RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_10_02_C_Border_IssuesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM:CAROLYNN PETRU,AICP,DEPUTY CITY MANAGE~
DATE:OCTOBER 2,2012
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER~~r C\-
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 brief update on the scheduled release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)for the Ponte Vista project in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A follow-up report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the Brickwalk,LLC mixed-use condominium project in Rolling Hills Estates;
• A report on the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)forthe San
Pedro Community Plan Update in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A brief update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro);and,
• A report on the release of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the
Marymount College San Pedro campus on Palos Verdes Drive North in Los Angeles
(San Pedro).
C-1
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
October 2,2012
Page 2
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.com/rpv/planning/border issuesl2012120 121 002 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site,LosAngeles (San Pedro)
On August 25,2012,the Daily Breeze reported that the release ofthe Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)for the 1,135-unit Ponte Vista project is anticipated by October 2012
(see attached article and e-mail from Mark Wells).If so,Staff expects to provide a more
detailed report on the DEIR as a part of the December 2012 Border Issues report.
Brickwalk,LLC Mixed-Use Condominiums,Rolling Hills Estates
On August 2,2012,Staff forwarded the attached comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)for the Brickwalk,LLC mixed-use condominium project to the City of
Rolling Hills Estates.The major issues raised in our comments include:
•Potential aesthetic and view impacts of portions of the new town homes exceeding
the curb elevation along Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard;
•Consistency of the project with "best management practices"(BMPs)for the
adjacent Crestridge Reserve in the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve;
•Geotechnical and hydrology/water quality issues regarding proposed site
grading/landslide remediation and the City's abutting public rights-of-way (Le.,Indian
Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard);
•Justification for the requested variance for 26-footl1-story bUilding-height increase;
•Noise impacts upon residents of the City's Mirandela senior apartment community;
•Provision of affordable housing units as a part of the project;
•Clarifications and corrections to the traffic impact analysis and proposed mitigation
for the project related to the City's public rights-of-way;and,
•Support for the "Reduced Project Alternative,"which reduces the number of
residential units and the amount of new commercial development by twenty percent
(20%).
On September 4,2012,Staff attended the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission public
hearing for the DEIR (see attached agenda and Staff report).After receiving a presentation
C-2
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
October 2,2012
Page 3
from the project proponent,six (6)public speakers expressed their concerns about the
project to the Planning Commission.Staff noted that we had not yet had adequate time to
evaluate the responses to our technical comments on the DEIR,particularly those related
to biological resources,geology and transportation/traffic.Several of the Planning
Commissioners also expressed reservations about some aspects of the proposed project.
At the conclusion of the evening's discussion,the public hearing was left open and the
matter continued to October 15,2012.Staff will continue to monitor this project in future
Border Issues reports.
San Pedro Community Plan Update,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On August 9,2012,the City of Los Angeles released the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEI R)for the San Pedro Community Plan Update,along with the Draft Community
Plan itself.This began a 45-day public comment period that was set to end on September
24,2012.
On September 5,2012,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 the Draft Community Plan and DEIR.We
expressed our concerns about proposed increases in the density/intensity of development
that could occur surrounding the intersection of Western Avenue and 25t1i Street under the
updated plan,as well as how the updated plan would affect the continued operation ofthe
Rancho LPG butane storage facility on Gaffey Street.We noted that the City's traffic
engineer was still reviewing the proposed Mobility Element of the plan and Transportation
Improvement Mitigation Program (TIMP),particularly as they relate to roadways and
bikeways that link and/or intersect with those in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Following this meeting,we formally asked for a 15-day extension of the public comment
period for the DEIR (see attached letter dated September 6,2012).As of the date that this
report was completed,we had not yet received a response to this request.If an extension
is not granted,Staff intends to at least submit comments on the DEIR by the September 24,
2012,deadline.
Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
At the August 21,2012,City Council meeting Councilwoman Susan Brooks presented an
item regarding the Rancho LPG butane storage facility during the "Study Session"portion
of the agenda (see attachments).Two (2)members of the public addressed the City
Council,urging it to consider taking a more proactive role in addressing community concern
about the facility.The City Council unanimously agreed to direct Staff to agendize this
matter for discussion at a future meeting,which is scheduled for October 16,2012.
C-3
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
October 2,2012
Page 4
Marymount College San Pedro Campus Master Plan,Los Angeles (San Pedro)
At the City Council meeting on September 5,2012,public speakers mentioned that notice
of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the Marymount College San Pedro
Campus project had been published by the City of Los Angeles on or about August 30,
2012.That action began a 20-day public review and comment period for the MND,which
was scheduled to end on September 19,2012.Until the September 5,2012 City Council
meeting,Staff had heard nothing more about the status of the review the development
entitlements or environmental analysis of this project since February 2012.
Staff has reviewed the MN D that was posted on the City of Los Angeles'website,and finds
it to be deficient in that its does not include correspondence between the Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (DOT)and the Planning Department that purports to detail
the specific implementing (Le.,mitigation)measures necessary to reduce the project's
traffic impacts to less-than-significant levels.In the absence of this critical information,
Staff finds that the MND is inadequate and incomplete.Staff is also concerned that the
environmental impacts of the proposed San Pedro Campus and its interrelation with other
College facilities in the area (Le.,the main Campus,Waterfront Campus,Pacific View West
residential community,etc.)have not been adequately analyzed,particularly as they relate
to impacts upon the City's roadways and intersections.As such,on September 17,2012,
Staff asked the City of Los Angeles to suspend the public review period for the proposed
MND,and to correct and recirculate it for a new 20-day review period (see attachments).
As of today's date,the City of Los Angeles had not responded to Staff's request.
It is important to note that there are other,related development entitlements for this project
that will also require public review by the City of Los Angeles.A parcel map application will
require review by the City's Advisory Agency,and a conditional use application will require
review before the City Planning Commission.To Staff's knowledge,no hearing dates have
yet been set for either of these entitlement requests.Staff will continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
•Daily Breeze article regarding DEIR for Ponte Vista Project (published 8/25/12)
•E-mail from Mark Wells regarding DEIR for Ponte Vista Project (dated 8/25/12)
•Staff comments on DEIR for Brickwalk,LLC Project (dated 8/2/12)
•PV News article regarding hearing for Brickwalk,LLC Project (published 8/30/12)
•RHE PC Agenda and Staff report for Brickwalk,LLC Project (dated 9/4/12)
•PV News article regarding hearing for Brickwalk,LLC Project (published 9/13/12)
C-4
MEMORANDUM:Border Issues Status Report
October 2,2012
PageS
Attachments (cont'd):
•Notice of Completion/Availability of DEIR for San Pedro Community Plan Update
(dated 8/9/12)
•Executive Summary from DEIR for San Pedro Community Plan Update (dated
8/9/12)
•NWSPNC Planning &Land Use Committee meeting agenda (dated 9/5/12)
•Staff request for a 15-day extension to comment on the DEIR for San Pedro
Community Plan Update (dated 9/6/12)
•Councilwoman Brooks'Study Session report regarding Rancho LPG butane storage
facility (dated 8/21/12)
•MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus (released 8/30/12)
•Staff comments on MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus (dated 9/17/12)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20121 002_Borderlssues_StaffRpt.doc
C-5
Daily Breeze article regarding DEIR for Ponte Vista Project
C-6
nrtp://www.aallyoreeze.comtnews/Cl_Ll,j,o~,o/san-pearos-pome-V1sm-prOJeCt-lS-oaCK-aIOen
San Pedro's Ponte Vista project is back,albeit smaller
By Donna Littlejohn,Staff Writer Daily Breeze
Posted:DailyBreeze.com
After a two-year break,one of San Pedro's most controversial housing development proposals is slated to re-emerge
this fall.
Los Angeles city planners are expected to release a draft report of the most recent version of the Ponte Vista
development this fall,triggering a new round of community meetings and debates.
"It's been a beautiful couple of years in San Pedro,"said Dan Dixon ofthe Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council.
Few proposals caused as much debate in the port town as Ponte Vista,which,in its initial 2005 rendering called for
2,300 homes to be built on a 62-acre former Navy housing site on Western Avenue.
Now in the hands of a new developer,iStar Financial Inc.,the project has been rolled back by half,with the new
proposal calling for ~,135 homes on the land at 26900 S.Western Ave.,just south of Palos Verdes Drive North.
"We want to see something there as long as it's reasonable and respectful of the community,"said Los Angeles City
Councilman Joe Buscaino.
He said the new numbers "are a big improvement on the thousands initially proposed,but I want to hear what the
community is going to say."
Developers will schedule a series of meetings when the draft environmental impact report is released,expected in
about six weeks.
"What you'll see is a project with 1,135 units,which is less than half the density originally proposed under the
previous developer,"said Eric Shabsis,a project spokesman."That's in line with the density of the adjacent Gardens
(townhome)development,which we'd heard was important to the local community.
"It's a project much more in keeping with the surrounding San Pedro community than what was originally proposed
and the number of residential units falls within the number recommended by the Planning Commission in 2009 for
the property."
There remains,however,strong sentiment for bringing the numbers even lower -to between 800 and 900,
conforming with the property's current Rl zoning.
And concern about impacts on Western Avenue traffic will no doubt dominate much of the renewed discussion this
time around as it did seven years ago.
"I don't see that the basic issues have changed that much:traffic, traffic,traffic,"Dixon said.
The new developer started from scratch on traffic studies after earlier studies were widely criticized as unrealistic.
Chuck Hart,a nearby resident who also has followed the development through the years,said residents are waiting to
see the analysis released by the city.
"We understand (that any development)has to be feasible and profitable,but we're not responsible for that,"Hart
said,adding that more open space on the property remains a high priority.
About 6 acres of open space is included in the current plan that encompasses a park and walking trails that would be
open to the public.
n ...........1 ....+"'\
C-7
nup:llwww.nauyoreeze.comtneWS/Cl_Ll ...O:>.O/san-peoros-pome-VlSra-prOJeCr-lS-OaCK-alOen
Among the more popular features of the earlier plan,however,also was removed from the latest version - a segment
of the housing dedicated for those 55 and older.
"It takes away a lot of what we were interested in,"said Louis Dominguez of San Pedro,who was among early
supporters of the larger Ponte Vista plan.
The latest proposal also calls for a new element -392 rental apartment units lining the southern boundary.
The rest of the homes offer a mix of two-and three-story townhomes,flats and duplexes scattered throughout the
property.A 2.8-acre public park would be included along with walking trails throughout the site.
No retail uses are included in the latest plans.
After the draft environmental impact report is released,the public will be given time to review and comment on it.
Buscaino said the new developers are working with Mary Star ofthe Sea High School on providing a permanent
access road from Western Avenue to the campus.
Despite the disagreement over the project,most agree it's time to build something on the property that offers
motorists a view of weeds and abandoned homes.
"I'm so tired of looking at that ugly piece of land,"Dominguez said.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
n ............""'I ........,
C-8
E-mail from Mark Wells regarding DEIR for Ponte Vista Project
C-9
From:Mark R Wells [mailto:mtwells@pacbell.net]
Sent:Saturday,August 25,2012 12:50 AM
To:CC;Jim Gordon;Lucie Thorsen;Peter Lacombe
Subject:Ponte Vista is coming back in the Fall
Hello All!
Ms.Donna Littlejohn wrote an article about Ponte Vista coming back into the picture this Fall.
Here article's URL is:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci 21396596/san-pedros-ponte-vista-project-is-back-albeit
While the project is in San Pedro,I hope our city council and concerned residents of Rancho
Palos Verdes get reinvolved with the issues and provide comments they feel are useful when the
new Draft Environmental Impact Report comes out,apparently,FINALLY,this fall.
A short Notice of Preparation was posted back in October,2010 and the comment period for that
ended years ago.
The bottom line right now,I feel,is the total number of units-l ,135 and the fact that 392 of those
units are designated to be 'rental'units.
Furthermore,of the remaining units,we all should be prepared to find quite a few of them also
becoming rental or leased units.This sways the traffic and trip generation statistics used in the
study,out of whack,I believe.
We have already seen that the expansion of the number of Marymount College students living at
the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing facility has not been fully studies with respect to The
Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project,approved in 2010.
With an extension of Phase One of the Marymount Project,without further traffic and parking
studies,neighbors and residents living along or near Western Avenue might become more
impacted than any study has suggested.
As many of you know,I'm not shy about my opinions concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The construction of 1,13 5 units of any kind is far too many.The allowance of 392 'rental'units
being constructed is also of great concern to me.
Years ago I calculated a dwelling density rate at Ponte Vista as it would compare to what is
found at The Gardens,a nearby condominium complex that has been in San Pedro for decades.
The Gardens consists of about 80 acres and has approximately 1,100 dwelling units.
Ponte Vista at San Pedro sits on 61.53 acres,not all of which are buildable.
C-10
For Ponte Vista at San Pedro to have an dwelling density equal to The Gardens,then no more
than 831 dwelling units should be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro,in my opinion.
It is not the responsibility of local residents to accept higher density housing if it means greater
hardships on them.
I urge everyone to read the D.E.I.R.,provide comments and work together to create the best
outcome for ALL of us,including welcoming new residents at Ponte Vista,however many there
will be.
I guess it's time to get back writing on my blogs.Ugh!
Thank you and be well.
Mark Wells
C-11
Staff comments on DEIR for Brickwalk,LLC Project
C-12
CITYOF
2 August 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
ADMINISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments in Response to the Notice of Completion/Availability of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Brickwalk,LLC
Mixed-Use Residential Project (PA 01-07)
Dear~r:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the above-mentioned project.As you
may recall,the City previously commented upon the scope of the DEIR for this project
on 28 February 2007.We have reviewed the Notice of Completion/Availability and the
DEIR,and offer the following comments:
1.The discussion of Aesthetics (Section 4.1,p.4.1-9)describes the visual impacts
of the proposed project as viewed from a location within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes at Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (View 4).The DEIR
concludes that aesthetic impacts upon the view from this location are less-than-
significant.However,we note that the view simulations (Figure 4.1-5)clearly
show that the height of the new townhomes proposed in this portion of the project
site would exceed the curb elevation of Indian Peak Road near its intersection
with Crenshaw Boulevard.Accordingly,we are concerned that the aesthetic
impacts of the proposed project upon views from homes in the 5400-block of
Middlecrest Road in the Ridgecrest neighborhood may not have been adequately
addressed in the DEIR.
2.The discussion of Biological Resources (Section 4.3,pp.4.3-3 to 4.3-5)
describes the consistency of the proposed project with the Rancho Palos Verdes
NCCP Preserve (NCCP)and concludes that project impacts would be less-than-
significant and require no mitigation.Earlier in this same section (p.4.3-2),the
DEIR acknowledges the NCCP as a part of the "regulatory setting"within which
the biological resource impacts of this project are to be analyzed.We would
draw to your attention Section 6.2.2 of the NCCP Subarea Plan "Development
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391/(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM!RPV
PRINTED ON I<ECYCLEO PAPER C-13
Niki Cutler
2 August 2012
Page 2
Adjacent to the Preserve"and the specific project design criteria and best
management practices (BMPs)enumerated in Subsection 6.2.2.2 (see
enclosures).These guidelines should be discussed in greater detail in the DEIR.
Furthermore,we strongly suggest that the DEIR consider the inclusion of the
guidelines from NCCP Subarea Plan Subsection 6.2.2.2 as project mitigation to
address potential impacts upon the adjacent NCCP Crestridge Reserve in
Rancho Palos Verdes.
3.The discussion of Geology and Soils (Section 4.5)assesses the geologic and
g~otechnical impacts of the proposed project,and suggests mitigation measures
to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes'geotechnical consultant has reviewed Section 4.5 and the related
appendices from the DEIR,and offers the enclosed comments that should be
addressed in the Final EIR.
4.The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.7)assesses the
impacts and handling of site runoff and drainage for the proposed project,and
suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant
levels.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes'City Engineer has reviewed Section
4.7 and the related appendices from the DEIR,and offers the enclosed
comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR.
5.The discussion of Land Use and Planning (Section 4.8)notes at several locations
that two (2)variances are requested in conjunction with the proposed project,
whereas the Project Description (Section 3.0,p.3-10)lists three (3)requested
variances.This discrepancy should be resolved in the Final EIR.For the record,
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is skeptical that the requested variance for a
26-foot/1-story increase in the height of the proposed,mixed-use podium building
is warranted.Also,as mentioned in our comments above regarding biological
resources impacts,the discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with
the NCCP (p.4.8-17)should take into account the provisions of Subsection
6.2.2.2 of the NCCP Subarea Plan.
6.The discussion of Noise (Section 4.9,p.4.9-16)identifies the Rancho Palos
Verdes Preschool at 28451 Indian Peak Road (southwest corner at Crenshaw
Boulevard)as a sensitive noise receptor that would be exposed to short-term
construction noise impacts from the proposed project.Mitigation Measure 4.9-2
(p.4.9-20)proposes the installation of 6-foot-tall construction noise barriers along
Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard to reduce these impacts to less-
than-significant levels.We would like to point out that,since the original
circulation of the NOP for this project in 2007,the City completed construction of
C-14
Niki Cutler
2 August 2012
Page 3
the Mirandela senior apartments at 5555 Crestridge Road (northwest corner at
Crenshaw Boulevard),which directly abut the Rancho Palos Verdes Preschool to
the south.The City believes that these age-and income-restricted apartments
also constitute a sensitive noise receptor located in the immediate vicinity of the
project site.Will the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 adequately
address potential construction-related noise impacts upon the residents of
Mirandela as well?
7.The discussion of Population and Housing (Section 4.10,p.4.10-10)notes that
t~e proposed project is consistent with the City of Rolling Hills Estates'current
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA),presumably because the total
number of units proposed (i.e.,one hundred forty-eight (148))substantially
exceeds the total of twenty-six (26)units required by the current RHNA.
However,the DEIR does not discuss how the proposed project fulfills the RHNA
requirement for units to be provided that are affordable to households at a variety
of income levels.
8.The discussion of Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.13)discusses the
construction-related and post-construction impacts of the proposed project,and
suggests a number of mitigation measures (pp.4.13-25 to 4.13-30)to reduce
these impacts to less-than-significant levels.Several of these mitigation
measures involve modifications to traffic controls at surrounding intersections.
We would like to point out that,since the original circulation of the NOP for this
project in 2007,the jurisdictional responsibility for several of the surrounding
roadway segments and intersections has shifted from Rolling Hills Estates to
Rancho Palos Verdes,and these shifts may affect the feasibility of some of the
proposed mitigation measures.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes'traffic
engineer has reviewed Section 4.13 and the related appendices from the DEIR,
and offers the enclosed comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR.
9.The discussion of Alternatives (Section 5.0,pp.5-14 to 5-15)identifies the
"Reduced Project Alternative"(Alternative 3)as the environmentally-superior
alternative to the proposed project.Since Alternative 3 reduces the total number
of dwelling units and commercial square footage by twenty percent (20%),it
reduces the project's traffic impacts and eliminates the need for a building height
variance while still fulfilling the basic objectives of the project.Therefore,the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes supports the selection of Alternative 3 for the proposed
project.
C-15
Niki Cutler
2 August 2012
Page 4
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 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.
enclosures
cc:Mayor Misetich and City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Jim Hendrickson,Interim Public Works Director
M:\Border Issues\Brickwalk LLC Condos\20120802_EIRCommenls.doc
C-16
SECTIONSIX
SECTION 6 RESERVE MANAGEMENT
Reserve Manauement
As an urban Reserve plan for wildlife and plants,the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan will enhance the
city's quality oflife and provide the city with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving
the city's unique biodiversity and maintaining populations of sensitive resources.To succeed in these
goals,this Subarea Plan will require management practices and some land-use restrictions on conserved
lands that give special consideration to the interface between developed lands and open space.Adaptive
management measures and compatible adjacent land uses will minimize impacts to individuals or
populations of covered species from development abutting the Reserve.A process for monitoring habitats
and species in the Reserve will help to improve the effectiveness of resource management.The following
sections establish general guidelines for compatible land uses and development within and adjacent to the
Reserve and provide a framework for consistent and coordinated management and monitoring of the
Reserve.
Existing legal land uses adjacent to the Reserve may continue,and existing ownerships will be maintained
until lands are obtained by public entities through purchase,dedication,or donation On private lands that
become part of the Reserve,public access will be allowed only on properties where access has been
granted by the owner through an appropriate easement or on property that has been voluntarily dedicated
in fee title to a public agency or nonprofit organization.All new public facilities will be reviewed for
consistency with this Subarea Plan regarding public safety and to minimize management concerns and
biological impacts.
6.1 HABITAT MANAGER
The City has selected the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC)as the designated Habitat
Manager for the Reserve.Some conserved habitat areas addressed by this Subarea Plan are currently
managed by other organizations contracted by the private landowners (e.g.,Ocean Trails and Oceanfront
Estates mitigation lands).Management of these private lands would be transferred to the PVPLC once the
monitoring requirements of the Wildlife Agencies have been met.The PVPLC will work with the City to
ensure that habitat on these lands is adequately maintained.
6.2 FRAMEWORK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
6.2.1 Development of Public Use Master Plan
Within two years of the signing of the Implementing Agreement,a Public Use Master Plan (pUMP)shall
be developed jointly by the City and the PVPLC to address issues such as public access,trailhead
locations,parking,trail use,fencing,signage,lighting (if any),fire and brush management,minimizing
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods,public involvement in advisory capacities,and other issues that may
arise.This section provides management guidelines and measures for the development of the PUMP,to
reduce habitat impacts of land uses within and adjacent to the Reserve.The PUMP for the site would be
created based on extensive public input and would have to be approved by City Council and the Wildlife
Agencies.Prior to the final approval of the PUMP by the Wildlife Agencies,all lawful uses and activities
that are occurring in the Reserve at the time of approval ofthis Subarea Plan by the City Council shall be
tJRS W:127644296\OBOOO-b-r.docI2B-Jul-04\SDG 6-1
C-17
SECTIONSIX Reserve Management
deemed acceptable and allowed to continue unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by the Final
approved PUMP.
6.2.2 Development Adjacent to the Reserve
6.2.2.1 Management Issues
No new development activities will be allowed in the Reserve,except for the public and private
infrastructure projects identified in this Subarea Plan,geological testing in support of compatible land
uses,landslide monitoring,and any emergency actions associated with landslide abatement and
remediation activities.Development adjacent to the Reserve,however,may indirectly affect the Reserve.
These indirect impacts will be addressed through the existing project review process and CEQA
documentation,as required.In reviewing a proposed development project adjacent to the Reserve,site
design issues that need to be addressed are avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources
and retention of native habitats.Potential impacts to biological resources from existing and new
development adjacent to the Reserve will be considered in the design process.These include the locations
of access and staging areas,fire and brush management zones,potential for introduction of nonnative
species,increased night-lighting,increased stormwater and urban runoff,increased noise level and public
access to habitats supporting covered species.
6.2.2.2 Project Design Review and Best Management Practices
The following guidelines are designed to protect biological resources in the Reserve during construction
of new development directly abutting the Reserve:
1.Review grading plans of development directly adjacent to the Reserve boundary (including access
routes,staging areas,etc.)to ensure the plans are consistent with this Subarea Plan,educate
contractors about the biological sensitivities associated with the area,and monitor construction to
ensure compliance with project-specific mitigation measures.
2.All construction site vegetation clearing will be conducted during the non-breeding season
(September 1 to February 15)to avoid destruction of active bird nests.If vegetation clearing must be
conducted during the bird breeding season,a nest survey must be conducted and a 15 meter (50 feet)
exclusion zone is placed around all active nests (i.e.,active nests with eggs or chicks)until the nest
becomes inactive
3.Use existing access roads outside the Reserve wherever practicable.Clearly mark all access routes
outside existing roads or construction areas.Develop an emergency access plan for the utility
companies with facilities within the Reserve.
4.When stockpiling topsoil,it should be placed in areas to be affected by project development.
5.Locate construction staging areas at least 15 meters (50 feet)away from the Reserve boundary and
natural drainages.Designate no-fueling zones a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet)from all
drainages and away from the Reserve boundary.
6.Schedule construction directly adjacent to the Reserve to minimize potential indirect impacts to
biological resources in the Reserve.Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of
1JRS W:127644296\08000-b-r.docI28-Jul-04\SDG 6-2
C-18
SECTIONSIX Reserve Management
minimum flow (i.e.,summer through the first significant rain of fall)to avoid excessive sedimentation
and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species.Construction adjacent to habitats
occupied by breeding sensitive wildlife species should be scheduled to avoid the breeding season
(February IS-August 31)if practicable.
7.Minimize construction noise impacts during the bird breeding season (February IS-August 31)by
precluding noise levels greater than 65 dB hourly 4q at the edge of habitat occupied by
noise-sensitive covered bird species where existing noise conditions are less than this noise threshold.
