RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_06_05_D_Border_IssuesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGER<OC:>
DATE:JUNE 5,2012.
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORTr,\n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Senior Administrative Analyst@
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• A report on the status of the San Pedro Community Plan update in Los Angeles
(San Pedro);
•An update on recent legal action related to the proposal for stadium lights at
Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates;
• A brief update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A brief update on the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts'Clearwater Program
in the City's Eastview area and in Los Angeles (San Pedro)and,
• A report on the proposed Chase Bank project at 828 Silver Spur Road in Rolling
Hills Estates.
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues"
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://palosverdes.comlrpv/planning/border issuesl2012120120605 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
D-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
June 5, 2012
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
San Pedro Community Plan Update, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On April 26, 2012, Staff of the City of Los Angeles Planning Department met again jointly
with the Planning and Land Use committees of the Northwest, Central and Coastal San
Pedro neighborhood councils to present a status report on the San Pedro Community Plan
Update. City Planning Staff presented an updated version of the draft community plan that
included more detail about the proposed revisions to the existing plan. An issue of concern
to many meeting attendees with the revised plan was revised policy language regarding the
Ponte Vista project that seemed to support a higher density of development than had been
discussed at the previous meeting in December 2011. Attendees also had many questions
about the reclassification of roadways in the proposed “Mobility” chapter of the revised plan.
City Planning Staff indicated that the “Implementation” chapter of the revised plan was still
forthcoming, as was the associated draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The
complete draft community plan and DEIR are expected to be released for public review and
comment by late spring/early summer of this year, with the goal of presenting the updated
community plan to the Los Angeles City Council for adoption by the end of 2012.
On April 30, 2012, Staff forwarded comments on the draft community plan to the City of Los
Angeles (see attachments). Staff awaits the release of the DEIR, and will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Proposal, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District/Rolling Hills Estates
On April 15, 2012, the Daily Breeze reported on threatened litigation against the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes related to the proposed stadium lights project (see attachments). On
April 24, 2012, and April 26, 2012, respectively, the Daily Breeze and Palos Verdes
Peninsula News also reported on court action regarding the lawsuit filed against the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School District by the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering
Committee earlier this year (see attachments).
In a related matter, on May 10, 2012, the Palos Verdes Peninsula News reported that the
District and the Palos Verdes Homes Association had reached a complicated, 4-way
settlement regarding their litigation over the proposed sale of two (2) District-owned lots
near Palos Verdes High School (PVHS) in Palos Verdes Estates (see attachments). The
article noted that, as a part of the settlement with the Association, the District agreed to
maintain “dark skies” over the PVHS athletic fields.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
D-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
June 5, 2012
Page 3
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On May 1, 2012, Los Angeles 15th District City Councilman Joe Buscaino announced that
he was asking the City Council’s Public Safety Committee to hold a special meeting in San
Pedro to consider issues related to liquid bulk storage facilities in the harbor area (see
attached motion and Daily Breeze article). Councilman Buscaino posted a brief video of
this announcement on the 15th District website (http://www.la15th.com/), which can also be
viewed on YouTube at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ptadTRmTQ3U
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts’ Clearwater Program, Eastview Area and Los
Angeles (San Pedro)
On April 9, 2012, Staff submitted the attached comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Clearwater Program to
the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our
comments focused on the following issues:
• City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ jurisdiction over a portion of the proposed tunnel
alignment within the Western Avenue right-of-way;
• Impacts of exit shaft excavation at Royal Palms County Beach upon localized soil
stability;
• Diversion of construction-related traffic for the exit shaft site to 25th Street due to the
closure of Paseo del Mar;
• Impact of tunneling under Western Avenue upon storm drain infrastructure;
• Impact of tunneling under Gaffey Street upon the Rancho LPG butane storage
facility;
• Groundborne vibration impacts upon residential and similar uses in the 29600-block
of Western Avenue; and,
• Future impacts resulting from the inspection and repair of the existing LACSD
tunnels under Eastview neighborhoods.
The Final EIS/EIR for the Clearwater Program is expected to be released later this year.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
D-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
June 5, 2012
Page 4
New Border Issues
Chase Bank Project, Rolling Hills Estates
In 2009, the City of Rolling Hills Estates approved the Silverdes project on the site of a
demolished former ARCO service station at 828 Silver Spur Road. These approvals
included the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this 29,642-square-
foot, 3-story 16-unit medical office condominium project. The project involved extensive
grading for a subterranean parking garage and requested a variance for building height. At
that time, nearby Rancho Palos Verdes residents expressed many concerns about the
proposed project, including geologic impacts of site grading; aesthetic impacts of the height
and size of the building; and traffic impacts related to a proposed access driveway on
Beechgate Drive. The approved project and final EIR included mitigation measures to
address the geologic and aesthetic issues, and the project was re-designed by the
applicant to eliminate the access driveway from Beechgate Drive. Although it was entitled
nearly three (3) years ago, the Silverdes project has not been constructed.
On March 30, 2012, the City received a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) related to the construction of a Chase Bank branch on this site (see
attachments). This new project proposes a 4,404-square-foot, 1-story bank building with a
detached drive-up ATM canopy, surface parking lot and related site and building signage.
Since this new proposal is much smaller than the Silverdes project, impacts upon nearby
Rancho Palos Verdes residents are expected to be much less significant. However, in
comments on the NOI submitted to the City of Rolling Hills Estates on April 10, 2012 (see
attachments), Staff noted that we had some concerns about the aesthetics of roof-mounted
equipment, and about the proposal for an access driveway from Beechgate Drive.
On April 30, 2012, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission considered the Chase
Bank project (see attached agenda and Staff report). The Staff report recommended
conditional approval of the project. It also noted, in response to our comments of April 10,
2012, that roof-mounted equipment would be adequately screened from the view of Rancho
Palos Verdes residents living upslope from the site; and that Rolling Hills Estates’ traffic
engineer had determined that the proposed “access driveway on Beechgate Drive [was]
appropriate and would facilitate traffic flow with optimum overall traffic safety.” During
public comments at the public meeting, a Rancho Palos Verdes resident on Golden Arrow
Drive expressed concerns about the proposed Beechgate Drive driveway. However, the
Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission ultimately approved the project.
Attachments:
• NWSPNC Planning & Land Use Committee agenda and attachments (dated
4/26/12)
• City comment letter on draft San Pedro Community Plan Update (dated 4/30/12)
D-4
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
June 5, 2012
Page 5
Attachments (cont’d):
• Daily Breeze and PV News articles regarding litigation related to the Peninsula High
School stadium lights project (published 4/15/12, 4/24/12, 4/26/12 & 5/10/12)
• LA Councilman Buscaino’s motion requesting a Public Safety Committee meeting on
liquid bulk storage facilities (dated 5/2/12)
• Daily Breeze article regarding LA Councilman Buscaino’s motion (published 5/4/12)
• City comment letter on DEIS/EIR for Clearwater Program (dated 4/9/12)
• Notice of Intent and Initial Study for Chase Bank project (received 3/30/12)
• City comment letter on MND for Chase Bank project (dated 4/10/12)
• RHE Planning Commission agenda and Staff report for Chase Bank project (dated
4/30/12)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20120605_BorderIssues_StaffRpt.doc
D-5
NWSPNC Planning & Land Use Committee agenda and attachments
D-6
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Planning and Land Use Committee Agenda
Thursday, April 26, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
Croatian Cultural Center
510 W 7th Street
Joint Meeting of Central, Coastal & Northwest San Pedro NC
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions
3. Report on New Community Plan
4. Report from the Council Office
5. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items
6. (Northwest ONLY) Consider Position on Councilman
Buscaino motion opposing removal of Zoning Administration
Hearings from West L. A. and San Pedro
7. Adjourn – Next Northwest Meeting, 6:30 pm May 24, 2012
Note: Anything on this Agenda Could Result in a Motion
To Contact us: www.nwsanpedro.org, board@nwsanpedro.org, or 310-732-4522
As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles
does not discriminate on the basis of disability and upon request will provide reasonable
accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities. Sign language
interpreters, assisted listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided
upon request. To ensure availability of services please make your request at least 3 business
days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by contacting the Department of Neighborhood
Empowerment at 213-485-1360.
D-7
San Pedro Community Plan
Land Use Designations
Existing Land Use Designation Land Use Designation Changes**
General Commercial Deleted
Neighborhood Office Commercial Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Regional Center Regional Commercial
Commercial Manufacturing Hybrid Industrial
Light Manufacturing Light Industrial
Limited Manufacturing Limited Industrial
Heavy Manufacturing Heavy Industrial
Low Residential Low II Residential
Low Medium I Residential
Low Medium II Residential
Medium Residential
High Medium Residential
Open Space
Parking Buffer
Public Facilities
**If no change is indicated,this means that the existing Land Use Designation remains the same.
4/24/12 D-8
City comment letter on draft San Pedro Community Plan Update
D-9
CITYOF
30 April 2012
Debbie Lawrence,AICP
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring St.,Mail Stop 395
Los Angeles,CA 90012
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
VIA U.S.MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments Regarding the Draft San Pedro Community Plan Update
Dear Ms.Lawrence:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has appreciated the opportunity review the progress
of the San Pedro Community Plan Update at your recent meetings with the San Pedro
neighborhood councils (NCs)in December 2011 and April 2012.As you may recall,we
submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP)for this project in February
2008.Although we expect to provide more substantive comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)once it is released later this year,we would like to
offer the following preliminary observations about the draft community plan at this time:
1.Land Use and Zoning Map Changes:As you presented to the NCs in December
2011,the City of Los Angeles is proposing changes to a variety of existing zoning
and land use regulations throughout the San Pedro Community Plan Area.In the
areas that immediately abut Rancho Palos Verdes,most of these are changes to
land use/zoning nomenclature or to resolve inconsistencies between actual and
designated land use and/or zoning.We do not anticipate that these proposed
changes will have an adverse effect upon Rancho Palos Verdes and its
residents.However,we await the release of the implementation chapter of the
draft community plan,and may have additional comments in the future.
2.25 th &Western Opportunity Area:One of the so-called "opportunity areas"being
considered for focused attention in the updated community plan is the
commercial district surrounding the intersection of West 25 th Street and South
Western Avenue,which is located along a major path of travel for residents and
visitors entering and leaving Rancho Palos Verdes.As currently envisioned,the
updated community plan would include policies and implementation tools to
foster the development of a sub-regional commercial and residential center
serving the southwesterly portion of San Pedro (and,presumably,Rancho Palos
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM!RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER D-10
Debbie Lawrence
30 April 2012
Page 2
Verdes).This could lead to both increased density/intensity of development and
greater maximum building heights than are currently permitted in this area.We
have some initial concerns about this proposal,but will await the release of the
DEIR before providing further comments.
3.Ponte Vista Project:In our 2008 NOP comments,we suggested "annexing" the
Ponte Vista site (and other nearby properties)into the San Pedro Community
Plan Area,but we understand that this is not being proposed as a part of the
community plan update process.We do appreciate that the plan includes a
policy that attempts to articulate the San Pedro community's vision for the Ponte
Vista site.However,we share the concern of many San Pedro residents that this
draft policy-which previously proposed development consistent with the "Low
Medium"density designation-now proposes development consistent with the
higher-density "Medium"designation,as you discussed at the meeting with the
NCs last week.
If you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me
at (310)544-5226 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
#7
Kit Fox,AICP
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc:Mayor Misetich and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
M:\Border Issues\San Pedro Community Plan Update\20120430_Lawrence_DraftCommunityPlanComments.doc
D-11
Daily Breeze and PV News articles regarding litigation
related to the Peninsula High School stadium lights project
D-12
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20397793/stadium-lights-advocates-accuse-rancho-palos-verdes-censoring
Page 1 of 3 16/04/2012 08:44 AM
Stadium lights advocates accuse Rancho Palos Verdes of censoring video
By Nick Green Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
A community group on The Hill has accused the city of Rancho Palos Verdes of illegally attempting to censor a
taxpayer-funded video advocating the installation of lights at a local high school.
The Friends of Friday Night Football has threatened to take legal action against the city unless it rescinds its denial
of the group's request to distribute the video called "Friday Night Under the Lights."
City officials are set to discuss the threatened federal lawsuit behind closed doors Tuesday.
"They really shouldn't have an interest in keeping the public from seeing this," said Long Beach attorney Chuck
Michel, who is representing the group. "It's a timely subject and the public paid for this video to be produced. So it's
very difficult for me to label this as anything other than censorship in an effort to stifle one perspective."
It's the second time in four months a local government on The Hill has received a threat of litigation from a group
backing the installation of floodlights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School.
In January, a group called the Peninsula Stadium Lights Steering Committee actually followed through on its threat.
It filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court accusing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District of fraud
and what amounts to a breach of contract complaint over its handling of the stadium lights issue.
It's also the second lawsuit lodged against the district over the issue. Last year the "Friends" group filed a lawsuit
alleging the district violated the Brown Act, the state's government open meetings law, when it voted to kill the
stadium lights project without proper public notice. That prompted the district to reconsider the project at another
meeting - with the same result - to get rid of that lawsuit.
The new lawsuit alleges the district misled the steering committee, which spent 18 months working with the district
on the project, including raising $250,000. The money was for an environmental analysis of the lights installation as
well as any potential litigation that might surface, before the project was canceled last year.
The group contends the decision to shelve the project occurred in an arbitrary and capricious manner in part because
board members believed the project was divisive.
"Unfortunately the stadium lights capital campaign was dividing the community and taking time and attention away
from the district's primary purpose of educating students," a school district statement said in part.
It was issued in response to the steering committee's lawsuit filing and printed in the Daily Breeze's sister paper, the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News.
The rationale for killing the project is similar to the reasoning being advanced by Rancho Palos Verdes officials for
not granting the lights "Friends" group the right to distribute the video produced by the city's cable television public
access arm, RPV TV.
"The City Council does not feel that it is appropriate for the city's documentary program to be used to advance one
side or the other of a controversial dispute regarding a school district property that is located in another city," City
Attorney Carol Lynch wrote in a March to an attorney at Michel's law firm.
The campus of the high school, which serves the entire peninsula, is in Rolling Hills Estates, but is surrounded on
three sides by the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Moreover, the lead planning agency for the stadium lights project
was expected to be the school district, not the city of Rolling Hills Estates.
Michel's response to the city's decision, which was made in closed session Jan. 17: "That's baloney."D-13
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20397793/stadium-lights-advocates-accuse-rancho-palos-verdes-censoring
Page 2 of 3 16/04/2012 08:44 AM
"They said we didn't want the controversy? Well, they've already got the controversy," he said. "Doing nothing is
doing something. When they say `we're not going to get into this because of the controversy,' they're just feeding the
controversy."
What's more, the courts have ruled government agencies have no right to prevent the distribution of what municipal
officials acknowledge is a public document. Anyone can look at and distribute public documents freely.
But Lynch told Michel via email that the city has asserted a copyright claim to the video it produced. That, she said,
exempts it from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. That law protects the public's right of access to
most government records.
But Michel and a media expert contacted by the Daily Breeze point out the issue was decided in a 2009 court case
involving Santa Clara County, which attempted to claim it held the copyright to public records being sought.
Attorney David Greene of San Francisco-based Bryan Cave LLP, who is an expert on open government and freedom
of information issues and general counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition, said Lynch is incorrect.
"In that (Santa Clara) case, the court explained that a state entity may not claim a copyright unless a state law
specifically authorizes it to do so," Greene wrote in an email to the Daily Breeze. "But without such an affirmative
grant of authority to obtain and hold the specific copyright, the governmental entity cannot claim a copyright
interest. The court further found that absent such express copyright authorization, the (state) Public Records Act's
grant of unrestricted access must prevail."
The state has not given the city the needed authority to copyright the video.
After seeking the advice of its legal counsel, the Daily Breeze is posting a 12-minute version of the documentary
(there is also a longer 30-minute version) that the city of Rancho Palos Verdes tried to prevent the public from
seeing. It's on the newspaper's website at www.dailybreeze.com.
Whether that will make Michel's threat of legal action against the city moot is unclear.
Asked what steps the city would take to prevent the newspaper from distributing the video, Lynch said "nothing."
"We haven't illegally prevented anyone from doing anything yet," she said.
But officials certainly tried given the email exchange with Michel and subsequent discussions by elected officials
behind closed doors.
Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager Carolyn Lehr said the city didn't set out to produce a news documentary
advocating light installation.
But, she said, that "naturally" occurred because the reporter interviewed football players, students and district
officials who, at least at that time, enthusiastically endorsed the football lights on the video.
"It came off as being in favor of the lights and that's not the city's intent and we took it down," she said.
The documentary was shown once on the city's public access channel before being pulled, she said. It was also
apparently used by the steering committee to raise money for the project, Michel said.
What will happen with the lights issue now is unclear.
The lawsuit against the district seeks to compel officials to follow through on the environmental analysis that the
steering committee members said they were originally promised would occur at a minimum.
Presumably that analysis would study the noise, traffic and other issues cited as the basis for the opposition to the
project.D-14
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20397793/stadium-lights-advocates-accuse-rancho-palos-verdes-censoring
Page 3 of 3 16/04/2012 08:44 AM
But at the very least Michel said the rash actions of the two local governmental agencies have unnecessarily
politicized a planning process that would have objectively evaluated the project.
"The loser in this is government credibility, both by the school district and city of Rancho Palos Verdes," he said. "It
seems to the parents and the members of the Friends of Friday Night Football there is a political agenda here that
really has nothing to do about what's best for the community."
nick.green@dailybreeze.com
D-15
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20463421/hopes-growing-dimmer-peninsula-high-stadium-lights
Page 1 of 2 24/04/2012 12:29 PM
Hopes growing dimmer for Peninsula High stadium lights
By Rob Kuznia Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
The dream of bringing stadium lighting to Peninsula High School is getting dimmer.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District scored a legal victory last week against a group of parents and
alumni who have sued the district, charging the school system is obligated to erect lights over the main football field.
But it's only halftime in the legal showdown, which started off as an innocent campaign to light up the field at the
school in Rolling Hills Estates and has turned into a political tangle of accusations and lawsuits.
A judge ruled Thursday that even if the accusations lodged by the parents turn out to be true, the court cannot
compel the school district to proceed with environmental studies associated with the project - or proceed with the
lighting project itself.
But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant also transferred the rest of the case to another judge, who will
rule on the wider question of whether the school district engaged in fraud, misrepresentation or any of the other
claims alleged by the group.
"The claim for fraud and deceit against the district is still alive," said Martha Doty, legal counsel for the parents, who
operate as a group called the Stadium Lights Steering Committee. "It's not over yet."
Peninsula High School is one of the last remaining comprehensive high schools in the South Bay whose main
football field is not equipped with stadium lighting. (The stadium of its rivaling high school, Palos Verdes High
School, is similarly unlit.)
Parents, coaches and players at the school have long felt deprived of the Friday night experience that many consider
a quintessential American tradition. Due to the lack of lighting, their home games are played in the afternoon,
precluding many parents and relatives from coming to the games because they can't get off work that early.
Proponents have had the moral support of the school's principal, Mitzi Cress, who has said that under her watch the
lights would be used only for the seven nights a year in which the team plays home games.
"Wouldn't it be wonderful?" she said Monday. "I have this vision of what it would be like to have the boys play
under the lights, the community all coming. Seeing families there supporting the team. ... But the lack of
communication and misunderstandings have turned it south."
Opponents had charged that the lights would bring glare, traffic, noise and trash, as well as potentially decrease
property values.
The current conundrum began about a year and a half ago, when the Stadium Lights Steering Committee decided to
raise money to add the lights.
Committee members accuse the district of misleading them. They say the school board initially gave the go-ahead to
embark on the project - triggering a massive fund-raising effort - only to hastily kill the project once it became
apparent that the notion was controversial. The committee had raised about $250,000 - enough to conduct the
environmental impact report, which would have assessed how the project would have affected the area.
School officials give a different version of events. They say the board gave permission only for the fund-raising
aspect of the campaign. They later voted to nix the project on the grounds that it had become too divisive. School
officials, too, claim to have been misled. They say the committee gave the board the impression that neighbors who
had opposed similar efforts in the 1990s were now on board.
From the start, the process has been fraught with legal issues. The current suit is actually the second filed against theD-16
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20463421/hopes-growing-dimmer-peninsula-high-stadium-lights
Page 2 of 2 24/04/2012 12:29 PM
district on the matter. Last year, the "Friends" committee sued on the grounds that the district violated the state's
open meetings law. That matter was put to rest when the school board reopened the discussion and rejected the
project again.
Then, earlier this month, a community group threatened to do legal battle with the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for
attempting to quash a video about the stadium lights issue created by the city's cable TV public access arm. The
video, in which the reporter interviewed football players and other supporters of the lights, aired once, but was pulled
because city officials viewed it as biased. (The Daily Breeze posted a shortened version of the video.)
As for Thursday's decision, the school district's legal counsel, Terry Tao, said he is "extremely happy" with it.
"The main goal of the lights committee was to compel the district to move forward with the EIR and the project
itself," he said. "This ruling wipes out the ability to compel such action."
Tao said that even if the second judge - who has yet to be assigned - rules in favor of the parents, the district would
not be forced to erect the lights. Rather, the district would be forced to pay monetary damages. But he viewed that
scenario as unlikely, partly because state law stipulates that school districts cannot be sued for fraud or
misrepresentation.
Judge Chalfant did leave the door open for "reconsideration," meaning the committee's attorney could try to present
her argument again. If she were to take him up on it and succeed, then it is possible that the district could be forced
to proceed with the project.
rob.kuznia@dailybreeze.com
D-17
District wins first battle in lights lawsuit
By Mary Scott, Peninsula News
Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:05 PM PDT
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant has ruled that the court cannot compel the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the Board of Education to proceed with an environmental impact
report for stadium lights at Peninsula High School.
The judge issued his five-page ruling on April 19. He dismissed the portion of the Stadium Lights Steering
Committee’s claim regarding the EIR, saying: “The board’s decision not to pursue the project is a quasi-
legislative discretionary act for which mandamus does not lie.”
