraftEJR.However;In December 2009,tneeonsultant requested additional information locomplele certain s.eetionsof the analysis,which included visualsimulafiOns,hydtoJQgyand geotechnical reports,among>other miscellaneous information..TheappJioant dId not.respond to the request for additional infQrmatiqn. Subsequently in the March 4..and .r\t1arch 1t,2010 PVPeninsa[a News,nolicesWere published indicating that the ownerofthe9.7",acre lot(Cresfridg.eLLC)was in defaultWith the sUbject·properfy.As a result,prooessing of th!3 projeotappJications was suspended, and on JanUary 26)2011 ,the applications were withdrawn atthe request ofthe applicant. The9.7-acre parcel is now owned by Fitst OiltzensBank.&Trust.Trumark Homes is currently working with the bank to finalize the.i,.PUrQhase offheproperty.The cQrrent proposal for development of the property was submittt3d by Trumark Homes in February 2012.The proposed project includes a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodatea60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above)condominium housing project.Afterthe submittal of additional information,Staff deemed the project applications complete on April 20,20t2.Sub$equently,Rlnc.onCQnsuftantswasretaineci by the City to prepare.the necessary environmental documentation for the proposed project. On June 26,2012,the Planning Commission conducted a publicsooping 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 theprQposed Attachments 2-176 Planning Commission Memorandum Crestridge Senior COhdotniniutnHous;ng Project DraftEIR September 25.2012 project.In accordance with CEQA,a Draft EIR hasbeen prepared and is now circulating fora 48,.day public.review and comment period. A Public Notice W8smaiJedonAugusf21,2012 to the 57ptbpertyownersthatare within a SOD-foot radius from the subject property,Staff also expanded.the radius and sent the Nofice to thepropertyownersalqng Ocean ridge Drive that overlook Ihesub)ectproperfy, and.to the residences on .Pinecastle Drive,.Moro.Bay Drive and Newster DriYe; Subsequently,.the Notice was published in the PeAinsu/aNew!;on August 23,2012. Further,the notice was.posted on the.City's website,.andemailed to the 602 email addresses thatare registered on the listservefor this project.Lastly,a copy of the Draft EIR has been made availableal the public counter at City Hall,.Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website forthe pyblic<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 publlchearing toaUow the public to prpvide comments on the Draft EI R .in a public forum.No otheractiononthe project is to betaken. All comments presented this.evening,as well as.written comments received during the public commentperiod,win be responded tol.nwriting in the Final EIR. DISCUSSION INITIALSTUDVINOTlCE OFPREPARATfO/ll The City and its environrnenfalconsultant(Rincon Consultants)began the CEQA review process by evaluating theproJectis.potential impacts based.bnan .environmental.checklist. As a result •.an Initial Study was prepared in accordance with GEQA.The City distributed the Initial.Study to the public,accompanied bya NoficeofPteparation (NOP)fbr preparation ofthe EIR,on May 29,2012,initiatinga30~daypubnc scoping periQdthatwas extended by the Planning Commission and concluded on JulY12,2012.The PlJrpose~f the NOP was to indicateformaUy that the City was preparing aDraft EIRfor the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing projectand,as LeadAgencY,tosoHcitinputregardingthe scope and content of the DraftEIR The NOP was oistributed to all ReSpOnsible Agencies 1 as well as other agencies;property owners within a SOO-foot radIus;the 587emaiis registered on the Iistserve for this project;and posted the Notice on the City's Website. Approximately 15 written comment letters were rec.eived from persons,agencies,or organizations in response to the Initial Stlldy/NOP,Copies of these lettersca.n be found in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.The follOWing agenclesand organiza.tions provided commerits during the scopingperiod: •South Coast Air Quality Management District •California Department of Fish and Game Attachments 2-177 Planning Connnissicm Memorandum Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project Draft EIR Seplember25,2012 •County of Los Angeles Fire Department •County SCitnltatlon District •Department of Toxic SUbstances Control •MetropolitCitn Transportation Authority •Native Arnerican Heritage Commission .,City of Rolling HjIIs Estates The remaining comments were received from individuals Who resideih the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. DRAFTEIR SCOPING PROCESS After the.NOP comment period ended,.the Draft EIRWas prepared taking various comments into accoLJnt.After completing the Draft EIR.the document was made available to the pubHc on AlJgust 21,2012 for a 48 ..day ppbliccomment period that concludes on October 8,20 12.The environmentCitI concerns .raisedduringthe NOP comment period Citre addressed in the Draft EIR The.DraftEIR contains a summary table of the environmental concerns raised during the scoping period and where they are.addteSsedln the document (Table 1..1,page 1..1 of the Draft EfR).InaddiliQoJ copies of fhelnitial Stf.ldy,Notice of Preparation,and letters receIved in response totheNOP are included in AppendiX A oUhe Draft EIR DRAFT E1RANALYS1S AND CONCLUSIONs As shown 1n the.a.ttached Initial Study,tha.ptoJectwillnoftesultlhorcreateanysrgrtific8nt lmpacfs,or have less than sign ifi canl 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 prepatationof the Initial.StudY,nlrteenvlronmental factors were considered potentially significant and are analyzed in detail irt Section 4 (EnVironmental Impact Analysis)of the DraftEIR The impactssnd mitigationmeasuras related to these environmental factors aresLimmarized in Table ES-t,in the Executive Summary section of the Draft EIR The Executive.Summary is attached for easy reference.The conclusiol1sbf the impCitctanalyses forthese factors are summarized as follows: •Aesthetics The Draft EIR identifies.visual impacts that may arise asa rasuIlof developing the eXisting vacant parceL These visual impacts are associated With the change from a vacant undeveloped parcel and its associated appearance,toa developed appearance.This change iscohsidered significCitnt and unavoidable.A secondary impact identified Wason scenic VieWs ahd vistas;however,itw8sdetermined that the Attachments 2-178 Planning CQmmission Memorandum Crestric/g$S$nior Con<!ominiumHousing Project DraftEIR September 25,2012 impact was less than significant..Mitlgationmeasuresare being considered that would reduce visual impacts to less than sIgnificant (the analysis can be found on pages4,1-1 through 4.1-23 in the Draft EIR). If Air Quality The Draft EIR identifies impacts relating to aitqualitybasedort .shol1..term impacts resulting from projeot construction.In terms of theseshol1-term impacls,fhe Draft EIRstates that mitigation meaSureS can reduce the impacts to a leYel of lees than significant.These mitigation rtleasuresihclude methods to controlfu~itivedust ahd constructionequlprrtent controls.The air quaHtyanalysis can.be found em pages 4.2- 1 through 4.2.