Conduct pre-construction surveys of potentially affected conserved habitat between mid-January and
mid-March.If no noise-sensitive breeding bird species are detected within 15 meters (50 feet)of the
construction activity by this date,construction can proceed.
8.Locate new roads,trails,and utility corridors in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge
effects.
9.Place temporary construction fencing at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.
Add silt fencing to these fences to minimize excessive sedimentation into drainages.
10.Encourage undergrounding of utilities and use oftrenchless technology,where feasible.Minimize the
width of construction corridors and easements,and where possible,use less impactive construction
practices such as jacking pipelines under drainages.
11.Revegetate cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to conserved habitat with
appropriate native species.
12.Require approved restoration plans and construction monitoring for all construction projects within
and adjacent to the Reserve.
13.Evaluate the practicality of noise barriers for short sections of road that may chronically affect
breeding wildlife.
14.Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance.
6.2.3 Fire and Brush Management
Fire management can focus on two potentially different objectives:achievement of biological resources
goals and hazard reduction for humans and their property.Biological resource goals recognize that fire is
a natural process in ecosystems.Coastal sage scrub depends on a regular cycle of burning to maintain a
balance of species,create vegetation mosaics that favor increased animal species diversity,provide
habitat for species characteristic of early post-fire landscapes,and control exotic plant species invasion.
.Fire and brush management can also affect restoration of disturbed habitats and site hydrology,which will
directly affect habitat value for wildlife.Fire management for hazard reduction for humans and their
property focuses on reducing fuel loads in areas where fire may threaten human safety or property,
suppressing fires once they have started,and providing access for fire suppression equipment and
personnel.
6.2.3.1 Management Recommendations
Fire and brush management will be prioritized for human safety,but will also consider biological
resources,where appropriate.Therefore,fire and brush management practices in the Reserve need to
DRS W:\27644296\08000-b-r.doc\28-Jul-04\SDG 6-3
C-19
KLING
.......Consultingiiiiiil---;;;;·.··Gra up,Inc.
July 27,2012
Kit Fox
Senior Administrative Analyst
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
PN 00146-14A
Subject:
Dear Mr.Fox:
Review of DEIR Geology and Soils Documents for the Proposed Deep Valley and
Indian Peak Mixed-Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates
Our firm has reviewed the Geology and Soils,Section 4.5 of the DEIR dated June 20,2012 by LSA
Associates for the Deep Valley and Indian Peak Mixed-Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates.Our
evaluation incorporated a review ofpast geology and soils documents for the subject site.The to Howing
comments in regards to the Geology and Soils portion of the DEIR are presented below.
•A review of the reference list indicates that the authors have reviewed all previous documents for
the proj ect including past reviews by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the corresponding
responses by the project geotechnical consultant.
The seismic design standard presented on page 4.5.6 is outdated.The design standards presented
and used for the project should be updated to use the latest CBC or indicate in the DEIR what
version ofthe CBC or UBC will be used for the project if different.
•The last round of review and response completed in 2010 and 2011 indicated that additional
readings of the inclinometers would continue every 4 to 6 months from the date of consultant's
response in December 2010.Based on this schedule,a minimum of 5 additional readings should
have taken place.It is recommended that these be obtained and reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant in an updated report and ifnecessary be incorporated into the DEIR.This report should
be forwarded to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for review.
•The DEIR's section on Faults and Seismic History states that the Cabrillo Fault is active,page 4.5-5.
Later in the report on page 4.5.12 it states that it is inactive.The DEIR should be.corrected to
remove inconsistency.
•Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 states that the construction and design of the proposed project shall
comply with the recommendation measures listed in Section 6.0 through 9.0 in the April 27.2007
Pacific Soils.As other addendum reports and evaluations have been authored beyond the April 2007
report,they should be added to this section of the DEIR.
18008 Sky Park Circle,Suite 250,Irvine,Califomia 92614 (949)797-6241 Fax (949}797-6260 C-20
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
July 27,2012
PN 00146-14A
•The DEIR does not address import or export of soil during grading,nor does it address import of
construction materials associated with grading or constmction ofbuildings and what impact to RPV
roadways this might have.This may be addressed elsewhere in the DEIR document.
•Section 4.5.2 states that the section addresses the potential for structural damage to occur due to
local geology underlying the project.There does not appear to be a discussion in regards to this
issue.
•DElR does not appear to address tie backs,temporaryexcavations or shoring in detail or where they
would potentially encroach into Rancho Palos Verdes.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Please
call if you have any questions regarding the content of this letter.
Sincerely,.
KLING CONSULTING GROUP
/-.LA.~"""'&
L)~e?M.LaI:caste.r,J'2,
Prmclpal EngmeermgJ
JML:dm
Dist.:(2)Addressee
S :\l'rojects\2000\OO]46\00]46-14A Review of Geology and Soils Section of DEIR dated 6-20-12
2 C-21
SECTION 1.0 -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Add the following statement to Table l.A item 4.5-3 and to Section 4.5 Geology and Soils
Any components ofthe design that are required to be placed outside of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates will require additional review/approval by the affected jurisdiction.
Add the following statement to Table l.A item 4.5-X
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the project,the
project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director of Public Works for
review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and
require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair.The maintenance
agreement shall "run with the land".The approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded
with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official.
SECTION 4.7 -HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project is located in an area of known unstable land.Land movement such as slope failures
and landslides are adversely affected by ground water.To minimize runoff infiltration of ground
water,all existing or planned drainage facilities located on slopes within the project mustbe
properly maintained or caused to be maintained by the property owner and future owners.
To that end,the following comment and condition should be added to the Mitigation Measures
4.7-X.They are needed to ensure that storm runoff management facilities are properly
maintained and that runoff on slopes adjacent to Indian Peak retain the integrity intended by the
design engineer:
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the project,the
project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director of Public Works for
review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and
require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair.The maintenance
agreement shall "run with the land".The approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded
with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official.
Section 4.7-4 modify the sentence as follows (change to sentence shown in bold):
The drainage plan shall include anyon-site structures and/or modifications of existing drainage
facilities necessary to accommodate existing and/or increased runoff resulting from the
proposed project and shall indicate project contributions to the regional storm water drainage
system.
C-22
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Nicole Jules
Kit Fox;
Ron Dragoo;
RHE Mixed Use Project
Wednesday,August 01/2012 2:54:40 PM
Hi Kit,
Below are my comments:
General Traffic Study
Since the commencement of the Traffic Study in 2010,jurisdictional responsibilities
at certain intersections and along certain roadway segments have shifted from
Rolling Hi,lIs Estates to Rancho Palos Verdes.As such,report,analysis,
assumptions and conclusion should be modified per the direction and concurrence
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the following locations:
a)Hawthorne Blvd at Indian Peak Road
b)Silver Spur Road at Silver Arrow Drive
c)Indian Peak Road at Crenshaw Blvd
d)Silver Spur Road from Hawthorne Blvd to Drybank Drive
e)Indian Peak Road from Crenshaw Blvd to RPV City Limits
f)Crenshaw Blvd from Indian Peak Road to RPV City Limits
The report should clearly identify which intersections and/or roadway segments are
in each respective City.For the intersections that have joint responsibilities the
proportionate share should be clearly identified.
Executive Summary
Table 1.A,mitigation #4.13-5, 4.13-6,4.13-10 -Mitigation Measure needs to be
modified to incorporate review,concurrence and approval by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes,Department of Public Works.
Table 1.A,mitigation #4.13-10 -Please modify the language of this mitigation
.measure and any other applicable mitigation measure to state:"Prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit,the applicant shall,for the two intersections with
the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Hawthorne Blvd at
Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Blvd at Indian Peak Road,pay it's fair share of the
estimated construction costs for the necessary mitigation measures to offset its
cumulative impact.All estimated costs shall be approved by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Director of Public Works or his/her designee.
Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation
C-23
Based on comments to Appendix J below,the traffic analysis results as presented
in this section may change.Please see comments to Appendix J for details.
AppendixJ
Study Area -Please modify the study area to identify those study intersections and
roadway segments that fall under the jurisdictional responsibility of each City (RHE
and/or RPV)
Existing Conditions -Please modify the descriptions of the existing street system to
identify roadway segments and appropriate classifications and speed limits within
the City of RPV.Also,please include a copy of the traffic counts conducted in 2008
in the appendix to the 2010 study.
Analysis "7 Is there any reason why a Peak Hour Factor adjustment was not applied
to the intersection analysis?The traffic counts provide a calculated PHF for each
movement and for the intersection.The City of RHE's traffic impact analysis
methodology guidelines state in Section VIII that "peak hour factor specific to
subject intersection shall be used".Please utilize an appropriate PHF for accurate
intersection analysis and results.
Trip Distribution -with 23%of the project traffic traveling to and from Palos Verdes
Drive North,why was Palos Verdes Drive North omitted from the roadway segment
analysis.
Year 2013 Conditions -Does the Year 2013 analysis include any assumed
roadway,intersection or geometric improvements that are either assumed or
planned by RHE or RPV at any of the study intersections or roadway segments?
Also,the Year 2013 traffic analysis sheets are not included in the report.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis -Appendix C is missing from the report.
Year 2013 Cumulative Plus Project -Include traffic analysis sheets for review.
Area-Wide Improvements -Include the traffic analysis sheets for proposed
mitigation measures for verification that mitigations are addressing impacts
.appropriately.
Project Fair Share Contribution -The calculated fair share contribution needs to be
modified to incorporate the projects contribution to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
C-24
PV News article regarding hearing for Brickwalk,LLC Project
C-25
Commission to look at plan for 148 residential units
Thursday,August 30,2012 11 :40 AM PDT
RHE -The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission will open a public hearing for the proposed mixed-use
residential project along Deep Valley Drive and Indian Peak Road on Tuesday,Sept.4.The meeting begins
at 7 p.m.
The draft environmental impact report for the project is available for the public to review on the city's
website at www.ci.rolling-hills-estates.ca.us/index.aspx?page=347.Copies are also available at RHE City
Hall and the Peninsula Center Library.
As part of the project's proposal,the office buildings at 655 Deep Valley Drive,and 924 and 950 Indian Peak
Road,as well as the surface parking lots and landscaping in the vicinity,would be demolished to make way
for 148 residential units,approximately 14,200 square feet of commercial space and 63 additional off-street
parking spaces.The project also includes exterior facade improvements,which include new paint and
awnings,along the commercial front on the Brick Walk.
Construction would stabilize the existing landslide between Indian Peak and Deep Valley,which destroyed
offices in the area in the 1990s,according to city staff.
RHE City Hall is located at 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North.The library is located at 701 Silver Spur Road in
RHE.
-Mary Scott
C-26
RHE PC Agenda and Staff report for Brickwalk,LLC Project
C-27
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
TUESDAY September 4,7:00 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 (7/16/12)
5.AUDIENCE ITEMS
6.CONSENT CALENDAR -None
7.BUSINESS ITEMS
A.Quarterly Code Enforcement Report.(JM)
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A.PLANNING APPLICATION NO.01-07;APPLICANT:George Daneshgar;LOCATION:
655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road;A mixed-use residential project
requiring approval of the following:1)Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67553;2)A
Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use development;3)a Precise Plan of Design for
buildings and structures;4)a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted building height;
5)a Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code;6)a Variance to permit
fewer parking spaces than required by Code;7)a Grading permit;and 8)Environmental
Impact Report.(NC)
9.COMMISSION ITEMS
10.DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
11.MATTERS OF INFORMATION
A.Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (7/17/12)
B.Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (8/7/12)
C.Park and Activities Commission Draft Minutes (8/21/12)
D.City Council Actions (8/14/12)
12.ADJOURNMENT
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 senJices,please call the City Clerk's Office at (310)377-1577 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
C-28
Staff Repo t AGENDA
City of Rolling Hills Esta es SEP-4 2012
ITEM NO.coA
DATE:SEPTEMBER 4,2012
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:NIKI CUTLER,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT:PLANNING APPLICATION NO.01-07
APPLICANT:MR.STEPHEN JORDAN,THE AURIC GROUP,LLC
PROPERTY OWNER:BRICKWALK,LLC (MR.GEORGE DANESHGAR)
LOCATION:655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE/924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
OVERVIEW
The following is a request to approve:
1.Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67553;
2.A Conditional Use Permit (CUP)for a mixed-use development including 148
condominium/townhome units and 14,200 square feet of commercial space in the
Commercial General (C-G}/Mixed-Use Overlay Zone;
3.A Precise Plan of Design (PPD)for buildings and structures;
4.A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted bUilding height;
5.A Variance to permit a smaller setback than required by Code;
6.A Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code/shared parking
agreement;
7.A Grading application is required to permit stabilization of the landslide and building pads for
buildings and structures;and
8.An Environmental Impact Report,Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
.under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
BACKGROUND
Applic;ation Filed:
Public Notices Mailed:
Public Notices Posted:
Public Notices Published:
7/2/2009 *
6/19/2012
6/21/2012
6/21/2012
*Original application was submitted in 2007 by Laing Urban.Current application was resubmitted by The
Auric Group,LLC for Brickwalk,LLC on 7/2/2009.
C-29
Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required under Section 66426 of the California
Government Code and Chapter 16.12 of the Municipal Code for subdivision of the property and
the sale of condominiums/townhomes.
Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)is required under Sections 17.28.020(D)(4)and
.17.37.020(C)of the Municipal Code for a Mixed-Use project to be located within the
Commercial~General (C-G)Zone.The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to ensure that a
proposed use is not detrimental to existing uses or to those permitted in the zoning district.
Conditional Use Permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Municipal Code.
Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD)is required under Section 17.37.020(C)of the
Municipal Code for any Mixed~Use project as weH as prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any structure.The purpose of the Precise Plan of Design 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.Precise
Plan of Design procedures are set forth in Chapter 17.58 of the Municipal Code.
Approval of three Variance applications are required under Chapter 17.66 of the Municipal Code
to exceed the maximum permitted building height as set forth in Section 17.30.050(F)of the
Municipal Code,to permit a lesser setback area than required by Code as set forth in Section
17.30.050(0)of the Municipal Code,and to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code
as set forth in Section 17.30.050(G)and a shared parking aweement.
Approval of a grading application is required under Section 15.04.040 of the Municipal Code for
any importation onto or exportation from any site in the City which exceeds 20 cubic yards of
earth or any vertical change in the grade of any site 'vvhich is 3'or more.
Approval of an Environmental Impact Report,Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The subject property is 10.42 acres in size and located at 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-
950 Indian Peak Road.The Brickwalk property,located at 701-815 Deep Valley Drive,is
included in the project in that it will be subdivided from the remainder of the project site.The
project site is developed with a 42,531 square foot office building at 655-683 Deep Valley Drive,
12,500 square feet of office space in two buildings accessible from Indian Peak Road,and the
25,207 square foot Brickwalk shopping center and associated parking.
The site encompasses a steep slope rising approximately 100 feet from Deep Valley Drive to
Indian Peak Road which encountered a landslide in 1997.The landslide resulted in the
demolition of two buildings accessible from Indian Peak Road and a portion of the parking lots
for the Indian Peak office buildings and the Brickwalk development,and the vacancy of a former
restaurant bUilding on Indian Peak Road.A portion of the site has been covered in black plastic
and sandbags for erosion control since the landslide.
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Commercial General (Mixed-Use),and
the site is located in Planning Area Number 6.The Mixed-Use designation in the Land Use
Element was adopted by the City on August 18,1992.The development standards for the
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 17.37 of the Municipal Code)were adopted on February 11,
1997 (Ordinance No.591).
The subject property is surrounded by properties located in the Commercial General (C-G)
Zone/Mixed-Use Overlay District to the north,west and east,and properties in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes to the south.To the north,across Deep Valley Drive,is the Peninsula
Center library and various commercial/office uses along Deep Valley Drive.To the west is a
2
C-30
vacant site of an approved 58-unit condominium building,and to the east is a medical office
building.To the south,across Indian Peak Road and is vacant property,single family homes,
and a preschool.
The following is a list of previous discretionary permits for the subject site:
924-950 Indian Peak Road and 701-815 Deep Valley Drive (Brickwalk):
•P-160-78:Certifying an Environrnentaiimpact Repoli for development of retail,commercial
and office facilities;
•LS-100-78:To divide the parcel into four lots;
•V-100-78:To permit a Variance for on-site parking requirements;
•V-105-78:To permit a Variance for fewer parking spaces than required and a reciprocal
parking ~greement for future restaurant site;
•PPD-101-78:To permit development of a commercial/office theme building;
•PPD-102-79:To permit construction of four office buildings and a restaurant building.
924-950 Indian Peak Road:
•PPD-100-88:To permit a master sign plan at Great Western Bank;
•PPD-106-88:To permit a monument sign;
•G-102-97:To permit emergency grading control measures and demolition;
•PA-47-99:To permit grading to restore and stabilize a slope.
701-815 Deep Valley Drive (Brickwalk):
•PA-44-00:To permit a commercial fa<;ade improvement program;
•PA-08-02:To permit a new color scheme for exterior buildings;
•CUP-105-79:To permit Senior Sushi restaurant;
•CUP-101-89:To permit Healthsea restaurant;
•CUP-100-81:To permit operation of a restaurant in conjunction with a bakery (Shenkarow);
•CUP-108-81:To permit operation of a restaurant in conjunction with a bakery (Patisserie
Maxwell);
•CUP-106-84:To permit on-site consumption o.f wine and beer;
•CUP-103-89:To permit three restaurants providing 88 interior seats and 13 exterior seats;
3
C-31
•CUP-103-89 (Amendment):To permit an ii-space parking reduction for Chang's restaurant
for a total seating capacity in their interior of 64 seats and exterior patio seating for 20
people;
•PA-27-02:To permit a faC(ade improvement program;
•CUP-1 05-81:To permit on-site consumption of wine and beer for an eXisting deli.
655-683 Deep Valley Drive:
•V-107-73:To permit a Variance forfewer parking spaces than required;
•CUP-103-79:To permit's restaurant use;
•V115-91:To permit a Variance Amendment from provisions of Resolution No.V-107-73 to
permit a dental office;
•PPD-103-95:To permit a satellite dish and parapet work.
DISCUSSION
.Project Overview
The applicant proposes to demolish buildings at 944 and 950 Indian Peak Road and at 655-683
Deep Valley Drive,stabilize the landslide,and subdivide the 10.42-acre site into two lots.Lot 1
would be B.05-acres in size and contain 148 residential units in two development "pad"areas.
Pad 1,located in the current location of the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive office building,would
consist of a five-story,102-unit,condominium "podium"bUilding with 14,200 square feet of
ground-floor commercial space.The one and two-bedroom condominium units would range in
size from approximately 1,200 to 1,900 square feet.The building would also feature a gym,
courtyard.and swimming pool.The building would be accessed from Deep Valley Drive by a
shared driveway located between the building and the Brickwalk development.
Pad 2,located on the slope to the rear of the existing Brickwalk commercial development,would
consist of 46 three-bedroom townhomes ranging in size from approximately 1,875 to 1,920
square feet.The homes would be accessed from a u-shaped road descending from Indian
Peak Road to Deep Valley Drive.From Deep Valley Drive,the townhomes would be accessed
from the driveway shared with the condominium building and the Brickwalk development.
The architectural style of the residential buildings features primarily Mediterranean and Spanish
colonial styles.The podium building features arches,pitched roofs,architectural towers,and
decorative railings.The townhomes feature arches,trellis-covered balconies,decorative
railings,stone accents on building columns,and barrel-tile roofs.For the purposes of the view
simulations,the buildings are shown in earth-toned colors with red roofs.The applicant has
.requested a condition of approval requiring a Precise Plan of Design for final colors and
materials to be approved by the Planning Commission at a later date.Staff will include an
associated condition in any resolution approving the project.
Lot 2 of the project site would encompass the Brickwa!k development on a 2.37-acre site.The
project would demolish 2,013 square feet of existing commercial space from the 23,187 square
foot development and add 63 parking spaces.The area of demolition would be in the upper
portion of the Brickwalk site and would not affect the continuous retail frontage along Deep
Valley Drive.In conjunction with this application,the applicant has proposed faC(ade
improvements including first-floor awnings,paint and signage for the Brickwalk buildings.
4
C-32
Fa«ade improvements would consist of painting the buildings a darker earth-toned color at the
base with a lighter color at the top of the two-story buildings to break up the massing.Within
recessed first floor retail areas,a darker color would also be used to provide additional
distinction for those tenants.Stairway openings to the second floor would be accentuated with
signage,lighting and a decorative entry canopy.Conditions of approval for this project would
require a Precise Plan of design for a master sign plan as well as a Precise Plan of Design for
building colors and awnings.
Section 17.37.050(F)of the Municipal Code limits buildings to 44'in height or three stories.
Plans indicate that the maximum general building height would be 56'for the podium building
and 70'for the podium building architectural towers which requires a Variance for building
height.Further discussion is provided in the Variance section below.
Section 17.30.050(E)of the Municipal Code requires that lot coverage by buildings not exceed
45%.Coverage for Lot 1 would be 41.85%in conformance with Code requirements,and
coverage for Lot 2 (the Brickwalk parcel)would be 12.4%.
For residential uses,according to Section 17.37.040(C}of the Code,a total of 30,600 square
feet of usable open spa.ce (300 square feet per unit)is required for the podium building and
13,800 square feet for the townhomes.For the podium building,23,310 square feet of open
space would be provided in side yards and 7,290 square feet in balconies/decks for a total of
30,600 square feet.Patios,sideyards,and decks for the townhomes total 13,800 square feet in
conformance with Code requirements.
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.For Lot 1,70,132
square feet of landscaping is required,and 152,000 square feet is proposed inclusive of the
project hillside.For Lot 2,plans indicate that approximately 49,395 square feet (48%)would be
provided in excess of the 20,647·square feet required.Specific landscaping material
information has not been submitted at this time;however,a condition of approval for the project
shall require that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval of the
Park and Activities Commission.
Regarding setbacks,Section 17.30.050(D)of the Municipal Code requires a minimum of 5'and
average of 15'between a building and the street.The applicant requests a Variance for
setbacks for the podium building as discussed further in the Variance section below.
For residential uses,one parking space is required for one-bedroom units and two parking
spaces are required for two and three-bedroom units.In the podium building,given that seven
of the proposed 102 units are one-bedroom units and 95 are two-bedroom units,197 parking
spaces are required for the residential uses.The applicant proposes to provide 197 residential
parking spaces in 193 subterranean parking spaces and four ground-level spaces.One guest
parking space is required per three units resulting in 34 required guest spaces.The applicant
proposes to provide 34 guest spaces in ground-level spaces.Finally,71 spaces are required
for the 14,200 square feet of commercial space.The applicant proposes 83 ground-level
spaces in excess of this requirement.All proposed parking spaces are 9'x 20'in size in
conformance with Code requirements.
Table 1 provides a summary of the required and proposed parking spaces for the podium
building:
5C-33
Table 1 -Required and Proposed Parking Spaces (Podium Building)
Proposed Use Required Parking Spaces Proposed
Parking Spaces
102 condominiums 197 (1 bd units=1space;197
(7 1 bd-units/95 2bd-units)2bd =2 spaces)
Condominium Quests 34 (1 space/3 units)34
Commercial Space 71 (1 space/200 sf qross leasable area)83
Total 302 314
For the 46 three-bedroom townhomes,92 residential and 15 guest spaces are required.The
applicant proposes two-car garages for each of the townhomes and 19 guest spaces throughout
the development resulting in a surplus of four gLJ.~st spaces.
The Brickwalk development currently provides 78 parking spaces for the 25,200 square feet of
lease space.With project development,including demolition of 2,013 square feet of lease
space and the addition of 63 parking spaces,the development would have a 49 space parking
deficit with direct application of the City's Code.Table 2 below provides a summary of required
parking for the Brickwalk project:
Table 2 -Required and Proposed Parking Spaces (Brickwalk Development)
Proposed Use I Square feet Required Parking Spaces I Required Parking
I of floor area Spaces
Retail 11,478 1 sp/200 sf 57 I
Office 5,960 I 1 so/200 sf 30
Restaurant
•Fixed Seats 59 (seats)1 sp/3 fixed seats 20
No.Employees 24 (emp.)1 sp/2employees 12 I•I I•Main/auxiliary 2,353 sf 1 sp/35 sf 67
seating area
1--._..._._...__..._.....__._.-+_......_..._._.._._.._._...._._.._..__..I.9_ta_1 ~equired Parking 186 __
1-__...._.. .+---+__.....:T..=o..;.:ta=:1:.....P.:...;ro:.r:'p:.='o-=-se::-:d::....o:-Pa:::.:..:.rl5..~_._.__".........!~L._".."..._
'---.....J..I --'-----:P--:ac.;..r--:ki.:...ong><--D=....;e:...f...;igtL __._.._.."__.__._.=--~.g ..__."..._..__._
Linscott,Law and Greenspan (LLG)prepared a Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis
(including a Shared Parking Analysis)for the proposed project.An analysis of the Brickwalk
development's peak parking demand reveals that 140 spaces are required during the weekday
peak hour (12:00pm to 1:00pm)and 150 spaces during the weekend peak hour (12:00pm to
1:OOpm).With 137 spaces provided,the parking deficit would be three spaces during the
weekday peak hour and 13 during the weekend peak hour.However,the shared parking
analysis (Which provides for the sharing of parking spaces between the Brickwalk development
and the commercial spaces in the podium building)indicates that adequate parking will be
provided during all hours except for the 12:00pm to·1:OOpm and 1:OOpm to 2:00pm weekday
hours when a deficit of seven and six spaces will occur respectively.Because of this deficiency,
the applicant requests a Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code as
described further below.
