The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_09_02_01_10_CHAPARRAL_Gen_Plan PUBLIC HEARING Date: September 2, 2014 Subject: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. ZON2014-00143) for Property Located at 10 Chaparral Lane Subject Property: 10 Chaparral Lane 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Kim 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: Luis De Morales Appellant: N/A 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 1-1A 1 - 1 1 - 2 1 - 3 1 - 4 1 - 5 1 - 6 Resolution No. 2014-_, Certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT 1-7 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR CASE NO. ZON2014- 00143 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL. WHEREAS, on July 15 , 2008 , the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map des ignations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property des ignated as "res idential " and the portion designated as "open space hazard "; and , WHEREAS, on September 23 , 2008 , the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005 , ZON2008-000509 , ZON2008-00510 , ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence . Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS , on January 19 , 2010 , the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot ; and , WHEREAS , on September 13 , 2011 , the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public ; and, WHEREAS , on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented , the Commission adopted Resolution No . 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve Case No. ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence ; and, WHEREAS , a new property owner acquired the subject property and subm itted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal ; and , WHEREAS , pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA ATTACHMENT 1-8 Guidelines, California Code of Regulations , Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq ., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 .5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that with appropriate mitigation , there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore , a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and , WHEREAS, On August 7 , 2014 , a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News , pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ; and , WHEREAS, on September 2 , 2014 , the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing , at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : Section 1: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural Environment/Hazard Land Use and the Open Space Hazard Zoning District and within the Residential Land Use and Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Section 2: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial evidence that , with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of Case No . ZON2014-00143 , a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 3: With the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon aesthetics, biological resources; geology and soils ; greenhouse gas emissions; and hydrology and water quality, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding environment. Section 4: That the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the boundary lines are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan that would allow the construction of a single-family residence on the flat and developable portion of the subject lot rather than the extreme slopes . ATTACHMENT 1-9 Section 5: Based upon the foregoing findings , the adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures is in the public interest. Section 6 : The time within wh ich the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolut ion, if available, must be sought , is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 7: For the forgoing reasons , and based on information and findings contained in the public record , including the Staff reports , minutes , records of proceedings , and evidence presented at the public hearings , the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA, and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program as shown in Exhibit 'A '. PASSED , APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2 nd day of September 2014 . Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss C ITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , hereby certify that the above Resolution No . 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the sa id City Council at a regular meeting held on September 2 , 2014. City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1-10 Initial Study ATTACHMENT 1-11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment , Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (ZON2014- 00143) 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Developm en t Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 10 Chaparral Lane City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angele s 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Kevin Chen P.O . Box 80084 San Marino, CA 91118-8084 6. General plan designation: Natural Environment/Haza rd & Residential ( 1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City 's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Open Space Ha za rd (OH) & Single Family Residential District (RS-2) 9. Description of project: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and Zo ning map designation boundary Jines on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area s uitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural Environm ent/Haza rd land use and the Open Space Hazard zon ing district. 10 . Description of project site (as it currently exists): The project site is a 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at Page 1 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-12 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 the end of Chaparral Lane in the eastern part of the City. The subject property contains two separate General Plan Land Use designations (Hazard & Residential 1-2 du/acre) and two separate Zoning designations (Open Space Hazard -OH & Single Family Residential -RS -2). The current boundary line that separates said land uses and zoning designations runs diagonally across the width of the property in the general area where Chaparral Lane meets the subject property. As a resu lt, approximately two-thirds of the property (roughly downslope from Chaparral Lane) is designated as Natural EnvironmenUHazard land use and zoned OH, while the upper third is designated Residential (2 du/acre) land use and zoned RS-2 . The area with an existing Residential land use consists entirely of an extreme slope (greater than 35% gradient) ascending up from Chaparral Lane . The area with a Natural Environmental/Hazard land use is composed of moderate to extreme slopes and includes approximately 14,000ft2 of generally level area located off Chaparral Lane . It should be noted that the relatively level area has been existing since at least 1976 , according to the City's topographic map. The area below the flat area consists of descending extreme slopes. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant The subject property measures 85, 178ft2 (1.96- acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral Lane . The site currently co nsists mostly of moderate to extreme slopes with one relative ly flat a re a. North Canyon This property is a vacant ca nyon area , consisting of extreme s lopes , located in th e abutting City of Rolling Hills Estates. South Single-family residential These properti es are improved with single-family dwelling s that are located approximately 100' higher in elevation than the flat area on the subject prooertv. East Single-family residential These properties along Chaparral Lan e are improved with si ngle-family dwellings that are either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the flat area on the subject property. West Vacant & Sing le-family residential The abutting property to the northern side of the subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme slopes . The properties near the sout hern side of the subject prope rty are improved with sing le- family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in elevation . 12 . Other public agencies whose approval is required: Non e . Page 2 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-13 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Figure 1: Aeria l photo of existing project site at the end of Chaparral Lane . Page 3 of 2 1 ATTACHMENT 1-14 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7 , 2014 Figure 2: Existing and Proposed land use and zoning map boundary line . --. -- • \ • ' • \ .. --. --. __. . \ .. -- • \ Open Space Hazard (OH} \ • \ • ' ~ 1 ~ I "· ,'\ •. 1 ' I Gftc:.i.""~AllM'llli.:..4 .. "'-~ •: .. fl: ' •Existi ng Boundary Line r r r . ~ ,- -.. • Page 4 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014·00143 August 7, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages . D Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geology and Soils D Hydrology and Water Quality D Air Quality D Transportation and Circulation DETERMINATION: D Biological Resources D Energy/Mineral Resources D Hazards and Hazardous Material D Noise D Public Services D Utilities and Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: D Aesthetics D Cultural Resources D Recreation D Agricultural Resources D Mandatory Findings of Significance D I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . [[] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required . D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but al least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project Signature : Date: Printed Name : So Kim, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 5 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-16 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS . Would the orooosal: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic 1 ,1 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees , rock outcroppings, and historical 1 ..J buildings, within a stale scenic hiahwavs? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site 1,8 ..J and its surroundinas? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely 1,8 ..J affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: The proposed amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning map designations will not have an impact to existing scenic resources . The proposed boundary line relocation merely allows for a residential development occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. The future development of a single-family residence on the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary line relocation will have less of a visual impact than the hillside area where the construction is currently allowed by-right as the hillside character of the lot will be preserved . Additionally, developing on the new building pad area may cause view impairment from the viewing areas of the properties located in the easterly direction . However, the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analysis for any new residential projects to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and view effects, and any structure proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the Municipal Code , including lighting. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact caused by the proposal. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland , or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ..J Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Aaencv. to non-aaricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 ..J contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as ..J defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104(g))? Page 6 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-17 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) In volve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-aQricultural use? Sources Potentially Significant Impact 2 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ..J ..J Comments: The subject site has an existing land use of sing le-family residential and open space hazard and is not zoned for agriculture or forestry use. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland , forest land, or timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation and future residential development on th e site . 3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected 8 ..J air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to ..J substantial pollutant concentrations ? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federa l ..J or state ambient air quality standard (including relea si ng emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a ..J substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any appl ica ble air ..J quality plan? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards . The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies . The air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant infl uence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed amendments to the land use and zoning designation change as a result of relocation the boundary li n e has no impacts to air quality as it simply allows development to occur over a relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site . The refore , the proposed project would have no impact. 4 . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES : Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a ca nd idate, sensitive, or special 8 ..J status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Page 7 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-18 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulat ions or by the Californ ia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ... ), through direct removal , filling , hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or m ig ratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources , such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan , or other approved local, regional , or state habitat conservation plan? Sources 8 8 8 8 8, 12 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCC P) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S . of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area -wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses . There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve and the General Plan. A biology report submitted by the applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there ma y be potential impacts on nesting birds . To ensure that there will be less than sig nifi ca nt impacts on nesting birds , the following mitigation measures have been added: B-1 . Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (February 1 -August 31 ). If clearing and grubbing of the project s ite occurs between February 1 and August 31, a pre co nstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a quali fied biolog ist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure, including any payments , prior to clearing and/or grading , lo be verified by the Community Development Department. B-2 . If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500 ' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds . The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure, including any payments. prior to clearing and/or grading , to be verified by the Page 8 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-19 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Community Development Department. Sources Potentially Significant Impact 8-3. An im acts to coastal sa e scrub habitat sha ll be miti 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal : a) Cause a substantia l adverse change in t he significance of a historical resou rce as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064 .5 of th e Stale CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eol ical feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 7 7 7 7 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments : The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre-historic or historic archaeological site , and no historical , archaeological , or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site . Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site . Therefore, there will be no im acts to cultural resources a result of the ro osed ro·ect. a) Expose people or structure to potenti al substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss , injury, or death involvin : i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 6 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? iii) Seismic-related ground failure , includin Ii uefaction? iv Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? c) Be loca ted on a geological unit or soil that is unstable , or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide , lateral spreading , subsidence, Ii uefaction or calla se? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, thus creatin subs tantial risks to life or 6 6 2,6,8 8 " Page 9 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources property? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of bu ildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards . According to the State of Californ ia Department of Conservation website , the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25 , 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones . Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction . As such , there will be no impact caused by the proposed project. b-c) According lo the State of California Seismic Hazard Map (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) released in March 25 , 1999, the subject site is not located with in a liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslide areas . However, upon City Geologist review, the proposed project may cause erosion and/or landslide if proper mitigation measures are not implemented . To ensure Jes than significant impacts, the following mitigation measures have been added : G-1 . A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior lo construction of the proposed residence . The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. G -2 . An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing , depth of reprocessing and recompaction , depth and locations of any caissons , as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks , foundation recommendations , slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site . The property owner shall be responsible Lo implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance . d) Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report by the City Geologist, the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is not located on expansive soil. Nevertheless, additional City Geologist's review and approval of applicable site specific soils/geology reports will be required during the plan check stage , prior to construction of a new residential structure . Additionally , all construction is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements to prevent potential adverse impacts. As such , there would be no impacts caused by the proposal w ith the implementation of mitigation measures G-1 and G-2. e) The proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation simply allows development over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the property . Any future development on the site wou ld necessitate a septic tank, which would require Los Angeles County, City Geologist and Building & Safety Division review prior to any development proposal. Therefore , there would be no impacts caused by the proposal. 7. GREENH OUSE GAS EMI SS I ONS: Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, .../ either directly or indirectly, that may Page 10 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 I ssues and Supporting Information Sources have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: Sources Potenti ally Significant Impact Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated " a) The approval of the proposed land use and zoning designation change allows for the future development of a new residence over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions on the subject site. Currently, there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0 .277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the Stale produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0 .0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built-out scenario would be not significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, a future development project on lhe subject site would be required lo be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24 ). For these reasons , the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 . Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans , policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject lo any such requiremen ts that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason , the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore , the proposed project would not cause any impact. 8 . HAZARDS ANO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard lo the public or the environment through the --.) routine transport , use , or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and " accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emil hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or --.) proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government " Code Section 65962 .5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the Page 11 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-22 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014w00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip , would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workina in the oroiect area? g} Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires , including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ..J ..J ..J ..J a-d) The proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation to allow a future residential development over the only relatively flat area on the property will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. There is no evidence that the project site contains contaminated soils or have been used for underground storage of hazardous materials. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts . e, f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. g} The existing land use and zoning designations allow for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed land use and zoning change would allow for a future development to be constructed on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Chaparral Lane is already developed with residential units and therefore the development of one additional property along the same street is not substantia l enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan . Therefore , there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. h) The subject property is a large parcel , containing significant amount of vegetation . In the past, the property owner has complied with the Fire Department's brush clearance requirement on the site. The proposed project simply allows a residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portions of the subject site. Additionally , any future residential projects w ill be subject to Fire Department review to ensure that all appropriate measures, such as on-site sprinklers are installed to prepare and protect from any future wildfires in the area . Therefore , there would be less than siQnificant impact caused by the proposed project. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal : a) Violate any water quality standard or 8 ..J wastewater discharQe requirements? b ) Substantially deplete groundwater 8 ..J suonlies or interfere substantiallv with Page 12 of21 ATTACHMENT 1-23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas , including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? e ) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area , structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche , tsunami , or mudflow? Comments: Sources Potentially Less T han Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10 -.J 10 y y -.J -.J y 11 y 11 -.J a, f) The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a Water Quality Control Policy for siting, design , operation , and maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), which sets standards for OWTS that are constructed . Implementation of this OWTS policy is overseen by the Slate Water Board and the regional water quality control boards , and local agencies . Any new development on the subject site will require a septic tank as there are no sewer systems in close proximity. Septic tanks are required to obtain Los Angeles County, City Geologist, and Building & Safety Division review and approval to ensure compliance with all applicable policies and codes . Since the subject site already allows for development of a single-family dwelling and the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation merely changes the developable area from the hillside portions lo a relatively flat area, there are no impacts as a result of the proposal. bl The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company Page 13 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-24 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission . The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City w ith sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking w ater al a pressure cons istent with accepted standards. The subject site already allows for the development of a single-family dwelling and this proposed project simply changes the developable area from the hillside to the relatively flat area on the property. Therefore , the proposed project would cause no impacts to the current water demand of the City. c -e) Based on the City's NPDES consultant , there may be increased runoff resulting from a future residential development and the submitted Biology report slates that indirect impact on jurisdictional waters may occur as a result of hillside erosion during future construction over the new building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary relocation . To ensure less than significant impact, implementation of the project-specific water quality management plan and standard requirements for a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required to avoid and minimize the discharge of construction related pollutants during the Building & Safety review phase of a future development on the subject lot. Additionally, the following best management practices (BMPs) have been added as mitigation measures for erosion, sediment, wind erosion , !racking control , as well as non- stormwater management, waste management and materials pollution control : H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be reviewed and approved, prior lo Building & Safety Division permit issuance. H-2 . No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits . Prior to construction, the limits shall be Hagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging . The staging area shall be located outside of streambed . The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-3. In construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction , to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, t he spill shall be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods . The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Developmen t Department. g ,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature . This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. i , j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally , the subject site is not located w ithin tsunami inundation areas , according lo the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1 , 2009). Also, mudflows are potentially serious hazard to life and property in lhe hillside areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula . The proposed building pad area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning designation changes is relatively flal and future improvements will be designed to mitiQate po t ential mudflow impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide and established -.J community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including , but 1, 2, 3 , 8 -../ not lim ited to the Qeneral plan, specific Page 14 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-25 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources plan , local coastal plan , or zoning ordinance? c) Conflict w ith an y applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communitv conservation olan? Comments : Sources Potentially Significant Impact 1 , 4 Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ..j a) The proposed land use and zoning boundary line changes have no impact to the established community since it simply allow s a residential development to occur on a relatively flat area instead of over existing slopes . The subject property is located within a near fully developed residentia l neighborhood . As such , the project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore , the proposed project would cause no impact. b) The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan amendment and zone change to move the Natural Environment/Hazard boundary line such that the relatively flat area of the lot can be developed with a residential structure and this area would be entirely outside of the Open Space Hazard area and would be designated Residential. The proposed boundary line will be localed al the lop of the existing extreme slope near the edge of the relatively flat area . The relocation of the boundary line would allow the property owners to develop the flat portion of their property instead of the hillside area that would involve significant alteration of the lot. The proposed land use and zoning boundary line relocation would remain consistent with the existing properties on Chaparral and will not conflict with any adopted policy of the City's General Plan or the zoning ordinance. Additionally , the local coastal plan and specific plans do not apply to the subject site . Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impact. c) There are sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site. However, based on a biology report , none of the species identified in NCCP would be disturbed as a result of development over the new building pad area . As such , the proposed project would cause no imoact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be ..j of future value to the region and the residents of the Stale? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 8 ..j General Plan , Specific Plan, or other land use plan? Comments: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site , identified in the local General Plan , Soecific Plan, or other land use olan . Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed project. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a ) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan .J or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or ..j aroundboume noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ..j vicinity above levels existinQ without Page 15 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-26 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources the project? d ) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted , within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the oroiect area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ..j ..j ..j a -d) The subject site already allows for the development one single-family dwelling unit. As such, there is expectation of temporary construction noise related to a future development on the site . However, all development projects are regulated so lhal construction only occurs during the allowable construction hours of the City, with none allowed on Sundays or Holidays. Additionally, the proposed project simply allows the development to occur over a relatively flat area instead of a hillside. Therefore , there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. e, f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e .g. through ..j projects in an undeveloped area or maior infrastructure)? b) Displace existing housing, especially ..j affordable housinQ? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ..j of replacement housinQ elsewhere? Comments : a) The subject site is a vacant fol zoned residential , intended to be developed with a single-family dwelling . The proposed land use and zone change as a result of the boundary line relocation simply allows a future residential development over the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over extreme slopes. Therefore , there is no d isplacement of people as a result and there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b-c) The subject site is a vacant fol. Therefore, there is no displacement of people . Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. Page 16 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-27 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities , the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts , in order to maintain acceptable service ratios , response times or other performance objectives for any of the followin ublic services: i Fire rotection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral Lane are developed lots that already require public services . The subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project simply allows development to occur on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of a hillside. Therefore , there is no im act on ublic services. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities , such that -.J substantial physical deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, '1 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and the subject lot already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project simply allows development to occur on the onl relative! flat area on the ro ert instead of a hillside . Therefore, there is no im act on ublic services. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, Laking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways , pedestrian and bicycle aths, and mass transit? Page 17 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-28 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources management program, including , but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures , or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c} Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g . farm equipment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e .g . bus turnouts , bicycle racks)? Comments: Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ..J " ..J ..J ..J a, f) The proposed project is a land use and zone change, thereby allowing a future residential development on the only relatively flat area on the property instead of over existing slopes . The subject site can already be developed with a residential development and has access via Chaparral Lane. As such , there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted policies , plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b} According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (61h edition), the trip generation rate for a future residential project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Since the property can already be developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project simply allows the development over a relatively flat area instead of a hillside, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. c} The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d-e) The proposed land use and zoning boundary change would allow for a residential development over the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside on the subject site . Any future development would need to comply with the adopted Development Code and Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Fire Department review will be required lo ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore , there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ..J Regional Water Quality Control Board? b} Require or result in the construction of new waler or wastewater treatment ..J facilities or expansion of existing Page 18 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-29 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources facilities , the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water dra inage facilities or expansion of existing facilities , the construction of which could cause siqnificant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Sources Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated " " " " " Comments: The subject site already allows for the development of one single-family dwelling. The proposed project simply allows for this development to occur over the only relatively flat area instead of a hillside portion of the site. The subject site is in a near fully developed residential neighborhood and therefore a future development proposal will not generate a substantial increase in current wastewater nor require a substantial increase in waler use . Additionally, the Building & Safely Division will require and review a drainage plan for consistency with the current standards . Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project that would change the existing water/wastewater/drainage facilities , wastewater treatment requirements , waler supply, wastewater treatment demand , waste disposal needs or compliance with any statures/reoulations related to solid waste . 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate " a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are " individually limited, but cumulatively Page 19 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-30 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) The subject site contains wildlife species subject to NCCP regulations . However, the development area as a result of the proposed land use and zoning boundary change will not be located in close proximity to impact said spec ies based on an approved biology report of the s ite . Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. b) The subject site is zoned residential , located in a midst of a near fully developed residential neighborhood. Since the proposed project simply allows for an already allowed residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of hillside portions of the property, there are no impacts that are individually limited , but cumulatively considerable as a result of the proposed project. c) The proposed development land use and zoning designation boundary relocation allows residential development to occur on the only relatively flat area instead of the hillside portion of the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project, s there are no adverse direct or indirect effects on human beinqs. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering , program EIR, or other CEQA process , one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the followinq items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and stale where they are available for review . Comments: None b) Imp acts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures , which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments : None 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes , Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan , and associated Environmental Impact Reoort. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended throuqh Auoust 2001 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoninq Map 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes , Coastal Soecific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Page 20 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-31 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00143 August 7, 2014 Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Map 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Qual ity Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of Ca lifornia , Alquist-Prio lo Earthquake Fault Zone (5/1/99) 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Munic ipal Code 9 State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030 , U .S. Census Bureau 10 U .S. Geological Survey Map 11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Torrance & San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1, 2009) 12 Bio logy Report Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-32 Exhibit A (Mitigation Monitoring Program) ATTACHMENT 1-33 Project: Location: Applicant: Landowner: Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring Program Case No. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment) 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Luis de Moraes Kevin Chen TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Procedures ......................................................................................................... 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements ............................................................................................ 2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 3 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Pro cedures ......................................................................................... 3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations ................................................................................................................ 3 Ill. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist .................................................................................................... 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 6 Exhibit A -Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No . 2014- ATTACHMENT 1-34 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Mon itori ng Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 10 Chaparral Lane , located at the end of a cul-de-sac, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes . Relocation of the General Plan Land Use map and Zoning map designation boundary lines on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate these boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan 's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate , this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented . The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq .) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq .). This MMP complies with the rules , regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states : "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation . For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program ." Exhibit A -Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No . 2014-_ ATTACHMENT 1-35 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design , pre-grading , constructio n . and operation . The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements , and compliance verification . The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition , the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification ; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section Ill provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established , organized , and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed , for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring , and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation , monitoring , and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2 . The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase , unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes , Community Development Director with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures , if needed. If mitigation measures are refined , the Community Development Director would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design , construction , or operations personnel about refined requirements. Exhibit A -Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2014-_ ATTACHMENT 1-36 Ill. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the C ity Counci l of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on April 17 , 2012. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study . * * * * Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cum ulative . Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementat io n . Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored , verified , and is consistent with these mitigation measures . Exhibit A -Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No . 2014-_ ATTACHMENT 1-37 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION 1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B-1 . Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur Ii outside the avian nesting season (F ebruary 1 -August l 31 ). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs C t r P . t 1 . di d. P rt 0 / r t Commun ity Development between Feb ruary 1 and August 31, a preconstruction ons rue ion nor 0 c earing an or gra mg rope Y wner app ic an Department · survey for nes ting birds sha ll be conducted by a qual ified I bio logist. ~ 1 B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area. a buffer I around the nest will be flagged as determined by a 1 · qualified biologist and up to 500 ' from the nest. All Comm ·1 De el ent 1: 1 activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified Construction Prior to clearing and/or grading Pro perty Owner I applicant uDni Y rt v 0t pm I, b. 1 · d · d h h 1 epa men 1 1o og1s t has etermme t at t e young are no onger 111 dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flaaaed area by another pair of birds . 1; B-3. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be . . . . . Community Develo pmen t \ mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP _ Construction Pnor to clearing and/or grad mg Property Owner I applicant Department 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS G-1 . A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. Pro ert o er I Comm nit Develo ment ·~1 This wall shall be install ed under a separate permit prior to Construction Prior to and during construct ion p r wtn ~ y rt nt p I construction of the proposed residence. app ica n · epa me I G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by 11 the project geotechnical cons ultant following grading /co nstruc tion for the subject site improvemen!s. ~ The report shall in cl ude the results of all field density 11 testing, d.epth of repro?essing and recompaction , ?epth ii and 1.o ~at1ons of any caissons, as well as a. map d.ep1ctmg . Prior to Building & Safety permit Property Owner I Community Developme nt 1: the hm!ls of g~a_dmg , locations of. all dens_1ty testing , and Construction final appl icant. Depa rtment I! geologic cond1t1ons exposed dunng gradmg/excavat1on. I·. The report shall include conclusions and J' recomme nda tio ns regarding applicable setbacks , 1 foundation recommendations , slope stability, erosion . control and any other re levant geotechnical aspects of the ' site. 1 3. HYDROLOGY ANO WATER QUALITY i H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan Pl Ch k Prior to Bu ilding & Safety permit Property Owner I Community Development I shall be reviewed and approved. an ec issuance applicant. Department I H-2 . No construction or storage of construction materials C t t. P . 1 d d . t r Property Owner I Community Development I would be allowed outside the desianated co nstruction ons rue ion nor 0 an unng cons rue ion aoolicant. Department . Exhibit A -Page 5 Mitigation Mon ito ring Program Resolution No . 2014-_ ATTACHMENT 1-38 MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE limits . Prior to constructi on, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced w ith highly vis ible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. H-3 . In construction areas susceptible to erosion , such as bare hillsid es, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to Construction stab ilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished . H-4 . All hazardous materials shall be property stored . If I discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trai ned Construction personnel using appropriate methods. Exhibit A -Page 6 TIME OF RESPONSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY Prior to and during construction Property Owner I applicant. Property Owner I Prior to and during construction applicant. Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No . 2014-_ COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION i! I ,i I Community Development Department Community Deve lopment I Department 11 '• ATTACHMENT 1-39 Resolution No. 2014--' Approving a General Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT 1-40 P .C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143) TO ALLOW A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD TO RESIDENTIAL FOR A PORTION OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE. WHEREAS , on July 15, 2008 , the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map des ignations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property designated as "residential " and the portion designated as "open space hazard "; and , WHEREAS , on September 23, 2008 , the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010 , the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and , WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commiss ion held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve Case No. ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence; and , WHEREAS , a new property owner acquired the subject property and submitted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal ; and, WHEREAS , pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines , California Code of Regulations , Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's ATTACHMENT 1-41 Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 .5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore , a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and , WHEREAS, On August 7, 2014, a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500 ' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and , WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014 , the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan 's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the Open Space Hazard zoning district and within the Residential land use and Single-Fam ily Residential zoning district. Section 2: Approval of a General Plan amendment is warranted because the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed relocation of the General Plan Land Use boundary line would allow only the relatively flat area of the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard designation and to be completely within the Residential Land Use designation. The remaining extreme slopes beyond the new buildable area would remain as Natural Environment/Hazard. Further, the surrounding area is a developed residential neighborhood and thus the boundary line relocation would be consistent with the land use designation of the immediate developed neighborhood . Section 3: That the proposed change in the General Plan is warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public's interest because it would further differentiate only the pad area of the property from the extreme slope areas. Section 4: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available , must be sought , is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation . Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the City Council hereby approves the General Plan Amendment, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top ATTACHMENT 1-42 of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus modifying the Genera l Plan land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential for a portion of the property located at 10 Chapa rral, as set forth in Exh ibit 'A ', which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September 2014 . Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes , hereby certify that the above Resolution No . 2014-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on September 2, 2014. City Clerk ATTACHMENT 1-43 General Plan Land Use Map ,:-- \ \ \ \ ' ' __ :...,. I' \ NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD -. .I .,. Ex isti ng B _ /! ~ ! ; ' * . ~~ ~; ,, •-· ~ ~ •' '" \ ' \ . ATTACHMENT 1-44 Ordinance No. 2014--' Approving a Zone Change ATTACHMENT 1-45 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADJUSTING THE OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH) AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) BOUNDARY LINE ON PROPERY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008 , the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request (GPAIR), allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the portion of the subject property designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "open space hazard "; and , WHEREAS , on September 23, 2008, the app li cant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008-000509 , ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008- 00512) to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines , subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single- family residence . Over the next two years , the applicant changed the scope of the project and ultimately withdrew his application; and , WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010 , the applicant submitted a new application (ZON2010-00025), requesting to relocate the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designation boundary lines and to construct one single-family residence on the subject lot ; and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed publ ic hearing and continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and , WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and after considering public testimony and evidence presented, the Commission adopted Resolution No . 2012-05, recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approve Case No . ZON2010-00025 to allow an adjustment to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary line to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence; and, WHEREAS , a new property owner acquired the subject property and submitted a revised application (ZON2014-00143) separating the amendment to the General Plan Land Use and Zone Map component from the residential development proposal ; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that ATTACHMENT 1-46 with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the project (ZON2014-00143) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore , a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, On August 7, 2014, a public hearing notice was posted with the L.A. County Clerk's Office and mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code ; and, WHEREAS, on September 2, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: This approval is for a change in zoning designation for a portion of 1 O Chaparral Lane from the existing Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single-Family Residential (RS-2), as set forth in Exhibit 'A', which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference . Specifically, the new OH boundary area will follow the top of the slope to the north of the building pad area, so that the areas to the south of the boundary line, including the building pad area will be entirely within the RS -2 zoning district while the areas to the north of the boundary line will remain OH. Section 2: The City Council finds that the proposed zone change would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts in addition to or beyond those already associated with the existing use of the site since the zone change reflects existing conditions on the subject property, and therefore has adopted Resolution No. 2014-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Zone Change (Case No . ZON2014- 00143). Additionally, the zoning designations would be consistent with the topography of the site , which contains one building pad area (surrounded by extreme slopes) suitable for development. Furthermore, the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and conceptually approved a geotechnical report in relation to the proposed project. Section 3: The City Council finds that the resulting change in zoning designation is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. A land use designation of Natural EnvironmenUHazard identifies areas that possess extreme physical constraints with very light intensity uses permitted such as agricultural and recreational activities . A land use designation of Residential allows for residential development, generally over areas with less physical constraints . The subject lot consists of extreme slopes with exception to one generally flat area . Currently, the only generally flat area of the lot suitable for residential development has a Natural EnvironmenUHazard land use and Open Space Hazard designation. The change in zoning designation from Open Space Hazard to Single-Family Residential , will allow the proposed residential development to occur on the flat area of the lot rather than over extreme slopes, thus consistent with the intent of the Ordinance No. Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-47 Residential land use of the General Plan. Section 4: The City Council finds that the approval of the Zone Change is in the interest of the property owners within the project area because it would enable residential development on the only flat area on the property , instead of over extreme slope areas . Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the requested amendment to the City's zoning map as set forth in Exhibit 'A' hereto . Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause , phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance . The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection , subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinc~nce, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification , together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31 51 day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this_ day of September 2014. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) Ordinance No . Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-48 I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No ._ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on September_, 2014. Ordinance No. Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-49 \ \ \ . . \ Zoning Map -__ ...:.'\. \ ..,... -'. ,;, ~ A1~ -~ -l Open Space Hazard {OH) ., ·~ ~. ... \ ATTACHMENT 1-50 Public Correspondence (Received after the September 18, 2012 CC Meeting) ATTACHMENT 1-51 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SunshineRPV@aol.com Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:32 AM Ara Mihranian cc Re: General Plan Land Use Map proposed Amendment -Bronco Area Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment at 10 Chaparral Hi Ara, Thank you for the map. My comments remain the same. To be more specific, the City's proposal to amend the General Plan on this one parcel is misguided, incomplete and absurd. I look forward to seeing a Staff Report which recommends withdrawal of this proposal. SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 In a message dated 8/27/2014 8:38:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, AraM@rpv.com writes: Sunshine, If you provide me with your comments before noon today I can still add them to the Staff Report (it's not finished yet). Ara Ara Michael Mihranian Deputy Director of Community Development (~ffYOF RANCHO FALOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-5228 (telephone) 310-544-5293 (fax) 1 ATTACHMENT 1-52 aram@rpv.com www.palosverdes.com/rpv .~ Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to th« City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which ITI<lY be privileged, confidential and/or protected frorn disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity narned. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copyinq is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:35 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: General Plan Land Use Map proposed Amendment-Bronco Area Hi Ara, You wrote: Was the second exhibit I emailed you today ok? Got it and it is lovely. But, it does not show how the line will move on adjacent properties. You shouldn't propose leaving an incomplete circle. You shouldn't propose excluding a known, active landslide. The slope between Bronco Drive and 10 Chaparral is so steep that the City declined an offer, for free, of that little triangle lot. (A trail goes around it. F2.) If the definition of the Fiazard Zone is 35 percent or more slope and/or active geology, the existing line and the proposed line are both wrong. If the proposal is to update or amend the RPV General Plan Land Use Map, reveal the whole situation and get it right. (Preserve the trail, too.) ... S PS: Is the "Tuesday" you mentioned as the deadline for receiving comments, today? 2 ATTACHMENT 1-53 3 ATTACHMENT 1-54 4 ATTACHMENT 1-55 John A. Feyk 2727 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 26 August 2014 Ms. So Kim, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevar,d Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 I Ref: Case No. ZON2014-00143 Dear Ms. Kim, RECEIVED AUG 2s·zo~ COMMUNlTY oeve(o~MENT DEPARTMENT Along with many joggers, hikersf and equestrians, I have been passing through the property at 10 Chaparral Lane for decades. The property occupies a unique position from Chaparral Lane through George F Canyon's nature trail ending near the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and North. In addition to the downhill portion of the trail from Chaparral Lane, the uphill portion of the trail along the canyon passes through the property. Any zoning change and/ or residential development eliminating ingress and egress for pedestrians and equestrians would have a drastically adverse affect on rec;reation and on cultural enjoyment of the nature trail. This request is not to suggest that the zoning·change should be disallowed but only that the change constructively keeps open a trail from Chaparral lane that joins with the uphill and downhill portions of the trail along the canyon. The trail can be located where it does not interfere. with residential use of the property. However, the location must retain access for foot and h~rseback,passage. john.feyk@cox.net Sincerely, /}_fl <10L ~::.Feyk ATTACHMENT 1-56 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Ms. So Kim, tony baker <tbake377@gmail.com> Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:19 PM So Kim Ara Mihranian Public Comment -Case NO. ZON2014-00143 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Environmental Assessment) I am writing because I am very concerned about the amendment to change the zoning boundary for the flat area at the end of 10 Chaparral Lane to RS-2 zoning. If this zoning change is approved and development takes place, this will have a significant impact on the native habitat that surrounds the flat area. The development footprint of even a single family residence could seriously impact populations of native plants as well as have the potential to introduce exotic/invasive species. The footprint of impact would be further extended by fire clearance. Due to these concerns I am opposed to the incorporation of the flat area into the RS-2 zoning. Thank you, Tony Baker 16 Limetree Ln. Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 1 ATTACHMENT 1-57 So Kim From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: March 26, 2014 MEMO from SUNSHINE SunshineRPV@aol.com Wednesday, March 26, 2014 1:13 PM CC; Carolynn Petru; So Kim cprotem73@verizon.net; traildoctor@cox.net; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com; susanmswank@gmail.com; amcdougalll@yahoo.com; beachjake@sbcglobal.net; primadonis@aol.com; andyc@ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us Learning from past mistakes. 10 Chaparral Position page 1 -0236.pdf; Position page 2 -0237.pdf Follow up Flagged TO: RPV City Council, City Manager and interested parties RE: Leaming from past mistakes. It has been called to my attention that there is a now a new owner of the property known as 10 Chaparral. I have confirmed with So Kim that this new owner is in contact with the City's Planning Staff. Of great concern is the news that Staff is encouraging this applicant to pursue the poorly conceived easements which were negotiated with the previous owner. Attached is a clarification of the City's approved objectives with regard to preserving these historic trail connections. Staff should not support any application which does not provide for the continued use of these trail connections and a minimal interruption during construction. Subsequent to the writing of the attached Position Statement, the RPV City Council has directed Staff to use the TRAIL DEVELOPMENT I MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012. Staff should be advising the applicant that his/her development proposal must include the design for the relocation and reconstruction of Trail Fl to a minimum of the TYPE 7 CRITERIA. As one of the "spokes" in the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network, the design for relocation and reconstruction of Trail F2 should meet a minimum of the TYPE 5 CRITERIA. Any easements recorded should provide for public access to these physically usable trails, in perpetuity. These trail relocations must be included in the proposed grading plan. What is a General Plan for if Staff does not mention it to new applicants? This sort of business should be taken care of long before a Public Hearing is noticed. 1 ATTACHMENT 1-58 RE: Implementation of trail preservation opportunities Page 1 of 2 Position Statement March 20, 2012 CTl-PaltlV .. Chapler 10 LIMETREE LANE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 9021:&-5909 .· · •···· ·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·••••·•·•·•·• ··•· •· : •.. , ·s:: .tQnr········· · Direct questions to the above or Sunshine 310 377-8761 Practically from day one after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has had a problem with trails preservation. Various solutions have been considered including the trails oriented Goals in the Transportation Element in the General Plan and the adoption of a Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Historic trails were still being lost On 11/06/1991 the RPV City Council adopted Amendment 22 to the General Plan in an effort to make it more clear which Department was responsible for preserving and making an effort to improve which sort of trails based on the legal status of the public's access. Staff is still destroying historically used trail connections. Simp1y acquiring a trail easement without designing, funding and constructing the revised tn~il ta:ead in a timely fashion increases. the liability at the City at large a.nd reduces the public's access to emergency and recreational circulation. In the case .of 1.0 Chapan:al .(.CASE NO .. ZON201.o .. 00025), Staff Js. recommending more easement acquisition and more tran connection obliteration. This is not the Applicanfs fault City Council shoUld not have to delay ·this .application, again, in order for Staff to come up witfl both a more immediate and a more permanent solution. In the RPV General Plan, the "concepr (figure 22). is to preserve the tran ·connection through the ,Bronco neighborhood to both Rolling Hills 'Estates and Rolling Hills. The existing trans,cross 10 .Chaparral. The RPV CTP indicates that Section Five, Trails F1. and F2 are to i;neet the P&destrian/equesttian "challenging 11 and "Intermediate" standards, respectively. "The exact route is to be desioned prior.to,.easement solicitation." (Emphasis added.) Staffs current recommendation does not do that The RPV Open Space Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force proposed a Trails Development I Maintenance Criteria. Staff has not yet produced an analysis of this design specification tool. It is our position that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should avail themselves of all the professional and volunteer skills needed to design, negotiate the public access and arrange to construct a TYPE'S trail corridor between the south end of the Stein-Hale Trail in RHE to the south end of Bronco Road prior to approving this GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION & GRADING PERMIT. There is an abundance of "nexus". ATTACHMENT 1-59 RE: Implementation of trail preservation opportunities Page2 of 2 Following is an assemblage of RPV documents. These are the basis from which Steff has been directed to propose and negotiate the legal and physical preservation of non-motorized circulation in conjunction with the health, safety and welfare of not just RPV residents but the community of the Peninsula as a whole. Like the condition for the construction of Terranea, this amenity should not be obstructed for more than thirty days during construction. "Planning" now is what is appropriate. ATTACHMENT 1-60 City Council Staff Reports • C.C. Staff Report {September 18, 2012) • C.C. Staff Report {July 17, 2012) • C.C. Staff Report {June 5, 2012) • C.C. Staff Report {April 17, 2012) ATTACHMENT 1-61 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT:· REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY D ENT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, (CASE NO. 2010-00025) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE (Supports 2012 City Council Goal -City Trail Systems ' . ' ' . Enhancement) CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner # RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing on the proposed application package to an unspecified date with a new public hearing notice to allow the applicant sufficient time to address the geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. DISCUSSION This matter involves a property owner's request for the relocation of a land use and zoning boundary line and construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 10 Chaparral Lane. The application package was presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role is solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. Thus, a public notice informing the public of the Council's ATTACHMENT 1-62 consideration of this item on April 17, 2012 was duly published. On April 1?1h, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 5th and on June 5th, the City Council continued the public hearing to September 18th at the applicant's request, to allow the applicant an opportunity to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. The applicant recently notified Staff that he needs additional time to address this issue. Based on the applicant's multiple requests for continuance, Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to an unspecified date. Once the applicant addresses all geotechnical issues and informs Staff that the application package is ready to be heard by the City Council, Staff will provide a new public notice to all interested parties of the future City Council meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Public Correspondence After the original April 17, 2012 City Council hearing on this item, Staff received public correspondence related to the proposed project. This correspondence as well as any subsequent public correspondence will be attached to and/or addressed in a future Staff Report to the City Council. Time Constraints As noted previously, the Planning Commission's review of the matter was advisory as the City Council is to make the final decision on this type of application. While there is no time frame or deadline for the applicant to bring this matter before the City Council to make a final decision on his application package, Staff has notified the applicant that if more then a year lapses between the Planning Commission's review of the application (February 28, 2012) and the City Council's final review, the environmental study that has been prepared for the proposed project may need to be updated, resulting in additional application fees and timeframe for analysis. ATTACHMENT 1-63 CfTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY ~NC~MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DE~pPMENT DIRECTOR JULY 17, 2012 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, (CASE NO. 2010-00025) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE (Supports 2012 City Council Goal -City Trail Systems Enhancement) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~ Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner <(;('- RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing on the proposed application package to September 18, 2012, to allow the applicant additional time to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. DISCUSSION This matter involves a property owner's request for the relocation of a land use and zoning boundary line and construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 10 Chaparral Lane. The application package was presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role is solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. Thus, a public notice informing the public of the Council's consideration of this item on April 1?1h was duly published. On April 1?1h, the City Council ATTACHMENT 1-64 continued the public hearing to June 5th at the applicant's request, to allow the applicant an opportunity to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. Prior to June 5th, the applicant notified Staff that additional time was needed and thus requested that the public hearing be continued further. At the applicant's request, on June 5th, the City Council continued the public hearing to July 17, 2012. The applicant recently notified Staff that he needs additional time to address the issues. Based on the applicant's request, Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to September 18, 2012. Interested parties have been notified of this continuance recommendation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION After the original April 1?1h City Council hearing on this item, Staff received public correspondence related to the proposed project. This email as well as any subsequent public correspondence will be attached to and/or addressed in the September 18th Staff Report. ATTACHMENT 1-65 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: .. SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, C.OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO~~~ JUNE 5, 2012 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, (CASE NO. 2010-00025) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE (Supports 2012 City Council Goal -City Trail Systems Enhancement) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER cL Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner~ RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing on the proposed application package to July 17, 2012, to allow the applicant additional time to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. DISCUSSION This matter involves a property owner's request for the relocation of a land use and zoning boundary line and construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 10 Chaparral Lane. The application package was presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role is solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. Thus, a public notice informing the public of the Council's consideration of this item on April 1 ?1h was duly published. On April 1 ih, the City Council ATTACHMENT 1-66 continued the public hearing to June 5th to allow the applicant an opportunity to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the project's proposed septic system. The applicant has been working with the City Geologist since the last public hearing and notified Staff that he needs additional time to address the issues. Based on the applicant's request, Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to July 17, 2012. Interested parties have been notified of this continuance recommendation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since the April 1th City Council hearing on this item, Staff received one email related to the proposed project. This email as well as any subsequent public correspondence will be attached to and/or addressed in the July 1th Staff Report. ATTACHMENT 1-67 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & Cl~U~IL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY ~VELOPMENT DIRECTOR APRIL 17, 2012 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, (CASE NO. 2010-00025) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE (Supports 2012 City Council Goal-City Trail Systems Enhancement) REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~ Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner1'71-' RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing on the proposed application package to June 5, 2012, to allow the applicant an opportunity to address geotechnical issues raised by the City Geologist related to the projecfs proposed septic system. DISCUSSION This matter involves a property owner's request for the relocation of a land use and zoning boundary line and construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 10 Chaparral Lane. The application package was presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the Planning Commission's role is solely advisory and the decision on the application must be rendered by the City Council. Thus, a public notice informing the public of the Council's consideration of this item on April 1 ]1h was duly published. In preparing the City Council ATTACHMENT 1-68 Staff Report for the item, an issue was raised by Staff in response to information provided by the applicant to the Planning Commission related to a proposed septic system for the new residence. Staff discussed the issue with the City Geologist, who noted that additional information about the proposed septic system is needed at this time. As such, Staff is recommending that the City Council continue the public hearing to June 5, 2012. The applicant is in agreement with Staff's continuance recommendation. Interested parties have also been notified of this continuance recommendation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission hearing on this item, Staff received correspondence from three separate neighbors related to the proposed project. These letters and emails will be attached to and/or addressed in the June 5th Staff Report. ATTACHMENT 1-69 Public Correspondence (Received after the February 28, 2012 PC Meeting) ATTACHMENT 1-70 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:45 PM To: So Kim Subject: Damage to Chaparral Lane Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Chaparral Lane is private property: a common driveway. It is not reinforced and only lightly surfaced. This driveway is not intended to accommodate heavy truck traffic. The applicant represented to the Planning Commission at the hearing that large and heavy vehicles, such as those big garbage trucks, use the driveway without difficulty. This assertion was, emphatically, not true. The commissioners refused to allow a rebuttal. In fact, the lane is serviced by little "pup trucks," which are pickup- sized vehicles equipped for collecting small quantities of refuse. The proposed project contemplates a huge amount of heavy-vehicle traffic. As an example, perhaps 300 full-sized dump truck trips (in & out) may be required: 1,500 cubic yards @ ten cubic yards per truck. Add bulldozers, earth movers, cement trucks, masonry, lumber, and steel haulers. The shoulder of the lane drops off severely in places. Because the lane is narrow, trucks will likely drive close to the northern shoulder, and could cause the shoulder to fail. The planning commissioners acknowledged probable damage to the thin pavement. The applicant represented that he would repair any damage to the pavement. The City should require the applicant to post a substantial bond or otherwise guarantee immediate repair of any failure of the roadway. If the lane is not serviceable, not only will entrance and exit be compromised but there will be no fire, medical, or utilities available 4110/2012 Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 1-71 Page 2 of2 until it is repaired. 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-72 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:46 PM To: So Kim Subject: #10 Chaparral: Trail Issues Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Problems with the City's Proposed Trail Plan 1) A plan does not create a trail. The trail must not only be designated, provisions must be made to make it useful to the citizens. 2) There is an existing easement: this is the western 10-15 feet of #7 Chaparral. The builder, Lowell Blau, was required to dedicate this easement as a condition of contructing #7 Chaparral. 3) The city's proposed trail lies in large part on the private property of #7 Chaparral, for which no easement has been granted. This is not proper. 4110/2012 Page 1of1 ATTACHMENT 1-73 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:45 PM To: So Kim Subject: #10 Chaparral: Property Line Issue Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red The applicant proposes to build primarily on the space occupied by the existing level pad at the terminus of Chaparral Lane. A significant portion of the existing level pad appears to be outside of the property lines of #10 Chaparral. The city should require the applicant to clearly demonstrate that the proposed project lies entirely within his property lines: this includes not only the structure but also retaining walls, gardens, outbuildings, and all other improvements. Please refer to Exhibit "G." 4/10/2012 Page 1of1 ATTACHMENT 1-74 So Kim From: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:46 PM To: So Kim Subject: View and Height Issues of #10 Chaparral, RP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red The View from #7 Chaparral; No Justifications for Waiving Height Limits Our code protects and perpetuates views both near (in our case, the "Canyon View to the West)) and far (here, the "City View" to the North). The code notes that properties commonly have several views, which may be uninterrupted or segmented. One seated in our dining room enjoys both views. (Exh. "A") The proposed project, 8,000+ square feet, seeks a variance approaching twice the lawful height: from 16' to 26.' The project also intends to raise the existing grade level by, perhaps, six feet. If so, the effective height is 32.' The roof line of #10 will then be above the viewing level of #7: a fact confirmed by the framed skeletion' This height obliterates the canyon view of #7. (Exh. "B": pages 1, 2), (Exh. "C:" pages 1,2.) The Canyon View From #7 Has Been Important Over the Years 1) When we purchased #7, the view was described as a "panoramic of city lights, canyon, and some harbor." (Exh. "A") 2) When # 10 was for sale in 2007, the view was described as "View: Canyon View, City Lights View, Hills View, M." (Exh. "D" p.2) 3) We have used the canyon view for holiday greeting cards, graduation photographs, and the like. (Exh. "E") 4) To preserve the view, I purchased #10 about 2005 from the Bankruptcy Trustee, but was overbid at the court hearing by a "Dealer in Distressed Properties." The buyer was specifically advised 411012012 Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 1-75 by the judge in open court that the property might.not be developable. No Justification for Height Variance Nothing special or unique about #10 Chaparral justifies almost doubling the statutory height limit of 16.' Page 2 of2 To the contrary, the proposed residence will not only eviscerate the Canyon View of #7, but will be higher than the viewing level of #7 Chaparral and be thousands of square feet larger than others on Chaparral Lane. Granting a variance in these circumstances effectively nullifies the regulations established by code. If #10 can obtain such a variance, denying a variance for any future project in the city will be impossible to justify. 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-76 "'". ft 11 Ex,quisite Custom Home sits at the cul-de-sac of a private road. he view is anoramic of ci li hts can on and some harbor. It is one of the most private settings you could wish for. Security system with camera, open beamed ceiling, saltillo tile, 3 ba conies. spacious master suite with fireplace and sitting area. sumptuous master bath with sauna, formal dining room, sunken living room with conversation pit, family room with huge bar area, wine cellar, recreation room, country kitchen with center island and bar. Walled courtyard with pool, spa & shower. 3 car garage. Situated on 2/3 acre of land. For Private Snowing Contact: (:HO) 377..-9551 (310) 541,..5224 ext. 227 MAmoNBUSIA RE/MAX Hall Of Fame All information deemed reliable but not guaranteed ff) Re Hll5e C#f/.ffrR A'- ~RC.• Palos Verdes Realty Eacli office independently owned & operated Distl11ctive Homes (310) 374-6091 or www.usestates.com 13 SB ATTACHMENT 1-77 ATTACHMENT 1-78 ATTACHMENT 1-79 ATTACHMENT 1-80 ATTACHMENT 1-81 Manhattan Beach Real Est<( 'Hermosa Beach Real Estate, Los Ang(' ' County Real Est... Page 1 of 2 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..__f Ji I 't> 11 p~ II' L-ant-tne PROPERTY 1nvenTOR'r' Previous Property Back to Results Next Property 2 Acre Residential Lot Rancho Palos Verdes • II Property Type: Square Feet Zoning: Company: Broker: Direct: Email: Broker: Broker Phone: (<::) 2005 Greater South thy Rl!glonal MuJtlple li$tlng Servlc:e, Inc. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 $950,000 Land 88430 RS2/0H The Duran Reed Firm Clara Duran Reed (310) 519-7670 Click Here The Duran Reed Firm (310) 519-7670 FLlf i= (;::_ fort: Jf Jo "J.()() 7 -s-e E. oT Hf~ SIJ)f Fl~ D~ ~c~ 1 P11 'ti µ t>F- v 1 EW ..._~--~-----------:~ S Print t:;;J Email This Property :O Mortgage µ., .g,P, Community Info httn·//www ~::iliforni::ihomP<:::ilP<: info/T .i<:tNow/PrnnPrtv ::i<:ml?PrnnPrtvTD=l 1 iR?'i7 4/R/?007 ATTACHMENT 1-82 Manhattan Beach Real Est"?· Hermosa Beach Real Estate, Los An('.\s County Real Est... Page 2 of 2 "<>:::}~/ \-:::-:;.;::/ /J, Schedule Showing gEJ Request More Info Fantastic opportunity to build your dream home(s) at a very reasonable price. Enough space for horses and maybe a second home? (check with City (310) 544- 5228). This home site is over three times the size of some neighboring lots. Over two (2) acres of tranquil, unobstructed views of the city and snow covered mountains. Located at the end of a cul de sac. Private location where all you hear are the sounds of nature. In the evening enjoy the glittering views of the city. Area is immediately adjacent to the George F. Canyon Open Space area. Price includes geological, soil and engineering reports. ~ ) Finance: Cash ) Mountain View View: Canyon View, City ) Lights View, Hills View )City View )Horses )Wooded Lot The information presented here is deemed reliable, though not guaranteed. Previous Property Back to Results Next Property Web Site Design and Hosting Provided By: Advanced Access © 1998-2006 httn://www_califomiahome~mlP.<:: infn/T .i.::tNow/PronP.rtv ~<::ml'?PronP.rtvln=l 1 ~R?'\7 4/R/?007 ATTACHMENT 1-83 ATTACHMENT 1-84 , 'F 11 _ ATTACHMENT 1-85 ti SHew110 /iREtt {)F f"Vf3t-fll-P ir/51 t:>P #to§ fRDf€RTY ATTACHMENT 1-86 ,.· .. APR 1 0 2012 ~ SIX CHAPARRAL LANE. RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CAllFOR~8tf"'WttJn o~ PHONE: (310) 544~0001 FAX: (310) 544° 7900 EMAtL: THEJOEOllVERl@WN#.,Gfjff PAfatr April 10, 2012 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30910 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 City Council Members Anthony Mise1:ich, Brian Campbell, Susan Brooks, Jerry Duhovi.c, Jim Knight I respectfully submit the accompanied photos th~t clearly give an overview of the proposed site location for construction on # lO'Chaparral Lane RPV and surrounding properties that will be affected by the council1s decision to approve the applicants request to build at# 10 Chaparral Ln. You will also find in your package herewith a copy of my letter to Palos Verdes Hills ,Masters Qualified ,Dick Brown PG certified Engineering geologist. The R.P.V.city geologists Jim Lancaster has determined that the applicant acquire permission from the owner at #8 Chaparral to construct a 60 ft long retaining wall at the foot of# 8 Chaparral to stabilize the historical landslide slope . Failing to stabilize #8 would deem the project at# 10 unbuildable. I have not personally seen permission from #8 owner but cannot believe that just because he has supposed permission no geological data is required for# 8. There is history of landslide activity on the #8 property in your file. The owner of both # 8 and #10 were told by the Judge at the auction when they purchased the properties that the purchaser of# 10 and # 8 should be aware that both properties most probably would be unbuildable. ATTACHMENT 1-87 • 1 Approval for grading and construction on #10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below #8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. The city geologist should observe the materials within the excavations during the investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Please see US Geologic Services Geologic inspection for Lot 231Tract22946 consultants mapped several active landslides on #8 and #10 Chaparral Lane and referenced reported ancient landslides from previous published geologic maps. As you can see from the photos provided the homes at the very top of# 8 Chaparral are at the cliff edge of Bronco ln.( at the 45 degree slope of# 8) thereby making any movement from sliding a life threatening hazard • This also affects the danger to adjoining Bronco properties and # 6 Chaparral # 7 Chaparral and the entire Chaparral surrounding area. I ask that you deny the applicants request for the reasons specified and I thank your consideration , ATTACHMENT 1-88 RECEIVED ,, APR 1 0 ZO!Z ~ SIX CHAPARRAL LANE. RANCHO PAlOS VERDES. CAUF8~~U~~;RfV6!f9.,S:"'ENT PHONE: (310) 544·0001 FAX: (310) 544·7900 EMAIL: THEJOEOLIVER!WMJfNOOM 03/13/2012 Dick Brown P.G. Certified Engineering Geologist 296 College Park Drive SealBeach,CA 90740 Dear Dick, It was a pleasure to speak with you yesterday regarding the concerns of development of the property at #10 Chaparral Lane in Rancho Palos Verdes. I was impressed with your Masters qualifications, and particularly as Chief Editor of the publication of your book,"Geology and Paleontology of Palos Verdes Hills". I will obtain a copy for my library. If you recall, I live at 6 Chaparral Lane, across the street from Damon Swank at# 7, who is adjacent to the proposed development. I have enclosed the geological details of #8 adjacent to my property (#6) for your review. As you can see, it specifies that there is a high probability of slippage due to ancient landslide history pointed out in the geological of #8 Chaparral. This brings up the question of the slippage effects of grading for a retaining wall on #8 Chaparral, (no geological reports obtained for this work?) as required for building at #10. When I purchased my house (#6), my geologist Sid Nesbit, CEG., recommended to me to not even consider the purchase of #8 property when I considered buying it, because of the liability probability of slippage on the #8 lot. His comment was that he would not take it if you ATTACHMENT 1-89 gave it to him. Ownership of the #8 lot would have tremendous liability. Irrigation alone would be dangerous. This brings up the question, who is responsible for failing to stabilize the slope? The city? The developer? The property owner? The planning commission has determined that if the developer of #10 got the permission from the owner at# 8 to construct a retaining wall, at the toe of# 8, it would mitigate geologic issues of concern of the city geologist. (There has been no mention of the stability of that property as drilling for that determination has not been done). The applicant says he has permission. However there was no geology report required on # 8 to construct any retaining wall or any other provision. Just because he got permission from the owner it doesn't change the history of the# 8 property probability to shift. The residents at the top of #8 at Bronco lane are sitting on the cliff edge of the slope at #8 property that was determined unbuildable according to the reports provided. Jim Lancaster, the city geologist, has determined that should # 8 not meet the geological requirements to construct a retaining wall to protect the applicant at #10 Chaparral the property development would be deemed not feasible. Approval for grading and construction on #10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below #8 should be denied by RPV until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported by a qualified, certified, independent engineering geologist. With the proposed 60 foot long retaining wall at #8 the only space available for a driveway would parallel my driveway, making my property at #6 susceptible to stability issues. Dave Emenhiser -Vice Chair Bill Gerstner Robert Nelson David Tomblin ATTACHMENT 1-90 (.••· These and othet nouses on Bronco lane are at th~-sedge of #8 Chaparral In. f.. ·"' APR 1 O Z012 ATTACHMENT 1-91 . r~ ·· ~i,I'··· This hou~e is at t~e top of the cliff on Bronco lane. · _, · :\y1;\~i-~ , Below this house 1s the slope (# 8 Chaparral) where · · retaining wall is required for development at #10 Chaparn .. ~ ......... _,.., ..... -.. ' :t © ·:t " ATTACHMENT 1-92 ATTACHMENT 1-93 ATTACHMENT 1-94 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, C.E.G. 1307 Engineering Geologist 2871 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92010-6553 Phone & Fax (7 60) 434-8503 Cell (7 60) 458-557 4 Email stephenejacobs3019@gmail.com April 10, 2012 Mr. Damon Swank and Mr. Joe Oliveri No. 6 & No. 7 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 92075 Subject: Third Party Geological Review No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane Project No. 12002 Vacant Parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21, Tract 22946 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Swank and Mr. Oliveri: As requested by Mr. Oliveri on April 4 at the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, we have prepared a list of comments, questions, and concerns regarding geologic issues on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. This letter may be presented to members of the city council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the city geologist and others concerned at the April 17, 2012 meeting. SWANK AND OLIVERI MEETING QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, PREPARATION FOR THE APRIL 17, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Attendees of the RVP Meeting on April 4, 2012: Mr. Damon Swank, homeowner at No. 7 Chaparral Lane Mr. Joe Oliveri, homeowner at No. 6 Chaparral Lane Mr. James Lancaster, CEG, consultant-engineering geologist for the City of RPV Mr. Dick Brown, CEG, independent consultant engineering geologist ATTACHMENT 1-95 4/10/2012 Project No. 12002 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Mr. Steve Jacobs, CEG, independent consultant engineering geologist Mr. Joel Rojas, director of planning for City of RPV Ms. So Kim, Planner for City of RPV Project Consultant for No. 10 Chaparral Lane (not at meeting): Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC) Comments: • The city geologist, Mr. James Lancaster, stated that it is his duty to evaluate the geologic data as presented by the geotechnical/geologic consultant preparing the on-site investigation report. He said it is not his job to question the geologic validity of that data. We question this viewpoint in that we believe the city geologist should endeavor to protect public safety by asking the geotechnical/geologic consultant the appropriate questions that pertain to public safety issues, such as those raised in the conclusions and recommendation of our report dated April 4, 2012, and the following: • The city geologist reviewing the consultant's investigation report should verify to his satisfaction that there is adequate geologic data to characterize the stability of the site (specifically slope stability and construction feasibility). The city geologist, Mr. Lancaster, stated if we want to appeal the review process of the geologic reports, then we can submit questions to the geologic appeals board to have them review the geologic data. • It is our understanding that a caisson retaining wall is to be placed parallel to Chaparral Lane and partly across Nos. 