The judge’s ruling also stated that the committee’s petition “alleges no facts to suggest that the board’s
decision not to pursue the project was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Nor
could it, since the decision to abandon a project is entirely discretionary.”
“The school district applauds the court’s ruling in favor of the district,” district officials said in a written
statement. “District leaders are disappointed that legal costs had to be expended to vindicate its rights and
intends to seek reimbursement of all costs incurred as a result of the lights committee lawsuit.”
But the committee does not see Chalfant’s ruling as the end of the suit.
“The court did not dismiss the steering committee’s fraud and other damage claims as the board and district
had requested in their motion, but transferred them to a different judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
where the steering committee will now be entitled to have its day in court on its claims asserted in its
complaint,” said Martha Doty, the committee’s legal counsel.
The committee’s remaining claims, Doty said, seek damages for breach of contract based upon
misrepresentations by the district and the board, equitable claims also based upon misrepresentations and
declaratory relief.
“We are confident that our claims will get past the district’s next attempt to dispose of them and that the
steering committee will have its damage claims heard on their substantive merits,” she added.
The lights committee filed the lawsuit on Jan. 31 seeking a writ of traditional mandamus (a mandate to take
action) after the board voted down the lights projects in July 2011 and again in November 2011. The
project, which bitterly pitted the lights opposition against the supporters, was ended before the committee
could conduct an environmental review, which it believed would have mitigated some of the issues brought
up by opposition.
Board members, in both July and November 2011, agreed the project was too divisive to move forward with
the study.
“We wish to reiterate that the steering committee has repeatedly sought to meet with the board and district
to resolve the issues without the need for litigation, and \[this\] continues to be open to a mediated, rather
than litigated, resolution,” Doty said.
mscott@pvnews.com
Print Page
Page 1 of 1Print Version
4/26/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/04/26/local_news/news1.prt
D-18
Lights lawsuit
Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:17 PM PDT
LETTERS TO EDITOR: Anthony
I am writing with my response to the recent article, “District wins first battle in lights lawsuit” in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News, and in general response to the pattern of similar news over the past few months and
past couple of years.
According to recent news reports, Palos Verdes Peninsula’s Unified School District is regularly, ferociously
and overly engaged in acrimonious legal battles against our local community, including our children. PVPUSD
is acting like an irresponsible private entity, accountable only to itself. But, PVPUSD is not a private entity
and not entitled to act solely for self-interest.
PVPUSD is a public entity mandated to serve our community, not to battle us in court and spin self-serving
press reports. Instead of pursuing its sole mandate — to serve us — it positions itself as a gatekeeper with
peculiar agendas. It sustains authority through inaction or whimsical disregard; flippantly dismissing
whatever differs from its insular preferences. The steady stream of bad news confounds all logic, generating
a cumulative perception that PVPUSD is a failing and devious public entity.
PVPUSD might claim an occasional legal victory, but it pays an enormous price for such illusory “wins.” It
loses the privilege of respect as it squanders the precious resources of money, time, and good will in our
community. It pleads poverty, yet it wastes vast fortunes for legal fees while making unfounded, specious
arguments in court. It covets erasure of long-established deed restrictions, it exploits our teachers, it
woefully neglects our children's recreational facilities, it arrogantly quashes all inquiry about football field
lighting at PVPHS and so on. The net result is an overt sense of doubt that PVPUSD has any ability or
interest to facilitate community-based action for the common good. The only option at this nadir is for the
Board \[of Education\] and superintendent to resign, recognizing their failure to serve.
PVPUSD’s failure is a grave and serious injustice. This can possibly be ascribed to arrogance, corruption or
ignorance. But nothing exonerates or indemnifies PVPUSD from its obligation to serve our children and our
community.
Ed Anthony
Palos Verdes Estates
Print Page
Page 1 of 1Print Version
5/17/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/05/14/opinion/opinion4.prt
D-19
PVPUSD v. PVHA: It’s really over
Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:16 PM PDT
Four-way agreement is a win for everyone.
By Mary Scott, Peninsula News
A four-party agreement has put an end to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District’s attempt to
remove deed restrictions from two district-owned properties in Palos Verdes Estates.
Under the agreement, negotiated over several months, the school district will turn over the ownership of its
two surplus properties, empty lots located at Via Pacheco and Palos Verdes Drive West, to the Palos Verdes
Homes Association and receive a $1.5-million donation from Robert and Delores Lugliani. The Homes
Association will then transfer the two lots to the city of PVE to be preserved as open space. The city, in turn,
will allow the Luglianis to keep unpermitted retaining walls (installed by a previous owner) that encroach on
city-owned parkland. The Luglianis’ donation was made independently of the homes association’s
agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding, but was contingent on its passage and the resolution of the
district’s lawsuit. The MOU ends the litigation between the school district and the homes association, and
reaffirms the enforceability of the deed restrictions on all of the school district’s properties in PVE.
The deal was approved previously by the Luglianis and the homes association. The Board of Education and
the PVE City Council approved the MOU on Tuesday night, both with unanimous votes. (Councilwoman
Rosemary Humphrey recused herself from the vote as she is a district employee.)
“This agreement proves that cooperation can reap great benefits,” PVE Mayor George Bird said. “When the
association asked the city to be part of creating an amicable conclusion to the litigation with the school
district, we were happy to play our part.”
Bird further stated that everyone benefits from the “world-class” public schools and the city’s plentiful open
space.
“The district extends its heartfelt thanks to the Luglianis for this remarkable act of kindness,” Board of
Education President Barbara Lucky said in a press statement. “We are very proud of our extraordinary
schools and applaud the city of Palos Verdes Estates and the homes association for working with the school
district to help address the fiscal challenges facing public education.”
The school district’s intention was to rezone and sell the two unused lots for development of single-family
homes. The money from the sale was to benefit the district’s modernization and renovation projects. After
failed attempts to remove the restrictions, the district filed a lawsuit in February 2010.
In September 2011, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the homes association,
saying that the 1938 homes association grant deed created equitable servitudes, which maintains the
grantor’s (association’s) interest in the land deeded. This equitable servitude allows the enforcement of the
restrictions that prohibit the use of the lots for any purpose other than schools, recreational use or parks.
In December 2011, the district filed an appeal.
The MOU puts to rest a decades-long debate over the restrictions.
Print Page
Page 1 of 2Print Version
5/17/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/05/14/local_news/news1.prt
D-20
“The Homes Association has always believed that strong enforcement of the deed restrictions is essential to
preserve the unique character of the city, and is one of its principal responsibilities to its members,”
association officials said in a released statement. “With the signing of the MOU, the homes association
affirms this responsibility.”
As part of the agreement, the school district also agreed to reimburse the association $400,000 for litigation
expenses and to preserve “dark skies” over Palos Verdes High School. Rather than restricting any installation
of stadium lights at the high school’s athletic field, the MOU offers the district and future school boards an
incentive to keep the sky dark: an expedited review process through the Art Jury for district plans. Should
the district light the field, permanently or temporarily, the association will fully enforce protective restrictions
that give the Art Jury jurisdiction over the aesthetics of all district develop within the city and will prohibit
any development without the Art Jury’s approval.
mscott@pvnews.com
Page 2 of 2Print Version
5/17/2012http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2012/05/14/local_news/news1.prt
D-21
LA Councilman Buscaino’s motion requesting a Public Safety
Committee meeting on liquid bulk storage facilities
D-22
MAY 0 2 .2012
MOTION
Residents and neighbors surrounding the Rancho LPG facility located San Pedro
have expressed various concerns regarding the safety and legality of this facility, This
particular liquid bulk tank facility was built in 1973, and is located on private property
outside the Port of Los Angeles. It includes two 12.5 million gallon refrigerated tanks
containing butane, a 'liquefied petroleum gas which is a by-product of the refining
process, Within the past decade, there have been various city reviews of the storage
facility, dating back to 2004, and have involved the Planning Department, City Attorney,
Harbor Department, Fire Department, the City Administrative Office (CAO) as well as
the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA),
Aside from the Rancho LPG facility in San Pedro, there area variety of other
'liquid bulk storage facilities both above and below ground in the Harbor area, which
have also raised concerns among nearby residents. It is imperative that the City ensure
that any potential threats are thoroughly explored and mitigated.
The first step toward this is to request information from all the regulatory and
enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal level, including, but not limited to,
the following: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.s.. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/EPA, California Emergency
Management Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the
City of Los Angeles Fire Department, the Los Angeles Police Department, the City of
Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Industrial Waste Management Division, City of Los
Angeles Building and Safety Department, City of Los Angeles Emergency Management
Department, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, among others.
I THEREFORE MOVE that the Public Safety Committee hold a special meeting
in the Harbor Area and request the pertinent regulatory and enforcement agencies at
the local, state, and federal level to provide a presentation regarding the permitting and
safety requirements for liquid bulk storage facilities.
Presented b~ ~
JOE BUSCAINO
Councilmember, 15tl1 District
Seconded by -I-+--'~~_+-+-_
NGLANDER
ber, 1ih District
D-23
Daily Breeze article regarding LA Councilman Buscaino’s motion
D-24
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_20540954/buscaino-asks-meeting-liquid-bulk-storage-tank-safety
Page 1 of 1 03/05/2012 18:26 PM
Buscaino asks for meeting on liquid bulk storage tank safety in San Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
Los Angeles City Councilman Joe Buscaino has asked the City Council's Public Safety Committee to conduct a
special meeting in San Pedro to address potential risks and overall safety standards of liquid bulk storage facilities in
the Harbor Area.
Specifically, community concerns have been raised about the Rancho LPG liquefied petroleum gas storage facility at
2110 N. Gaffey St. in San Pedro.
Buscaino will invite representatives from the many regulatory and enforcement agencies at the local, state and
federal levels to participate and respond to questions and concerns at the meeting.
The motion was introduced this week, with a meeting date and location to be announced when the motion is
approved. It was seconded by City Council members Jan Perry and Mitch Englander, chairman of the Public Safety
Committee.
- Donna Littlejohn
D-25
City comment letter on DEIS/EIR for Clearwater Program
D-26
CITVOF
9 April 2012
Steven W.Highter
Supervising Engineer,Planning Section
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Rd.
Whittier,CA 90601
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADI'IIINISTRATION
Dr.Aaron O.Allen
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District
Regulatory Division,Ventura Field Office
2151 Alessandro Dr.,Ste.110
Ventura,CA 93001
SUBJECT:Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environ-
mental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR)for the Clearwater Program
Dear Mr.Highter and Dr.Allen:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR)for the
above-mentioned project.The City respectfully offers the following comments on the
content and analysis of the DEIS/EIR for the proposed project:
1.A small portion of the proposed tunnel alignment for Alternative 4 would appear
to traverse the public right-of-way of Western Avenue within the jurisdiction of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Le.,roughly between Crestwood Street and
Summerland Street).As such,Table 1-3 in Section 1.6 "Relationship to Existing
Plans"should include a reference to the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan,
which may be reviewed on the City's website at the following link:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/GeneraL Plan_EI R/index.cfm
2.The City has the following concerns regarding the construction of the proposed
tunnel exit shaft at Royal Palms County Beach for Alternative 4:
a.The proposed shaft site is located quite close to a recent landslide at
White Point in San Pedro (i.e.,the City of Los Angeles).In addition,the
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWWPALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER D-27
Steven W.Highter and Dr.Aaron O.Allen
9 April 2012
Page 2
soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula may be generally characterized as
being susceptible to large-scale land movement,such as the on-going
Portuguese Bend Landslide and the failure of a portion of the golf course
at the Trump National Golf Club in 1999.Chapter 8 "Geology,Soils and
Mineral Resources"should address not only the suitability and stability of
the proposed shaft site at Royal Palms,but also the potential for the
excavation of this shaft site to de-stabilize the White Point Landslide
and/or other nearby coastal bluffs.
b.As a result of the White Point Landslide,West Paseo del Mar is currently
closed to traffic just east of the proposed shaft site.With this closure,
east-west neighborhood traffic in the South Shores area of San Pedro has
been diverted inland to West 25 th Street,which is a major arterial that
provides access to the southerly portion of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes.Has the analysis in Chapter 18 "Transportation and Traffic
(Terrestrial)"taken into account the impacts of diverted truck trips and
other construction-related traffic on West 25 th Street as a result of the
closure of West Paseo del Mar?
3.The City has the following concerns regarding the proposed tunneling activities
related to Alternative 4:
a.The proposed tunnel alignment would follow Western Avenue from Trudie
Drive/Capitol Drive to the proposed exit shaft site at Royal Palms County
Beach.Although most of this segment of the proposed tunnel would be
located in San Pedro,a small portion would fall within the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.In recent years,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
experienced failures of storm drains under Western Avenue,most
dramatically in the case of a sinkhole that occurred near Delasonde
DrivelWestmont Drive in 2005.Does Chapter 8 "Geology,Soils and
Mineral Resources"address the potential impact of tunneling activities
upon storm drains and similar,underground public infrastructure within the
alignment of the proposed tunnel?
b.We note that Chapter 10 "Hazards and Hazardous Materials"discusses
the close proximity of the tunneling activities for Alternative 4 to
contaminated soils at the Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP)on North
Gaffey Street in San Pedro.The analysis of "risk of upset"from tunneling
activities under Alternative 4 appears to be limited to the exposure of
hazardous materials in the soil related to the operation of the tunnel boring
machine.However,the City respectfully suggests that the DEIS/EIR
should also analyze the "risk of upset"that tunneling activities might pose
upon nearby industrial facilities,particularly the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.
D-28
Steven W.Highter and Dr.Aaron O.Allen
9 April 2012
Page 3
c.Chapter 14 "Noise and Vibration (Terrestrial)"states that there are current-
ly no Federal regulations or State environmental guidelines regarding
vibration from tunneling operations.The analysis in the DEIS/EIR is
based upon studies conducted for the construction of the Red Line
subway in the City of Los Angeles,and concludes that there will be no
significant groundborne vibration impacts in areas where the depth of the
tunnel base is more than one hundred ten feet (110')below the ground
surface.Within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,most of the properties
abutting the Western Avenue right-of-way in the vicinity of the proposed
tunnel alignment are zoned and developed for non-residential use.
However,there is a motel (America's Best Value Inn)located at 29601
Western Avenue,a lO-unit residential condominium (Eastview
Townhouse)located at 29641 Western Avenue and a 116-bed residential
care facility for the elderly (Palos Verdes Villa)located at 29661 Western
Avenue.What is the depth of the proposed tunnel base in the vicinity of
these properties (relative to ground surface),and how significant is the
impact of groundborne vibration expected to be upon them?
4.Among the major goals of the Clearwater Program are the achievement of
system redundancy and the ability to inspect (and possibly repair)the existing 8-
and 12-foot-diameter tunnels connecting the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
(JWPCP)to the existing ocean outfalls.As you are aware,these existing tunnels
traverse the Eastview area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Do the
Sanitation Districts have any sense yet of what will be involved in the future
inspection and possible repair of these existing tunnels?Should the City expect
that the staging of these future activities might occur in our Eastview Park,which
is located on land leased from the Sanitation Districts?Can the expected
impacts of these future activities somehow be included in the current DEIS/EIR?
Again,thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project.If
you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me at
(310)544-5226 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.
ez
Senior Administrative Analyst
cc:Mayor Anthony Misetich and City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
M:\8order Issues\LACSD Clearwater Program\20120409_EIS-EIRComments.doc
D-29
Notice of Intent and Initial Study for Chase Bank Project
D-30
D-31
1
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
INITIAL STUDY, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Chase Bank
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Niki Cutler, AICP, Principal Planner
(310) 377-1577
4. Project Location: 828 Silver Spur Road (between Beechgate
and Roxcove Drives)
Assessor’s Parcel No. 7586-027-012
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
(See Figures 1, 2, and 3: Regional Location,
Project Location, and Aerial Photograph of the
Site, as well as Section 8 Description of
Project for additional details.)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Stantec Architecture, Inc.
19 Technology Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
6. General Plan Designation:
Commercial General/Mixed-Use Overlay
(CG/MU) (Planning Area 6) and within the
Cultural Resources and Hazards Management
Overlay Zones; a Scenic Corridor Overlay is
also designed for the segment of Silver Spur
Road that includes the project’s frontage
7. Zoning:
CG/MU (Commercial General/Mixed Use)
Overlay District
8. Description of Project:
Project Location
The project site is located in the Peninsula Center (Rolling Hills Estates’ primary commercial
area) on the north side of Silver Spur Road, in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles
County, California. The 0.57-acre site is bounded by Beechgate Drive on the east, Beechgate
Road on the north and west, and Silver Spur Road on the south. The project site is located on
map page 823 of the Los Angeles County Thomas Guide and on the Torrance, California 7.5-
minute United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Topographic Quadrangle (Photorevised 1981)
(Township 5 South, Range 14 West). See Figures 1 and 2, which illustrate the regional
orientation of the City of Rolling Hills Estates and the project location, respectively.
D-32
2
Project History
The project site was previously the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed Silverdes Medical Office Condominium Project (Silverdes Project), which consisted of
a three-story, 29,642-ft2 medical office building with two levels of underground parking. On
February 24, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills Estates approved the entitlements
for the Silverdes Project and certified the corresponding EIR. The Silverdes Project, however,
has not been built to date, and the project site is now proposed for the subject Chase Bank.
Given that the Silverdes Project EIR described the environmental conditions of the site as they
existed in December of 2007 (when the Notice of Preparation was published) and considered
the environmental impacts of a development project on the site, the Silverdes Project EIR is
incorporated herein by reference in its entirety (Silverdes Medical Office Condominium Project,
certified February 24, 2009, State Clearinghouse Number 2007121061). The Silverdes Project
EIR determined that the project would not have any significant impacts on the environment with
the incorporation of mitigation measures 1.
The Silverdes Project EIR is available for review upon request at the City of Rolling Hills
Estates, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 during normal
business hours.
Given the differences between the proposed Chase Bank and the Silverdes Project (bank use
rather than medical offices, one story rather than three stories, minimal grading rather than
substantial grading/excavation for two underground parking levels, etc.), the lead agency has
deemed it appropriate to conduct a separate CEQA document. Nonetheless, the City
recognizes that the environmental conditions/setting of the site are largely the same as was
described in the Silverdes Project EIR.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of building a new 1-story, 4,404-square foot (ft2), free-standing
Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM. Figure 4 presents the proposed site plan, and
Figures 5 and 6 present elevation plans for the proposed bank. The details of the proposed
project are described in the following sub-sections.
Architectural Design
The proposed bank is designed in a Spanish Mediterranean style with a mission-style, red tile
roof and painted stucco facades. The proposed bank structure features articulated facades on
all four elevations with recessed and projecting elements; a combination of arched and straight
window/door frames; and an earth-tone color palate with offsetting white and beige facades and
red clay-colored trim that matches the red tile roof. The proposed ATM canopy mimics the
design of the proposed bank building with matching colors and materials.
1 The Silverdes Project EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of the then proposed medical
office building, related to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and
utilities, and transportation and traffic.
D-33
3
The proposed bank building would have a maximum height of 29’-6½’ (29 feet, 6 ½ inches) and
the proposed ATM canopy would have a maximum height of 20’-3”. The roof line of the
proposed bank is varied due the articulating façade, with roof peaks at 19’-6”, 25’-11”, and 29’-
6½” (the maximum proposed height).
Layout, Parking, and Circulation
The proposed bank building would be placed in the southeast corner of the site with parking
bays along the north and west sides of the building that provide a total of 31 parking stalls. The
proposed 2-lane drive-thru ATM canopy would be located in the western corner of the site, west
of the proposed parking bay. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via three
driveways: a full-access entry/exit from Beechgate Drive, a full-access entry/exit from Silver
Spur Road, and an exit-only driveway onto Silver Spur Road from the proposed drive-thru lane.
Landscape Improvements
The proposed project includes landscaped areas located along all street frontages of the site
with the largest landscaped area being located at the southwest corner of the site. Landscape
plans are subject to review and approval by the City’s Park and Activities Commission prior to
the issuance of Building Permits. Approximately 30% of the site would be covered with
landscaping.
Grading and Drainage
The proposed project involves grading of the site to create a building pad and to establish
surface parking fields. Project grading includes 3,000 cubic yards (yds3) of export and 500 yds3
of import to account for the expansion potential of the existing soil onsite. The finished project
site would generally slope from north to south. Storm water would be directed into parking lot
gutters and grated trench drains, which would empty into an existing storm drain in Silver Spur
Road.
Requested Discretionary Approvals
The proposed project requires the following City Discretionary actions:
City Discretionary Actions
Decision Making Body Action Required
Planning Commission
Precise Plan of Design
Grading Permit
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The City of Rolling Hills Estates lies within the southwest portion of Los Angeles County on the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. The Peninsula consists of rolling hills surrounded by the Pacific
Ocean on three sides (the south, east, and west) and the Los Angeles Basin to the north. The
project site lies in the City’s main commercial area – the Peninsula Center.
From as early as 1947, the project site was utilized for agricultural purposes. Agricultural use
continued until 1969, when the site was first developed as a gasoline service station. The site
remained as a service station (Peninsula Auto Service/ARCO) until it was demolished in 2003.
D-34
4
The site is currently a vacant lot. Remnants from the previous service station that remain onsite
include a concrete retaining wall and landscape bed along the northern boundary of the site,
and the pole that held the sign of the previous service station in the southwest corner of the site.
The landscape bed along the northern property boundary is planted with a row of mature
cypress trees that are proposed to be removed with project construction. Figure 3 is an aerial
photograph of the project site, and photographs of the site and the surrounding area are
presented in Figure 7.
The surrounding area includes a commercial center (Town and Country Shopping Center)
located to the south across Silver Spur Road, a two-story office building to the east across
Beechgate Drive, single-family residences in the City of Palos Verdes to the north, and
commercial uses to the northwest across Silver Spur Road.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
None.