Zoning Applicability
Grading Plan
The project has undergone extensive geotechnical review.In addition to the City Engineer,
several geotechnical firms have been involved in the design and review of geotechnical
features.
6
C-34
In late 2009,the previous project applicant,Laing Urban,submitted the proposal to build a tall
retaining wall with tie back supports that ran back under Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw
Boulevard in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV)to create a stable back cut for the
property.The City of Rolling Hills Estates (RHE)required that the developer submit
documentation to the RPV to consider installation of these tie backs.The developer contracted
with Pacific Soils to prepare a report to be presented to RPV.The Pacific Soils report dated
March 25,2010 was delivered to the RPV in early April of 2010.The geotechnical firm of Zeiser
Kling Consultants reviewed the report by Pacific Soils,and,on May 7,2010,issued a letter
requesting that certain concerns be addressed prior to RPV granting preliminary approval of the
tie back installation.Meanwhile,Pacific Soils and Laing Urban went out of business.
The new project applicant hired the geotechnical firm Petra to replace Pacific Soils.Petra
prepared a report dated December 29,2010,containing the··required analysis and answering
the questions that Zieser Kling had about the Pacific Soils original report.Petra formally notified
the cities that they had reviewed Pacific Soils previous work and agreed with the decisions
made.The Petra report was resubmitted to RPV for review by Zieser Kling.On February 22,
2011,Zieser Kling prepared a report stating that they were satisfied that their concerns had
been suitanly addressed in the Petra report and recommended that RPV approve the
installation of the tie back elements under Indian Peak Road.
A wall exhibit is provided on sheet 4 of the civil drawings provided separately to this report and in
Figuie 3.13 of the praft Environmental Impact Reportshovving tQ€?proposed retaining walls for the
project.Townhomes would be located along 10'-high retaining walls which would be exposed
between bUildings.The walls would be concrete with painted stucco.Between the guest parking
stalls and the exposed retaining walls,there will be opportunities for landscaping to be installed to
screen the walls which will be reviewed with landscape plans subsequent to project approval.
The podium building would be partially built into the hillside with two i5'-high retaining walls
located to the rear of the bUilding.A maximum 22'-high retaining wall would also be located to the
rear of the Brickwalk development parking area.Opportunities for landscape treatment of these
walls will also be addressed with landscape plan approval.
The project grading application is included herein as Attachment 1.The application indicates that
the 103,600 cubic yards (c.y.)of earth material would be removed from the site during project
construction.The maximum cut length would be 446'feet,and the maximum cut depth would be
53'.Cut would consist of 201,500 c.y.,and 508,000 C.y.would be over-excavated and
recompacted for site remediation.The maximum fill length would be 48',and the maximum fill
depth would be 8'.Fill would consist of 8,253 c.y.,and 597,647 c.y.would be recompacted.
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone
The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone (Chapter 17.37 of the Municipal Code)was adopted on 2/11/97
(Ordinance No.591).The zone permits the construction of residential uses at a density of 22
dwelling units per acre.For the 148 units on 8.05 acres,the proposed density is 18.38 units per
acre.The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone sets forth development standards applicable to residential
units,such as the requirement for 300 square feet of usable outdoor open space as discussed
in this report,and also indicates that properties are subject to the underlying commercial
property development standards.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
For all Mixed-Use projects,a CUP is required to ensure that the proposed development
addresses the following guidelines (17.37.030)(A-D):
7
C-35
A.The compatibility with existing site conditions and neighboring uses;
B.The functional and aesthetic relationship of buildings to each other (particularly height)
and to surrounding open spaces;
C.The functional and aesthetic design of open space as related to both residential and
commercial uses;and
D.The distribution,layout,and character of parking.
Staff believes that the project improves existing site conditions related to the iandslide and is
consistent with existing conditions in that the Brickwalk development will remain.The proposed
development is functionally and aesthetically compatible with neighboring--uses.The scale of
the project podium building in the westerly portion of the project site is similar to type and scale
of the proposed podium condominium bUilding to the west,and the smaller town homes
buildings are consistent in scale with the office building to the east and residential condominium
building beyond.Further,the ground-floor commercial space proposed in the podium building is
functionally'consistent with the Brickwalk development and the proposed ground-floor
commercial uses proposed for the podium condominium building to the west.Together,these
projects provide a continuous commercial component along Deep Valley Drive.Open space for
residential and commercial uses are functionally and aesthetically appropriate with common
side yard areas,common residential courtyards,and individual patios and balconies.The
distribution,layout,and character of parking are also appropriate for the various uses given that
spaces are located in the vicinity of the uses they will serve and,with the approval of the parking
Variance and Shared Parking agreement,parking is adequate for the uses with only slightly
fewer than the projected number of required spaces during the weekday peak periods.
Precise Plan of Design (PPD)
The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone requires a PPD for Mixed-Use developments.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
-g.Signing.
Staff believes that Items 1 through 6 above have been adequately designed and/or arranged in
accordance with Code requirements.Items 7 through 9 (Landscaping,Lighting,and Signing)
will be addressed through project conditions of a approval requiring review and approval of the
project landscape plan by the Park &Activities Commission,and review and approva.l of the
project lighting plan and master sign plan/awning program by the Planning Commission at a
future date.
8
C-36
Tentative Tract Map
The applicant has submitted Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67553 for the project.The map
indicates a two-lot subdivision for the Brickwalk development and the podium
building/townhome lot.Regarding Vesting Tentative Tract Maps,Chapter 16.12 of the
Municipal Code requires that the plan must be prepared by a registered civil engineer for all
public works improvements to be constructed as a condition of the subdivision and for all site
development including (but not limited)to grading,drainage facilities,and structures in
accordance with the City standards.Furthermore,plans for all irrigation and landscaping
SUbject to the approval of the Planning Director and a plot plan showing details of the entire
development and all improvements to be constructed are required.In addition,the project must
be consistent with the General Plan Mixed-Use land use designation and corresponding
Municipal Code.Pursuant to Chapter 16.04 of the Municipal Code,the Planning Commission's
actions shall be as an adVisory agency only,and all actions of the Planning Commission with
reference to tract maps shall be reported to the City Council who shall act approve,deny or
conditionally approve the map.Given that all proposed entitlements are bundled for review by
the Planning Commission and that the Vesting Tentative Tract Map requires approval of the City
Council,the Planning Commission Resolution for the project shall provide a recommendation
only to the City Council regarding the subject request.
Ordinance No.646
In 2008,the City Council approved Ordinance No.646 regarding required findings for
development of residential and mixed-use development projects.Staff has consulted with the
applicant and provides responses to each of the findings as indicated below.
The findings require that a project:
1.Provides for a general public benefit (above and beyond the payment of any City adopted
development fees)including,but not iimited to,public art,or semi-public plazas or open
space integrated into private development projects.
The applicant indicates that the project incorporates an approximately 70'x 25'public plaza in
the center of the podium building along Deep Valley Drive which will provide a potential place
for public art.A trellis structure is currently reflected in the area.
2.Provides for a specific benefit to a segment of the community including,but not limited to,
facilities for teens or children,a community recreational or meeting room,or a senior center.
The applicant is considering the viability of utiliZing a portion of the commercial space on Deep
Valley Drive in the podium building for community purposes.This issue will be further
addressed by the applicant at the public hearing.
3.Maintains or enhances the economic viability of the underlying commercial property and/or
Commercial-General or Commercial-Limited designation in general.
The applicant has maintained the Brickwalk development and proposes to add new commercial
space in the areas immediately adjacent to Deep Valley Drive in the podium building.These
areas will help activate and encourage pedestrian movement on Deep Valley Drive and
increase the consumer base with new residents to support local businesses.
4.Maintains the ability of the City to provide adequate land area and lease space for the
provision of goods and services for the community.
9
C-37
As stated above,the project maintains the Brickwalk development and proposes lease space for
the provision of goods and services for the community on the ground floor of the podium
building.
5.Assists the City in meeting requirements of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
especially with regard to affordable housing.
The applicant indicates that the project will provide long term stabilization of a landslide area.To
achieve this,the project is designed to include Type I structured parking to help \rvith this
mitigation.Additionally,a parking structure provides parking for residential units.Due to the
high capital cost associated with the grading and the parking structure,and the length of time
before any revenue return is achieved,the project is heavily burdened economically.Any
further revenue burdens would likely make the project unfeasible economically.Additionally,
with the current capital markets,the builder would likely not be able to secure any debt
providers for the grading and structured parking .
.While staff understands the economic investment inherent to this project due to the landslide
condition,it 'appears from the response that the applicant is not prepared to assist the City in
meeting requirements of the RHNA especially with regard to affordable housing.Therefore,it
does not appear that this finding can be made.Given the inherent policy issue,staff suggests
that the Planning Commission recommend discussion of this issue before the City Council in
any resolution recommending approyal of the project.
6.Demonstrates a commitment to environmental sustainability including,but not limited to,an
expressed written intent to attain certification pursuant to the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEE D)Green Building Rating System TM.
The applicant indicates that the project will apply sustainability techniques to include LEED and
Cal Green related requirements.
Variances
Three Variances are requested for the project to exceed the maximum permitted building height,
to permit a lesser setback area than required by Code,and to permit fewer parking spaces than
required by Code and a shared parking agreement.Each is discussed further below.
Section 17.37.050(F)of the Municipal Code limits buildings to three stories and 44'in height.
The proposed project would exceed the maximum permitted building height by an additional 16
vertical feet (or 60')for general building height and 26 vertical feet (or 70')for architectural
towers for the podium building.It can be noted that the building steps up in mass from
approximately 56'at the Deep Valley Drive street edge to greater heights in the center of the
project away from Deep Valley Drive where visual height is diminished by the hillside to the rear
of the project site.
Adjacent to the project site is the approved condominium development at 627 Deep Valley
Drive.The project as most recently revised indicates a building height of approximately 50'(A
Variance for building height was approved as part of that project).Further west of the project
site,along Deep Valley is the "twin towers"office complex and The Promenade on the
Peninsula Shopping mall.These structures are also higher than the 44'maximum permitted
height for the district at approximately 72'4"and 72'in height from the sidewalk respectively.In
addition,the Peninsula Library (across Deep Valley Drive in the vicinity of the project site)is
approximately 74'6"along Silver Spur Road.
10
C-38
The subject lot is irregular in shape and contains a steep slope.Thus,buildable lot area for the
project is limited.Even with the added height for the podium building,the proposed project
density is still less than the 22 dwelling units per acre permitted for the property.Further,staff
believes that the distinguishing tower elements are architecturally suitable to the podium
building design,and that their height is diminished with the steep hillside to the rear of the
property.For these reasons,staff supports the proposed Variance for building height.
With regard to front setback,the Code requires a distance of 15'between a building and the
street and a minimum of 5'from the property line.The applicant proposes no setback along
Deep Vailey Drive.The placement of the building at the front of the property reduces grading
required into the hillside to the rear of the site and enhances the pedestrian experience by
connecting buildings with street activity.For these reasons,staff supports the Variance to
permit a lesser front setback than required by Code.
As discussed above in the Project Overview,a deficit of 49 parking spaces exists in for the
project site strict application of the Code.The shared parking analysis,however,indicates that
adequate parking will be provided during all hours except for two weekday peak hours when a
deficit of seven and six spaces will occur.Because of this deficiency,the applicant requests a
Variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by Code as described further below.It
can be noted that a condition of approval requiring a Shared Parking Agreement prepared to the
satisfaction of the City Attorney will be included in any resolution approving this project.
.Locations for parking faciHtiesonsite are limited given the steep slope conditiOn.Approval6fa
Variance for lesser parking spaces than required by Code would avoid the need to further grade
into the hillside for parking facilities.For this reason,with approval of a shared parking
agreement as indicated in this report,staff supports the Variance to permit lesser parking than
required by Code.
In order to approve the Variances,the following findings must be made.Below each finding are
staff's related comments.Also,please note that the applicant's responses to the Supplemental
Application for Variance form are included as Attachment 2.
1.That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved,or to its intended use which do not apply generally to other property in the
same zoning district and neighborhood;
Unlike other properties in the district,the lot is irregular in shape and has a steep slope which
was subject to a former landslide along Crenshaw Boulevard/Indian Peak Road.The height of
the proposed building is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area in similar
conditions,such as the Promenade on the Peninsula mall and the "twin tower"office buildings
which also have steep slopes onsite.Furthermore,the diminished front setback and reduction
in required project parking avoid further grading in the hillside to the rear of the project site.
2.That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like
conditions in the same zoning district and neighborhood;
Other properties on the south side of Deep Valley Drive are greater than the maximum 44'
height limit such as the podium condominium building at 627 Deep Valley Drive,the "twin tower"
office building,and the Promenade on the Peninsula mall.These properties share the common
feature of a steep hillside at the rear of their respective properties.In addition,the steep hillside
condition limits the buildable area and opportunities for parking facilities not experienced on
other properties.Also,the zero front setback proposed can be supported due to the slope to
condition to minimize the need for grading.
11
C-39
3.That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located;
Granting of said Variances would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property
and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood.The proposed building height would
not block views of any surrounding properties,and the architectural tower element would
visually enhance project architecture.The proposed zero fiOnt setback would enhance the
interaction between the building and the street,and the minimal parking deficiency (six to seven
spaces)in the shared parking scenario is not likely to be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property and improvements in the zoning district.
4.That the granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the master plan;
Both the Zoning Code and General Plan provide for Mixed~Use developments for the property.
Granting of the Variances in support of a Mixed~Use project would be in conformance with the
objectives of applicable plans.
5.That the granting of the Variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the parcel of property.
The use and activities ofthe proposed building as well as the parking of vehiCles are provided
for in the governing zone regulations.The granting of the Variances would not authorize a use
or activity which is not expressly authorized.
General Plan Applicabiiity
The purpose of the General Plan is to provide a comprehensive,long~range plan designed to
serve as a guide for the physical development of the City.The General Plan consists of an
integrated and internally consistent set of goals,policies,and implementation measures.The
Municipal Code is a tool to implement the General Plan's goals,policies,and implementation
measures.The City's present General Plan was adopted on August 18,1992 (Housing Element
on June 23,2009)in accordance with Title 7,Chapter 3,Article 5 of the Government Code.
The City's General Plan provides for a Mixed~Use Overlay for the Commercial General (C-G)
Zone.The purpose of the Mixed~Use Overlay,as stated on page 2-24 of the Land Use
Element,is as follows:
"...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 development
density cannot exceed 22 units per acre and all applicable parking standards must be met.This
designation is designed to promote Mixed-Use development in and around the Peninsula Center
commercial district and at the corner of Hawthorne and Crest,adjacent to Cresta Verdes (the old
Gelson site)."
Pursuant to provisions of the General Plan,the project proposes a Mixed-Use development at a
density less than the permitted 22 dwelling units per acre in the Commercial-General/Mixed-Use
.Overlay zone.
Parameters for Mixed-Use development are further discussed in the State-required Housing
Element of the General Plan.Sections 65302(C)of the Government Code requires that the
Housing Element include "standards and plans for the improvement of housing and for the
provision of adequate sites for housing."
12
C-40
The City's Housing Element (page IV-3)states that:
"Opportunities for higher densities,up to 22 units per acres excluding density bonus,are provided
within the City's Mixed-Use Overlay District.The Mixed-Use Overlay District is intended to
provide a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the range of needs of the age distribution
and household incomes of the community."
The Housing Element (Policy 2.1 and Implementation Measure 2.1.1,page V-4)further states
that the City will encourage sound and !ogical residential growth while providing for the City's
fair share of the region's need for affordable housing indicating.Further,the Housing Element
states that,as discussed above,Ordinance No.646 requires a finding that a proposed project
assists the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation,specifically its
lower-income housing requirements.
Environmental Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed development was defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA);which requires completion of an Initial Study to ·determine if the project would have
significant impacts on the environment.The City contracted with LSA Associates,Inc.to
perform the Initial Study and,sUbsequently,the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)to
analyze project environmental impacts.The DEIR was circulated for public review from June
21,2012 through August 6,2012.The DEIR was provided to the Planning Commission under
separate cover on June 27,2012.
As required by CEQA,all affected properties within 500'of the project,the City's environmental
notification list including adjacent/affected cities,and the State Clearinghouse were noticed of
the availability of the DEIR The notice provided a brief description of the project and how to
obtain detailed information.The DEIR was posted on the City's website,provided at the public
counter for review,posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk/Recorder's Office,and delivered to
the Peninsula Library for accessibility at the Reference Desk.
Staff received ten comment letters regarding the project during and just after the public
comment period.A Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments and Errata)
was prepared as is included herein as Attachment 3.
The DEIR,indicates that,with proper mitigation as specified,the proposed project would not
have a significant impact on the environment,except that short-term construction noise would
not be reduced to levels below the City's noise criteria if approved multifamily residences at 827
Deep Valley Drive adjacent to the project site to the east are occupied during construction of the
project.
Given that significant impacts would result from construction,the City is required to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.Required findings,the Statement of Overriding
Considerations,and a final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be accompany any
staff report/resolution recommending approval of the project by the Planning Commission.
Ms.Deborah Pracilio of LSA Associates,Inc.,who prepared environmental documentation,will
be at the public hearing to answer any related questions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1.Open the Public Hearing;
13
C-41
2.Take Public Testimony
3.Discuss the issues;and
4.Direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Planning
Application No.01-07,as well as certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
adopting the associated Findings,Statement of Overriding Considerations,and Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
EXHIBiTS
Attached
1.Grading Application
2.Applicant's Supplemental Application for Variance Forms
2.Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments and Errata)
Separate
1.Project Plans
Pa01·07 pm
14
C-42
ATTACHMENT 1
C-43
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
Telephone-(31O)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 GRADI NG
PLAN.
OWNER SRICKWALK,LLC.
ENGINEER SOLTON ENGINEERING CORP.
DATE MAY 17,2012
LICENSE #_
A.
EXTENT OF GRADING
CONTRACTOR_·L1CENSE #_
LOCATION 655-683,701 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE &924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is ~m)roximately 10.42 acres in size and is bounded on the north by Deep
Valley Drive,on the sl)uth bY..Q.r~.rJ.~.h§!'\N Boulevar_g.L~.9.~!~.rly_~y_?xisting buildings,and westerly
bY.J.!J.gian Peak Road and existing buildings.The proposed d~velopment consists of th~_
construction of,(1)44_D~YV three-story residential town hou~~s;(2)A new private stff?et,Street
A,through the 46 residential town houses;(3)A five-st0r.Y!esid§mtial/commercial condominium'
with two levels of parking.rFn\~~U R\\
~l:~~~J~NO
WILL THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE IMPORTATIO OC\rt Of-ROLUNG Hn.t~)ESTt\1ES x
ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIAL?,,_.__.w......-·-·..-·
1.IF YES,HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS?____CUBIC YARDS
B.·WILL THIS APPUCATION INVOLVE THE EXPORTATION OF
EARTH MATER~AL?
x
2.IF YES,HOW MANY CUBIC YARDS?_10_3_,6_0_0_CUBIC YARDS
c.WILL THE AMOUNT OF FILL EQUAL THE AMOUNT OF CUT?
EXPLANATION _
1
x
C-44
YES NO
D.WILL THIS PROPOSAL CUT INTO AN EXISTING SLOPE?X
1.IF YES,WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF CUT
SLOPE?
LENGTH 446'DEPTH 53'
2.IF YES,WHAT IS THE RESULTANT RATIO?
3.IF YES,WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS
BEING REMOVED?
CUT =201,500 CY.;OVER-EX =508,000 C.Y.
E.WILL THIS PROPOSAL FILL AN EXISTING SLOPE?X
1.IF YES,WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE
FILL SLOPE?
LENGTH 48'DEPTH 8'
2.IF YES,WHAT IS THE RESULTANT SLOPE RATIO?
3.!F YES,VVHAT !S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS BEING
FILLED?
FILL:::8,253 C.Y.;RECOMP.:::597,647 C.Y.
HYDROLOGY
A.WILL THIS PROPOSAL ALTER NATURAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS?X
B.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN CONCENTRATION OF STORM X
WATER RUN-OFF?
C.WILL STORM WATER BE DISCHARGED INTO AN ACCEPTABLE X
DRAINAGE FACILITY?
D.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN FLOW PATTERNS WHICH CAUSE X
WATER TO BE DIRECTED ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES?
1.IF YES,HAS THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THESE
PROPERTY OWNERS BEEN OBTAINED?
E.WILL THIS PROPOSAL INSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM X
ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS?
F.WILL THIS PROPOSAL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HYDROLOGY OF X
OTHER PROPERTIES?
2 C-45
G.WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESULT IN ANY EROSION?
1.IF YES,VVHAT 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 NORMAL EXCAVATION EQUIPMENTS FOR HILL-SIDE
CONSTRUCTION
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INVOLVE THE USE OF TRUCK
TRANSPORT?
1.IF YES,\A/HAT CAPACITY OF VEHICLE AND WHAT HAUL ROUTE
IS REQUESTED?
CAPACITY:CUBIC YAROS
HAUL ROUTE DEEP VALLEY DR ->SILVER SPUR RD ->HAWTHORNE BLVD
->PACIFIC COAST HWY ->NARBONNE AVE ->CHANDLER'S LANDFILL
x
x
C.DESCRIBE METHODS OF DUST CONTROL TO BE EMPLOYED DURING
GRADING.
EXPLANATION~AILYWATERING AND STREET SWEEPING &VACUUMING
GRADING COMPATIBILITY
A WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND PRESERVE NATURAL
AMENITIES,INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY,LANDSCAPING AND
NATURAL FEATURES?
3
X
C-46
B.
c.
D.
WILL THIS PROPOSAL PRESERVE OPEN SPACE AND RESPECT
RESPECT THE PRIVACY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATION IN LIEU OF CREATING &PRESERVING OPEN SPACE,
THE PRIVACY OF SURROUNDING PROPERT:"ES IS_REMAINED By'MEANS
Q-f RETAINING WALLAND OPEN AREAS
WILL THIS PROPOSAL INCORPORATE EXISTING ANDIOR ADDITIONAL
LANDSCAPING TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES?
EXPLANATIONADDITONAL LANDSCAPING UTILIZING NATIVE PLANTS WILL BE
PROVIDED AFTER THE LAND SLIDE IS FIXED
WILL THIS PROPOSAL RESPECT AND MAINTAIN EXISTING PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE VIEWS?
x
x
x
xE.WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD GOMPATIBIUTV·ORDINANCE?
EXPLANATION,THE PROJECT STORE FRONT ON DEEP VALLEY DR SIDE WILL REMAIN
SIMII AR TO THE EXISTING COMMERICAL ATMOSPHERE;WHILE THE
TOWN HOljSESWILL BLEND INTO THE HILL?IDE NEIGHBORHO.oD
F.WILL THIS PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH ALL CCX DITIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
GRADING OROINANCE (MUNICIPAL CODE 17.07.010)?
x
forms/grading updated 10/23/07
4 C-47
ATTACHMENT 2
C-48
Exhibit 3 (roD"I'c ~-rrc~"R:-II"'--~7F-r(""·-'r;~~:::-l
J Li;;l~!J Lt;L1 fr.::J I r"''\1 iI'~'"r-··--·-"'-''''·''''--''-''''--''''---''-':':'''11/I!I
FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR ~1~~D~!~~E;?~OH~~~Ml!U)!
BUILDING I I r""";"""I
I <..··,,,..·_·~·_-_····__·,,'''-..,···..·_._·_...."J_'',,..._•••1 j
Applicant is requesting a Front Setback variancJ-"o.t~Q~~b~l~t~!..f..~~t.:)..f~L:!t~_~,.,,,,,.J
mixed-use podium building on the north end of the site along Deep Valley
Drive.
1.Explain why the variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions which are applicable to the property or to the
intended use of the property,but which do not apply generally to other
property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
The purpose of the Mixed-Use Overlay zone is to provide a greater diversity in
the City's housing needs by allowing a combination of commercial and
residential development within the C-G and C-L zones.Mixed-use encourages
a combination of land usestocreate self-sustaining areas within the community
that becometraditlonOlneighb6rhoodswhereresidents may walkfo work and
shop.Therefore,streetscapes should include pedestrian-friendly features which
means build-to front lot lines,i.e.zero front setback,to maximize pedestrian
interaction with the commercial ground floor.