-17 in the Draft EIR . •Biological Resources The Draft 131 R.identifieS potential impacts to bird oestingactivity,Although the site dOes not contain any protected habitat 0,e.,009st81 sage scrub)9mf protected bird species are not present,there are nativebitd speCies that could nest ql the site in the existing dIsturbed shrubs and trees faurtdat the project site.Further,since the subjectpropeliyabuts the Cily's NeGP Natute Preserve,the Otaft Elflidentifiesa potential introduction of noo"native plant speoies onto the Preserve from on~site landscaping.However,with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures,impacts are expected to be lessfhahsignificaht.The biological resources analysis can befound on pages 4.3..1 thro.ugn 4.3-14 in the Draft.E1R . •Geology and Soils The Dra.ft EIR evaluates geologic and soU conditions In terms of slopestabiUty, erosion,soil contamination,faulting.andselsmicity,Uqvefaction,and bedrock subsidence,A substantial amount of geotechnical repo[t:sandsfut:Hes have been prepared for the various past development proposals.Based on these historical reports along with recehtgeofechnical reporfsfhatatespe.cific to the proposed project,the Draft EIR identifies that With the Jmplememfafi<mof recommended mitigation measures,the impacts identified could be.reduced toalessthanslgnificant level.The analysIs discussion can be found on pages 4A-1thtough 4.4..,16 in the Draft EIR. •Hydrology and Water Qualify The Draft EtRevaluates potential impacts onhydtology,water qU~litYand 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 rnifiga,fionmeasures Attachments 2-179 Planning Commission Memorandum Crestridge$enior()ondominium Housihg PtojectDraft SIR September 25,2012 deal With construction related impacts,measures 10 minirnize sedimenfdischarge and stor'rhwater treatment.The hydrolo@y and water quality analysis and discussion can be found on pages 4J3 ..1 through 4.6 ...13io the Draft EIFt •Noise The Draft EJRevaluates potentialimpacfs relating to noIse onashort..term (construction impacfs)andlong-tertn basis,..The.analysis describes existing noise conditions within the project area andestim.ates future noise levels bas.edon noise modeling..Based on theanalysiscooducted,the DraffE1Rconciudes that both long,.. ter-mand short..term noIse impacts are less than significant UtiliZIng noise level estimates from the Federal Highway Administtalion (FHWA)Constn.Jction .Noise Handbook,theshod...term construction noise levels wouldnofexceed the Handboolfs 85df3A threshold,However,mitigation is fecPJl'lmended to ensure thatconstructiQO hollts.are within the Cily'sallowable houts,notice isseht topropeqy own~rs 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 TheOraT!EIRevaluates Ihepotentialfor the proposed proje.ctto re$Ultiosi~nifiCartt impacts on traffic and circulation duringconstrLlction and operation,inyludlng the lOCal and regional roadway system,intersections,andihgress!egress to Iheprojectsite entrance.The analysis contained in the OraftEIR is based oh atraffic:studyprepared by Linscott,Law and Greenspan Engineers (See AppendlxG in the DraftE1R).The Draft EIR cohcludes that adequate vertical sight dlstanceaf the proposed project driveway may be compromised by futute landscaping alongthe project site's frontage. However,appropriate mitigation is recommended,whichincludesa stop sign on the driveway for vehicles exiting the site,and designing landscape and hardscapetol1ot obstruyta driver's clear line of sight As<aresult,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. DRAFTE1RCOMMENT PER/O!) The Draft EIRis currently being circulated forpubHc review andc0tilment for 48 QaYs, which is slightly longer than the minimum 45-day review period required by CEQA,The Draft EIR becarneavailable on Wednesday,August22,201.2 and thacornmeht period Will end on MondaYI October 8,2012,A Noticaof Availability of the Draft .EIR has been transmitted to the State Clearinghouse,Responsible AgenciE?s,local il1terE?st~d parties,and listserve subscribers.Hard copies ofthe Draft EIRare available to reVi¢w andlot purchase at City Hall.In addition,copies are aVailable for viewing at Hesse Park and the local Attachments 2-180 Planning Commission Memorandum Cresttidge Senior Ccmdominium Housing Project Draft EIR SeQtembe-r.2S t .2612: libraries.FurfhetmoH3,the document isavaUable on the Cityt s website to viewang/or download. As indicated above.the comment period win conclude on Monday,October it 2012.Until then.aU lnteresteclagencies and parties have the opporfunfty to providewriften comments on the content onhe Draft Elftin addition,the public has an opportunity thIs evening to provide oral comments 00 the Draft EIRin a public forum~All written comments received by the City wiU be given equal consideration as any oral comments received this evening. AU written comments and oral testimony received during the comment periOd wUlbe provided to the City's environmental consultant for response in the Final EIR The Final EIR wUlcontainformal responses to thecommehts received dUring the DraftEIR comment period,.including any changes to the EIR textasa result of the comments.Dependlngon the extent and quantity of cornmentsreceived from the generalpubIlcand 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,aloog with the project's entitlementappUcations.Nonetheless,after the Planning Commission reviews the Final EIR and the project's entitlements,the Planning Commission will make a recomrnendati<:m tha.twUl be forwarded and presented to the CilyCounciL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EstlMA TEl:>PROCESSING STEPS ANI>TJMEt.1NE Althe conclusion of the DraflEIR 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 wit!folfow this evening's meeting.This tinleline is an estimate and may be subjecUo changes based on the number of comments received and the scope of the issues raised. •September 25,2012 -Planning ComrnissionHearing to receive comments on the DraftEIR. It NovemberlDecember -Planning Commission Hearing on the project applicaUons and recommendation to the City Council. •January/February 2013 .",.City Council hearingar'ld deCISion cnthe project applications and certiflcationof the FinaiEIR. The role of the Planning CommissIon at the scaping 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 seeming meeting,Therefore,comments on the merits of the project should be helduntH the publIc hearing(s)on the projectapplicatioos are conducted.Such hearings will be held after the completion ofthe Final EIR!most likely Attachments 2-181 Plahning Commission Memorandum Ctestridge Senior Condominium Housit'fg Pr<)ject Draft .EIR September 25.2012 in November ~t the earliest A.1l interested parties wm be notified oHhos-e hearings in the same manner in which this scoplng meeting was advertised. Staff envislonsfhescoplngmeeting to involve a brief presentation by staffand!oftheEIR consultant describing the project andEIR process,followed by the opening of the public hearing to hear oommenls rroln the pUblic.At the conclusion of publiccomrrtents,the Planning Commission vAil have an opportunity to offer their own comments regarding fhe Draft EfR. ATTACHMENTS •Summary Table of Envlronmentallmpects •Pubtic Comments received as of September 19,2012 •Crestridge Senior Housing Project Draft EIR (ul1derseparafe cover) Attachments 2-182 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPT)OF THE SEPTEMBER2STH MEETING Attachments 2-183 1.C0;:1st;:1.1 P~rrnit,Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case NO.ZON2012.. 