11. References:
The documents listed below are incorporated into this document by reference and are
available for review in the Planning Department of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which
is located in City Hall, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274.
a. California, State of, the Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zone Map, Torrance Quadrangle, 1999.
b. Rolling Hills Estates, City of, General Plan, 1992.
c. Rolling Hills Estates, City of, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Rolling Hills Estates General Plan Update, September 1992.
d. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code.
e. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Public Facilities Impact Fee Report. June 13, 2008.
f. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Guidelines.
June 14, 2004.
g. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Silverdes Medical Office
Condominium Project (Silverdes Project),
h. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Analysis Guidance
Handbook.
i. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document –
Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
D-35
5
12. Appendices
A. Traffic Report, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
B. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Results (Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emission Modeling)
C. Geotechnical Investigation Report and Geotechnical Investigation Addendum 01,
Stantec Consulting Corporation
D. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, Partner Science and
Engineering, Inc.
REPORT PREPARERS
The following consulting firm assisted the City of Rolling Hills Estates in the preparation of this
Initial Study:
Willdan Engineering
13191 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 405
Industry, California 91746-3497
D-36
6
FIGURE 1 – REGIONAL ORIENTATION MAP
D
-
3
7
7
FIGURE 2 – PROJECT LOCATION MAP
D
-
3
8
8
FIGURE 3 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROJECT SITE
D
-
3
9
9
FIGURE 4 – PROJECT SITE PLAN
D
-
4
0
10
FIGURE 5 – SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CHASE BANK
Source: Stantec
D
-
4
1
11
FIGURE 6 – NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CHASE BANK AND ELEVATIONS OF THE ATM
CANOPY
Source: Stantec
D
-
4
2
12
FIGURE 7 – PROJECT SITE PHOTOS
View of Project Site Looking West View of Project Site Looking East
View of Project Site Looking South View of Project Site Looking North
Project Site Frontage on Beechgate Drive Project Site Frontage on Silver Spur Road
D-43
13
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
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 indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact 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 address by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Printed Name For
D-44
14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers, except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factor
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis.)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact”
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should formally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
D-45
15
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:
I LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Propose a use not currently permitted by the General
Plan Use Map?
d) Propose a use not currently permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map?
e) Result in an increase in density beyond that permitted in
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
f) Have an architectural style or use building materials that
are substantially inconsistent with neighborhood
compatibility requirements?
g) Propose a use, which is incompatible with surrounding
land uses because of the difference in the physical scale
of development, noise levels, light and glare and traffic
levels or hours operation?
h) Detract substantially from the rural character, as defined
in the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan of the City?
i) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
I(a). No Impact – The proposed construction of a new 1-story, 4,404-square foot (ft2),
free-standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM is consistent with the
underlying zoning of the property (“CG/MU”) - Commercial General/Mixed Use
Overlay District and the surrounding commercial retail and office uses. Given that the
proposed improvements would occur entirely on the existing 0.57-acre parcel which
comprises the project site, the location and design of the proposed project would not
divide an established community and would cause no related impacts.
I(b). No Impact - The project site is currently zoned “CG/MU” (Commercial
General/Mixed Use Overlay District) and designated “Commercial General/Mixed-
Use Overlay” in the City’s General Plan. The proposed new bank building and drive-
thru ATM would re-instate the commercial use of the site (it is currently vacant but
was previously occupied by a gasoline service station), which is consistent with the
general plan and zoning designations of the site and compatible with the surrounding
land uses. In addition, the project site is located in the following overlay zones:
Cultural Resources Overlay – this designation applies to those areas that have been
designated as having a high sensitivity for cultural resources and where future
development may affect these resources. The Conservation Element of the General
Plan details appropriate actions that must be followed when property is included
within this designation.
D-46
16
Scenic Corridor Overlay – This designation applies to all properties on major
roadways, where scenic vistas, as designated in the Conservation Element of the
General Plan, are located. The Scenic Corridor applies to all properties abutting this
segment of Silver Spur Road. The Conservation Element of the General Plan
outlines specific guidelines for future development along these roadways.
Hazards Management Overlay – This designation applies to those areas of the City
which may be subject to some type of environmental hazard. These areas subject to
seismic risk, flood hazard, or slope stability are included within the Hazards
Management Overlay.
Mixed-Use Overlay - This land use designation is very site specific and applies only
to those areas included with the Commercial General land use designations. The
designation permits residential development to be constructed in areas with this land
use designation. The residential units may either share the structure or parcel.
The proposed new improvements will not conflict with the City’s “Scenic Corridor
Overlay” designation, which is discussed in III(d, h, i) below; the Cultural Resources
Overlay, as described in VIII below; or with the “Mixed-Use Overlay” since no
residential units are included in the project.
I (c). No Impact – The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations for
the site.
I (d). No Impact - The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site.
I (e). No Impact – The proposed project is within the density limits established in the
City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The Land Use Element of the City’s
General Plan identifies a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0 to 1.0 for the
Commercial General General Plan designation and corresponding “CG” zoning
district. A 3:1 FAR for the site translates into 74,488 ft2 of maximum allowable
building space for the 24,829-ft2 site. With the proposed project, there would be
4,404 ft2 of building space on the site, which is well below the FAR requirement.
In addition to the FAR requirement, the City’s Zoning Code (Section 17.30.050)
establishes a maximum lot coverage of 35% for the CG zoning district. This
translates into a maximum lot coverage of 8,690 ft2 for the 24,829-ft2 site. With the
proposed project, the total lot coverage onsite would be 4,404 ft2, which complies
with the lot coverage requirement.
The maximum permitted height of structures in the CG/MU zone is 44-feet. Project
plans submitted by the applicant indicate a proposed maximum structural height of
the bank building at 29-feet, 6½ -inches.
I (f). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is the proposed construction
of a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2, free-standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM
with hardscaping, landscaping, and parking improvements. All of these
improvements will be constructed in a single phase.
D-47
17
The proposed bank is designed in a Spanish Mediterranean style with a mission-
style, red tile roof and painted stucco facades. The proposed bank structure features
articulated facades on all four elevations with recessed and projecting elements; a
combination of arched and straight window/door frames; and an earth-tone color
palate with offsetting white and beige facades and red clay-colored trim that matches
the red tile roof. The proposed ATM canopy mimics the design of the proposed bank
building with matching colors and materials. Based on the analysis and discussion
provided in Section III – Aesthetics, the project does not propose an architectural
style or building materials that are substantially inconsistent with neighborhood
compatibility requirements, and the project would cause no related significant
impacts.
I (g). Less Than Significant Impact - The scale and character of the proposed project is
consistent with other uses in the area. There are existing commercial retail and
office uses in close proximity to the proposed project, including a large retail
commercial center located across Silver Spur Road. Several of these retail and office
buildings are designed in a Spanish Mediterranean style with mission-style, red tile
roofs and painted stucco facades. Although there are single-family residential uses
located to the north of the proposed project, they are located at a higher elevation
than the proposed bank building, are approximately 250 feet away, and would be
largely unaffected by the project.
The project site has been used as a gasoline service station in the past. The
proposed development of the property as a bank with drive-thru ATM is a permitted
use in the CG/MU (Commercial General/Mixed Use) Overlay District. The proposed
use is also consistent with the property’s general plan designation (Commercial
General/Mixed-Use Overlay (CG/MU). The City’s municipal code requires that the
project reviewed under a Precise Plan of Design. In addition, a grading permit will be
required from the City for the proposed project. There are no other additional
entitlements that would be required for the project.
The proposed project improvements conform to existing zoning regulations. This
includes building height, lot coverage, FAR, setback, and parking standards. The
project’s landscape plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the City’s Park
and Activities Commission, which would ensure that the project would conform to the
City’s landscape standards
I(h). No Impact – The project is consistent with the zoning, General Plan land use
designation, and scenic corridor overlay for the property. The proposed
improvements to the property in this commercial area of the City would not detract
from the rural character of the City.
I(i). No Impact – The proposed project is not located in an area which is subject to any
habitat conservation plan.
D-48
18
II RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of any City designated areas for hiking
or horse or bicycle riding?
b) Reduce the ratio of parkland in the City to below 6.7
acres per 1,000 residents as designated in the General
Plan?
c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the open space would occur or
be accelerated?
d) Individually or cumulatively considered result in a loss of
any (i) existing parkland, (ii) open space, as defined by
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan, (iii) private or
public recreational facilities as defined by the Rolling
Hills Estates General Plan for recreational purposes
and/or (iv) the replacement of privately owned public
recreational facility as defined by the General Plan with
non-recreational facilities as defined in the General
Plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
II(a-d). No Impact - The proposed project consists of building a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2, free-
standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM. The proposed bank building
would be placed in the southeast corner of the site with parking bays along the north
and west sides of the building that provide a total of 31 parking stalls. The proposed
2-lane drive-thru ATM canopy would be located in the western corner of the site,
west of the proposed parking bay. Vehicular access to the site would be provided
via three driveways – a full-access entry/exit from Beechgate Drive, a full-access
entry/exit from Silver Spur Road, and an exit-only driveway onto Silver Spur Road
from the proposed drive-thru lane. Since all proposed improvements would occur
onsite, the proposed project would not result in the loss of any existing hiking trails,
horse or bicycle riding facilities, parkland, open space, or other public or private
recreational facilities. Similarly, since the proposed project would not result in an
increase in the City’s population, the project would not reduce the City’s parkland-to-
person ratio and would not increase the use of any parks or recreational facilities.
Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely impact any recreational facilities
or open space areas.
III AESTHETICS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Not meet the Rolling Hills Estates development
standards or neighborhood compatibility standards in a
substantial manner?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect (i.e. development standards, design
guidelines, etc)?
D-49
19
III AESTHETICS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
c) Include new electrical service box and utilities lines
above ground?
d) Be located within a view corridor and include
unscreened outdoor uses or equipment inconsistent with
the rural character, as defined by the City of Rolling Hills
Estates General Plan?
e) Result in the loss of any (i) Environmentally Sensitive
Area as defined by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, (ii)
natural undeveloped canyon or (iii) hillside area?
f) Obstruct the public’s view of (i) scenic resources or (ii) a
scenic corridor or (iii) vista as identified (on a case-by-
case basis)?
g) Contrast with the surrounding development and/or
scenic resources due to the project’s height, mass, bulk,
grading, signs, setback, color or landscape?
h) Be located along a City designated scenic or view
corridor and contrast with the surrounding development
and/or scenic resources due to the project’s height,
mass, bulk, grading, signs, setback, color or landscape?
i) Substantially: (i) remove natural features, or (ii) add
man-made features, or (iii) structures which degrade the
visual intactness and unity of the scenic corridor or
vista?
j) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
that will exceed the standards established in the
Municipal Code, illuminate areas outside the project
boundary, and use excessive reflective building
material?
k) Include roadway improvements that will result in a
substantial decrease of open space or trees?
l) Include roadway improvements that are not consistent
with the surrounding landscape?
m) Result in the installation of a traffic signal that is not
justified by signal warrants or documented roadway
hazards?
n) Result in the installation of a traffic signal in a residential
neighborhood 1?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
III(a-b) Less Than Significant – The proposed project consists of building a new 1-story,
4,404-ft2, free-standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM. The proposed
bank building would be placed in the southeast corner of the site with parking bays
along the north and west sides of the building that provide a total of 31 parking stalls.
All of these improvements would be constructed in a single phase. Detailed
architectural drawings submitted by the applicants present a building to be
constructed in a Spanish Mediterranean style with a mission-style, red tile roof and
painted stucco facades. This building style matches that of other commercial
buildings in the area.
1 For purposes of this traffic signal threshold only, a signal is considered to be located in
residential neighborhood if it is within or abutting a residentially zoned property.
D-50
20
The preliminary design of the bank building and drive-thru ATM are consistent with
the property development standards for the Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay
District (RHE Municipal Code § 17.30.050). The project site also lies along a Scenic
Corridor identified in the City’s General Plan (see subsection III [d, h, i]). The scenic
corridor designation strives to ensure that significant views along these corridors are
preserved.
The proposed project requires review and approval of a Precise Plan of Design
(PPD) by the City’s Planning Commission per Section 17.58 of the City’s Municipal
Code. Per 17.58.030 of the Municipal Code, to be granted a PPD, the project must
be designed to meet the City’s development standards, zoning ordinance, and
General Plan. In addition, since the site is located with the Peninsula Center
Commercial District, Section 17.58.030 requires the project to meet additional design
requirements. Section 17.58.030(D) of the City’s Municipal Code states:
All buildings and structures in the city erected or modified after
October 1, 1983, within Peninsula Center (as shown in the Peninsula
Center element of the general plan), shall be designed to be
compatible in terms of size, bulk, scale, proportion, site coverage,
architectural appearance and density and intensity of use and design
as provided in the general plan. Each project shall be developed so as
to give adequate consideration to the aesthetic requirements of the
Peninsula Center design standards, topography of the site, adjacent
uses of the land, internal and external vehicular and pedestrian
circulation, adequacy of parking, how well the project relates to the
site, its potential for adversely affecting the view shed, the goals of the
Peninsula Center element of the general plan, and the overall effect of
the proposed development on the Peninsula Center.
The proposed construction of the bank branch building and drive-thru ATM are
expected to comply with all of the City’s Municipal Code standards. The proposed
bank building, drive-thru ATM and associated parking areas respect the existing
commercial amenities of the site and surroundings; are of a scale that is consistent
with surrounding properties; contain design elements that blend in with the existing
buildings in the area (e.g., Spanish Mediterranean style buildings with a mission-
style, red tile roofs and painted stucco facades); and also include landscaping of the
proposed parking area. In addition, the proposed improvements would not encroach
upon the privacy of any surrounding facilities and would not negatively impact any
views (see subsection III[f-g]).
The City’s PPD approval process, which requires a meeting before the Planning
Commission, ensures that the final design of the proposed bank building and drive-
thru ATM will meet the City’s design requirements. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposed of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the City’s neighborhood
compatibility standards.
III(c) No Impact - The proposed project consists of building a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2, free-
standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM. No new above-ground utility
lines or service boxes would be installed with this project.
D-51
21
III(d, h, i) Less than Significant Impact – The project site is located along Silver Spur Road,
which is a designated “Scenic Corridor” in the City’s General Plan (see Exhibit 5-2 of
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan). Rolling Hills Estates’ Scenic Corridors are
roadways that traverse areas of aesthetic quality or offer views of aesthetic features.
The following criteria were used in designating Scenic Corridors in the City 2:
Areas which characterize the rural or urban form of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates.
Significant historic places or sites of interest.
Outstanding topographic features or unique natural features.
Urban design and architecture unique to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
Important viewsheds where preservation is warranted.
The proposed project consists of building a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2f, free-standing
Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM. The project site consists of an
approximately ½-acre irregularly-shaped parcel that slopes southward towards Silver
Spur Road. The northern side of the parcel is improved with retaining walls and planted
with a row of existing cypress trees. The site would be re-graded to create a level pad
for the bank building, parking and automobile circulation areas, as well as for the drive-
thru ATM. The proposed landscaping is ornamental in nature and is concentrated in
the parking areas and along the street frontages of the property. While the project
involves minor grading to prepare the site and to accommodate the proposed
improvements, the topography of the site would not be noticeably changed. Moreover,
the site does not contain any natural topographic features (e.g., knolls, valleys,
outcroppings, etc.), native landscaping, or other natural features that contribute to the
scenic quality of the area.
The proposed bank building and drive-thru ATM conform to the height and setback
requirements of the CG/MU Zone District. The bank building would have a 5-foot
setback from Silver Spur Road and from Beechgate Drive. These areas would be
landscaped as would other areas of the site that are not occupied by parking and
drive aisles. The overall height of the building (29-feet, 6½ -inches) is well below the
permitted 44-feet Code requirement. Vehicular entrances to the property would be
from new 2-way driveways on Beechgate Drive and Silver Spur Road. The drive-thru
ATM has an “exit only” driveway onto Silver Spur Road. The proposed driveway
improvements would replace deteriorating pavement and improve the appearance of
the site both from Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive.
In addition to not adversely affecting the aesthetic quality or character of the project
environs, the proposed project would not block or obstruct views of any scenic
resources. The proposed structures and landscaping are similar in height and
density to surrounding commercial uses and the proposed landscaping would be
consistent in character to landscaping located at nearby commercial centers. The
new building is also proposed to be located at the southeast corner of the property,
thus reducing its visibility to residential properties located to the north.
2 City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan, see pg. 5-18.
D-52
22
In summary, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on
the Silver Spur Road Scenic Corridor. Specifically, the proposed project would not
include unscreened outdoor uses or equipment that are inconsistent with the urban
character of this area of the City; would not contrast with the surrounding
development or scenic resources; and would not degrade the visual intactness and
unity of the scenic corridor.
III(e) No Impact – The proposed project will not result in the loss of any Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, undeveloped canyons, or hillside areas. The project site is currently
vacant and was previously occupied by a gasoline station. There are no natural
features of the site that would be removed as a result of constructing the bank
building and drive-thru ATM. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts
related to the loss of an Environmentally Sensitive Area, natural undeveloped
canyon, or hillside area.
III(f-g) Less than Significant Impact - There are no scenic resources that would be
obstructed with the proposed construction of the bank and drive-thru ATM. The site
is currently vacant and was previously occupied by a gasoline service station. The
site is situated within a commercial area and is located along a commercial corridor
in this portion of the City. The proposed building’s architecture will be compatible
with existing commercial retail and office buildings in the area. Furthermore, the
project confines new construction towards the front of the site, adjacent to Silver
Spur Road. This results in the project “blending” with other commercial uses located
in this commercial corridor in the City.
Similarly, the project would not obstruct any distant views. The site lies down slope
from the only residential uses in the vicinity, which exist to the north. The proposed
structure is a single-story building that complies with the height restrictions of the
Zoning Code and is consistent with other buildings in the vicinity.
See also Section III (d, h, i), above.
III(j). Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation – The project site is currently
separated from residential uses to the north by Beechgate Drive and Silver Spur
Road which “wraps” the property on the east and north, respectively. The project site
is also situated down slope approximately 250 feet from the nearest residential
properties located to the north and northeast. These factors significantly diminish
light and glare emanating from the project site for residential uses.
In addition to the foregoing, Section 17.42.030 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal
Code requires any lighting on the property to be directed only onto the property
itself and will not be permitted to illuminate other properties. Also, any indirect
illumination of neighboring properties will not be permitted to exceed one foot-
candle at the property line for neighboring commercial properties and 4/10ths foot-
candle for all other adjoining properties. Mitigation Measure AES-1 ensures
compliance with the lighting standards in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 17.42).
With this mitigation, and due to the down slope location of the property the
proposed project would not create a substantial source of light or glare and any
related impacts are less than significant.
D-53
23
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a lighting
plan showing conformance with Chapter 17.42 of the Rolling Hills Estates
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
III(k-l). No Impact – The proposed project does not include any roadway improvements,
other than the closing of existing driveways and creation of new driveways along the
Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive project frontages. These minor improvements
would not result in a loss of open space or a loss of trees, and would have no
discernable change to the surrounding landscape.
III(m-n) No Impact – The project does not include the installation of a traffic signal and the
proposed improvements to the site are not anticipated to trigger any traffic warrants.
IV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Itself, or when cumulatively considered result in a traffic
impact. A change in Level of Service (LOS) from C to D
or D to E is a traffic impact. Within LOS C or D, a
change in ICU value greater than 0.02 is an impact and
within LOS E or F a change in ICU greater than 0.01 is
an impact. For unsignalized intersections, an impact
occurs when the addition of project traffic increases the
Level of Service to an unacceptable level (less than LOS
C)?
b) Trigger one or more signal warrants?
c) Include design features, uses, or traffic volumes that
may cause traffic hazards such as sharp curves, tight
turning radii from streets, limited roadway visibility, short
merging lanes, uneven road grades, pedestrian, bicycle
or equestrian safety concerns, or any other conditions
determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be a hazard?
d) Result in additional access points on arterial streets as
defined by the General Plan?
e) Result in a residential project that will result in a
secondary access point?
f) Create one or more access points on a roadway that is
not the primary frontage?
g) Create a flag lot3 adjacent to an arterial street, as
defined by the General Plan?
h) Result in inadequate parking capacity as determined by
the City in evaluating the reasonably foreseeable
demands of the specific project?
i) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
3 A flag lot is defined as a lot located behind another lot that has normal street frontage. A flag lot includes
a strip of land that goes out to the street and is generally used for an access drive. There are two distinct
parts to a flag lot; the flag, which comprises the actual building site, located behind another lot, and the
pole, which provides access from the street to the flag. A flag lot results from the division of a large lot
with the required area and depth for two lots, but which has insufficient width to locate both lots on the
street frontage.
D-54
24
IV(a). Less Than Significant Impact – Stantec prepared a Traffic Report (dated March
2012) for the proposed project, which is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A.
This Traffic Report evaluated the proposed project pursuant to CEQA, in accordance
with the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology
Guidelines 4.
The project’s Traffic Report estimates the peak hour (AM and PM) and average daily
vehicle trips that would result from the proposed project, based on the trip generation
rates identified by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for a Bank With
Drive Through (ITE Code 912). As shown in Table IV-1, the proposed project would
generate 40 net trips during the AM peak hour, 86 net trips during the PM peak hour,
and 489 net daily trips.
Table IV-1
Project Trip Generation Estimates
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates1
Bank With Drive Through (ITE Code 912) per TSF 148.15 6.92 5.43 12.35 12.91 12.91 25.82
Trip Generation
Proposed Bank 4.404 TSF 652 30 24 54 57 57 114
Pass-by Reduction -163 -8 -6 -14 -14 -14 -28
TOTAL NET TRIP GENERATION 489 22 18 40 43 43 46
Source: Stantec, Chase Bank – Silver Spur Road and Beachgate Drive, Traffic Report, 2012.
Notes:
1 Trip rates based on Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2008.
2 Pass-by reduction assumes that 25% of the vehicles that would stop at the bank would be vehicles that are already on the
streets and simply would stop at the bank on their way to a different destination.