2.Explain why the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial properl'{right ¥,h;ch ;s enjoyed by other properly owners under
similar conditions in this zoning district.Be specific.
Both the subject property and the subject property's neighbor immediately to
the West.located at 627 Deep Valley Drive (aka "The earwash,"}fall within the
Mixed-use Overlay Zone.The existing commercial space at Lot 2,the
"Brickwalk",to the East has an existing build-to front lot lines.In an effort to
maintain aesthetic consistency along Deep Valley Drive and to preserve the
feasibility of this development,the proposed variance is necessary.
3.Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the pUblic welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area because:
Granting this variance will not be harmful to nearby property and
improvements,and the project only serves to greatly enhance the public
welfare in the area by continuing the existing commercial frontage along Deep
Valley Drive and eliminating the existing "eyesore"due to the landslide.
The project exhibits outstanding design qualities and features that will make it
highly desirable and beneficial to the neighborhood.The building fits in with the
surrounding building massing and exhibits sensitivity to the surrounding uses.
The Auric Group,LLC -Rolling Hills Estates Ion Exhibit 3 6-09
C-49
4.Granting this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan:
The proposed project is entirely in line with the stated objective in the City's
Master Plan.The site is currently zoned Commercial-General with a Mixed Use
Overlay (allowing for residential up to 22 units per acre).This project falls
completely within the boundaries set forth in the zoning code,and serves to
provide safe and attractive new housing as well as desirable retail to the
Downtown district.Page 4-20,in section 4.3 of the Housing Element of the
General Plan specifically addresses the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone in which the
project lies and identifies this as an approach to deliver additional new-
construction residential units to the City.The project will set a new standard for
mixed-use projects in the area,thereby,adding value to surrounding properties
and improvements to the vicinity.These elements are consistent with the intent
of the City's planning policies as well as the goals of the existing (and proposed
revised)Master Plan.
5.Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the parcel of property:
Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not authorized
by the existing zone regulations.The site is currently zoned Commercial-
General with a Mixed Use Overlay (alloWing for residential up to 22 units per
acre);Our proposed uses·are for the ·14;200 square feet .of commercial space
to be utilized as restaurant,retail or some mix thereof,and 148 residential units.
Our proposed commercial uses fall within the allowable uses set forth in Section
17.30.020 of the City of Rolilng Hills Estates'Municipal Code.Additionally,
Section 17.30.050 of the Municipal Code allows for Residential densities up to 22
units per acre,and the proposed project on Lot 1,at 8.05 acres,allows for the
proposed 148 residential units.
The Auric Group,LLC --Rolling Hills Estates 20f2 Exhibit 3 6-09
C-50
Exhibit 3
HEIGHT VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR MIXED ..USE PODIUM BUILDING
Applicant is requesting a General Building Height Variance of
approximately sixteen (16)additional vertical feet and two (2)additional
stories for the mixed-use podium building on the north end of the site and
twenty-six (26)additional vertical feet at the east garage entrance.
1.Explain why the variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions which are applicable to the properly or to the
intended use of the property,but which do not apply generally to other properly in
the same zoning district and neighborhood.
There are special circumstances unique to the subject property when compared to
surrounding properties in the same zoning district and neighborhood.First,no
properties in the area suffered from a landslide in the recent past.Having
ex.periencedd slide in 1997,the subject ptdpertyihitsciJrrentstdte poses a risk to
the general safety and welfare of the public and needs to be mitigated to prevent
future movement,which,if left unaddressed,could have significant,adverse
effects on the general operation of the City's key downtown district.Secondly,the
topography of the property is unique in that the elevation differential from South to
North exceeds 150 feet in places.The optimal development pattern for this
extreme hillside,therefore,is vertical.The most efficient use of lot area to provide
sufficient parking for the proposed project is to establish parking at-grade for the
central and eastern portions of the site and subterranean parking for the
commercial and residential uses on the western portion.The prOVided parking
necessarily increases the building height of Pad A to accommodate the units.The
only other way to provide necessary parking and reduce building height would be
to add another level of subterranean parking which would increase the cost of the
project which would make the project economically infeasible.
The 16'general bUilding height variance is being requested for the mixed-use
building to accommodate the varying architectural mansard roof heights which
breaks down the building massing along Deep Valley Drive.Architectural tower
features will extend beyond the mansard roof heights at selective locations.At the
garage entrance to the east,a 26'building height variance is being requested in
order to accommodate the elevation grade constraint due to the existing
driveway entry into the "Brickwalk"parking lot.
2.Explain why the variance ;s necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right which is enjoyed by other property owners under similar
conditions in this zoning district.Be specific.
Unlike topographic conditions found on adjacent properties along Deep Valley
Drive,the requested variance is critical to the preservation of the applicant's right
to construct a development over extreme slopes created by unusual
circumstances due to a landslide in 1997.Furthermore,the City of Rolling Hills
Estates recently granted the subject property's neighbor immediately to the West,
The Auric Group,LLC -Rolling Hills Estates 10fJ Exhibit 3 6-09
C-51
located at 627 Deep Valley Drive (aka liThe Carwash,")the same height variance
we are currently seeking on this property.Both the subject property and The
Carwash fall within the Mixed-use Overlay Zone.In an effort to maintain aesthetic
consistency along Deep Valley Drive and to preserve the feasibility of this
development,the proposed variance is necessary.
3.Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properly and improvements in the area because:
Granting this variance will not be harmful to nearby property and improvements,
and the project only serves to greatly enhance the public welfare in the area by
stabilizing a historic landslide and mitigating future landslide potential.Additionally,
developing this site will allow the City of RHE to eliminate an "eyesore"and
contribute to the much-needed housing demand in the area.This project has
been designed to mimic the existing hillside topography and maintain natural
contours as much as possible.Through creative grading techniques,the project
replicates existing topographical conditions as the site descends northward and will
preserve views across the downtown area and Silver Spur Road.The site geology
and soils have been thoroughly evaluated and certified to conservative standards
to ensure that the proposed construction is structurally sufficient for the geologic
conditions present at the site.
The project exhibits outstanding design qualities and features that will make it highly
desirable and beneficial to the neighborhood.In terms of height,the buildings fit in
with the surrounding building massing and are sensitive to the surrounding uses.The
configuration of the site is such that the tallest building not only utilizes a stepped-
back design from floor to floor to mitigate the City's concern of a large,vertical
mass along Deep Valley Drive,but is also designed such that the highest building is
the one wrlose ground floor is at the lowest elevation on our site.
4.Granting this variance wilt not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan;
The proposed project is entirely in line with the stated objective in the City's Master
Plan.The site is currently zoned Commercial-General with a Mixed Use Overlay
(allowing for residential up to 22 units per acrel.This project falls completely within
the boundaries set forth in the zoning code,and serves to provide safe and
attractive new housing as well as desirable retail to the Downtown district.Page 4-
20,in section 4.3 of the Housing Element of the General Plan specifically addresses
the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone in which the project lies and identifies this as an
approach to deliver additional new-construction residential units to the City.The
project will set a new standard for mixed-use projects in the area,thereby,adding
value to surrounding properties and improvements to the vicinity.These elements
are consistent with the intent of the City's planning policies as well as the goals of
the existing (and proposed revised)Master Plan.
5.Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the parcel of properly:
Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not authorized by
the existing zone regulations.The site is currently zoned Commercial-General with a
Mixed Use Overlay (allowing for residential up to 22 units per acre).Our proposed
uses are for the 14,200 square feet of commercial space to be utilized as restaurant,
'He Auric Group,LLC -Rolling Hills Estates 200 Exhibit 3 6-09
C-52
retail or some mix thereof.and 148 residential units.Our proposed commercial uses
fall within the allowable uses set forth in Section 17.30.020 of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates'Municipal Code.Additionally,Section 17.30.050 of the Municipal Code
allows for Residential densities up to 22 units per acre,and the proposed project,at
8.05 acres,allows for the proposed 148 residential units.
The Auric Group,LLC ..Rolling Hills Estates 30f3 Exhibit 3 6·09
C-53
Exhibit 3
PARKING VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR LOT 2
Applicant is requesting a Parking Variance of FiftyaSix Space for Lot 2 along
Deep Valley Drive.
1.Explain why the variance is necessary because of exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions which are applicable to the property or to the
intended use of the properly.but which do not apply generally to other
property in the same zoning district and neighborhood.
Lot 2 (701-815 Deep Valley Drive)consists of two buildings with a total
.commercial space of 25,200 square feet.The buildings were constructed in
1974 based on a site plan approved by the City of Rolling Hills Estates on May 9,
1974.The approved site plan provided 127 off-street parking spaces in lieu of
the required 231 off-street parking spaces for a total parking variance of 104
spaces.Due to the land slide experienced in 1997,one of the commercial
buildings with 2;013 square feet was "red-tagged"and the total off-street
parking spaces provided was reduced to 78 parking spaces.The optimal
development to reinstate the lot to nearly the original approved site plan is to
remove the "red-tagged"building and add 63 parking spaces.This will provide
a total parking supply of 141 parking spaces.
2.Explain why the variance is necessary fol'the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right which is enjoyed by other property owners under
similar conditions in this zoning district.Be specific.
Both the SUbject property and various neighboring properties have been
granted parking variances from past city approvals.In an effort to preserve the
feasibility of this development,the proposed variance is necessary.The current
restricted usage as prescribed in the Conditional Use Permit will be maintained.
3.Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the pUblic welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area because:
Granting this variance will not be harmful to nearby property and
improvements but will enhance and improve the area with the addition of 14
parking additional spaces above the original city approved site plan,the
removal of the "red-tagged"building and the elimination of the "eyesore"
landslide area.
The Auric Group,LLC -Rolling Hills Estates lof2 Exhibit 3 6-09
C-54
4.Granting this variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the Master Plan:
The proposed project is not in contrary to the stated objective in the City's
Master Plan.The site is currently zoned Commercial-General with a Mixed Use
Overlay.The overall project will set a new standard for mixed-use projects in the
area,thereby,adding value to surrounding properties and improvements to the
vicinity.These elements are consistent with the intent of the City's planning
policies as well as the goals of the existing Master Plan.
5.Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone reguiations governing the parcel of properly:
Granting this variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not authorized
by the existing zone regulations.The proposed plans would increase the off-
street parking spaces and remove a "red-tagged"building from the site.
The Auric Group,LLC -Rolling Hills Estates 20f2 Exhibit 3 6-09
C-55
ATTACHMENT 3
C-56
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
655-683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 9~4-950
INDIAN PEAK ROAD
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
VOLUME III:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES,CALIFORNIA
SCH NO.~00701I141
L SA
August 1,4012
C-57
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
:iNDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 2
FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .3
STATE AGENCIES 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 8
STATE OF CALlFORNLA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 14
STATE OF CALlFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 18
OFFICE OF PLAN'NmG AND RESEARCH 26
LOCAL AGENCIES 27
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 33
'COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS 46
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 60
COT.J1\!lY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC WORKS 72
CRAIG KNICKERBOCKER 78
.................._¥~~~.q~~.X'Jlm ~~:~.~~·.·,.,·····.·.~.~.,.···,..~,'-',,,'-'-'-_~8'O.
EIR ERRATA 81
INTRODUCTION 81
PAGE 4.11-1 OF TIffi DEIR.82
PAGE 4.8-1 AND PAGE 4.8-11 OF TfIEDEIR.83
PAGE 4.5-2 OF THE DEIR 83
PAGE 1-8 (Table l.A),PAGE 4.5-15,AND PAGE 7-8 OF THE DEIR 84
PAGE I-II (TABLE I.A)A':"NDPAGE 4.6-17 OFTHEDEIR 85
PAGE 1-13 (TABLE I.A)AND PAGE 4.7-19 OF THEDEIR 85
PAGE 1-12 (TABLE I.A)AND PAGE 4.7-19 OF THE DEIR 86
PAGE 1-18 TIIROUGH PAGE 1-19 AND PAGE 1-20 THROUGH PAGE 1-21
(TABLE I.A).A1\TD PAGE 4.13-29 OF THE DEIR 86
PAGE 4.7-2 OF THE DEIR 87
C-58
LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.
AUGUST ~OI2
VOLUME lIl,RESPOllS!!TO aOMMENTS AND ERRATA
555-SU PEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND !l24-950 INDIAN pelo.l:r.Il.OAD MIXEP-l1SE Il.I!SIDENTIAL PROJECT
RO\.\.ING HIL\.S llST....TU.Chl.ll'OI<NTA
INTRODUCTION
This document comprises the Comments and Responses volume of the Draft Environmental hnpact
Report (DEIR)for the proposed 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924--950 Indian Peak Road Mixed-
Use Residential Project.The purpose of this document is to respond to all comments received by the
City ofRolling Hills Estates (City)regarding the environmental information and analyses contained
intheDEIR.
As required.by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15087,a
Notice of Completion (NOC)ofthe DElR for the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian
Peak Road Mixed-Use Residential project was filed with the State Clearinghouse on June 20,2012,
and the Notice ofAvailability (NOA)oftheDEIR was filed with the County Clerk on June 21,2012.
TneDEIR"was"citcUlated·f6fpli51icreV'iew·fOr"~qjenoaof·47Clays;-IfoiiiJiliieZrfo"Aiigust··6;"2-0-12.
Copies ofthe DEIR were distributed to all Responsible Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in
addition to various public agencies,citizen groups,and interested individuals.Copies of the DEIR
were also made available for public review at the City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Department,
the Peninsula Center Library and on the internet.
A total of nine comment letters were received during the public review period,and one letter was
received after the close ofthe review period.All ten letters are responded to in this Response to
Comments document.Comments were received from fOUI State agencies,four local agencies,and
two private individuals/interested parties.Comments that address environmental issues are thoroughly
treated.Comments that (1)do not address the adequacy or completeness of the DEIR,(2)do not raise
environmental issues,or (3)do request the incOlporation of additional infonnation not relevant to
envrron.1'Jlental issues do not require a response,pursuant to Section 15088(a)ofthe State CEQA
Guidelines.
Section 15088 ofthe State CEQA Guidelines,Evaluation of and Response to Comments,states:
a)The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from
persons who reviewed the DEIR and shall prepare a written response.Tue lead
agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period
and any extensions and may respond to late comments.
b)The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental
issues raised (e.g.,revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated.
impacts or objections).In particular,major environmental issues raised when the
lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised
in the comments must be addressed in detail,giving the reasons that specific
comments and suggestions were not accepted.There must be good faith,
reasoned analysis in response.Conc1usory statements unsupported by factual
infor.r.nation will not suffice.
I
C-59
LSA ASSOCIATES,INO.
AUGUS.2QU
VOLI1MB Ill<RIlSPONSE:TO OOMM£NTS AMD ERRATA
ijU-U3 DEEP VALl..l!Y DRive AND 9U-HQ INDIAN PEAK.ROAD MIXED.use RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES,C ....LIFORNIA
c)The response to conunents may take the form of a revision to the DEIR or may
be a separate section in the Final EIR.Where the response to comments makes
important changes in the information contained in the text ofthe DEIR..t.~e lead
agency should either:
1.Revise the text in the body of the DEIR;or
2.Include marginal notes showing that t.lle infonnation is revised in the
responses to comments,_
Information provided in this Response to Comments document clarifies,amplifies.or makes minor
modifications to the DEIR.No significant changes have been made to the information contained in
the DEIR as a result of the responses to comments,and no significant new information has been
added.that would require recirculation ofthe document.
An Errata to the DEIR has been prepared to make minor corrections and clarifications to the DEIR as
a result of City review and comments received during the public review period,Therefore,this
Response to Comments document,along with the Errata,is included as part of the Final
Environmentalhnpact Report (EIR)for consideration by the Rolling Hills Estates City Council prior
to taking any action on certification ofthe Final EIR.
INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following is an index list of the agencies,organizations,and individuals that commented on the
DEIR prior to the close of the public COJT.a:nent period or thereafter.The comments received have beet1.
organized by date received and in a manner that facilitates finding a particular comment or set of
comments.Each comment letter received is indexed with a number below.
Comment
Code Commenter Date
I
State
"'S~1 California Department of Transportation 7-3-12
S-2 Native American Heritage Commission 7-3-12
8-3 Department of Conservation 7-31-12
Governor's Office ofPlanning and Research
-,
8-4 8-7-12
Local
L-l County ofLos Angeles Fire Department 7-16-12
L-2 County of Los An£eles Sheriff's Department Headquarters 7-19-12
L-3 City ofRancho Palos Verdes,City Manager's Office Administration 8-2-12
L-4 County of Los Angeles Public Works 8-13-12
PubliclInterested Parties
P-i Craig Knickerbocker 7-26-12
P-2 Marilyn Forsythe 8-6-12
2
C-60
l.SA ASSOC1A"~S.INC.
AUGUST 2012
VOl.UME HI,R.ESPONSE TO COMMP.NTS ANI>It.ltl1.A'rA
.55-US DEEI'VALLEY I)iUVE AN"D 9U-95Q INDIAN I'IlA!'::ROAl)IUXED-USll IlESIDEN"rIAL.PROj·I!OT
ROLl-ING HILLS I!S"rATJ!S,CALIFOR.NIA
FORMAT OF RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Responses to each ofthe COlnment letters are provided on the following pages.The comment index
numbers are provided in the upper right corner of each conwent letter,and individual points within
each letter are numbered along the right-hand margin of each letter~The City's responses to each
comment letter immediately follow each letter and are referenced by the index numbers in the
margins.As noted in one ofthe responses,an Errata,with text revisions,has been prepared and is
included in this document to provide corrections and cl~rifications to the DEIR.
3
C-61
LSA ASSOOrATl!S.INC.
AUGUST 201 ~
VOl.UME Ill.Rl.SI'ONSE TO COMMENTS ANI)ERRATA
U5-SU DEEP VALl.EY DRIV!!AND 924-950 INDIAN l'EAr<:;ROAD MIXllD·USr;R.llSIDI!NT.AL PROJE.CT
ROLLING 1I1LJ:.S ESTATES.CALIPORNIA.
STATE AGENCIES
4
C-62
STATE OF CMiFORNIA-d3USJNESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7,REGIONAL PLANNING
IGRlCEQA BRANCH
100 MAIN STREET,MS #16
LOS ANGELES,CA 900]2-3606
PHONE:(213)897-9140
FAX:(213)897-1337
July 3,2012
Ms.Niki Cutler
Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
\fB)[E «:[EJJW ~~~Iifll JUl -6 2012 1l'dJ
l CITY OF ROlliNG HILLS ESTfJ.TES
Flex your power!
Be energy effieiem!
8-1
IGRfCEQANo.120627AL-DEIR
655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak
Road Mixed Use Residential Project
Vic.LA-Ol (PM,LA-14.63
SCH #:2007011141
Dear Ms.Cutler:
Thank you for including the California Depmiment of Transportation (Caltrans)in the
environmental review process for the above referenced project.The proposed project would
demolish the existing office buildings and construct 148 residential units,approximately 14,200
square feet of commercial area and associated parking.
From Table 5-2 Project Traffic Generation Forecast,the Draft I;:nvironmental Impact Report
(DEIR),the project will generate a net increase of 1,219 net daily vehicle trips with 11 and 66
vehicle trips during At'\'1 and PM peak hours.The project is more than 2 miles away from the
State facilities.Therefore,Caltrans concluded that this project does not have project significant
impact to the State facilities.
Please be reminded that although the lead agency is required to comply with Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Program (CMP)standards and thresholds of significance,
Caltra11S does not consider the Los Angeles County's CI\.1P criteria alone to be adequate for the
analysis of transportation impacts pursuant to a CEQA review.eMP requirements were
developed by Los Angeles County in the context of CMP goals and objectives;it does not
.supersede the criteria from the responsible agency under CBQA.Caltrans'Guide directs
preparers of traffic impact analysis to consult with the local District as early as possible to
detennine the appropriate requirements and criteria of significance to be used in the traffic
impact analysis.The eMP analysis may not include site-specific safety considerations,or may
not be based on an appropriate measure of effectiveness for site-specific considerations.A
discussion of the flaws in the percentage theory is in the attached Caltrans LD-IGR Technical
Bulletin,June 2008-Issue 2.Please contact this office early for any future project.
"Caltra11S improves mobility across California"
I8-1-1
8-1-2
8-1-3
C-63
Ms.Niki Cutler
July 3,2012
Page 2 of2 8-1
Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties.Please be mindful I
that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water.S~1-4
Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials,which requires the use of
oversized-transport vehicles on State highways,will require a transportatipn permit from the
Department.It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute
periods.S-1 ~5
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordi~ator at (213)--
897-8391 andr~ferto IGRlCEQANo.120627AL.
Sincerely,
e;~~~
DIANNA WATSON
IGRJCEQA Branch Chief
cc:Scott Morgan,State Clearinghouse
Olea/trans improves mobility across Cal!f!Jrnia "
C-64
Use of a Percentage Masks Cumulative Impacts
Marc Birnbaum,Division ofTraffic Operations
Something peouliar happens when a percentage is used to ex-
press significance for project impacts on the state highway sys-
tem.The greater the existing problem,the greater number of
cars a project can put.on the system before being deemed a sig-
nificant impact This flies in the face of all conventiona11ogic.
For example,let us consider a project with a background traffic
\Tolumeof15;OOD;An elected official or inexperiencedprofes-.
sional may view 5%as a negligibly small percentage.How-
~ever,given existing volumes,this "negligible"5%is equal to
I~750 vehicles per hour (vph),or approximately 1/3 the capacity
tJ of a new lane.Using this example,a single project must ex-
t:~ceed 750 vph before mitigation would be forthcoming.even
•.though only three such sized projects would warrant a new
lan.e ..
The use of a percentage criterion for determining the signifi~
cance of traffic impacts does not appear to be consistent with
the following case law:
Kings County Farm Bureau v.City of Hanford (5th Dist.
1990);Los Angeles Unified School District v.City ofLos.An-
geles (2nd Dist.1997);and Communities For A Better Envi-
ronment v.California Resources Agency (3rd Dist.2002).
These court rulings invalidated the use of a "ratio theory"or
"comparative approach"such as a jurisdiction's "5%increase
in trips"criterion,because they improperly measure a proposed
project's incremental impact relative to the existing cumulative
effect rather than focus on the combined effects of both the
project and other relevant past,present,and future projects.
FUlthennore,the opinion in Communities For A Better Envi-
ronment stated that "the greater'the existing environmental
problems are,the lower the threshold should be for treating a
project's contribution to cumulative impacts as significant.'·
This is one of the reasons why we use a set number such as 50
trips at a level of service (LOS)of C or D.
Produced by the Division of Traffic Operations in'cooperation with the Division ofTransportation Planning.
8-1
S-1-3
Allachme
C-65
LBA ASSOCIATES.INC.
AUGUST ZD 12
VOl.UME HI.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ANI>ERRATA
G55-5&S DEEP VALLEY DRIVE ANI>924_950 INOIAN I'I!AK ROAD J.lIXl!n-us~RllSIlH:NTIAL PROJI!GT
ROLLING HILLS l!STATl!S.CALifORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
LETTER CODE:8-1
DATE:July 3,2012
Response 8-1-1
The comment is introductory and sununarizes the project description provided in the DEIR.This
cornment does not raise allY environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no
further tesponse is required.
Response 8-1-2
Thecommentor detennined that the project does not significantly impact State facilities~
Response 8-1-3
The commentor's statements regarding the CountyeMP standards and thresholds are acknowledged
and will be forwarded to the lead agency,project developer and/or decision makers for their
consideration.
Response 8-1-4
The comment regarding stonnwater runoff is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the lead agency,
project developer and/or decision makers for their consideration.Appropriate Best Managements
Practices (BMPs)have been incorporated into the project.No further response is required.
Response 8-1-5
The need to acquire a transportation pennit from Caltrans for any oversized-transport vehicles using
the State highways is acknowledged.Caltrans'recommendation to limit large truck trips to off-peak
commute periods is acknowledged.Both of these comments will be forwarded to the decision makers
for their consideration.No further response is required.
8
C-66
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALI.,ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO.CA 95814
(916)653-6251 ,
Fax {916}657-539B
Web Site ~ww.nahc.~."gmr.
dSJlahc@pacbell.net
[I Jl -q 1)0 1 "..,;\__v L IL
July 3,2012
Ms.Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
City of Rolling HiUs Estates
4045 Palo Verdes Estates
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
Re:SCH#2007011141;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR)for the 11655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924~950 indian Peak Road Mixed Use
Residential Proiect;"located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates;Los Angeles County,
California ..
Dear Ms.Cutler:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),the State of California
'Trustee Agency'fOi the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources
pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court
in the case of EPIC v.Johnson (1985:170 Cal App.3rd 604).