00141 ):3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Director RoJ;3$noted this item was before the Cornmissionattheir last rneetingat which time theCommfssionapproved the proposecl new home.Before the Commission is the Resolution that memoriCillzes the CommlssiCm's decision. The ComrttissionapproVed the Resolutioo as p..esented,5~1,with Vice Chairman EmEm.hiser dissenting since he voted to .l1ot approve the project as presented at the last meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.Ctestddge Senior Housing Draft EnvjronrnentaJ Impact reviewscoping meeting (Case No.ZON2012-00067 andSUB2012,,00001}:Crestridge Road Senior Planner Schonbotn began by introdudhgJenniferHaddow from Ri.ncon Consulting,who was instrumental in helping wlthdrafl;ing thedocumentpefore the Commission.He brieflydescribeci the proposed pmjectas Well as the necessary entitlements for the project.He explained the draft EIRis currently being cirCUlated and the entitlements and mefitsofthe project will be cbnsidetedatafufute meeting.He tbuchedon the purpOSe of the CEQAana!ysiS involved with the proJect.He alSQ discussed the purpose of the pupHccomments rneeting,noting where the Gity cl,Jrrently is in the process.Mr.Schonborn noted issues identified as less than significant in the Initial Sfudy,and noted issues identified as potentially significanfandanalyzed in the draft ErR,as discussed in the staff report CommIssioner Leon asked staff hpwfhey considered the extensive grading required for this projectto be ltlitigatable. $ehior Planner Schonborn explained that fherewiU bea designated haul route thatthe contractor must foHow.In addition,staffhad to take into consideratiqn that this isalrnost a ten acre site,primarily hillside,and the l11aihfunction of the grading is to lower the height of the site whIch willthen reduce the height ofthe buildings.The trucks going down Hawthorne Boulevard would be ashorHermimpact He estimated 144 truck trips daily during the short term phase for the excavationc:indgrading ofthe property.He explained that was looked at In comparison to the level ofservices 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 beasignificantimpact Commissioner Tomblin stated he dId nolseeanydisGl,Jssion In the staff report in terms of outdoor lighting. Senior Planner Schonbtxn answered that th~outdoor lighting was found to haVe a less thf;ln significant Impact,and additional measuresG;3n be incorporated in terms of Planning Commission Minutes S~pIember 25,2012 PagE:!2 Attachments 2-184 requiring the lights be spread down towatdsthesite.The plans do not call for any tall Hghtstandards and the lights are proposed to be 10W;.voltage,loW-lying that are more ambient to the site. Commissioner T ornbHnstated he would like to see a more detailed discussion about the outdoor lighting at the site. Commissioner Nelson noted that on either side ofthis proposed ptojectare developments of similar nature.Heask..ed staff if there is anything unique about this proposed project that was not considered for Bell11onior.Mirahdela. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that there Is nothing unique to this prdjecfwhen cOrnparing it to8elmont or Mirandela. Chairman Tetreault referred to correspondence received fromlhe Native Amefican Heritage Commission and their concern with possibleencounfer with native alTierican artifacts during the cc)Ostruction phase,He asked staff whatwHloccur if th.at does happen. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that typically the Native American Heritage GommissJonof the specific Native Americatrgtoup win have a protocol on howto handle artifacts·found ·atconstruction sites. Chair'man Tetreault opened the publicheatihg. SunShine stated she waS very pleased that the writer of this draftEIRistecommending a mid-blocK crossing.She referred to a maP $howing a nonh..soythcut-across frall route and explained the city's General Plan says the trails are to bearterialln nature and the trailalignmenfs should avoid being along roadsides.She stated onl~t half of the 3,000 feet of Crestridge Road needs to be modified when.the roadway is reoonstructed, She showed the traH and fi3xplained the differfi3nt entities that maintain the trait She felt staff was presenting to the Commission the prelims to shut downnoh..motorlzed circulation at a future date. Chairman Tetreaultasl<:ed$unshine to clarify how the projectbeforethe Gommission affects the traUs, Sunshine explained the project was in the middle of the trail and will cause a blockage of the trail. Chairman TetreaUlt asked Sunshine What if is she is conoernedabout that she felt should be reviewed and dealt With in the final ErR. Sunshine pointed out the area wherei the consultant is reoommending the mid block. crossing.She also pointed out this development proposal does not inch,Jde the trail that connects the nature preserve.to Crestridge Road. Planning Commission Minutes .September25.2012 Page 3 Attachments 2-185 Commissioner Gerstner asked staff to displays map showing the trail and the mid block cro$sing discussec:l by Sum;!1ine, Senior PlahnerSchonborn displayed the map,explaining there currently are traIls on the preserve property and the idea is to tonnectCrestridge to the hillside via a traH through this development He pointed outthe proposed connection.and the de:dicated easements on the property.He noted that the trails thattraverse the preserve are not equestrian traJlsand the connection proposed is for pedestrian use.He pointed out on the map the areas that are dedicated to equestrian. Vice Chairman EmenhisBrasked staff if trucks traveling down Crenshaw Boulevard was an option to help take some of the preSsure off of Hawthorne Boulevard, Directorf{oJasanswered·that CrenShaw Boulevard has been delerminednot appropriate for trucks,noting even Mlrandela had to use Hawthorne Boulevard, Commissioner Nelson comment~d 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 {obeany dlfficl.lfties using Hawthorne BOUlevard. Commissioner Leon requested that when a traffic analysis lsperformed theyanalyte what will happen if there arE';!times dUring the daY that trucksshotlld not be using Hightidge or Crestridge Roads,as weH as some type of reasonable nighttime restriction. He requested this be included in the final EIR He also requesteda.ltematives be looked at that win reduce the amount of grading,inctudinga balanced site. Senior Planner Schonbom explained that therawere some assumptions made when preparing the draft ElR,including the assumption tha~there win be afivewday work week starting at 8:15 a.m,and ending at4:15 p,m, Commissioner Leon understood,but suggested mitigation measures to avoid truck trips when school is sfartingin the morning and ending In theaftemooR Chairman Tetreault stated he Is interested in the mid..bloCkcfOssing 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 B. 3.General Plan UQdate-Revisionslo the Generaf Plan Land Use Map gertainingtothe 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 Cqmmil.>sion Minutes Seplember25,2012 Page 4 Attachments 2-186 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,DATED JUNE 26,2012 Attachments 2-187 ST RE CITYOF COtv1rvlUN1TY DEVELOPfv1ENT OERA.RTr-1ENT OR ''''''------1 TO: I FROM; ! DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: PHON.E: LANDOWNER: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMIIIIISSJON JOEL ROJAS,.•...·O·...rfy DEVEl.OPI\IlEl'IT I~OR JUNE 26,2012 PU13UCSCOPING MEfSTING t=OR THEPREPA~ATIONOF A PENDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMpACT REPORT (EIR)FOR THE CRESTRIDGE seNIOR CONJJOM1NlUMHOUS/NG PROJECT{ZON2012-000(i7 8. $UB2012-00001 ) 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 8.23,A"i) TR\JMARK HOMES ATTN:JAMES O'MALLEY 9911 IRVINE CENTER DR,SUITE 105 IRVINE,CA 92618 (949)788~1990 FIRST CITIZENS BANK &TRUST THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823,A~1 PHONE: STAFF COORDINATOR;EDUARDOSCHON80RN,AIOP,SENIOR PLANNE REQUESTED ACTION:OBTAIN PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE FORTHCOMING EIR FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. L.