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane has been approved conceptually only, not approved yet for constru~tion. • Questions and Concerns for City Council Meeting • Are the number and location of borings/test pits sufficient enough to characterize the subsurface geology on the properties and proposed construction site on No. 10 Chaparral Lane? • We believe that several landslides exist on No. 10 Chaparral Lane, and were not mapped by the consultant due to inadequate borings and 2 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-96 4/10/2012 Project No. 12002 8 and 1 O Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA misidentification of geologic materials. The landslides may reach a significantly greater depth than that reported in their limited number of borings and test pits. If the maximum depth of landslide deposits (believe to possibly extend below the undocumented fill on the pad), is still unknown, then why has the project been approved without knowing the depth to bedrock (Catalina Schist) in this area, and how deep the caissons need to penetrate? Were the previous borings located in an area that could obtain the maximum depth of landslide deposits? • Has the engineering geologist of the consulting firm Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC) prepared an adequate geologic cross section down the slope to adequately characterize the maximum landslide depth? • Has the geotechnical engineer (PEC) performed an adequate slope stability analysis (seismic and static) based on an adequate geologic cross section? • An investigation of No. 10 Chaparral Lane was performed by Environmental Geological Laboratories (EGL), and several boring logs from this previous investigation were used in the geotechnical/geological report by Professional Engineers Consulting Inc. (PEC). This previous investigation apparently may not have completed and no geological report filed at RPV city hall, and no review of it was known to have been performed. Where did PEC obtain the boring logs that were used in their report, dated November 4, 2007? • Conceptual planning approval was made for the currrent project, but no geologic approval for grading, construction and building from a public safety standpoint has been made. Will our geologic data presented at the April 4th meeting and the upcoming city council meeting be considered or ignored as part of the final geologic approval to develop the property? • Has there been a geologic approval for construction of the caisson retaining wall across No.8 and part of No. 10 Chaparral? The consultant, PEC, did not perform any borings on No. 8 Chaparral Lane to determine the depth of the known landslide in order to prepare a proper geologic cross section for an adequate slope stability analysis for design of the 60- foot long caisson retaining wall. We believe this is a gross error of professional engineering responsibility. Why has conceptual approval been granted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes without any subsurface investigation to determine the base of the previously mapped landslide? • Will the caisson retaining wall, relocated farther up the slope on No. 8. Chaparral Lane, where its height will have to be increased considerably, be required to have an addendum slope stability analysis? We think that 3 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-97 4/10/2012 Project No. 12002 8 and 1 O Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA it should and be based on at least two new borings to determine the base of the known landslide. • Ms. So Kim, at the April 4th meeting remarked. "We have already approved the project conceptually." What does this mean? For example, is the next step automatic with regard to issuing a grading permit in light of the geologic data we provided at that meeting regarding the landslide deposits exposed in the dozer cut in 2007? We believe more geologic data is needed to adequately determine the thickness and base of the landslides and to properly characterize the materials, shown on PEC's geologic map as landslide instead of colluvium. • What is the basis for reviewing the lithologic designations and descriptions of materials logged in the excavations and presented in the investigation report by PEC? By interpreting the surficial deposit a landslide instead of merely colluvium still begs the question: How deep does this material (we believe landslide deposits) go? If city doesn't know the depth of unsuitable material, then how can they approve construction on the project when we don't know how deep into bedrock Catalina Schist to go to put in the caissons? • The proposed 60-foot long caisson retaining wall along the north side of No. 8 Chaparral Lane may deny access to possible future construction on that lot which is currently vacant. Does the owner of that lot realize the implications of a massive retaining wall across much of the north side of his lot may have on potential future lot development? The excavation for the proposed retaining wall will undercut the known landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane, and possibly cause the landslide to fail. • Failure of the landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane could block the driveway and damage the structure on No. 6 and damage and could undermine the structure on No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Should the landslide fail into Chaparral Lane, it could deny access to the residences near the end of Chaparral Lane by the fire department and other emergency vehicles. • Has the consultant, PEC, discussed how the proposed caisson retaining wall is to be constructed to avoid failure of the landslide? What temporary measures will be used to support the excavation prior to construction of the caisson retaining wall? • In our professional opinion, approval for grading and construction on No. 10 Chaparral Lane and the caisson retaining wall below No. 8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. 4 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-98 4/10/2012 Project No. 14002 8 and 1 O Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA • We strongly recommend that the Rancho Palos Verdes city geologist observe the materials within the excavations on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane during the future investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions, please call undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur R. (Dick) Brown, CEG Stephen E. (Steve) Jacobs, CEG 5 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-99 April 4, 2012 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, C.E.G. 1307 Engineering Geologist 2871 Sanford Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92010-6553 Phone & Fax (7 60) 434-8503 Cell (7 60) 458-557 4 Email stephenejacobs3019@gmail.com Project No. 12002 Mr. Damon Swank and Mr. Joe Oliveri No. 6 & No. 7 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 92075 Subject: Third Party Geological Review No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane Vacant Parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21, Tract 22946 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Swank and Mr. Oliveri: As requested by you both, we have performed an evaluation of the available geologic data related to the gross stability of the slopes on No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. This letter is to be presented to Mr. Joel Rojas, community development director, and Mr. James M. Lancaster, city geologist, both in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Previous investigations on or near the subject properties have been undertaken by Keith Ehlert, Lockwood-Singh & Associates, URS, Zeiser Kling, American Geotechnical, Baseline Geotechnical, Professional Engineers Consulting, Stone Geotechnical Services, H.C. Nikola Associates, and U.S. Geologic Services. A new -6,000-square-foot residence is proposed for construction on the previously graded (undocumented fill) pad portion of No. 10 Chaparral Lane. The city reviewed the consultant's preliminary geotechnical investigation report and has tentatively approved construction of the residence. We interpret that a series of landslides underlie the subject properties at No. 8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane. As illustrated on four photographs (presented at the end of this report), an approximately 10-foot high dozer cut above the graded pad on No. 10 Chaparral Lane exposed at least three landslide deposits and associated paleosols. These photographs were taken by Mr. Damon Swank on November 15, 2007 during the AEG annual convention field trip. Dr. Roy Shlemon, shown on the first photograph, interpreted the exposure. ATTACHMENT 1-100 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA The slope above the road from No. 8 Chaparral Lane and No. 10 Chaparral Lane was excavated during 2007 and covered with geofabic and reportedly planted with ice plant. Reports, if any, of repair of the dozer cuts in the slope above the graded pad on No. 10 Chaparral Lane were not available to us. A 64-foot long retaining wall with caissons, on the south side of Chaparral Lane, was proposed to support the landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane and the eastern part of No.10 Chaparral Lane. This wall was to be constructed prior to construction of the proposed residence on No. 10 Chaparral Lane. Our third-party evaluation included reviewing the following literature: PUBLISHED REFERENCES AND PHOTOGRAPHS [Quotations from references and our comments bold italicized] 1. 1946: Woodring, W.P. Bramlette, M.N. and Kew, W.S.W., Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, 145 p., Plate 1, geologic map, scale 1:24,000. 2. February 28, 1963: U.S. Geological Survey, digital vertical aerial photographs, black & white, stereo, Frame Nos. 2-29 and 2-30, scale 1 :30,000. 3. October 30, 1972: U.S. Geological Survey, digital vertical aerial photographs, black & white, stereo, Frame Nos. 3-160 and 3-161, scale 1 :30,000. 4. 1976: Cleveland, G.B., Geology of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 27, Plate 2, map scale 1 :12,000. 5. 1999: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), Official Seismic Hazard Zones map of the Torrance Quadrangle: scale 1 :24,000. 6. 1999: Dibblee, T.W. Jr., Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity: Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-70, scale 1 :24,000. 7. March 16, 2006: Google Earth color aerial photograph, US Geological Survey, www.historicmapdvds.com. 2 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-101 4/4/2012 8 and 1 O Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 8. April 25, 2007: Google Earth color aerial photograph, Digital Globe,www.historicmapdvds.com. 9. May, 2007: California Geological Survey (CGS), Landslide Inventory Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California, by Wayne D. Hayden, Landslide Inventory Map Series, scale 1:24,000. 10. July 31, 2007: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com [pre-dates slope grading on #10 Chaparral Lane]. 11. September 19, 2007, City of Rancho Palos Verdes GIS system, Map Output containing aerial photographs of #10 Chaparral Lane. 12. November 15, 2007, Four ground photographs showing road cuts into slope above graded pad and one photographs showing geofabric covered slope on No. 10 Chaparral Lane. Photos provided by Damon Swank [Ancient landslide deposits and paleosols exposed in the cuts are considered Holocene age]. 13. January 9, 2008: Google Earth color aerial photograph, LAR-IAC image, www.historicmapdvds.com [slope above pad on eastern part of#10 Chaparral Lane excavated and vegetation removed]. 14. November 15, 2009: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com. 15. May 25, 2009: Google Earth color aerial photograph, USDA Farm Service Agency, www.historicmapdvds.com 16. March 8, 2011: Google Earth color aerial photograph, www.historicmapdvds.com CONSUL TANT REPORTS AND REVIEWS [Quotations from references and our comments bold italicized] 1. October 28, 1960: Stone Geological Service, Inc., report, visual geologic examinations, Tract 22946, Lots 1, 2, 3, of Block A, of Lot 1; Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21; Lots 1,2,3, of Block C, of Lot 2; lots 19 and 20; Cayuse lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots), project no. 60-164 [The consultant states "The material underlying lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot21; and lots 1 and 2 of Block C of Lot 21, is not stable enough for home construction. The loose fills above these lots rest on unstable material. They present a hazard to these lots." (Consultant mapped loose fill and small landslide on Parcel 26 of Lot 21)]. 3 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-102 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 2. February 9, 1973: James R. Trotter, Supervising Civil Engineer I, Soils Engineering Section, County of Los Angeles, Review of Soils and Stability Problems, Two-Acre Portion, Western Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula ["The proposed residence location is below reported landslides on an existing fill pad believed to be substandard with respect to compaction and placement. The proposed guest house is located entirely on a mapped landslide reported to be active." "Considering the overall canyon slope section through the property, the stability of the foliated schist materials which underlie the landslides has not been calculated and is suspect."]. 3. July 13, 1981: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Recommendations on Design of Retaining Wall along Proposed Driveway Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 4. July 21, 1981: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Additional Recommendations on Design of Retaining Wall along Proposed Driveway portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 5. July 28, 1981: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Site Stability, lot 21, Tract 22946, #7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 702-62. 6. August 27, 1981: County of Los Angeles, Geologic Review Sheet, #7 Chaparral Lane, Portion Lot 21, Tract 22496 pertaining to Report dated August 11, 1981 by Lockwood-Singh & Associates [Unsuitable fill, stability analysis of slope required, major corrective work recommended to develop and stabilize the area of 4 lots west of site.] . 7. September 29, 1981: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Addendum II, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. [Consultant performed a slope stability analysis] . 8. March 4, 1982: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Addendum Ill, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981 , Proposed Single-Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 9. March 15, 1982: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Addendum IV, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Ref. 2360-12. 4 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-103 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 10. September 5, 1985: Baseline Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Opinion Report, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project No. 1446+085 [stated that April 11, 1981 report shows site is bounded to the west by a landslide, active and inactive]. 11. May 7, 1990: American Geotechnical, Real Estate Review, No. 6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, File No. 2665.02 [concluded that there was no evidence of slope instability. Subsurface investigation suggests the existence of a larger slide atop the two smaller slides west of No. 6 Chaparral Lane]. 12. July 26, 1990: A.G. Keene Associates, Third Party Review of Geologic Data Relative to No. 6 Chaparral, City of Rancho Palos Verdes. [Attached are boring logs from American Geotechnical, Lockwood-Singh & Associates, and James E. Slosson & Associates; report states that American Geotechnical had insufficient subsurface data on Lot 32 to conclude that landslide debris underlies No. 6 Chaparral. Lockwood and Slosson identified landslide debris on parcels 32 and 26 of Lot 21; Lots 29 and 30 and parcels 26 and 32 of Lot 21 and No. 6 Chaparral are not underlain by deep-seated landslide debris. Only shallow landsliding on lots 30 and 29. Deep-seated gouge-like material is interpreted as an ancient tectonic fault shear in the schist. Boring logs from American Geotechnical-Lots 26 and 32-dated 12122189; Lockwood-Singh-dated 7123-24181, 11/19n6, 5117n3; James Slosson-dated 3110-24166]. 13. August 16, 1990: Keith W. Ehlert, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Geologic Opinion, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated August 16, 1990, Project No. 2557-90 [Mr. Ehlert concluded no ancient landslide under property; talc layer in schist. AG exploring boring suggested that a deep-seated ancient landslide may project easterly underneath #6 Chaparral Lane. Geotechnical Investigation report by American Geotechnical was requested, but not obtained.]. 14. June 26, 1998: Keith W. Ehlert, Geologic Opinion, #7 Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated June 26, 1998, Project No. 2129- 98 [Mr. Ehlert identified relatively large landslide located westerly of No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Portions of this landslide have been recently active]. 15. December 16, 2004: Antonia Delgado, Nettie Becker Escrow, Report#: PIO 1206695, APN# 7568-019-026, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90275, Los Angeles, dated December 16, 2004 [subject property is located in an officially designated earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone]. 16. January 29, 2005: U.S. Geologic Services, Geologic inspection for Feasibility of Purchase of the approximately 2-acre Vacant Parcel 26 of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Located adjacent to your residence at 7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275, dated January 29, 2005, Project No. 05001 [Consultant mapped several active landslides on No.8 and No. 10 Chaparral Lane, and referenced reported ancient landslides from previous published geologic maps] 5 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-104 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 17. September 7, 2007, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning, Building & Code Enforcement, General Plan Amendment Request For Initiation 18. October 19, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Site Visit Letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated October 19, 2007, PN97082-1642 [Consultant reported surficial instabilities and erosion subjected to the slopes. No geologic observations of the vertical cuts on the dozer road are made in this report. See ground photos of vertical cut taken by Damon Swank on November 15, 2007 during the AEG convention field trip. Roy Shlemon observed the cut along with about 40 other engineering geologists. At least 3 landslides and associated paleosols were exposed in this cut.] 19. October 23, 2007: Jones & Stokes, Post-GIP operation Report for Lot #21 (Tract #22946), the 2-acre Parcel Located at the Terminus of Chaparral lane in Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California (APN: 7568-019-026, dated October 23, 2007. [Report includes an aerial photo (Aerial Express, 2006) showing location of the dozer cut] 20. November 4, 2007: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. (PEC), Geotechnical/Geologic Report, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, Project Number: FC0907 [The Test Pit Logs TP-4, TP-5, and TP-6, logged by T.H. of PEC describe "Native: Co/luvium and Weathered Bedrock" as follows: "having 3-to 4-foot long 'bedrock masses' underlying 'Native Residual Soil,' and 'breccia of gray schist fragments with silt/clay matrix,' and 'taluslbreccia of cobble-boulder schist fragments with silt matrix."' We interpret these materials to be landslide deposits and overlying topsoil, respectively. Therefore, we consider the area mapped by PEC as co/luvium to be landslide material. Test Pit Logs from EGL are missing.] 21. November 5, 2007: URS, Review of Jones & Stokes Report for the Chaparral lane Parcel APN 7568-019-026, URS Project No.27644296.08000, dated November 5, 2007. 22. November 20, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Response to Site Visit Letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated November 20, 2007, PN97082-1642 23. December 1, 2007: Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc., Response letter, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated December 1, 2007 24. December 21, 2007: Zeiser Kling Consultants, Inc., Response to Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc. letter dated December 1, 2007, 10 Chaparral. Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated December 21, 2007, PN97082-1642 6 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-105 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 25. January 29, 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Daily Field Memo, Slope Inspection, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated January 29, 2008 26. April 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Daily Field Memo, Slope lnspection,10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, dated April 2008 27. September 12, 2008: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc, Respond to comments, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 28. December 18, 2009: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Response to geotechnical/geological comments dated October 2, 2008, PN 97082-1642 [Geologic cross section goes through proposed residence showing location of borings by PEC and EGL]. 29. July 27, 2010: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Respond to comments, 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Project Number: FC0907 [Geologic Cross-Section 8-8' shows the slope above the proposed residence pad to be underlain by residual soil; Cross- Section A-A', which goes through the proposed residence, is missing from the report]. 30. December 29, 2010: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Soil Report Review by Zeiser Kling Consulting, Inc., 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, PN 97082-1642. 31. February 1, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Responses to review letter, January 27, 2010, PN 97082-1642, regarding the project at 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated February 1, 2011, Project No. FC0907 [Consultant performed Slope stability analysis for caisson wall to mitigate landslide] 32. February 17, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Geotechnical Report Response Checklist for 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 23946, dated February 17, 2011, PN97082-1642 33. August 1, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Environmental Checklist, Case No. ZON2010-00025 34. September 13, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Minutes, General plan Amendment, Zone change, Environmental Assessment, height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Lane [Staff would like the City Geologist to review the caisson location. Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral Lane) stated he has concerns about any building on this property (8 Chaparral 7 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-106 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Lane), noting that the property has been unstable. He explained that at one time he had the opportunity to buy the property, however his own geologist recommended against it. He stated that the history of the prior geology evaluation deemed the property unstable for construction. Mr. Oliveri also expressed concerns with development as there will then be limited access to the canyon by the fire department.] 35. September 13, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Staff Report, General Plan Amendment, Zone change, Environmental Assessment, height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Lane [Report states " "as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment section and attached initial Study, the project site is not located in a geologically unstable area as defined in the City's General plan and State Landslide Map. However, according to the applicant's geology report, the southeastern portion of the lot experienced landsliding due to the extension of Chaparral Lane to the subject property many years ago. It should be noted that the landslide was primarily on the abutting vacant property to the east, with a portion of the slide extending onto the subject property." "No other landslides have been identified on the subject property. The applicant's geology report for the proposed project received an in-concept approval from the City's Geologist with a requirement that caissons be used to stabilize the access on Chaparral, that existing fill dirt on the building pad be removed and replaced with compacted fill, that the proposed home and retaining wall use deepened footings into bedrock and use caissons in front of the home to stabilize the slopes beyond the building pad area. Therefore, the City approved geology report establishes sound geologic basis for relocating the existing boundary line to the top of the slope.] 36. September 15, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Review letter, proposed location of retaining wall and caissons [Site Plan shows location of proposed retaining wall with 1 O caissons, 30" diameter, and 8' on-center]. 37. October 5, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Respond to comments, Landslide remediation, 8-10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-1642 38. October, 27, 2011: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Geotechnical Report Response Checklist, PN 97082-1642. 39. February 28, 2012: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Planning Commission Agenda, Meeting notes 40. February 28, 2012: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Memorandum: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No-00025); Project Address -- 10 Chaparral (Applicant/Landowner -Frank Colaruotolo) [Grading on B Chaparral Lane: The City Geologist conceptually approved the proposed project, provided that potential erosion and/or landslide deficiencies are mitigated with the construction of a caisson wall at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the lot's 8 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-107 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA access point. The proposed caisson wall is to be constructed across both 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane. Conclusion (P.C. Resolution No. 2012-Section 7: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow 2,000 cu. Yd (500 cu. yd. cut & 1,500 cu. Yd fill) of earth movement on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75 cu. yd. of grading on 8 Chaparral Lane is warranted because: The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Mr. Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral Lane) has expressed concerns with development on 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane.] 41. March 13, 2012, Joe Oliveri, letter regarding property at# 10 Chaparral Ln, Rancho Palos Verdes UNAVAILABLE CONSULTANT'S REPORTS [Our comments bold italicized] Listed below are consultant's reports that we would like to review: 1. September 2, 1960: Richard Merriam, Geologic Report for Lot 2¢ [sic], Tract 22946, dated September 2, 1960 2. May 1966: H.C. Nikola Associates, Inc., Soils Engineering investigation, Lots 21, 29, and 30, Tract 22496, Mustang Road and Bronco Drive, Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California, dated May, 1966 3. May 20, 1966: James E. Slosson and Associates, Geologic Investigation of Lots 21, 28, 29 and 30, Tract no. 22496, Los Angeles County, California, dated May 20, 1966. [We have boring logs only, part of B-1 log missing-landslides identified; slip surfaces identified at El. 689', 766', 745'; slickensided talcose foliation surfaces to El. 765'] 4. June 1968: Lockwood, Geologic Report for Lot 28, Tract 22946 and 22909, dated June 1968 5. September 14, 1973: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Preliminary Geology and Soils Engineering investigation, Lots 29 and 30, and part of Lot 21 of Tract 22496, Bronco Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated September 14, 1973, Project Ref. 94-12 [We have boring-3 log only-no landslides identified; internally slickensided, talcose silty clay matrix at depth ranging from12 to 36'] 6. April 28, 1977: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 21, Tract 22496, Cayuse Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated April 28, 1977, Project Ref. 702-62. [We have Boring- 2 log only-no landslides identified in boring logs.] 7. August 11, 1981 : Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated 9 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-108 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA August 11 , 1981 , Project Ref. 2360-12. [We have boring logs only-no landslides identified; page 1 of 2 of 81 boring log is missing] 8. September 7, 1981: Lockwood-Singh & Associates, Addendum, Report of Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 11, 1981, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22496, Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated September 7, 1981, Project Ref. 2360-12. 9. April 23, 1990: American Geotechnical, Inc., Geotechnical Report for Archint Associates, Lots 26 and 32, Tract 22946, dated April 23, 1990, File no. 2488.01 [have boring logs only-landslides identified]. 10. November 5, 2007: Professional Engineers Consultants, Inc., Daily Field Memo, 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, California, dated November 5, 2007. 11. October 2, 2008: City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Review comments, PN 97082-1642. 12. February 1, 2011: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc., Geology Report for 10 Chaparral, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Portion of Lot 21, Tract 22946, dated February 1, 2011, Project No. FC0907 [We have only excerpts of this report.]. CONCLUSIONS 1. Previous geological and geotechnical investigation reports by several previous consultants and published geologic maps indicate the presence of landslides on the subject properties, or they describe the properties as unstable for home construction. Some examples of the consultants or reviewers who described these conditions include: Stone Geological Services (10/28/1960), James R. Trotter of County of Los Angeles (2/9/1973), Baseline Consultants (9/5/1985), and Keith W. Ehlert (6/26/1998). 2. EGL described materials in their boring logs as a gravelly and rocky sand in a silt/clay matrix. We interpret this material as landslide deposits. This material is overlain by a generally dark brown clayey to silty sand that we interpret as paleosols. Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. described materials in their boring and test logs, and on their geologic map as colluvium, which we interpret as landslide deposits. 3. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission (9/13/11) states " ... the project site (10 Chaparral Lane) is not located in a geologically 10 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-109 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA unstable area as defined in the City's General plan and State Landslide Map." This statement is false, because landslides are mapped on the subject property (see Landslide Inventory Map, CGS, 2007, near the end of this report) 4. The proposed 60-foot long caisson retaining wall along the north side of No. 8 Chaparral Lane may deny access to possible future construction on this lot which is currently vacant. The excavation for the proposed retaining wall will undercut the mapped landslide on No. 8 Chaparral Lane, and possibly cause the landslide to fail. Failure of the landslide could block the driveway and damage the structures on No. 6 and damage the structure on No. 7 Chaparral Lane. Should the landslide fail into Chaparral Lane, it could deny access to the residences near the end of Chaparral Lane by the fire department and other emergency vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approval for grading and construction on No. 10 Chaparral Lane and the retaining wall below No. 8 Chaparral Lane should be denied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes until adequate and appropriate subsurface investigations are undertaken and reported on by qualified and certified engineering geologists. The city geologist should observe the materials within the excavations during the investigation and grading phases, and review the field logs during the excavations. Thank you for the opportunity to be of continued service to you. If you have any questions, please call undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur R. (Dick) Brown, CEG Stephen E. (Steve) Jacobs, CEG 11 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-110 4/4/2012 8 and 1 o Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-111 4/4/2012 13 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG -co ~ "'"" .s: t:: cu w .!! C) 0 0 (!) -~-.c "C ll.. ~ --.!!? c i·2 <C 1ii Cl) a; :::s .... C'" Q. =i .Q .... o.= ATTACHMENT 1-112 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Dozer cut (-10 feet in height) on Parcel 26, Lot 21 exposing at least 3 paleosols and underlying landslide deposits. Dr. Roy J. Shlemon is explaining the outcrop to about 40 engineering geologist on AEG field trip. Photos by Mr. Damon Swank on November 15, 2007. 14 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-113 4/4/2012 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Close~up view of dozer cut on Parcel 26, Lot 21 exposing paleosols and underlying landslide deposits. Photos by Mr. Damon Swank on November 15, 2007. 15 STEPHEN E. JACOBS, CEG ATTACHMENT 1-114 So Kim From: Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 4:02 PM To: 'So Kim' Cc: 'Ara M' Subject: FW: Fund planning early in the process Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: Position page 1 -0236.pdf; Position page 2 -0237.pdf From: Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:15 PM To: 'Joel Rojas' Subject: FW: Fund planning early in the process Hi Joel- FYI -in case you and your staff weren't copied on this. CP From: SunshineRPV@aol.com [mailto:SunshineRPV@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:44 AM To: clehr@rpv.com Cc: cc@rpv.com Subject: Fund planning early in the process Hello Carolyn, Here is the California Trails Association's Position Statement in relation to the City's Goals, Priorities and Budget process as it impacts trails preservation. 10 Chaparral is a perfect example because Staff did not discuss the trail issue with the property owner until after the application was declared complete and comments were received in response to the notice of the PC Public Hearing. I would love to be a fly on the wall when you discuss this with Joel Rojas. So Kim clearly had not followed the directive in General Plan Amendment 22 which simply kicks the introduction to the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) up a notch. Not only is this "conceptual" trail connection described in the RPV General Plan, the existing trails are clear on the aerial photos. Mr. Rojas signed off on a Staff Recommendation which had not considered the existence of an important off-road circulation amenity. Category II: Proposed trails and trail segments which cross undeveloped private/y- awned land which is zoned as being deve/opab/e. These trails and trail segments should be implemented when the respective parcels of land are developed. At the beginning, this is a neighborly request for cooperation with the "big picture". 4/10/2012 Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 1-115 Page 2 of2 Bring it up later, as in this case, it becomes a demand and an onerous burden on the property owner's wallet. I keep asking ... What has the City got in the way of errors and omissions insurance? The new Council's goals mention "lessons learned". Well, if we cannot afford to fix previous screw-ups, how about you find a way to get the restoration of the trail across San Ramon Canyon included with the design and funding for the new storm drain? An off-road connection between the switchbacks and Friendship Park is somewhere between a "want" and a "need". The trail will absolutely, positively, never be seen again after the bulldozers go home. This will require a chat with Tom Odom. Both Planning and Public Works (not Director people) tell me "it is was not in the budget" when I inquire after the process has gone too far. Is there any hope for implementing the General Plan as it is? ... S 4/10/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-116 RE: Implementation of trail pres(7)1tion opportunities Position Statement March 20, 2012 aA .. Palos Verdes Chapter 10 LIMETREE LANE RANCHO PALOS VERDES CA 9027!)..5900 Direct questions to the above or Sunshine 310 377~8761 Practically from day one after incorporation, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has had a problem with trails preservation. Various solutions have been considered Including the trails oriented Goals in the Transportation Element in the General Plan and the adoption of a Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Historic traits were still being lost On 11106/1991 the RPV City Council adopted Amendment 22 to the General Plan in an effort to make tt more clear which Department was responsible for preserving and making an effort to improve which sort of trails based on the legal status of the public's access. Staff is still destroying historically used trail co:nnectiol'1$. Simply acquiring a trail easement without designing, funding and constructing the revised trail tread in a .timely fashion increases the liability of the City at large and reduces the public's access to emergency and recreational circulation. In the case of 10 Chapan:al (CASE NO. ZO:N2010~00026)i Staff is recommending more easement acquisition and more trail connection obl:lteration. This is not the Appficanfs fault City Council should not have to delay this application, .again, in order for Staff to come up wittl both a more immediate and a more permanent solution. In the RPV General Plan, the "concepf' (figure 22) is to preserve the trail connection through the Bronco neighborhood to both Rolling Hil1s Estates and Rolling Hills. The existing trails cross 10 Chaparral. '.The RPV CTP Indicates that Section Five, Trails F1 and F2 are to meet the Pedestrian/equestrian "challenging" and "Intermediate" standards, respectively. "The exact route is to be designed prior to easement solicitation." (Emphasis added.) Staff's current recommendation does not do that The RPV Open Space Planning and Rec.& Parks Task Force proposed a Trails Development I Maintenance Criteria. Staff has not yet produced an analysis of this design specification tool. It is our position that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes should avail themselves of all the professional and volunteer skills needed to design, negotiate the public access and arrange to construct a TYPE ·5 trail corridor between the south end of the Stein-Hale Trail in RHE to the south end of Bronco Road prior to approving this GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION & GRADING PERMIT. There is an abundance of .. nexus". ATTACHMENT 1-117 RE: lmpfementation of trail pre~;:'· 'ation opportunities Following is an assemblage of RPV documents. These are the basis from which Staff has been directed to propose and negotiate the legal and physicaf preservation of non-motorized circulation in conjunction with the health, safety and welfare of not just RPV residents but the community of the Peninsula as a whole. Like the condition for the construction of Terranea, this amenity should not be obstructed for more than thirty days during construction. "Planning" now is what is appropriate. 10 Chaparral Lane (trail) ORIC GEOLOGY VISTA POINT SOCIAL TRAILi dllf RPV TRAIL EASMENTll:RRIVOCASLE OFFER OF TR.AIL E:ASIM!Ni ATTACHMENT 1-118 So Kim ~. fl: sent: To: Subject: Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com] Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:07 PM sok@rpv.com FW: 1 O haparral Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red From: jeanlongacre@aol.com [mailto:jeanlongacre@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:39 PM To: pc@rpv.com Subject: 10 haparral Dear Planning Commissioners: I would like to thank the property owner of 10 Chaparral for his willingness to donate dedicated easements for trail use on his property. Having a link from Rancho Palos Verdes to the Hale-Stein Nature Trail in Rolling Hills is of vital importance to the East side of the City, especially to the Equestrian Q- District. Without it, we would be completely cut off from Rolling Hills Estates. I would also like to thank So Kim for her work on this application. Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Drive R< ho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3 ~t\, -644-01 05 2/28/2012 Page 1of1 ATTACHMENT 1-119 So Kim 'ttl' 'l: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:20 PM To: nelsongang@aol.com Cc: sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; clehr@rpv.com; tomo@rpv.com Subject: One little gap in the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: RPV RH RHE Spoke 2 -0218.pdf Hi Bob, Subject: Date: From: To: Sunshine, Re: Legal trails well maintained by RPV (10 Chaparral.) 2/27/2012 9:29:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time Nelsongang@aol.com SunshineRPV@aol.com THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR THE MAP! It came through purrrfectly. lst trail map I've seen. Really? For you, I marked up the map from the 1990 version of the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Tonight, I'll bring you the PV Loop Trail Project brochure from 1985. I need to tell you for years I have respected your professionalism in testifying and advocating before our towns groups and I do appreciate your emails. We have an interesting situation here that we will probably see again and W''"';11 as RPV builds out. TNX. I escaped from The Hill's rural atmosphere for 10 years t, 37 to 1977). I oh so took it for granted. Upon my return, I was so shocked at the loss that I hitched my wagon to Farmer G's star. Deterioration of off-road circulation will definitely keep happening as the whole Peninsula builds out. I just try to slow the flow. Making the Palos Verdes Loop Trail legally and physically open to humans in case of a disaster is on my "bucket list". Other then that, I have no great expectations. RHE is the latest to fall into non-rural majority voter demographics. Understanding I have not even been sworn in yet---Welcome. 1. I see the issues are trail maintenance and liability. I don't. And, there is not much you can do to help as a Planning Commissioner. Trail maintenance is the same as all community infrastructure maintenance. The City Council gets to choose among things like paving roads, new window frames at City Hall, the gas line to Ladera Linda, fixing storm drains, leaning on utility companies to remove fire fuel on utility easements and funding the PV Preserve. It all comes down to what The Budget authorizes Staff to spend our money on. The only liability we are not covered for is Staff's errors and omissions. 2. I.kinda believe the best official answer on both would be from Carol Lynch, City Attorney. Carol is not our friend. She makes her living on creating legal adversities. 3. It looks like the map shows IO Chap on spoke 2 crossing what I found to be a cliff when I hiked the property. Hum! It might be the trail coming down from Bronco but the map doesn't show that. I truly hope that when you are sworn in and given a free copy of the RPV General Plan (I paid $35.00 for my copy) you will ask for copies of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan, RPV Roadways Master Plan, RPV Parks Master Plan, RPV Trails Network Plan (including the rr.11ceptual Bikeways Plan and both the 1990 and 1993 versions of the RPV l '1ceptual Trails Plan). The RPV Natural Communities Conservation Plan has not yet been approved by the State of California so the 50 year contract with the PVP 2/28/2012 Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 1-120 Page 2 of2 Land Conservancy still.has some "fuzzy edges". 4J've got a Google picture showing the trail I'll bring. The problem with aerial photos is that when a trail goes under fa/}<) 't 't \( 2s, you can see 1 • Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow night. Bob Nelson 310-544-4632 It came up in a Staff Report to Council about renaming parks. It takes staff time (i.e. extra costs) to inform all of the mapping authorities about the change. Boo Hoo. See the attached map. Nobody bothered to inform Thomas Brothers, LA County and the Real Estate industry when RPV moved Martingale Trailhead Park. It may look like a "cliff' to you. Equestrians, runners and dog walkers have been using this trail connection for multiple decades. (Hikers don't count. They go wherever they want regardless of the legalities.) Anyway, I have marked the existing trail easements and easement offers which RPV has acquired in support of this off-road connection. And, the professionally designed "ideal route" which meets RPV's "challenging "trail development standards. Many more property owners are impacted in their more than 35 percent slopes. My point is that the Peninsula Wheel Trails Network should not lose another historic trail connection (10 Chaparral) while the RPV Community Development Department celebrates the acquisition of an easement without making arrangements with the Public Works Department, Finance Department and the City Council to physically improve the relocated trail connection. Restoration/relocation of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail at 69 Rockinghorse and 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road are not just suffering from a lack of funding. They are suffering from a lack of community priority. ,.·· ·. 1 1\ifHice that around the attached map, 10 Chaparral is listed for sale. Should little developers be treated any differently than big developers as opposed to actual residents? The RPV General Plan is supposed to be for the "big picture". . .. S 2/28/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-121 So Kim ,;-;:;1: sent: Madeline Ryan [pvpasofino@yahoo.com] Saturday, February 25, 2012 9:38 PM To: So Kim Cc: Joel Rojas; pc@rpv.com Subject: PC Meeting 2-28-12 -Case No. 2010-00025 #10 Chapparal Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear So You and Staff should be commended for approaching the developer of this project to continue a trail access point from his property to the RHB Georgette Nature Trail. Thank you for listening to the residents and trail users about the critical link this property affords to the Peninsula trails network. We believe this may be the first in our history with the City, and hope for many future dedicated easements from developers and homeowners to enhance our trails network. After all, when developers and home owners are looking for General Plan changes, zoning changes, height variations, etc, etc. there should be some public benefit in exchange for granting so many changes and variations. Because of the many challenges facing the developer in proceeding with this project and the residents of Chaparral Lane who will have to endure the daily construction noise, debris, traffic and heavy equipment working and being staged, may we suggest that the Planning Commission conduct an on-site meeting of this project before making any decision so as to experience this property, locale and gift of land that is being made to the City for future trail US'" ·. -~nd, please keep in mind that the existing trail and soon-to-be dedicated easement should remain open and uk . iructed during the course of development, if and when all changes and variations are approved. In appreciation of your efforts, Madeline Ryan 28328 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV "May the Trails be with you" ... Madeline 2/27/2012 Ray Van Dinther 28150 Palos Verdes Drive East RPV Page 1of1 ATTACHMENT 1-122 So Kim ~]j.j n: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: SunshineRPV@aol.com Saturday, February 25, 2012 7:57 PM pc@rpv.com; sok@rpv.com cc@rpv.com CASE NO. 2010-00025 (10 Chaparral.) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red MEMO from Sunshine TO: RPV Planning Commission and Staff (Copy to City Council.) RE: February 28, 2012 Public Hearing on CASE NO. 2010-00025 (10 Chaparral.) I know it is just an unnoticed typo but I can't resist pointing out how much Joel's new title reads like the Latin for Ominous Immunity Development Director. "Quacks like a duck ... " Don't get me wrong, I have read Staff's reply to the Commission about Staff's handicaps in relation to implementing the RPV Conceptual Trails Plan. This particular recommendation is carefully crafted to get your approval without putting anybody in harm's way in a legal sense. lsJon't recall who originally said ... "He who does not study history is doomed to (. · eat it." This truth is running rampant in RPV. Does no one remember theitrail debacles that have been created by Staff's myopia in just this little northeast corner of our original City? The RPV City Council happily takes on the liability of acquiring park sites and trail easements. Then, it is nobody's job to add these new amenities to the Public Works Dept's Budget. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is about as useful to the ongoing community infrastructure and emergency circulation as tits on a man. May I be so bold as to bring up the fact that this trail connection is not "conceptual" as in it is not a Planner's "dream". It exists as we live and breath. See Appendix 2 of the 1990 RPV Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) which went missing in the appendices but not the text in the 1993 CTP update. The only thing "conceptual" about this trail is that Amendment 22 of the RPV General Plan gives Staff the directive to negotiate the preservation of the connection (point-to-point) at a given physical standard. In this case, "challenging". In 1990 whatever, (at 2477 Sunnyside Ridge Road), Staff really screwed up by prohibiting grading in the City's easement instead of negotiating with the home builder's grading contractor to relocate the trail tread while he was on site. Staff is doing it again. Yea! Trail advocates get a trail easement. Boo! Trail users will be deprived until Staff restores the trail connection. A Staff how they are doing at restoring the trail on the relocated trail easement at 69 Ffockinghorse, the north side of the Miraleste Library, the Crest Road East roadside, 2/27/2012 Page 1 of2 ATTACHMENT 1-123 Page 2 of2 ad nausium. '1ow can you put the burden of complying with the RPV General Plan on Staff without intruding any further on the property owner? Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310 377-8761 2/27/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-124 So Kim j~,~t To: Damon Swank [damon.swank1685@gmail.com] Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:44 AM sok@rpv.com Subject: Environmental Check-list: No. 10 Chaparral, RPV I was pleased to discuss several of these issues with you yesterday afternoon. You were courteous, helpful, and informative. I do have several concerns with your checklist. These concerns will be set forth below. Aesthetics: a) b) c) d) The proposed residence enormously exceeds in height any local residence. Although it is located down in the canyon, its roof line towers above the dining and living room of adjacent #7 Chaparral. Although perched well above #10, residents of#7 will be looking upwards at #10. which will completely block their view. The owners of #7 purchased their home, in large part, by reason of the lovely view of the canyon to the West. Construction of the proposed #10 will demolish that lovely view. Also, the interior and exterior lighting of#lO will obliterate the quiet, scenic view from #7. significant rock outcropping, known to local geologists as "The Library,." lies on the extreme southwestern portion of the property. We have no assurance that it will not be demolished during the extensive excavations. 3: Air Quality: b) c) This project proposes huge earth moving efforts: tens or hundreds of thousands of cubic feet. The project site lies in a canyon in which the prevailing air currents race down the canyon. The homes on Chaparral are directly downwind --#6 and #7 are the most greatly impacted --and will be subjected to all of the windblown dirt. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) i); a) iii b) c) e) Who says that the soil is capable of supporting septic tanks? This property lies directly alt ~ the stream in the canyon. The effluent from the property might well drain into the flow of \ tht.,iream. 2/23/2012 Page 1of4 ATTACHMENT 1-125 Page 2of4 Rupture of a known earthquake fault .... l1ff}>:- 1< ·The city geologist may rely on a map, but who do you believe: the lying map or your own eyes? It is more than clear that the land is sliding downhill. At the bottom, if overflows Chaparral Lane. Midway uphill it is proven by examination confirmed by photographs to have been moving. Farther uphill homes have been wrecked by landslides. These landslides currently undermine neighboring homes. What does it take to recognize a hazard? The land is sliding downhill at the top, the middle, and the bottom. Surely it is optimistic to believe that a petty little retaining wall at the bottom will suffice. Re: Geology Comments. Page 11/16 Two points: One does not need to consult a geologic map to determine if the hillside is, or will, slide. Simply observe: the land is and has been sliding at the top, the middle, and the bottom of the hill. Use your eyes to view the landslides. Ignore the pontification of the maps that slides will not occur. The slides are there. You can see them. It should be obvious to those with common sense that a little retaining wall at the bottom will be useless when the mass of the hill slides down. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials i:i) b) h) I suggest that a large quantity of wind-blown dirt is hazardous. The proposed project contemplates an enormous moving of earth. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands --the number is not stated --to be moved. #6 and #7 Chaparral lie directly downwind of the proposed project. The wind blows inland from the sea, directly down the canyon from the project to the afflicted residences. The proposed grading and excavation of the project site will impose immense quantities of dust and soil on these homes. My projection is that the grading will take 3-6 months. Such a situation is intolerable. Emergency response: The developer has, apparently, already set the hill on fire. At the very least, it appears that the fire was ignited at precisely the point where the developer crews were erecting the structure and that the crew disappeared immediately afterwards. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING b) The proposed "realigning" of the boundaries of the existing zoning ordinances constitutes an affront to the planning process. ·:..--::ather than proposing a change in zoning, which would require hearings, and evidence, and community input, the current request is to "piggy-back" a zoning change into this EIR. This is nonsense. It should not be permitted. The EIR 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-126 Page 3of4 deals with environmental considerations. Zoning is an altogether different subject. tN···,)othing in this checklist supports a zoning change. The proposal is that the historically established hazardous area slidff be magically transformed into a residential development area. This city has for decades denominated the land of the proposed project to be hazardous. In the past, potential developers have been rudely rebuffed: Lowell Blough, who built #4, #6, and #7 Chaparral, was denied even a grading permit. A casual inspection of the geological differences between #7 and #10 will demonstrate the wisdom of that decision. 12. NOISE a) b) c) d) The proposed project contemplates dozens of humongous earth-moving machines. The project lies within a canon. The noise reflects between the canyon walls. The noise generated by the proposed project will be immense: huge earth-movers working each day over my projected time of six months. The noise will be deafening, intense, and incessant. 16. TRAFFIC .. ···· '· u) Chaparral Lane is a narrow, minor, driveway servicing the residences. It is private property, maintained at the expense of the homeowners. Use of this minor lane by bulldozers, huge trucks, cement mixers, and the like is an incompatible use. The homeowners on Chaparral Lane have children and grandchildren who play on the lane. The incessant intrusion of huge construction vehicles will destroy the ability of the homeowners to enjoy the peace, safety. and quiet that they have bought and paid for. Chaparral Lane is not designed for large vehicles. The pavement will be destroyed. Chaparral Lane is not a public street. It is private property, maintained by those who use it. These private owners of Chaparral Lane have not agreed that their private property may be destroyed by the proposed project. To the contrary, these homeowners who own and maintain their street demand and insist that their property be not destroyed by the passage of huge construction vehicles. Additionally, Chaparral Lane is a two-way lane for small vehicles in the best of conditions. The enormously large vehicles contemplated by the proposed project will reduce the lane to one-way traffic only, which will prevent easy access by fire fighters and other emergency equipment to the homeowners. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS \ The nearest water distribution point is several hundred yards East on Chaparral Lane. To access this water will 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-127 Page 4of4 require the developer to tear up the street for this entire length. t!T·: l&:f'MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE b) Cumulatively, the proposed project destroys the ambiance of those residents nearby. Currently, they enjoy a beautiful view of a lovely canyon. The residents of #7 Chaparral have used the view of the canon as a backdrop for holiday photographs. As proposed, the new residence will rise above its uphill neighbors. #10 is down in the canyon. #7 is up on the hill. However, the roofline of proposed #10 rises above the level of #7. This means --get a handle on this --that the residents of #7 will be looking UPWARD to the roof line of their new neighbor. The view in that direction will be blocked by this enormous structure. Who approved this height variance? When were the public hearings? When were we permitted to object, or to present testimony? Thank you so much for permitting me to provide information to you. Respectfully, Dan1on Swank 2/23/2012 ATTACHMENT 1-128 ATTACHMENT 1-129 P 1090868.J PG P1090869.JPG P1090870.JPG ATTACHMENT 1-130 P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 (February 28, 2012) ATTACHMENT 1-131 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT (ZON2010-00025) TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL & ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD AND THE ZONING BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) & OPEN SPACE HAZARD TO A MORE NORTHERLY LOCATION SO THAT THE MORE LEVEL AREA OF THE LOT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH A NEW 6,838FT2 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 2,000YD3 OF GRADING AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE AND 75YD3 OF GRADING FOR AN 8' TALL RETAINING WALL AT 8 CHAPARRAL LANE. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request, allowing the applicant to proceed with the pursuit of proposed changes to the General Plan land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line between the portion designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "hazard" on the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008- 00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008-00512) to relocate the land use and zoning designation boundary line, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and then ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application, requesting to relocate the land use and zoning designation boundary line and construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2010, the project was deemed incomplete based on missing information; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the project was deemed complete after subsequent reviews; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on August 4, 2011, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of ZON2010-00025 would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1-132 WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on January 26, 2012, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial evidence that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of Case No. ZON2010-00025, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: With the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon biological resources; geology and soils; and hydrology and water quality, the project will not have a significant impact. Section 3: Approval of a General Plan amendment is warranted because the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed, relocation of the General Plan land use boundary line would allow only the relatively flat area on the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard designation and be completely within the Residential land use designation. The remaining extreme slope beyond the new buildable area would remain as Natural Environment/Hazard. Further, the surrounding area is a developed residential tract and thus the boundary line relocation would be consistent with the land use designation of the immediate developed neighborhood. Section 4: That the proposed change in the General Plan is warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public's interest because it would further differentiate the only pad area of the property from the sloping areas. Section 5: The proposed change in the zoning designation is warranted because it would be compliant with the General Plan. With the change in the General Plan land use designation allowing the only relatively flat area on the property to be residential, changing the zoning designation from Open Space Hazard to Single-Family Residential would allow development of a single dwelling unit on the relatively flat area rather than over extreme slopes. Nearly a third of the lot, consisting of slopes would be dedicated to the City for future trail purposes. Section 6: A Height Variation to allow the proposed 6,838ft2 two-story residence measuring up to 26' in height is warranted because: P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-133 A. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city by providing signatures from 60% of the total number of landowners within a 500' radius of the subject property. B. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas since there are none in close proximity. C. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined in the Development Code because the subject property is located within a developed single-family residential tract. D. The area of the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. More specifically, the views are in a northerly direction and therefore the properties located to the north, east and west are not affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the properties located to the south are not affected by the proposed project because they are approximately 100' higher in elevation than the subject property. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application since there is no view impairment caused by the proposed project. F. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and enclosed parking. G. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the proposed structure size will not be out of scale because the lot is located at the end of the street and the closest point of the proposed structure will be located more than 59' away from the front property line; 10% of the proposed structure size is a basement located below grade; and various design features are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the new structure. Furthermore, the proposed fagade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, number of stories, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence blends in with the neighborhood character. H. The new construction that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences, because the proposed structure will be placed more than 159' away from the nearest home. Section 7: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow 2,000yd3 (500yd3 cut & 1,500yd3 fill) of earth movement on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75yd3 of grading on 8 Chaparral Lane is warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Map. More specifically, a total of 2,000yd3 of grading is proposed to raise the building pad area by approximately 4.5' for a new residence and fill the driveway area by 8' in height so that an access can be constructed P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-134 without exceeding 20% gradient. A separate excavation of 75yd3 is proposed across 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane, on the north side of the street to stabilize the access to the subject property. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties because there are no views across the proposed grading/construction area, as discussed in Section 4(D). C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. More specifically, the proposed grading minimizes disturbance of the lot by altering only 20% of the slopes primarily to stabilize the area around the building pad for development. The remaining slopes on the subject property will remain untouched and a third of the parcel consisting of slopes will be dedicated as an easement to the City for future trail purposes. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. More specifically, the proposed grading preserves natural topographic features of the site by altering only 20% of the lot, while nearly a third of the property consisting of slopes will be dedicated to the City for trail purposes. E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as discussed in Section 4(G). F. The grading does not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation with mitigation measures that require clearing and grading on site to occur only outside of the avian nesting season. G. The grading does not conform to standards detailed under 17.76.040(E)(9) for creating maximum finished slopes in excess of 35% steepness. However, the proposed grading in excess of that permissible under 17.76.040(9) is warranted because: i. The criteria of subsections 17.76.040(E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied; ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit. The purpose of the Grading Permit is to 1) permit reasonable development of land and minimizing fire hazards; 2) ensure the maximum preservation of the natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property; 3) ensure that the development of each parcel of land occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands; and 4) ensure that each project complies with all goals and policies of the general plan, specific plan and any amendments. More specifically, the proposed grading is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit because it allows reasonable development of the intended use of the property without adversely affecting surrounding properties while consistent with the RS-2 zoning designation for the area. The proposed grading alters 20% of the property while the remainder of the lot will P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page4 ATTACHMENT 1-135 be untouched, ensuring maximum preservation of the natural character of the property after reasonable development. Additionally, nearly a third of the property consisting of slopes will be dedicated as an easement to the City for future trail purposes. Furthermore, the proposed development does not after the existing neighborhood character and is designed in a harmonious manner with neighboring properties, as evidenced in Section 4(G). Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with the policies in the General Plan as evidenced in Section 2. iii. Departure from the standards in subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. More specifically, the reason for creating man-made slopes in excess of 35% is to blend the altered area with the existing 2: 1 slopes on the property. The remaining slopes on the lot will remain untouched. Additionally, there are other properties in close proximity that were allowed similar deviations that were necessary for the development of the lot. iv. Departure from the standards of subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. More specifically, the proposed improvements will require geotechnical review and issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that the improvements will not be detrimental to or injurious to other properties and improvements in the area. Section 8: The Planning Commission action on this matter is advisory only; with the final action on the matter being taken by the City Council at a future duly noticed public hearing. Nonetheless, any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal it to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal fetter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 14, 2012. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on March 14, 2012. Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council; a) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Approve the General Plan Amendment, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus modifying the General Plan land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residentia I, c) Approve the Zone Change, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus rezoning from Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single Family Residential (RS-2), d) Conditionally approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit, thereby allowing the construction of a 26' tall, 6,838fP, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of related grading on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75yd3 of grading for the construction of an 8' tall caisson wall on 8 Chaparral Lane. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-136 PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Vice Chairman Tetreault NOES: Commissioner Leon ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Chairman Tomblin Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2012-...Q? Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-137 General Conditions: EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2010-00025 10 CHAPARRAL LANE 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-138 date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction 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 Development Code. 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 stated in this condition. 12. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. Project Specific Conditions: 14. This approval is for a 6,838 ft2, two-story single-family residence, which includes a 675ft2 three-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 15. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 717.5' with an overall maximum height of 26', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 695'. 16. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (10% proposed). 17. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 59'-3" front (E), 16'-4" rear (W), 181'- 7" north side and 273'-4" south side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 18. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway on the property. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-139 19. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 20. The driveway shall be a minimum width of 1 O' and a paved 25' turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways. 21. The driveway shall not exceed 20% slope. 22. This approval is for 2,000yd 3 of grading primarily to raise the building pad and driveway area, consisting of 1,500yd3 of cut and 500yd3 of fill. The maximum depth of cut and/or fill shall be 8'. Additionally, an 8' tall retaining wall is allowed against the ascending southerly slope. 23. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 24. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. 25. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 26. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 27. The proposed easements shown on the plans presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012 shall be dedicated to the City, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 28. Prior to any work, the applicant shall document the current condition of Chaparral Lane. Following construction, Chaparral Lane shall be re-assessed and any damages to the street surface incurred as a result of the grading and/or related construction shall be the responsibility of the applicant to either repair or fund the repair to the satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation Measures: 29. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (approximately February 1 -August 31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/ or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 30. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1-140 determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 31. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP. 32. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 33. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stabifity, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance. 34. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be required for review and approval, prior to Building & Safety Division permit issuance. 35. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 36. In temporary construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 37. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1-141 P.C. Minutes (February 28, 2012) ATTACHMENT 1-142 Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2012-04was adopted (4-1-1) with Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting and Commissioner Nelson abstaining. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone change, Environment Assessment. Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00025): 10 Chaparral Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a description of the subject lot and reviewing the proposed project. She stated that staff was in support of the proposed zone change and land use change to accommodate the construction of a new home on the flat area of the lot. She discussed the proposed structure, noting that staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the project, as discussed in the staff report. She discussed the property owner's decision to voluntarily dedicate nearly one-third of his property as trail easements to the City, and how these potential trail easements could be used to create useable trails. She stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission make the required findings, adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration, and conditionally approve the proposed project. Commissioner Leon asked staff if the City will be helping the land owner with the costs of surveys and legal descriptions associated with the land being dedicated to the City. Associate Planner Kim answered that since the applicant is dedicating nearly one-third of his property to the trail easement, the City will be taking on the costs of the legal descriptions and recording of the documents. Vice Chairman Tetreault opened the public hearing. Frank Colaruotolo (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission may have. John Feyk stated his concern was with the trails. He felt the most critical trail is the downhill trail, hoping that it will be located somewhere where humans and horses can use it. He was worried that it may not be maintained, as in the past the area has been washed out. He stated the area of the proposed Bronco Trail is a very steep slope and he was concerned about that area. He understood the property owner was willing to give the trail easement, but pointed out that the problem is maintaining the easement so that the trail can be used in a reasonably safe manner. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff who is responsible for maintaining these types of trails. Director Rojas showed the public trail easement on the aerial photo, explaining that the current trail is not in the public trail easement. He stated the City's responsibility is to Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page2 ATTACHMENT 1-143 maintain trails in public trail easements. Once the trail is put into the easements described in the staff report it will become the City's responsibility to maintain. He pointed out that these are unimproved trails and will stay unimproved trails, explaining that as long as they stay unimproved trails the City does not have any liability if someone is hurt on one of the trails. He added that the cost of trail maintenance falls under the Public Works Department with whatever resources are allocated by the City Council as part of the budget process. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff if the proposed trail location has been reviewed by anyone. Director Rojas explained that in the past trail easement areas would be identified on a map without much consideration as to how the trail would be constructed or function. However, now the City takes the time to walk the site of a proposed trail easement to ensure that the route provides a viable trail connection to trails identified in the Conceptual Trails Plan and can be constructed within the proposed easement area. Thus, staff used the services of a professional trail builder who walked the entire property with staff, giving his recommendations as to the trail route. This feedback was used as the basis of the proposed easement width and location. Damon Swank stated he owns the property immediately to the east of the subject property and noted he submitted a four page, single spaced document to the City which was not able to be included with the staff report. In that document he listed more than a dozen specific issues he had with this proposed project, including the environment, the planning, the building, the geology, the lighting, and the damage that will be done to his and his neighbor's property. He was surprised that nothing in his letter prompted any questions from staff or the developer. He mentioned that the environmental history of this site has been dismal, explaining all vegetation on the property above the subject property was completely removed and the City did not require any replanting. He asked if the Commission would be inclined to continue this public hearing so that the points he discussed in his letter, which was distributed as late correspondence, could be considered by the Commission. Vice Chairman Tetreault suggested the Commission ask Mr. Swank questions in regards to his letter to get the benefit of his concerns, and then give Mr. Swank another minute to wrap up after that. Commissioner Gerstner felt the letter could be summarized into a couple of different points. He stated that several of the points related to views and views down the canyon, while many of the other points related to the fact that there will be construction, the streets will be dug up, earth moved, noise, dust, and other things that go with construction, and the last general point is revolving around whether or not the site is safe to build on. He felt that the Commission and staff could answer the concerns with construction activity and the safety of the site, and the concerns related to view might be subject to some discussion. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-144 Director Rojas also noted that Mr. Swank submitted similar comments previously when the item was before the Commission. Staff addressed those comments in the previous staff report and could go through the responses to those concerns if that was the Commission's desire this evening. Mr. Swank stated there are unusual and unique situations in regards to this project. As an example, he noted that the street will be destroyed during construction, and Chaparral is a private street and is maintained by the residents. Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral) stated he was astonished this project has gone as far as it has, and hoped that every Commissioner had read the staff report. He felt there were conflicts in the staff report to the actuality of the situation. As an example, he noted that at one time he had the opportunity to buy that property. However, his geologist strongly discouraged it, stating the liability was too great. He stated this is in direct conflict with what the City's geologist who says there hasn't been any movement. He referred to page 59 of the geology report which says there has been movement and there is a history of ancient landslide on the property. He stated that there have been recent examples in the neighborhood of land movement, noting the landslide on Martingale Drive. He could not believe the City was willing to take the risk of the liability in allowing this geology report to go through and giving a permit to build the house. He noted the evidence of movement on the property from Mr. Swank's geologist, his geologist, and two other geologists. He stated that what is defined in the staff report is not what has been cited by other geologists that have looked at the property. He stated that he agrees with Mr. Swank that this is something that the City can just skim the surface of, and felt that there should be a formal hearing. He stated he will do everything that is legally accessible to him to keep any excavation from happening on the property next to him and the property below that property. Jody Oliveri stated she has lived in her residence for fourteen years and during that time has seen people try to develop the property in question. She stated that when you walk the trails after a rain you can see how the land has changed. She also noted that there was a fire in the area and only one fire truck was able to access the area. Even then, they did not have a long enough hose to get down to the fire. She felt this is a dangerous wilderness type area that she did not feel was safe to develop. Sunshine questioned if any staff walked with Kurt Loheit on the existing trail that exists from Rolling Hills Estates to Bronco Lane, as the connection to maintain that existing trail is not part of the plan. She stated that preserving the existing trail is also not part of the proposal. She was quite upset that staff was unable to truly comply with the Conceptual Trails Plan. Frank Colaruotolo (in rebuttal) stated that staff and the Commission has the geology report from his soils engineer, and the City geologist has reviewed and approved all of the testing that has taken place on the property. He noted that the landslide will be mitigated with the placement of the caissons. He also noted that he has dedicated as Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page4 ATTACHMENT 1-145 much of the property as he can to trails, and any more would be a detriment to the property. Commissioner Leon asked Mr. Colaruotolo if he will be responsible for fixing any damage to Chaparral Lane due to construction at the site. Mr. Colaruotolo answered that prior to beginning any work at the site he will document the condition of the street and once work is complete he will document the condition of the street and any damages that occurred during construction. Whatever damages take place due to construction will be his responsibility. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the offer to repair any damages to the street is memorialized in the conditions of approval. Director Rojas explained that it is not in the conditions of approval because it is a private street and the City does not typically get involved with issues on the private street. However, if there is no objection from the applicant, the Commission can add such a condition. Commissioner Lewis asked if there is any limitation to neighbors submitting competing geology reports to show that what is proposed is not safe and to rebut what the City geologist has said. Director Rojas stated that the neighbors do have the opportunity to hire their own geologists and submit their own reports to the City. Commissioner Lewis asked, if the Planning Commission and the City Council approve this proposed project, is there any opportunity at that point for the City geologist's input. Director Rojas answered that the city geologist has approved the project in concept, and once the actual construction plans have been submitted to Building and Safety for plan check the city geologist will check the plans to make sure they are consistent with the recommendations of the applicant's geology report. Commissioner Nelson noted that he had recently hiked the trail and there is currently some erosion taking place on the trail. He did not feel the trail is safe and the safety issue will have to be addressed either by the property owner or by the City. Commissioner Nelson also noted a written comment in the geology report dated January 29, 2012 that was prepared for Mr. Swank that the report would become invalid after 90 days and the report was not to be provided to any third party without their authorization and on-sight inspection. He asked staff how this report became part of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-146 Director Rojas answered that Mr. Swank provided the report to staff. Commissioner Leon asked if the basic premise is that the proposed caisson wall will mitigate the instability issues with the site and the surrounding sites. Associate Planner Kim answered that the caisson wall was developed to stabilize the access to the site as well as allow development on the property. Vice Chairman Tetreault referred to comments in Mr. Swank's email, and asked staff if it was true that the property is not serviced by a sewer system. Associate Planner Kim explained that this property does have sewer available to it, as confirmed by LA County Sanitation District, and the property will connect to the sewer system. Vice Chairman Tetreault also noted comments in the email regarding construction noise at the site and hazardous materials at the site, and asked if these concerns are addressed in the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Kim answered that there are construction hours that are set in the Development Code. She also noted that there is not a condition in the conditions of approval that addresses construction noise, as the City expects there to be some noise, dust, and debris associated with any construction project that may affect the surrounding neighbors on a temporary basis. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if these construction hours and noise issues are the same as what would have been allowed to anyone else on the street in order to build their homes. Associate Planner Kim stated that is correct. Vice Chairman Tetreault also noted in the email the concerns with fire access and the ability of the Fire Department to reach the end of the street, and asked staff if this project affects this and if it has been reviewed. Associate Planner Kim explained that during the plan check process the Fire Department will review the plans, and the permit will not be issued without the Fire Department sign-off. Vice Chairman Tetreault understood that the City geologist has reviewed the applicant's geology reports and given an approval of these reports. He also noted that there are neighbors who contest the validity of that report, or there may be some competing geology reports that bring into question the appropriateness of the site for construction. He asked staff what the role of the Planning Commission is with respect to this application, in view of the fact that the City's geologist has reviewed and approved the geology reports that the applicant submitted to the City. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-147 Director Rojas answered in order to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission must be able to make a finding that the geologic issues are adequately addressed and that any potential impacts will be adequately mitigated. If the Planning Commission has questions or doubts about the geology reports, the Commission can ask the City Geologist to attend a future meeting to explain his review, why he thinks the issues are adequately addressed, and answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if it would be within the Commission's purview, if they were to approve the project, to recommend that the City Geologist attend the City Council meeting when this item is heard before the Council. Director Rojas stated that, given the discussion tonight, he was anticipating having the City Geologist at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the only geology report that he has seen that has done any subsurface exploration is the report submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City Geologist. He stated that the more thorough analysis has provided the basis for the recommendations of the applicant's geologist and the approval of the City Geologist, and feels he felt comfortable with that report. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the proposed residence is recommended to be on caissons, or if the recommendation is for recompacted soil with spread footings. He explained that he has been involved in many large homes on unstable land where caissons have been put in around the property and under the home, which serve to provide certain levels of stabilization. He noted that this also adds to the analysis done by the Geologist. Associate Planner Kim did not know if caissons were recommended for the residence, but felt the applicant could answer the question. Vice Chairman Tetreault reopened the public hearing to specifically ask the applicant this question. Mr. Colaruotolo explained that, based on the soils engineer's recommendations, the house will be on a continuous footing because there is no landslide or condition in that lower level area where the house will be placed. The only landslide area is at the access road area. Vice Chairman Tetreault closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emenhiser stated that this item will be heard by the City Council, and encouraged members of the public who have concerns with this project to make their case before the City Council at the appropriate time. He stated that his inclination was to recommend approval of the project and send it to the City Council with the Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-148 recommendation that the City Geologist attend the meeting when the project is before the Council. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendations with the added conditions that the City Geologist be available at the public hearing before the City Council to clarify the geologic issues and to add a condition to the conditions of approval that before construction begins the current condition of the road be documented to staff's satisfaction, and following construction the condition of the road be assessed and the applicant be required to return the street to the original condition as documented, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked staff how the public easements on the property will be kept clear during construction on the property. Director Rojas explained that during construction there will be no public access to the adjoining trails or to the trail easements which will be recorded on the property, which is consistent with other projects in the City where public trails and easements were impacted during construction. He pointed out that on this property while the trail does exist, the trail is an unsanctioned, unauthorized trail on private property. While he was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns, Commissioner Lewis explained that if the City denies a property owner the right to develop his property the City could be held liable. He encouraged the neighbors to submit all of their concerns and documents to the City Council well before the public hearing so that the Council members have the opportunity to read and understand the arguments. The motion to approve staff's recommendation, as modified, was approved, (5-1) with Commissioner Leon dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit and Variance Revision (Case No. ZON2012-00038): 5504 Crestridge Road Director Rojas reported that the applicant has requested a continuance and staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the March 2yth meeting. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 2yth without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4. Minutes of January 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-149 ! ' P.C. StaffReport (February 28, 2012) ATTACHMENT 1-150 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF T FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION JOEL ROJAS, OMMUNITY DEVE ECTOR FEBRUARY 28, 2012 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO. 2010-00025); PROJECT ADDRESS -10 CHAPARRAL (APPLICANT/LANDOWNER -FRANK COLARUOTOLO) So Kim, Associate Planner~ Adopt Resolution No. 2012-_, recommending that the City Council certify a mitigated negative declaration and conditionally approve the requested General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00025) for the construction of a new single-family residence. BACKGROUND On September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted an application, requesting approval to change the land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line and construct one single-family residence on a subject lot. The application was presented to the Planning Commission on September 13, 2011 with Staff's recommendation to continue the hearing to an unspecified date to assess new information (grading on a neighboring property) and address trail issues raised by interested parties. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to an unspecified date to allow the applicant to work with Staff to resolve said issues (refer to the attached September 13, 2011 Staff Report and Minutes). The applicant has worked with Staff to resolve the issues and a new public hearing was scheduled and publicly noticed. DISCUSSION The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan land use and zoning designation boundary line on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate the boundary line in a northerly direction so that the only flat area on the property can be entirely within the residential zone, which would allow him to develop on the flat area and not over the extreme slope. In conjunction with the boundary line relocation request, the applicant is requesting approval to construct a new 6,838ft2 two-story residence with 2,000yd3 (500yd 3 cut & 1,500yd3 fill) of related grading. This request was presented to the Planning Commission on September 13, 2011. As discussed in the attached September 13th Staff Report, Staff was in support of the proposed land use and zoning designation boundary line relocation request and felt that all the necessary findings could be made to approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit applications to allow construction of a new residence on the flat area on the lot. However, on September 131h, Staff recommended continuance of the proposal to address a couple of concerns raised by the public in ATTACHMENT 1-151 P.C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2010-00025) February 28, 2012 Page 2 response to the public notice. These issues are discussed in detail below. Grading on 8 Chaparral Lane The City Geologist conceptually approved the proposed project, provided that potential erosion and/or landslide deficiencies are mitigated with the construction of a caisson wall at the bottom of the slope adjacent to the lot's access point. This caisson wall was assumed to be constructed entirely on the subject property. However, after the preparation of the September 13, 2011 Staff Report, it came to Staff's attention that the proposed caisson wall and related grading would need to be located on the abutting property located at 8 Chaparral Lane. As a result, the applicant was required to submit revised plans that show the accurate location of said caisson walls and obtain the neighbor's authorization to move forward with the improvements on the neighbor's property. Staff also directed the applicant to submit additional information to the City Geologist on this change. The applicant's revised proposal includes 75yd 3 of excavation to construct a retaining wall (height ranging from 2' to 8') with a series of caissons along the south side of Chaparral Lane on the abutting vacant property (8 Chaparral) leading to the subject property. The applicant was able to obtain the neighbor's authorization for said improvements and the City Geologist's approval. Since the improvements on the neighbor's property were not assessed as part of the Initial Study, Staff initially thought that a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would need to be re- circulated for review. However, given that the neighbor's authorization was obtained and no new conditions were required by the City Geologist in reviewing the revised plan, there are no changes to the mitigation measures. One of the original mitigation measures for geology/soils included the "construction of a caisson wall to be built against the upslope for stabilization, prior to construction of the proposed residence". The only difference between then and now is that the proposed caisson wall is clarified to be constructed across both 8 and 1 O Chaparral Lane. Therefore, there are no changes to the mitigation measures outlined in the original MND. Trail Connection During the processing of the pending application, the public expressed their desire to maintain a trail connection on the subject site. The City's Conceptual Trails Plan states that when the Chaparral Lane was developed, it replaced an important access trail. At the time the properties on Chaparral Lane were developed, there was considerable City involvement to provide for a continued equestrian access to the canyon. However, no formal recorded agreement allowing equestrian use of Chaparral Lane was memorialized. However, there is an existing path on the subject property l.ocated on the proposed building area that the residents have been using as a trail connection to the Georgette Canyon Trail in Rolling Hills Estates. Members of the public expressed to Staff that they would like a continued trail connection to the Georgette Canyon Trail from Chaparral Lane. Based on these concerns, the applicant is proposing to provide an easement that begins at the new driveway entrance, following the easterly property line to an existing trail on the abutting property at 7 Chaparral Lane. This would allow a continued trail connection from Chaparral Lane to the Georgette Canyon Trail. The applicant is also voluntarily proposing to dedicate nearly a third of his property to the City for future trail uses. The City's Conceptual Trails Plan identifies a horizontal (east to west) trail connection along the northern portion of the subject property that would connect the canyon on the ATTACHMENT 1-152 P.C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2010-00025) February 28, 2012 Page 3 westerly abutting property with the Georgette Canyon Trail to the east. The City's Trail Consultant walked the site and determined that said area is too steep to be used as a path unless the City decides to improve a trail. Regardless, the applicant is proposing to dedicate nearly the entire northerly portion of his property that will remain with an Open Space Hazard zoning designation for a future trail connection. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is planning to construct an upsloping retaining wall on the southern side of the building area. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along north side of this retaining wall that provides a horizontal connection from the east to the west side of the subject property. The applicant is proposing an easement in this area because after construction of the proposed retaining wall, a usable path can be created beyond the wall for a feasible trail that leads from Chaparral Lane to the canyon to the west. It should be noted that this trail easement area is not an identified area per the Conceptual Trails Plan. Lastly, the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) identifies a trail that would start at Bronco Drive near the north point of Mustang Road, extending downward to an existing trail on 7 Chaparral Lane and ultimately to Georgette Canyon Trail in Rolling Hills Estates. The applicant is proposing to provide a trail easement on the south side of his property along the west property line that would then curve east to the abutting property at 8 Chaparral Lane for a future trail connection from Bronco Drive to Chaparral Lane. To make this Bronco Trail route entirely feasible, the vacant property owner immediately north of the subject property on Bronco Drive and 8 Chaparral Lane located immediately east of the subject property would need to dedicate trail easements on their properties. All of these proposed trail easements are located on the attached site plan and a condition of approval is proposed requiring that said easements be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff feels that the applicant has made tremendous efforts to provide trail easements beyond what is identified in the CTP for the trail users in the area. Through the proposed easement dedications, Staff feels that all concerns regarding trail connections have been resolved. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The original decision deadline was February 1, 2012. However, the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension at the September 13, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, in case this deadline would not be met, resulting in a new deadline of May 1, 2012. CONCLUSION Notwithstanding the analysis of the new grading being proposed on the neighboring vacant property at 8 Chaparral and the trail issues raised by the public, the proposed project involving a relocation of the land use and zoning designation boundary line and the construction of a new two-story residence meets all required findings and neighborhood compatibility guidelines as evidenced in the attached September 13, 2011 Staff Report. Since the proposed improvements on 8 Chaparral Lane and trail issues have been adequately addressed, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the proposed project (ZON2010-00025). ATTACHMENT 1-153 P.C. Staff Report (Case No. ZON2010-00025) February 28, 2012 Page4 ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration: 1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2010-00025). ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. ZON2012-_ • Minutes (September 13, 2011) • Staff Report (September 13, 2011) • Mitigated Negative Declaration • Conceptual Geology Approval • Geology Report (dated February 1, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-154 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT (ZON2010-00025) TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL & ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD AND THE ZONING BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) & OPEN SPACE HAZARD TO A MORE NORTHERLY LOCATION SO THAT THE MORE LEVEL AREA OF THE LOT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH A NEW .6,838FT2 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 2,000YD3 OF GRADING AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE AND 75YD3 OF GRADING FOR AN 8' TALL RETAINING WALL AT 8 CHAPARRAL LANE .. WHEREAS, on July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request, allowing the applicant to proceed with the pursuit of proposed changes to the General Plan land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line between the portion designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "hazard" on the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008- 00005, ZON2008-000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008-00512) to relocate the land use and zoning designation boundary line, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and then ultimately withdrew his application; and, WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application, requesting to relocate the land use and zoning designation boundary line and construct one single-family residence on the subject lot; and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 2010, the project was deemed incomplete based on missing information; and, WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the project was deemed complete after subsequent reviews; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on August 4, 2011, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that with appropriate mitigation, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of ZON2010-00025 would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1-155 WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to an unspecified date to allow Staff and the applicant to address grading and trail connection issues raised by the public; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published on January 26, 2012, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other evidence prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial evidence that, with appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of Case No. ZON2010-00025, a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Grading Permit would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2: With the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon biological resources; geology and soils; and hydrology and water quality, the project will not have a significant impact. Section 3: Approval of a General Plan amendment is warranted because the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed relocation of the General Plan land use boundary line would allow only the relatively flat area on the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard designation and be completely within the Residential land use designation. The remaining extreme slope beyond the new buildable area would remain as Natural Environment/Hazard. Further, the surrounding area is a developed residential tract and thus the boundary line relocation would be consistent with the land use designation of the immediate developed neighborhood. Section 4: That the proposed change in the General Plan is warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public's interest because it would further differentiate the only pad area of the property from the sloping areas. Section 5: The proposed change in the zoning designation is warranted because it would be compliant with the General Plan. With the change in the General Plan land use designation allowing the only relatively flat area on the property to be residential, changing the zoning designation from Open Space Hazard to Single-Family Residential would allow development of a single dwelling unit on the relatively flat area rather than over extreme slopes. Nearly a third of the lot, consisting of slopes would be dedicated to the City for future trail purposes. Section 6: A Height Variation to allow the proposed 6,838ft2 two-story residence measuring up to 26' in height is warranted because: P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_ Page2 ATTACHMENT 1-156 A. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city by providing signatures from 60% of the total number of landowners within a 500' radius of the subject property. B. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas since there are none in close proximity. C. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined in the Development Code because the subject property is located within a developed single-family residential tract. D. The area of the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. More specifically, the views are in a northerly direction and therefore the properties located to the north, east and west are not affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the properties located to the south are not affected by the proposed project because they are approximately 100' higher in elevation than the subject property. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application since there is no view impairment caused by the proposed project. F. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and enclosed parking. G. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the proposed structure size will not be out of scale because the lot is located at the end of the street and the closest point of the proposed structure will be located more than 59' away from the front property line; 10% of the proposed structure size is a basement located below grade; and various design features are used to minimize the apparent bulk/mass of the new structure. Furthermore, the proposed fac;ade treatments, architectural style, structure height, roof design, number of stories, setbacks, building materials and bulk/mass of the new residence blends in with the neighborhood character. H. The new construction that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences, because the proposed structure will be placed more than 159' away from the nearest home. Section 7: Approval of a Major Grading Permit to allow 2,000yd3 (500yd 3 cut & 1,500yd3 fill) of earth movement on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75yd3 of grading on 8 Chaparral Lane is warranted because: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The primary use of the subject lot is residential as identified in the City's General Plan and Zoning Map. More specifically, a total of 2,000yd3 of grading is proposed to raise the building pad area by approximately 4.5' for a new residence and fill the driveway area by 8' in height so that an access can be constructed P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_ Page3 ATTACHMENT 1-157 without exceeding 20% gradient. A separate excavation of 75yd3 is proposed across 8 and 10 Chaparral Lane, on the north side of the street to stabilize the access to the subject property. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties because there are no views across the proposed grading/construction area, as discussed in Section 4(0). C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. More specifically, the proposed grading minimizes disturbance of the lot by altering only 20% of the slopes primarily to stabilize the area around the building pad for development. The remaining slopes on the subject property will remain untouched and a third of the parcel consisting of slopes will be dedicated as an easement to the City for future trail purposes. D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. More specifically, the proposed grading preserves natural topographic features of the site by altering only 20% of the lot, while nearly a third of the property consisting of slopes will be dedicated to the City for trail purposes. E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as discussed in Section 4(G). F. The grading does not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation with mitigation measures that require clearing and grading on site to occur only outside of the avian nesting season. G. The grading does not conform to standards detailed under 17.76.040(E)(9) for creating maximum finished slopes in excess of 35% steepness. However, the proposed grading in excess of that permissible under 17.76.040(9) is warranted because: i. The criteria of subsections 17.76.040(E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied; ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit. The purpose of the Grading Permit is to 1) permit reasonable development of land and minimizing fire hazards; 2) ensure the maximum preservation of the natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property; 3) ensure that the development of each parcel of land occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands; and 4) ensure that each project complies with all goals and policies of the general plan, specific plan and any amendments. More specifically, the proposed grading is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit because it allows reasonable development of the intended use of the property without adversely affecting surrounding properties while consistent with the RS-2 zoning designation for the area. The proposed grading alters 20% of the property while the remainder of the lot will P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-158 be untouched, ensuring maximum preservation of the natural character of the property after reasonable development. Additionally, nearly a third of the property consisting of slopes will be dedicated as an easement to the City for future trail purposes. Furthermore, the proposed development does not alter the existing neighborhood character and is designed in a harmonious manner with neighboring properties, as evidenced in Section 4(G). Lastly, the proposed project is consistent with the policies in the General Plan as evidenced in Section 2. iii. Departure from the standards in subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. More specifically, the reason for creating man-made slopes in excess of 35% is to blend the altered area with the existing 2: 1 slopes on the property. The remaining slopes on the lot will remain untouched. Additionally, there are other properties in close proximity that were allowed similar deviations that were necessary for the development of the lot. iv. Departure from the standards of subsection 17.76.040(E)(9) will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. More specifically, the proposed improvements will require geotechnical review and issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that the improvements will not be detrimental to or injurious to other properties and improvements in the area. Section 8: The Planning Commission action on this matter is advisory only; with the final action on the matter being taken by the City Council at a future duly noticed public hearing. Nonetheless, any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal it to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 14, 2012. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on March 14, 2012. Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council; a) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, b) Approve the General Plan Amendment, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus modifying the General Plan land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential, c) Approve the Zone Change, thereby relocating the boundary line to a more northerly location to the top of slope at the bottom of the new building area, thus rezoning from Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single Family Residential (RS-2), d) Conditionally approve the Height Variation and Grading Permit, thereby allowing the construction of a 26' tall, 6,838ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of related grading on 10 Chaparral Lane and 75yd 3 of grading for the construction of an 8' tall caisson wall on 8 Chaparral Lane. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-159 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 281h day of February 2012, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission David L. Tomblin, Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-160 General Conditions: EXHIBIT'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2010-00025 10 CHAPARRAL LANE 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the 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 Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County andlor City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17 .86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 8. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 9. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-161 date of this Resolution. 10. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 11. Permitted hours and days for construction 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 Development Code. 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 stated in this condition. 12. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners. Project Specific Conditions: 14. This approval is for a 6,838 ft2, two-story single-family residence, which includes a 675ft2 three-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final. 15. The maximum ridgeline of the approved project is 717.5' with an overall maximum height of 26', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection. Additionally, prior to the framing of walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the Finished Floor Elevation at 695'. 16. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 40% lot coverage (10% proposed). 17. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 59'-3" front (E), 16'-4" rear (W), 181'- 7" north side and 273'-4" south side. BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 18. A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage, and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway on the property. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-162 19. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth, with a minimum of 7' of vertical clearance over the space. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9' in width by 20' in depth. 20. The driveway shall be a minimum width of 1 O' and a paved 25' turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways. 21. The driveway shall not exceed 20% slope. 22. This approval is for 2,000yd3 of grading primarily to raise the building pad and driveway area, consisting of 1,500yd3 of cut and 500yd 3 of fill. The maximum depth of cut and/or fill shall be 8'. Additionally, an 8' tall retaining wall is allowed against the ascending southerly slope. 23. The proposed chimney may project a maximum of 2' into any required setback, and shall not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 24. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy. 25. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%. 26. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. 27. The proposed easements shown on the plans presented to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2012 shall be dedicated to the City, prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Mitigation Measures: 28. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (approximately February 1 -August 31 ). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 29. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. P.C. Resolution No. 2012-_ Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1-163 30. Any impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated by the project pursuant to the City's NCCP. 31. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 32. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance. 33. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be required for review and approval, prior to Building & Safety Division permit issuance. 34. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 35. In temporary construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. 36. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. P.C. Resolution No. 2012- Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1-164 Project: Location: Applicant/ Landowner: Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring Program Case No. ZON2010-00025 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review) 10 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Frank Colaruotolo TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Environmental Procedures ......................................................................................................... 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements ............................................................................................ 2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 3 Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures ......................................................................................... 3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations ................................................................................................................ 3 Ill. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist .................................................................................................... 5 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 6 Exhibit A -Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-_ ATTACHMENT 1-165 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project at 10 Chaparral Lane, located at the end of a cul-de-sac, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Relocate the General Plan Land Use (Residential & Natural Environment/Hazard) and Zoning [Single Family Residential (RS-2) & Open Space Hazard] designation boundary line in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for development on the property is entirely outside of the Open Space Hazard zoning district. Additionally, the request includes the construction of a new 6,838ft2 two-story residence with 2,000yd3 of related grading on the property located at 10 Chaparral Lane and 75yd3 of grading for an 8' tall caisson wall at 8 The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code., which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program." Exhibit A -Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-_ ATTACHMENT 1-166 II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section Ill provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Community Development Director with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Community Development Director would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements. Exhibit A -Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012- ATTACHMENT 1-167 INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on March 28, 2006. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. * * * * Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these.mitigation measures. Exhibit A -Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012- ATTACHMENT 1-168 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. mi'.~tl-~\.R$'.<i&1B: B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (approximately February 1-August31). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted bv a aualified bioloaist. B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Communitv Development Department. G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance. TYPE Construction Construction Construction Construction Exhibit A -Page 5 TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION Prior to clearing and/or grading Prior to clearing and/or grading Prior to and during construction Prior to construction RESPONSIBLE ENTITY Property Owner I applicant Property Owner I applicant Property Owner I applicant. Property Owner I applicant. Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012- COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department ._,,.~- Community Development Department ATTACHMENT 1-169 MITIGATION MEASURES H-1. Construction in Wardlow Wash shall occur during the drv season, as feasible. H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of anv streambed. H-3. In temporary construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until veaetation can be reestablished. H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained ersonnel usina appropriate methods. TYPE Construction Construction Construction Construction Exhibit A -Page 6 TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION Prior to and during construction Prior to and during construction Prior to and during construction Prior to and during construction RESPONSIBLE ENTITY Property Owner I applicant. Property Owner I applicant. Property Owner I applicant. Property Owner I applicant. Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2012-_ COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department ATTACHMENT 1-170 P.C. Minutes (September 13, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-171 ommissioner Lewis asked if an ATM will be available and also if people will be able go · side the bank to make a deposit. Mr. Al uist answered there will be one ATM and customers will also be able enter the bank make a deposit. He noted there will only be three tellers availab inside the bank as it w1 be a small branch. Chairman Tombh asked if the ATM will be located outside and if the TM is open 24 hours. Mr. Almquist stated the M will be located inside the buildin and would be available 24 hours. Bob Superneau explained that m the property line b ck to the building frontage the driveway only drops about two fee ·n grade. This ans that the car will be at street level when exiting the property. Commissioner Knight asked Mr. Superne outside portion of the parking. at type of lighting will be used for the Mr. Superneau answered that the out 'Cle parkin ot lighting level will be below street level and will be shielded. Dan Almquist stated that beca e he wants to work with e City, and if the Commission feels it is necessary to conti e the hearing, he would be w· ing to grant the one time extension. Director Rojas noted e next available public hearing would be on ctober 11. Commissioner ewis moved to amend his motion to continue the blic hearing to a date ce m of October 11, to have language brought back at tha regarding e Master Sign Program to conform to the suggestion that t signs use reve e channeling, and that there be language in the conditions of a so tha 1f the Commission decides to impose limited hours for the ATM the Ian age would already be included. Seconded by Chairman Tomblin. The a ended motion was approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Leon and Vice hairman Tetreault dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2010- 00025): 10 Chaparral Lane Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-172 Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the property. She explained the applicant is requesting to move the current boundary line in a more northerly direction so that the only flat area on the lot can be within the residential zone, which would allow him to develop on the flat area and not on the extreme slope. As such, she noted that staff is generally in support of the proposed land use and zoning designation change request. In conjunction with the boundary line relocation request the applicant is requesting approval to construct a new residence. She reviewed the residence and the necessary permits, as discussed in the staff report. She stated staff is generally in support of the proposal, however there are two issues of concern. She discussed staff's concern with the grading on the property, explaining that caissons are proposed outside of the property line on the neighboring property. She noted this is new information that came to staff's attention after the staff report was prepared. She stated the applicant is willing to change the location of the caissons, however they will still be on the neighboring property but off of the easement. She explained that this was not part of the original proposal and staff did not analyze it as part of the project. Further, the applicant needs to get the neighbor's authorization to put improvements on their property. Staff would also like the City Geologist to review the caisson location. She also explained the trail issues with this property, noting the development of the house will block a trail access in the area. She stated the applicant has agreed to look into relocation of the trail access through the property. Commissioner Lewis asked how a continuance will help the trail issue. Director Rojas clarified that the City cannot require that the applicant provide an easement for the trail use, however the applicant is open to exploring various options. Staff wants to research the issue and see if it is viable for a trail in this area. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Frank Colaroutolo (applicant) stated he was available to answer any questions. There were no questions at this time. David Breiholz (14 Bronco Drive) stated he was in favor of keeping the continuity of the trail in tact and encouraged the City and the applicant work together to make that happen. ·Joe Oliveri (6 Chaparral Lane) stated he has concerns about any building on this property, noting that the proper has been unstable. He explained that at one time he had the opportunity to buy the property, however his own geologist recommended against it. He stated that the history of the prior geology evaluation deemed the property unstable for construction. He also expressed concerns with development as there will then be limited access to the canyon by the fire department. He felt the Planning Commission needs to visit the site and walk the property to evaluate the area. He did not think this was something that should just be discussed on paper. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1-173 Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to an unspecified date, as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved without objection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of August 9, 2011 Commissioner Knight referred to page 4 of the minutes and the discussion. He felt that a statement he made regarding the purchase of the tax defaulted property should be included as part of the minutes. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved without objection. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 6. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on September 27, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9: 16 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1-174 P.C. Staff Report (September 13, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-175 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES STAFF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT TO: . FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT/ CHAIRMAN AND EMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMM SIO COMMUNITY DEV SEPTEMBER 13, 01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2010-00025) 10 CHAPARRAL LANE LANDOWNER: FRANK COLARUOTOLO STAFF SO KIM fr THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823/F-1 COORDINATOR: ASSISTANT PLANNER REQUESTED ACTION: RELOCATE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL & NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD AND THE ZONING BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) & OPEN SPACE HAZARD TO A MORE NORTHERLY LOCATION ON A VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10 CHAPARRAL LANE SO THAT THE MORE LEVEL AREA OF THE LOT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH A NEW 6,838FT2 TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH 2,000yd3 OF GRADING. RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AN UNSPECIFIED DATE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE A RE-NOTICE, TO ALLOW TIME FOR STAFF TO ADDRESS GRADING AND TRAIL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE PUBLIC. REFERENCES: ZONING: LAND USE: CODE SECTIONS: GENERAL PLAN: TRAILS PLAN: SPECIFIC PLAN: CEQA: OPEN SPACE HAZARD (OH) & SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-2) VACANT 17.02, 17.32, 17.46, 17.48, 17.54, 17.56, 17.68, 17.78, 17.80, 17.86 & 17.96 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT/HAZARD & RESIDENTIAL (1-2 DU/ACRE) GEORGETTE CANYON TRAIL (F-3) NONE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 /BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 I DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCOM I WWWPALOSVERDES.COM/RPV ATTACHMENT 1-176 ! ,•"''',·.·.- P .C. Staff Report (ZO~"' t 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page2 ACTION DEADLINE: OCTOBER 1, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE BACKGROUND On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Initiation Request, allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed changes to the General Plan land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line between the portion designated as "residential" and the portion designated as "hazard" on the subject property. On September 23, 2008, the applicant submitted applications (SUB2008-00005, ZON2008- 000509, ZON2008-00510, ZON2008-00511 & ZON2008-00512) to change the land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line, subdivide the subject lot into three separate parcels and develop each lot with a single-family residence. Over the next two years, the applicant changed the scope of the project and then ultimately withdrew his application. On January 19, 2010, the applicant submitted a new application, requesting to change the land use and zoning designation to adjust the boundary line on the property and construct one single-family residence on the subject lot. Upon preliminary review, Staff deemed the application incomplete on January 21, 201 Q. due to insufficient information. After subsequent submittals of additional information, Staff deemed the project complete on August 1, 2011. Additionally, Staff determined that the proposed project did not qualify for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was circulated to the County Recorder on August 1, 2011 for posting and a comment period of at least 20 days prior to consideration (as required by CEQA) and was also circulated to all applicable agencies. Further, a public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 4, 2011. During the comment period, Staff received eleven letters of concern related to the proposed project. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is an 85, 178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at the end of Chaparral Lane in the eastern part of the City. The subject property contains two separate General Plan land use designations (Hazard & Residential 1-2 du/acre) and two separate zoning designations (Open Space Hazard -OH & Single Family Residential -RS-2). The current boundary line that separates said land uses and zoning designations runs diagonally across the width of the property in the general area where Chaparral Lane meets the subject property. As a result, approximately two-thirds of the property (roughly downslope from Chaparral Lane) is designated as Natural Environment/Hazard land use and zoned OH, while the upper third is designated Residential (2 du/acre) land use and zoned RS-2. The area with an existing Residential land use consists entirely of an extreme slope (greater than 35% gradient) ascending up from Chaparral Lane. The area with a Natural Environmental/Hazard land use is composed of moderate to extreme slopes and includes approximately 14,000ft2 of generally level area located off of Chaparral Lane. The existing slopes in both land use designations are vegetated with federally protected coastal sage scrub ATTACHMENT 1-177 ( . r::::·. '. P .C. Staff Report (ZON.? YI 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 3 habitat. The relatively level area has been existing from at least 1976, according to the City's topographic map and does not contain protected habitat. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan land use and zoning designation boundary line on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate the boundary line in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural EnvironmenUHazard land use and the open space hazard zoning district. Additionally, the project includes 2,000yd3 (500yd 3 cut & 1,500yd3 fill) of grading for the construction of a new 6,838ft2 two-story residence on the existing flat area of the lot. Since the street elevation is approximately 1 O' higher than the building pad area, fill will be required both on the building pad area and driveway to create an access that does not exceed 20% slope (Code allowed maximum). The existing earth on the building pad area will be excavated to the bedrock and replaced with compacted fill. A fill of 4.5' in height is also proposed on the newly compacted building pad to be accessible from the street. A summary of the critical project statistics is as follows: CRITERIA REQUIRED PROPOSED Lot Size 20,000ft2 88,430ft2 Building Size 6,838ft2 Setbacks Front 20' 59'-3" Side (N) 5' 181'-7" Side (S) 5' 273'-4" Rear 15' 16'-4" Lot Coverage 40% 10% Enclosed Parkinq 3 3 Building Height Pre-construction grade at the highest elevation of existing 16' max. 23'-1" building pad covered by structure to the ridqeline. Point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to 20' max. 26'-0" the ridgeline. CODE CONSIDERATION & ANALYSIS The proposed project requires a General Plan amendment and zone change to relocate the boundary line between two separate land use and zoning designations; and a Height Variation and Grading Permit to develop the property with a single-gamily dwelling. According to California Government Code Section No. 65353, the Planning Commission is required to hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption or amendment of a general plan to the City Council. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section No. ATTACHMENT 1-178 P.C. Staff Report (ZO~··: ~0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page4 17.68.040 requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on Zone Changes. General Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting to relocate the boundary line between the General Plan land use designation of Natural Environment/Hazard and Residential. In order to approve a General Plan amendment, the City must find that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan. As described under 'Site Description' of this Staff report, the subject site consists mostly of extreme slopes with a relatively flat area near the center of the property. With the current land use and zoning designation, the relatively flat area is designated as Natural Environment/Hazard, where development would not be allowed. As a result, without a land use change, the applicant woutd be forced to build on the extreme slope area. According to the applicant's biology report (reviewed and approved by the. City Biologist), the sloping areas beyond the building pad area are vegetated by coastal sage scrub, a federally protected habitat. As such, without relocating the General Plan land use boundary line, the applicant will be faced with denuding federally protected habitat in order to develop the lot. Based on the biology report, there are no traces of coastal sage scrub on the building pad area. Additionally, the proposed relocation of the General Plan land use boundary line would allow the only relatively flat area on the subject property to be entirely outside of the Natural Environment/ Hazard designation and be completely within the Residential land use designation. The new boundary line would be moved in a northerly direction, near the top of the slope abutting the existing relatively flat area. The remaining extreme slope beyond the new buildable area would remain as Natural Environment/Hazard and the coastal sage scrub in this area will be preserved. The boundary line relocation would better distinguish the developable pad area of the lot from the steep canyon slope vegetated with Coastal Sage Scrub. Additionally, given that the subject property rests within a developed residential tract; it is Staffs opinion that the proposal would make the property consistent with the land use designation of the immediate developed neighborhood. Furthermore, it is Staffs opinion the proposed residential land use modification in an area with existing residential developments would be internally consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan because the proposed modification would force development on a building pad area instead over extreme slopes, which is generally prohibited. Therefore, Staff believes that the General Plan amendment would be appropriate for the proposed area on the subject property. Furthermore, as mentioned in the Environmental Assessment section and attached Initial Study, the project site is not located in a geologically unstable area as defined in the City's General Plan and State Landslide Map. However, according to the applicant's geology report, the southeastern portion of the lot experienced landsliding due to the extension of Chaparral Lane to the subject property many years ago. It should be noted that the landslide was primarily on the abutting vacant property to the east, with a portion of the slide extending onto the subject property. Thus, in order to develop the subject lot and maintain a stable access, the City Geologist is requiring the applicant to obtain approval to grade and install caissons along the southern part of Chaparral Lane to ensure safe and secure access not only to the subject property, but to neighboring properties. No other landslides have been identified on the subject property. The applicant's geology report for the proposed project received an in-concept approval from the City's Geologist with a requirement that caissons be used to stabilize the access on Chaparral, that existing fill dirt on the building pad be removed and replaced with compacted fill, that the proposed home and retaining wall use deepened footings into bedrock ATTACHMENT 1-179 J P.C. Staff Report (ZO~.: A0-00025) September 13, 2011 Pages and use caissons in front of the home to stabilize the slopes beyond the building pad area. Therefore, the City approved geology report establishes sound geologic basis for relocating the existing boundary line to the top of the slope. It should be noted, according to Government Code Section No. 65358, any element of the General Plan may be modified a maximum of four times per calendar year. Should the requested General Plan amendment be eventually approved by the City Council, then it would represent the first amendment to the General Plan this year. Zone Change In order to bring the site's zoning designation in compliance with the requested General Plan land use designation, the applicant is requesting to modify the zoning of a portion of the property from Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single Family Residential (RS-2). According to Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.010, the purpose of the single-family residential district is to provide for individual homes on separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, at various minimum lot sizes, to provide for a range of yard and lot sizes which are based on the General Plan of the City, and to provide for other uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses designated in this title. Given that the zone change request is to allow an area of the lot that would be most suitable to be developed since it is the only relatively flat area on the lot, it is Staff's opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code. Since Chaparral Lane is a developed residential area, modifying the zoning boundary on the subject property would not be inconsistent with other develop~d residential parcels in the area. Furthermore, should the General Plan amendment be appro1ited, the zone change would also. need to be approved in order to maintain the zoning's consistency with the General Plan. Additionally, as discussed under the 'General Plan Amendment' section, the city geologist has reviewed the applicant's geology report in support of the zoning boundary change and conceptually approved the geology report with specific requirements to stabilize the access and the sloping areas of the lot. Height Variation Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(8)(1) allows the construction of a single-family residence on pad lots within the RS-2 zoning district that does not exceed 16', as measured from the existing grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline; and 20', as measured form the point where the lowest foundation/slab meets finished grade, to the highest point of the structure. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(8)(1) allows these heights to be increased to a maximum height of 26' with the approval of a Height Variation. With the approval of the pending General Plan land use and zoning designation change, the subject property would be considered a pad lot that could accommodate a residence up to 26' in height. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing to place fill on the building pad area to raise the pad by 4.5' in height. Although the building pad is being raised, the height of the new structure will still be measured from the existing highest grade to be covered by the structure. As such, while the new structure itself is proposed at 23' in height, when measured form the existing highest elevation point; the overall height will be 26'. Since the proposed project involves a structure in excess of 20' in height, a Height Variation application is required. ATTACHMENT 1-180 P .C. Staff Report (ZO~::· ;,t 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page6 Per Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(a), the Director shall refer a Height Variation application directly to the Planning Commission for consideration if the portion of the structure which exceeds 16' in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence. Since the applicant is proposing a new two-story, single-family residence, it is subject to Planning Commission's review. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C}(1)(e} sets forth the findings (in bold type) required in order for the City to approve a Height Variation: 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city; The City's early neighbor consultation process requires the applicant to obtain and submit the signatures of property owners within a 500' radius of the applicant's property. The early neighbor consultation is deemed adequate only if the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500'; or 70% of the landowners within 100' and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500' (including those within 100') is provided, as well as proof of notification of the homeowner's association, if one exists. The applicant collected a total of 20 (66%) landowner signatures within the 500' radius and notified the local homeowner's association in the area. As such, the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process and this finding can be met. 2. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas; The General Plan defines a view as a scene observed from a given vantage point (i.e. Catalina Island); whereas, a vista is defined as a confined view, which is usually, directed toward a terminal or dominate element or feature (i.e. lighthouse). There are no views or vistas in the vicinity which has been identified in the City's General Plan (Visual Aspects Figure 41) and the subject property is not located in the coastal area. Therefore, this finding can be met. 3. The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or promontory; The subject property is located within a developed single-family residential tract. The tract is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code, and therefore this finding can be met. 4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above 16' in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The properties along Chaparral Lane enjoy views in a northerly direction. Therefore, the properties located north, east and west of the subject property are not affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the properties located to the south are not affected by the proposed project because they are approximately 100' higher in elevation than the subject property. Therefore, the proposed new structure over 16' in height will not significantly impair any views from the viewing area of another parcel. Therefore, this finding can be met. ATTACHMENT 1-181 P .C. Staff Report (ZOk _J10-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 7 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable minimize the impairment of a view; The proposed project does not cause view impairment from another parcel. Therefore this finding does not apply. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structures that is above 16' in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures that exceed 16' in height; There is no cumulative view impairment because there is no view impairment caused by the proposed project. Therefore, this finding can be met. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements; As noted in the project description section of this report, the proposed addition meets all of the code requirements including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage and enclosed parking. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; Neighborhood Compatibility is achieved when a new home is designed in a manner that blends in with the characteristics of the immediate neighborhood. The "character'' of a neighborhood is defined in the City's Development Code as the following: architectural style, mass and bulk, height, number of stories, roof design, scale, orientation, setbacks, open space, texture, color, and building materials. The table below compares the 20-closest homes in the immediate neighborhood to the subject property. 