This tetter includes state·and federal statutes relating.to Native American
historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested
Native American individuals as 'consulting parties'under both state and federal law.State law
also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code
§5097.9.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code
21000-21177,amendments effective 3/18/2010)requires that any project that causes a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource,that includes
archaeological resources,is a 'significant effect'requiring the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment
as 'a substantial,or potentially substantial.adverse change in any of physical conditions within
an area affected by the proposed project,including ...objects of historic or aesthetic
significance."In order to comply with this provision,the lead agency is required to assess
whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential
effect (APE),and if so,to mitigate that effect.The NAHC did conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search within the 'area of potential effect (APE}and NativeAmerican cultural resources were
not identified in the project area specified.
8-2
$-2-1
$-2-2
The NAHC "Sacred Sites,'as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and
the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94{a)and 5097.96.
Items 'in the'NAHG Sacred Lands Inventory are .confidential and exempt from the Public
Records Act pursuant to California "Government Code §6254 (r ).
Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid
unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway.
Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knOWledge of the religious and cultural
significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g.APE).We strongly urge that you
8-2-5
C-67
8-2
make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American
contacts.to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to
obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project.Pursuant to CA Public
Resources Code §5097.95,the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order
that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information.
Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as S~2-t
defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e).Pursuant to CA PUblic Resources Code
§5097.95,the NAHC requests that pertihent project information be prOVided consulting tribal
parties.The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a)to
pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and
Section 2183.2 that requires documentation,data recovery of cultural resources.
Furthermore,the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes
and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g.NEPA;42.U.S.C.4321-43351).
Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties,on the NAHC list,
should be.conducted in compliance with the reqUirements of federai NEPA and Section 106 and
4(f)of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C.470 et seq),36 CFR Part 800.3 (f)(2)&.5,the President's
Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ,42 U.S.C 4371 et seq.and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C.3001-
3013)as appropriate.The 1992 Secretary of the interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types
included in the National Register of Historic Places andincludingculturallandscapes.Also.
federal Executive Orders Nos.11593 (preservation of cultural environment),13175
(coordination &consultation)and 13007 (Sacred Sites)are helpful,supportive guides for
Section 106 consultation.The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include
recommendations for all 'lead agencies'to consider the historic context of proposed projects
and to "research"the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.'I
S-2-{
Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultura!significance"should also be
considered as protected by California Government Code §6254(r}and may also be protected
under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.The Secretary may also be advised by the S-2-i
federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf.42 U.S.C ..1996)in issuing a decision on whether or
not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and
possibility threatened by proposed project activity.
Furthermore,Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,California Government Code
§27491 and Health &Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent 8-2-8
discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery
of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'.
To be effective,consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing
relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies...project proponents and their
contractors,in the opinion of the NAHC.Regarding tribal conSUltation,a relationship built 8-2-9
around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative
consultation tribal input on specific projects.
Finally,when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are
prevalent within the project site,the NAHC recommends 'avoidance'of the site as referenced by S-2-1C
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370{a).
?
C-68
8-2
If you have any quesf ns about this response to your request,please do not hesitate to
CQ~ct me at (916)65 -62
SincJrely,
\~If~
t/ro9ram A~I
Cc:State Cler~ouse
Attachment:NatitJnelican Contact List
+S-2-1
C-69
Native American Contacts
Los Angeles County
July 3,2012 8-2
LA City/County:Native American Indian Comm
Ron Andrade,Director
3175 West 6th St,Rm.403
Los Angeles)CA 90020
randrade@css.lacounty.gov
(213)351-5324
(213)386-3995 FAX
Ti'At Sooiety/lnter-Tribal Council of Pimu
Cindi M.Alvitre,Chairwoman-Man/sar
3094 Maoe Avenue,Apt.B Gabrielino
Costa Mesa"CA 92626
calvitre@yahoo.com
(714)504-2468 Cell
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation
JohnTommy Rosas,Tribal Admin.
Private Address Gabrielino Tongva
I
tattnlaw@gmaiLcom
310-570-6567
Gabrielenorron~:lVaSan Gabriel Band of Mission
Anthony Morales,Chairperson
PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva
San Gabriel,CA 91778
GTTribalcouncil@aol.com
(626)286-1632
(626)286-1758 -Home
(626)286-1262 -FAX
This list is current only as of the date of this document.
Gabrielino Tongva Nation
Sam Dunlap,Chairperson
P.O.Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva
Los Angeles,CA 90086
samdunlap@earthlink.net
(909)262M 9351 w cell
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Robert F.Dorame,Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources
P.O.Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva
Bellflower I CA 90707
gtongva@verizon.net
562w 761 w6417 w voice
562-761 w6417 w fax
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Bernie Acuna
1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino
Los Angeles,CA 90067
(619)294-6660-work
(310)428-5690 -cell
(310)587-0170 -FAX
bacunal @gabrieinotribe.org
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Linda Candelaria,Chairwoman
1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino
Los Angeles.CA 90067
fcandelaria1@gabrielinoTribe.org
626-676-1184w cell
(310)587-0170 -FAX
Distribution of this list does hot relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050,5 of the Health and Safety Code,
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the PUblic Resources Code.
This Jist is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed
SCH#2007011141;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the Residentiat Mix Use Residential Project;
located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates;Los Angeles County,California.
C-70
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
Andrew Salas,Chairperson
P.O.Box 393 Gabrielino
Covina I CA 91723
(626)926-4131
gabrielenoind ians@yahoo.
com
This list Is current only as of the date of this document.
Native American Contacts
Los Angeles County
July 3,2012 8-2
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility a5 defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resol:lrces Code.
This list IS applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed
SCH#2007011141 i CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the Residential Mix Use Residential Project;
located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates;Los Angeles County,California.
C-71
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.
AUCUST 2012
VOLUNE Ill.llESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA
GGG-GU I)EEP VALLEY DRIVE AI<O 924-950 tl'lDIAN PEAK ROAD MiXED-US!!1tll$ID!!NTIAL PROJECT
11.0LLINO 1111.l.S ESTATES.CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
LETTER CODE:8-2
DATE:July 3,2012
Response 8-2-1 --
The comment is introductory and states that the Native American Heritage Commission (NARC)is
the State "trustee agency"pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21070 for the protection and
preservation of the State's Native American resources.The comment also states that the letter
contains State and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and
cultural significance.
The comment is introductory in nature and outlines the NARC's authority and role as a commenting
agency.The NARC's introduction in this comment is noted,and no further response is required.
Response 8-2-2
The comment states that CEQA requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource,which includes archaeological resources,is a "significant
effect"requiring the preparation of an ElR.A DElR was prepared for the proposed project and
circulated for public review from June 21, 2012,to August 6,2012.The DEm determined that there
were no cultural resources (historic or prehistoric)identified on site during the site reconnaissance.
However,the Draft ElR found that the proposed project may have the potential to uncover previously
unknown cultural resources and recommended appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a
less than significant level.Refer to Section 4.4 of the DEIR for additional infonnation.
Response S-2M 3
The comment states that the NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF)search found that no Native American
cultural resources were identified within the project area.Similarly,the DEIR detennined that there
were no cultural resources (historic or prehistoric)identified on the project site as a result of records
searches or during on site reconnaissance.The comment does not contain any substantive statements
or questions about the DEIR or the analysis therein.Therefore,no further response is necessary.
Response 8-2-4
The comment states that NAHC Sacred Sites are confidential and exempt from the Public Records
Act pursuant to California Government Code Section 6254.'The City acknowledges the sensitivity
and confidentiality of the infonnation contained in an SLF;no records maps have been made public.
14
C-72
l.SA ASSO<llATES.INC.
AUGUST 2012
VOl.UME HI.R~SPONSE TO COMMENTS ANI>ERRATA
GH-GaS !lEU VA.1.l.EY !IlUVE A.Nl:>92+_950 INDIA.N !'I!AJ<:ll.OAl:>l.CllCEO.Un R.1!S1l>I!NTI.<\I.1''lt0JECT
ROLLING HIl.l.S ESTATES.CAl.IFORNIA
Response 8-2-5
The cOlnment states that early consultation with Native American Tribes in the area ofthe project site
is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway.The letter includes a list
of Native American contacts and recommends obtaining their recommendations concerning the
proposed project.The DEIR.determined that no cultural resources are likely to be discovered in the
project area or within 0.5 miles (mi)ofthe project boundaries;however.project mitigation measures
and implementation requirements have been included requiring NARC notification in the unlikely
event that Native American cultural resources are discovered.See Response S-2-2.
Response SM2-6
The cdmment states that consultation with Tribes and interested Native American consulting parties
on the NAHC list sh01.ud be conducted in compliance with the requirements of the federal National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),Sections 106 and 4(f)of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA),and the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),as
appropriate.
The project is not a federal undertaking as defmed under Section 106 of the NHPA or 36 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR)Part 800 regulations implementing Section 106.The project does not use
federal funds and will not require any federal permits.Therefore,the project does not fall under the
regulatory oversight of Section 106.The project is not a federal transportation project,so it also does
not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 4(f)of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
Finally,since there is no federal involvement in the project,the requirements ofNAGPRA do not
apply.
Response S-2~7
The comment states that histonc properties of religious and cultural significance are confidential and
protected by California Government Code Section 6254.The comment further states that the
confidentiality of such resources may also be protected by section 304 of the NHPA.The City
aclmowledges the sensitivity and confidentiality of any identified resources.The SLF and any
associated records maps are not for public distribution.In addition,because the project is not a federal
undertaking,it is not regulated under Section 304 of the NHP A.
Response 8-2-8
The comment cites provisions for accidentally discovered archaeological resources or human remains
duling COIlstruction.The DEIR determined that no cultural resources are likely to be discovered
within the project area or within 0.5 mi ofthe project boundaries,based on review of archival
material and survey of the project site.The DEIR includes Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2,
which include procedures for addressing cultural resources or human remains found during
construction activities.No additional measures are required.
15
C-73
LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.
AUGUST 1012
VOLUME Ill,RESPONSE TO COMMl!NTS AND l!RRATA
~H-H't>l!l!l'VALL!!;"!DarVl!AND 9U-S50 lNIHAN PRAll:ROAD ldIXl!J).USlt Il.J1;SlDllWrll\.l.PROJECT
R.Ol..LING HILLS ESTATl!S.OALIPORNIA
Response 8-2-9
The comment states that effective consultation,in the opinion of the NARC is the result of an
ongoing relationship between Native Americantribes and lead agencies,project proponents,and their
contractors.The comment does not contain any substantive statements or raise any environmental
issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR.This comment will be forwarded to the decision~
makers for their consideration.
Response 8-2-10
There were no recorded Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites within the
project area.However~if any unknown Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial
sites are prevalent within the pr~ject area,the City will ensure that (ne mitigation measure identified
in the EIR that addresses discovery during construction activities is implemented.
16
C-74
NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN,JR.GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT Of CONSERVATION
8-3
CITY OF ROLLING HIllS ESTATES
PHONE 714/816-6847 •FAX 714/816-6853 •WEBSITE conservotion~I""'-=---:-_
fP)~t ~Hff fe/1m)
Ullf AUG 2-2~lW
5816 Corporate Avenue •Suite 200 •CYPRESS.CALIFORNIA.90630-4731
DIVISION OF OIL,GAS AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
July 31,2012
Niki Cutier,AICP,Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)FOR 655-683 DEEP VALLEY
DRIVE &924-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXED-USE RESIDENTiAL PROJECT -SCH
#2007011141
Dear Ms.Cutler:
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil,Gas,and Geotheimal Resources (Division)
has reviewed the above referenced project.The Division supervises the drilling,maintenance,
and plugging and abandonment of oil,gas,and geothermal wells in California.
The Division has no comment on your proposed piOject.S-3-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
655-683 Deep Valley Drive &924-950 Indian Peak Road Mixed':Use Residential
Project.If you have questions on our comments,or require technical assistance or
information,please call me at the Cypress district office:(714)816-6847.
Sincerely,S~·~~
Syndi Pompa
Associate Oil &Gas Engineer -FacHities
The Department ofConservation 's mission is to balance today's needs with tomorrow's challenges andfoster intelligent,sustainable,
and efficient use ofCalifornia's energy,land,and mineral resources.
C-75
U.<\..<\.$SOOl.<\.TES,lliO.
AUGUST %O.u
VOLUME 111.ltESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ER.RATA
655-GaS DEEP VAI-LtY ORIVE AND 9M_9H INI)I!l.N PEAK,ROAD NIXED-US!!ltESIDENTIAI.PROJ!!O'r
ROI.UNO HIl.LS !!STATI';S,OAl.ll"OltNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
LETTER CODE:8-3
DATE:July 31~2012
Response 8-3-1
The comment indicates that the agency reviewed the DEIR and has no comments on the document or
the proposed project.Therefore,no further response is required,
18
C-76
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVE~OR'S OFFICE o/PlANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARlNGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
EDMUND G.BROWN JR.
GOVERNOR
August 7,2012
Niki Cutler
City ofRoHing Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estate,CA 90274
:~:~'."'"~.
KENALlD(
DIRECTOR
8-4
Subject:655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road Mixed Use Residential Project
SCH#:2007011141 .
Dear Niki Cutler:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review.On
thC(;)tlclo,sed PpCtllPe:nt Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that
reviewed your document.The review period closed on August 6,2012,and the comments from the
responding agency (ies)is (are)enclosed.If this comment package is 110t in order,please notify the State
Clearinghouse immediately.Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
concspondence so that we may respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104(0)afthe California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of tile agency or which are'
required to be canied out or approved by the agency.Those comments shall be supported by
specific documentation."
These conunents are forwarded for use in prepal'illg your final environmental document.Should you need
more information or clarification ofrhe enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for
draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.Please contact the
State Clearinghouse at (916)445-06 I3 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
s~~
Scott Morgan
Director,State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc:Resources Agency
1400 J.Oth Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812·3044
(916)445·0~13 FAX (916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
8-4-1
C-77
DOCllment.Details·,Repor!.
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH#2007011141
Project Title 655-683 I'.?eep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peal<Road Mixed Use Residential Project
Lead Agency Rolling Hills Estates,City of
8-4
Type EIR Draft EJR
Description The proposed project would demolish the exis/ing office buildings at 655 Deep Valley Drive,944 and
950 fndian Peak Road.surface parking lots,and landscaping.Construction of the proposed project
would stabilize the existing landslide and include 148 residential units,approximately 14,200 sf of
commercial area fronting Deep Valley Drive,and associated parking on the 8.05 ee property.included
within the project site is the Brick Walk development (2.37 ae)consisting of an existing 23,187 sf of
retail,commercial/office and restaurant space,and 78 existing parking spaces,The project would
remove 2,013 sf of commercial space and add 63 off-street surface parking spaces,for a total of 137
parking spaces,which would be shared for all uses.Additionally,the Brick Walk commercial bUildings
would be enhanced through exterior facade improvements.
Lead Agency Contact
Name NikI Cutler
Agency City of RorHng Hills Estates
Phone 31 Q 377 1577 Fax
email
Address 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
City Rolling Hills Estate State CA Zip 90274
Project Location
County Los Angeles
City Roiling Hills Estates
Region
LatlLong
Cross Streets Crenshaw Boulevard and indian Peak Road
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
Proximity to:
Highways none
Airports none
Railways none
Waterways none
Schools Palos Verdes Peninsula HS,Chadwick HS
Land Use Commercial General/Mixed Use/Mixed Use
Project Issues AesthetlclVisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic~I'Iistorlc;Biological Resources;Drainage/Absorption;
Geologic/Seismic;Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Parl~s;Sewer
Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/HazardolJs;Traffic/Circulation;
Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wildlife;Growth Inducing:Landllse;Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Game,Region 5;Department of Parks and Recreation;
Agencies Department of Water Resources;Resources,Recycling and Recovery;Caiifornia Highway Patrol;.
Caltrans,District 7;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 4;Native American Heritage'
Commission
Date Received 06/21/2012 Start of Review 06/21/2012 End of RevIew 08106/2012
Note:Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
C-78
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364
SACRAMENTO,CiA 95B14
(916)653-6251
Fax (916)657·5390
Web Site ~1.nah.f;,Q!l"gg.l!
ds_nahc:@pac:beH.net
July 3,2012
Ms.Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palo Verdes Estates
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
cJ~8-4
qf~\2-
1----RE-C-.E-Iv-E-o-l
I JUL 1 0 2012 .I
I.STIITE CLEARING HOUSE I
Re:SCH#2007011141;CEQA Notice of Completion;draft Environmentallmp8ct Report
(DEIR)for the "655·683 Deep Valley Drive and 924·950 Indian Peak Road Mixed Use
Residential Project;"located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates;Los Angeles County,
Catif.ornja~.
Dear Ms.Cutler:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),the State of California
'TrusteeAgency'forthe protection and preservation.of Native American cultural resourceS·
pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court
in the case of EPIC v.Johnson (1985:170 Cal App.3 rd 604).
This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American
historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested
Native American individuals as 'conSUlting parties'under both state and federal law.State law
also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code
§5097.9.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code
21000-21177,amendments effective 3/18/2010)requires that any project that causes a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource,that includes
archaeological resources,is a 'significant effect'requiring the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EiR)per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment
as 'a substantial,or potentially SUbstantial,adverse change in any of physical conditions within
an area affected by the proposed project,including ...objects of historic or aesthetic
significance."In order to comply with this provision,the lead agency is required to assess
whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential
effect (APE),and if so,to mitigate that effect.The NAHC did conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF)
search within the 'area of·potential effect (APE}and Native American cultural resources were
not identified in the project area specified.
The NAHC "Sacred Sites:as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and
the California Legislature in Califo'rnia Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a)and 5097.96.
Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the PUblic
Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ).
Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid
unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway.
Cuiturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural
significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g.APE).We strongly urge that you
C-79
8-4
make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached li~.2f Nllti.Y}"American
contacts,to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to
obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project.Pursuant to CA Public
Resources Code §5097.95,the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order
that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information.
Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as
defined by California Government Code§65040.12(e).Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code
§5097.95,the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal
parties.The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a)to
pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cUltural resources and
Section 2183.2 that requires documentation,data recovery of cultural resources.
Furthermore,the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes
and regUlations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g.NEPA;42 U.S,C.4321-43351).
Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties,on the NAHC list,
should be conducted in compliance with the requirements offederal NEPA and Section 106 and
4(f)of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C.470 et seq),36 CFR Part 800.3 (f)(2)&.5,the President's
Council on Environmenta!Quality (CSQ,42 U.S.C 4371 et seq.and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C.3001-
3013)as appropriate.The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types
includedintheNationaLRegisterofHistpricPIe:tcesandiDcluding cultural landscapes.Also,
federal Executive Orders Nos.11593 (preservation of cultural environment),13175 ....
(coordination &consultation)and 13007 (Sacred Sites)are helpful,supportive guides for
Section 106 consultation.The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Sfanda.rds include
recommendations for all 'lead agencies'to consider the historic context of proposed projects
and to "research"the cuitural landscqQe that might include the 'area of potential effect'
Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance"should also be
considered as protected by California Government Code §6254(r)and may also be protected
under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.The Secretary may also be advised by the
federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf.42 U.S.C.,1996)in issuing a decision on whether or
not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and
possibility threatened by proposed project activity.
Furthermore,Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,California Government Code
§27491 and Health &Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent
discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery
of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'.
To be effective,consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing
relationship between Native American tribes and lead agenciesj.project proponents and their
contractors,in the opinion of the NAHC.Regarding tribal consultation,a relationship built
around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes wlH lead to more qualitative
consultation tribal input on specific projects.
Finally,when Native American cultural sites and/of Native American burial sites are
prevalent within the project site,the NAHC recommends 'avoidance'of the site as referenced by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a).
?
C-80
8-4
~If you have any qu.estions about this response to your request,please do not hesitate to
jconta,ct me at (91 ..)65~251..
//!I .'.1/l/'Sincerel~J .,/1 II,~J/fir!.-Ht-J-+-1 ~(I .t7~~i~leti 1vV W~ge:~.=~
Cc:State C~ringhouse
Attachment:NJtfve American Contact List
C-81
Fle.r:Y(Jtlr.plllver!
Be energy I!fficil!lII!
8-4
RECEIVED
JUL 052012
STATE OLEAFUNG HDUBE
Ms.Niki Cutler
Principal Planner
City ofRoHing Hills Estates
4045 l)alos Verdes Drive North
July 3,2012
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7,REGIONAL PLANNING
IGRJCl~QA BRANCIl
100 MAIN STREET.MS If 16
LOS ANGBLHS.CA 901l12-36(J6
PHONE:(213)897-9140
I-'AX;(213)897·1J37
iIGR/CEQA No.120627 AL-DEIR
:655-683 Deep VaHey Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak
Road Mixed Use Residential Project
Vic.LA-O!/PM,LA-I4.63
SCH 11:200701 1141
Dear Ms.Cutler:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caitrans)in the
environmental review process for the above referenced project.The proposed project would
demolish the existing office buildings and Ctmstruct 148 residential units,approximately 14,200
square feet of commercial area and associated parking.
From Table 5-2 Project Traffic Generation Forecast,the Draft Environmental Impact Report
CDElR},the project will generate a net increase of 1,219 net daily vehicle trips with II and 66
vehicle trips during AM and PM peak hours.Thc project is morc than 2 miles away from the
State facilities.Therefore,Caltrans concluded that this project docs not have project significant
impact to the State facilities.
Please be reminded that although the lead agency is required to comply with Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Program (C~P)standards and thresholds of significfUlce,
Caltrans does not consider the Los Angeles Co~mty's eM!>criteria alone to be adequate for the
analysis of transportation impacts pursuant to a CEQA review,CMP requirements were
developed by Los Angeles County in the con:text of CMP goals and objectives;it does not
supersede the criteria from the responsible ~gency under CEQA.Caltrans'Guide directs
prcparers of traffic impact analysis to consult:~with the local District as early as possible to
determine the appropriate requirements and cl'itcria of significance to be used in the traffic
impact analysis.The CMP analysis may not in,dude site-specific safety considerations,or may
not be based on an appropriate measure of effectiveness for site-specific considerations.A
discussion of the flaws in the percentage theofY is in the attached Caltrans LD~IGR Technical
Bulletin,June ZOOS-Issue 2..Please contact this office early for any fi.1ture project.
i
"Ca/lrIl}/:;imprOl'~l1l1wbi/iI)'a~r(m;CalijlJmia "
C-82
Ms,Niki Cutler
July 3,2012
Pago2of2
8-4
Stonn water !Un~ofr is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties.Please be mindful
that projects should be designed to discharge clean run~offwa1.er.
Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials,which requires the use of
oversi:l.ed-transport vehicles on State highway::!,.will require a transportation permit from the
Department It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute
periods.
If you have any questions;please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213)
897-8391 and r':lfer to lOR/CEQ/\.No.120627A1.
Sincerely";.
i)ka-,4M4 ktg~
\:_.
DIA.NNA WATSON
fOR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc:Scott Morgan,State Clearinghouse
;
"CO/Frans illlJlrovlJs IIIfJhUhy (IC,I).VIi Ct//ifomia "
C-83
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.
AUGUST 2U12
VOLUME lIt.It:ESPONSE TO COldMENTS liND ERRATA
655-683 DEEP VALl..:E'\r DRIVE AND 9H-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD Id.lXEll-USE RESID]!;NTIAL PROJllCT
ROLl-ING lULLS !!STATES,CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
LETTER CODE:8-4
DATE:8·7·12
Response 8-4-1
The comment letter is a form letter indicating compliance with State Clearinghouse requirements and
enclosing the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)letter and State of
California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)letter,which have been addressed above
under Letter Codes S-l and 8-2.No further response is .necessary.
26
C-84
I,;SA ASSOClIATl!Il.INO.
AUOUS':1.611
VOLl,JllE Ill,RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ANti IU'-ll.I>.TA
6&5-6&'.\DE!!!'VALLEY DRIVE AN!>9U-95U INDIAN I'I!AK.llOAD MIXED.USl.RESIDENTIAL l'll.OJ&CT
ROLLING HILLS l!STATl!S.CALIPORNIA
LOCAL AGENCIES
27
C-85
L-1
Niki Cutler,Principal Pfanner
July 16,2012
Page '2
environmental impacts related to development,development of vegetation management plans,
brush clearance,coordination ofwifdland firepJanning,review of fuel modification plans,Fire
Prevention,Air and Wildland,Lifeguard and Health Hazardous Materials Division.The Fire
Department maintains two Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)Task Force units at the following fire L-1-2
stations:Fire Station 103 in Pico Rivera and Fire Station 130 ~in Lancaster and four Hazardous
Materials Task Forces at the following fire stations:Fire Station 43 in Industry,Fire Station 76
in Valencia,Fire Station 105 in Compton and-Fire Station 129 in Lancaster.
LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT:
1.Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements:
a}No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public
fire hydrant.
b)No portion of abuilding shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced
public fire hydrant.-
c}Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances.
d)When cut-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street,hydrants shall be
required at the corner and mid-block.
e)A cui-de-sac shaH not be more than 500 feet in length,when serving iand zoned for
commercial use.