-......_.....__..._._.__.._ RECOMMENDATION;OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE ANALYZED IN THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIH)FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT;AND RECEIVE ANY INPUT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO aE ANALyZED IN THE PROJECT SIR FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: I (INSTITUTIONAL)&OH {OPEN SPACE HAZARD} VACANT ~{0940 Ht,\WTHOFlME BLVD.!f<ANCl-iO r7~LOS VERDES,GA 9ll27fr5391 Pl.AH['lIH(-I &CODE ENFORCU'IFNT DIVISiON (310)544-52:18 !8UIIJ)i!'ln &:S,AFDV OIVISKX'I(31O)265'7800 f DEPT FAX {(110)644·r;i?93 F~MAIL f'LANNINO@!<:FVCOH l WVIf,,\!fJi\LOSVF!-<OES(XJMtRPV Attachments 2-188 PlatlningCommisslon.Staff Report Public Scoping M$~tihg(ZON2n12..(J()()61&SUB2012-0QO(1) June 26.2012 GENERAL PLAN:INSTI'tUTIONAl&NATURAL eNVIRONMENT/HAZARO TRAlLSPLAN~INOIANPEAK TrlAll (a1j &,CRESif'<UlGE TRAIl..{l32} SPECIFIC PLAN:MiA ceM STATUS:PENOINGENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ACTION OEAOUNE~APRil :20.2013 p.C.MeMaE~S WITHIN 500'RADIUS:NONE BACKGROUND OriginallY,thesubjact properl:ywas partofa larger va cantp€lrcel measuring 33;97..acresIn area.In 19S£h prior to the larger parcel being subdivided,the City conditionally approved a project.to aUow ..the oonstruction ofamix~d use seniOf ..living facility for theM£lftiott Corporation 00 the 33,97..acreloL The approved proJectincluded 250 independeotliving units,a 1QQ"bed health care facility (consisting of 50 assisted living beds and 50 ski.Ued nursing beds)and a 26,OOQ ..squar e..foot community center building.Inapprovihgthe Marriott project,the City also certified an associated Final Environmental .Impact Report (FEIR No ..27).Although City entitlements were nota/neaana the City successfully d~feated a leQalchalfenge to the approved proje.ct.fheapproveq entitlements expired in April 1995. On September23~1996,the property owner at the time (Marriott Corporation)submitted new applications to subdivide the 33.97*acre lot into two separate lorsana to allow an asslstedlMng faciHty referred to as "Brlghton Gardens".The proposed land diVision would create a 4.57..acre parCel entirely withih.the City's deSignated insfitutiohalzoning district and a 29,4-acra parcel partially within the Institutional and Open Space Hazard zoning districts.On February 2,1999,the City certifled a SupplemenUo the EIR thatwas certifled in 1989 and conditloosHy approved the Brighton Garclens projecUo allow the construction of a 122 ..unft aS$istedlhriog facility for seniors on the 4.51-8cre parcel,Which is where the Belmont Assisted liVing·Faoility 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 Palrcels consisting of:1 )a19,63-8cre parcel aUhe comer of Cresfridge Road and CrenshaW Boulevard (the current location.of the City's Mirandela project);and~2}a 9.74..acre parcel (the subjecLproperty)between the corner lot and the 4.51-acre parcel that is now the8e!mont site,Subsequently,on August 28.1999,the City Council and Planning Commission held a Joint workshop to review the conceptofa proPQseq SenIor Afforda.ble Housing project presented by a developer on the 19.63-acre!ot At thattlrne.thelot was privately owned aod a proposal was presented to develop the site with a 73...unit affordablesenibr housing facility,In March 2000.the City's Attachments 2-189 Planning CommfssionStaffReport Public Stoping Meeting (ZON2012..00067 &SU.B2012..()()001) June 26.2012 Redevelopment Agency purchase<:!the is.oS-acre parcel from the developer;and in August 2001 ,the Agency Board·decided nottQ enter Into a hew ENAwith the developer .and thereby discontir1Ued negotiatlons,1he Boato also directed Staff to.consider other options f9r the development of the Agencts parcel. On May 1,.2002 a joint workshop between the Counc.t!,Planning CommIssion and Ftnance Advisory Committee was held !oreviewproposalsfrompttvate parties and discussopUons for the RDA's 19.63-acre parcel.At the workshop one of the proposals presented was from Standard Pacific.Their proposal was to cornbinetheAgency's 1R63~acre vacant parcel With art adjacent 9.76 ...acte vacant parcel (the subject.property).The development concept was for a propos.ed senior housIng/senior center/passive park project with an affordable hQusingcomponent on the combined site;At the workshoP,the City CouncU authorized Standard Paclficto move forward with the project.InAugusf200$,.theCfty was informedthattstandardPacific wssno longer pursuing development of the project (;ind that the then ...ptoperty owner (Crestridge EstatiBls LLC)was looking for other developer'S to proceed with the proposed senior housing/seniorcenterlpassive park project In October 2005,the City wasforrnally notifie<J that Laing Urban would be the developer moving forward with Iheconceptual project presented totne City Council at the May·7, 2002 workshop,The project proposed by Laing Urban would include up to too senior condominiums (including 5 affordable housing units),a building pad for the Peninsula Seniofsto deveIQpa'i$laniorCenter"and a pubUcopen sPace area with public trails,The proposal Included a parcel thafwould be set aside for the fututedeveloprrl(~nt of a Senior Center operated by the Peninsula SeniOrs. On June7,2006.,Laing Urban submitted a revised plan in response to comments reoeived dUring the publiC scaping process,Some of the key changestncluded a reduction in the unitoouht (from 100 units down to 97);an increase in the number oT side..bY"sloe units (lownhouseappearance)from 25 to 29;a decrease In the numoer of thelatge buildings that contain munipleunitsfrom5 to 4 and a re ...orientatton ofthe buildings;a reduction in the overall grading quantity,from 265,000 cubic yards to 150,200 cubic yar'ds;and, relocation of the passive park/overlOOK araa.from the eastern portion ofthe site (adjacent to Crenshaw)to the western edge of the site adjacent to the property tine that is shared with the Belmont Assisted Lhling facility.In January 2001,additional revi$ions were submitted to the City,Which included an increase in the unit count (framS?units,up to 1(2);a further reduction in the amountofoveraU grading;andmadifications to the building heights.and retaining wan layout throughout the site. In May 2007 .•the City wasformany informed that LaIng Urban was no longer pursuIng development of the ptojecton the combined .29,4-acresite,.As a.reSUlt,whne the.property owner (Crestridge Estates LtC)tried to identify other potential developers to prooeed with the proposed senior housing/senior center/passive park Project,the City Council directed Staff to pursue an affordable housing project on the A.gency's 1$.63 ..acre site.As such,the property owner pursued developm~ntsolely on the privately owned 9.7-acrelot.Revised Attachments 2-190 Planning Commissic.n Staff RfJPort PublicScoping Meeting (lON2012..