8 Bronco Drive 23,370 4,995 1 O Bronco Drive 25,080 6,361 2 12 Bronco Drive 20,131 4,700 2 2895 Bronco Drive 52,272 3,160 2899 Bronco Drive 57,063 4,409 20,304 3,057 20,190 4,094 25,930 3,177 25,250 2,470 1 20,000 4,440 1 21,400 3,456 1 22,750 3,035 2 26,740 3,028 1 29,700 1,760 2 ATTACHMENT 1-182 ii" ·· ..... P .C. Staff Report (ZOtlc, /I 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 8 3258 Martingale Drive 25,440 4,145 28,940 3,520 24,389 6,911 29,990 5,085 50,529 3,520 54,450 3,333 6,838 Architectural Style, Roof Design, Texture. Color and Building Materials 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 The 20-closest homes are mostly California Ranch style homes with gable or hip roof designs using either composite shingle or red tile material. There is one house in the area that includes design features commonly found in pueblo style homes. The proposed residence will use the same materials found in other residences in the immediate area, such as stucco exterior finish with a tile roof. The proposed residence will also include columns and a covered entryway. Staff feels that the proposed architectural style, hip roof design and building materials are consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. Mass and Bulk, Number of Stories. Scale, Open Space and Setbacks Although the proposed home will be the second largest in the immediate neighborhood, Staff does not believe it will be out of scale. The reasons are as follows: 1) location of the lot; 2) 10% of the structure size is below grade; and 3) use of varying roof planes and structure setbacks to minimize the apparent bulk and mass of the residence. More specifically, the subject property is located at the end of Chaparral Lane and the closest portion of the new structure will be more than 59' away from the front property line abutting the street. Due to the location of the lot and the placement of the proposed structure, the new house will appear smaller than its actual size. Secondly, 714ft2 of the total proposed structure size of 6,838ft2 will be entirely below grade and will not be visible. Lastly, the proposed residence includes design features such as recessing the second floor by more than 1 O' above the garage to provide articulation. Since the garage faces the street, recessing the second floor in this area minimizes the appearance of bulk and mass when seen from the street. Additionally, the applicant is providing pillars around the side and rear of the residence that extend beyond the building fa9ade, creating more depth to the design. A balcony feature is also added to the rear to provide additional articulation. As such, Staff feels that the proposed structure will not appear bulky and massive. In terms of open space, the building footprint of the proposed project is 6% of the total lot size. As such, it is Staff's opinion that even with the proposed driveway and other paved areas, the total lot coverage of the proposed project (10%) would be well below the neighboring properties and therefore compatible. The structure setbacks on neighboring properties vary heavily due to varying lot configuration and sizes. As such, Staff feels that the proposed setbacks will not deviate from the neighborhood character. ATTACHMENT 1-183 ,c··,:··· .•.. P.C. Staff Report (ZONL. io-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 9 Based on the discussion above, Staff feels that the proposed project achieves neighborhood compatibility and this finding can be met. 9. The proposed new structure that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences; The Municipal Code Section 17.02.040(A) defines "privacy" as reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation. The closest residence is 7 Chaparral Lane, located immediately east of the subject property. The proposed structure will be placed more than 59' away while the existing structure at 7 Chaparral Lane is approximately 100' away from the shared property line. In other words, the proposed structure will be more than 159' away from the nearest home and therefore will not result in privacy impacts. As such, this finding can be met. Grading Permit -Major A Major Grading Permit is required for projects which result in excess of 50yd3 in any two-year period. When a Major Grading Permit application proposes earth movement involving 1,000yd3 or more of earth, the application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration with criteria set forth in RPVMC §17.76.040. The proposed project involves a total of 2,000yd 3 for recompaction and fill on the building pad and a maximum 8' depth of fill around the driveway area. More specifically, the building pad area will be excavated to bed rock and re-filled with compacted fill. The footings for the new residence and retaining wall will be in newly compacted fill, embedded in bedrock. A small portion of the building pad will not be filled because a basement level is proposed as part of the new residence. Additionally, due to the elevation difference between the street level (Chaparral Lane) and the building pad area, additional fill is proposed both on the building pad area and a new driveway area so that the driveway gradient does not exceed the Code allowed maximum of 20% gradient. As a result of the proposal to develop the vacant lot with a residential structure, the City Geologist is requiring the applicant to install caissons at the base of the slope that straddles the subject property and the immediately abutting vacant property to the east to mitigate a landslide. According to the applicant's geology report, a dormant landslide is identified on the abutting vacant property to the east with no historical movement in the past. However, some time ago, the toe of the slope on this abutting property was excavated to provide access to the subject property. The excavated area was not stabilized at that time and a landslide occurred that extended over to the south eastern part of the subject property. As such, the City Geologist is requiring the applicant to install caissons to mitigate this landslide, prior to developing the subject lot. However, because some of the required caissons are located on the adjacent property, authorization from the adjacent property owner is required and still pending. Therefore, one of the reasons for Staff's continuance recommendation is to allow additional time for the applicant to obtain the abutting neighbor's approval to grade and install caissons on the abutting lot. With exception to the proposed grading and caissons on the abutting property, Staff analyzed the proposed grading within the boundary lines of the subject property in, light of the following Major Grading Permit criteria (in bold type): 1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; ATTACHMENT 1-184 P.C. Staff Report (zoJ[;;;J0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 10 "Primary use" means the most important purpose for which a particular zoning district was established (RPVMC §17.96.2210). The subject lot is zoned single-family residential (RS-2). The purpose of the single-family residential district (RS) is to provide for individual homes on separate lots, each for the occupancy of one family, at various minimum lot sizes, to provide for a range of a yard and lot sizes which are based on the general plan of the city, and to provide for other uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses (RPVMC § 17 .02.010). The subject property consists of extreme slopes with a relatively flat area at the center. The applicant is proposing to raise the pad area by approximately 4.5' and fill the driveway area up to 8' in height so that a vehicular driveway to the proposed residence can be constructed without exceeding the 20% mandatory gradient allowed per Code. Additionally, the applicant's geology report (which was conceptually reviewed and approved by the City Geologist) recommends caissons on the south side of Chaparral Lane to stabilize the access way, construction of a retaining wall along the upper slope to the south with footings embedded in bedrock to stabilize the southern slope, recompaction of the building pad area so that the footings for the new structure will be on newly compacted fill, embedded in bedrock, and caissons in front of the home to stabilize the building pad and lower slope. As such, in order to develop the lot as proposed, 2,000yd3 of grading is proposed primarily for stabilization purposes. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed grading is necessary for the development of the property for its intended use and this criterion can be met. 2) The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade; As discussed in Height Variation finding no. 4, no views will be impacted by the proposed project. Although the applicant is proposing to raise the elevation of the building pad by approximately 4.5' in height, there are no views across the proposed grading/construction area. Therefore, the proposed grading and related construction does not significantly adversely affect the views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. As such, this criterion can be met. 3) The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural; Grading is necessary to construct a driveway access from the street (Chaparral Lane) to the building pad area which is approximately 1 O' lower in elevation. In order to maintain a driveway slope of less than 20%, the applicant is filling the driveway area up to 8' in height. By raising the driveway, it is also necessary to raise the building pad level for access. The only other alternative would be to create a wrap around driveway that would need to be built over a larger portion of the extreme slope. Staff feels that the proposed fill to minimize the area of grading is a better alternative. As a result of raising the building pad and access areas, the applicant is proposing to create transitional slopes to blend in the new fill area with the natural downslope beyond. Additionally, the applicant will grade the area immediately behind the retaining wall against the upslope to blend in with the upper slope beyond. Staff feels that creating transitional slopes behind the upper retaining wall and the lower slope would result in finished contours that ATTACHMENT 1-185 P .C. Staff Report (ZOt\c< .. j 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 11 appear reasonably natural. Additionally, it should be noted that the applicant is disturbing less than 1/5 of the natural slope while the remaining existing slope will be preserved in its current condition. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 4) The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography; As discussed in criterion 3 above, the applicant is creating slopes behind the upper retaining wall and the lower slope to blend in with the natural contours of the site. Additionally, the applicant will be altering less than 1/5 of the existing slopes on the property. Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed grading takes into account the natural topographic features on the site by means of land sculpturing while preserving most (4/5). of the site in its original condition. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 5) For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; As discussed in Height Variation no. 8, Staff feels that the proposed project achieves neighborhood compatibility with regards to scale, bulk and mass, architectural size and setbacks. Therefore, this criterion can be met. 6) In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes form soil erosion and slippage an minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas; . The proposed project is not part of a new residential tract. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7) The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to mm1m1ze grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside; This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation; As discussed in the project's 'Initial Study', a biology report submitted by the applicant shows that the vegetation on the slopes consist of federally protected coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting birds. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the Initial Study identifies mitigation measures as part of the proposed project. With these mitigation measures in place, this criterion can be met. 9) The grading conforms to the following standards: Table 2 below summarizes the proposed project's consistency with these criteria. Further, below are a detailed explanation of each criteria and how this project does or does not meet ATTACHMENT 1-186 P .C. Staff Report (ZO~~ /' 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 12 said criteria. a) Grading on slopes over 35% steepness b) Maximum finished slo es c) Maximum depth of cut or fill d) Restricted radin areas e) Retaining walls f) Driveways Permitted on vacant lots created prior to the City's incorporation, not zoned OH, based upon a finding that the grading will not threaten ublic health, safet and welfare 35% steepness, unless next to a driveway where 67% stee ness is ermitted 5' depth, unless based upon a finding that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such radin reasonable and necessar No grading on slopes over 50% steepness One 8'-tall upslope wall (unless in front yard or street side setback One 3%'-tall downslo e wall One 3%'-tall up-or downslope wall in each side ard One 5'-tall up-or downslope wall adjacent to drivewa Retaining walls within building footprint may exceed 8' 67% slopes permitted adjacent to driveways Table 2 Yes (with finding) No Yes (with finding) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes a) Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard, if the Director or Planning Commission finds that such grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. The subject residential lot was created in April 1957 (Tract Map No. 22946), prior to the City's incorporation in 1973. The lot was created with slopes that exceed 35% which would necessitate grading to reasonably develop the property. Most of the topographically comparable lots within the same residential tract were granted grading approvals to accommodate an individual dwelling and driveway. If the proposed project is approved, the applicant will be required to submit a final soils/geology report, subject to the City Geologist's review and approval prior to any grading activity. The applicant will also be subject to Building & Safety Department's regulations to ensure that the proposed grading will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be met. c) Except for the excavation of a basement or cellar, a fill or cut shall not exceed a depth of 5' at any point except where the Director or Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading or other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. The elevation difference between the street of access (Chaparral Lane) and the building ATTACHMENT 1-187 P .C. Staff Report (ZON<> i 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 13 pad area is approximately 1 O' in height. In order to create a driveway that does not exceed 20% steepness, the applicant is proposing to raise the building pad area and the driveway up to 8' in height. As such, Staff feels that the existing topographical conditions make the proposed grading reasonable and necessary to develop the subject lot. Therefore, this standard can be met. As evidenced in the discussion above, criterion (E)(9)(b) cannot be met. According to Development Code Section 17.76.040(E)(10), the Planning Commission may grant a Grading Permit in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)(9) upon finding that: 10a. The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) are satisfied; As described above, all other findings for the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review approval can be met. Therefore, this finding can be met. 10b. The approval is consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit; The Development Code §17.76.040 describes the purpose of the Grading Permit and Site Plan Review as "permitting reasonable development of land, ensuring the maximum preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of such property, and ensuring that each project complies with all goals and policies of the General Plan". The General Plan land use map allows for a residential development and ancillary improvements on the subject lot. Staff believes that the proposed grading and related retaining walls are consistent with the purposes of the Grading Permit because it allows reasonable development of the intended use of the property without adversely affecting surrounding properties while consistent with the RS-2 zoning designation for the area. Therefore, this finding can be met. 10c. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; and, The subject property consists of extreme slopes that exceed 35%, similar to other lots along Chaparral Lane. The proposed depth of fill allows recompaction of the building pad area, as recommended by the City Geologist and allows access from Chaparral Lane to the subject property, which is approximately 1 O' lower in elevation. The maximum proposed depth of fill is 8' in height. Other neighboring developed properties were also granted similar approvals to allow access to the building pad area. Neighboring properties located at 4, 5 and 6 Chaparral Lane also had similar height of cut and/or fill approved to develop their lots, as shown in the table below. Based on the topography of the site and the elevation difference from the street of access, an 8' maximum height of fill is necessary on the subject property. Allowing the applicant to create slopes in excess of 35% allows the man-made slopes to blend in with the existing ATTACHMENT 1-188 ~:.?-'·:-., ( ::,· P .C. Staff Report (ZON.; 10-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 14 2:1 slopes on site. More specifically, three neighboring properties (3, 4 and 5 Chaparral Lane) were also granted generally the same deviations as what is being requested by the applicant. As such, Staff believes that the proposed project will not constitute a grant of special privileges as it will be consistent with other improved properties in the vicinity. Therefore, this finding can be met. 1 Od. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property; While, the proposed improvements will require final geotechnical review and issuance of a Building Permit, thereby ensuring that the improvements will not be detrimental to or injurious to other properties and improvements in the area, the proposed grading has been reviewed as part of a preliminary geology report, . approved by the City Geologist. However, because the implementation of the slope buttressing recommendation included in the City approved geology report require the abutting neighbor's authorization; this finding cannot be made until such authorization is obtained. 1 Oe. Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. Notice of denial shall be given to only the applicant. Staff will prepare a notice of decision and distribute it to the applicant and adjacent property owners upon project approval. As such, this finding can be met. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Environmental Assessment & Decision Deadline Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project did not quamy for a CEQA exemption and therefore staff prepared an Initial Study of the project's environmental impacts (Environmental Checklist Form is attached). As a result of the Initial Study, Staff determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment if appropriate mitigation measures were incorporated, resulting in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. As evidenced in the attached Initial Study, the project will not result in or create any significant impacts, or have less than significant impacts to aesthetics, agriculture/forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards/hazardous materials, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems. However, it was identified that the project may create potentially significant impacts to biological resources, geology/soils and hydrology/water quality, unless mitigated with appropriate measures. These potential impacts and the associated mitigation measures are discussed below. Biological Resources: A biology report submitted by the applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting birds resulting from proposed construction activities. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the Initial Study identified mitigation measures that require clearing and grading ATTACHMENT 1-189 , . ./.:····. P.C. Staff Report (ZO" ;;10-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 15 on site to occur outside of the avian nesting season. These mitigation measures will be included as part of the project's condition of approval. Geology/Soils: The proposed project may cause erosion if proper mitigation measures are not implemented. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts, the Initial Study identified mitigation measures that require a caisson wall to be built against the upslope for stabilization, prior to construction of the proposed residence. Additionally, a detailed geology/soils report will be required for final approval through the Building & Safety Divison's plan check process prior to building permit issuance. Hydrology/Water Quality: Increased runoff is expected from development of the site that may cause hillside erosion during and after construction. To ensure that there will be less than significant impact, implementation of the project-specific water quality management plan and standard requirements for a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required to avoid and minimize the discharge of construction related pollutants during the Building & Safety Division review. Additionally, a drainage plan will be required for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. However, it should be noted that the applicant submitted revised plans after the distribution of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that included a reduction in structure size and identified the grading on the abutting neighbor's property. Since the proposed grading and installation of caissons on the abutting neighbor's property to mitigate a landslide was not assessed as part of the Initial Study, Staff will need to re-circulate a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for review. However, since CEQA requires a posting and a comment period of at least 20 days prior to consideration of the MND and the decision deadline for the proposed project is October 1, 2011, the applicant and the City will have to agree to a 90-day extension to the decision deadline to schedule the proposed project to a date certain. Conceptual Trails Plan Local trail users have raised concerns with regards to trail use and access of the property. They indicated that there is an existing dirt path on the subject property that connects Chaparral Lane with a trail easement over the abutting easterly property (7 Chaparral) which ultimately leads to a Nature Trail in Rolling Hills Estates. Staff confirmed that there is a dirt path on the subject property that appears to be used as a pedestrian and equestrian trail that connects to a trail in Rolling Hills Estates. However, it should be noted that there is no easement on the subject property dedicated for any type of public trail use. The actual recorded trail easement what was intended to connect Chaparral Lane with the trails in neighboring Rolling Hills Estates is on the adjoining private property (7 Chaparral). However, due to the steepness of the easement it has not been improved with a trail and is not used by the public. On a general note, the local trail users are concerned with the gradual reduction of trails in the city due to new developments and the property owners' unwillingness to dedicate easements for trail use. The City's conceptual trails plan identifies three pedestrian/equestrian use trails that converge near the applicant's property. These three conceptual trails are the Gap Trail (F1 ), the Bronco Trail (F2) and the Georgette Canyon Trail (F3). The Georgette Canyon Trail is identified on the southern most area of the subject property. The other two conceptual trail locations do not appear to be on the subject property. Although the City's Conceptual Trails Plan does not require that the property owner dedicate an easement to serve as a public trail, since the dirt ATTACHMENT 1-190 P .C. Staff Report (ZO~" . i 0-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 16 path on the subject property has been functioning as a connection to other trails in the vicinity; the local trail users are requesting that the property owner dedicate a trail easement to maintain the current trail path on the subject property. Despite the City's Conceptual Trail's Plan trail designations, the applicant is under no obligation to grant any public trail easements on his property to implement these trail connections. Notwithstanding, Staff believes that there is an opportunity to improve the trail connections in the area. Therefore, another reason Staff is recommending continuance is to meet with the applicant and adjoining property owner at 7 Chaparral Lane to see if either party owner is willing to add or modify trail easements on their respective properties to offer better trail connections. The applicant indicated that he is interested in working with the City on this issue. Public Correspondence Staff received eleven letters of concern related to trail connection, geologic stability, fire access and riparian impact. Most of these letters were from neighbors desiring the access to nearby trails maintained on the subject property. This matter has been addressed in the above paragraphed under 'Conceptual Trails Plan'. Five of the letters expressed concerns that the subject property is not geologically stable for development and an adequate fire access does not exist. One of these letters also indicates that there is a landslide identified on the subject site. As described under the 'Grading Permit' section and based on the 2007 Landslide Inventory Map prepared by the California Geologic Survey (Dept. of Conservation), the abutting neighbor has a 'dormant' landslide area with no evidence of historic landslide movement that extends slightly over on the southeastern portion of the subject property. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in the report, the City Geologist reviewed the plans and is requiring a caisson wall be constructed, prior to the development of the subject lot to stabilize/mitigate the landslide. The applicant is currently in the process of contacting the abutting neighbor for approval to grade and install caissons on their property. Additionally, the applicant is aware that he will need to obtain Fire Department approval prior to Building Permit issuance. One of the letters also expressed concerns related to potential riparian impact at the northern edge of the subject property. As mentioned in the 'Project Description' section, the proposed grading and construction area is more than 180' away from the north property line. Additionally, a biology report was reviewed and submitted to assess any impacts to protected habitat. Based on the biology report reviewed and approved by the City Biologist, the only potential for impact is to coastal sage scrub and nesting birds as discussed under 'Environmental Assessment' and mitigation measures have been added to the attached Exhibit 'A'. Foliage Analysis A foliage analysis conducted by Staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the protected view from any surrounding properties. Application Package The General Plan A~endment and Zone Change request requires a City Council decision. As noted previously, the development applications for the new residence are being processed ATTACHMENT 1-191 t<~·:"•.· .. P .C. Staff Report (ZONL 10-00025) September 13, 2011 Page 17 concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change request. Pursuant to the City's Development Code, the City Council shall act on the entire application package. As such, although typically the Planning Commission would make a final decision on the development applications, in this case, the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council on the entire application package. CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to an unspecified date, which will require a re-notice, to allow time for Staff to address grading and trail issues that have been raised by the public. ATTACHMENTS Public Correspondence Mitigated Negative Declaration Conceptual Geology Approval Geology Report (dated February 1, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-192 Public Correspondence ATTACHMENT 1-193 Ms. So Kim Assistant Planner RECE\VED SEP 06 ?0\t ....., oEVELOPMENT C()MMU\llh• Q&PAB!MENT City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Damon Swank 2621 Plaza Del Amo, No. 527 Torrance, CA 90503 (310) 365-9692 September 6, 2011 Re: Proposal to Rezone a Portion of #10 Chaparral from Open Space Hazard to Residential Dear Ms. Kim: I oppose the change in zoning because the property remains just as hazardous as it has always been. The geology has not changed. Not only is the lot itself unstable, but the land above and below it is not stable. I enclose a geology report on this lot, prepared by U.S. Geologic Services. His observations and conclusions are set forth on pages 18 and 19. This property was purchased at a bankruptcy trustee's sale. The purchaser was given a copy of this report at the time of his purchase. He was required to state in open court that he had received a copy and that he was aware that the property might not be buildable. I request that you furnish copies of the geology reports by the applicant and the city geologist so that the concerned parties may review them and request a hearing concerning them. Yours truly, ATTACHMENT 1-194 , .. p r • ... : : ' • t ~ ~ •. ' ' • ' •· ~· . ••• f; ; ' ' ' • t ' • ~ ~ t ... .) • •• • • t •·· • • • • • ft· ·;:·. -~ •· iii r···'·'.·c" .. \ U.S. GEOLOGIC SERVICES 296 College Park Drive, Seal Beach, California 907 40 Phone: (562) 598-0595 • Fax: (562) 598-5658 • E-mail: dickbrowngeo@adelphia.net January 29, 2005 Mr. Damon R Swank 7 Chaparral Lane Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90275 Project~o.05001 Subject: Geologic Inspection for Feasibility of Purchase of the approximately 2-acre Vacant Parcel 26 of Lot 21, Tract 22946, Located adjacent to your residence at 7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Dear Mr. Swank: At your request, we made an on-site geologic inspection of the subject 2-acre vacant lot on ·January 16, 2005 accompanied by yQu for part of our inspection. The purpose of our inspection was to identify features that could indicate the presence of geologic hazards and drainage problems affecting the lot. We geologically mapped the subject 2-acre lot and surrounding area using field geological methods, aerial photographs and published geologic maps to compile-our geologic map. This geologic inspection did not include subsurface investigations. We communicated our observations, opinions and recommendations regarding the property to you on the above date. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Damon R Swank, and because conditions may change over time due to earthquakes, rainstorms, construction, and other causes, this report becomes invalid after 90 days from the above date. This report is not to be provided to any other third party without our authorization and our on-site inspection, except for your specific purpose in purchasing the subject property. Should this report be provided to another third party without my authorization and on-site inspection, then U.S. Geologic Services and the undersigned will assume no liability, whatsoever. · Data used in preparation of this report included an Assessor's Parcel Map (plat map), an aerial photograph with topographic contours and lot lines provided by Mr. Swank, digital-photographs , taken on the date of our on-site inspection, a topographic map of the property and surrounding . area obtained from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the published geologic reports and maps listed in the References. Mr. Swank provided several unpublished consultant's reports and a map of properties in the area of the subject 2-acre vacant lot, w:hich we reviewed. These consultant's reports are listed separately in the references section of this report . ATTACHMENT 1-195 " r ' ' • •• ' • • •• • & t • • t ., .. _,.: • • • • ~ • a It • • • • • • • • I •• I I • I I ••• I • • Project No. 05001 Site Description The vacant lot is located about 2/3-mile southwest of the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdtts Drive North, at the westerly end of Chaparral Lane (Figure 1, Location Map; Figure 2, Topographic Map; and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The property is described as Tract 22946, Lot 21, Parcel 26 (Figure 4, Assessor's Parcel Map (Plat Map)). The irregular- shaped 2-acre lot ranges from approximately 80 to 240 feet wide by an average of about 560 feet deep and contains approximately 88,430 square feet or about 2.03 acres (Figure 4). Elevations on the lot are estimated to range from about 790 feet to about 575 feet above mean sea level (Figure 2 and Figure 5, Aerial Photograph with lot lines and topography). The vacant lot has a north-facing natural slope with a near-level pad apparently created by cut- and-fill-grading in the north-central portion of the lot (Photo 1). The slope above the pad is about 150 feet high and ranges from about 3: 1 (horizontal to vertical slope ratio) on the upper portion to about 2:1 in the lower portion of the slope. The slope below the pad ranges from about 2: 1 on the eastern portion to about 1 Y4: I on the western portion of the slope. The graded pad measures approximately 250 across the lot in a northwesterly direction and is about 100 feet maximum wide in a northeasterly direction. The pad extends westerly, across the lot line to the crest of George F Canyon. The pad is currently vegetated with tall grass and is traversed by a horse trail. Some erosion gullies, approximately 2 to 4 feet deep, were noted along the outside (northerly) edge of the pad. The slope above the pad is mostly vegetated with chaparral and grass with some scattered small trees. The slope below the pad appears entirely covered by chaparral and trees. Geologic Setting Geologic Materials Dibblee (1999, Figure 6), Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) and Woodring and others (1946, Figure 8) mapped or compiled the geology in the area of the subject property. The geologic bedrock unit underlying the general area of the subject lot is the Cretaceous age (110 million years old, Sorenson, 2004) Catalina Schist. The Catalina Schist, as described by Dibblee (1999)t consists of "quartz-sericite-schist, quartz-chlorite-schist, and glaucophane-blueschist, dark bluish-gray, weathered to rust brown, foliated and contorted; contains white quartz veins, thick chert beds, and rare small masses of metagabbro." Catalina Schist is well exposed in several areas along the crest of the slope's ridge west of the 2-acre vacant lot and overlooking George F. Canyon and . west of the subject lot, where it consists of well-foliated quartz schist and quartz-mica schist . The subject vacant lot is covered by surficial soils, including slumps, landslides and the fill soils of the graded pad (Figure 9, Site Geologic Map) . The near-surface soils exposed on the lot consist of mainly light brown silty sand with abundant schist rock fragments on the pad and slopes. Local clayey sand to sandy clay was exposed on the slope surface underlain by landslides. The soils on the lot appeared generally very moist to wet (due to recent rainfall in January this year) at the time of our on-site inspection. The surficial soils have a generally low potential for expansion. 2 ATTACHMENT 1-196 • • I • • • • • • • • • • I ' •• I • • • • • • a • t • a •• a a a I it a a a I a a a· a lt .. Fbn1re 1. Location Map showing the approximate location of the subject vacant lot :.; ATTACHMENT 1-197 Figure2. Portion of the USGS Torrance 7Y2-minute Quadrangle map showing approximate location of the subject property 4 ATTACHMENT 1-198 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ » ~ ~ ~-. ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ D rt ~ ·:·. t' ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~- ~ ~ i I ~ ~-- ~ i@ ~ Project No. 05001 · $enr~ To· ~·dr.ter · . B:ac!~ To Terras·e1'.Ver· · Figure3. ~~JS ff Aerial photograph of the area of the 2-acre vacant lot with the graded pad near the left upper half of the picture and the west end of Chaparral Lane at center upper half 5 ATTACHMENT 1-199 .. ..,,.:•• .................. ., ........ ..,.,., ...................... . ' . . ' ·:: . ~ -::. ::-~· . . ' ' ' . . . • SCN.11" - I °' Fismre 4. CODI 7091 IOI PllV, AUM'f, 11114ff•10&72 75811•6 M.B. &ll•&-8 PARCEL MAP ··1tM.11o=n-1o0 L.AC:A. MAP NO. 51 --A.M. I - 3 ""d llMAO ~ IN·lll .9, 1-/JUIJ ('1) ~:~-: a :ftVllOIJOI ...,.i n,.:.,~ rs 0 Vt 8 '"'"' AUHH1 1 1 lllP COUllTY OF I.OS 4116£LES, c:ALIF. Assessor's Parcel Mao <olat man) showing: location of the subiect orooertv. vacant Lot 21. Parcel 26. Tract No. 22946. ATTACHMENT 1-200 • i: .· Project No. 05001 Figure 5. Aerial Photograph with superimposed topography, lot and parcel lines showing the subject 2-acre vacant lot and the west end of Chaparral Lane near its east lot line • 7 ATTACHMENT 1-201 ~ ~ ~ •• .- t. ··,·.-: r- • ~ • ~ ~ ~ • ~ • • • . · .. , ./ t.: • • t • t t I • • • ,._.. it I la Project No. 05001 Photo 1. Graded pad and slopes on subject lot, viewed :from northeast, with George F Canyon on the western side of the graded pad 8 ATTACHMENT 1-202 "' , . • ' .·.--, ' ' ' ' ' I", ,, • ' .. •• ••• I',.':'· • .. ' " .. .. .. .. " .. " a·> ••• .. .. .. • "' .. • • • • Pr· .. .. .. Figure6. Portion of the Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and vicinity (Dibblee, 1999) showing approximate location of the subject property and a mapped landslide on or near the property 9 ATTACHMENT 1-203 • I • • • • I • • I' •• • • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • •• •• . : .. • • • • • • • •• • • • • • ·Figure 7. Portion of the Geologic Map of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills (Cleveland, 1976) showing approximate location of the subject property 10 ATTACHMENT 1-204 .. ' .. .. • • , . • • l ,. ' • • I I I .. • -• " • • • • • • a' •• • • • • • • • • • • ··-• • a Project No. 05001 Figure 8 • Portion of the Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Hills (Woodring and others, 1946) showing approximate location of the subject property 11 ATTACHMENT 1-205 lilt . •• Pro"ect No. 05001 •r=.~~-~;:::::::::::=======~\==~===========~~-i : ~ ~a..kliig to -. . .> ... . -- !!a. 60. {QkWeland.1976) ... '~•5 .--· ·- • • ~ttitude of Foliation ~ f ~ 2s Attitude of FOiiation .: 8s ce1ev81~.1016> it i&i AttitUde ofJOinttng it . --*· =8rld~976) t ~$carp it _L._-. .. Scarp (Cleveland, ~ 1976) • GeOkigic contact i -----(Cleveland, 1978) · · • ~ l/l.ancJSllda umns , · '-· Landslide LimitS t \\4·ccieve1and. 1976 :. "-~ and other$) . ,......._.,. '." • '\Graded Pad •. ..__/ . • • • • • • • • • a • a a • • • • • • • • • a a· • • p' .. Qsw Slump, ereep, anc1 Slope W-" Depoells (ClliVeland, 1978) Qls Landslide Tma Mon1etey Formation, Altaltili'a Shale Member (ctevefand, 197Ei) (Mddl•Late. Miocene age) Kcs Catalina. Schist (eretaeeoua ~) ,.._,.... Flgure9 / ,,,.-l 12 . ~~No. 06001 $1TE·GE0.LOGIC l·AP .:· ay•·StewtJaCOba &•DiCk BIOWfl ·For Damon R. SWank 1"rkt ~; t.of2:1, Par. 26 R&ncbOPalos Wides, CA . ·. ATTACHMENT 1-206 "' . • ' • • • • • ' a'·:· ·:·:. ia ' ' • ' ,.: ' • • ' • • • • • " • ilf' .< it • I • -:~:: • I • • it •> ii' •• it Project No. 05001 Geologic Structure The subject lot is situated on the axis of a northwesterly trending syncline as mapped by Cleveland (197(:)). We could not, however, verify the existence of this syncline, nor was it shown on Dibblee's (1999) geologic map. Foliation attitudes in Catalina Schist in the vicinity of the subject vacant lot dip 20~25° northeast and 21° southwest, as shown on the published geologic maps (Dibblee, 1999, Figure 6; Cleveland, 1976, Figure 7; Woodring and others, 1946, Figure 8). We mapped (Figure 9, Site Geologic Map) attitudes of the foliation in the vicinity of the subject lot dipping 20-60° northeast to locally 35° southwest (one exposure). The predominately northeast dip of foliation of the Catalina Schist has a component of dip out of the northerly-facing slope. This orientation of the foliation is considered generally unfavorable for gross bedrock stability, especially for the overlying colluvial soils, as they are deposited on the dipping Catalina Schist bedrock. Nearly vertically joints in the Catalina Schist strike northeasterly in the outcrop overlooking George F Canyon near the western edge of the pad. Origin of these joints may relate to uplift and anticlinal folding of the Palos Verdes Hills. · Drainage Drainage on the lot and adjacent areas is by sheet flow on the slopes, except where it is concentrated into existing natural swales on the upper slope and erosion gullies, such as e~st on the easterly side of the pad near the horse trail and on the northern edge of the pad. Due to the relatively high permeability of the soils, they are expected to drain fairly well unless saturated by heavy and/or prolonged rainfall, in which case, erosion, slumps and landslides may occur . Earth Movement Dibblee (1999, Figure 6) and Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) mapped landslides on the slope in the southern portion of the subject Lot 21, Parcel 26 and the adjacent Lot 32. Cleveland (1976) also mapped an arc-shaped scarp (possibly representing a large landslide head scarp) crossing Lots 2, 29 and 30 south of: and above, the subject Lot 21, Parcel 26, and just below Bronco Drive (Figures 7 and 9). Surficial geomorphic features associated with old to recent or incipient landslides were noted and mapped by us within the larger, previously mapped landslides on the slope above the pad on the subject lot during this inspection (Figure 9, Photos 2 and 3). We mapped a scarp with some vertical separation indicating another recent/incipient landslide on the asphalt road near the west end of Chaparral Lane just east of the subject lot boundary (Photo 4). A questionable landslide showing a bowed topographic expression was noted on the slope north of and below the graded pad. Erosion gullies and slumping, caused by rainfall runoff, are . located along the northern edge of the graded pad. Slumping and erosion may continue on the pad and slopes during heavy and/or prolonged rainstorms . The Official Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Torrance Quadrangle shows the subject 2-acre lot is within an "Earthquake-induced Landslide" Zone (CDMG, 1999, Figure 10), and within and area of past landsliding on the steep slopes on either side of George F Canyon west of the subject lot (CMMG, 1998) . 13 ATTACHMENT 1-207 " . , ----,. ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ • i; ' ii ~ Project No. 05001 Groundwater Groundwater data are not available for the area of the subject property (CDMG, 1998). The nature of the surficial deposits and the underlying Catalina Schist bedrock indicate that any groundwater would not occur in significant quantities. ~ ·Photo 2. Landslide head-scarp on slope above graded pad near subject lot, viewed from ~ the east ~ la ~ ~ i ~ ~- ~ M ~· li ATTACHMENT 1-208 I. • • ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r~ ~ ~- ~ t ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ • --·· • t la Photo 3. Recent scarp across horse trail on slope above graded pad on subject lot, viewed from the northwest Photo 4. Tension cracks and incipient landslide scarp in asphalt near west end of Chaparral Lane, viewed from west 15 ATTACHMENT 1-209 • • • I • I it I I I • • I I: -~ ••• •• • • • • • • • • • • ·:· rl:' • • • • • • • • • • • .... • • • Project No. 05001 . Figure 10. Portion of the Seismic Hazard Zone Map of the Torrance 7~-minute Quadrangle (CDMG, 1999) showing approximate location of the subject property (blue color is the ''Earthquake-induced Landslide" Zone. The subject 2-acre vacant lot lies entirelv with in the zone . 16 ATTACHMENT 1-210 • .. ... • • ~ • • • • • • • • •• • • • Project No. 05001 Faults and Earthquake Hazards Dibblee (1999, Figure 6), Cleveland (1976, Figure 7) and Woodring and others (1946, Figure 8) mapped or compiled no faults in the immediate area of the subject property, and none were identified during this inspection. The lot is not included in an "Earthquake Fault Zone" (formerly known as an "Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone"). Nearby significant faults and earthquake epicenters (Tsutsumi and others, 2001; Toppozada and others, 2000; Dibblee, 1999; Dolan and others, 1995;. Greenwood, 1995a; Jennings, 1994; Leighton and Associates (1990); and Ziony and Jones, 1989) include: 1. The potentially active Cabrillo fault, about % mile south-southeast; 2. The active or potentially active Palos Verdes Hills fault, about 1 Yz miles northeast; 3. The active Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about a 9 miles northeast; 4. The offshore potentially active San Pedro Basin fault zone, about 131h. miles southwest; 5. The active Santa Monica fault, about 21 miles north-northwest; 6. The active or potentially active Malibu Coast fault, about 22 miles northwest; 7. The active Hollywood fault, about 23 miles north; 8. The active Whittier fault, about 23Yz miles northeast; 9. The epicentral area of the 1994 Mw (moment magnitude) 6.7 Northridge earthquake that was generated on a blind thrust fault, at a depth of about 15-km, about 34 miles northwest; and 10. The epicentral area of the 1987 Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake that was generated on a blind thrust fault, about 25 miles northeast. Other seismogenic blind thrust faults or fault ramps may underlie, at depth, the area of the subject property (Dolan and others, 2003; Tsutsumi and others, 2001; Shaw and Shearer, 1999; Shaw, 1993; Dolan and others, 1995; and Greenwood, 1995b). Earthquakes on one of the major active faults or blind thrust faults in Southern California will probably cause moderate to severe ground shaking at the subject site during the life of the property. The Modified Mercalli. intensity in the area of the property due to the January 19, 1994, Mw 6.7 Northridge earthquake and October l, 1987, Mw 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake was mapped as intensity V (Dewey and others, 1994; Leyendecker and others, 1988) [i.e., Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened a direction can be estimated Some dishes, windows and so on broken; cracked plaster in a few places; unstable objects overturned Disturbances of trees, poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.]. The Official Seismic Hazard Zone Map of the Torrance Quadrangle shows the lot is within an ''Earthquake- induced Landslide" Zone (Figure 1 O}. The risk of surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be low, and the relative liquefaction susceptibility during an earthquake is considered to be very low (CDMG, 1998; Leighton and Associates, 1990; Tinsley and others, 1985; and Toppozada and others, 1988) . 17 -_-·---------·~-- ATTACHMENT 1-211 I I I I ~- ~ ~ ... • ~ • • • ' • ' ' • ~'- •·=· ':' • ' • • •• • • • • • ,;_' • • .. Project No. 05001 Observations We made an inspection of the slopes and graded pad on the subject lot with regard to earthquake shaking, settling, and geologic instability. Landslide scarps and ground cracks were noted on and near the lot. The lot was inspected for geologic and drainage problems. We mapped and compiled the geology of the vacant lot, showing the geologic structure and landslides and slumps (Figure 9). Listed below are some of the observations made during our on-site inspection. 1. A relatively old approximately 3-to 4-foot high arc-shaped, east-northeasterly trending scarp was noted on the slope within Lot 32. This feature appears to align with another younger 1- foot high scarp to the west on the subject lot. Two tension cracks were noted on a horse trail along the trend between the two scarps. These scarps and cracks likely represent a larger landslide (Photos 2 and 3). 2. The slope in the north-central portion of Lot 32 has a hummocky surface with clayey soil exposed on the surface and phreatophytes (water-loving plants) covering the slope. 3. Another recent approximately I-inch high, northeasterly trending scarp with tension cracks were noted in the asphalt pavement near the western end of Chaparral Lane (Photo 4). The road ending here is likely underlain by a landslide . 4. The near-level graded pad appears to be underlain by sandy material that drains fairly well . 5. Some erosion gullies, approximately 2 to 6 feet wide and 2 to 4 feet deep, were noted along the outside (north) edge of the pad. These galleys can be seen on the aerial photograph (Figure 3) . Conclusions 1. The general geologiCal conditions on and around the lot are considered generally satisfactory for very limited use only (Such as a grassy sports area and a gazebo, park tables and benches, etc.) at this time, and the vacant lot is probably not economically feasible for structures, as they would require deep foundations into the very hard Catalina Schist bedrock. 2. Existing and incipient landslides on the upper part of the slope on the subject 2-acre vacant lot ·and vicinity and the unfavorable orientation of the out-of-slope dip of foliation in the underlying Catalina Schist probably preclude satisfactory stabilization of the colluvial and landslide soils on the slopes above and below the graded pad. 3. Some tension scarps and crack noted in the slope above the pad are likely due to past and active or incipient slumping within a landslide complex. The tension scarp and cracks in the asphalt street near the west end of Chaparral Lane are due to a landslide. Erosion at the outside edge and on the slope below the pad is due to concentrated rainfall runoff. Slumping is expected to continue, especially during periods of heavy and prolonged rainfall, and will probably work its way on to the pad and at the outer edge of the pad, unless drainage control is properly implemented . 