L-1-3
2.
3.
4.
The statutory responsibUities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Land
Development Unit,are the revIew of and comment on,all projects within the unincorporated
areas of the County of Los Angeles.Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water
supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues.However,we reviewalf
projects for Issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire L-1-4
Department.We are responsible for the review of all projects within Contract Cities (cities that-
contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protectionselVices).We are
responsible for all County facilities,located within non-contract cities.
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Land Development Unit may also comment on
conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division,which may create
a potentially significant impact to the environment.
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Land Development Unit's comments are only
general requirements.Specific fire and life safety requirements and conditions set during the L-1-5
environmental review process will be addressed and conditions set at the building and fire plan
check phase.Once the official plans are submitted for review there may be additional
requirements.
The proposed development may necessitate mUltiple ingress/egress access for the circulation I
ft ffi d ·L-1-6araIeanemergencyresponseIssues.
C-86
L-1
Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
JUly 16,2012
Page 3
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance
requirements for construction,access,water mains,fire flows and fire hydrants.
Every bUilding constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access I
roadways,with an all·weather surface of not less than the prescribed width.The roadway
shaH be extended to within 150 feet of ali portions of the exterior walls when measured by an I
unobstructed route around the exterior of the building.····
The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15%except where topography makes it
impractical to keep within such grade.In such cases,an absolute maximum of 20%will be
allowed for up to 150 feet in distance.The average maximum allowed grade,inclUding
topographical difficulties,shall be no more than 17%.Grade breaks shall not exceed 10%in
ten feet.
Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies.
For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinJ<ler systems,it is strongly suggested that fire
sprinkler systems be installed.This will reduce potential fire and life losses.Systems are now
technically and economically feasible for residential use.
COMMERCIAL FIRE FLOW -The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per.
minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four-hour duration.Final fire
flows will be based on the size of buildings,its relationship to other structures,property lines
and types of construction used.
L-1-7
L-1·8
L-1-9
L-1-10
L-1-11
10.
11.
Turning radii shall not be Jess than 32 feet.This measurement shall be determined at the
centerline of the road.A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all
driveways exceeding 150 feet in-length and at the end of all cul·de-sacs.
All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet,elear-
to-sky.The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of at!portions of the exterior walls of the
first story of any bUlJding.The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to
and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure.
IL-1-12
IL-1-13
12.
1-3.
All on·site driveways shari provide a minimum l,.lOobstructed w·idth of 28 feet,·clear-te.:.sky.The
28-foot width does not allow for parking and shall be designated as a "FIRE LANE"and have
appropriate signage.The centerline of the on~site driveway shall be located parallel to and
within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure.The on-site driveway
is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.
When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net
acre:
a)A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in width and shall not be more than 700 feet in
length.
b)The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1,000 feet if a minimum of 36 feet in
width is provided.
c)A Fire Department approved turning area shall be prOVided at the end of a cul-de-sac.
L-1-14
L-1-15
C-87
L-1
Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
July 16,2012
Page 4
L-1-20
L-1-22
L-1-21
L-1-18
L-1-19
IL-1-17
I
I
The County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Land Development Unit appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this project.
Notify the County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Fire Station 106,at (310)377-9523,Fire
Station 56,at (310)377-1584 and Fire Station 53,at (310)377-3333,at least three days in
advance of any street closures that may affect Fjre/~aramedlc response in the area.
Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during such
disruptions.
Submit three sets of water plans to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Land
Development Unit.The plans must show all proposed changes to the fire protection water
system,such as fire hydrant locations and main sizes.The plans shall be submitted through
the local water company.
I
Should any questions arise regarding subdivision,water systems,or access,please contact I
the County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Fire Prevention Division,Land Development Unit
Inspector,Nancy Rodeheffer,at (323}890-4243 or nrodeheffer@fire.lacounty.gov.
14.All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements:
a)Any single gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in·
width,c1ear~to-sky.
b)Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel Le .•
ingress or egress)shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear-to-sky.
c)Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right~L-1-16
of-way,and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning
radius.If an intercom system is used,the 50 feet shafl be measured from the right-of-way
to.the intercom control device.
d)All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department.
e)Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department,prior to installation.These plans
shall show afllocations,widths and details of the proposed gates.
All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions,traffic circles,
roundabouts,etc.)shaH be submitted to the Fire Department for review,prior to
implementation.
15.
17.
16.
18.
20.
19.
FORESTRY DIVISION -OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:
1.The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department,Forestry Division
include erosion control,watershed management,rare and endangered species,vegetation,L-1-23
fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4,archeological and
cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance;
C-88
Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
JUly 16,2012
PageS
L-1
2.The areas germane t~the statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire
Department,Forestry Division have been addressed.
L-1-24
HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION:
1.The Health Hazardous Materials Division has no objection to the proposed project.
If you have any additional questions,please contact this office at (323)890-4330.
Very truly yours,
FRANK VIDALES.ACTiNG CHIEF,FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU
FV:ij
L-1-25
C-89
!OS ....ASSOOIATllS,INC.VOLUME Ifl.RESI'ONSE TO OOMMENTS AWl>ERR!>TA
....UGU1>1·Z012 U~-68S DEEP VALLli:Y OIl'.lVl!AND 9U-950 INDIAN PEAK.ROAD MIXED .USE RESIDIlNTI L PROJIlCT
ROI.,LING HILLS li:STATES.C LlFORNIA_
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
LETTER CODE:L-l
DATE:July 16,2012
Response L-l-l
The comment is introductory and sUIrl..m.arizes the project description provided in the DEIR.This
comment does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEill.,and no
further response is required.
Response L-1-2
The comment provides corrected language regarding the Fire Department's responsibilities.The
description ofthe Fire Departmentas contained on page 4.11-1 in the DEIR.and has been corrected as
follows,and included in the Errata as part ofthe Final EIR.
The Fire Department's emergency service system consists of fire and paramedic services.This system
utilizes fully capable paramedic engines,paramedic encines,paramedic squads,and paramedic
assessment engines that contain limited paramedic equipment (fl:E:d..but are staffed with one paramedic
who can begin advanced life support efforts prior to the arrival ofthe squad},ffie-certification of all
.r.:.c:gh 1 I fE T 't..• •••,,..,'n •"ille~l ters to a ieVCl 0 mergency eClili1CU"t11,an extenSive automatlc aenonllawr program,ana a
24·hour Air Squad helicopter program.The Fire Department also has a Forestry Division.responding
to brush eleamooe,fire ants,and "';'cgetation mana:g~tresponsible for the review of environmental
impacts related to development...:development of vegetation manaQement plans,;brush clearance,:
coordination of wildland fire planning,;review of fuel modifica:i:tion plans..;and Fire Prevention,Air
and Wildland,Lifelruard,and Health Hazardous Materials Division-:s.The Fire Department maintains
two Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)Task Force fire stations:Fire Station 103 in Pica Rivera and
Fire Station 13Q4 in Lancaster:and four Hazardous Materials Task Forces at the following fire
stations:Fire Station 43 in the City of Industry,Fire Station 76 in Valencia.Fire Station 105 in
Compton,and Fi.re Station 129 in Lancaster.
Response L·!·3
The proposed project will be conditioned by the City to comply with aU local statutes and regulations
related to flre protection.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-1-4
The comment staies that the County of Los Angeles Fire Department (Fire Department),Land
Development Unit,is providing input regarding the proposed project.The comment further describes
the factors considered when detennining whether a project will have an impact upon fire protection,
including sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and local/regional access issues and any
potentially significant impact to the environment which the project may create.The comment does
33
C-90
I.SA AUOCIA.T1!S.INC.VOI.tlM:E Ill.RI1.SPONSI!:TO OOMMI!NTS AND I!RRATA
AUOtlST ~OU DSS_GU Pl!llP V.AI.LI!:Y DRIVll .ANP n~-9 ••INDIIIN PEAK ROAD MIXI!P-I1SE RE:S1DllNTl ....L PROJli:OT
ROLLING IIlLl.S 1!STATl!:S.CALII'ORNIA
not contain any substantive statements or questions about the DEIR or the analysis therein.Therefore,
no further response is necessary.
Response L~1-5
The comment states that the Fire Department,Land Development Unit,is providing general
requirements/comments on the DEIR.Specific and additional fire and life safety requirements and
conditions set will be requested during the environmental review process once the official plans of the
proposed project are submitted for review.The comment does not contain any substantive statements
or questions about the DEIR or the analysis therein.Therefore,no further response is necessary.
Response L-1-6
As stated in Table 4.l3.E of the DEIR.,Section 4.13,Traffic and Circulation,the primary access to the
proposed project is provided via a proposed private street between Indian Peak Road and Deep Valley
Drive and two commercial driveways on Deep Valley Drive.The results ofthe analysis indicate that
under existing plus project traffic conditions,both primary project access points are forecast to
operate at level of service (LOS)B or better during the a.m.and p.m.peak hours.Therefore,project
access is expected to be adequate.In addition,as stated in the same section,the proposed project has
the potential to affect emergency access routes during construction.In order for these issues to be
managed,a Construction Traffic Management Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer,as identified in Mitigation Measure 4.13~1.Implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.13~1 would reduce potential traffic safety impacts during construction activities to less than
significant levels.Based on the forecast and with the Mitigation Measure,the proposed project would
not have a significant impact.Impacts ofthe proposed project on the traffic and circulation impacts,
including multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation oftraffic and emergency response issue,
were thoroughly addressed in Section 4.13 of the DEIR.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no
further response is required.
Response L-1-7
The City will ensure that the project complies with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for
construction,access,water mains,fire flows and fire hydrants.The comment is,therefore,noted,and
no further response is required.
Response L-1-8
The City will ensure the proposed project complies with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to fire protection.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further response is
required.
34
C-91
LSA ASSOCiATES,INC.VOI.U!dll Ill.Rll8l'ONSl!TO COMMENTS AND EkRATA
AI1CtlST 1/.012 655-&$3 DEal'VALLEY DI1.lV&ANI>924-990 INDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXll!:>-USll R.ESIDENTIAL PROJllC1'
Il.OLUNG HIl,.L8 ESTATl!$.OAI.1P'ORNIA
Response L-1-9
The City will ensure the proposed project complies with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to the grading requirements.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further
response is required.
Response L-I-IO
The City will ensure the proposed project complies with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to fire protection.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further response is
required.
Response L-l-ll
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with aU the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to fire protection,including commercial fire flow requirements.The comment is,
therefore,noted,and no further response is required.
Response L.,1-12
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to fire protection,including turning radii requirements.The comment is,therefore,
noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-l-13
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to frre protection,including driveway requirements.The comment is,therefore,
noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-1-14
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to frre protection,including driveway obstruction requirements.The COtlliilent is,
therefore,noted,and no further response is required,
Response L-1-15
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to fIre protection,including cui-dc-sac requirements.The comment is,therefore,
noted,and no further response is required.
35
C-92
!.SA ASSOOIATES.INC.
AUGUST 2012 .
VOLUME III.ItJ::SI'ONSI!TO COMMENTS AND llRRI.:rA
565-OU DEE!'VALl-lEY DRIVl!AND llU--950 INDIAN PilAR:IlOAD M1XlSD-USE II:BSU)I!WflAL I'ROJI!.CT
ROLLING HILLS £STATIlS,OALIPORNIA
Response L~1-16
The City will condition the proposed project to comply with all the Fire Department's statutes and
regulations related to frre protection,including access devices and gate requirements.The comment
is,therefore,noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-1-17
If any traffic calming measures,including speed humps,bumps,cushions,traffic circles,roundabouts,
etc.,are proposed for the project,the plans will be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior
to implementation.
Response L-1-18
The City will notifY the Fire Department as requested prior to any street closures.No further response
is required.
Response L-1-19
The City will coordinate with the Fire Department if any disruptions to water service are expected.
Alternate water sources will be provided for fire protection during any such disruptions.No further
response is required.
Response L-1-20
The City will condition the proj ect to submit three sets of water plans to the Fire Department,Land
Development Unit,to indicate any change to the fITe protection syst(;fm,including fITe hydrant
locations and main sizes.No further response is required.
Response L-1-21
The corrunent indicated that the Fire Department reviewed the DEIR.This comment does not raise
any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no further response is
required..
Response L-1-22
This corrunent provides contact information and does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA
or their treatment in the DEIR;no further response is required.
36
C-93
.LS"",ASSOCIATES,INC.
AUGUST ZQ12
VOLUME HI,Rl!SPON!>&TO OOMlIIl!NTS AND E;RRATA
655-689 ])l!E;P VALLEY DRIVE ANI>'2.-950 INDIAN PZ;;AR:ROAl)MIXED-USE ltl!St:llI!NTIAL PROJl1:CT
ll.OLLll'lG HlI.LS ESTATES.CALIFORNIA
Response L-1-23
The comment is introductory of the Fire Department,Forestry Division.This coonnent does not raise
any enviroI1.mental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no further response is
required.
Response 1,-1-24
This comment indicates that the DEIR has addressed the areas germane to the statutory
responsibilities of the Fire Department.Forestry Division.No further response is required.
Response L-1-25
The comment indicates that the Fire Department,Health Hazardous Materials Division,reviewed the
DEIR and has no comments on the document and the proposed proj eet.Therefore,no further response
is required.
37
C-94
County ofLos Angeles
Sheriff's Department Headquarters
4700 &mona Boulevard
Monterey Park,California 91754~2169
L-2
July 19,2012
David Wahba,Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
.Rolling Hills Estates,California 90274
Attention:Niki Cutler
Dear Mr.Wahba:
iJ Ii 'I ';'1n1')
....-••.t""
,_..~-,....
REVIew COMMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
655-683 DEEP VALLEY ROAD AND 924·950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (PA 01-07)
The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Department)submits the following
review comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),dated June 2012,
for the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 indian Peak Road Mixed-Use
Residential Project (Project).The proposed Project,as currently constituted,will
demolish existing commercial and professional office buildings,surface parking lots,
and landscaping,and construct 148 residential units,approximately 14,200 square feet L-2-1
of commercial space I and associated parking.
The DEIR and other environmental documents prepared for the proposed Project were
reviewed by the Department's Lomita Station and my office (see attach eo
correspondence from Captain Blaine Bolin and myself,dated July 6,2012,and
September 27,2006,respectively).
In summary,the proposed Project,is not expected to result in any significant impact to
the Department.However,the proposed Project,when considered in conjunction with
other development in the area,could have a cumulative effect on Department resources
and operations,including facilities,staffing,and response times.Also,the construction
phase of the proposed Project could impact the Station's response times to calls for
service,due to the Project's proximity to a major thoroughfare.
,717radilio.'f1 ofcSerwce r51~ce 1850
L-2-2
L-2-3
C-95
Mr.Wahba -2-
L-2
July 19,2012
The Department has no other comment to submit at this time,but reserves the right to
further address this matter in subseq'uent reviews of the proposed Project.
Thank you for including the Department in the environmental review process for the L-2-4
proposed Project.Should you have any questions of the Department regarding this
matter,please contact Lester Miyoshi,of my staff,at (626)300-3012 and refer to
Facilities Planning Bureau Tracking No.12-039.You may also contact Mr.Miyoshi,via
e-mail,at Lhmiyosh@lasd.org.
Sincerely,
LEROY D.SACA,SHERIFF
~
Gary T.K TS6,Director
Facrlities Planning Bureau
C-96
Mr.Wahba
GTKT:LM:lm/jh
Attachments
-3-July 19,2012
L-2
c:Blaine Bolin,Captain,Lomita Sheriff Station (LSS)
Vicki L Stuckey,Lieutenant,LSS
LesterMiyoshi,Project Manager,Facilities Planning Bureau
Chrono
(EIR.RoUingHiUsEstatesMixedUseProject)
C-97
7S1551N25A·SH·AD-32A121721
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
"A Tradition of Service"
L-2
TO:FROM:
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
~N,CAPTAIN
LOMITA STATION
DATE July 6,2012
FILENO.N/A
GARY T.TSE,DIRECTOR
FACILITIES PLANNING
BUREAU
SUBJECT:MIXED USE PROJECT -ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
This is in response to your request to provide updated comments and/or suggestions regarding
the proposed development of a mixed use project including 176 residential units and 12,800
square feet of retail use on a 8.07-acre parcel located at 655 to 683 Deep Valley Drive and at L-2-5
924 to 950 Indian Peak Road in the city of RQliingHHI$Estates,
There ha.s not been any significant change since ~he original letter that was sent to you dated
S~ptember 25,2006,
88:\ILS:vls
Page 1 ofl
C-98
Mar 05 2007 6:lSPM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EST 3103771577 y:..2
L-2
County ofLos Angeles
Sheriff's Department Headquarters
4700 Rdl'mma Boulevard
M01.te1Y?Y Park~Califirnia .91754-2169
September 27,2006
Mr.Virgilio Vita
Willden .
1-3,191 Crossroads Parkway North~Suite 405
IndustrYl California 91746
Dear Mr.Vita:
R'EVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
655..683 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 924..950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
This is in response to your ietter dated August 28,2006,reque.sting comments from
the Lomita Station to the proposed development on Deep Valley Drive and Indian
Peak Road.For our comments,please see the attached lettef from Captain Jay
Zuanich of the Lomita Sheriff's Station.
In summary,while this project by itself does not create a specific need for any
additional requirements to the station,it may have a cumulative impact on call and
response time,staffing,and inadequate facility accommodations when considered
wIth other d·evelopments in this area.We reserve the right to address these issues
in future reviews;
Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter,please contact Mary
Lamme,of my staff at (626)300-3006.
L-2-1
Attachments
LEROY D.SACA,SHERIFF
~T:.v b()~
Gary T.K4se,Director v b
Facilities Planning Bureau
RECEj\lED
SEP 2 7 2006
CITY OF ROlliNG HILLS ESTATES
[l/7radi'lion of 0eroice cSrr.lOe 1&50
C-99
Mar 05 2007 6:lSPM
..
Mr.Vi rgilio Vita
GTKT:ML:mIJjh
Attachments
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESl 3103771577
L-2
September 27,2006
P ":,....
Co:James Lopez,Commander
Adrianne Ferree,Assistant Director
Captain Jay Zuanich,Lomita Station
Lt.Jt'lson Lum,Lomita Station
Mary Lamme,Project Manager
Chrono
File
(DeepValley·lndlanPeakLomilaStalion.dl)C)
L~2-1
Attachments
C-100
3103771577CITYOFROLLINGHILLSESTMar0520076:16PM
~.....Lts::-------rn".mlP:,..AA'':'-..''.......oIIW~.).....~~~...,,..N....u ......,·C'''M·=Xllc~.'..)a''S ....LUt;·U~~':lt.alY::g~·-A1 ...'D-S..·.........t:J..,'»··...._...........·•·
..'
l£IlOY O.11,('1\,ffltllHF
-Q!uuntg of IDn:«1\n!VI2J1i'
~h.nr[ff#3m E!,p-nrtlt1 tttJ fhj.6l1~qu !1rl~l.".H
47IlD 3Rutnnllii JinuJebnrb
Jl!lclibt'r!;!Jlnrh.Q'Ialifrtrnin oS17S4-~Iri~
(31 0)539~1661
1i-6410 F.004!OOS
Y1(J~t
L-2
Tt>.'LV 11(>._
Sept~nbe:t"Z5.2006
Mr.Gary T.Tse,Dir~tor
Fscilities Plam-Jng Buresu
EiuildingA;.9 :East I 51~FlCiO't'N'6rtb
1000 SOllthFremotlt A"'Cl!lUe J :Box 4.1
Alhambl"aj Ca1ifo~a 91803
Dear Mr.7'&/;):
This i$in response to your request to provide oo:tnr.nents and/or-suggested conditions regarclJng
me propo~ecl development of a rnixecl..use project including 176 residentia1 u.n:its a:od 12,&DO
:>q\lnre feet ofT'Cltail use on a 8.07-l\cre paroellocatcd a16SS to 683 .Deep Valley Drive and at 924
to 9S0 Indian Peak Road In tbe c.ity ofRolling JiWs Estates.
Lomita Sheriff's Station currently provides poHco services 'to the city of Rol1ing .Hills Estates.
lornlta Station is located at 26123 Narbonne AVC;1\Ue.Lomita California,.90717.Toe station
presently serves n popu)~tion of approximately 75,000 and CP"l'ers It .goographical area of 23
square miles.Lomita Station p.rovides police BeNites to fOllt contru.ct citic-s;Rancho Palos
Verdes,R.olling HiHs,Rolling Hills Estates,:Lomita:,and twQ smali unincorporated county areas,
L-2-1
Attachm~nts
The project vicinity is serviced by 3w :S pAtt:01 cars depending on the time of day.The contract for
Sheriff!:'services in tbat immediate area is usually one rndio oar-per sbift wiL~additional earn in
the n:.giun-that could be used if needed,The sUlTOundi-ng a..1'lla oftbe proposed site is mostly
commercial.
r estimnte this project would generate 3·5-p.ddl'tlona!calls lor law enforcement services per
month.Additionally,the project would probably couse a moderate incmase in traffio in !4,d
aroMa theprop¢sed dlW~lopment.Although this project in Hll~}f.s.houldnot require an increase
in police protection and traffic se:rvice,another roview would he necessary with the culmination
of addltionnl development in the area.
C-101
Mar 05 2007 6:16PM CITY OF ROLLING HILLS EST 3103771577 p.5
~~'ii«i<;;:;:;;!T"~t(!l.!l£liIr::4ii$lJ~~It'I·"")!h\lbl.lll~~lJ.!IJUW;llilll:ll~~;;'''GWi~llillIWM·;!::I1l1,iO:Illl:l''''"",-=.,·,·..~m'ff·.~'.-·<....,
OC'r,05 '2006 33;54
Mr.GaryTse -2~
#6HO P.OO{,/OOb
L-2
IfY01.l ntlcd any ~.\!iditionai informatio.n pleaSe fl:el freo to contac1 Lieu1em>.I\t Jnso;n Lum at (310)
8ln-32.21..
LEROY D.:SACA,SH:B1UFF
'9 ;;-L
Jay ZUanie-h,Captain
Comma:nder,Lomita Station
L-2-1
Attachments
C-102
LSA ASSOCIAT1!S.INC.VOLUMe 1110 IUlSPONSl!.TO COMYl!NTS AND ERRATA
AUGUST 2DU 65S-&83 neEP VALLIlY DlUVE Ai'll)924-$50 lN1HAN 1'1!AK ROAD M1X:SD-USP.Rl';SIDl!NT1AL PROJEOT
ROLI.1NC HILI..ESTATES.O ....UI'O!iWIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
LETTER CODE:L-2
DATE:July 19,2012
Response L-2-1
The comment is introductory and summarizes the project description provided in the DEIR.This
comment does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no
further response is required.
Response L-2-2
The comment states that the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact to the
Sheriff's Department,but that the project,in conjunction with other development in the area could
have a cumulative effect on the law enforcement resources and operations.As stated in Section
4.11.6,Cumulativelmpacts,the Sheriffs Department stated that the proposed project and other
approved and proposed projects within the project area have the potential to cumulatively impact
police services in the project area.The proposed project's contribution to cmnulative impacts to
police services would be reduced to a less than significant level,and the proposed project could be
accommodated with adequate police protection.The Sheriffs Department anticipates cumulative
demand in order to plan for overall service.Therefore,the Sheriffs Department determination that
adequate service can be provided includes consideration of area demand in light of cumulative
planned or anticipated projects.Personal communication with a Sheriff's Department Operation
Sergeant indicated that the proposed project would not generate a significant cumulative increase in
demand for police protection services.1
Response L-2-3
The comment states that response times could be impacted during the construction phase.The
comment does not contain any substantive statements or questions about the DEIR or the analysis
therein.The Construction Traffic Management Plan listed on pages 4.13-25 and 4.13-26 is developed
specifically to address fr,js comment and minimize the impacts during the construction phase.
Therefore,no further response is necessary.
Response L-24
The comment indicates that the County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Headquarters reviewed
the DEIR and has no additional comments at this time but reserves the right to comment during
subsequent reviews ofthe project.No further response is required.
Don Mueller,Operations Sergeant,L.A.County Sheriff's Department,dated March 19,2012.
Personal communication.
46
C-103
LSh ASSOOIATES,INC.
A.UGUST 2012
VOLUME HI.RESPONSE TO COMloll!l'ITS AND ERRATh
UG-SU DJ!EF VA[.LEY DRIVE AND ~U-950 INIHAN PEAK ROAD MIXED-\1SJ!l>.ESlDJ!NTIAL PROJECT
ROLLINC HILLS l!.STATJ!S.CALIFORNIA
Response L-2-5
The comment is introductory and sunnnarizes the project description provided in the DEIR.The
comment also states that there is not any significant change in law enforcement services since the
response to the information request letter dated September 25,2006.This comment does not raise any
environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DElR,and no further response is required
Therefore,no further response is necessary.