()(J061 &SUB2012..000(1) June 26.2012 applications fQfthe"Crestridge Senior ViUas"development and senioreenlet on solely the privately owned 9.75-<aere parcel were submitted on December t7,2008. On July 16,.2009,the projeotappl!eationswera deemed complete for processing,and the environmental consultant was.retained to commence work on a Draft EIR.However,!n December 2009.the conSUltant requested additional information to complete certain sections of the·analysls~Whichincludedvisual simt.datlons;.hydrology andge6technical reports,among other miscellaneous information.The applicant didoofrespond to the request for additionslinformation, Subsequently in the March 4,and March 11,2010 PV PenJnsuls News,notices Were published indicatingthatthe owner of theftI-acre lot(Crestrldge LLC)was in default with th~subject property.ASEl restill!processing of the prqJectappHcationswassuspended, and qn January 26,.201 t,the iilPplications were w!thdraWl1at th~request of theappHcant. The9,7-acrepareeI Is now owned by First Citizens Bank &Trust TrumarkHomes is currentfy working with the banK to finalize their purchase of the.property,The current proposal for development of the.property was submitted bylrumarkHomes in Febrv!;'ir)' 2012:The proposed project includes 8.tofalof147,OOQ Cubic yardsofgtading to accommotlatea60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years .and above)condominium housing project.ATterthe submittal of addltionaJ information,Staff deemed the project applications cqmp1ete on April 20,.2012;. RinconOoosultants was retained by the City to .prepare the necessary environmental documentatlonfor the proposed .proJect.Pursuant to the requirements of the Oalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the project's environmental impacts will he assessed through the preparation of an EnvironmentaUmpact Report (EIR).The purpose oHonightls scoping meeting is to proVide a forum few agencies and members of the community to comment on the environmental issues that8110ui0 be addressed ihthe forthcoming EIA.for the proposed project SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed project,which has been termed the CresttidgeSeniO[Housing .project (the "Projece),IS proposed on a vacant £t is-acre parcel.The subject property,which is currently owned by First Citizens Bank &.Trust,is locateda~ong Crestridge Road;and is bounded by the City's Vista del Norte Reserve to the north,by the Mirandela Senior Affordable HOlJsingproJect to the east.and by the Belmont Assisted Uvingfa.ciUtyto the west.Other uses along Creslridge Road include the PVArtCanter,a convalescenthome faciHtywithlndependent living unitsl (the Canterbury},and a variety of places of worship. Attachments 2-191 Planning.Cpmrnissl<:mStaff R~pprt Public$cpping Meeling (ZON2012-00061&SU 820 1,2"00001) June 26,2012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The projectappllcations related to the proppsedCrestddge Senior Hpusing project inch.Jde q Conditional Use Permit,Grading Permit,Tentative Tract Mqp.and an El'lvironm~ntql Assessment.As Ulustratedin Figure40fthelnltial StudYI the project includes 60 fOf'1Sale condominium units distributed throughout fheslfe,afidaccessedbyone driveway at the westernmost portion ofthe site.The Proposedcondom!niultlswill rangelnSizetrom1 ,700 squ<:irefeetto 2,100 square feet,The proposed proJectaisoinclqdesa2AOO square foot community building fottheresidentsof thedeveloprnent;a communitygardenarectfor thE:! residenisat the northwestportion of the site;an outdoor com munltyrecreatioh area;and a series of public and private pedestrian trails.Threeofthecondominiumunits are proposed to be made availab1efoquallfied very-Iow;..incomesenior households .inaccordanCE:!with the City's inclusionary housing .requir£aments.To facmt~te thectE:!velQPll1enta tolal qf 147,O~OcUbiCyards of grading isproposed,.whichlncluaes 445;000 cubic yards of cut (143,000cubicyardsofexport)and 2,000 CUbic yards of fill. Lll$COSS.ION CEQA ....INrnAL STUDY {SCOPING MEETING Pursuaht to th~requirements of the CalIforniaEnvironmentalQ4GlIity Act (CEqA),~nd based ort Staff's revIew of the project and discussion With theapplica.nt,>v.ity Staff conclu.dE:!dthatlheproposeqproject necessitated the preparafionpfan EJR As such,the City enlereq into a service agreement with Rincon Consultants to preparE:!the 181 Rfor (he prc>ject The first step of the CE.QA process is to cQmple~tean Initial Sfudyand Notice of Preparatlon,The purpose of the NOP/iSis to provide puplic agencie s and lhegeneral publican opportunity to comment on what should beevahJated jnthe fotthcomingDElR. en May 29,2012,IhelnitialstudY (IS)and NQtice of preparatiOn (NOP)informingfhe public thata Draft Environmenfallrnpaqt R~port(DEIR)WiH be pfE:!parE:!dfor thE:!proPosed project was rE:!leased to the PLibllcand.puplicagE:!npiE:!s.A Pt.iOlic .NoticeW<:is maiJedon May29,.2012 to the 57 property owners that·are .\Nithina.SOO"foot.radius from fhesubject property.SUbsequently,the Notice was pUblished in the Peninsula Newson MaySt! 2012.Further,thenoticeWlas posted on the City's website,a.ndelTlailed to the 587 email addres~es that are regjstE:!fed on the lislserve ftqr this project Lastly;acQPY orfhelnitial StUdy was madeavallable~t the publicCOl,J nterat Gity Hall,Hesse Park,thelaCa]librarIes, and rnadeavallableoh the City's Website fot the public tbdoWrHoadahd review, According taCEQA,the public comment perjodforthe NOPflSshaU be at least30-days, durin~WhichtimetheCity mayelectto condUct a scopin@meeting,To provIde for ample time for ~ol'l1mentsfrom other agencies and from thegenet~rpubliC,thecQmmentperiod for the NOP has been establisbed at 31-days (May 29,2012 through J.une 29,2(12). Attachments 2-192 PlanningC<>mmis$ionStaffRepQrt Pub.neSeQpingM.~ting{lON2012..00067 &SUS2012..00001.} June.26x 2012 The PUt!J{)se of the scoping meetingisto proVide the public with an opportunity to submit verba!comments,inaqditionto the·typtcalwriften comments,on environmental.issues assocIated with the proposed Project Comments should be focused on what environmental issues should be<analyzedJntheforthcomingDEIRdocument The minutes from the seeping meeting and written comments received during the NOP/fS comment period will be forwarded to the City's Elf(consultant The EI RCOI1Sldtani.working with City Staff,willthen ensure thafgermane environmental Issues identified by the Qeneral public andpub!icagenciesBre addressed in the forthcoming Dl;lR,The DEIH is expected to be completed and oirculated forrH.Jbllc and agency comments sometime in the FaU of2012. The role ofthe PlannIng Commission at the sopping meetiog !sto providathetorum fortha public tq proVide verbal comments on the NaptlS..10 addition,the Commission has the opportunity tQprovide its oWf)oomments as to theelwironmentali$sues that should be addressedJntheforthcQmin~121Ft.No decision on the proj~ctappUcations wilt be made at thescoping meeting.Therefore,comments on the merits of the.project should be held until the publichearing(s)ontheprojectappHcatkmsareconducfed,Such hearings will be held after the completion ofIhe Draft ElF<.most Iikelyru~ar theendof2Q12,All ihterestedparties Will be notified of those hearings in the same manner in which thIs scoping meetitlgwas advertised. Staff en vi $Ions the sooplng meeting to !nvolvea brief presentation by staff and/or the ElF< consultant describing the project and EIR process,followed by the openihg of the public hearing to hear comments from the public.At the o(.1ncJusionof the public comments,the Planning CommiSsion will have an opportunity to offer their own c;omments regarding the NOP!!S.. CITY ENTITLEMENTS Aside from the EfR preparatioJl,the proposed developmentwill require the processing of thefoUowingapplicafionsfor consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a future public hearing: •Conditional Use Permit •Grading Permit •Tentative Tract Map. Although the Planning Commission typically m~ke$decisions onConditlonal Use Permits and Gtading Permits,the proposed Cresridge Senior Hbusing project includes a Tentative Tract Map because the project proposes indiVidual for*salecbhdominiums.The Planning Commission's role jn reviewing the tentative tractrnapis advisQry since decisions on tract maps must by made by the City Council.As such,the Planning Commissionlsrole in the review ofthe project applications is to consider the project and make a recommendation to the City Counciloh the entire application package.Anticipated dates for future pUblic hearings on the above development applications are Hstedin the following section, Attachments 2-193 Planning CommissionSf.affRe.port PublieScoping Meeting (ZON2012~00067&SUB2012..00001) June 26,201.2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attached is a tentative projec~scheduleforfhecornpletlonofthf:l prpjecf E1R.Furth(i3fmore, betoware the anticipated dates for the various public hearihgson the prQjectapplication and EIR: •Sept~rnber2012 -Planning Commission Hearing toteceiv~comrneht$on th~Draft Elft ..NO\iembf:lr/Decernber -Planning Commission Hearingorl the projectappUcatiof'l$ anq recommenqation to the GityCouncll. ••January/February 2.ot3 -GityGotincil hearing and decision on the project applications and certificafionof the FinalEIR. A1T.AGHMt:NTS •Cre$.tridg~S(f)niorHatl$ing Proj$ct Initi<31 Study •EIR Schedule •Public Cornmentsreceivedas ofJune 19,2012 ..Site and Architectural Plans Attachments 2-194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINtlTES (EXCER.PT)OF THRluNE2 6 TH MJ3ETING Attachments 2-195 written to include the morning peak and theDirectorROjassuggestedtheconditio afternoon peak. Chairman TetreaUlt noted there could be more than one pAaJ~m-i as a peak morning hOUf?nda peakaffernoort hour Comm'$sloner Leo .veet to approve the revisicmas recommended by staff, with the adele dition that the truck traffic avoid the peak hour or hours on Palos Ve Dtive as appropriate,seconded byCh;!irman Tetreault.The motion was roved and PC ResoJution 2012 ..1Zwa;sapproved,(4 ..1)with Comrnissionel" sgn dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.Initial Study seoping meeting....,CrestridgeSenior Housing (Case No. ZON2012..000061 andSUB2012-00001J:5601 Crestridge Road SeniotPlanner SChonhorn presented the staff report,beginning With a very brief history of the propedyooCrestridge Road.He explained the SCOPe of the proposed project and the neoessary entitlements for the project.He noted the environmental process is currently unctervvay,with a Notice of Preparatloh that has been·issued,...Hee~plaihed the purpose of thisscoping meeting to inform the public of theproposed project and the Citts intentto complete an EIR and to obtain public and Commission comments regarding potential environmental Issues ofconcernsaS$ociaied with the constrl1ction and operation of the proposed project .He brieflyfeviewed the issues that will be addressed in the EIRand the process the City lTIustgo thl'oughirt reviewif\gand distributing the EIR Commissioner Nelson referred to pages 21 and 220Hhe .lhltiaIStuqy;Uhder geology and soils,and questioned ifthe checked boxes.could be changed from "Potentially Significant"to "Less than Significant"in order for the text to be consistent with the boxes. Senior PlannerSchonbom understood Commissioner Nelson's comments,noting that it may be more appropriate to change the.checked boxes to "Potentially·Significant unless Mitigation incorporated",and that mitigation befng adh~renceto the Building Code. Commissioner Nelson referred to page 23 and the green houseemi$siorJs.He asked if any cortSideration had been giVen to putting solar paneJson this pfojecfasa mitigating feature. Senior Planner Schonhorn answered that he was not aware if the applicant had considered solar panels or not. Planning Cqmmissionl'vtint!les JlJl1~2fj,2012 Page 3 Attachments 2-196 Commissioner Leon noted that there are quite a few senior housing and assisted Hving 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 thete is a land use section which discusses the project wiH have a less than significant impact to the area,the zoning for the area is Institutional,and this isa conditionally permitted use. He also noted that along Crestridge Road there are several places of worship as wef!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 toesita 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 onne project and inform family or friends, Chairman Tetreault was ooncerned 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 thaUhere has been the typical 30 daycommu:mt period.and unfortunately this meeting could not be scheduled untIl near Theano ofths comment petiod,He added that the Commission ha,s 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 gata notice ofthis meeting,and as far as he knew other residents on hisstreatdid 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 dJrecflyat the property from his home.He asked if the silhouettes in place represent the proposed rooT tops of the project He stated he was very concerned aboutthe height of the trees and did natfeef 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 Tetreautfasked staff about the public notIfication of this meeting. Planning CtlinrrHssion Minutes June 26,2012 Page 4 Attachments 2-197 Director Rojas stated that residents.within 500 feeLorth~projecfwere notified ofthe meeting,noting Mr.Rockoff's property is approxim~tely930 feet from the property, which is why he didn'lreceiVE;1 a noticE;1.HE;1 stated that this project and the public hearingJs are just beginningJ,and noted that notices arElsent to the surrounding HOAs. He stated staff is just beginning to get the word out to the pubHcand hoped that residents not in the 500 foot radiUs Would hear aboutthe projE;1ct through the newspaper,their HOA,throughWordof mouth,orfrOITl the CIty's Jistserveot'Website. He also noted that anyone WhospE;1aks,writes a letter,or an email about the project becornescm interested p?lrtyand will receive aU future notices . .stated the silhouefteflags Were very helpfulto see the del1sitybf the project,notIng the project appears to be quite dense..she felt there are .a.lotof buildings close to the streetang there doesn't seem to be adeqUate space bE;1tWeen the buildings.She didn't see any open areas Where one could lOOK thtoughthebuHdlngs. She would like to see a smaller projectbuHt.She was concerned about limiting the age toSS and ovet and howthat could be enforced with a private developer.She discussed the preservatIon oftheopen spaqe,ooting the oPen spaCe appears to beat the rear of the structures so there Would nbfbe much Open space vi$ibl.efrom th~street..She stated.she used to see red taU hawks in the area and already doesn't saees many as she used to.She Was concerned abouUhe noise associated with theacoessgate into and out of the development,.as welt as the backup of ftaffiGgetling intothisgafed.area, She was concerned about the added light pollution,as the buildings willpe very vieio!e from Mlstridge Drive.She would likato see more open.space,.and questioned how the City's Conceptual Trail Plan would work if it is agatedcomrnunily. Luella Wike stated she lives on Oceanridge Drive and looks dowl1on this proposed project She stated that inhe stakes on the property truly representthe 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 ofgreat concern and asked thafthe Commissioners wiUevenfuaUycome