To evaluate the affect that the project-induced trips would have on traffic conditions,
Stantec performed a level of service (LOS) analysis at seven (7) intersections. The
LOS analysis considered four (4) scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing Plus
Project Conditions, Cumulative Conditions, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
Table IV-2 compares the Existing Conditions with the Existing Plus Project
Conditions. As shown in this table, all of the evaluated intersections would operate
at an acceptable level of service, except the Silver Spur Rd./Hawthorne Blvd.
intersection, which would operate at LOS D in the AM Peak Hour with or without the
project. The project would cause a 0.001 increase in the intersection’s ICU value,
which is below the City’s threshold of significance of 0.02. Therefore, the project’s
traffic impacts are not significant.
4 City of Rolling Hills Estates, Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Guidelines, June 14, 2004.
D-55
25
Table IV-2
Level of Service Summary – Existing Conditions Analysis
Intersection
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
Crenshaw Blvd./Silver Spur Rd. 0.660 B 0.608 B 0.667 B 0.617 B
Beechgate Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.396 A 0.486 A 0.413 A 0.511 A
Drybank Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.309 A 0.526 A 0.312 A 0.532 A
Norris Center Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.356 A 0.491 A 0.358 A 0.497 A
Silver Arrow Rd./Silver Spur Rd. 0.425 A 0.489 A 0.427 A 0.494 A
Silver Spur Rd./Hawthorne Blvd. 0.811 D 0.740 C 0.812 D 0.750 C
Silver Spur Rd./Roxcove Dr.* 10.8 B 14.6 B 10.8 B 14.9 B
* Unsignalized intersection, measured in seconds of delay.
Table IV-3 compares the Cumulative Conditions with the Cumulative Plus Project
Conditions. Cumulative Conditions were determined by distributing the trips that
other development projects in the area would generate on the roadway network. As
shown in Table IV-3, all of the evaluated intersections would operate at an
acceptable level of service, except the Silver Spur Rd./Hawthorne Blvd. intersection.
This intersection would operate at an LOS D in the AM Peak Hour with or without the
project. In the PM Peak Hour, this intersection would operate at an LOS C without
the project and an LOS D with the project. The project would cause a 0.001 increase
in the intersection’s ICU value during the AP Peak Hour and an increase of 0.01
during the PM Peak Hour, both of which are below the City’s threshold of
significance of 0.02. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic
impacts is not considerable.
Table IV-3
Level of Service Summary – Cumulative Conditions Analysis
Intersection
Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Scenario
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
ICU or
Delay (Sec) LOS
Crenshaw Blvd./Silver Spur Rd. 0.700 C 0.681 B 0.709 C 0.696 B
Beechgate Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.404 A 0.508 A 0.420 A 0.526 A
Drybank Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.367 A 0.606 B 0.370 A 0.613 B
Norris Center Dr./Silver Spur Rd. 0.374 A 0.539 A 0.376 A 0.546 A
Silver Arrow Rd./Silver Spur Rd. 0.441 A 0.530 A 0.443 A 0.536 A
Silver Spur Rd./Hawthorne Blvd. 0.834 D 0.796 C 0.835 D 0.806 D
Silver Spur Rd./Roxcove Dr.* 11.2 B 15.6 C 11.3 B 15.9 C
* Unsignalized intersection, measured in seconds of delay.
IV(b). No Impact – The amount of project induced vehicle trips required a signal warrant
analysis for one unsignalized intersection – Silver Spur Rd. at Roxcove Dr. As
shown above in Tables IV-2 and IV-3, this intersection operates at an acceptable
D-56
26
LOS with and without the project in both the existing and cumulative scenarios. In
addition, the minimum peak hour volume threshold of signal warrants is 100 vehicles
per hour for the minor street approach. In total, the proposed project and all of the
cumulative projects would add 68 vehicles in the higher peak hour. The project did
not meet any signal warrants.5
IV(c). Less than Significant Impact – The proposed project includes three new access
points and vehicular circulation in the proposed parking lot. The project’s Traffic
Report 6 (contained in Appendix A of this document) included the following discussion
regarding the proposed circulation:
The project proposes to provide one full access driveway along Beechgate Drive.
This driveway will be approximately 25 feet wide, allowing adequate width for one
in-bound and one out-bound lane. One outbound lane is adequate for
Beechgate Drive, which has relatively low traffic volumes, and vehicles wishing to
turn right will not be waiting behind vehicles wanting to turn left and waiting for a
break in heavy traffic. There are no sight distance issues with this driveway.
The project will also provide two driveways along Silver Spur Road. These will
both allow for right-turns in and out only, but left turns will be prohibited by an
existing raised median along Silver Spur Road. There are no sight distance
issues with either of these proposed driveways along Silver Spur Road.
The internal roadways will be approximately 25 feet wide, which is adequate for a
project of this type.
In addition, the City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project’s circulation plans
and has not identified any potential traffic hazards. Therefore, the proposed project
would not cause any significant environmental impacts related to traffic hazards.
IV(d). No Impact – No additional access points on arterial streets are proposed.
IV(e). No Impact – The project is not a residential project and the project site would not
add any new residential access points.
IV(f). Less than Significant Impact – The proposed bank is designed to front onto two
streets – Silver Spur Rd. and Beechgate Dr. The site currently has vehicular access
points from both of these streets. However, vehicular access to the site has been
restricted since the closure of the former gas station onsite. Access to the proposed
bank from Beechgate Dr. would occur in the same location as the existing driveway
apron. Similarly, the two proposed access points from Silver Spur Rd. are in the
same general location as the existing driveway apron. Given the site’s existing
vehicular access and the design of the project with two frontages, providing for
access from two roadways would not cause any significant environmental impacts.
IV(g). No Impact – This is not a residential project and no lots are being created as part of
this project.
5 Stantec, Chase Bank – Silver Spur Road and Beachgate Drive, Traffic Report, 2012.
6 Ibid.
D-57
27
IV(h). No Impact – Based on the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would
require 30 spaces. The proposed site plan provides for a total of 30 parking spaces
and one additional loading space. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in inadequate parking capacity.
IV(i). No Impact – The project would not conflict with any alternative transportation plans,
policies, or programs.
V AIR QUALITY Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Fail to meet the applicable State and Federal air quality
plan (i) because the project may cause or contribute to
emission of identified air pollutants in excess of levels
stated in the plan or (ii) where it may fail to implement a
remedial or mitigation measure required under the
appropriate plan?
b) Results in emission of identified pollutants in excess of
the pounds per day or tons per quarter standards
established by SCAQMD?
c) Cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality regulations (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors) where the incremental effect of the project
emissions, considered together with past, present, and
reasonably anticipated future project emissions, increase
the level of any criteria pollutant above the existing
ambient levels?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people because the project may cause an
odiferous emission, including emissions resulting from
vehicles, that is noxious, putrid, having an appreciable
chemical smell, or having an appreciable smell of human
or animal waste, rendering, or by-products?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
V(a). No Impact – The City of Rolling Hills Estates is within the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto
Mountains to the north and east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The
air quality in the SCAB is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD).
The SCAB has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both
state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Because of the
violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the California
Clean Air Act requires triennial preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP). The AQMP considers air quality on a regional level and identifies region-
wide attenuation methods to achieve the air quality standards. The most recently
plan is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) in September 2007. This plan is the South Coast Air Basin’s portion of the
D-58
28
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 2003 AQMP remains the applicable air plan
for federal ozone standards, since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has not taken action to approve the 2007 AQMP.
Implementation of the AQMP is based on a series of control measures and strategies
that vary by source type (i.e., stationary or mobile) as well as by the pollutant that is
being targeted. The control measures in the 2007 AQMP are based on facility
modernization, energy efficiency and conservation, good management practices,
market incentives/compliance flexibility, area source programs, emission growth
management and mobile source programs. In addition, CARB has developed a plan
of control strategies for sources controlled by CARB (i.e., on-road and off-road motor
vehicles and consumer products). Further, Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
defined in SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) are needed to attain the ambient air quality standards.
The TCMs defined in the RTP and RTIP fall into three categories, High Occupancy
Vehicle Measures, Transit and System Management Measures and Information-
based Transportation Strategies.
The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency with
the AQMP:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions
specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 [of the
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook] for relocating CO hot spots).
(2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or
increments based on the year of project build-out and phase.
In regards to criterion 1, the consistency criterion pertains to long-term local air
quality impacts, rather than regional emissions, as defined by the SCAQMD. The
SCAQMD has identified carbon monoxide (CO) as the best indicator pollutant for
determining whether air quality violations would occur, as CO hot-spot is most
directly related to increase in traffic. Nevertheless, the air basin is now in attainment
for the CO standards and exccedances of the CO standards are not expected.
Consequently, local air quality impact modeling is no longer performed. Local air
pollutant concentrations would not be expected to exceed the ambient air quality
concentration standards due to local traffic, with or without the project. Since the
project is not projected to impact the local air quality, the project is found to be
consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion.
In regards to criterion #2, the assumptions used to develop the AQMP are based on
projections from local general plans. Consequently, conformity with the AQMP of
infrastructure and land development projects is measured by the project’s
consistency with adopted land use plans, growth forecasts, and programs relative to
population, housing, employment, and land use. The proposed project is a new
Chase bank branch. The proposed bank would be located in an existing commercial
area with corresponding general commercial zoning and General Plan designations.
The proposed bank is intended to serve the City’s existing and projected population.
Given the type and scale of the proposed project, the project is not expected to result
D-59
29
in a measurable change in housing, employment, or land use projections. As a
result, the project is consistent with the growth expectations for the region. The
proposed project is therefore consistent with the AQMP, and would have no
associated impacts.
V(b-c). Less Than Significant Impact – The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is an airshed
that regularly exceeds ambient air quality standards (AAQS) – i.e., a non-attainment
area. The SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for respirable particulate
matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and ozone (O3). The SCAB is currently
a designated attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants, which include
carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
has established regional significance thresholds for these pollutants to compare to a
project’s daily emissions for operation and construction activities. In addition, the
SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for CO, NOx,
PM10, and PM2.5 for stationary sources of air pollutants and for on-site construction
induced air pollutants. The following subsections describe the project’s potential
pollutant sources and compare the project’s emissions to the SCAQMD thresholds.
The project’s emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) version 2011.1.1. The results of this model are included in
Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would include demolition of the existing trash
enclosure and concrete wall onsite; site preparation; grading to establish the building
pad, parking lot, and access drives, and to provide suitable soils for construction;
building construction; paving; landscaping; and painting. These construction activities
would generate air pollutants from equipment exhaust, earth disturbance, and off-
gassing from asphalt and architectural coatings. Table V-1 identifies the project’s
construction emissions (daily emissions on the worst day of construction), as
estimated using the CalEEMod, and compares the project’s emissions to the
SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. As shown in this table, construction of
the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD’s
regional significance thresholds.
Table V-1
Estimated Construction Emissions
(lbs/day on the worst day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Construction
Emissions
9.80 20.31 13.15 0.03 9.07 1.71
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
In addition to comparing project emissions with the regional significance thresholds,
Table V-2 measures the project’s emissions against the localized significance
thresholds (LSTs). Since the proposed project would not install a stationary pollution
source (e.g., on-site generator, power plant, refinery, factory, etc.), only the
construction LSTs apply to this project. The appropriate LSTs vary on a project-by-
D-60
30
project basis depending on the project’s location, the acreage of the construction
site, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
The proposed project is located in Southwest Coastal Los Angeles County (Source
Receptor Area 3) and the project’s construction site would be less than one acre.
The closest sensitive receptors to the site are the residences to the north, which are
approximately 250 feet (approximately 76 meters) from the site. These measurables
were used to determine the appropriate screening-level LSTs for the project, based
on the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look Up Tables 7. The appropriate LSTs for this
project are shown in Table V-2. Table V-2 also identifies the project’s peak onsite
construction emissions for each pollutant. (Offsite construction emissions are not
relevant to the LST analysis since they do not affect the localized air quality
conditions.) As shown in this table, construction of the proposed project would not
generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD’s LSTs.
Table V-2
Localized Significance Threshold Analysis
(lbs/day on the worst day for onsite construction activities only)
CO NOx PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Construction Emissions 10.87 17.66 1.64 1.30
SCAQMD LST 785 58 14 5
Significant? No No No No
Operation Emissions
During operation, the project would generate air pollutants from vehicles arriving and
departing the site, landscape maintenance equipment exhaust, natural gas
combustion, and other area sources. Table V-3 identifies the project’s peak
operation emissions, as estimated using the CalEEMod, and compares the project’s
emissions to the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. As shown in this table,
project operation would not generate air pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD’s
thresholds.
Table V-3
Estimated Operation Emissions
(peak lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Operation Emissions 2.93 6.15 24.81 0.03 3.38 0.32
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Since the proposed project would not generate air pollutants in excess of the
SCAQMD’s regional or localized significance thresholds, the proposed project would
not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation,
would not generate pollutants in excess of SCAQMD standards, and would not result
in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
V(d). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not establish any new
odor-generating activities. During project construction, equipment may generate
7 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C
Mass Rate Look Up Tables. Revised 2008 with Appendix C Revised 2009.
D-61
31
some mild odors. However, such odors typically dissipate within close proximity of
the source and there are no immediately adjacent residences. Therefore, the
proposed project would not cause any significant adverse odor impacts.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less than Significant Impact - “Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping
heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global
climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases
contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth by allowing incoming short
wavelength visible sunlight to penetrate the atmosphere, while restricting outgoing
terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation from exiting the atmosphere. The principal
greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous
oxide (N2O). Collectively GHGs are measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway
mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting
for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are
the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total
emissions. According to climate scientists, California and the rest of the developed world
will have to cut emissions by 80 percent from today’s levels to stabilize the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere and prevent the most severe effects of global climate change.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive
orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, EO S-20-
06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is one
of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted.
Most notably AB 32 mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to
1990 levels. California Executive Order S-3-05 provides a more long-range goal and
requires an 80 percent reduction of GHG from 1990 levels by 2050.
To meet AB 32 mandates and reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels means cutting
approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or
about 15 percent from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing our
annual emissions of 14 tons of CO2 equivalent for every man, woman and child in
California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during both construction and
operation. During construction, GHGs would be emitted from vehicles accessing the site
and from construction equipment. In the long-term, operation of the proposed bank
would generate GHG emissions from vehicle trips to and from the bank, electricity
consumption, water use (as a consequence of the energy consumed to transport water),
and emissions from maintenance equipment. The CalEEMod was used to estimate the
amount of the GHG emissions that the project would generate.
The project’s GHG emissions are presented in Table V-4. The total emissions from all
construction activities are amortized over a 30-year span, as recommended by the
SCAQMD to account for the lifespan of the project. The amortized construction
emissions are then added to the estimated annual GHG emissions from operation of the
bank, resulting in the total metric tons per year (MT/yr) of GHG emissions that
D-62
32
attributable to the project.
Table V-4
Annual Project GHG Emissions
Activity CO2e in MT/yr
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 2.90
Operations 423.82
Total Project GHG Emissions (MT/yr of CO2e) 426.72
The City of Rolling Hills Estates has not adopted any significance thresholds for GHG
emissions and there are no adopted GHG significance thresholds that apply to the
project. Both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SCAQMD have been
working to establish significance thresholds for GHG impacts and have published draft
thresholds for review and comment, but no significance thresholds applicable to general
projects have been adopted by these agencies. Nonetheless, CARB’s and SCAQMD’s
proposed thresholds are discussed below and are used as guidance in a qualitative
assessment of the project’s GHG impact potential.
CARB released a Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal (Staff Proposal) on October 24, 2008
with the objective of developing interim significant thresholds for commercial and
residential projects. CARB has proposed a threshold of 7,000 annual metric tons
(MT/year) for industrial operational sources but this threshold has not been adopted. At
this time, CARB has not proposed thresholds applicable for residential and commercial
sources. Therefore, criteria for determining threshold levels for residential and
commercial sources have yet to be defined. Under CARB’s Staff Proposal,
recommended approaches for setting interim significant thresholds for GHG under
CEQA are underway. CARB staff proposes to define certain performance standards
(e.g., for energy efficiency) by referencing or compiling lists from existing local, state or
national standards. For some sub-sources of GHG emissions (e.g., construction,
transportation, waste), CARB staff has not identified reference standards.
On December 5, 2008, SCAQMD adopted a GHG significance threshold for Stationary
Sources, Rules and Plans where the SCAQMD is lead agency 8. The SCAQMD’s draft
GHG Significance Threshold establishes a 5-tier threshold flowchart, with Tier 3 being
annual emission screening thresholds. For industrial stationary source projects the
SCAQMD adopted a screening threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/year. This threshold was
selected to capture 90% of the GHG emissions from these types of projects where the
combustion of natural gas is the primary source of GHG emissions. SCAQMD concluded
that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a
significant cumulative impact. While not adopted by SCAQMD Board, the Draft
Guidance Document suggests a screening threshold for residential and commercial
projects of 3,000 MT CO2e/year. However, this screening threshold was not adopted.
At the most recent SCAQMD GHG working group meeting (November, 2009), SCAQMD
staff presented two recommended options for screening thresholds for residential and
commercial projects. The first option would have different thresholds for specific land
uses, which were suggested to be 3,500 MT CO2e/year for residential projects, 1,400
MT CO2e/year for commercial projects, and 3,000 MT CO2e/year for mixed-use projects.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. December 5, 2008.
D-63
33
The second option would apply the 3,000 MT CO2EQ/year screening threshold for all
commercial/residential projects. Lead agencies would be able to select either option.
These thresholds are based on capturing 90% of the emissions from projects and
requiring them to comply with the higher tiers of the threshold (i.e., performance
requirements or GHG reductions outside of the project). Again, none of the SCAQMD’s
screening thresholds, other than the industrial stationary source threshold, have been
adopted.
Tier 4 in SCAQMD’s Draft Guidance Document suggests three options for projects that
exceed the screening thresholds, although the specifics of Tier 4 have not been
adopted. Under the first option, the project would be excluded if design features and/or
mitigation measures resulted in a certain percent lower emissions than business as
usual. The Draft Guidance Document suggests a 30% reduction, however subsequent a
SCAQMD staff report suggests a 23.9% reduction to correspond to the land use
component of CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Under the second option the project would
be excluded if it had early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of
CARB’s Scoping Plan measures. Under the third option, the project would be excluded
if it met sector based performance standards, which are yet to be adopted. Tier 5 would
exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase
offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level,
which again is yet to be adopted.
Given the small amount of GHG emissions that the proposed project would generate –
426.72 MT/year – which is well below any of the screening thresholds suggested by
either CARB or SCAQMD, the proposed project would not cause a significant adverse
climate change impact and the proposed project’s contribution to global climate change
is not considerable.
VI NOISE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of code requirements (Chapter 8.32)?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VI(a). Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project would result in
long-term noise impacts on the adjacent uses surrounding the project, since the
proposed project is a commercial building that is similar in nature to other
commercial uses in the area. The project site is bounded on all sides by existing City
streets and does not share a common boundary with another property. The closest
sensitive receptors to the site are the residences to the north, which are
approximately 250 feet from the site. The only types of noises to be generated by
the use would be miscellaneous “nuisance noises” such as the sounds of
automobiles entering and leaving the site, the slam of car doors and infrequent
automobile alarms. Such noises are not expected to change the noise environment
at the residences to the north.
D-64
34
The City's General Plan has established standards for noise and land use
compatibility for the various land use categories in the City. The established levels
are based on existing noise levels obtained through field monitoring, projected noise
levels, and community expectations to maintain an environment that is free from all
unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. Table IV-1 indicates the maximum noise
level when measured at the property line for each category of land use. The maximum
daytime noise level applicable to the project site is 65 dBA while the maximum night-
time noise level is 55 dBA.
Table IV-1 indicates the applicable noise standards for three major land use
categories in the City. These standards apply to all receptor properties within a
designated noise zone, which includes Zones I, II and M. The project site is subject
to the requirements of Zone II.
Table IV-1
Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone/Land Use Time Interval
Exterior Noise Level
(dBA)
Zone I/Residential and
Agriculture 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 55
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 45
Zone II/Commercial 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 65
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 55
Zone III/Industrial-Quarry
Operations* 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 75
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 45
Source: City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code
A commercial use such as a bank branch building and drive-thru ATM is not
considered a sensitive use. Furthermore, the proposed bank building and drive-thru
is not located in a noise sensitive area. It’s proposed to be located along a busy
commercial corridor in the City. As noted above, the project site is located within
Noise Zone II, which requires an ambient noise level of 65 dBA and 55 dBA during
the daytime and evening hours, respectively. Given the low level of ambient noise on
the project site, the proposed project is consistent with the above referenced policy,
and no significant impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Construction noise associated with heavy equipment vehicles, building activities and
transport of materials and debris may result in short term increases in noise levels to
nearby commercial properties, which include a professional office building located to
the east across Beechgate Drive, commercial properties to the northwest, and
commercial retail uses located to the south across Silver Spur Road. Other uses
that could be potentially disturbed during construction include the residential dwelling
units located to the north and northeast of the project site. The single-family
residential uses to the north, however, are separated from the project site by Silver
Spur Road and a vegetated slope. The closest residential uses to the site (the single-
family residences located upslope from the project site) are approximately 250 feet
from the project site and would be largely shielded from construction noise.
Additionally, project construction noise would be masked by traffic noise on Silver
D-65
35
Spur Road and noise would be buffered from the surrounding uses due to their
distance from the site.
Furthermore, noise during construction would be required to comply with City’s noise
ordinance. Per Section 8.32.210 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code,
construction activities (using any power equipment) are only allowed between 7:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed at any time on Sundays and
holidays. Given the short-term nature of the project’s construction noise, existing City
noise ordinance requirements, and the distance to residences, short-term noise
impacts would be less than significant.