4. The subsurface soils are relatively permeable and transmit water through the soil such that the water drains vertically through the near-level pad, but erodes easily on slopes . 18 ATTACHMENT 1-212 , .. Project No. 05001 5. The pad appears relatively old, and may not have been graded with benching and proper compaction; and therefore it is probably not suitable for modem construction. Limitations This is a professional opinion report prepared for the exclusive use Mr. Damon R Swank. The observations and opinions expressed herein are for the purpose of evaluating the geologic and drainage conditions on the property on the date of our inspection for the feasibility of purchasing the subject property. This report is intended for use only by the client named above for the purpose stated; no other use of this report is authorized, and transfer to any other person or agency without our notification and authorization is not advisable. No subsurface explorations were made to verify conditions ~derlying the lot. No warranties, either express or implied, are given as to the geologic, soils, or foundation conditions of the lot. Should any construction or modification affecting the graded pad or slopes on the lot be planned for the future, it is . advisable to have detailed soils, geologic, and structural-engineering reports prepared. Required permits should be obtained for any work that may have been recommended in this report. This opportunity to be of professional service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me. Verj truly yours, U.S. GEOLOGIC SERVICES Stephen E. Jacobs RG-3978, EG-1307 Arthur R (Dick) Brown, President RG-631, EG-1043 Attachments: References and digital photographs taken on the date of the on-site inspection provided on a CD-ROM that are considered a part of this report. 19 ATTACHMENT 1-213 .---. .~ .---. llf f' f . - r ,-. : .- f r f t' : f. f f f f f ' f f ' f ' ' I ' I ' • ' • I • • • • • • • • Project No. 05001 References California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Torrance 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California: Open-File Report 98- 26, 53 p . California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999, Official Seismic Hazard Zones map of the Torrance Quadrangle: CDMG, scale 1:24,000. Cleveland, G.B., 1976, Geology of the Northeast Part of the Palos Verdes Hills, Los Angeles Count, California: California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 27, Plate 2, map scale 1:12,000. Dewey, J.W., Reagor, B.G., Dengler, L., and Moley, K., 1994, Intensity Distribution and Isoseismal Maps for the Northridge, California, Earthquake of January 17, 1994: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-92, 35 p. Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1999, Geologic Map of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and Vicinity: Redondo Beach, Torrance, and San Pedro Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map #DF-70, scale 1:24,000. Dolan, J.F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T.K., Yeats, RS., Shaw, J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G.J., and Gath, E.M., 1995, Prospects for Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region: Science, vol. 267, p. 199-205. · Greenwood, RB., l 995a, Regional Geologic Overview of the Los Angeles Basin in Woods, M. C. and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January 1994: Calif. Div. Mines and Geology Special Publication 116, p. 1-8. Greenwood, RB., 1995b, Characterizing Blind Thrust Fault Sources--an Overview in Woods, M.C. and Seiple, W.R. (editors), The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January 1994: Calif Div. Mines and Geology Special Publication 116, p. 279-287. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: Calif Div. Mines and Geology, Data Map Series, Map no. 6, scale 1 :750,000. Leighton and Associates, 1990, Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan, Hazard Reduction in Los Angeles County: Prepared for Dept. of Regional Planning, County ofLos Angeles: vols. 1 and 2, includes Plates 1-8, scale 1 . inch = 2 miles. Leyendecker, E.V., Highland, L.M., Hopper, M., Arnold, E.P., Thenhaus, P. and Powers, P., 1988, The Whittier Narrows, California Earthquake of October 1, 1987-Early Results of Isoseismal Studies and Damage Surveys: Earthquake Spectra, the professional journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), vol. 4, no. 1, February 1988, pp. 1-9 . Shaw, J.H., 1993, Active Blind-thrust Faulting and Strike-slip Fault-bend Folding in California: A dissertation presented to the faculty of Princeton University in candidacy for the Degree ofDoctorofPhilosophy, 216 p . 20 ATTACHMENT 1-214 ~ t ~ • , ~ , ~ '· ~ , ~- ~ ~ ~ f .. ~ ~ • • • • • ~ • ~ • ·:·· • • • • • .::· • • • • • t· ... , -• • Project No. 05001 References (continued) Shaw, J.H. and Shearer, P.M., 1999, An Elusive Blind-Thrust Fault beneath Metropolitan Los Angeles: Science, vol. 283, p. 1516-1518. Sorenson, S., 2004, E-mail Conversation with Sorena Sorenson: in, Brown, AR, ed., Palos Verdes Peninsula: Fabulous Geology in a Beautiful Setting: Los Angeles Basin Geological Society Field Trip, June 26, 2004, pp. 76-78. Tinsley, J.C., Youd, T.L., Perkins, D.M., and Chen, AT.F., 1985, Evaluating Liquefaction Potential in Ziony, J.I. (editor), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth-science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Prof Paper 1360, p. 263-315. Toppozada, T., Branum, D, Petersen, M., Hallstrom, C., Cramer, C., and Reichle, M., 2000, Epicenters of an Areas Damaged by M 2: 5 Califo~ Earthquakes, 1800-1999, California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) Map Sheet 49, scale: 1" = 25 miles. Tsutsumi, H., Yeats, RS., and Huftile, G.J., 2001, Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the Northern Los Angeles Fault System, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, April 2001, v. 113, no. 4, pp. 454-468. Woodring, W.P., Bramlette, M.N., and Kew, W.S.W., 1946, Geology and Paleontology of the Palos Verdes Hills, California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 207, 145 p., Plate 1, geologic map, scale 1:24,000 . Ziony, J.I. and Jones, L.M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey Misc. Field Studies Map MF-1964, scale 1:25.0,000 . Unpublished Consultant's Reports and Maps Provided by Mr. Damon R. Swank . listed in Chronological Order Ehlert, Keith W., June 26, 1998, Geologic Opinion, #7 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's report P.N. 2129-98, signed by Keith W. Ehlert, Geologist, prepared for Damon Swank, 9 pages (contains several other reports, listed below) . Ehlert,.Keith W., August 16, 1990, Geologic Opinion, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's report, Project No. 2557-90, signed by Keith W. Ehlert, Geologist, prepared for Greg Gawlik, 5 pages . Keene Associates., July 26, 1990, Third Party Review of Geologic Data Relative to No. 6, · Chaparral, City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Consultant's report prepared for Greg Gawlik, signed by AG. Keene, CEG, 6 pages. ' American Geotechnical, May 7, 1990, Real Estate Review, No. 6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's report, File No. 2665.02, signed by Gregory W. Aston, RCE, prepared for Greg Gawlik 2 pages . 21 ATTACHMENT 1-215 Project No. 05001 Baseline Consultants, Inc., September 5, 1985, Geotechnical Opinion Report, #6 Chaparral Lane, Rancho-Palos Verdes, CA: Consultant's report, Project No. 1446-085, signed by Richard A Martin, RCE, prepared for Edward H. Cowgill, 5 pages and Geologic site map (map by Cleveland, 1976). Los Angeles County, Soils Engineering Section, February 9, 1973, Review of Soils and Stability Problems, Half-Acre Portion, Southwestern Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula [# 8]: Signed by James R Trotter in Response to plat plan and pertinent reports prepared for Ralph Smith, one page. Los Angeles County, Soils Engineering Section, February 9, 1973, Review of Soils and Stability Problems, Two-Acre Portion, Western Lot 21, Tract 22946, Palos Verdes Peninsula[# 9]: Signed by James R Trotter in Response to plat plan and pertinent reports prepared for Ralph Smith, one page. Stone Geological Services, Inc., October 28, 1960, Tract 22946: Lots 1, 2, 3 of Block A, of Lot 12; Lots 1, 2, of Block B, of Lot 21; Lots 1, 2,3, of Block C, of Lot 21, Lots 19 and 20; Cayuse Lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots), 60-164: Consultant's report signed by Robert Stone, Ph.D. Pres., prepared for Joel H. Prescott, Jr., 2 pages and Geologic map and Explanation [The geologic unit mapped underlying the subject 2-acre vacant lot and adjacent lots on this map is incorrect]. Paul Calvo, Tract No. 22946 in Unincorporated Territory of Los Angeles· County, April 1957: Tract map of the area between Cayuse Lane and Bronco Drive, Palos Verdes (reduced from original scale of l' = 60'), signed by Paul Calvo, Licensed Land Surveyor. 22 ATTACHMENT 1-216 NGINEERING GEOLOGY GROUND-WATER GEOLOGY STONE GEOLOGICAL SERVICE. INC. CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS 55Z5 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD Los ANGELES 36, CALIFORNIA Mr. Joel H. Prescott, Jr. P. O. Box 186, Lomita, California Dear Mr. Prescott: WEB.STER t-4629 October 28, 1960 60-164 Subject: Tract 22946: _ Lots 1,2,3, o! Block A, o! Lo~ 12 Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21; . ___.:;.Lots 1~2,3, of Block C, o! Lot 21 .,,.,,---· Lots 1 and 20; Cayuse Lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots). In compliance with your request, we made visual geologic exam- inations of the subject property and certain nearby areas. The latest of these examinations was on October 21, 1960. This report presents our opinions resulting from these examinations which included inspection o! bulldozer and back-hoe excavations, as well as existing cuts and exposures on and near the property. Aerial photographs of the area taken at various times over the past :?O or so years were also examined. TOPOGRAPHY. The general location of the subject property is shown on the attached-Location Map. Details o! the topography are shown on the Geologic Map included in this report. The base for this_ map was modified from a map by Paul Calvo,Licensed Surveyor which you supplied .to'· us; we make no representations -regarding the _ accuracy of thi.s' base map. ']he subject property includes two portions of Tract 22946. A number of houses have been built on .other lots in this tract--; Grass and weeds cover most of the subject property. The North Portion consists of lots 1, 2, and ~ of Block A of Lot 12, shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. The lots are located near the northeast end of a ridge and include part of the small canyon to the .south. Access to the lots is by a road descending from the cul-de-sac on Cayuse Lane. A cut about six to eighteen feet high, northeast-sloping at about ~ to 85° is present at the end of the ridge, just off the Geologic Map. The South Portion consists of lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot 21; lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block C of Lot 21; and lota·19 and 20; all shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. These lots are located on the slope descending northward from Bronco Drive. (continued on page #2) .- ATTACHMENT 1-217 "" i' • •• j • j j • • j • i I i i I I • i I I i • i j i • i i i i j i •• j j • a a • • ('''·;TONE: Ge:::oLoGtcAI-Se:Rv1c(''·1 Nc . '· .. · . Joel H. Prescott, Jr • October 28, 1960 60-164~ .Conclusions and Recommendations, continued The house foundations, and placement of fill, must be engineered in a manner appropriate to geologic and topo- graphic setting (including t·he presence of thick, loose soil subject to creep, and the presence o! loose fi~~ • The material underlying lots l and 2 of Block B of Lot 21; and lots I and 2 of Blo.ck C of Lot 21.. is not stable enough for home c:nstru;fion. The loose fills above these lots rest on unst~ble m~_erial. They present a hazard to these lots. · Very truly yours, Stone Geological Service, Inc • RS:sts • ATTACHMENT 1-218 !It. '!} • '!• ' ' rt-' ' •· • .··;j -~··Iii· i.,.',: . . ;, w :.· ::~rt~· I ! ATTACHMENT 1-219 I I • • • ~ • • • t t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' ' ' f f · t ~ i' ., ,. 0 \~ _, ' ·.-. EXPLANATION ALT.AMIRA SHALE: Mainly punky, diatomaceous shale; 8ilty shale; and massive siltstone and diatomite. White and light gray. ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish- brown to buff sandstone and conglomerate • Slumps readily • FRANCISCAN SCHIST: Quartzose schist and talc schist • Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates direction o:r inclination; angle of inclination is measured from the horizontal. ' Strike and dip, approximate. Strike and dip of foliation o:f schist • Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock • Exploratory excavation • Fill 60-164 ATTACHMENT 1-220 ) :~~>:·: .. . om map by Paul Calvo :~· -.. 1 . :rden Grove, California. ATTACHMENT 1-221 •• • • • • • • • • • •• • •• • • .: • • • • • • • • I • I • • • • I I I I I I I I rt. I' t ' . . ' 0 \~ ..- EXPLANATION ALTAMIRA SHALE: Mainly punky, diatomaceous shale; silty shale; and massive siltstone and diatomite. White and light gray • ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish- brown to buff sandstone and conglomerate • Slumps readily • FRANCISCAN SCHIST: Quartzose schist and talc schist • Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates direction of inclination; angle of inclinati9n is measured from the horizontal. · Strike and dip, approximate • Strike and dip of foliation of schist • Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock • Exploratory excavation • Fill 60-164 ATTACHMENT 1-222 .KEITH W. EHLERT Consulting Engineering Geologist June 26, 1998 Mr. Damon Swank 1685 Crestview Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 SUBJECT: GEOLOGIC OPINION #7 Chaparral Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Project No. 2129-98 In accordance with your verbal request, the subject property was visited for a visual review of geologic conditions. Information presented in this report is based on visual review, limited research, review of geologic maps, experience ·and professional judgement. Descriptions of the site and features observed in this report are provided with the understanding that the reader of this report has visually reviewed the site and is generally familiar with the site. No warranty of future site performance is expressed or implied. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this report, please contact my office. 27520 Hawthorne Boulevard, #195 • Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 (310) 544-7686 • Fax (310) 544-9332 ATTACHMENT 1-223 ., •• ••• • • • • • ·:·.: • • • • •· • • • • • • •• • • • • • ••• •·.: • • ii • • •• • • • • • •• • • • P.N. 2129~98 Page 4 appear to meet at exactly 90 degrees). In general, from a geologic standpoint, it is my opinion the interior of the house is in good condition . I reviewed portions of the underfloor area. Water and moisture was observed to be seeping into the underfloor in a local area under the house. The seller indicated that the moisture was coming from an atrium where plants were watered • was likely coming from the atrium. It is my opinion the water I noticed a slight musty or mildew odor under the house. This was likely due to the moisture accumulating under the house. Mineral salts were observed on the foundations under the house at some locations not in the area of the atrium. It has been my experience that mineral salts usually result from water or moisture seeping through the foundations. The mineral salts are crystals of minerals that grow out of solution as the water evaporates. I have observed similar mineral salts on many other hillside homes, and many flatland homes I have reviewed . I did not observe any cracks in the swimming pool or ceramic tile decking around the pool. The retaining wall along the left side of the driveway appeared to be in good condition in that I did not observe any major cracks in the wall and it did not appear to be severely leaning. r:-·:latively large landslide is located westerly of the site • \ Portions of this landslide have been recently active. I do not know if the landslide underlies a portion of the property (#7 Chaparral). This would depend on where the property boundaries are. Based on review of maps and previous work I have perf armed in the site area, it is my opinion that the house at #7 Chaparral is not underlain by an ancient or active landslide. However, portions of the property westerly of the house may be underlain by the landslide, depending pn where the property boundaries are located . ATTACHMENT 1-224 • • • .. lit lit ... • :a..,_ ""' . ,. ,. • • ,. • • • • • ii'. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • P.N. 2129-98 Page 5 I observed ground fissures in an unpaved road (continuation of Chaparral Lane) to the west of the house. These fissures appear to be a result of relatively recent movement on the landslide that is located westerly of the house. The movement likely occurred as a result of the recent heavy rains and the heavy rains of 1995. No features were observed on the slope which descends from the rear of the house that in my opinion indicate it is experiencing, or has recently experienced, slope stability problems • DISCUSSION It is my opinion that the house is not experiencing major geologic stability problems (i.e., the house is not being influenced by landslide movement). It is further my opinion that the features observed in the house (relatively minor cracks and patched cracks, etc.) are likely a result of slight settlement and/or structural adjustments in the house. It has been my experience that with time, houses can experience structural adjustments due to slight sagging of the wood that was used to construct the house, "normal" curing of the wood due to drying, etc. This can cause cracking in walls, etc • As previously indicated, based on the data in hand, it appears that the foundations for the house are founded in bedrock via caissons . Based on the apparent relatively good condition of the house, it is my opinion that most or all of the foundations are likely founded in bedrock . Based on the apparent past relatively good performance of the house, it is my opinion that any future influences from local soil conditions and/or structural adjustments will remain at a nuisance ATTACHMENT 1-225 ~ -• i • i i i .,_ i -• il i • i·· i .. i • i i i • • • ···< • • • • • • • • • • • • • . , ,, I P.N. 2129-98 Page 6 level. It is my opinion that the features observed at the time of my site v,isit were at a nuisance level. No major functional impairment of the house was observed due to the features observed. The features observed (i.e., minor cracking, etc.) are typical of features I have observed in most other hillside properties I have reviewed in southern California. It has been my experience that over the years, most hillside homes, including appurtenances (i.e., walkways, driveways, retaining walls, etc.) do experience some degree· of movement and cracking due to local soil movement. Typical features that occur in hillside homes due to settlement or other local soil influences and/or structural adjustments, and could occur at the site, include cracking in walls, slabs and ceilings, distortion of door jambs (causing doors to stick), etc. such features are common in many homes I have reviewed. As previously indicated, the swimming pool appeared to be in good condition. I cannot predict the future performance of the swimming pool with regard to the potential for future cracking, etc . It appears that the most significant geologic issue with regard to the site is the presence of the large landslide to the west of the site. It is likely that it will continue to move, most likely during and after rainstorms. Based on the geologic data I have reviewed, it is my opinion the risk of the landslide expanding to include the house is very low. Based on the reports by Lockwood, the house is underlain by in-place bedrock as opposed to landslide debris . As previously indicated, I previously reviewed #6 Chaparral Lane (located across the street from the site). A review report by a company named American Geotechnical suggested that #6 Chaparral might be underlain by an ancient landslide. A copy of their report ATTACHMENT 1-226 .. ,' ..... . --··--~-.. --. ___ .. ,_ ............. ~ ..................... ~ ....... -~, ... ~------~----~----------~ r ,-.,,.;_ . .. . ! ,. TO I .. ! ~~r. !: •.• G. FROM \.; C. -ci~ . Sudduth Chi~f ~ngine~ring Geolotist r . ..i... J_ ,. --:-ii 1 i .-, . • J 1 ;cvt...Il. l·_r. ~i.<·._,_p1: Jf;ilC.11 J. It. Trotter ·~:-:-00:-_..1~~--------~~--~~----~~~~-:..------....l.------------,,,,.-~--~~--------":"'!""----~~ ~ . '* ~' :-leviev1 of 9oils and Stability Problems Iii ~-..,,,..Tl_'.;~o_-_i._c~r--e_I.,,...-· o_..r_t_i_o_n~,-"J_· e_,,,s_t_e_r_n_L_o_t_2_1__,_, _T_r_a_c_t_2_2 .... 9_1+ ..... 6 __ 9 February 1973 .. • • .... •• • • • ii • • • •• • • • ii ~ • ii Palos Verdes Peninsula IE response to a request from Mr. Ralph 3mith on 19 January 1973, we have reviewed the referenced plot plan dated l't-April 1906 and pertinent reports of record with respect to the soils and stability conditions ·which influence the possible· development of the subject property. In summary, prior to Soils Engineering Section approval of grading or building construction and sul:>ject to Engineering Geology Section confirr.1ation of quoted geologic aspects, a qualj soils engineering consultant must submit.information and analysf D.3 r!ecessary on the followin..:; problems: 1. The proposed residence location is below reported active ancislides on CU! existing fill pad believed to be substandard ·with espect to compaction and placement. The proposed guest house is located entire¥y on a mapped landslide_ reported to be active • 2. Considering the overall canyon slope section through the property, the stability of the foliated schist materials which under- lie the landslic:ies has not been calculated and is SD:spect • 3. Same as Item 3, Lot 29. .Same as Item 4, Lot 29 • HZFEHENC:ZS Same es for Lot 29. • ,. c_31 J~ • Ii • ti ti • • • .. • • .. • • James J .. Trotter Superv. Civil Engineer I Soils 2ngineering Section ATTACHMENT 1-227 f) · GEOL@f:\JC REVIEW SHEET .·.Pl F X NF_ ~(:.·::·. J) ,, .. f) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER -FACILITIES J) ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION SHEET I OF f) . ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION f) · . 738-2161 !°orf-,'ew1 i..of':Z./ :W-la;,?±::Pft;,ti;f~/;:;_e-Tr~d 2fl4 "IG )ner /11c La w-e /I B../a u . . •J ? . DISTRIBUTION: 0 Plan Check lt1 Dist. Engjneer 0 Developer·Owner D Site Engineer IZJ Geologist. !ZJ Soils Engineer lZl Geol. Sect. File [l] Grading Section f) PLAN CHECK NO. OR DATE OF REPORT(S) f) I)] Grading Plan No. 0 3v 0 {LlrY Ve w'l...,.) ~ Building Plan No·------------------------ jl Geologic Report Dated Avj rtsf //} 11£ / ~ Soils Report Dated // .. Other ____________________________ _ • aJ Plan is approved ~ Plan is not approved for reasons below ~ Plan approved subject to conditions below • ~ Submit plans for recheck • 1)(1 Sec. 309 Code requirements ~V\+he.-bo..s,\5' o~ Qpre.vi'ov.s r~f"V"r ~<notmet) rfo'f' lc:,-t"s f,lj.J 0...'1 ctvi..d ao a.. I a rJe Ql-11.i.Hltl.T ~ Sec. 308(b) 3c& e code requirements • f U vt.Sv 1'-/-a.fa} e.... -ft l l l .S abl>v~ fn<:: S"tfe.,Met-(not met) I .. -,... --h~c...c~+C(_c..T be.+w~e~ +he.. Tof '1'ad 1 fi II a.V\:d balV'ocl\ Jayl•'jht-:s : vt -the. slore., The.. O>V\.tec..c.f h~+wc:-e.Y\ -fn e.. ft/ta.W\.l'-<'a.. ~vtJ , .the.. s~hisf do.'/ f ,'J htQ -vtow 6Y' w1'1l be.. cl.~y 1tjh.fec/ h,1 •consfr0c..t1"0V1ct s+a.bi'L'+y Ct1.-1.a.1fsa'.:r of +he.. slof'e.. ~wof :The.. o.ve-e!_ above-+he.. ~ ev,,la r m=t.f" W ! JI lo.e. v-;vlv-al • ('.)'1 : t h e.. lei "'-.s-1 .s o f -t-h e.. re.f' o .-t-d.,., t .,,_J ~ f' +"'""' be r .;;! 4; I "173 "'1"'1" • Corv-e.cfi've., \JV'Or t'( WDuic.l have-fo be.. a.c.c.oW\f )1~s'hed to • clc.vt.-lor e. a.vt.o{ sr~bct /I;,:.~ +he a )-eC{, D ..p 4 I o-i-s to fhe.. wost .. 61-F'+he...sife... v+a.+<:.-Vl"le.~t-=r wnl k>e-v-e1t.1;v~c.l +o 5~f.1s-F'/ • 5ec:h'ovi 3o r a.rd JtJd'(b) c .p +~e.. <;-od_f;,, ll..t; fj~· '"!5 ~ • b?e-(l Df)'fY'OV"~ ku./-fh? .G~lc:J'/ ecfioV\. Y'±h,.e. S"I e...~ . : R..,(ewed byJe ~ ~ Date /I v:ysf-:q J 'IJ / • ATTACHMENT 1-228 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GROUND-WATER GEOLOGY STONE GEOLOGICAL SERVICE. INC. · CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS 5525 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD Los ANGELES 36, CALIFORNIA Mr. Joel H. Prescott, Jr. P. 0. Box 186, Lomita, California Dear Mr. Prescott: WEBSTER 1-4629 October 28, 1960 60-164 Subject: Tract 22946: Lots 1,2,3, of Block A, of Lo~ i Lots 1,2, of Block B, of Lot 21; _...:j..Lots 1 92, 3, of Block C, of Lot 2. ~ · Lots 1 and 20; Cayuse Lane, Palos Verdes Hills (10 Lots). In compliance with your request, we made visual geologic exam- inations of the subject property and certain nearby areas. The latest of these examinations was on October 21, 1960. Thia report presents our opinions resulting from these.examinations which included inspection of bulldozer and back-hoe excavations, as well as existing cuts and exposures on and near the property. Aerial photographs of the area taken at various times over the past 30 or so years were also examined. TOPOGRAPHY The general location of the subject property is shown on the attached Location Map. Details of the topography are shown on the Geologic Map included in this report. The base for this map was modified frgm a map by Paul Calvo,Licensed Surveyor which you supplied .to.us; we make no representations regarding the accuracy of this.base map. ~he subject property includes two portions of Tract 22946. A number of houses have been built on other lots in this tract~ Grass and weeds cover most of the subject property. The North Portion consists of lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block A of tot 12, shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. The lots are located near the northeast end of a ridge and include' part of the small canyon to the .south. Access to the lots is by a road descending from the cul-de-sac on Cayuse Lane. A cut about six to eighteen feet high, northeast-sloping at about • to 85° is present at the end of the ridge, just off the Geologic Map. The South Portion consists of lots 1 and 2 of Block B of Lot 21; lots 1, 2 and 3.of Block C of Lot 21; and lots·19 and 20; all shown on the Geologic Map accompanying this report. These lots .are located on the slope descending northward from Bronco Drive. (continued on ·page #2) ATTACHMENT 1-229 •· ~ • ~ • t t t • t ~ • t. ~ ~ • ~ " • • • • • • • •• I I • I· I I I I I I I: • • I 1· I· I l ~ . i ' ..... · Ii •• (:·•:··sTo NE G e:o LOG I CA!-SERVI c,rc·J N c. :· ~-\ .... ~ Joel H. Prescott, Jr • October 28, 1960 60-164. Conclusions and Recommendations, continued The house foundations, and placement of fill, must be engineered in a manner appropriate to geologic and topo- graphic setting~ncluding ~he presence of thick, loose soil subject to creep, and the presence of loose fi~~· 2. The material underlying Lot 21.; and lots 1 and 2 of Bl f ·t 1. · ot stable enoug or ome c~nstruc~;on. The loose fills above these lots rest on unStable ma erial. ·They present a hazard to these lots. · Very truly yours, Stone Geological Service, Inc. RS:sts. ..••. ;:<'.··.--- a a a a ATTACHMENT 1-230 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ·;· l .. ·.• . ·.!'• .. • ·~ . /, .·.:;:' i .. . . ' -: < . -~C]i~~-: :; ·. :=!;-~ /~~~~:; .: "" ·i ,.:·. i :.: t·; I'' j, r \ tJ,},rri/.rnap by Paul cai~o, .~tden Grove, California. . . ATTACHMENT 1-231 I ' • ' • • • • • • • • •• • ' -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ . " . ' . t ! .. ~ ~ • 0 \~ -- ··' EXPLANATION ALT.AMIRA SHALE: Mainly punky, diatomaceous shale; silty shale; and massive siltstone and diatomite~ White and light gray. ALTAMIRA SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE: Reddish- broWn to buff sandstone and conglomerate. Slumps readily • FRANCISCAN SCHIST: Quartzo.se schist and .talc schist • Strike and dip of bedding. Short bar indicates direction of inclination; angle of inclination is measured from the horizontal. ' Strike and dip, approximate • Strike and dip of foliation of schist • Slump, in fill, soil or bedrock. Exploratory excavation • Fill 60-164 ATTACHMENT 1-232 So Kim From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Hi So, Chris Murray [chris@murrays.us] Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:47 AM sok@rpv.com 10 Chaparral Lane Proposed Rezoning Follow up Red I enjoyed talking with you. My job includes some travel so I'm not sure I'll be able to attend the meeting. I have a few concerns that I would like to bring up though: 1. There must be some basis in why the land was zoned "Hazardous Open Space" in the first place. It seems there should have to be some ompelling evidence that either the property or the deffinition of "Hazardous Open Space" has changed. 2. I ran into geologist Dick Brown and some other geologists recently as they were planning a field trip for a geology convention. He was adamant that the land was not buildabfe. He had done a study in the past for my neightbor in which he had officiallly expressed the same opinion. 3. The land is zoned to have a house on the more stable foundation of the hillside. I would like to know why that is not adequate. Thanks Chris Murray Property Owner at 5 Chaparral Lane 1 ATTACHMENT 1-233 _____________ .,, ... , ...• ,__ ____________ _,,./"'···----------------- !2;. sokim@RPV.com RECEIVED Add Cc I Add Bee SEP 02 28ff Subject: #1 O Chaparral Lane request for Zoning Change. Attach a file Insert: Invitation COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . « Plain Text ----·----·--- I am a property owner on Chaparral Lane for 15 years and have concerns for the land use for residential construction. 1. The area where the plan shows the future house is on land fill. The stability of this land and soil is questionable. Diagrams o necessary on the West side. Terraced borders on the East side would not seem to be enough support when heavy rains come Chaparral Lane. A few years ago during the rainy season, a home on Bronco/Martindale had large slabs of saturated earth give repairs with retaining walls. 2.George F. Canyon Trail access for hikers, nature groups and horses would pe blocked by the proposed house and grounds. Chaparral Lane. Sincerely, Susan Swank #7 Chaparral Lane o&\10-377-5721 Send Saved 15%full Using 1196 MB of your 7621 MB Discard Draft autosaved at 7:37 PM (1 minute ago) ©>2011 Google -Terms & Privacy Disable buzz 9/1/2011 7:38 ATTACHMENT 1-234 So Kim From: Sent: To: Madeline Ryan [pvpasofino@yahoo.com} Friday, September 02, 2011 10:51 AM So Kirn Cc: pc@rpv.com Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Gentlemen: Page 1of3 I am not within 500' of this project, but still have many concerns with regard to the re-zoning of any Open Space Hazard (OSH) areas to Residential for the sole purpose of meeting the City's building codes to construct homes outside of given footprint. Several years ago, this developer violated his GTP permit for 3 test pits by denuding, disturbing and cutting across several areas of hillside. With the winter rains there had been much erosion and slippage. The area remains unmiti:gated today. I believe in property rights for all landowners and would not deny a landowner his right to build, but this particular parcel could become a slippery slope if OSH areas are allowed to be developed with the City setting a dangerous precedent. In addition, there is an access, historically used for decades by hikers, dog-walkers, and equestrians and is a neighborhood link to the Rolling Hills Estates Nature Trail. It would be a tremendous loss to the eastside residents if this access were terminated. Please keep this in mind as this project progresses through the various planning stages. Thank you, Madeline Ryan Palos Verdes Drive East 91612011 ATTACHMENT 1-235 So Kim From: Sent: ray van dinther [raymadelin@gmail.com] Friday, September 02, 2011 11 :43 AM To: sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; City Council Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Page 1of1 Dear Planning Council and City Council of RPV, The RPV Planner So Kim will bring this to your attention in the correspondence package. Regarding the lot at the end of Chaparral Lane, #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, which is currently in planning stages to be developed. This owner is requiring the Planning Commission to provide zoning change from Open Space Hazard to Residential 2 to meet the criteria for building a 6100 sf home. This property has been used for decades to access the Nature Trail in RHE. It is the only remaining access point from RPV through to the Nature Trail for hikers, dog walkers, equestrians, etc.and it is crucial to RPV that an access trail on this property be provided in the planning for this development. Without this access RPV will have lost virtually all access to trails. Please consider this a priority when making your decisions regarding development. Only a small portion of the property is required to assure a way of life that generations to come can also be blessed to access. We as current residents have enjoyed this access to the Trails of the canyons and RHE. It is now our responsibility to provide the same for future generations. Thank you for your time and I remain optimistic when you set condition priorities for this property that this request will be acted upon. Sincerely Ray Van Dinther Palos Verdes Drive East 28180 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275 September 2, 2011 9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT 1-236 So Kim From: Sent: To: David Lukac [david.lukac@freshandeasy.com] Friday, September 02, 2011 12:04 PM sok@rpv.com; pc@rpv.com; City Council Cc: ray van dinther Subject: RE: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Dear Planning Council, Page 1 of2 Please add my voice to those asking for the trail access to be preserved. It would be sad to see our part of RPV, one of the active equestrian communities, losing its access to trails that allow us to practice horsemanship in this area. Thanks for your considerations to the needs of many two and four legged residents. David David Lukac Director, Retail and commercial IT fresh & easy Neighborhood Market 2120 Park Place, suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 Cell: +l 310 748 9243 Desk: +l 310 341 1267 From: ray van dinther [mc:iJlto:r9ymc:idelin@gmc:iiJ,(::omJ Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:43 AM To: S.Q_k@rpv.com; p~@rpy_._(::Qm; City Council Subject: #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Planning Council and City Council of RPV, The RPV Planner So Kim will bring this to your attention in the correspondence package. Regarding the lot at the end of Chaparral Lane, #10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, which is currently in planning stages to be developed. This owner is requiring the Planning Commission to provide zoning change from Open Space Hazard to Residential 2 to meet the criteria for building a 6100 sf home. This property has been used for decades to access the Nature Trail in RHE. It is the only remaining access point from RPV through to the Nature Trail for hikers, dog walkers, equestrians, etc.and it is crucial to RPV that an access trail on this property be provided in the planning for this development. Without this access RPV will have lost virtually all access to trails. Please consider this a priority when making your decisions regarding development. Only a small portion of the property is required to assure a way of life that generations to come can also be blessed to access. We as current residents have enjoyed this access to the Trails of the canyons and RHE. It is now our responsibility to 9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT 1-237 Page 2 of2 provide the same for future generations. Thank you for your time and I remain optimistic when you set condition priorities for this property that this request will be acted upon. Sincerely Ray Van Dinther Palos Verdes Drive East 28180 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA90275 September 2, 2011 ----------------\\Tarning---------------- This e-mail is from outside Fresh and Easy -check that it is genuine. Fresh and Easy may monitor and record all e- mails ------------Disclaimer -------------- This is a confidential email. Fresh and Easy may monitor and record all emails. The views expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Fresh and Easy. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. 2120 Park Place, El Segundo, CA 90245 9/6/2011 ATTACHMENT 1-238 ( :Sunshine '6 Limetree Lane Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5909 310-377-8761 sunshinerpv@aol .com Planning Commission clo So Kim, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 September 5, 2011 RE: ZON2010-00025 10 Chaparral Lane Public Hearing. Gentlemen, It is unfortunate that the RPV Rec. & Parks staff chose the title ef Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) for a portion of the update to the RPV Trans Network Plan in 1990. Have you read the introduction to the CTP, lately? Apparently the Community Development Staff has not. According to So Kim, a conceptual trail is a "dream" which fhe City is not in a position to pursue in retatron to development proposals. The RPV General Ptan and the RPV Trails Network Plan beg to differ. CTP SECTION FIVE trail F1, The Bap Trail is an existing trait It was an existing trail when RPV incor,porated as a Ctty~ The concept of a painMo-.point trail is described in the CTP specificaUy to direct Staff to work with applicants so that an existing trail connection on private property can be preserved by letting the applicant design and build a new route (to specificati.ons) which is more compatible with the property owner's development objectives. Eliminating the traU/emergency circulation continuity is not an option. If the applicant does not want to cooperate. Staff should be prepared to fil.e a prescriptive easement suit. That woutd legalize pubticraccess ·onlhe historic trail route which in this case woufd impact the applicant's request to redefine the Open Space Hazard Zone. There are sev~af easements on adjacent properties. FYI, the CA Coastal Commission Enforcement Dept is pursu{ng a prescriptive easement where the City of RPV has not initiated negotiations. Too bad The Gap Trait has no "higher authority" than the RPV General Plan to watch over it. Please do not make an amendment to the RPV General Plan's Land Use Map if it wiU jeopardize the continuity of Spoke #2 of The Peninsula Wheel Traits Network. Mostsmcere-EJ~ ATTACHMENT 1-239 August 29, 2011 Planning Commission Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Attn: So Kim, Assistant Planner Re: 10 Chaparral Lane Dear Planning Commissioners: RECEIVED A~3 l 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMt..i-iT DEPARTMENT On Map Sheet #27 distributed by the California Division of Mines and Geology (by George B. Cleveland, 1976), a landslide is shown in the location of the proposed development at #10 Chaparral Lane. If the City permits development in this area and a future problem arises, does the City incur additional liability due to the State map? Another slide shown on the map in the same vicinity (Poppy Trail area of Rolling Hills) has already experienced geologic failure. Also, the bottom of lot # 10 extends further into the canyon than other lots and is in closer proximity to Willow Springs Creek. What would be the riparian impact and how would any impact be mitigated? Sincerely, Jean Longacre 6 Martingale Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 (310-544-0105 ,:' i' ATTACHMENT 1-240 Mr. Joel Rojas John A. Feyk 2727 San Ramon Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 7 June 2011 Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Mr. Rojas, RECEIVED JUN 0 8 20':! PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Some years ago I wrote, I believe to you, about development of the lot at the end of Chaparral Lane. That turned out to be another abortive attempt to develop this potentially unstable land. However, this time the flags are flying so development promises to occur. In the previous letter, I wrote that no existing residential development blocked continuous travel along the George F Canyon trail in Rolling Hills Estates, through a short section of Rancho Palos Verdes, and then into Georgeff Canyon (same canyon by a different name) in Rolling Hills. When I previously wrote, I received the response that any residential development would include an easement to maintain trail continuity. I hereby request that this be the case with the present development. The existing trail runs immediately past the proposed house comer nearest to Chaparral Lane. The trail in both uphill and downhill directions is currently accessed via Chaparral Lane. If the residential development were allowed to cut off access to the trail, there would be no other Rancho Palos Verdes access. It, for example, would no longer be possible to run from Bronco, through Cayuse, and then Chaparral to the lower end of the trail at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive East and Palos Verdes Drive North. I certainly hope that access to this trail, which has been in use for decades, can be maintained. E-mail: john.feyk@cox.net Tel: 310-833-2173 (home) 310-416-1625 (work) Sincerely, ATTACHMENT 1-241 SIX CHAPARRAL LANE. RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CALIFORNIA 90275 U.S.A. PHONE: (310) 544-0001 FAX: (310) 544-7900 EMAIL: THEJOEOLIVERl@GMAIL.COM City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 05/30/2011 ATT: SO KIM Dear Ms. Kim, To memorialize our meeting of May 23rd. In regard to concerns of the construction at #10 Chaparral Ln R.P. V. I would first of all like to thank you for your time. As discussed the property at #10 Chaparral shows that geologically this property is unstable on a ancient landslide base. I have the geological studies of this property and want to go on the record of this seriously dangerous problem. Evidenced by a history of slippage of homes from landslides above the subject property on Bronco lane and Martingale St .. I was at one time interested in the property next to me at# 6 Chaparral Ln. (above # 10) and was warned by geologists that I should not even consider buying it, as the liability is so great that even irrigating the land would be a tremendous liability risk. I would further like to point out that the 05/ 13/ 2011 fire on the hillside adjacent to# 10 Chaparral lane Required 12 helicopter extinguisher drops and 5 engine companies. It was a difficult task for fire fighters to put out the fire. The congestion of the fire fighting vehicles on Chaparral was a threatening concern of the fire department as well as the fact that I was told by Fire dept captain that "there is not sufficient hose lay distance should there ever be a fire at #10 Chaparral." Please see the attached photo of the non permitted drive way and pad. This grading was done on the weekend at #10 chaparral In. This is certainly more than brush removal (heavy equipment is not used for brush removal) Please consider the concerns the community has and inform me of any developments regarding the subject property . Thank you for your consideration . Joe Oliveri ATTACHMENT 1-242 .·. f ATTACHMENT 1-243 Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT 1-244 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (ZON2010-00025) 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: So Kim, Assistant Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: 10 Chaparral Lane City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Frank Colaruotolo 725 Battery Street San Pedro, CA 90731 6. General plan designation: Natural Environment/Hazard & Residential (1-2 du/acre) 7. Coastal plan designation: This project is not located in the City's Coastal Zone 8. Zoning: Open Space Hazard (OH) & Single Family Residential District (RS-2) 9. Description of project: The proposed project includes the relocation of the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation boundary line on the subject property. The applicant desires to relocate the boundary line in a northerly direction so that the only flat area suitable for potential development on the property is entirely outside of the General Plan's Natural Environment/Hazard land use and the open space hazard zoning district. Additionally, the project includes the construction of a new 8, 186ft2 two-story residence on the existing flat area. Page 1 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-245 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 10. Description of project site {as it currently exists): The project site is a 85,178ft2 (1.96 acre), rectangular shaped vacant parcel located at the end of Chaparral Lane in the eastern part of the City. The subject property contains two separate General Plan Land Use designations (Hazard & Residential 1-2 du/acre) and two separate Zoning designations (Open Space Hazard -OH & Single Family Residential -RS-2). The current boundary line that separates said land uses and zoning designations runs diagonally across the width of the property in the general area where Chaparral Lane meets the subject property. As a result, approximately two-thirds of the property (roughly downslope from Chaparral Lane) is designated as Natural Environment/Hazard land use and zoned OH, while the upper third is designated Residential (2 du/acre) land use and zoned RS-2. The area with an existing Residential land use consists entirely of an extreme slope (greater than 35% gradient) ascending up from Chaparral Lane. The area with a Natural Environmental/Hazard land use is composed of moderate to extreme slopes and includes approximately 14,000ft2 of generally level area located off of Chaparral Lane. It should be noted that the relatively level area has been existing from at least 1976, according to the City's topographic map. The area below the flat area consists of descending extreme slopes. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: On-site North South East West Vacant Canyon Single-family residential Single-family residential Vacant & Single-family residential The subject property measures 85, 178ft2 (1.96- acre) and is located at the end of Chaparral Lane. The site currently consists mostly of moderate to extreme slopes with one relatively flat area. This property is a vacant canyon area, consisting of extreme slopes, located in the abuttin Ci of Rollin Hills Estates. These properties are improved with single-family dwellings that are located approximately 100' higher in elevation than the flat area on the sub'ect ro ert . These properties along Chaparral Lane are improved with single-family dwellings that are either 20' higher or lower in elevation than the flat area on the subject property. The abutting property to the northern side of the subject property is a vacant parcel zoned Open Space Hazard, consisting primarily of extreme slopes. The properties near the southern side of the subject property are improved with single- family dwellings, approximately 150' or higher in elevation. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 2 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-246 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON201 Om00025 August 1, 2011 Figure 1: Aerial photo of existing project site at the end of Chaparral Lane. Page 3 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-247 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 Figure 2: Existing Site Plan Existing Boundary Line Page 4 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-248 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Proposed Boundary Line -l ~ '< ~;:, ~ ~? Page 5 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-249 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geology and Soils D Hydrology and Water Quality D Air Quality D Transportation and Circulation DETERMINATION: D Biological Resources D Energy/Mineral Resources D Hazards and Hazardous Material D Noise D Public Services D Utilities and Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: D Aesthetics D Cultural Resources D Recreation D Agricultural Resources D Mandatory Findings of Significance D I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [RJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project Signature: Date: Printed Name: So Kim, Assistant Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 6 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-250 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic hi hwa s? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundin s? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: 1,8 1,8 The proposed amendment in General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation will not. have an impact to existing scenic resources. However, a two-story new residence is proposed on a vacant property and the proposed second story may cause view impairment from the viewing areas of the properties located in the easterly direction. However, the City's Municipal Code requires neighborhood compatibility and view analyses for the proposed project to mitigate significant adverse aesthetic and view effects. Any structure proposed on the site would have to obtain permit approval complying with the Municipal Code. Therefore, there would be less than si nificant im act caused b the ro osal. 111111·· &1111 ... Jlli: .re .