47
C-104
C1TYOF
2 August 2012
Niki Cutler,AICP,Principal Plan'nsr
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr.N.
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
L-3
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments in Response to the Notice of Completion/Availability of a
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Brickwalk,LLC
MixedMUse Residential Project (PA 01-07)
Dear~r:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)for the aboveMmentioned project.As you
may recall,the City previously commented upon the scope of the DE!R for this project
on 28 February 2007.We have reviewed the Notice of Completion/Availability and the
DEIR,and offer the following comments:
1.
2.
The discussion of Aesthetics (Section 4.1,p.4.1-9)describes the visual impacts
of the proposed project as viewed from a location within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes at Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard (View 4).The DEiR
concludes that aesthetic impacts upon the view from this location are less-than-
significant.However,we note that the view simulations (Figure 4.1-5)clearly
show that the height of the new townhomes proposed in this portion of the project
site would exceed the curb elevation of Indian Peak Road near its intersection
with Crenshaw Boulevard.Accordingly,we are concerned that the aesthetic
impacts of the proposed project upon views from homes in the 5400-block of
Middlecrest Road in the Ridgecrest neighborhood may not have been adequately
addressed in the DEIR.
The discussion of Biological Resources (Section 4.3,pp.4.3-3 to 4.3-5)
describes the consistency of the proposed project with the Rancho Palos Verdes
Neep Preserve (NCCP)and concludes that project impacts would be less~than
significant and require no mitigation.Earlier in this same section (p.4.3-2),the
DEIR acknowledges the NCCP as a part of the "reguratory setting"within which
the biological resource impacts of this project are to be analyzed.We would
draw to your attention Section 6.2.2 of the NeCp Subarea Plan "Development
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANcHO PALOS VEROES,CA 90275-5391/(310J 544-5205 I FAX (310)544-5291
WWVI.PAlOSVERDES.COM/RPV
PRINleD ON I~ECYCLED PAPER
L-3-1
L-3-2
C-105
L-3
Niki Cutler
2 August 2012
Page 2
Adjacent to the Preserve ll and the specific project design criteria and best
management practices (BMPs)enumerated in Subsection 6.2.2.2 (see
enclosures).These guidelines should be discussed in greater detail in the DEIR.L-3-2
Furthermore,we strongly suggest that the DEI R consider the inclusion of the
guidelines from NCCP Subarea Plan Subsection 6.2.2.2 as project mitigation to
address potential impacts upon the adjacent NCCP Crestridge Reserve in
Rancho Palos Verdes.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The discussion of Geology and Soils (Section 4.5)assesses the geologic and
geotechnical impacts of the proposed project,and suggests mitigation measures
to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.The City of Rancho Palos
Verdes'geotechnical consultant has reviewed Section 4.5 and the related
appendices from the DE1R,and offers the enclosed comments that should be
addressed in the Final EIR
The discussion of Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.7)assesses the
impacts and handling of site runoff and drainage for the proposed project,and
suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant
levels.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes'City Engineer has reviewed Section
4.7 and the related appendices from the DEIR,and offers the enclosed
comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR.
The discussion of land Use and Planning (Section 4.8)notes at several locations
that two (2)variances are requested in conjunction with the proposed project,
whereas the Project Description (Section 3.0.p.3-10)lists three (3)requested
variances.This discrepancy should be resolved in the Final EIR.For the record,
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is skeptical that the requested variance for a
26-footf1-story increase in the height of the proposed,mixed-use podium bUilding
is warranted.Also,as mentioned in our comments above regarding biological
resources impacts,the discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with
the NCCP (p.4.8-17)should take into account the provisions of Subsection
6.2.2.2 of the NCCP Subarea Plan.
The discussion of Noise (Section 4.9,p.4.9-16)identifies the Rancho Palos
Verdes Preschool at 28451 Indian Peak Road (southwest corner at Crenshaw
BOUlevard)as a sensitive noise receptor that would be exposed to short-term
construction noise impacts from the proposed project.Mitigation Measure 4.9-2
(p.4.9-20)proposes the installation of 6-foot-tall construction noise barriers along
Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Boulevard to reduce these impacts to less-
than-significant levels.We would like to point out that,since the original
circulation of the NOP for this project in 2007,the City completed construction of
L-3-3
L-3-4
l-3-5
C-106
L-3
Niki Cutler
2 August 2012
Page 3
the Mirandela senior apartments at 5555 Crestridge Road (northwest corner at
Crenshaw Boulevard),which directly abut the Rancho Palos Verdes Preschool to
the south.The City believes that these age-and income-restricted apartments
also constitute a sensitive noise receptor located in the immediate vicinIty of the L-3-6
project site.Will the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 adequately
address potential construction-related noise impacts upon the residents of
Mirande/a as well?
7.The discussIon of Population and Housing (Section 4.10,p.4.10-10)notes that
th.e proposed project Is consistent with the City of Rolling Hills Estates'current
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).presumabiy because the total
number of units proposed (Le.,one hundred forty~eight (148»substantially L-3-7
exceeds the total of twenty-six (26)units required by the current RHNA
However,the DEIR does not discuss how the proposed project fulfills the RHNA
requirementfor units tobeprovided that are affordable to households at a variety·
of income levels.
8.The discussion of Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.13)discusses the
construction-related and post-construction impacts of the proposed project,and
suggests a number of mitigation measures (pp.4.13-25 to 4.13-30)to reduce
these impacts to less-than-significant levels.Several of these mitigation
measures involve modifications to traffic controls at surrounding intersections.
We would Ilke to point out that,since the original circulation of the NOP for this L-3-8
project in 2007,the jurisdictional responsibility for several of the surrounding
roadway segments and intersections has shifted from Rolling Hills Estates to
Rancho Palos Verdes,and these shifts may affect the feasibility of some of the
proposed mitigation measures.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes'traffic
engineer has reviewed Section 4.13 and the related appendices from the DEIR,
and offers the enclosed comments that should be addressed in the Final EIR.
9.The discussion of Alternatives (Section 5.0,pp.5-14 to 5-15)identifies the
"Reduced Project Alternative"(Alternative 3)as the envlronmentaliy-superior
alternative to the proposed project.Since Alternative 3 reduces the total number
of dwelling units and commercial square footage by twenty percent (20%),it L-3-9
reduces the project's traffic impacts and eliminates the need for a building height
variance while still fulfilling the basic objectives of the project.Therefore,the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes supports the selection of Alternative 3 for the proposed
project.
C-107
Sincerely,
~i::t:
Senior ~dministrative Analyst
enclosures
cc:Mayor Misetich and City Council
Caroiyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Jim Hendrickson.Interim Public Works Director
M:\Border [ssues\Blickwalk LLC Condos\20120a02_EIRComments.doc
L-3
C-108
KLING
Consulting
;;;;;~iiIiiiiiii_zt::a G ro up J Inc.
July 27,2012
Kit Fox
Senior Administrative Analyst
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275~5391
L-3
PN 00146~14A
Subject:
Dear Mr.Fox:
Review of DEIR Geology and Soils Documents for the Proposed Deep Valley and
Indian Peak Mixed-Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates
Our finn has reviewed the Geology and Soils,Section 4.5 of the DEIR dated June 20,2012 by LSA
Associates for the Deep Valley and Indian Peak Mixed-Use Project in Rolling Hills Estates.Our L-3-10
evaluation incorporated a review ofpast geology and soils documents for the subject site.The following
comments in regards to the Geology and Soils portion of the DEIR are presented below.
A review of the reference list indicates that the authors have reviewed all previous documents for I
f d d tl .L-3-11theprojectincludingpastreviewsbytheCity0RanchoPalosVeresanlecorrespondmg
responses by the project geotechnical consultant
The seismic design standard presented on page 4.5.6 is outdated.The design standards presented I
and used for the project should be updated to use the latest CBC or indicate in the DEIR what L-3-12
version oftlle eBe or UBC will be used for the project if different.
•The last round of review and response completed in 2010 and 2011 indicated tbat additional
readings of the inclinometers would continue every 4 to 6 months from the date of consultaIlt's
response in December 2010.Based on this schedule,a minimum of 5 additional readings should L-3-13
have taken place.It is recommended that these be obtained and reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant in an updated report and ifnecessary be incorporated into the DEIR.This report should
be forwarded to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for review.
...The DEIR's section on Faults and Seismic History states that the Cabrillo Fault is active,page 4.5-5 -I L-3-14
Later in the report on page 4.5.12 it states that it is inactive.The DEIR should be corrected to
remove inconsistency.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 states that the construction and design of the proposed project shall I
comply with the recommendation measures listed in Section 6.0 through 9.0 in the April 27,2007
Pacific Soils.As other addendum reports and evaluations have been authored beyond the April 2007
report,they should be added to this section of the DEIR.
18008 Sky Park eke/e.Suite 250,Irvine,California 92614 (949)797-6241 Fax (949)797-6260
L-3-15
C-109
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
July 27,2012
PN 00146-14A L....3
The DEIR does not address import or export of sail during grading,nor does it address import of I
construction materials associated with grading or construction ofbuildings and what impact to RPV
roadways this might have.This may be addressed elsewhere in the DEIR document.
Section 4.5.2 states that the section addresses the potential for structural damage to occur due.to I
local geology underlying the project.There does not appear to be a discussion in regards to this
Issue.
L-3-17
DEIR does not appear to address tie backs.temporary excavati OOS or shoring in detail or where they I L~3-18wouldpotentiallyencroachintoRanchoPalosVerdes.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to the City ofRancho Palos Verdes.Please
call ifyou have any questions regarding the content oftrus letter.
Sincerely;
KLING CONSULTING GROUP
J nes M.Lancaster~J',
Principal Engineering e
JML:dm
Dist.:(2)Addressee"
S;\Projecls\2000\OOI46\OO 146-14A Review ofGeology and Soils Section of DEIR daled 6·20-12
2
C-110
L-3
SECTION 1.0 -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Add the following statement to Table I.A item 4.5-3 and to Section 4.5 Geology and Soils
Any components ofthe design that are required to be placed outside of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates will require additional review/approval by the affected jurisdiction.
Add the following statement to Table 1.A item 4.5-X
Prior to the issuance ofthe Certificate ofOccupancy for buildings associated with the project,the
proj ect applicant shalf submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director ofPublic Works for
review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and
require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair.The maintenance
agreement shall '~run with the land".The approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded
with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of RolIing Hills Estates Building Official.
SECTION 4.7 -HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...... . ...,.
The project is located in an area of known unstable land.Land movement such as slope failures
and landslides are adversely affected by ground water.To minimize runoff infiltration of ground
water,all existing or planned drainage facilities located on slopes within the project must be
properly maintained or caused to be maintained by the property owner and future owners.
To that end,the following comment and condition.should be added to the Mitigation Measures
4.7-X.They are needed to ensure that storm runoff management facilities are properly
maintained and that runoff on slopes adjacent to Indian Peak retain the integrity intended by the
design engineer:
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the project,the
project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director of Public Works for
review and approvaL The maintenance agreement shall address slope drainage facilities and
require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a state of good repair.The maintenance
agreement shall "run with the land".The approved maintenance agreement shaII be recorded
\\rith the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building Official.
Section 4.7-4 modifY the sentence as follows (change to sentence shown in bold):
L-3-20
L-3-21
The drainage plan shall include anyon-site structures andlor modifications of existing drainage I
facilities necessary to accommodate existing and/or increased runoff resulting from the L-3-22
proposed project and shall indicate project contributions to the regional stonn water drainage
system.
C-111
From:
To:
cc:
Subject:
Date:
Hi Kit,
Nicole Jules
Kit Fox:
Ron Dragoo;
RHE Mixed Use Project
Wednesday,August 01,2012 2:54:40 PM
L-3
Below are my comments:
General Traffic Study
Since the commencement of the Traffic Study in 2010,jurisdictional responsibilities
at certain intersections and along certain roadway segments have shifted from
Rolling Hills Estates to Rancho Palos Verdes.As such,report,analysis,
assumptions and conclusion should be modified per the direction and concurrence
of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for the following locations:
a)Hawthorne Blvd at Indian Peak Road
b)Silver Spur Road at Silver Arrow Drive
c)Indian Peak Road at Crenshaw Blvd
d)Silver Spur Road from Hawthorne Blvd to Drybank Drive
e)Indian Peak Road from Crenshaw Blvd to RPV City Limits
f)Crenshaw Blvd from Indian Peak Road to RPV City Limits
The report should clearly identify which intersections and/or roadway segments are
in each respective City.For the intersections that have joint responsibilities the
proportionate share should be clearly identified.
Executive Summary
Table 1.A,mitigation #4.13~5,4.13-6,4.13-10 -Mitigation Measure needs to be
modified to incorporate review,concurrence and approval by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes,Department of Public Works.
Table 1.A,mitigation #4.13-10 -Please modify the language of this mitigation
measure and any other applicable mitigation measure to state:"Prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit,the applicant shall,for the two intersections with
the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Hawthorne Blvd at
Indian Peak Road and Crenshaw Blvd at Indian Peak Road,pay it's fair share of the
estimated construction costs for the necessary mitigation measures to offset its
cumulative impact.All estimated costs shall be approved by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes Director of Public Works or his/her designee.
L-3-23
L-3-24
L-3-25
Section 4.13 Transportation and Circulation
~-t l -3-26
C-112
L-3
Based on comments to Appendix J below,the traffic analysis results as presented t L-3-26
in this section may change.Please see comments to Appendix J for details.
Appendix J
Study Area -Please modify the study area to identify those study intersections and
roadway segments that fall under the jurisdictional responsibility of each City (RHE
and/or RPV)
Existing Conditions -Please modify the descriptions of the existing street system to
identify roadway segments and appropriate Glassifications and speed limits within
the City of RPV.Also,please include a copy of the traffic counts conducted in 2008
in the appendix to the 2010 study.
L-3-27
L-3-28
L-3-29
Analysis -Is there any reason why a Peak Hour Factor adjustment was not applied
to the intersection analysis?The traffic counts provide a calculated PHF for each
movement and for the intersection.The City of RHE's traffic impact analysis
methodology guidelines state in Section VIII that "peak hour factor specific to
subjectintersection shall be used".Please utilize an appropriate PHF for accurate
intersection analysis and results.
Trip Distribution -with 23%of the project traffic traveling to and from Palos Verdes I
Drive North,why was Palos Verdes Drive North omitted from the roadway segment L-3-30
analysis.
Year 2013 Conditions-Does the Year 2013 analysis include any assumed
roadway,Intersection or geometric improvements that are either assumed or
planned by RHE or RPV at any of the study intersections or roadway segments?
Also,the Year 2013 traffic analysis sheets are not included in the report.
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis -Appendix C is missing from the report.
Year 2013 Cumulative Plus Project -Include traffic analysis sheets for review.
Area-Wide Improvements -Include the traffic analysis sheets for proposed
mitigation measures for verification that mitigations are addressing impacts
appropriately.
Project Fair Share Contribution -The calculated fair share contribution needs to be
modified to incorporate the projects contribution to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
I L-3-32
I L-3-33
IL-3-34
L-3-35
C-113
SECTIONSIX
SECTION 6 RESERVE MANAGEMENT
L-3
Reserve Management
As an urban Reserve plan for wildlife and plants,the Rancho Palos Verdes Subarea Plan will enhance the
city's quality of Efe and provide the city with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving
the city's unique biodiversity and maintaining populations of sensitive resources.To succeed in these
goals,this Subarea Plan will require management practices and some land-use restrictions on conserved
lands that give special consideration to the interface between developed lands and open space.,Adaptive
management measures and compatible adjacent land uses will minimize impacts to individuals or
populations of covered species from development abutting the Reserve._A process for monitoring habitats
and species in the Reserve will help to improve the effectiveness of resource management.The following
sections establish general guidelines for compatible land uses and development within and adjacent to the
Reserve and provide a framework for consistent and coordinated management and monitoring of the
Reserve.
Existing legal land uses adjacent to the Reserve may continue,and existing ownerships will be maintained
until lands are obtained by public entities through purchase,dedication,or donation.On private lands that
become part of the Reserve,public access will be allowed only on properties where access has been
granted by.the owner through an appropriate easement or on property.that has been voluntarily dedicated
in fee title to a public agency or nonprofit organization.All new public facilities will be reviewed for
consistency with this Subarea Plan regarding public safety and to minimize management concerns and
biological impacts.
6.1 HABITAT MANAGER
The City has selected the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC)as the designated Habitat
Manager for the Reserve.Some conserved habitat areas addressed by this Subarea Plan are currently
managed by other organizations contracted by the private landowners (e.g.,Ocean Trails and Oceanfront
Estates mitigation lands).Management of these private lands would be transferred to the PVPLC once the
monitoring requirements of the Wildlife Agencies have been met.The PVPLC will work with the City to
ensure that habitat on these lands is adequately maintained.
6.2 FR.AMEWORK MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
6.2.1 Development of Public Use Master Plan
Within two years of the 5 igning of the Implementing Agreement,a Public Use Master Plan (pUMP)shall
be developed jointly by the City and the PVPLC to address issues such as public access,trailhead
locations,parking,trail use,fencing,signage,lighting (if any),fire and brush management,minimizing
impacts to adjacent neighborhoods,public involvement in advisory capacities,and other issues that may
arise.This section provides management guidelines and measures for the development of the PUMP,to
reduce habitat impacts of land uses within and adjacent to the Reserve.The PUMP for the site would be
created based on extensive public input and would have to be approved by City Council and the Wildlife
Agencies.Prior to the final approval of the PUMP by the Wildlife Agencies,all·lawful uses and activities
that are occurring in the Reserve at the time of approval ofthis Subarea Plan by the City Council shall be
L-3-36
W.127644296\0800o.b-r.docl28.Jul.Q4\SOG 6-1
C-114
SECTIONSIX
L-3
Resorve Management
deemed acceptable and allowed to continue unless otherwise restricted or prohibited by the Fina
approved PUMP.
6.2.2 Development Adjacent to the Reserve
6.2.2.1 Management Issues
No new d.evelopment activities will be allowed in the Reserve,except for the public and private
infrastructure projects identified in this Subarea Plan.geological testing in support of compatible land
uses,landslide monitoring,and any emergency actions associated with landslide abatement and
remediation activities.Development adjacent to the Reserve,however,may indirectly affect the Reserve.
These indirect impacts will be addressed through the existing project review process and CEQA
documentation,as required.In reviewing a proposed development project adjacent to the Reserve,site
design issues that need to be addressed are avoidance or minimization of impacts to biological resources
and retention of native habitats.Potential impacts to biological resources from existing and new
development adjacent to the Reserve will be considered in the design process.These include the locations
of access and staging areas,fire and brush management zones,potential for introduction of nonnative
species,increased night-lighting,increased stonnwater and urban runof~increased noise level and public
access to habitats supporting covered species.
6.2.2.2 Project Design Review and Best Management Practices
The following guidelines are designed to protect biological resources in the Reserve during construction
of new development directly abutting the Reserve:
1.Review grading plans of development directly adjacent to the Reserve boundary (including access
routes,staging areas,etc.)to ensure the plans are consistent with this Subarea Plan,educate
contractors about the biological sensitivities associated with the area,and monitor construction to
ensure compliance with project-specific mitigation measures.
2.All construction site vegetation clearing will be conducted during the non-breeding season
(September 1 to February i5)to avoid destruction of active bird nests.If vegetation clearing must be
conducted during the bird breeding season,a nest survey must be conducted and a 15 meter (50 feet)
exclusion zone is placed around all active nests (Le.,active nests with eggs or chicks)until the nest
becomes inactive
3.Use existing access roads outside the Reserve wherever practicable.Clearly mark all access routes
outside existing roads or construction areas.Develop an emergency access plan for the utility
companies with facilities within the Reserve.
4.When stockpiling topsoil,it should be placed in areas to be affected by project development.
5.Locate construction staging areas at least 15 meters (50 feet)away from the Reserve boundary and
natural drainages.Designate no-fueling zones a minimum distance of 15 meters (50 feet)from all
drainages and away from the Reserve boundary.
6.Schedule construction directly adjacent to the Reserve to minimize potential indirect impacts to
biological resources in the Reserve.Construction adjacent to drainages should occur during periods of
L-3-36
W:12764429S10800o.b·r.docl28·JuI·04\sOG 6-2
C-115
SECTIONSIX
L-3
Reserve Management
minimum flow (i.e.,summer through the first significant rain of fall)to avoid excessive sedimentation
and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species.Construction adjacent to habitats
occupied by breeding sensitive wildlife species should be scheduled to avoid the breeding season
(February IS-August 31)if practicable.
7.Minimize construction noise impacts during the bird breeding season (February IS-August 31)by
precluding noise levels greater than 65 dB hourly ~at the edge of habitat occupied by
noise-sensitive covered bird species where existing noise conditions are less than this noise threshold.
Conduct pre-construction surveys of potentially affected conserved habitat between mid-January and
mid-March.If no noise-sensitive breeding bird species are detected within 15 meters (50 feet)ofthe
construction activity by this date.construction can proceed.
8.Locate new roads,trails,and utility corridors in areas that minimize habitat fragmentation and edge
effects.
9.Place temporary construction fencing at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve.
Add silt fencing to these fences to minimize excessive sedimentation into drainages.
10.Encourage undergrounding of utilities and use oftrenchless technology,where feasible.Minimize the
width of construction corridors and easements,and where possible,use less impactive construction
practices such as jacking pipelines under drainages.
11.Revegetate cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to conserved habitat with L~3-36
appropriate native species.
12.Require approved restoration plans and construction monitoring for all construction projects within
and adjacent to the Reserve.
13.Evaluate the practicality of noise barriers for short sections of road that may chronically affect
breeding wildlife.
14.Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance.
6.2.3 Fire and Brush Management
Fire management can focus on two potentially different objectives:achievement of biological resources
goals and hazard reduction for hwnans and their property.Biological resource goals recognize that fire is
a natural process in ecosystems.Coastal sage scrub depends on a regular cycle ofbuming to maintain a
balance of species,create vegetation mosaics that favor increased animal species diversity,provide
habitat for species characteristic of earty posHlre landscapes,and control exotic plant species invasion.
Fire and brush management can also affect restoration of disturbed habitats and site hydrology,which will
directly affect habitat value for wildlife.Fire management for hazard reduction for humans and their
property focuses on reducing fuel loads in areas where fire may threaten human safety or property,
suppressing fires once they have started,and providing access for fire suppression equipment and
persotU1el.
6.2.3.1 Management Recommendations
Fire and brush management will be prioritized for human safety,but will also consider biological
resources,where appropriate.Therefore,fire and brush management practices in the Reserve need to
W:\2764.429SIOSCOO-b-r.oocI28-JuI-Q4\SOG 6~3
C-116
LSA ASSOCIATES.INO.
A.UGUST 2.012
VOL.UME Ill,1l.1lSPONSE TO COMMENTS AND E.R.RATA
655-n~DEllI'VA1.LEY lllUVE AND 9H-UQ INDIAN PEAII'.R.OAD MIXED·USll IU!.StDENTIAL PROJECT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES,OJl,l.lPOllNIA
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
LETTER CODE:L·3
DATE:August 2,2012
Response L-3-1
The residences located in the Ridgecrest development are located at a higher elevation to the east of
the project site.Views from this location will not be substantially affected by construction of the
townhomes located at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard and Indian Peak Road.These
townhomes are up to two stories and will be constructed on pads that ultimately COIDlect to Deep
VaHey Drive.Thus,the primary structures that will be visible are those townhomes immediately
adjacent to the intersection.These structures would be approximately 44 feet above the curb level of
Indian Peak Road and would be similar to or less than the height ofthe original commercial buildings
located on this portion of the site.These structures would not block any existing views across the
Peninsula Center area from the Ridgecrest area,and potential visual effects from this location are
considered less than significant.
Response L-3-2
This comment states that the DEIR acknowledges the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP)as part of the regulatory setting within which the biological resource impacts of the project
are to be analyzed.The comment also strongly suggests that the DEIR should consider discussing the
NCCP Subarea Plan "Development Adjacent to the Preserve,"the specific project design criteria,and
the best management practices (BMPs).The proposed project is located approximately 900 feet west
ofthe NCCP Preserve.Development of the proposed project is expected to have lirnited effects on the
long-term viability of the Preserve.There will be no construction activities within or directly adjacent
to the Preserve or long-tenn access to the Preserve.Additionally,there will be no effects due to fuei
modification since the pr~ject site is not contiguous to the Preserve
Given the project site's location downgradient oflndian Peak Road,there will no storm water effects
on the Preserve,and it will be col1ected in the existing stonn drain system and/or treated on site.
Additionally,as noted in Section 4.9,Noise,the proposed project would not result in a substantial
increase in noise levels along Indian Peak Road and would therefore not affect noise levels in the
Preserve.All night lighting will be installed and operated consistent with the City's Municipal Code
and will be directed toward the affected use so as to not reduce potential spill over lighting;thus,
potential night lighting will not affect the Preserve.