VII BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be a project, other than a minor lot improvement
undertaken by an individual homeowner, and be located
in a high ecological sensitivity area as defined by the
General Plan and not preserve ecological habitat that is
found at the project site in accordance with the
guidelines established by the General Plan Conservation
Element.
b) Conflict with General Plan policies for protecting
biological resources.
c) Result in the loss of any (i) Environmentally Sensitive
Area as defined by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, (ii)
natural undeveloped canyon or (iii) hillside area.
d) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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.
g) Interfere substantially with (i) the movement of any
native resident or (ii) migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or (iii) impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
h) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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.
i) Have biological resource impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable.
D-66
36
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VII(a-i) No Impact – The project site is vacant but highly disturbed due to past human
activity. According to available historical sources, the property was developed with
an ARCO-branded service station from 1968 to 2003. In 2003 the service station
was demolished and the property was graded. The project site has been a vacant,
graded lot since 2003.
Currently, vegetation onsite is limited to various weeds, grasses, and wild perennial
lupine (Lupinus perennis) which cover the vacant site. The most distinctive
vegetation still remaining on the site is a row of approximately 25 Italian Cypress
trees (Cupressus sempervirens) located at the northeast corner of the vacant site
(See Figure 7). The trees are proposed to be removed with site development.
Otherwise, no distinctive natural vegetative communities exists onsite. In addition,
the site contains no natural physical features or otherwise significant topographical
features that provide biological resource value. As such, the project will not result in
a loss of an environmentally sensitive area, a natural undeveloped canyon or a
hillside.
The project site is not located within an Ecological Overlay zone identified on Exhibit
5-1 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed bank building would cause
no impacts related to the City’s Ecological Overlay zone. Furthermore, the project
would not conflict with any General Plan policies for protecting biological resources,
as none exist onsite.
No change in zoning would occur as a result of this project. No sensitive, threatened
or endangered species are present on the project site. Also, there is no sensitive
habitat, riparian habitat, or wetlands on the project site. Given the highly disturbed
nature of the project site, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with
the movement of any native resident, bird or fish species, impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites or impact any plant species.
There are no biological resources on the project site. Therefore, the project would
not cause any biological resource impacts and would not considerably contribute to
any significant cumulative biological resource impacts.
VIII CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be located in high cultural sensitivity area as defined by
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan and will result in
grading in excess of 20 cubic yards of soil.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical or archeological resource as defined in §
15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
D-67
37
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VIII(a-b). Less than Significant – The project site lies within an area of “Low Sensitivity” for
cultural resources, as shown on Exhibit 5-3 of the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan.
The General Plan (pg. 5-23) states, “Low sensitivity areas within the Peninsula
planning area include those lands which have been surveyed with the express
purpose of identifying cultural resource sites but which provided negative results.
Low sensitivity areas also include land where development or grading has resulted in
the movement or relocation of massive amounts of earth.”
The site lies within an overall area that is not a particularly sensitive area for cultural
resources. In addition, the entire site has been previously graded for the gasoline
service station that previously occupied the site. As such, any archaeological
resources that may have existed onsite have likely been eradicated from the site.
Furthermore, the proposed bank building project requires only minimal grading. No
subterranean basements or parking decks are proposed, and the proposed bank
building and drive-thru ATM would be located on portions of the site that have been
previously graded and improved. Therefore, due to the area’s low sensitivity for
cultural resources, archeological monitoring during construction is not required and
impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
In regards to historical resources, the Los Angeles County Historical Directory does
not record any historic sites within the vicinity of the site of the proposed project.
The project site is vacant and there are no existing structures on-site that would be
considered architecturally or historically significant by the City or any other group.
As a result, the proposed project would not result in any impacts on historical
resources.
VIII(c). No Impact – There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic
features on this vacant commercially-zoned site. Furthermore, the proposed
improvements would be constructed in an area that has previously been developed,
and the minimal grading that would be required would occur in surficial soils that
have previously been disturbed. No grading into deep earth materials that could
contain paleontological resources would occur. Similarly, no unique geological
features exist onsite and no landform modification is proposed. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on paleontological resources or unique
geologic features.
VIII(d). Less than Significant Impact – There are no known human remains on the site.
The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used
for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not
expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the
unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the
remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with
these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not result in significant
impacts due to disturbing human remains.
D-68
38
IX GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Involve modifications on slopes greater than 2:1?
b) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
v) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risk to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IX(a) Less than Significant Impact –The site slopes generally downward in a southerly
direction towards Silver Spur Road. No slopes greater than 2:1 exist on the site, and
no landform modifications or other substantial grading is required or proposed for the
project. Therefore, while the site includes a slight slope, the project’s related impacts
are less than significant.
IX(b[i-ii]). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation - The potential for fault rupture is
addressed at the state level by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The
legislature’s intent was to provide a statewide seismic hazards mapping and
technical advisory program to assist cities and counties in fulfilling their
responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety from the effects of strong
ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, and other seismic hazards
caused by earthquakes.
The project site is not located within a currently mapped California Earthquake
Special Studies Fault Zone (Uniform Building Code, 1997) or an Alquist-Priolo Fault
Rupture Zone. The site is also not within a Fault Caution Zone or Hazards
Management Overlay as shown on Exhibit 8-1 of the Safety Element of the Rolling
D-69
39
Hills Estates General Plan. The closest such fault zone to the project site is the
Palos Verdes Fault zone, located approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. In
addition, Exhibit 8-4 of the Safety Element of the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan
shows the Cabrillo Fault to exist in the vicinity of the site.
A Geotechnical Investigation and corresponding Addendum were prepared for the
project by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec)9, which are included in
Appendix C of this Initial Study. Based on Stantec’s investigation, neither the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC) nor the 2008 United States Geologic Survey (USGS)
National Seismic Hazard Maps recognize the Cabrillo Fault as an ‘active fault’; and
the USGS characterizes the Cabrillo Fault as a Late Quaternary fault with an age
less than 130,000 years, whereas active faults are those that have been active within
the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,000 years). Based on the above information,
Stantec concludes, “there is a low potential for surface fault rupture from the Cabrillo
and Palos Verdes Faults and other nearby active faults propagating to the surface of
the site during the design life of the proposed development.”
However, ground motion and related hazards resulting from earthquakes along any
of the known faults in the area, including the Palos Verdes Fault, may result in
significant seismic related hazards. Because of the sites’ exposure to ground
shaking, the following mitigation measure is recommended:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official (or designee) and the City of
Rolling Hills Estates City Engineer (or designee) shall review and approve
final design plans for the project site to ensure that earthquake-resistant
design has been incorporated into final site drawings in accordance with the
most current California Building Code, the recommended seismic design
parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the
project’s Geotechnical Investigation Report (Stantec, 2011) and
corresponding Addendum 01 (Stantec, 2012). Ultimate site seismic design
acceleration shall be determined by the project structural engineer during the
project design phase.
IX(b[iii-iv] and-c). Less than Significant Impact - The site is not located within a current,
mapped California Liquefaction Hazard Zone. However, as part of the Geotechnical
Investigation Report, Stantec conducted a liquefaction evaluation for the site under
the guidance of Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California,” published by the California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1997 and based on empirical
procedures described in summarized by Martin and Lew et al. (1999). The in-situ
characteristics of the subsurface soils were analyzed, and similarities and
dissimilarities of the subsurface conditions were compared with those sites where the
subsurface soils are known to have liquefied.10
9 Geotechnical Investigation Report, Stantec Consulting Corporation, Proposed Chase Bank, 828 Silver
Spur Road, Palos Verdes, California 90274, September 11, 2011; and Geotechnical Investigation
Addendum 01, Proposed Chase Bank, 828 Silver Spur Road, Palos Verdes, California, March 5, 2012.
10 Ibid, Page 10
D-70
40
Because the data indicated conditions at the project site may be susceptible to
seismically induced liquefaction, Stantec conducted a Quantitative Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance study on soil layers in the upper 40 feet bgs (below ground
surface) of the site. Based on the results of this study, Stantec concluded that the
susceptibility of subsurface soils onsite to liquefaction is low.11
Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth
materials due to ground shaking. The topography at the project site and in the
immediate vicinity is relatively flat. Groundwater is not present beneath the site.
However, perched water zones have been encountered onsite from depths ranging
between 20 and 30 feet bgs. Under these circumstances, with groundwater between
20 and 30 feet below ground surface (bgs), the potential for lateral spreading is
considered low.
IX(b[v]). Less than Significant Impact – The construction of the proposed project would
involve limited grading operations associated with the preparation of the site.
These operations are not anticipated to leave soils uncovered or exposed for long
periods and would not result in a significant Ioss of top soils or erosion. W ith the
application of standard construction practices and regulatory requirements, soil
erosion and loss of topsoil is not a concern for the site. Erosion from storm water
runoff is controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
which requires sedimentation and erosion controls to be implemented. Wind erosion
during construction is controlled by SCQAMD Rule 403, which requires fugitive dust
to be reduced with the application of best available control technologies.
IX(d). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation – Based on the sites Geotechnical
Investigation Report (Stantec, 2011), the near-surface soils encountered in the
proposed building area are predominantly clay with variable amounts of sand. T ests
conducted by Stantec confirmed that subsurface soils exhibit high expansion
potential. In addition, soils tests conducted by Stantec determined that near soils are
expected by have a very corrosion potential for steel.12 As a consequence of the
foregoing, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, building
plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the recommendations included in
the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Stantec Consulting
Corporation, September 11, 2011. This includes all recommendations
pertaining to building foundation design, foundation construction, installation
of post tensioned slabs, pavement design, subgrade and aggregate base
specifications, site grading, and removal of undocumented fill and
replacement with non-expansive import fill.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: A Project Soils Engineer and/or their authorized
representatives shall be present during project construction to provide a
source of advice to the project applicant regarding the geotechnical aspects
of the project and to observe and test the earthwork conducted on the site.
IX(e). No Impact – No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are
11Ibid, Page 12
12 Ibid, Page 13
D-71
41
proposed as part of the implementation of the proposed development. Sewer
connections will be made to existing lines in the surrounding streets. As a result,
no impacts will occur with regard to sewers or alternative wastewater disposal
systems.
X HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be located in the Hazard Management Overlay Zone.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
c) 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?
d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle petroleum, or
petroleum byproducts, or hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
f) Be located (i) within an area covered by an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, (ii)
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
and (iii) will result in a safety hazard for people working
in the project area.
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
i) 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?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
X(a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation – As depicted on Exhibit 8-1 of the
City’s General Plan, the project site is shown to be in a Fault Caution Zone within the
City’s Hazards Management Overlay Zone. However, in response to IX (b-c), above,
a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure GEO-1) has been included that requires
that earthquake-resistant design be incorporated into final site drawings for the
project in accordance with the most current California Building Code and the
recommended seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of
California. Therefore, after mitigation, the proposed project would not result in any
significant impacts related to the City’s Hazard Management Overlay Zone.
X(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project involves the construction of a
bank building and drive-thru ATM. This use does not involve the use, storage,
D-72
42
disposal or distribution of large quantities of materials that may be considered
hazardous. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact
related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
X(c-e). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation - From as early as 1947, the project
site was utilized for agricultural purposes. Agricultural use continued through the
1950s until 1969, when it was first developed as a gasoline services station. The site
remained a service station (Peninsula Auto Service/ARCO) until it was demolished in
2003. Currently, the site exists as an undeveloped dirt lot with a small concrete
enclosure and a planter area containing trees along the northern perimeter of the
project site. For approximately 34 years, normal daily operations at the site involved
the use of petroleum products and a small amount of hazardous materials.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the site by
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc, as dated May 23, 2011 and contained in
Appendix D of this Initial Study. Based on this Phase I ESA, historically, there have
been two releases of petroleum products at the project site resulting in soil and
groundwater contamination. Site contaminants include total petroleum hydrocarbons
— gasoline range (TPHg), aromatic compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
xylenes), methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and tert-butyl alcohol (TBA). According to
the environmental agency database search contained within the project’s Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, the site is listed under two databases, indicating a
release into the environment.13 These databases include Cortese and Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST). In addition, a total of 11 monitoring wells have
been installed on the property for ongoing groundwater quarterly monitoring and
sampling activities.
According to the Phase I ESA report, all previous infrastructure associated with the
ARCO service station, including buildings, gasoline dispenser islands, underground
storage tanks (USTs), and associated product piping, was removed in 2003. Also,
excavations occurring on site between the years of 2003 and 2006 removed
impacted soil and groundwater. Such excavations have been backfilled.
A number of subsurface investigations and soil sampling activities have taken place
on the project site in the intervening years since the ARCO station was demolished.
Additional activities on the property included the removal of groundwater monitoring
wells and remedial excavations being performed. Nevertheless, the current LUST
case for the property is not acceptable for closure because the full extent of
contamination is not known, the groundwater contamination plume is not stable or
decreasing, fuel constituents above maximum containments levels in groundwater is
present, and municipal water wells are potentially impacted. Based on this and other
factors, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. recommended the preparation of a
Phase II subsurface investigation of the site.
13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Silver Spur & Beechgate, 828 Silver Spur Road,
Rolling Hills Estates, California 90274, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc, May 23, 2011.
D-73
43
Phase II Subsurface Investigation
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. prepared a Phase II Subsurface Investigation
Report for the property, as dated July 20, 2011 and contained in Appendix D of this
Initial Study.14 The results of the Phase II subsurface investigations indicate that
elevated residual petroleum hydrocarbon impacts remain on-site. Various petroleum
VOC’s (Volatile Organic Compounds), including BTEX and/or MTBE, were detected
in 6 of the 21 analyzed soil samples conducted as part of the Phase II investigations.
Additionally, TPH-g15 was detected in three analyzed soil samples, TPH-d was
detected in seven analyzed soil samples, and TPH-o was detected in four analyzes
soil samples. As a consequence of these investigations, the Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 are recommended based on the Phase I and Phase II
reports. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts related to hazardous materials.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project applicant(s) shall continue groundwater
monitoring and remedial activities at the subject property as directed by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) until regulatory case
closure is issued for the active LUST case.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: To the satisfaction of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates, prior to redevelopment of the site and/or subsurface excavation, the
project applicant(s) shall implement a soils management plan during future site
grading and/or other redevelopment activities involving soil disturbance to ensure
proper handling and/or disposal of any contaminated soil and groundwater that
may be encountered.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of
Rolling Hills Estates Building Official (or designee) and the City of Rolling Hills
Estates Engineer (or designee) shall review and approve final design plans for
the project site to ensure that any potential vapor intrusion concerns have been
adequately addressed.
X(f-g) No Impact - The City is located approximately 3 miles southwest of Torrance
Municipal Airport. The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located
approximately 15 miles to the northwest. The project site is not located within a
designated aircraft crash zone, nor would it involve any improvements that would
otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project would not
present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations.
X(h) Less Than Significant Impact – According to the City’s General Plan, Public
Safety Element, Hawthorne Boulevard, Crenshaw Boulevard, and Palos Verdes
Drive East are the designated emergency evacuation routes in the City. Los Angeles
County Public Works has prioritized these routes for debris clearance and road
repairs in the event they are damaged during a major earthquake or other natural
disaster. In addition, Indian Peak Road, Palos Verdes Drive North, and Silver Spur
14 Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report, Silver Spur & Beechgate, 828 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills
Estates, California 90274, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc, July 20, 2011.
15 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
D-74
44
Road are disaster routes proposed to augment County routes for City-specific
emergency planning purposes.
The project provides adequate street access, and project operations would not
interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Also, the
project site plan is subject to review and approval by the Fire Department in order to
ensure adequate provision of fire hydrants and access. This step in the permitting
process ensures adequate emergency response and access.
X(i) Less Than Significant Impact – The stringent Building Code requirements
associated with the State’s “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” apply to all
properties in the City. The project is required to comply with all pertinent fire code
and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, and
fire flows. Specific fire code requirements would be addressed during the building
fire plan check. Compliance with the fire code and ordinance requirements would
reduce the risks to a less than significant level.
XI HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, 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 offsite?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, 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 which
would result in flooding on or offsite?
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) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
D-75
45
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XI(a, c, f) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation - Section 402 of the Federal Clean
Water Act requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for storm water discharges from storm drain systems 16 to waters of the
United States. The City of Rolling Hills Estates is a co-permittee in the Los Angeles
County storm drain system permit or “municipal permit” (Order No. 01-182; NPDES
No. CAS0041 as amended by Orders R4-2006-0074 and R4-2007-0042).
As special provision, the Los Angeles County Municipal Permit requires permittees to
maintain and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan ("SUSMP").
Development and redevelopment activities that are deemed “priority” projects (based
on the type and scale of the project) are further required to develop and implement
project-specific SUSMPs or Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (USWMPs) that
identify the specific design features and best management practices (BMPs) that will
be implemented for the project and are applicable to the project.
Construction of the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the
Municipal NPDES Permit (implemented through the SUSMP) and the City’s
Municipal Code. Both the Municipal Code and the SUSMP require application of
erosion and sedimentation control BMPs during construction for proper water quality
management. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas
sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. BMPs
will be specifically identified in the project-specific Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan
(WWECP) and designed to prevent erosion and construction pollutants from entering
the City’s storm drain and receiving waters. By requiring implementation of a
WWECP and implementation of BMPs during construction activities, the City is
ensuring that these activities would not violate standards or degrade water quality.
As part of its normal project approval and construction oversight activities, the City of
Rolling Hills Estates monitors compliance with these requirements.
The Los Angeles County Municipal Permit also requires that Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) be prepared for all construction projects with disturbed
areas of 1 acre or greater. The statewide NPDES construction permit maintained by
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) also requires a SWPPP for
construction projects that involve one or more acres of land disturbance. The
SWPPP is required to outline the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction.
These BMPs will minimize construction-induced water pollutants by controlling
erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and
providing non-storm water management procedures.
In addition to Section 402, Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to
designate uses for all bodies within state boundaries (intrastate waters) and to
establish water quality criteria for those water bodies. Those water bodies that do
not satisfy the water quality criteria for their designated uses are identified as
16 Storm drainage systems are described as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and
include streets, gutters, conduits, natural or artificial drains, channels and water courses or other
facilities that are owned, operated, maintained or controlled by an Permittee and used for purposes of
collecting, storing, transporting, or disposing of storm water.
D-76
46
impaired. In order to improve the quality of impaired water bodies and thus achieve
the water quality criteria, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires
states to establish Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards that apply to
tributary sources for impaired water bodies. The storm drain system that serves the
project site drains into the Wilmington Drain that discharges into Machado Lake.17
The storm drain system that serves the project site and the majority of the City of
Rolling Hills Estates drains into Machado Lake, which is identified as an impaired
water body. TMDLs have been adopted for Machado Lake for nutrients and trash,
and additional TMDLs for toxics and metals are currently under review.
Both construction and operation activities associated with the project could generate
additional water pollutants that could adversely affect storm water quality and the
water quality in downstream Machado Lake. Construction-related activities can
release sediments from exposed soils into local storm drains. In addition,
construction waste materials such as chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum
products may make their way into local storm drains. However, as indicated above
and required by Mitigation Measures HYD-1, the project would be subject to the
requirements of the Municipal NPDES Permit and the City’s Municipal Code.
Pursuant to these requirements, Best Management Practices (BMP’s) would be
instituted to effectively offset these potential sources of water pollution.
Operationally, storm water or urban runoff from the developed project site could
collect sediment, trash, metals, and oils as it flows through the proposed parking lot
and other site surfaces. These potential post-construction pollutants would be
addressed through Treatment Control BMPs that would be incorporated into the final
site design of the project, as required by Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2.
These BMPs would be implemented to treat runoff from the proposed project,
including roof runoff. In most locations, storm water from the roof of the building
would be collected in rain gutters and discharged to the pervious planted areas
surrounding the building, where it would be allowed to infiltrate. Overflow drains
would be placed within the pervious areas to collect excess storm water and
discharge it into street gutters via curb drain outlets.
In addition to surface water quality concerns, past uses of this property have caused
the potential for contaminated groundwater to be encountered during grading.
Grading for the proposed project would be limited to creating a level pad for the
proposed bank building, drive-thru ATM, and paved parking areas. Excavation for
underground parking or other facilities is not proposed, and the depth to groundwater
is expected to be at least 20 feet. Thus, dewatering is not expected to be required
during construction. Regardless, Mitigation Measure HYD-4 is included to ensure
that construction of the project does not result in improper discharge of contaminated
groundwater (e.g., into the storm drain system).
In summary, with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-4,
the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to a violation of
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, erosion or siltation, or any
other degradation of water quality.
17 Silverdes Medical Office Condominium Project Draft EIR, Section 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality,
Page 4.6-3, September 2008.
D-77
47
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City
Building Official shall ensure that construction plans for the project include
features meeting the applicable construction activity best management practices
(BMPs) and erosion and sediment control BMPs published in the California
Stormwater BMP Handbook—Construction Activity or equivalent. If construction
activities occur between October 1 and April 15, the project applicant shall
prepare and submit a Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan (WWECP) to the City
Building Official at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction
activities.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: As required by Municipal Code 8.38.105, prior to
issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Mitigation Plan to the City Building Official for review and approval. The Storm
Water Mitigation Plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented during project operation. The project Storm W ater Mitigation Plan
must also demonstrate compliance with the pollutant-specific Total Maximum
Daily Load waste load allocations in effect for the Machado Lake sub-watershed
as well as the maximum extent practicable (MEP) standard for other pollutants of
concern.
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: Prior to issuance of a certification of occupancy, the
project applicant shall provide the City Building Official with a Best Management
Practices (BMP) maintenance plan, consistent with Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) requirements, for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure HYD-4: Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
applicant shall determine, and report to the Director of Public Works and the City
Building Official, whether dewatering of groundwater will be necessary during
project construction, whether the groundwater contains petroleum, and whether
dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm drain system or surface
waters. All appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permits
related to dewatering and documentation, and permit requirements that are
included in the plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Building
Official prior to issuance of the first grading permit. If the groundwater is found to
contain petroleum-related organic compounds, discharge of dewatered
groundwater to the storm drain system or surface waters will require compliance
with the Waste Discharge Requirements for Treated Groundwater and Other
Wastewaters from Investigation and/or Cleanup of Petroleum Fuel-Contaminated
Sites to Surface Water in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura
Counties (Order No. R4-2007-0021, NPDES No. CAG834001).