to the properties and look and see if there are any views being plocked.She explained from her residence she .has .a beautlfytvieW which inclUdes green trees.She·hoped the developer would beabJetotake the grade of the project down enough sO that she Can still see the tops ofthe 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 tlSe.She noted the more lights down there the more it impacts the night view ofthe Gity,Which may be one ofthe biggest selling points of the homes in her development. Harold Craig wanted to make sureal!orthe silhouettes have beenereGted on the property.He also questioned th~contouring on the map staff used in their power point presentation.Lastly,he expressed his concerns With the ambulancetfips that are happening more and more on a consistent basis,with the inclusion of sirens.Heasked that there be a report prepared showing how many calls go out on that area,8S itwill obViously inorease. Plannil1g GornrnissionMinutes June 26,2012 Page 5 Attachments 2-198 Senior Planner Schonborn stated that the sIlhouettes aitlie site represent the tops of the proposed buildings.,noting that some buildings are not silhouetted since t.heyare 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 map slope down. Beth StaHkamg stated she lives on Mistridge Drive,was not notified of this project,and wanted to ensure she was added to the interested party lisHo 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 Mirandelaand how Mirandela has affected them since it was completed,She noted that she gets quite a bil 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 treesatong Grestridge Road to help block the views of the buildings, Chairman Tetreault asked if this is Glty owned property or g private development Director Rojas answered fhisis ~private development,~nd the parcel has always been privately owned, Chairman Tefreaultaskerlif the City will get anytypeofaffbrdable housing or senior hOUsIng credits fromlhe State for this project Senior Planner Schonborn answered there are three low inbome 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 E1R analysis. Chairman Tetreault asked if there win be exterior access stairs to the second floor. Senior Planner Schonbom answered that lhere wm be interior stairs,and each unit will also have an elevator to the upper level. Leo Kopsornbut stated he has not seen the actual layoutoT 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 thiSi$a privately owneddeveloprnent,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 forperhlitliL Planning Commission Minutes June 26,2012 Page 6 Attachments 2-199 Chairman Tetreault asked stafflf there was a way to get rather detailed renderings of the project,taken from a number of different vantage points.This may help the COI1"lt'flUnity see whatthe .finished projecfwm Jooklike in greater deta,it Senior Planner Schanbdm explained that as pattof the EIH,the aesthetic section wIH have some view simulations of the projects-ite included.He added that many of the speakers were concerned that they had not received public notice ofthis meeting,and he offered his ernall address so tha.tany resident who would like to be included as an irlterested party and receive notices can request to be added to thelJst He also noted that he is currently compiling a list of properties to visit and conduct a view analysis from,and any resident who wouldfike him to visit theirpropeny Should notify him. Commissioner Leon stated he would like the EIR to address someclegree of coordination between fhe different projects on Crestridge Road <He understood the need for .coordinaUon·between this project and an of the other projects-in the area is not really the responsibility of this applIcant,however as the projects get larger ill size having several separate and dIstinct and uncoordinafed.largeptojecls on Crestridge Road is not advisable.He therefore suggested that as part of the EIR it address traffic and other environmental issues lookirl~l at aU of the developments onCrestridge Road as opposed to looking primarily at this one·in isolation, Commissioner Nelson noted several commehts have been made about the Hghting;and suggested they go to TeJranea and look at howlhey did theIr lighting for the community. He felt their lighting is inVisible to the neighbors,yet the paths are very clearly litHe felt that good lighting is possible,as proven by Terranea,and it will be addressed as the project moveS fol'Ward. Chairman Tetreault noted that,given the nurnberof 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,thaUhe pUblic commenUrme 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 Schanbom agreed that extending the pUblic comment period to the end ()f the business day on July 12th would not adverselyaffectthe project schedule. e hel htin the frQntard setback Case No. Associate Planner Kim presents staff report by giving a brief history of the code amendment and explaIning that the Ci neil 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 anel asa Sfa ..oint for the Planning Gornmi~$ion Minutes June 26,2012 Page 7 Attachments 2-200 CORRESPONDENCE IN RESPONSE TO.No'rtCE Attachments 2-201 Clear Honorable Coufu;;HMemhers: We Hv¢hl~he Mesa PMos Verdescommunlty,ano our homeacldres.s is one ofthefour homes.thatis identl.fied In thelanascaping (tlndW$ns forth~Cre$~rldgfl proJed (Ref.P.C ~soltrOons 201.2·22 and 2012,23. WE A?PREtIAl'Ethe City'S goal qf preserving out views·by eMllhHst'ling a lero toll'arance nJl.e that ',",ouki Prohlbitllj'ndscaping heights from f,K'iC$.f,JtHng ourview "Hnas"whiton tttlte the highest vlsibkrmof RIDGElJNES·at cnfstridge <IS v!lilwedfrom our l;mckyards. OUHPIRST CONCERN is thatthe PfQjl::ct's;lt:tu;l1 gradiNpnayqe higher th~fi th~plarlJ'u!i4 $F<ltlihg,thus rJtsulting in tM S1;i.Ktl.lrJt$extJ;ooing the proposed vl~W line:!.}$cal,l!i('l thegrountlleve!wll!h(l higher, ACCORDINGLY,IRES¥ECTFUt,(y t{EQUESJ THAT THE HElCH1 UMlT$ON'fHtmwtnJRES ae.QfFICIALLv FROM THE APPROVED PLANNEDGAADING LEVEL The !'e$Sl)t!!s thatiftheStmetl.lte$o;:tte built Ol1 ahfgher than plannedgrnding Icvel,it wm n~gatlvcly lmp~q:theV1EWS.Ciafifyiog thatTHi HEIGHT limits for tile stru'l:tl.l1lls1sfrom the plan approvsd Grading limits will ENSURE that tMbuHdingsare not at~identlyabovetheproposedvlewIiMsbe~ause .the ~rading ishighertllart planned.Toe goal.should be to prevental'lyatgumel1t thatthe Ylew!lne can i)eexceededby illf'l enor On thegra1.ilng leveL OUR SECOND·CONCERN is to protect our priVacy and rOiNSURE that nothingtne city does gfvesthe impresliion Qrright oftnird part/eli to ENTERourpmpertv wlthputpermission and that no easement Of dghtof p:all$age will be created for ~llyone tbenter OUR prtlj:*!rtytncbeCk the View lineswltl:lOl£t OURq:mllentilndpermlsslo:m. O\J~fiO$iTIONS ME: L WE DO NOT AGREE 1'0 HAVING OUR ADDRESS AND NAMES DlSCLOSEO IN THE CONDITIONS AND IN 'rHEC,C,&R's ' 2.WEARE AGReEABLE TO HAVIl\lGOUR HOME'SSlMULATEDVIEWPHOTOGRA?H INCl.UDED AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE CONOn'IONS (EXHU5IT "B")ANDIN THECC&WS PROVIDED THAT OUR ADDRESS Al\!O NAMfARE NOT IDENTIHEDON THEPHOTOGMPH, 3,BY INCLUDING OURHOMI:tS SIMULATED VIEW PHOTOGRAPI{,IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE GRANT1N$OTHERS PERMISSION to ACtasSQURPR1VA.TE PROPf~TYANO WE RESERVE 'fHE RIGHT TO REfUSE SUCH ACCESS AT OWROlSCRnION, 4,THAT THE \flE.W Ul\lE SHOUU)REFERENCE THE Af'P~OVEbGRADING LEVEL,SUCH THAT ANY 12RRORIN THE GRADING lEVELSHALl NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE\llliw LlNt(~) S.IHAT THE FOREGOING DOES tlQI MEANTNAl W£AGR:EE TO UiSSJ£N IN ANYWAY OUR iNDIVIDUAL ~IEimSTO ENfORCEMENT Of THE ZERO mLERANCt:VlfW "UNE"RULE FROM OUR l3ACKYARD'SPERSPECTWE OR PROVtOE ANY OTHERS ANY PERMISSION.WE TRUST THAT THE CITY WltL ACT IN GOOD FAITH TO ENFORCE THIS l£RO TOLERANCE RULE ON B~HAlF OF OURSELF AND OTH12RSIN THE MESA AREA OF RANCHOPJ\WS VERDES, Thank you fOr your time,understanding and consideration, Very Truly Vows, l:.hfl?