•R.Ctlll~.".: .l~hVldt~:*.:: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource A enc , to non-a ricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 2 contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov't Code section 5104 ? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location 2 Page 7 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-251 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-a ricultural use? Comments: The subject site has an existing land use of single-family residential and open space hazard and is not intended for agriculture or forestry use. Additionally, the subject site does not include any farmland, forest land, or timberland and therefore not in conflict with the Williamson Act. Furthermore, the proposed project implementation would not involve changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland, forest land, or timberland. Therefore, there would be no impact caused b the proposed roject. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air ualit violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ollutant concentrations? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- 8 attainment under an applicable federal " or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone recursors ? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a " substantial number of eo le? e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air " uali Ian? Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. The adopted AQMP was prepared using planning projections based on locally adopted general plan and growth policies. The air quality of the subject site is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the ocean and its wind patterns. The proposed project is a construction of a new residence on a single site. Some construction equipment is expected during the temporary construction process that would not significantly affect the air quality or produce objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would have no im act. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife 8 8 Page 8 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-252 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ... ), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurse sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation olic or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? 8 8 8 8, 12 Comments: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are three types of vegetation communities identified in the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve and the General Plan. A biology report submitted by the applicant shows that there is coastal sage scrub on the property and there may be potential impacts on nesting birds. To ensure that there will be less than significant impacts on nesting birds, the following mitigation measures have been added: B-1. Clearing and grubbing of the site should occur outside the avian nesting season (approximately February 1 -August 31 ). If clearing and grubbing of the project site occurs between February 1 and August 31, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. B-2. If nesting birds occur in the impact area, a buffer around the nest will be flagged as determined by a qualified biologist and up to 500' from the nest. All activities will occur outside the buffer area until a qualified biologist has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest and that no new nesting activity has occurred in the flagged area by another pair of birds. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to clearing and/or grading, to be verified by the Community Development Department. Cause a substantial adverse change in the si nificance of a historical resource Page 9 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-253 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 as defined in § 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eolo ical feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 7 7 7 Comments: The project site is not located in the proximity of a known pre-historic or historic archaeological site, and no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources are known to be on the project site. Additionally, the subject site is not located in areas the General Plan identifies as a historical resource or an archaeological site. Therefore, there will be no im acts to cultural resources a result of the ro osed ro·ect. Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involvin : i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includin Ii uefaction? iv Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, thus creating substantial risks to life or ro ert ? e) Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6 6 6 2,6,8 8 Page 10 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-254 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 Comments: a) The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. Additionally, th.e Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) does not identify the subject site within any earthquake induced landslide and/or liquefaction zones. Furthermore, the proposed project will require building permits and thus will meet safety standards for earthquake, landslide and liquefaction. As such, there will be no impact caused by the proposed project. b-c) According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Map (Redondo Beach Quadrangle) released in March 25, 1999, the subject site is not located within a liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslide areas. However, upon City Geologist review, the proposed project may cause erosion and/or landslide if proper mitigation measures are not implemented. To ensure les than significant impacts, the following mitigation measures have been added: G-1. A caisson wall shall be used to mitigate a landslide. This wall shall be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. G-2. An as built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction for the subject site improvements. The report shall include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report shall include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to Building & Safety permit issuance. d) Based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report by the City Geologist, the proposed project is not located on expansive soil. Nevertheless, additional City Geologist's review and approval of applicable site specific soils/geology reports will be required. Additionally, all construction is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements to prevent potential adverse impacts. As such, there would be no impacts caused by the proposal. e) The existing subject site and the proposed project will not use a septic tank or an alternative disposal system. There are sewers available that are connected to improved neighboring properties. Therefore, there would be no im act caused b the ro osal. \:t,,i'fllfiitilfiIIVlll;'.IR:tEllillllll•!!iltlill!l[IKfi~Jfi,if~ fAl~';!Ji:i;;j>; 'fi*!li~'li;t~JJ~!~Ni!£!~,:iili:i~~1;t11&,,; .. ~!'ill'~;fil(l!,~lti~ a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may .../ have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose .../ of reducing the emissions of reenhouse ases? Comments: a) The approval of the proposed project includes the development of a new residence on a vacant property. Current! , there are no enerall -acce ted si nificance thresholds for assessin reenhouse as GHG emissions. Page 11 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-255 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 However, an Air Quality Study (LSA Associates, 2010) shows that the City generated 0.277Tg (teragrams) of carbon dioxide in 2007, while the State produces approximately 497tg annually. The study also indicates that if all the remaining vacant parcels in the City were to be developed (includes the subject property), an additional 0.0086Tg of carbon dioxide will be generated. The study concludes that the additional carbon dioxide generated in a built-out scenario would be not significant since the total emissions generated by the City will remain below the State and federal standards. Additionally, the proposed project would be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b) California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of the proposed project. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code; the construction would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the proposed project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy ore regulation related to greenhouse gases. Therefore, the ro osed ro·ect would not cause an im act. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or ro osed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the ublic or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the ro·ect area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a rivate airstri , would the ro·ect result " " Page 12 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-256 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 in a safety hazard for people residing or workin in the ro'ect area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a-d) The change in land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential, including subsequent construction will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties within the vicinity of the site. The project does not involve the use or storage of hazardous substances. Further, there is no evidence that the project site has been used for underground storage of hazardous materials and no evidence that the project site contains contaminated soils. As such, there will be no risk of exposure to hazardous conditions or materials as a result of the proposed zone change and therefore there would be no impacts. e, f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project. g) The proposal involves the construction of a residential dwelling on a vacant property that is intended as a residential use. Chaparral Lane is already developed with residential units and therefore the development of one additional property along the same street is not substantial enough to interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. h) The subject property is a large parcel, containing significant amount of vegetation. In the past, the property owner has complied with the Fire Department's brush clearance requirement on the site. Additionally, the proposed project will be subject to Fire Department review to ensure that all appropriate measures, such as on-site sprinklers are installed to prepare and protect from any future wildfires in the area. Therefore, there would be less than significant im act caused b the ro osed ro'ect. a) Violate any water quality standard or wastewater dischar e re uirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowerin of the local roundwater? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including throu h the alteration of the course of 8 8 10 10 Page 13 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-257 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in floodin on or off site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of olluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water uali ? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation ma ? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comments: 11 11 ...; a, f) According to the State Water Board, all federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in California are required to comply with statewide general waste discharge requirements. Given that the proposed project would be connected to an existing sewer system, the proposed project would cause no impacts. b) The water needs of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are served by the California Water Service Company (CWSC), which operates within the regulations and standards of the Public Utilities Commission. The sole function of CWSC is to supply the City with sufficient fire safety requirements and adequate amounts of potable drinking water at a pressure consistent with accepted standards. One additional dwelling on a residential property zoned for development will not require significantly more water than the current demand of the City. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impacts. c -e) Based on the City's NPDES consultant, there would be increased runoff resulting from the new construction and the submitted Biology report states that indirect impact on jurisdictional waters may occur as a result of hillside erosion during construction of the proposed project. To ensure less than significant impact, implementation of the project-specific water quality management plan and standard requirements for a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required to avoid and minimize the discharge of construction related pollutants during the Building & Safety review. Additionally, the following best management practices (BMPs) have been added as mitigation measures for erosion, sediment, wind erosion, tracking control, as well as non-stormwater management, waste management and materials pollution control: Page 14 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-258 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 H-1. A stormwater pollution prevention management plan shall be required for review and approval, prior to Building & Safety Division permit issuance. H-2. No construction or storage of construction materials would be allowed outside the designated construction limits. Prior to construction, the limits shall be flagged and/or fenced with highly visible flagging. The staging area shall be located outside of streambed. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-3. In temporary construction areas susceptible to erosion, such as bare hillsides, silt fence and fiber rolls shall be used to stabilize these areas and minimize erosion until vegetation can be reestablished. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. H-4. All hazardous materials shall be property stored. If discharge occurs, the spill shall be cleaned by trained personnel using appropriate methods. The property owner shall be responsible to implement this mitigation measure prior to and during construction, to be verified by the Community Development Department. g,h) The properties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this project will not affect the exemption. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. i, j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no lakes, there is no potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, the subject site is not located within tsunami inundation areas, according to the State of California's tsunami inundation map (March 1, 2009). Also, mudflows are potentially serious hazard to life and property in the hillside areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The proposed project is on a generally flat area and a retainin wall is ro osed a ainst the u slo e. Therefore, the ro osed ro·ect would have no im act. ' 11 ' <, ' f "'liU~lS. "1 ' :Jti~[ " _ , dll. a) Physically divide and established communi ? b} Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communit conservation Ian? Comments: 1,2,3,8 1, 4 a) The proposed project involves development of a residential dwelling on a vacant property, with Residential and Hazard land use descriptions. The subject property is located within a near fully developed residential neighborhood. As such, the project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would cause no impact. b) The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan amendment and zone change to move the Natural Environment/Hazard boundary line such that the relatively flat area of the lot can be developed with a residential structure and this area would be entirely outside of the Open Space Hazard area and would be designated Residential. The proposed boundary line will be located at the top of the existing extreme slope near the edge of the relatively flat area. The relocation of the boundary line would allow the property owners to develop the flat portion of their property without significantly altering the sloping portion of their lot. The project will result in the zoning and land use desi nation that would remain consistent with the existin ro erties on Cha arral and will not conflict with Page 15 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-259 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 any adopted policy of the City's General Plan or the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the local coastal plan and specific plans do not apply to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact. c) There are sensitive species identified in the Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Natural Community Conservation Plan that were found on the subject site. However, based on a biology report, none of the species identified in NCCP would be disturbed as a result of the ro·ect. As such, the ro osed ro·ect would cause no im act. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use Ian? 8 " Comments: There are no known mineral resources found on the subject site, identified in the local General Plan, S ecific Plan, or other land use Ian. Therefore, there is no im act caused b the ro osed ro·ect. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or roundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro"ect? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro·ect? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use '1 airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the ro·ect area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a - d There ma be a minimal increase in tern ora noise caused durin the construction ATTACHMENT 1-260 Environmenta.I Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 Additionally, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes limits the construction hours from 7:00am to 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday with no work permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Therefore, there would be less than significant or no impact caused by the proposed project. e, f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border or is in close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no im act caused b the ro osed ro·ect. a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or ma·or infrastructure ? b) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housin ? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction " of re lacement housin elsewhere? Comments: a) The subject site is a vacant lot zoned residential, intended to be developed with a single-family dwelling. The proposed development of one residential lot will not induce substantial growth in a near fully-built residential neighborhood. Therefore, there is no displacement of people. As such, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the followin ublic services: i Fire rotection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Comments: Most of the properties along Chaparral Lane are developed lots that already require public services and therefore an addition of one residential dwelling will not necessitate a significant change to the current performance in public services. Additionally, the proposed construction will incorporate necessary fire suppression devices required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and will be constructed in accordance with applicable fire codes. Therefore, there is less than si nificant im act on ublic services. :1(§; 11.:,;ll ·I ~il[l'l!ll~if~'lj'.'; ·::•>< . a) Would the project increase the use of nei hborhood and re ional arks or Page 17 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-261 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilit would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, ../ which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: Most of the surrounding properties are already developed and therefore the increase in one dwelling and its residents is not significant enough to result in considerable physical deterioration or increase of recreational facilities. As such, there would be less than si nificant im act caused b the ro osed ro·ect. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle aths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for desi nated roads or hi hwa s? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safe risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm e ui ment? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bic cle racks ? Comments: " a, f) The proposed project involves the development of a residential site that already has access via Chaparral Lane. As such, there would be no impacts to the circulation systems in relation to mass transit to conflict with any adopted olicies, lans, or ro rams su ortin alternative trans ortation. Therefore, there would be no im act caused b Page 18 of21 ATTACHMENT 1-262 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 ;,5J$~.a•$:·.it;tlif1'"'~1l"I 1 Jt.ltfi~f,titill~tl~ij·'·· ~~t~~~§~f l~~,;~~ > 5 •••. ;' J'.\ the proposed project. b) According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (61h edition), the trip generation rate for the proposed project is nominal and not substantial enough to cause adverse impacts to the level of service standard for designated roads or highways. Therefore, the proposed project would cause less than significant impact to the service standard established by the county congestion management agency. c) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not border or is in immediate close proximity of any airports to cause any impacts to the air traffic due to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project. d-e) All aspects of the proposed project comply with the adopted Development Code and will be subject to Building & Safety Division's review for compliance with the Uniform Building Code to ensure no adverse impacts. Additionally, Fire Department review will be required to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, there would be no im act caused b the ro osed ro"ect. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Re ional Water Quali Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause si nificant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? " " Comments: The roposed project involves the construction of one dwelling unit in a near full developed residential Page 19 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-263 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 neighborhood and therefore will not generate an increase in current wastewater nor require a substantial increase in the water use. Additionally, the Building & Safety Division will require and review a drainage plan for consistency with the current standards. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed project that would change the existing water/wastewater/drainage facilities, wastewater treatment requirements, water supply, wastewater treatment demand, waste dis osal needs or com liance with an statures/re ulations related to solid waste. UIU.' ;rif ·If a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate '1 a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or rehisto ? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future ro·ects ? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direct! or indirect! ? Comments: a) The subject site contains wildlife species subject to NCCP regulations. However, the proposed project will not be located in close proximity to impact said species based on an approved biology report of the site. Therefore, there would be no significant impact caused by the proposed project. b) The subject site is zoned residential, located in a midst of a near fully developed residential neighborhood. Therefore, there are no impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable as a result of developing one lot with its intended use. c) The proposed development involves the construction of a new single-family dwelling on a residential site. Therefore, there would be no impacts caused by the proposed project, as there are no adverse direct or indirect effects on human bein s. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identi the followin items: Page 20 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-264 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2010-00025 August 1, 2011 a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Comments: None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitiqation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: None c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: None City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Re ort. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through Au ust 2001 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978 4 Cit of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Ma 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993. 6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earth uake Fault Zone 5/1/99 9 10 11 12 Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-265 Conceptual Geology Approval ATTACHMENT 1-266 TD 6207 PN 97082-l 642 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REPOH.T RESPONSE CHECKLIST Date Received: October 20, 20 I I Date Completed: October 27, 2011 Date of Wall Response: October 5, 2011 Consultant: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. Their Job No.: FC0907 Date of 6t1' Response: September 15, 2011 Prior Reviews: October 4, 2011 Date of 5th Response: February l, 201 l February 17, 20 l l Date of 4•h Response: December 29, 20 l 0 January 27, 20 l I Date of 3rd Response: July 28, 2010 August 5, 2010 Date of 2"d Response: December 18, 2009 January 25, 20 IO Date of I" Response: September 15, 2008 October 2, 2008 Original Repo1t: November 4, 2007 November 26, 2007 Applicant Name: Frank Colaruotolo LEGEND: N = N<> Site Address: 10 Chaparral y =Yes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Lot/Tract No.: Portion of Lot 21 Tract 22946 Proposed Project: l singfo family residence with associated retaining walls, driveway, and drainage structures. Landslide shall be mitigated by use of a caisson wall at the toe of the slope. Previous Proposed Project: 3 single family residences; split level with slabs on grade supported with deepened footings or caissons. Grading will include cut slopes and fill slopes with retaining walls up to 20 foet in height. Geotechnical Response YIN Grading/Foundation Plans Changed as a Result of Update Letter Planning Department: _2L !n Concept Approval for Planning Purposes Building and Safety: __ Report Approved __ Conditional Approval (See Below) X Additional Input Required Items requiring response/further evaluation: I. As previously requested, please provide revised slope stabrnity analysis based on the ··new" location and height of the retaining wal L Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 2. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide. This wall should be installed under a separate pennit prior to construction of the proposed residence. Based on proposed wal ! location. a major portion of the wal I w i I l be located on the adjacent property. City should confirm that aH appropriate encroachment pennits are obtained. 3. Note to City Staff: Staff should confinn that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E.) have signed the final dated gradingffoundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. l. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project gcotcchnical consultunt following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons. as well as a map depicting the I imits of grading. locations of all density testing. and geologic conditions exposed during gradingfexcavation. The report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks. foundation recommendations. slope stability. erosion control nnd any other relevant geGtechnic;il aspect;; of the ;;ite ATTACHMENT 1-267 TD6207 Limitations: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST PN 97082-1642 Our review is intended to detennine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechnical practices within the local area. The scope ofour services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above reterenced report and assm;iated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re-analysis ofreporte<l data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design recommendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance of liability for final design or construction recommendations made by the gcotcchnical consultant of record or the project designers BY:.~.;;.;:::..--1c...;;.;..'----1!:7"9'----------------~ Dante P. Domingo, .E. 57939 Expires 6/30/12 ZEISER KLING CONSULT ANTS, INC. 10 l'hopmmi ATTACHMENT 1-268 Category 4 PN 97082-1642 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST Date Received: February 10, 2011 Date Completed: February 17, 2011 Date of 5th Response: February 1, 2011 Consultant: Professional Engineers Consulting, Inc. Their Job No.: FC0907 Date of 4th Response: December 29, 2010 Date of 3rd Response: July 28, 2010 Prior Review: August 5, 2010 Date of 2nd Response: December 18, 2009 January 25, 2010 Date of 1st Response: September 15, 2008 October 2, 2008 Previous Report: November 4, 2007 November 26, 2007 Applicant Name: Frank Colaruotolo LEGEND: N =No Site Address: 10 Chaparral Y =Yes Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Lot/Tract No.: Portion of Lot 21 Tract 22946 Proposed Project: 1 single family residence with associated retaining walls, driveway, and drainage structures. Landslide shall be mitigated by use of a caisson wall at the toe of the slope. Previous Proposed Project: 3 single family residences, split level with slabs on grade supported with deepened footings or caissons. Grading will included cut slopes and fill slopes with retaining walls up to 20 feet in height. Geotechnical Response Responsive to Checklist Comments Grading/Foundation Plans Changed as a Result of Response Planning Department: X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes Building and Safety: __ Report Approved X Conditional Approval (See Below) Additional Input Required Items requiring response/further evaluation: 1. None Additional Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 2. A caisson wall is to be used to mitigate the landslide. This wall should be installed under a separate permit prior to construction of the proposed residence. 3. Note to City Staff: Staff should confirm that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E.) have signed the final dated grading/foundation plans, thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. 4. An as built geotechnical report should be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following grading/construction of the subject site improvements. The report should include the results of all field density testing, depth of reprocessing and recompaction, depth and locations of any caissons, as well as a map depicting the limits of grading, locations of all density testing, and geologic conditions exposed during grading/excavation. The report should include conclusions and recommendations regarding applicable setbacks, foundation recommendations, slope stability, erosion control and any other relevant geotechnical aspects of the site S:ISharedlProjectsll 997197082197082-1642 6th Review 2-I I .doc I 0 Chaparral ATTACHMENT 1-269 Category 4 Limitations: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RESPONSE CHECKLIST PN 97082-1642 Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechnical prat:tices within the local area. The scope of our services for this third party review has been limited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced report and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re-analysis of reported data and/or calculations and preparation of amended construction or design reconunendations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certification, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance ofliability for final design or construction recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers BY:_ Dante P. D ingo, .E. 57939 Expires 6/30/12 ZEISER KLING C01 SULTANTS, INC. l 0 Chaparral ATTACHMENT 1-270 Geology Report (dated February 1, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-271 r L PROFESSIONAL \.iliD.JGINEERS CONSUL TING I GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 25422 Trabuco Rd. #105 Lake Forest, CA 92630 27636 Ynez Road,# L7 Temecula, CA 92591 February 1, 2011 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Dear reviewers: TESTING INSPECTION Phone 949-768-3693 Fax 949-588-8386 Phone 951-698-4598 www.pesoil.com Per your request, we are submitting you our responses to the review letter, January 27, 2010, PN 97082-1642, regarding the project at 10 Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, California: ITEM#/: 1. Please provide a copy of the ne';\" test pits PEC-7 and PEC-8. Copies of the new test pits are included. ITEM#2: 2. TI1e consultant has recommended caissons to mitigate the existing landslide. Please illustrate locations of proposed caissons on the plot plan. The locations of the proposed caissons are shown on the enclosed plan. ITEM#3: 3. Please provide slope stability analysis to illustrate that the proposed caisson wall will mitigate the landslide. The slope stability analyses is included. We also provided additional analyses for the stability of the loose landslide material and achieved factor of safety of 1. 75. ITEM#4: 4. Tue cornmltanf s response to Comment # IO indicates that the Factor of Safety is 2.6 and that the analysis is enclosed. Stability analysis are not included in the response. please provide. The stability analyses is included. We used the most conservative number of <1> = 26° Respectfully Submitted, Professional Engineers Consultin , Inc. Saeed S ATTACHMENT 1-272 ( PROFESSIONAL 'ENGINEERS CONSUL TING, Inc. TRENCH LOG Surface Elevation: NA Logged By: 1H Trench Orientation: E-W Date: 10/30/10 TP-7 Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X l.O'Xl5.0' Equipment: Excavator Groundwater Depth: NA This log is a representation of subsurface conditions at the time @ 1>lace of excavation. SAMPLE e~ tJ ~ ~ a.!!!' o· ENGINEERING ·s~ ·~ !t; ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ e-., :::> ~ ;~ CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION ~ 0 ~~ t:lu Q:i i::'-- t:CI t:l~ I -0-5' {on slope), Fill: ML Brown and light gray clayey silt and gravel/cobble, loose. - - -ML 5.0 5' -8' Native: -Residual soil, dark brown silty clay with weak fragments, I - -moist -SM -SW 8' -15' Bedrock: 10 Catalina Schist, hard, moderately well foliated. - -Fol: N35W, 25NE -N28W,25NE -N545W 15 TOTAL DEPI'H = 15.0 FEET 5' Ground Surface _______ !) ~ RS -----------------~------------- 10' r------- ..- ---------------V'I' --------- SC I FOLD 15' Location @ Situation: Surface Gradient: NA 10 Chaparral lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Scale: -5 ft/Inch Project No.: FC0907 ATTACHMENT 1-273 /' I PROFESSIONAL \'&t4GINEERS CONSUL TING, Inc. Surface Elevation: NA Trench Orientation: E-W Trench Dimensions: 2.0'X 15.0'Xl5.0' Groundwater Depth: NA SAMPLE - I - - - 25 - - I - - - 5.0 - - - - - 7.5 - 5' AC Pavement \ 10' I "¥ SW SM SW SM SW TRENCH LOG Logged By: SS Date: 10/30/10 Equipment: hand digging This Jog is a representation of subsurfuce conditions at the time @ place of excavation. TP-8 ENGINEERING CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION 0-5' (on slope) Fill Gray Silt with Shale fragments and reddish brown clayey silt with shale fragments. Moist, loose, porous with woods. Qls (includes fill above) Mixture of fill as above, dark brown residual soil, and shale fragments, overrides AC pavement. Bedrock: Catalina Schist, very hard, difficult to excavate, Schist. Fol: N05W. l lSW. Ground surface A -1\ ,/"' ----- ~I '-, I -------- .. '\~_ ..................... -..:-•"k•'\i "ti\'ii\':'li'!. .. !. .. ~~"li'!.-.:_ ... '!, ... _'\i'!,"\i'!...,.~~ ... ,.~\')~~~l'li.,,.)...--:Jr)Jr),,.~"ii .. ,. ·-.".!i"\"\ 15' '--Base \_ SC___) Location @ Situation: Surface Gradient: NA 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Scale: -5 ft./Inch Project No.: FC0907 ,f ATTACHMENT 1-274 SPIKE AND WASHER :GABLE, NO REF Place 9 caissons, 30" diameter, and 8' on-center fEc..-?- 'l-~ / \b /' ' ' }%L---S ~, Qlsr (Recent slide) ~ ..... ·.. . ~/ OA>UOHfo<t '/! .· · • • · / ..... · .. j)~,, _,1/_,//" . l1A~ '1-1 . ..:.-l· .:...· · '2. ;i, " / . ./ /' ,;;g;·v· /,,..>/. J. . . o ~ ~o ~ ~· Proposed 64 feet retaining wall SITE PLAN ·!.?~ :,... .............. I ll.JB. ll.r, TAC ,, ,,:JH'1,"l\Jf)UFF N ~,q·1/.SH" I O .. W PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONSUL TING, Inc LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL & CAISSONS 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Project No.: FC0907 Figure: 6 ATTACHMENT 1-275 PROFg~sIONAL ENGINEERS CObJ:?UL TING Inc. WF 1 t SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES (Stability B~hind retaining walls) 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ASSUME ("1) SATURATION TO SLOPE SURFACE TOPSOIL/ SLOPEWASH FAILURE PATH ("2) SUFFICIENT PERMEABILITY TO ESTABLISH WATER FLOW Pw =WATER PRESSURE HEAD Ws= SATURATED SOIL UNIT WEIGHT Ww= UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL WATER Pw• z· cos 2 .J:. U = WwZ cos2 J:.. F<t• 1 /2 CZ) W 8 sin2..C. Fr= Z C\'Ys-Ww> coa2 .J:.. tan -"+ c " 2Z (W8 -Ww> coa2 .C. tan -+2 c F.;:,.= _____ __........._ _____ _ W8 Z sin2.C. U= PORE WATER PRESSURE PARAMETERS Cohesion C=100 ASSUMPTION: Angle of Friction <I> = 30 ° Saturated unit weight Ys= 142 Water Unit weight Yw = 62.4 Slope Angle (a)= 26 · Depth of failure surface (Z) = 8 Infinite slope with seepage Failure parallel to the slope surface F.S. = 200 + 2X8(142-64) Cos2 26 X Tan 30 142 X 8 X Sin 26 Cos 26 =1.78 >1.5 ATTACHMENT 1-276 PROFESSIONAL(.~NGINEERS CONSUL TING(f'·;.c. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Landslide area 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SATURATED L= 280 feet Wet Density = 142 psf <I>= 30 degrees C= 100 psf SLICE 10 AREA W(KIPS) D=WSinl 31 750 106.50 54.85 2 22 1570 222.94 83.51 3 16 1620 48.60 13.40 4 11 1640 164.00 31.29 5 7 1420 201.64 24.57 6 3 860 25.80 1.35 TOTAL 207.63 R=NTAN«l>+CL= 435.5 F.S.=R/D= 2.10 OK NON-SATURATED L= 280 feet Wet Density = 126 psf <I>= 30 degrees C= 100 psf SLICE I° AREA W(KIPS) D=WSin I 1 31 750 94.50 48.67 2 22 1570 197.82 74.10 3 16 1620 48.60 13.40 4 11 1640 164.00 31.29 5 7 1420 178.92 21.80 6 3 860 25.80 1.35 TOTAL 189.27 R=N TAN <I> +CL= 403.l F.S. =R/D= 2.13 OK N=WCos I 91.29 206.71 46.72 160.99 200.14 25.76 705.84 N=WCosl 81.00 183.42 46.72 160.99 177.59 25.76 649.71 ATTACHMENT 1-277 ~ ' PROFESSIONAL ('<c'JGINEERS CONSUL TING \. . ~ ~ SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Landslide area 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 -----+---- • -...j ~ De ~ ..c:. 0 C'-' ~ 0 0 x ' ATTACHMENT 1-278 PROFESSIONAL JSNGINEERS CONSUL TING \>' .· .. ::;.:· .. SATURATED L= Wet Density = cl>= C= SLICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 R=N TAN cl>+ CL= F.S. =R/D= NON-SATURATED L= Wet Density = cl>= C= SLICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 R=N TAN cl>+ CL= F.S. = R/D = \;· .· SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Proposed development 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 220 feet 142 psf 25 degrees 100 psf I° AREA W(KIPS) D=WSinl 30 85 12.07 6.04 21 270 38.34 13.74 18 470 11.75 3.63 12 625 62.50 12.99 6 650 92.30 9.65 2 270 6.75 0.24 TOTAL 46.05 120.1 2.61 OK 220 feet 126 psf 25 degrees 100 psf I° AREA W(KIPS) D=WSinl 30 85 10.71 5.36 20 270 34.02 11.64 16 470 11.75 3.24 IO 625 62.50 10.85 6 650 81.90 8.56 3 270 6.75 0.35 TOTAL 39.64 113.2 2.86 OK N=WCosl 10.45 35.79 11.17 61.13 91.79 6.75 210.35 N=WCosl 9.28 31.97 11.29 61.55 81.45 6.74 195.54 ATTACHMENT 1-279 I . PROFESSIONAL fj'PJGINEERS CONSUL TING '\(;{::- SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Proposed development 10 Chaparral Lane, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 f\ , ~ ~ ® v-.. ~ (' )..;'.) ~ ~ ~ t_ -b 0 t .c \. ~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 1-280 Fire Department Review (October 6, 2011) ATTACHMENT 1-281 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT Ff RE PREVENTION DIVISION Fire Prevention Engineering 4475 W. El Segundo Blvd. Hawthornet Ca 90250-4411 Telephone 310-973-3044 Fax 310-263-2735 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS DATE: 10-06-2011 REGIONAL OFFICE: CENTRAL REGION CARSON PROJECT FPO NAME: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING NO: FEPC 201101376 'PROJECT ADDRESS: 10 CHAPARREL LN CITY: 2& BASE BLDG. OCCUPANCY MEN TYPE: VB CLASSIFICATION: R-3,U STORIES: T TOTAL BLDG REQUIRED SPRINKLERS AREA SQ. FT.: 6,836 SIDE YARDS: REQUIRED: YES ARCHITECT/ APPLICANT: FRANK COLARUOTOLO PHONE: 310-628-1099 A building permit WILL NOT be issued prior to acceptance of the hydrant location, fire flow, and any additional requirements by the Department. FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING YOUR PROJECT CORRECTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT: PLANS EXAMINER: MARION JAIKOWSKI NOTE: PLANS EXAMINER'S PHONE HOURS ARE BETWEEN 7:30 AM. AND 10:30 A.M. ONLYt MONDAY ROUGH FRIDAY. OFFICE MEETING~E BY APPOINTMENT ONLY. ~ '2)(-r-.. ~' A. r SUBMI F°'#.R g~RR~ED AR~ITECTURAl SETi} OF PLANS, FOR FINAL APPROVAL. ----PLEASE MAKE EACH CORRECTION AS DIRECTED BELOW EACH REQUIREMENT. The following deficiencies have been identified as not in compliance with applicable codes, standards, and Department regulations, as stated on the construction documents. ATTACHMENT 1-282 1. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6 and an unobstructed vertical clearance lCiearto sky{., Fire Department vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior building walls. Fire Code 503.2.1 ACTION REQUIRED : Cross-hatch the Fire Department vehicle access on the site plan. 2. The gradient of Fire Department vehicle access roads shall not exceed 15% unless approved by the fire code official. 'Fire Code 503.2. 7 ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate the grade of the Fire Department access roadway on the site plan. 3. Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained In a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan. 4. Building address numbers shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 Provide Note on Site Plan 5. The required fire flow for PUBLIC fire hydrants at this location is 1, 125gpm, at 20 psi residual pressure. for a duration of 2 hours over and above maximum daily domestic demand. Fire Code 508.3 and Fire Department Regulation 8. ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan. 6. Show all existing PUBLIC fire hydrants within 300 feet of the lot frontage on both sides of the street. Specify size of fire hydrant(s) and dimension(s) to property lines. Additional fire hydrant requirements may be necessary after this information is provided. Fire Code 508.1 and Fire Department Regulation 8 ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate size and locations of all existing fire hydrants on site plan. 7. Complete and return the attached lFire Flow AvailabilitYl Form 195. Fire Code 508.1.1 ACTION REQUIRED : Provide attached form completed by the water purveyor ATTACHMENT 1-283 8. Provide Building Code occupancy classification(s) for all separate and distinct uses of the structures(s) in accordance with Building Code 302.1 ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate on the site plan 9. Provide Building Code type of construction in accordance with Building Code Section 602.1 and Tab!e 601. ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate type of construction on the site plan and provide construction details for the structural elements in Table 601 10. Provide a 1 hour fire barrier between the R-3 occupancy and the U-1 occupancy as required by Building Code 508.3.3 and Table 508.3.3 ACTION REQUIRED : Show on floor plan and provide a construction detail. 11. Fire-resistive assemblies for the protection of openings, when required by the Building Code shall comply with Building Code 715 and Table 715.4. ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate on floor plan and in door/window schedule. 12. Every sleeping room below the fourth sto.ry shall have at least one exterior emergency escape and rescue opening. Required openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5. 7 square feet with a minimum clear height of 24 Inches ancme idth of 20 Inches. Building Code 1026 '. -'&- ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate size ion of windows on floor plan and in door/window schedule. 13. Sin{;fle or multiple station smoke alarms shall ~e Installed in the locations described in Building Code 907.2.10.1.1 and 907.2.10.1.2. Smoke alarms shall recel.ve their primary power from the building IV'iring where such wiring is served from a commercial source and shall be equipped with a battery backuf>. Where more than one smoke alarm is required to be installed within an individual dwelling unit, the smoke alarms shall be interconnected in such a manner that the activation of one alarm will aclivale all of the alarms in the individual unit. Building Code 907.2.10.2 and 907.2.10.~ Locations:· ~ ~ ACTION REQUIRED : Indicate smoke detectors on floor plan and provide a note that lhey hard wired with a battery backup and interconnected. 14. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Plans shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Building Code 903.2.8 ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan. G-f ATTACHMENT 1-284 15. All roof coverings shall be Class "A" as specified in Building Code 1505.2. Wood-shingle and wood- shake roofs are PROHIBITED in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, regardless of classification. (Fire Code 4710.1.2) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan and indicate the roof covering on roof plan/elevation views. .. b r .-r2.tlh91~7 &'!° 16. Roof valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019-inch (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) corrosion- resistant metal installed over a minimum 36-inch wide underlayment consisting of one layer of No. 72 ASTM cap sheet running the full length _of the valley. (Fire Code 4710.1.3) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan/roof plan 17. Roof gutters shall be provided with a means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. (Fire Code 4710.1.4) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan/roof plan 18. Roof and attic vents shall resist the intrusion offlame and embers into the attic area of the structure. Vent openings shall be protected by corrosion-resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with 1/4-inch openings. Vents shall NOT be installed in eaves or cornices. (Fire Code 4710.2.1 & 4710.2.2) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on roof plan and show vent locations on roof plan/exterior elevations. 19. Eaves and sofflts shall meet one of the following: a. Noncombustible construction on the exposed underside OR b. Protected by ignition-resistant materials OR c. Meet the requirements of SFM 12-7A-3 (Fire Code 4710.2.3) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide construction detail. 20. Exterior wall vents shall resist the intrusion of flame and embers Into the structure or vent openings shall be protected by corrosion resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with 1/4 inch openings. (FireCode4715.2.1) · &f ACTION RE~UIRED : Provide note on site plan and show vent locations on exterior elevations. 21. Exterior windows, window walls, glazed doors, and glazed openings within exterior doors shall meet one of the following: · a. Multi-pane glazing units with a minimum of one tempered pane OR b. Glass block units OR c. Have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes, when tested according to ASTM E 20100R d. Meet the performance standards of SFM 12-7A-2 (Fire Code 4715.2.2) ACJ"ION REQUIRED : Indicate one of the above methods in the window/doo~ schedule or on the ffoor plan. ATTACHMENT 1-285 22. All chimneys or fireplaces that burn solid fuel shall be equipped with an approved spark arrester. Building Code 2802.1 ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note and indicate on exterior elevations. 23. Prior to buUding permit final approval, the property shall be In compliance with the vegetation clearance requirements prescribed ·in California Public Resources Code Section 4291, California Government Code Section 51182 and this code.(Fire Code 4708.3) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan and a copy of approval to field Inspector prior to occupancy. 24. Clearance of brush and vegetative growth shalt be maintained per Fire Code 317.2.2 ACTION REQUIRED : Provide note on site plan. '.25. A final fuel modification plan shall be submitted and approved by the Forestry Division prior to building plan approval. Implementation of the approved Final Fuel Modification Plan and final inspection will be required prior to approval of final occupancy. Submit 3 copies of a completed fuel modification plan to the Fuel Modification Unit: Fire Station 32, 605 N. Angeleno Avenue, Azusa 91702~2904. Phone (626) 969M5205, fax (626) 969-4848 (Fire Code 317 .2.1) ACTION REQUIRED : Provide a copy of the final approval plans from the Forestry Division. 26. OTHER REQUIREMENTS MAYBE ADDED BASED ON INFORMATION RECIEVED. ATTACHMENT 1-286