XI(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project would not directly use any
groundwater to serve the project site; therefore, no substantial depletion of
groundwater resources is anticipated. In addition, although the proposed project
would increase the amount of impermeable surface on the project site, it would not
substantially impede percolation of storm water into the underlying substrate such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level.
XI(d-e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation – Drainage onsite generally flows
from north to south, following the site’s contours. Storm water leaving the site flows
D-78
48
into a storm drain located along Silver Spur Road. The proposed project would not
significantly alter this drainage pattern. However, the proposed project would
increase the volume of storm water flowing from the project site because the
proposed project would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces onsite.
Anticipated storm water runoff is unlikely to cause flooding or exceed the capacity of
the storm drain system. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measure is
recommended:
Mitigation Measure HYD-5: As required by Municipal Code 8.38.105, prior to
issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall submit a final drainage
plan to the City Building Official for review and approval. The drainage plan shall
include any on-site structures and/or modifications of existing drainage facilities
necessary to accommodate increased runoff resulting from the proposed project
and shall indicate project contributions to the regional storm water drainage
system. The drainage plan shall show all structural BMPs consistent with the
project storm water mitigation plan.
XI(g-j) No Impact – According to the City’s General Plan there are no widespread 100-year
flood problems within the City and thus no 100-year flood maps are available or
required. The project would, therefore, not result in the placement of uses within a
100-year flood zone. The project site is not within the inundation area of any
reservoir, level, or dam; and the project site is not within an area that would be
subject to seiche or tsunami.
XII AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XII(a). No Impact – The project site is located in a developed area in the City of Rolling
Hills Estates, which is an urbanized area of Los Angeles County. The proposed
project site is not currently used for productive agricultural purposes. The project site
is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance.
D-79
49
XII(b). No Impact – No agricultural resources are identified in the City’s General Plan and
no agricultural resources are present on the project site. The site is not subject to a
Williamson Act contract and the site is not zoned for agricultural use. Given that (1)
no change in use is proposed onsite; (2) the site is not currently used for productive
agricultural purposes, and (3) the project would not conflict with a Williamson Act
contract, impacts are less than significant.
XII(c). No Impact – The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Additionally, the proposed bank would not, in any way, hinder the operations of any
existing agricultural practices since no agricultural practices exist onsite or in the
adjacent surrounding areas.
XIII MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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 plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIII(a). No Impact – The proposed project is not located on any known bank of minerals.
The site is outside of any of the Mineral Resource Zone boundaries identified by the
City on Exhibit 5-4 of the Conservation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on the availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value.
XIII(b). No Impact – The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the loss of
availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value.
XIV POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
D-80
50
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIV(a). No Impact – No new residential units are proposed as part of this project. The
project consists of the construction of a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2, free-standing Chase
Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM on a vacant lot. The proposed expansion would
not induce population growth and would cause no related impacts.
XVI(b-c). No Impact –The site is currently vacant and is not used for residential uses, and
thus no displacement of housing or persons would result.
XV PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project: result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services?
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Other public facilities?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XV(a). Less Than Significant Impact - The City of Rolling Hills Estates is within the
jurisdiction of and is part of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles
County, which provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City
and all unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County. Fire Station 106, located at
27413 Indian Peak Road in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and Fire Station 56,
located at 12 Crest Road West in the City of Rolling Hills, are the two closest fire
stations to the project site. While these stations are the closest stations to the
project site, it is the Fire Department as a whole that serves the project area.
The City Rolling Hills Estates is in close proximity to the City of Rolling Hills’, City of
Palos Verdes Estates’, and City of Lomita’s fire stations, which are available to
provide additional resources in a major event. The Fire Department seeks to
maintain a 5-minute response time. The Department has review and approval
authority over building plans in subsequent phases of planning and design to ensure
that Fire Department regulations and requirements are adhered to. The impacts on
fire protection services are, therefore, anticipated to be less than significant.
XV(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The City of Rolling Hills Estates contracts with the
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for police protection and law enforcement
services. The main Sheriff’s station serving the City is located at 26123 Narbonne
Avenue, Lomita, California. This station is located approximately 1.4 miles to the
D-81
51
north of the site and employs 83 sworn officers at the station. The emergency
response times average five minutes or less. The Sheriff’s Department’s service
standards are a 6-minute emergency response time, a 20-minute immediate
response call response time, and a 1-hour report call response time. The impacts
on police protection services are expected to be less than significant, as the small
scale of the project is anticipated to result in a negligible increase in demand for
policing services.
XV(c). No Impact – The project would not induce growth and would not generate additional
students that would attend the schools in the area.
XV(d). No Impact –The proposed project is the construction of a new 1-story, 4,404-ft2,
free-standing Chase Bank branch with a drive-thru ATM on a vacant lot. This level of
new development would not noticeably increase the demand for public services.
XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVI(a). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed bank branch building and drive-thru
ATM facility expansion would generate a nominal increase in standard domestic
wastewater due to restrooms use. The region’s existing wastewater facilities are
designed to treat domestic sewage and to accommodate the level of growth
anticipated in local General Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the
existing zoning and land use designations for the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would not generate wastewater in a manner that would exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
See also response XVI(b, d, e), below.
D-82
52
XVI(b,
d, e) Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is served by the California Water
Service Company (CWSC), which purchases water from the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD). MWD’s water sources are the State Water Project and the
Colorado River. CWSC water is stored locally in the Palos Verdes Reservoir, which
has a capacity of approximately 361,097,200 gallons. The average water
consumption in the City is approximately 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd). The
proposed project would not result in a need for new or substantial alterations to local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of
additional water required to serve the project.
Wastewater generated by the project would be treated at the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 385 mgd
and currently processes and average flow of 280.5 mgd. The project is not
anticipated to result in a need for new or substantial alternations to the existing
sewer system due to the limited amount of additional sewage that would generated
by the project. Impacts are, thus, anticipated to be less than significant.
XVI(c). Less Than Significant Impact – Existing storm drain facilities are anticipated to be
adequate to accommodate project flows as discussed more fully under the
Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Initial Study.
XVI(f). Less Than Significant Impact – Refuse disposal and recycling services to the City
and the project site are provided by a private entity, Waste Management, which
contracts with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC or Districts)
for disposal of refuse. The SDLAC maintains multiple refuse disposal facilities,
including three landfills, five gas-to-energy/refuse-to-energy facilities, two material
recover facilities, and various recycling facilities and transfer stations. Refuse
collected in Rolling Hills Estates is currently disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill.
According to the Sanitation District, “the Puente Hills Landfill has the capacity to
provide environmentally sound disposal for the residents and businesses of Los
Angeles County until the year 2013.” The landfill receives 12,000 tons of solid water
per day. During construction a temporary increase in construction refuse may occur;
however, it is not expected that this temporary increase will significantly increase the
strain on the current system. The project would not result in a need for new or
substantial alterations to the solid waste disposal system. Impacts to solid waste
disposal are less than significant.
XVI(g). Less Than Significant Impact – The project proponent is required to comply with
all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g.,
recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal.
D-83
53
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a) 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) 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVII(a). No Impact – The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially affect fish or
wildlife populations or to reduce the number or range of rare or endangered species.
In addition, no locally, state or federally designated examples of major periods in
California history or prehistory have been identified on the site or in the vicinity of the
site.
XVII(b). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not result in impacts
that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to
cumulative air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, public services, traffic, and
utility impacts. However, none of these cumulative impacts are significant, except for
cumulative air quality conditions (i.e., the South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment
basin), and the proposed project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become
significant. Section V(a-c) of this document specifically analyzes the project’s
contribution to cumulative air quality conditions. As identified in this section, the
project’s contribution to both regional and local air quality conditions is not
considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding
of significance due to cumulative impact considerations.
XVII(c). Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation – Evidence of the potential for the
project to adversely affect human beings has been identified and analyzed in Section
X of this Initial Study. Both a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and
Phase II Subsurface Investigations report have been prepared for the project.
Because the project site is known to contain hazardous soils and contaminated
groundwater resulting from a LUST (previously removed from the project site), a
series of mitigation measures have been developed to address these issues. These
include requiring groundwater monitoring and remedial activities be conducted at the
property, development and implementation of a soils management plan, and review
of building plans to ensure that potential vapor intrusion concerns have been
addressed. Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce impacts on
human health caused by the project to less than significant levels.
D-84
City comment letter on MND for Chase Bank Project
D-85
CITYOF
10 April 2012
Niki Cutler,AICP,Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr.N.
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMII'iISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC &U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Proposed Chase Bank Project at 828
Silver Spur Road (PA-30-11)
Dear Ms.Cutler:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the above-mentioned project.We
have reviewed the Initial Study (IS),and offer the following comments:
1.From the exterior elevations provided with the IS,it is not entirely clear if there is
a flat-roofed area at the center of the building or not.If so,is there any roof-
mounted mechanical equipment proposed?The discussion of Aesthetic impacts
in the IS (Section III.d)states that "the proposed project would not include
unscreened outdoor uses or equipment that are inconsistent with the urban
character of this area of the City,"but it is not clear if this means that there is no
roof-mounted equipment,or if there is such equipment but it has been found to
be consistent with the urban character of surrounding properties.The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that any roof-mounted mechanical
equipment should be substantially screened from view from upslope residences
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which are located to the north of the subject
property.
2.We recall that,during the previous public review of the development entitlements
for the Silverdes medical office condominium project on this site,potential
conflicts related to direct vehicular access from Beechgate Drive were an issue of
concern to nearby Rancho Palos Verdes residents.As a result,the previously-
approved project was designed to take access only from Silver Spur Road and
"Little"Silver Spur Road.The discussion of TransportationfTraffic impacts in the
IS (Sections IV.c and IV.f)notes that "[one]outbound lane is adequate for
Beechgate Drive,which has relatively low traffic volumes,and vehicles wishing to
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWWPI-\LOSVEROES.COM/RPV
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER D-86
Niki Cutler
10 April 2012
Page 2
turn right will not be waiting behind vehicles wanting to turn left and waiting for a
break in heavy traffic";and that less-than-significant impacts are expected with
respect to the creation of "one or more access points on a roadway that is not the
primary frontage."It is our recollection that the past concern with the Beechgate
Drive access point to this site was not so much the ease with which the drivers
could exit the site onto Beechgate Drive,but the potential conflicts between
vehicles turning left into the site from Beechgate Drive with those coming down
the hill from the Peninsula Rim neighborhood and Soleado Elementary School.
The current plan would introduce a third driveway access point-when combined
with the two (2)existing driveways across the street serving 900 Silver Spur
Road and 916 Silver Spur Road-on this short stretch of Beechgate Drive
between Silver Spur Road and "Little"Silver Spur Road.The City of Rancho
Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that the project proponent consider an
alternate site circulation plan to would avoid creating a driveway access point at
Beechgate Drive.
Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this important project.If you
have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me at
(310)544-5226 orvia e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
K!Z
Senior Administrative Analyst
enclosures
cc:Mayor Anthony Misetich and City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru.Deputy City Manager
M:\Border Issues\Chase Bank Project\2012041 0_MNDComments.doc
D-87
RHE Planning Commission agenda and Staff report for Chase Bank Project
D-88
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Phone-(310) 377-1577 Fax-(310) 377-4468
www.RollingHillsEstatesCa.gov
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
April 30, 2012, 7:30 pm Regular Meeting
Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file available for public inspection on our website.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. SALUTE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (4/16/12)
5. AUDIENCE ITEMS.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR. The following routine matters will be approved in a single motion with the
unanimous consent of the Planning Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless good cause is shown by a member of the Commission or the public expressed under
audience items prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered under Business Items.)
A. Waive reading in full of all resolutions that are presented for Planning Commission
consideration on tonight’s agenda and all such resolutions shall be read by title only.
7. BUSINESS ITEMS.
A. Quarterly Code Enforcement Report. (JM)
B.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 30-11; APPLICANT: Chase Bank; LOCATION: 828 Silver
Spur Road. A Precise Plan of Design and Grading application for construction of a one-
story free-standing building with a drive-thru ATM. (NC)
C.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 15-12; APPLICANT: Ms. Aria Shafee; LOCATION: 3
Moccasin Lane; A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for construction of a new
split-level home with a second dwelling unit and a Grading application to export
approximately 940 cubic yards from the site. (KT)
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 13-12; APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. David Behenna;
LOCATION: 21 Empty Saddle Road. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for
single story additions to a single story home; and Variances to 1) exceed the forwardmost
building line; 2) reduce the required front yard area by more than 10%; and 3) maintain a
nonconforming rear yard setback. (KT)
9. COMMISSION ITEMS.
10. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS.
D-89
Planning Commission Agenda
April 30, 2012
2
11. MATTERS OF INFORMATION.
A. Park and Activities Draft Minutes (4/17/12)
B. City Council Actions (4/24/12)
12. ADJOURNMENT.
Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, if you require a disability-related modification or
accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please call the City Clerk’s Office at (310) 377-1577 at least
48 hours prior to the meeting.
D-90
Staff Repor
City of Rolling Hills Estat
DATE:APRIL 30,2012
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:NIKI CUTLER,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT:PLANNING APPLICATION NO.30-11
APPLICANT:CHASE BANK (MR.BOB SUPERNEAU)
LOCATION:828 SILVER SPUR ROAD
The following is a request to approve:
1.A Precise Plan of Design (PPD)to construct a one-story,4,404 square foot (sf)Chase Bank
building with an ancillary drive-thru ATM in the Commercial General (C-G)Zone on a 28,750
square foot (0.66 acre)vacant parcel;
2.A Grading Plan for site grading and preparation;and
3.A Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
finding that the project,with mitigation measures,will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
BACKGROUND
Application Filed:
Application Deemed Complete:
Public Notices Mailed:
Public Notices Posted:
Public Notices Published:
9/30/2011
1/27/2012
3/28/2012
3/29/2012
3/29/2012
Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD)is required under Sections 17.58.020 and
17.60.170(E)of the Municipal Code to provide for construction of the building and signage with
a logo on the site.The purpose of the PPD is to ensure that the proposed site improvements on
commercially-zoned properties do not result in any detrimental impacts to the surrounding
community and to protect the public peace,health,safety,and welfare.PPD procedures are set
forth in Chapter 17.58 of the Municipal Code.
Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is required under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA),finding that the project,with appropriate mitigation measures as stated in
the Initial Study,will not have a significant impact on the environment.
D-91
The subject property is .66 acres (28,750 square feet)in size and located at 828 Silver Spur
Road.The site was formerly an Arco service station and is currently vacant.The "Silverdes"
medical office condominium building and associated Environmental Impact Report were
approved for the site in 2009,but the project was never built.The subject property is located in
the southwestern portion of the City's main commercial area (Peninsula Center)on the
northwest corner of Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive.The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is Commercial General,and the site is located in Planning Area Number
6.
The following is a list of previous discretionary permits for the subject property:
•PA-24-07-A Precise Plan of Design,Conditional Use Permit,Tentative Tract Map,Grading
application and Variance application for construction of the 29,642 square foot "Silverdes"
Medical Office condominium building.
DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The applicant proposes to construct a new,4,404 square foot (sf),one-story Chase Bank
building.The building would be placed in the southeasterly portion of the site near the corner of
Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive.The sit~woui~.also ClccOi11modate surface parking
spaces and an ATM machine canopy over two ATM machines placed on one-way drive aisles.
Project plans are included separately with this report.
The applicant has recently added a walk-up ATM proposed on the north elevation.While,this
change is not reflected on the project plans attached separately,staff has included plans
showing this change herein as Attachment 2.
The building would be predominately contemporary Mediterranean in style with some arched
windows,tinted and clear glass,vine trellises and a two-piece mission blend roof.Walls would
be painted white with beige accents around tower elements and clay-colored accents for
window trim and wood outlookers.The ATM canopy would be 455 sf in size,and roof materials
would match those of the main building.Colored elevations are included with building plans,
and a materials and color board will be available at the public hearing.
The site would be accessed by a two-way drive aisle entering/exiting on Silver Spur Road and
another on Beechgate Drive.In addition,the two ATM drive aisles would exit in a one-way
direction on to Silver Spur Road in the westerly portion of the site.The City Traffic Engineer has
reviewed the site plan and a traffic report prepared for the project and determined that
ingress/egress for proposed driveways would not be expected to affect the adjacent streets.
Further,the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the traffic report prepared for the project,
as summarized in the Initial Study,is complete and satisfactory.The project is forecast to add
40 AM peak hour trips and 86 PM peak hour trips to the surrounding streets,and this level of
trip generation is not expected to result in significant impacts to the roadway network.
Section 17.30.050(F)of the Municipal Code limits buildings to 44'in height or three stories.
Plans indicate that the maximum building height,including the architectural tower projection,will
be 29'6"in height in conformance with Code requirements.
Section 17.30.050(E)of the Municipal Code requires that lot coverage not exceed 45%.The
proposed building footprint and ATM canopy total 4,859 sf,and the proposed lot coverage is
approximately 17%,in conformance with Code requirements.
2 D-92
Section 17.30.050(L)of the Municipal Code requires that at least 20%of the total site be
landscaped (including easements and excluding landscaping on rooftops),with at least 10%)
provided in the parking lot area,and a substantial portion in the setback area.Plans indicate
that 8,716 sf (30°.10)of the project site would be landscaped with areas incorporating a variety of
trees,shrubs and ground cover throughout the site including within parking and setback areas.
A condition of approval for the project will require that the specific landscape materials be
reviewed by the Park and Activities Commission subsequent to project approval.This review
will also ensure that the proposed landscape and irrigation plans conform with the City's Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Regarding setbacks,Section 17.30.050(0)of the Municipal Code requires a minimum of 5'
between a building and a property line and an average of 15'between a building and the street.
As proposed,the building would be set back 15'from Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive,
and a minimum of 5'from the property line.
Section 17.30.050(G)(9)of the Municipal Code indicates that the parking requirement in the C-G
Zone for financial institutions is one space per 150 sf of gross leasable area (GLA).The project
proposes 4,404 sf of GLA for a total parking requirement of 30 spaces.The project proposes 31
spaces in conformance with Code requirements including one loading space in the northeasterly
portion of the site.A covered trash enclosure is also proposed north of the building in the
easterly portion of the project site.
The project Gradiily Apj5licati6il is iilClUded herein as Attachment 3.The application indicates
that 3,000 cubic yards of earth material would be exported and that 500 cubic yards would be
imported with project construction.The Grading Plan as attached separately to this report
indicates that grading would primarily serve to create a level pad for building and parking lot
construction and facilitate drainage from north to south for the site.
A proposed sign package for the site is also included separately with this report.The plan
proposes one internally-illuminated monument sign with "Chase"copy and corresponding
octagon logo near Silver Spur Road west of the main building.The sign would be 12 sf in size
(4'2-%"x 6'7")and double-sided.The sign base would be painted a dark nickel color,and the
sign area behind the copy and logo would be painted a lighter nickel color.Sign letters and logo
would be 9-5/8"in height."Chase"letters would be LED-illuminated white acrylic faces,and the
octagon logo would be LED-illuminated with a blue acrylic face.A blue acrylic accent strip
would separate the sign base from the copy portion of the sign on both faces.
In addition,wall signs are proposed on the east and west elevations.The signs would be
internally illuminated channel letter signs with "Chase"copy and the octagon logo.The Chase
letters would be black vinyl on aluminum backing and 16"in height.The Chase logo is
proposed to be blue acrylic with aluminum backing and 1'9"in height.The overall sign length is
proposed to be 9'4-1/8".In addition,as shown on page 2 of the sign plan,several
informational/directional signs are proposed.ATM "topper"signs with Chase copy and the
octagon logo are also proposed on each ATM machine.
In the C-G Zone,Section 17.60 (Signs)of the Municipal Code provides that one freestanding
sign not to exceed one sf for each linear foot of street frontage up to a maximum of 30 sf and
eight feet in height is permitted.The proposed monument sign,at 12 sf and 4'2-1/2"in height
would comply with these requirements for the approximately 250'street frontage along Silver
Spur Road.For wall signs,the Code permits one wall sign per street frontage not to exceed
one square foot in sign area for each linear foot up to a maximum of 40 sf.The proposed signs,
at approximately 14 sf,comply with these requirements for the approximately 115'Beechgate
Drive and 324'"Little"Silver Spur frontages.Information/directional signs are permitted
provided they do not exceed four square feet,and sign logos require review of the Planning
3 D-93
Commission via a Precise Plan of Design application.Staff has reviewed the sign plans and
determined that they comply with Code requirements.
Zoning Applicability
Precise Plan of Design (PPD)
A PPD is required for sign logos and the development of any structure in the commercial district.
Chapter 17.58 of the Municipal Code indicates that the purpose of a PPD is to ensure that the
following are designed and/or arranged so that traffic congestion is avoided,pedestrian and
vehicular safety and welfare are provided,and no adverse effect on surrounding property will
result:
1.Buildings,structures,and improvements;
2.Vehicular ingress,egress and internal circulation;
3.Setbacks;
4.Height of buildings;
5.Location of services;
6.Walls and fences;
7.Landscaping;
8.Lighting;and
9.Signing.
Staff believes that Items 1 through 6 and 9 above have been adequately designed and/or
arranged in the proposed project.Items 7 and 8 (Landscaping and Lighting)will be addressed
through project conditions of a approval requiring review and approval of a project landscape
pian by the Park &Activities Commission,and review and approval of a project lighting plan by
the Planning Director.
Initial Study and Mitigated NeQative Declaration (MND)pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
The proposed development has been defined as a project under CEQA which requires
completion of an Initial Study to determine if the project would have significant impacts on the
environment.The City contracted with Willdan to perform the Initial Study.(The Initial Study
was provided to the Planning Commission with the MND on March 29,2012).The Initial Study
analyzes the project's potential impacts on the environment and include mitigation measures to
address any potential impacts on the environment.Staff reviewed the Initial Study and
determined that,with proper mitigation as specified in the Initial Study,the proposed project will
not have a significant impact on the environment.Therefore,staff prepared a MND for Planning
Commission consideration.A Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project is included with
Resolution No.PA-30-11 (see Attachment 1).