--w'l/ Attachments 2-202 V>!:€Ih/$in the iVIes;;Palos Verdes c;ommunity,i1nq qur hQme@ddr~ssIs one ohile four homes that is identifieoill the lantiscaplngCondlHons forthe Cfestrh:igepmJert (Ref..fiX.P.e.soiutlotK 1012·11 ana 20:'12-23. "NE APPRECiATE the City's ap<lfof preservingouf 1I'lews by astatilishinga zerO tolet.mce rlj!e thillt wouid Prohibit lafldM;<iping heights from exceeding our view '''lines'''uhich tr'ace the highest visible robf ~iP$EUN($·at Crestrklfjf1 a$vlew~dfi6M our bat%Yf.!tcls. OUR FjRST CONCfJIN .i$that the projed"'s actual gnding rmw he higher that\tbeplanned gJadlt\S~thus resultlnglnthe.sfucturfi:l%exte,atlh:lgthepfuposecl \fiew line hec<l~I$e the gn::lUnd !lwei wW be h(gtl#t- ACCOROINGLY,I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE HElGHT LIMITS ON THE STRUq'URESSnOFHQAUY fROM THE APPROVEP?LANNl.:O GRAOINB lEVEL Thereasanis that it the·Stmctufes ~re builtoll ahignertha-nplanned grading !$fel,it'lllit!tlegativ1011y .lmpilct the VIEWS.Ciadf\>\ng thatTKE HEIGHT IimitsJor the structures !stromthe plat)approved .Graditjg Ilmits Will ENSURE that thehu,ltdlilgsate not acddenHya90V<!the proPpsed view line!;.hew;ause the grading is higherthan planned.The goal shouldhetpprev'entalJyargumeht that the VieW Hlw Cil1'l be-exceeded.bViiln ermn.m the grading je\feL OURSE:CONOCONCEllN 1sto protect our prlvaqt and TO ENSURE that nothingtl''il;'YdtydQ(tsglves the impression or dgJ1tof third partil'!$to ENTER ovr properwwithout permi~slon Md thattioeasel'l1&nt or rlgl1t of passage WIHbe (Created for <ll1yone to ¢nter OUR pfo?Qrty tqphfJ~k the vW",-'lltlssWlfhout OUR (XJJ1sent and permission. OUR PO$IT10l'ISAR~: L WE DONor AGREE TO HAVING OUR ADDRS$SAND NAMES DISCLOSED IN THE CONDiTIONS AND IN THEcC,C,&W$ 2.WEARE AGREtASLS TO HAVING QUR HOME'$SIMUtATtQ VIEW PHotOGRAPH INCLUDED AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE;CONOfnONS{J;XH1BIT"El'lAND il'-rn-!E C,C €i.FfS PROVIDE\)THAt ODftAODHESS AND NAM£ARE NaT IO£NHFltDON1<,blEPHO'fOGRAf"lH, 3,BYINcLUPJNG OUR HOME'S SIMULATED VlEW PHOTOlSRApH,iT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE GRANTfNGOTHERS PERMISSION TO ACCESSQUR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND Wf.RESE1Wf. THE RIGHT TOREFUs!:SUCH ACCESS AT OUR OISCRETlmt 4.THAT tHE vmw UN/eSHOIJW flEFERENCETHEAJ'rmOVEO GRADING U:;V$:t,SUCH THAT ANY ERRtJR IHTKE GRADiNG LEVEL SHALL NOT NEGATIVElY IMPAq'iHE VI8At LINE {S} 5,THAi THE FOREGOING DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE AGHEETO LESSEN IN ANY WAY OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHtS-TO €NFOflCEMENT Of'THE ZERO TotJRANCE VtEVV'~UNF'RUtl FRoM OUR SACKYARD'S ?E~SPECTiVE'OR Pfl.OvtOE ANYOtHERSANY P$.RM1SS1DN,WE TRtiSTTHAT THE CITY W111 Act IN GOOD MITH "roENfORCE THlSZERD TOLERANCE t:ULEON BEHALF·OF OURSELF AND OTHERS IN 1'HEMl£SAAREl>..OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, 'fW:1lyn &Robert Rock:o 5525 Seaside Htt;,Of. Rancho Pll!r.l$V~r(ja.$,C;:l.90275 Attachments 2-203 ~'~Jde r 1~~jqSt/ &Jl~sf'f{)sJ Dear Honorable Coundl Member~ Crestridge Senior Housing Project "Jernes City otBa(\Cho pa\OS FEB 2ti 1.\l\j ."'\Somca C\'l.y Matla~el lam concerned ahout the height and density of the bUildingsasweH as preservation of the views which would inClude the foHage height,lighting,and open space. How will the construction as proposed comply wlth the height limitation in the case of unknown geologicaifeatures or manwmade features being encountered such as the l3lHlker under Selmont which caused a heightlncrease? I appreciate the planning commission recommendation to lower the elevation and roofs ofunits 19,20,21,22,45,&46 whichl helieve are in rows 3&4.{P.C Resolution No.201:tw 20:f.3,Conditional Use Permit,sec.3C.)In 11ght of the changes,do the flags and the landscape view line drawings represent and Incorporate these new heights?If nott 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.IUhe flags have changed to Incorporate the changes,some flag$in rows .3 &.4,as now seen, stHllmpairthe view.I would respectfully request that the elevation be lowered. My home address was one of thefour homes mentioned In the planning commission resolution and hearings to determine the landscape view I1nedrawing.{Ref.p.e.Resohttions 2012~22 and l014.~23.} HoW will the city enforce the views by using the 4 homes?What would it entail?lappredatedthe City's: goal of preserving our views.My concern is to protect my privacy and not give the impression that persofls can trespas50n my property.While !agree to th~horne simulatit:m view photograph 1n order to be used to preserve the view,i would respectfuUyreqQest that my name and address not he used inthe Council's determinatIon,exhibits,and the C,(,SAlls.I would additionally requeslthatmy name and address he redacted from current review and previouS considerations.I incorporatebyreferem:;e the attachment Is there any otheraltemative to establish the landscape limit.heights in order to the preserve the views? The propo$al opeos it up to other occupants who are less than SSyears old such &$teenagers.How dt:>es this comport toihstitutional~one?It appears that the prOject IS high-density res!aentialzonil1g, Mirandela SeniorHousing testrj¢tedthe age to 62 yrs.old.Thi~is mOfe itl keeping with the senior Umit. Iwould respectfully request that the age limit beincreased to 62 yrs.old or that all the occupants be 55 yrs or o!der~ I would like to See open space,greenery between the buIldings,and presetvatioflof the views,In conclusion,less is more, Thank you for your consideration to this matter. Unda COMMUNtTY·OEVElPPMENT PEPARTMENT Attachments 2-204 Eduardo Schonbol"n From: Sent: To: Subject: """,fy! Joel Rojas Wednesday,January 23,2013 7:56 PM Edua.rdo$chonbom;Ron Dragoo FW~."Dirt" FrQm:Keh DeL.ong[ken.Qelpng@verizoh.netJ Sent:Wednesday,January 23,20133:45 PM To:CC Cc:.PlanningComrnJssion Subject:"Dirtl' A project cqrrently beingdeve!pped is theCre~;tridge CondotnlnlumProJect(Z()N2Q12~QOO67llocatedat56nlCrestridge Ref inR.PV.Current planning documents report that the plan is to export some 143,OOOcuhic yards of dirt from the property:apparentlyto SOme 10cCltionQffthe Penil1sula.The San RarOQrLStofm Water Drairiage prQjl8ct is going to require some large amounts of"dirt"for backfilllrigJhecanY0!:lo.ncethelunnelhlg and otherco(1structfon iternsare completed ..Mostlikelythete Will be recoverable "dlrt"ftom thetunneUngpnase blitltseemsJikelymore"dirt'1 wiHbe needed. We lNonder,why not save and reuse the t(dlrt"frbm CresttidgeforhackfllUng the SanRamon project?lsthere .something environmeOtaHyunfriendlyabout the Cresuldge i,dirt"that pre~ludesrel./se?Seems like reUsing RPV I'd itt"WOl..lldbe an envi ronmentallysound and logical proposition.Reuse wou!d el!mlqatesignifica!1ti)eavytruck traffic as "dirt!'could be moved less than a milaoh CrenshaW and stored in the Preserve area_ Hopefully!staff will recognize that saving the Crestridge "dlrl;'landreusing this ildirt"onthe San Ramon project is environmentally sound and cost effectivecol1ceptandcan develop an implementation process. Ken DeLbng 1 Attachments 2-205