As required by CEQA,a public comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration
commenced on March 29,2012 and ended on April 17,2012.A Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the project site and published in the Peninsula
News,and notices were provided to all affected properties within a 500'radius of the project,
adjacent cities,Homeowner's Association Presidents,and other government agencies.The
Notice provides a brief description of the project,the Planning Commission Public Hearing
date/time/location,and how to obtain detailed information about the project including the Initial
Study.The Notice,Initial Study,and Mitigated Negative Declaration were filed with the Los
Angeles County Clerk on March 29,2012.A copy of the project plans,Initial Study,and
Mitigated Negative Declaration have been made available at the public counter,on the City's
website,and at the Peninsula Center Library.
4 D-94
Staff received two comment letters regarding the project during the public comment period from
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Sanitation District.The Response to Comments
document is presented herein as Attachment 4.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.PA-30-11 approving a
Precise Plan of Design,Grading Application and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
construction of a 4,404 sf Chase Bank building and ancillary drive-thru ATM.
EXHIBITS
Attached
1.Planning Commission Resolution No.PA-30-11
2.Revised Project Plans Reflecting Walk-Up ATM
3.Grading Application
4.Response to Comments
Separate
1.Project Architectural,Landscape and Grading Plans
2.Project Sign Plans
pa30 ...11 pm
5 D-95
ATTACHMENT 1
D-96
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO.PA-30-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES,APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN (PPD),
A GRADING APPLICATION,AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND)FOR A
SINGLE-STORY,4,404 SQUARE FOOT CHASE BANK BUILDING WITH ANCILLARY DRIVE-
THRU ATM ON A 28,750 SQUARE FOOT (0.66 ACRE)VACANT PARCEL.APPLICANT:
CHASE BANK (MR.BOB SUPERNEAU,STANTEC);LOCATION:828 SILVER SPUR ROAD.
WHEREAS,Mr.Bob Superneau filed an application with the Planning Department
requesting permission to construct a single-story,4,404 square foot Chase Bank building with
ancillary drive-thru ATM on a 28,750 square foot (0.66 acre)vacant parcel;such an application as
required by Chapters 17.30,17.60 and 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code;and
WHEREAS,Section 17.30.020(B)and Section 17.60.170(E)of the Rolling Hills Estates
Municipal Code requires approval of a PrE~cise Plan of Design for building construction in the
Commercial General Zone and signs with a logo respectively;and
WHEREAS,an Initial Study was prepared by the City pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and it was found that the project would not have a
significant impact on the environment with proper mitigation;thus,a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared;and
WHEREAS,in accordance with Section 65033 of the Government Code,the public,
abutting cities,affected agencies and districts were notified of the availability of the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and were given an opportunity to review and comment;and
WHEREAS,the Planning Department responded in writing to said comments in the Initial
Study;and
WHEREAS,UDon aivina the reauired notice the Planninq Commission conducted a Public
Meeting forth;sUbje~t pr~ect~n the 30t~day of April,20'12,and ail interested parties were given
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence;and
WHEREAS,as a result of studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission
and on its behalf,revealed that the facts as set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration,and those discussed during the public meeting show the following:
That with the granting of this Precise Plan of Design application,the development will
comply with all provisions of the zoning ordinance (Section 17.58 of the Rolling Hills
Estates Municipal Code)to mitigate project impacts.
That with the granting of this Precise Plan of Design application,the development will be
so designed and/or arranged that traffic congestion is avoided,pedestrian and vehicular
safety and welfare are provided and no adverse effect on surrounding property will result.
That with the granting of this Precise Plan of Design application,the development will
comply with all the development standards of the City and would be consistent with the
City's General Plan.
That with the granting of this Precise Plan of Design application,the development within
the Peninsula Center will be compatible with the goals of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1.That the foregoing facts constitute conditions necessary to the granting of a
Precise Plan of Design and Grading Application pursuant to Chapters 17.58 and 17.60 of the
Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code and a Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA for a
single-story,4,404 square foot commercial/retail building with ground-level conventional parking
on a 28,750 square foot (0.66 acre)vacant parcel.Therefore,the Planning Commission approves
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 D-97
PA-30-11.Unless otherwise stated,these conditions must be met at all times by the applicant;
otherwise,this approval becomes null and void.
1.That the development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A.
2.That all construction shall be in conformance with the approved plans.Any alterations or
additions to the approved plans,or any changes to the exterior treatment including but not
limited to exterior building materials or the size,shape,or location of windows or other
openings,or changes to the size,location or amount of any hardscape shall be reviewed
by the Planning Director to determine if further Planning Commission approval is
necessary.
3.That all applicable requirements of the State,County,City and other Governmental
entities,must be met.
4.That,prior to issuance of Building Permits,a Zone Clearance shall be obtained from the
Planning Department.
5.That this project is classified as a small project under Ordinance No ..668.As such,it
shall be subject to a six month time period (commencing upon the effective date of
project approval),in which the entire project must be submitted for plan check review
with the·Department of Building and Safety,with two six month time extensions
maximum allowed to be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Municipal.
6.That the applicant shall defend,hold harmless and indemnify at his own expense the City,
its agents,officers and employees,from any claim,action,or proceeding,to attack,set
aside,void or annul the approval granted in this resolution and shall reimburse the City,its
agents,officers and employees for any damages,court costs and attorneys'fees incurred
as a result of such action.The City at its sole discretion may participate in the defense of
any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under
this condition.
7.The applicant shall erect a six-foot high security fence around the property to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director and Building Official.Prior to construction,a
construction sign(s)as proVided by the City shall be conspicuously posted on the fence
adjacent to the street of the project and/or adjacent to all entrances of the project.The
site shall be maintained in a clean sanitary manner at all times during and after
construction.
8.That all roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view.Any screening features
shall be architecturally integrated with the proposed structure and shown on Exhibit *,as
approved by the Planning Commission.
9.That all parking spaces shall remain open for all users and shall remain publicly
accessible during normal business hours.
10.That the drive-thru ATM exit driveway shall be signed with "DO NOT ENTER-WRONG
WAY"signs and pavement arrows.Each ATM drive-thru aisle shall have an
unobstructed width of at least 11 feet.
11.That all parking areas shall be signed and marked to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer.
12.That that applicant shall provide 25'unobstructed sight visibility triangles formed by the
extension of the property lines at the corners of Silver Spur Road/Beechgate Drive and
Little Silver Spur Road (frontage road)/Beechgate Drive.The sight visibility triangles
shall not be obstructed by walls,columns or landscaping over 30"high.
13.That that applicant shall provide a 10'sight visibility triangle formed by the edge of each
private driveway and the intersecting street right-of-way line when exiting the parking lot.
The sight visibility triangle shall not be obstructed by walls,columns or landscaping over
30"high.
14.That a 15-feet diagonal corner cut-off street dedication shall be provided to the City at
the southwest corner of Little Silver Spur Road (frontage road)and Beechgate Drive.
The developer shall construct new sidewalk in the dedicated area and a new pedestrian
ramp at the corner to current standards.
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 2 D-98
15.That a 25-feet diagonal corner cut-off street dedication shall be provided to the City at
the northwest corner of Silver Spur Road and Beechgate Drive.The developer shall
construct new sidewalk in the dedicated area and a new pedestrian ramp at the corner
to current standards.
16.That disabled parking will comply with current standards requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
17.That an accessible walkway shall be provided between the public sidewalk and the main
building doors.
18.That the existing bus stop facilities on Silver Spur Road shall be relocated and/or
modified as necessary to accommodate the project driveways.
19.That parking stall cross-slope shall not exceed 5%.
20.That all two-way driveways and any two-way aisles or ramps adjacent to a wall or
obstruction shall be at least 25 feet wide.
21.That all parking spaces adjacent to an obstruction,except columns,shall be at least one
foot wider than a standard space.The parking space adjacent to the trash enclosure
shall be at least 1O-feet wide.
22.That wheel stops or 6"high curbs shall be required·for all parking spaces.Walkways
adjacent to a parking stall may be widened by 2 feet to allow vehicle overhang without
encroaching on minimum required walkway width.
23.That all unused driveways shall be reconstructed with curb,gutter and sidewalk.
I
24.Prior to the issuance of a Buildin~l Permit,a lighting pian showing conformance with
Chapter 17.42 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director.Parking lot lighting shali not shine directly onto the
public.right-of-way or adjacent properties.Shields shall be used on lights located near
property lines.
25.That doors and gates along property frontages shall not open across the puplic right-of-
way.
26.That,prior to the issuance of building permits,the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building
Official (or designee)and the City of Rolling Hills Estates City Engineer (or designee)
shall review and approve final design plans for the project site to ensure that
earthquake-resistant design has been incorporated into final site drawings in
accordance with the most current California Building Code,the recommended seismic
design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California,and the
project's Geotechnical Investigation Report (Stantec,2011)and corresponding
Addendum 01 (Stantec,2012).Ultimate site seismic design acceleration shall be
determined by the project structural engineer during the project design phase.
27.That,prior to issuance of building permits,building plans shall be reviewed for
compliance with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation Report
prepared by Stantec Consulting Corporation,September 11,2011.This includes all
recommendations pertaining to building foundation design,foundation construction,
installation of post tensioned slabs,pavement design,subgrade and aggregate base
specifications,site grading,and removal of undocumented fill and replacement with
non-expansive import fill.
28.That a Project Soils Engineer and/or their authorized representatives shall be present
during project construction to provide a source of advice to the project applicant
regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project and to observe and test the earthwork
conducted on the site.
29.That the project applicant(s)shall continue groundwater monitoring and remedial
activities at the subject property as directed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)until regulatory case closure is issued for the active LUST
case.
30.That,to the satisfaction of the City of Rolling Hills Estates prior to redevelopment of the
site and/or subsurface excavation,the project applicant(s)shall implement a soils
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 3 D-99
management plan during future site grading and/or other redevelopment activities
involving soil disturbance to ensure proper handling and/or disposal of any
contaminated soil and groundwater that may be encountered.
31.That,prior to the issuance of building permits,the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building
Official (or designee)and the City of Rolling Hills Estates Engineer (or designee)shall
review and approve final design plans for the project site to ensure that any potential
vapor intrusion concerns have been adequately addressed.
32.That,prior to issuance of a grading permit,the City Building Official shall ensure that
construction plans for the project include features meeting the applicable construction
activity Best Management Practices (BMPs)and erosion and sediment control BMPs
published in the California Stormwater BMP Handbook-Construction Activity or
equivalent.If construction activities occur between October 1 and April 15,the project
applicant shall prepare and submit a Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan (WWECP)to
the City Building Official at least 30 days prior to commencement of construction
activities.
33.That,as required by Municipal Code 8.38.105 and prior to issuance of a building permit,
the project applicant shall submit a Storm Water Mitigation Plan to the City Building
Official for review and approval.The Storm Water Mitigation Plan shall identify the Best
Management Practices (BMPs)to be implemented during project operation.The project
Storm Water Mitigation Plan must also demonstrate compliance with the pollutant-
specific Total Maximum Daily Load waste load allocations in effect for the Machado
Lake sub-watershed as well as the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)standard for
other pollutants of concern.
34,That prior to issuance of a certification of occupancy,the project applicant shall provide
the City Building Official with a Best Management Practices (BMP)maintenance plan,
consistent with Standard Urban Stormwater Management Pian (SUSMP)requirements,
for review and approval.
35.That,prior to commencement of grading activities,the applicant shall determine,and
report to the Director of Public Works and the City Building Official,whether dewatering
of groundwater will be necessary during project construction,whether the groundwater
contains petroleum,and whether dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm
drain system or surface waters.All appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board
(R\tVQCB)permits reiated to dewatering and docurnentation,and permit requirements
that are included in the plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Building
Official prior to issuance of the first grading permit.If the groundwater is found to
contain petroleum-related organic compounds,discharge of dewatered groundwater to
the storm drain system or surface waters will require compliance with the Waste
Discharge Requirements for Treated Groundwater and Other Wastewaters from
Investigation and/or Cleanup of Petroleum Fuel-Contaminated Sites to Surface Water in
Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Order No.R4-2007-0021,
NPDES No.CAG834001).
36.That,as required by Municipal Code 8.38.105 and prior to issuance of a building permit,
the project applicant shall submit a final drainage plan to the City Building Official for
review and approval.The drainage plan shall include anyon-site structures and/or
modifications of existing drainage facilities necessary to accommodate increased runoff
resulting from the proposed project and shall indicate project contributions to the
regional storm water drainage system.The drainage plan shall show all structural BMPs
consistent with the project storm water mitigation plan.
37.That,prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall demonstrate that the
roof can support the weight of and would otherwise be suitable for future placement of
solar panels.
38.That the project contractor shall ensure that construction equipment is fitted with modern
sound-reduction equipment.
I
39.That all utility work located in and connecting to public streets shall be subject to review
and approval by the City's Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading
permit for the project.'
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 4 D-100
40.That,prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall coordinate with the
various utility companies serving the site and pay the necessary fees to ensure adequate
and timely service to the proposed development.
41.That any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the
developer's expense.
42.That the project plans shall be subject to review by the City's Department of Public
Works prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that no right-of-way impacts will
result from installation of the project utilities and service systems.
43.That power,telephone and cable television service shall be underground.
44.That,prior to issuance of a building permit,a final landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Park and Activities Commission for review and approval.The final landscaping plan
shall include the location,spacing,numbers,sizes,and identity of all planting and
material,an irrigation plan,water conservation statement,wall plans,sign plans,and
other such plans and drawings required by the Park and Activities Commission.The
landscape plan shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 17.59 (Landscaping and
Irrigation)of the Municipal Code.Furthermore,commercially available ornamental trees
may be replaced on-site with any commercially available species,as long as the
species is not prohibited for installation by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Public Works
Department along right-of-ways and the species has not been identified by the
California Exotic Pest Plant Council as an invasive risk in southern California.
45.That,prior to issuance of a grading permit,a soils test shall be submitted per the
landscape water conservation ordinance for the review and approval of the Park and
Activities Commission.
46.That,prior to the issuance of a building permit,water conservation and vllvl ~y
conservation features shall be designed and incorporated into the plumbing and irrigation
equipment.
47.That all landscaped areas shall be provided with an automatic irrigation system.The
detailed specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Park and Activities
Commission prior to the issuance of Zone Clearance.
48.That the landscape pian shail utilize extensive mulching.
49.That all construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M.and 5:00
P.M.Monday through Friday,and 9:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.on Saturday.N()work shall
be permitted on Sundays or holidays (New Years Day,Memorial Day,Independence
Day,Labor Day,Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day).
50.That no queuing of trucks or arrival of construction materials and/or workers to the
construction site shall be permitted outside the permitted construction hours and days.
51.That trucks transporting dirt,organic material,and demolition debris from the site shall be
covered and hosed down in a location on-site prior to exiting the property.Any trucks
transporting dirt and or organic material to the site shall be covered or properly secured to
prevent off-site debris to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
52.That contractor shall prohibit off-site heavy truck activities in local residential areas as
well as establish City-approved haul routes.
53.That the project shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities,which shall
include fire hydrants of the size,type and location as determined by the Fire Chief.
54.That the water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and
fire flow required for the land division.Domestic flows required are to be determined by
the California Water Service Company.Fire flows required are to be determined by the
Fire Chief.
55.That the applicant shall comply with City of Rolling Hills Estates Construction Debris
recycling requirements.
56.That all roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 5 D-101
57.That the public improvements serving this project shall comply with Federal and State
requirements for the disabled community.
58.That,prior to issuance of building permits,the project applicant shall be required to pay
applicable fees $19,615.42 for traffic mitigation and $2,642.20 for the General Plan Fee
pursuant to Ordinance No.647.
59.That any City required or proposed hardscape/landscape improvements in the public
right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Park and Activities Commission
and/or Public Works with all soft and hard costs payable by the applicant.
60.That,prior to the issuance of a grading and/or building permit,the applicant shall be
required to post a security in an amount to be determined by the City of Rolling Hills
Estates in an amount sufficient to pay for repairs caused by any damage to public streets
or other facilities.Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,the applicant shall
also be responsible for repair of any broken or damaged curb,street,gutter or other utility
or public improvements or demolition permits resulting from any construction activity.
61.That,prior to commencement of construction,all on-site construction personnel shall be
provided written and verbal instructions and shall be contractually obligated to respect the
natural environment including prohibitions against destruction and/or harassment to all
forms of plant and animal life.
62.That all Project Mitigation Measures,as identified in the attached Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (Exhibit B),shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
responsible Department/Agency.
SECTIQN 2.This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until applicant has filed
an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that heishe is aware of and accepts ali of the conditions.·if
applicant does not accept the conditions within thirty (30)days from the effective date of this
approval,ail rights hereby granted shall be void.The Affidavit of Acceptance must be received by
the City prior to Zone Clearance.
SECTION 3.If any portion of this approval is violated or held to be invalid or if any jaw,
statute,or ordinance is violated by the issuance of this approval or by anyone or more of the
requirements thereof,said use shall be void and privileges herewith shall lapsJ and such use shall
thereupon cease.
SECTION 4.The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the applicant,to
the Building Department,respectively,for their attention.
SECTION 5.That,unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article VIII of the
Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code,this Resolution shall become effective twenty (20)days from
the date of adoption.
SECTION 6.That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED this 30th day of April,2012.
BRITT HUFF,CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R.PRICHARD,CITY CLERK
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 6 D-102
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No.PA-30-11 was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates at a regular meeting held thereof on the 30 th day of
April,2012,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DOUGLAS R.PRICHARD,CITY CLERK
Resolution No.PA-30-11
April 30,2012 7
D-103
=<
»z
.Stantec.#26780·~llYER ~PUR &BEECHGATE
FREESTANDING BANKING CENTERs""~~'ftc 828 SILVER SPUR RD.
,...,..."":0....::::;,......."'''0 ROLLING HILLS,CA 90274
Ii.
I :!'"~
Ii
\~
1--'
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
CHASE 0
D-104
>-r----:---r.--------,---;:----~-,-__===~,---=.-=r==:=,==:r=====r::==:.o::-===r=
no···.··I I
1...J
_L
IJ~~~-l~TIJ=F;;R:EE~.~TA~N~D~IN~G~B~A1N~:K~I~N~G~C;EN::T~E~R~li M~J~~~~tci·§~~~~~i~~1C~H~ASE 0I~-Q #26780 •SILVER SPUR &BEECHGAT 24085 ElTor.Road,
'",,'i',;828 SIL VE R S PU R ROA 0 --,.,,;.i._Laguna Hills,CA n6.~~_.m ~§ROLLING HILLS,CA 90274 ~_
D-105
~"U...AAI'lSC.<PtCONSTlIVC'M!<"'AST[10 er I'tCrCLLll ASA!'P1lto'>RlAtt
S.I«,lt>UHT!;ttu:CTU>PltCUll';!:'S:\l<AIlIi<r,
to OOTM."u.."AlDlIAi...'.l(IC'<,.V1""'""ro,,,\.!:<;,jASP05SiIl;.£
//
~
~'----~~~lr.
/
/
//
/
em'~AEOUFIEMENTS
o
SOL SlXfABUfY/MANAGEIIIENT NOTES
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
o
w
Ul«:r:u
LL.J
<C ocOw ....~!z ~LL.J W (j)~~g<3.
06~0::Li1
Ck::~~S=«(/)(/)
O-COO::Li1::~~~
LL.JoCii:r;::::z ~C)-«""2
<---?I-:J
•if)-'
W 0=W 0::=OC~L.L
c-....==
~i..··,,1iihf""'~~~I
!1"1
I',
"'u..
~
~
."i~'l
D-
1
0
6
~
""~~
I'...,
~
~
4
0:::
o
W
I-
oe:(
(!)
I
()
W
W
£:0
Proposed Floor Plan •Chase
Silver Spur and Beechgate
828 Silver Spur,Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90732
3/20/12 RJM
Bldg.Size =4,292 s.f.
~
)
~~~)""--"~------~"~'---"~"--""---../~~~..~
SILVER :"PUR ROAD CHASE",
~
Qualify for .--r
Affluent Finis~Finish Pallet
._.-!..._-._...! .--!-YES ----.1 Contemporary
D-
1
0
7
z
Q
~
.Stantec #26780·~llYER ~PUR &BEECHGAlES"~:~""'''':'"<FREESTANDING BANKING CENTER CHASE 0"'M~[,l"828 SILVER SPUR RD.
Ttl.t49.g23.=~~9"U2:UfllO ROLLING HILLS,CA 90274
D-108
=
F'
•~.~#
2VR8EOES)~~~:~~ES{~~R~~l~~~~~RA IE CHASE 0
'"'''.'''00'',,,",,,,,,,,ROLLING HILLS,CA 90274
D-109
#26780·~llYER ~PUR &BEECHGAH ~..•~!!~FREESTANDING BANKING CENTER CHAS E ...,
"..~'"828 SIl.VER SPUR RD.
T.1.'"."'.::;"_.:.':;,''''''.•,,'ROl.LlNG HILLS,CA 90274
D-110
Reporting
Planning Director,or
his/her designee,shall
review lighting plans to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
Mitigation Monitoring
Period of.Monitoring L.Monitoring
Implementation Res~onsibility!Procedure I Comments l Date I Initials I
Aesthetics
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Planning Director
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-1:Prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit,a lighting plan showing conformance
with Chapter 17.42 of the Rolling Hills Estates
Municipal Code shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director.
~~~
~
l'
~•~
Mitigation Measure <JEO-1:Prior to the issuance of
building permits,the City of Rolling Hills Estates
Building Official (or designee)and the City of Rolling
Hills Estates City Engineer (or designee)shall review
and approve final design plans for the project site to
ensure that earthquake-resistant design has been
incorporated into final site drawings in accordance with
the most current California Building Code,the
recommended seismic design parameters of the
Structural Engineers Association of California,and the
project's Geotechnical Investigation Report (Stantec,
2011)and corresponding Addendum 01 (Stantec,2012).
Ultimate site seismic design acceleration shall be
determined by the project structural engineer during the
project design phase.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2:Prior to issuance of
building permits,building plans shall be reviewed for
compliance with the recommendations included in the
Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Stantec
Consulting Corporation,September 11,2011.This
includes all recommendations pertaining to building
foundation design,foundation construction,installation
of post tensioned slabs,pavement design,subgrade and
aggregate base specifications,site grading,and removal
of undocumented fill and replacement with non-
expansive import fill.
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Building Official
The City Engineer and
Building Official or
designees shall
review project plans to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
The Building Official or
designee shall
review project plans to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
Page 1 015
D
-
1
1
1
~~,:J[itigation Monitoring Reporting
~--~
~
~
~tva,
~
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-3:A Project Soils Engineer
and/or their authorized representatives shall be present
during project construction to provide a source of
advice to the project applicant regarding the
geotechnical aspects of the project and to observe and
test the earthwork conducted on the site.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-l:The project applicant(s)
shall continue groundwater monitoring and remedial
activities at the subject property as directed by the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
(R\VQCB)until regulatory case closure is issued for the
active LUST case.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2:To the satisfaction of the
City of Rolling Hills Estates,prior to redevelopment of
the site and/or subsurface excavation,the project
applicant(s)shall implement a soils management plan
during future site grading and/or other redevelopment
activities involving soil disturbance to ensure proper
handling and/or disposal of any contaminated soil and
groundwater that may be encountered.
Period of
Imnlementation
During construction
Prior to and during
project grading
Monitoring
Resnonsibility
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Building Official
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Planning Director
Monitoring
Procedure
The Building Official or
his/her designee shall
coordinate with the
project contractor and
shall conduct periodic
site visits to ensure
compliance with this
requirement.
The City's Planning
Director or his /her
designee shall review
and approve the soils
management plan,shall
coordinate with the
project
applicant/contractor/
operator and shall
conduct periodic site
visits to ensure
compliance with this
requirement.
Comments Date Initials
Page 2 of5
D
-
1
1
2
Reportingr~,
~
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3:Prior to the issuance of
building permits,the City of Rolling Hills Estates
Building Official (or designee)and the City of Rolling
Hills Estates Engineer (or designee)shall review and
approve final design plans for the project site to ensure
that any potential vapor intrusion concerns have been
adequately addressed.
Period of
Implementation
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
~~1[itigation Monitoring
~M~~ri~-~--M-o-n-~-o-r-~-g---~------~I---~I--'-'-~
R 'b'l'P d Comments Date Initialsesponsl11It:r..roce ure
City of Rolling The City Engineer and
Hills Estates City Building Official or
Engineer and his/her designees shall
Building Official review project plans to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
t
~
"~
Mitigation Measure HYD-l:Prior to issuance of a
grading permit,the City Building Official shall ensure
that construction plans for the project include features
meeting the applicable construction activity best
management practices (B:NIPs)and erosion and
sediment control B:NfPs published in the California
Stormwater BMP Handbook-Construction Activity or
equivalent.If construction activities occur between
October 1 and April 15,the project applicant shall
prepare and submit a Wet Weather Erosion Control
Plan (WWECP)to the City Building Official at least 30
days prior to commencement of construction activities.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2:As required by
Municipal Code 8.38.105,prior to issuance of a building
permit,the project applicant shall submit a Storm Water
Mitigation Plan to the City Building Official for review
and approval.The Storm Water :Nfitigation Plan shall
identify the Best :Nlanagement Practices (B:J'vfPs)to be
implemented during project operation.The project
Storm \Vater :Nfitigation Plan must also demonstrate
compliance with the pollutant-specific Total :Nfaximum
Daily Load waste load allocations in effect for the
Machado Lake sub-watershed as well as the maximum
extent practicable (11EP)standard for other pollutants
of concern.
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Building Official
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Building Official
The Building Official or
his /her designee shall
review project plans to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
The Building Official or
his/her designee shall
review the Storm Water
Ivfitigation Plan to
ensure compliance with
this requirement.
Page 3015
D
-
1
1
3
InitialsDate
Reporting
Comments
~~~1I.A["""M""n'J ItlgatlOn onltonltlg
M """ M Period of Monitoring Monitoring
.....-lugatlOn easures I I " R "b"l:hT P d,-..~mpementatlOn esponsl 1I.hy _roce ure
Mitigation Measure HYD-3:Prior to issuance of a Prior to the issuance City of Rolling The Building Official or
certification of occupancy,the project applicant shall of a certificate of Hills Estates his/her designee shall
~provide the City Building Official with a Best occupancy Building Official review the Bj\;fP
,Management Practices (BMP)maintenance plan,maintenance plan to
consistent with Standard Urban Stormwater ensure compliance with
~Management Plan (SUSMP)requirements,for review this requirement."\l and approval.
Mitigation Measure HYD-4:Prior to commencement Prior to the issuance City of Rolling The Director of Public I I I I
of grading activities,the applicant shall determine,and of a grading permit Hills Estates \X1orks and Building
report to the Director of Public Works and the City Director of Public Official or his/her
Building Official,whether dewatering of groundwater Works and designees shall
will be necessary during project construction,whether Building Official coordinate with the
the groundwater contains petroleum,and whether project applicant and
dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm ensure any necessary
drain system or surface waters.All appropriate Regional dewatering oermits are
\Vater Quality Control Board (R\)VQCB)permits related obtained.
to dewatering and documentation,and permit
requirements that are included in the plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the City Building
Official prior to issuance of the first grading permit.If
the groundwater is found to contain petroleum-related
organic compounds,discharge of dewatered
groundwater to the storm drain system or surface waters
will require compliance with the Waste Discharge
Requirements for Treated Groundwater and Other
Wastewaters from Investigation and/or Cleanup of
Petroleum Fuel-Contaminated Sites to Surface Water in
Coastal Watersheds of Los 1~ngeles and Ventura
Counties (Order No.R4-2007-0021,NPDES No.
CAG834001).
~
\
'"
!'
"
Page 4 of5
D
-
1
1
4
l\1itigation Monitoring Reporting~I~,
~
'"='~
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-5:As required by
rvfunicipal Code 8.38.105,prior to issuance of a building
permit,the project applicant shall submit a fInal
drainage plan to the City Building OffIcial for review
and approval.The drainage plan shall include any on-
site structures and/or modifIcations of existing drainage
facilities necessary to accommodate increased runoff
resulting from the proposed project and shall indicate
project contributions to the regional storm water
drainage system.The drainage plan shall show all
structural BMPs consistent with the project storm water
mitigation plan.
Period of
Imnlementation
Prior to the issuance
of a buildinQ"permit
Monitoring
Responsibility
City of Rolling
Hills Estates
Building OffIcial
Monitoring
Procedure
The Building OffIcial or
his/her designee shall
review the project's
drainage plans to ensure
compliance with this
requirement.
Comments Date Initials
Page 5 of5
D
-
1
1
5
ATTACHMENT 2
D-116
@IE ((U re n \\;7 ir'
U;~IS;lJ \~j [C
I ~I-·····,~---_·_,·..··_···_'
Inll.I<,PO ')r.')0,1'1 <'U Ui t'\l II L J C'iL
OC I L________-J
o CITY OF ROLLi:',,:HiLLS
W
I-
«
(9
I
o
W
w
CO
Proposed Floor Plan .Chase
Silver Spur and Beechgate
828 Silver Spur,Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90732
3/20/12 RJM
Bldg.Size =4,292 s.f.
~
"'i'I '\!'-I I )~~MEN\:II ~
<J ')
ANDREL -III }
'-./'-.-A-__A ••_);;~.~~;~~tA:==:~;"".A...-A ,..,.r~/~~~
GYP.STUD ----------
SILVER ~"PUR ROAD CHASE 0
CPC I Qualify for I I
CPC i Headcount I Affluent Finishes I Finish Pa~
-YES i 2 I.YES I Contempo~
«-"v"::':Q (~~~/,"""....~~~~/,""""~~~~/,"",,v---....,.~~~/,,~~~)
00~~~)~«-ATM1 PKG ~"V «-(RCVR ea~.....'"'!v"0"~?A II)
D
-
1
1
7
,.~H'
Ii II
~,~=
t---
eStantec #26780 -mVER )PUR &BEECHGATE CHASE ~,""~'t,~~;::;;'~~'"'FREESTANDING BANKING CENTER ....
,o~~_,_828 SILVER SPUR RD.~'o."'.m,·"ROLLING HILLS,CA 90274
D-118
ATTACHMENT 3
D-119
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
Telephone-(310)377-1577
Fax-(310)377-4468
www.RollingHillsEstates-Ca.gov
GRADING APPLICATION
THIS GRADING PERMIT REVIEW SHALL AUTHORIZE ONLY THE GRADING WORK REQUESTED
AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF OTHER STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE GRADING
PLAN.
OWNER __J_P_M_o....;::rg:::,..a_n_C_h_a_s_e DATE 03/05/2012
ENGINEER ~v1LB Engineering LICENSE #C 41852
one-story 4,4U4 sq.ft.bank branch buiiding with 455 atm
CONTRACTOR LICENSE
LOCATION 828 Silver Spur Rd.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------------------
canopy on vacant (28,931 sq.ft.)site consisting of trash enclosure,yard lights,site paving
with concrete walks,curbs,gutters,ramps,landscaping,utilities &drainage.
EXTENT OF GRADING
A.WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE IMPORTATION OF
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIAL?
x
1.IF YES,HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS?500 CUBIC YARDS
B.WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE EXPORTATION OF
EARTH MATERIAL?
x
2.IF YES,HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS?3,000 CUBIC YARDS
C.WILL THE AMOUNT OF FILL EQUAL THE AMOUNT OF CUT?
EXPLANATION Existing soil is highly expansive &corrosive
1
x
D-120
D.WILL THIS PROPOSAL CUT INTO AN EXISTING SLOPE?
1.IF YES,WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF CUT
SLOPE?
x
LENGTH._DEPTH _
E.
2.IF YES,WHAT IS THE RESULTANT RATIO?
3.IF YES,WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS
BEING REMOVED?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL FILL AN EXISTING SLOPE?
1.IF YES,WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE
FILL SLOPE?
x
LENGTH__~~DEPTH _
2.IF YES,VVHAT IS THE RESULTANT SLOPE RATIO?_
3.IF YES,WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS BEING
FILLED?
HYDROLOGY
A.
B.
C.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL ALTER NATURAL DRAINAGE PATIERNS?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN CONCENTRATION OF STORM
WATER RUN-OFF?
WILL STORM WATER BE DISCHARGED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE
DRAINAGE FACILITY?
D.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN FLOW PATIERNS WHICH CAUSE
WATER TO BE DIRECTED ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES?
1.IF YES,HAS THE WRITIEN APPROVAL OF THESE
PROPERTY OWNERS BEEN OBTAINED?
E.
F.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM
ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF
OTHER PROPERTIES?
2
x
x
D-121
G.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN ANY EROSION?
1.IF YES,WHAT MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO ENSURE
EROSION PROTECTION?
EXPLANATION _
x
GRADING METHODS
A.
B.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL REQUIRE THE USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT?
1.IF YES,WHAT MACHINERY WILL BE USED?
EXPLANATION _
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVE THE USE OF TRUCK
TRANSPORT?
1.IF YES,WHAT CAPACITY OF VEHICLE AND WHAT HAUL ROUTE
IS REQUESTED?
CAPACITY:CUBIC YARDS
HAUL ROUTE ~
x
x
C.DESCRIBE METHODS OF DUST CONTROL TO BE EMPLOYED DURING
GRADING.
EXPLANATION _
GRADING COMPATIBILITY
A.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL
AMENITIES,INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY,LANDSCAPING AND
NATURAL FEATURES?
3
D-122
B.
c.
D.
E.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND RESPECT
RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATION ~~_
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INCORPORATE EXISTING ANDIOR ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPING TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATION _
WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND MAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE VIEWS?
WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WiTH THE OBJECTiVES OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ORD!NANCE?
EXPLA,NATION,_
x
x
F.WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CiTY OF ROLliNG HILLS ESTATES
GRADING ORDINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE 17.07.010)?
forms/grading updated 10/23/07
4
D-123
ATTACHMENT 4
D-124
CHASE BANK
INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
PERSONS,ORGANIZATIONS,AND PUBLIC AGENCIES THAT
COMMENTED ON THE PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
The public review period for the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Chase Bank project commenced on March 29,2012 and ended on April 17,2012.Table 1 lists the
persons,organizations,and public agencies that provided comments to the City of Rolling Hills Estates
on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
,,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 04/10/2012 04/10/2012
Fox,Kit
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 04/18/2012 04/17/2012
R~7~Arlri~tl~~--~-,~~-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The comment letters received on the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are presented below
along with the Lead Agency's responses to the environmental points that were raised.Each point
raised in these comment letters was assigned a number (e.g.,XY-1).The Lead Agency's response to
each enumerated comment is provided after the respective comment letter.The comment letters
and corresponding responses appear in the same order as they are listed in Table 1.
City of Rolling Hills EJtateJ ChaJe Bank
D-125
Comments
LETTER FROM:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,KIT Fox
AOMII'lIS1T<AnON
10 Aprtl 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC &U.S.MAIL
Niki Cutler,A.lCP,Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Ps,Ios Verdes Dr.N.
Hills CA 90274
SUBJECT:Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Proposed Chase Bank Project at 828
Silver Spur Road (PA·30..11)
Dear Ms.Cutler:
of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
"''''''''''''''':;'1::>1'1 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the above-mentioned project.We
have reviewed the Initial Study (is),and offer the following comments:
1.From the exterior elevations with the IS,it is not clear if there
a flat~roofed area at the of the building or not.If so,is there any roof..
mounted mechanical equipment proposed?The discussion of Aesthetic impacts
in the IS lII.d)states that "the proposed project would not include
unscreened outdoor uses or equipment that are inconSIstent with the urban
character of this area of the City,"but it is not clear if this means that there is no
roof..mounted equipment,or jf there is such equipment but it has been found to
be consistent with the urban character of surrounding The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully suggests that any roof..mounted mechanical
equipment should be substantially screened from view from upslope residences
in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.which are located to the north of the subject
property.
2.We recall that,during the previous public review of the development entitlements
for the Silverdes medical office condominium project on this site.potentia!
confHcts related to direct vehicular access from Beechgate Drive were an issue of
concern to nearby Rancho Palos Verdes reSidents.As a result,the previousiy-
approved project was designed to take access only from Silver Spur Road and
"Little"Silver Spur Road.The discussion of Transportationffraffic impacts in the
IS iV.c and IV,f)notes that outbound lane is adequate for
which has reiatively low volumes,and vehicles wishing to
City afRolling Hills Estates 2 Chase Bank
D-126
an I
at I
~
CommentJ
NUd CuUer
10 April 2012
Page 2
turn right will not be behind vehicles wanting to turn left and w<:~lting for a
break in traffic";that less~than~signlficant impacts are expected with
to the creation of "one or more access points on a roadway that is not the
prirnary frontage."It Is our recollection that the past concern with the "":001""'''''1<'>1'0
Drive access to this site was not so much the ease with which the
could eX.it the site onto Drive.but the potential conflicts between
vehicles turning left into the site Drive with those down
the hm from the Peninsula Rim and Soleado t-ltJ,mt,nt::::lF\l
The current plan would introduce a driveway access nnl'nT__H,Jn>:ln
with the two (2)existing across the street
Road and 916 Silver Spur Road~on this short stretch
between Silver Spur Road and "Little"Silver Spur Road,
Palos Verdes that the
alternate site
Uo,:>"hrto,i",Drive.
thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this ll"'nr"'rt"'....t
or need additional information,
d"1"'"1'-,1L..L.U or via e~ma!l at ,,,,..,r.1'-'"''
enclosures
cc:Mayor Anthony Misetich and
Carolyn City 1111",,,,,,,,.,,,,,,..
Carolyn n Petru,Deputy
Council
M:\l3ord€'[1$1",(!s\,Chase Sank PlojecI120120410..MNDCOlnment$.doc
D-127
Comments
RESPONSES
RPV-l:Plans submitted by the project applicant indicate that rooftop equipment (consisting of
HVAC equipment,a satellite dish,and roof drains)would be located in a sunken roof well that is
situated approximately 12 feet below the peak of the highest portion of the bank building's roof.
See the "Roof Plan"and "Building Sections"exhibits on the following pages.Consequently,this
equipment would be largely screened from view from surrounding properties including upslope
residences in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which are located to the north of the subject
property.
RPV-2:The City has not prohibited access via Beechgate Drive at any time.In fact,the prior use of
the site as a service/gas station had two driveways on Beechgate Drive.The City Traffic Engineer
has determined that multiple driveways for commercial properties is appropriate and acceptable for
this street.Driveways on Beechgate Drive provide convenient and safe access to and from Silver
Spur Road at a signalized intersection.Further,a driveway on Beechgate Drive is preferable to
additional driveways on Silver Spur Road because Beechgate Drive has lower traffic volumes and
prevailing speeds,thereby lowering the potential for and severity of collisions.With regard to
driveway access on Little Silver Spur Road,that location would have less driver visibility due to
street curvature and topography than a Beechgate rl't'1't'rP.t't'ri1'tT
northbound Beechgate Drive would have to cross southbound traffic on Beechgate Drive either at
the driveway or at Little Silver Spur,so there would be no difference in the number of traffic
conflicts.Based on a thorough review of potential driveways and project trip circulation,the City
Traffic Engineer has concluded that an access driveway on Beechgate Drive is appropriate and
would facilitate traffic flow with optimum overall traffic safety.
City of Rolling Hills Estates 4 Chase Bank
D-128
o 35VH:J
I I~
I I
D-129
03SVH:J
D-130
LETTER FROM:COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Los ANGELES COUNTY
April 17,2012
FileNo:
Ms,.Niki,CUII,er,AICP
Hills Estates
Palos Drive North
Rolling I'HUs 1~;st~\I,es,CA 90214
Dear Ms.Cutler:
received a Notice of Intent to
2.,2012.The
5.\Ve offer the
The County Sanitatkm Districts of Los Angeles County
a ()c<::laratiol1 f()t·the
wil.hin the JUrISdictional h,r"lI1lt'!£II,it·"
cornnH::'t)ls regarding sewerage
project wUI be Ireate-cla!the Joint Water
which has a design of 400 and
processes an average l1{nv
'rhe wastewater gtWtCl'llllcd
Control Plant locllted in the
'rhe averagc waslew'atcl'11m\'from th¢project site i.s 440
the Districts'WaSlC'lM'l.tCI'generation 1.0 ~.~_!.!...J:!,JJ.!!~~~J.:>'
\Vlll Serve Procedures,Obtain
link on page 2.
I.fW1I1 the
which not iluillnlai.ricd
Slnpc S..\ct!OI1 )Trunk SC\'\/Cl',l()catcd Cl'enshuw BoulCVlll"d north
Road.Tlli!>dianll\lcr trunk sewer has a design of 2.I
day (mgdj and \;onvcycd a nmv 1.0 rngd when last in 2011
4,the CalHbmi,<1 Health and Safety Code to charge a fee tor the
or indirectly)to the Districts'Sewerage or the
wastewater attributable to a particular 01'already
connecticm fce is facilities fee,that IS;in an amount sufficient to
construct an incremental expansion of the System to accmnmodale the
PaYlnent of ~l connection fcc will be before a to connect to the sewer is
Fo;a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet,go to Information
Center,wm Serve Progl'an'ljl,Buildover pr,oce,d,UTes,"Obla''.,i,n \\.',.ill Serv',CLcttCI',.click on th:JC
link on 2.For more specH1c inf,)rmntioll thecouneetlol1 fee
fees,contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727.
City of Rolling Hill.r E.rtate.r 7 Cha.re Bank
D-131
Comments and Responses
April 17,2012
In orde,r for the Di:Hricts 10 conform to the requirements of the Federal C;lean Air A,ct (CAA),lhe
clll)acHj~~s of the Distrkts 1 wastewater treatlnent facilities arc based on the
by the SOLlthern CaHfornia A.ssociation of Governments
ill'the development of the SCAG growth f'brccast are incorporated into
dean air \vhich an:by the and Ant.clopc Ai.r Quality
Management Districts in order to in the South Coast and Dcs(~rt Air
Basins as Inandated the CAA.ta.cHitles must be and service.
in a tmmllcr will be ,,'ith the SCAG l·egi.onal forecust for tbe
counties of Los San Bernardino,Riverside,Ventura,and Imperial.The
available capacity treutment HlcHiHes will,thercfi)rc,be limited to levels
associated with the .idcntit1ed SCAff.As such,this letter docs not constitute
a guarl'wtee of \vastevllalor service,but is 10 you that the Districts intend to this
sen,dee lit'10 the h~\"els (,hat are [HId to infbrm you of the
and any Districts~facilities,
Ifytfll have allY questions,please contactthe 1l111'{r.!',d<r"1Ml <It (562)908 ..4288.extension 2717.
AdriaM Ha:.I;;;\
ClI:ilOmCr Service "PI.~\';lilIlM
Facilities Planning n ...."..·I'·.,..'"
i\R:(II'
;\1.Tn:mhlay
.I.Ganl.
City of Rolling Hills Estates 8 Chase Bank
D-132
Comments and ReJponJes
RESPONSES
SD-l:The commenter provides information regarding the wastewater system in the project vicinity.
The information is noted.No response is required.
SD-2:The commenter identifies that project-generated wastewater would be treated at the Joint
Water Pollution Control Plant in Carson,CA,and identifies the capacity of that facility.The
information is noted.No response is required.
SD-3:The commenter identifies that the project is anticipated to generate 440 gallons per day of
wastewater.The information is noted.No response is required.
SD-4:The comments/information is noted.No response is required.
SD-5:The comments/information is noted.No response is required.
Ciry oJRolling HillJ Estates 9 ChaJe Bank
D-133