The potential for affecting migratory birds on the project site is addressed in Section 6.2.2.2 of the
DEIR,and landscaping will be implemented consistent with the City's landscape requirements.
Additional local geology and soils conditions Given the project site's distance and location
downgrament from the Preserve and measures incorporated into the project design,it is expected that
the proposed project's potential effects to the Preserve are less than significant.
60
C-117
I.SA ASSOCIAT:ES.INC.
AUGUST 2012
VOLUME:Ill,RESPONSl!TO COMMENTS ANt>ERR.ATA
SSG-SU DE!!P VAI.LEY DIUVl:Ai'll)9H-SSo INlJIAN Pl!hK.ROAD Mlll:llD·I1Sl!Rl!SllltNTIAL PROJECT
ROl.LING HILLS l!SThTES.OhLIFOIlNlh
Response L-3-3
This comment indicates that the City ofRancho Palos Verdes'geotechnical consultant has reviewed
t.1.e DEIR and has provided comments as included in an attached letter.These comments are
addressed in Responses L-3-11 through L-3-19,below.
Response L-3-4
This comment indicates that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes'City Engineer has reviewed the DEIR
and has provided comments as included in an attached letter.These comments are addressed in
Responses L-3-21 and L-3-22,below.
Response L-3-5
As shown in Table 3.E,Project Discretionary Actions of Section 3.1,Project Description,three
variances were listed.The variance information stated on Section 4.8,Land Use,is incorrect.The
foUowii'1g texts in Section 4.8 have been revised as indicated below and are included in the Errata to
the FiriaJ EIR:.
Comprising 10.4 acres (ae),the proposed project site is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates
~between Deep Valley DriveA fl£4Crenshaw Boulevard~and Indian Peak Road.Implementation
of the proposed project requires review ofa Precise Plan of Design,~lan review,a Conditional Use
Permit,a Vesting TentativeTract Map,~Grading Plan,and twe-three Variances.This section of the
EIR addresses the relationship between the proposed uses on site and the existing and planned uses in
the surrounding area,as well as consistency ofthe proposed project with adopted plans and zoning
regulations.Where appropriate,mitigation measures are identified.
Proposed Planning and Zoning Actions.Implementation of the proposed project requires plan review,
a conditional use permit,a precise plan of design,a vesting tentative tract map,approval of a grading
plan,andM--t-w.ethree variances.The proposed project does not include a General Plan Amendment or
Zone Change.The project includes demolition of existing office buildings and the construction of a
mixed-use commerciaVresidential development on the approximately 10.42 ac project site.
Please see Response L-3-2 for the com.."nent on the discussion of the consistency ofthe proposed
project with the NCCP.
Response L-3-6
The City agrees that the Mirandela senior apartments at 5555 Crestridge Road constitute a new noise-
sensitive receptor in the vicinity ofthe project.However,all residents of these apartments are further
from the proposed project site than the Rancho Palos Verdes Preschool at 28451 Indian Peak Road.
Therefore,because noise levels decrease with distance,the proposed construction noise mitigation
measures requiring installation of 6-foot (ft)tall construction noise barriers along Indian Peak Road
and Crenshaw Boulevard would also protect the Mirandela senior apartments at 5555 Crestridge
Road.Therefore,no further response is necessary.
61
C-118
tsA ASSOCIAT~S.INC.
AUGUST U12
VOI.UMI\Ill'RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA
6~G-6as DEEP VALLEY DRIV!!AND 91.-~G(}lliDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXllP·US!!:llESIDIlNTJAI.PROJJ;CT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.<lALIFORNIA
Response L-3-7
As stated in Table 4.10.C,the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)Final
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RENA)Allocation Plan (January 1,2006-June 30,2014)
Housing Construction Need by Income,for very-I ow-income and low-income residential,a total of 11
units (7 units for very-low-income residential and 4 for low-income residential)will be required.A
total of 15 units for moderate or above-moderate-income residential (5 for moderate-income
residential and 10 for above-moderate-income residential)will be required.The proposed project
would allow for construction of 148 residential units.Therefore,the proposed project would exceed
the RHNA housing construction need,and the availability of these additional units would not create a
significant impact to the RHNA housing construction need.The City has not identified the project site
as allocation for placement of affordable housing within the City.
Response L-3-8
This comment indicates that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes'Traffic Engineer has reviewed the
DEIR and has provided connnents as included in an attached letter.These commellts are addressed in
Responses L-3-9 through L·3-36,below.
Response L-3-9
The comment states that the City ofRancho Palos Verdes supports the selection of Alternative 3,
identified in the DEIR as the Environmentally Superior Alternative,for the proposed project.This
comment does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR.This
comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
Response L-3-10
This comment is an introductory paragraph to the comment letter provided.No concerns regarding
the DEIR were identified in this comment,and no further response is required.
Response L-3-11
The comment states that the reference list provided in the Drdft Environmental Impact Report (DE1R)
summarized review of all previous documents for the project including past review by the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and the corresponding response by the project geotecl:mical consultant The
comment is,therefore,noted,and no :further response is required.
Response L-3-12
The comment states that the seismic design standard presented on page 4.5.6 is outdated and that the
seismic design standards should be updated to use the latest California Building Code (CaC)or
indicate in the DEIR what version ofthe eBe or Unifonn Building Code (UBe)will be used for the
proj ect if different.
62
C-119
LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.VOLUME Ill,RRsrONSl!TO COMMENTS AND ERRATA
AUGUST ~n12 6U-6U OllEr VALLl!.Y PRIVl\ANO 9H-HO IN!>IAN rJ!;AK.ROAD MIXED·USE RESIDl!NTIAI.l'ROJECT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.OALll'ORlHA
Seismic design standards for the project will be in accordance with the 2010 CBC,or,if amended
prior to project approval,the latest CBC document.All seismic design standards should be updated as
part of the final review of grading plans.
Response L-3-13
A summary report ofthe fIndings will be forwarded to the City of Rencha Palos Verdes for review.
Additional inclinometer readings are not available at this time.Should they become available;the
data will be presented in an updated report.
Response L-3-14
The comment states that there is an inconsistency in relation to the activity level ofthe Cabrillo Fault
on pages 4.5.5 and 4.5.12.
The description of the Cabrillo Fault as ~'a.ctive"on page 4.5.5 refers to a classification as defined by
theUnited States Geological Survey (USGS)and the Southern California Earthquake Center.This
defmition is related to potential seismic activity on the fault trace.The description on page 4.5.12
refers to the potential for surface rupture along the fault trace.The 011shore segment of the fault is not
considered to have ruptured the surface in the last 11,000+years,and,therefore,by State of
California guidelines (Alquist-Priolo Act)is "not active."This comment does not raise any
environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no further response is required.
Response L-3-15
A complete list of geologic and geotechnical reports/addendums is listed on pages 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 of
the Section of 4.5,Geology and Soils,ofthe DEIR..The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further
response is required.
Response L-3-16
Construction-related activities,including export operations,are discussed in Section 4.13,
Transportation and Circulation (pages 4.13-20 through 4.13-22)and Section 4.2 Air Quality (page
4.2-45)of the DEIR.The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-3-17
The comment refers to Section 4.5.2 and questions whether "the potential for stluctural damage to
occur due to local geology underlying the site"is specifically addressed.The description in Section
4.5.2 is a general statement that refers to the entire Geology and Soils Section ofthe EIR..This section
was devoid of a discussion of the Local Geologic Setting,Subsurface Conditions and Groundwater
Conditions.Additional local geology and soils conditions are provided below and are hereby
incorporated into Section 4.5.2 ofthe E1R.and included in the Errata.
63
C-120
LSI.AUOClATES.INC.VOLUME Ill.RESPONSE TO OO!>lMllNTS ANI>ERRATA
AI1Gt1ST 1PU SIS-GU DE!!!'VAl..l-I!Y OIl;lVll ANn U4,-HO INDIAN PFoAK ROAD I.IIXEl.:l.USE RESIDENTIAL Pil;OJI!CT
ROLLING Hll.l.S IlSTATP;S.CAI.ll'ORNIA
Local Geologic Setting.The project site is located on the south side ofthe Silver Spur graben,which
is a down-dropped block that forms Deep Valley.The graben is interpreted to be fanned by steeply
dipping nonnal faults although there is some discussion that the graben could be the head'Nard
expression of a very large,deep landslide feature that encompasses a large portion ofthe northern
flank of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.The geotechnical evaluation of the site attributes the graben
feature to normal faulting,which is likely associated with the northwesterly extension of the Cabrillo
fault zone.The graben is defined by a steep contact between the bedrock on the south and the
colluvial inf1l1 materials on the north.This contact/graben crosses the site from the northwest to the
southeast and subparal1els Indian Peak:Road.The causative fault is covered by the in:fill materials
(i.e.,colluviums)as well as varying depths of artificial fill.The contact may fonn the headward limits
of the recent landslide.
The underling bedrock structure has been depicted as a relatively broad synclinal fold.The axis ofthe
fold is'roughly defined by subsurface data and transects the site in an approximate east-west
alignment.The fold axis is likely impacted by the buried,graben-forming fault.Based on data from
PSE's studies of the adjacent site located south of Indian Peak Road,minor fold axes are mapped
subparallel to the synclinal axis.
The bedrock formation is moderately hard and moderately fractured in the upper 10 to 20 feet,
becoming hard to very hard at depth,with occasional fractures.The upper portion of the bedrock
section adjacent to the western property boundary is moderately to highly sheared with abundant
fractures.This fractured rock may be impacted by faulting or could be the lateral limits of a landslide
that extends offsite to the west.
Subsurface Conditions.The Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey formation is the bedrock unit
that underlies the site.This unit consists primarily of diatomaceous marine claystone and siltstone,
and occasional lenses of thin-bedded sandstone,hard siliceous concretions,and tuffbeds.
One landslide has been mapped on the site and has recently failed.It is located approximately in the
center ofthe project site and failed toward Deep Valley Drive.The feature is approximately 70 feet in
depth and has a rupture surface orientated to the northeast,dipping at approximately 10 degrees.The
landslide debris consists of artificial fill,colluvial soils and minor amounts of bedrock.
Minor occurrences ofterrace deposits were encountered at depth in the central portion of the site.
These deposits are described as gravelly sand to sand.Colluvial soils were observed.throughout the
site.These materials are covered by artificial fill and range in thickness from a few feet in the eastern
portion of the project to as much as 45+feet in the western portion of the site.Colluvium can be
generally described as a silty sand that varies with depth from loose to dense.
Artificial f1ll covers the entire site and ranges in thickness from several feet to as much as 40+feet.
These fill materials are generally loose to medium dense and consist of a varied admixture of sands,
silts and clays.The fill was placed in at least three phases in the 50s,60s and early 70s.Reports
documenting the placement of these materials are not available.The majority of the fill was placed in
the eastern portion of the project to construct the existing fill slope.
64
C-121
LS'\ASSOCIATES.INC.VOLUME 111.Rl':SI'ONSE TO COMMeNTS AND ERR.ATA
AUGUST 2012 655-5U OlE?VALLEY DRIVE AND 9.24-1150 INDIAN I'IlAK ROAD MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL PROJI!OT
ROl.LINI';HILLS BSThTl!S.CALIFORNIA
Groundwater Conditions.Groundwater was not encoWltered in the recent subsurface explorations
and is not reported in the published literature.The underlying strata are considered non~waterbearing.
Slight to moderate seepage was encoWltered in several boring excavations. This occurrence is
interpreted as perched water that has percolated from the surface along natural discontinuities (e.g.,
bedding planes,fractures)and is primarily the result of rainfall and landscape irrigation.
A discussion of the potential impacts to the site development in relation to geologic conditions is
presented in the DEIR..Section 4.5.6 concludes that the mitigation measures described in Section 4.5
will reduce the project's potential geologic,seismic,and soils-related impacts and contribution to
cumulative geology,seismic,and soils impacts to below a level of significance.Therefore,there are
no significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project related to geology and soils.
Response L-3~18
These issues are addressed in the referenced geotechnical documents listed on pages 4.5.1 and 4.5.2
of the Section 4.5.Geology and Soils,ofthe DEIR..
Response L-3-19
The comment suggests that language regarding adjacent jurisdictions be added to Mitigation Measure
4.5-3_As requested,Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 has been revised as indicated below,and is included in
the Errata to the Final ErR.
Mitigation Measure
4.5-3 Prior to the issuance ofgrading permits,the City ofRolling Hills Estates Building
Official (or designee)and the City ofRolling Bins Estates Engineer (or designee)
shall review and approve final design plans to ensure that landslide-resistant design
has been incorporated into final site drawings in accordance with the most cnn-ent
California Building Code,current Grading Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates,and the Earthwork Specifications presented in the Final geotechnical review
prepared for the proposed project.Anv components of the design that are required to
be placed outside of the Citv of Rolling Hills EStates shall require additional review
and/or approval by the affected jurisdiction.
Response L~3-20
The comment suggests that language regarding a maintenance agreement be added to the mitigation
measure in Section 4.6,Hazardous and Hazardous Materials.As requested,Mitigation Measure 4.6-7
has been added as indicated below,and is included in the Errata to the Final BIR.
Mitigation Measure
4.6-7 Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the
project,the project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director
ofPublic Works for review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address
65
C-122
l..SA ASSOCUnIS,INC.
AUQOST 2012
VOLUME flI.ll.ESPONS:e.TO COUMENTs AN'/)ERRATA
~5~-nS D!!!!'VAL!.!!Y Dll;IVE ANt)UU-9dO INDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXED.USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
ItOLLIlH"fULLS ESTATES.CALIFORNIA
slope drainage facilities and require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a
state of good repair.The maintenance agreement shall "run with the land",".,.The
approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Record's Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
Response L-3-21
The comment suggests that language regarding a maintenance agreement be added to the Mitigation
Measure of Section 4.7,Hydrology and Water Quality.As requested,Mitigation Measure 4.7~5 has
been added as indicated below,and is included in the Errata to the Final EIR.
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for bUildings associated with the
project,the project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director
ofPublic Works for review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address
slope drainage facilities and require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a
state of good repair.The maintenance agreeUlent ~hall "run with theland".The
approved mainti:mancb agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's Office.Such recordation shall be complete prior to the issua.1J.ce of a
certificate of occupancy by the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building official.
Response L-3-22
The comment suggests that MItigation Measure 4.1-4 be modified to include the term '<existing and!or
increased."As requested,Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 has been revised as indicated below,and is
included in the Errata to the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measure
4.7-4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction ofthe project,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 existing
and/or 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 stonn water management plan.
Response L-3-23
It is acknowledged that the following study intersections are jointly managed by the City of Rolling
Hills Estates and the City ofRancho Palo Verdes:
1,Hawthorne Boulevard at Indian Peak Road
2.Crenshaw Boulevard at Indian Peak Road
3.Hawthorne Boulevard at Silver Spur Road .
66
C-123
LSA ASSOCIAT~S.INO.VOLUME Ill,R.ESPONSE TO OOMMENTS AND El1.li1\TA
AUGUST ~01Z $U~.U D££P V./LLLl1:Y OIUV&AN!)SH-SGO INDIAN PEAl':kOAD MI):::eO·USI!.Rl!SIl>llNTIAL PROJEOT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.OALIFORNIA
4.Silver Arrow Drive at Silver Spur Road
5.Crossfield Drive at Silver Spur Road
6.Drybank Drive at Silver Spur Road
Response L-3-24
The Commentrequests that the Rancho Palos Verdes'Department of Public Works review and
approve modifications within their City.As requested,Mitigation Measures 4.13-5,4.13-6,and 4.13~
10 have been revised as indicated below,and are included in the Errata to the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures
4.13-5 Hawthorne Boulevard at Silver Spur Road.Prior to issuance of an occupancy
pennit,the applicant shall design,construct,complete,and provide evidence to the
City's Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director that the northbound approach and
departure on Ha'\.\rf.horne Boulevard will be restriped to provide dual left-turn lanes,
one through lane,and a shared through ngflt-turn lane.Restriping the southbound
approach and departure on Hawthorne Boulevard to provide a second left-turn lane
will be required,as well as restriping the westbound approach on Silver Spur to
provide a second left-turn lane.Removal of medians shall be required,as necessary,
to minimize the need to widen.The signal shall be modified,with appropriate signing
and striping modifications.Any modifications within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes will reguire review.cOl1currence.and approval by the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes Department of Public Works.
Drybank Drive at Silver Spur Road.Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit,the
applicant shall design,construct,complete,and provide evidence to the City's Traffic
Engineer and Public Works Director that the eastbound approach on Silver Spur
Road shall be restriped to provide an exclusive right-turn lane as well as signal
modifications and appropriate signing and striping modifications.Any modifications
within the Citv ofRancho Palos Verdes will require review.concurrence,and
apRfoval bv the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works.
Payment of Fees.Prior to issuance of an occupancy pennit,the applicant shall,at the
City's discretion,provide one of the foHowing contributory mitigation methods:
(1)contribution equal to the project's share of the estimated construction costs for the
necessary mitigation measures to offset its cumulative impact at the four key
intersections below,(2)pay the appropriate fees to offset its cumulative impact at the
four key intersections below,or (3)fully participate in the City's Development
Impact Fee (DIP)program.All estimated costs pursuant to this mitigation measure
shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.The four key intersections with
contributory impacts are:Hawthorne Boulevard at Indian Peak Road,Crenshaw
Boulevard at Indian Peak Road,Hawthorne Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive North,
and Crenshaw Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive North.All estimated costs pursuant
to this mitigation measure shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Subsequent to completion of this mitigation,the applicant shall provide evidence to
67
C-124
1.$JI.ASSOCIATES.INC.
AUCUST 10U
V01.tlME IH.RE$PONSIl TO COMMI!IITS AND ERRATA
U~-6&3 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 9H-960 INDIAN PIlAK ROAD MIXllj)·t1SE II.I!SIl>l!N1·'.AL PROJECT
ROLLING lHl.LS llST....TES.CAl.IFORNIA
the City's Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director.Any modifications within the
City ofRancho Palos Verdes will require review,concurrence,and approval by the
City ofRancho Palos Verdes Department ofP:ublic Works.In addition,prior to
issuance of an OCCU98ncy Permit.the applicant shaH construct or pay its
Qroportionate fair share of the costs to the governing jurisdictions (Le.,City of
Rolling Hills Estates.City of Rancho Palos Verdes and/or Los Angeles County)for
the recommended improvements to mitigate the project's cumulative impact at the
intersections of Hawthome J:}oulevardffudian Peak Road,Crenshaw Boulevard!
Indian Peak Road and Crensbaw BoulevardlPalos Verdes Drive North.
For the Crenshaw BoulevardlPalos Verdes Drive North Intersection.proposed
modifications to the intersection include:1)re-striping and/or widening of the
northbound approach to provide an additional northbound through lane:2)
conversion ofthe southbound right turn lane into a shared through/right tum lane and
3)provision of an additional departure lane :in the southbound direction.The
construction of these improvements will require review and approval from the
governing jurisdictions.
Response L-3-25
Please refer to Response to Comment L-3-24.
Response L-3-26
Please refer to Response to Comments L-3-27 through L-3-36.
Response L-3-27
See Response L-3-23.
Response L-3-28
Existing traffic count data are provided in Appendix A ofthe 2010 Traffic Study.
Response L-3-29
In.order to retain the consistency with the most current Los Angeles Congestion Management
Program (CMP),a peak hour factor of 1.00 was applied to all signalized and unsignaIized
intersections.The three intersections under the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are
signalized,so they shall have a peak hOllT factor of 1.00 as the level of service (LOS)calculation is
based on intersection capacity utilization (rCU)methodology.The comment is,therefore,noted,and
no further response is required.
68
C-125
l.S~ASSOCIATES.E:NC.VOLUME Ill.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND l!ltltATA
AUGUST au 655-683 DtEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 9H-HQ INDIAN PEAK ROAD ldlXEIl·USl!Rl!.SIDENTIAL PROJECT
ROLl-INC;lUl.LS ES1'ATES.CALIFORNIA
Response L-3-30
A roadway segment analysis was not required during the traffic study seoping process.Nonetheless,
Palos Verdes Drive North is anticipated to have no more than 18 total project-generated trips
traveling along it during either the AM or PM peak hours.This amount of peak hour traffic is
considered nonnal and is well below the CMP threshold of 50 peak hour trips required for analysis.
The comment is,therefore,noted,and no further response is required.
Response L-3-31
The year 2013 level of service (LOS)analysis does not include any programmed/planned
improvements at any ofthe key study intersections.Appendix B of the 2010 Revised Traffic Impact
Analysis and Parking Study contained in Appendix J of the DEIR included all intersection LOS
calculations.The Appendix material has been forwarded to the City ofRancho Palos Verdes.
Response L·3-32
Appendix C ofthe 2010 Revised Traffic Impact Analysis and Parking Study has been foiwarded to
the City ofRancho Palos Verdes.
Response L~3-33
Please refer to Response 1,...3-31.
Response L ...3-34
Please refer to Response 1,-3-31.
Response L-3-35
Please refer to Response 1,-3-24.
Response L-3-36
The infonnation provided as reference in 1,-3-2,Please see Response 1,-3-2.
69
C-126
L-4
Carmen Lo
From;
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Niki Cutler <NikiC@cLrolling-hilis-estates.ca.us>
Monday,August 13,20129:53 AM
Ashley Davis
Carmen Lo
FW:Peak Road Mixed Use Residential-City of Rolling Hills Estates-DEIR-Due to LDD:
07/30/12
From:Cruz,Ruben fmailto:RCRUZ@dpw.lacounty.govl
Sent:Monday,August 13,2012 8:29 AM
To:Niki Cutler
Cc:Yanez,Jarrett;Ibrahim,Amir
Subject:Peak Road Mixed Use Residential-City of Rolling Hills Estates-DEIR-Due to LDD:07/30/12
Ms.Cutier,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 655-683 Deep Valley
Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road for a Mixed-Use Residential project.The project consists of
demolishing the existing office buildings,surface parking lot,and landscaping on site.Construction of the
project would stabilize the existing landslide and include 148 residehtiaJ Units,appro>drna.felY14,200 L-4-1
square feet of commercial area,and associated parking spaces.The project area is located at 655-683
Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road within the jurisdictions of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates.
The following are County of Los Angeles,Department of Public Works comments for your consideration
and relate to the environmental document only:
Services..TrafficlAccess
1.We disagree with the methodology used in the traffic study of the DEIR.Based on the County's
methodology,the project is expected to have a cumulative traffic impact at the intersections listed below:
L-4-2
Crenshaw Boulevard at Silver Spur Road
Crenshaw Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive
2.The project shall conduct a traffic impact analysis at the intersections in accordance with the Los
Angeles County's methodology as described in the 1997 Traffic Impact Analysis Report Guidelines.A L-4-3
copy of our Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Guidelines may be obtained on the Department's website at
http://dpw.lacounty.govlTraffic/.
3.We also specifically disagree with the recommended traffic mitigation measures for the County
intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard at Silver Spur Road.The proposed mitigation measure of adding a L-4-4
second right turn lane at the southbound approach does not mitigate the project's cumulative impact in
accordance with the County's TIA Report Guidelines.The project shall recommend a revised measure to
1
C-127
L-4
mitigate its cumulative impact.Based on these revisions,additional comments may be forthcoming after
subsequent review.L-4
If you have any questions regarding the trafficwaccess comments,please contact Launda Zako at (626)
300~4792 or Izako@dow.Jacounty.gov.
Hazards ..GeotechnjcaI/Geolog~/sons
1.A complete copy of the soils report dated 12/8/2008 by Pacific Soils Engineering,Inc.should be in I"L-4-
Appendix E in the EfR.
2.The use of geosynthetic reinforcement material on the slopes may not be an acceptable mitigation
measure against surficial instability.
L-4-
If you have any questions regarding the geotechnical/geology/soils comments,please contact Jeremy
Wan at (626)458~3873 or jwan@dpw.lacounty.gov.
HvdrologviWafer Quality
1.Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality (Page 4.7-2),"The los Angeles County Department of Public
Works maintains the system of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hl/Is Estates."The Los Angeles County L-4-'
Flood Control District (LACFCD)only maintains flood control faciiities that have formally been transferred
to the Flood Control District for operation and maintenance.
2.Please note and consider the following with your project design,jf applicable:
a.Contact Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,Flood Permits Section at (626)458-1
3129 for permitting requirements pertaining to any proposed alternations,connections or encroachments
that affect LA.CFCD facilities.
l-4-8
If you have any questions regarding the water quality comment,please contact Uzbeth Calderon at (626)
458-4921 or Icalderon@dgw.lacounty,gov.
If you have any other questions or require additional information,please contact Ruben Cruz at (626)458
4921 or rcruz@>dgw.lacounty.gov.
2
C-128
LilA ASSOOIATE:S.lNG.VOLU!'!E Ill,RE:SPONSE TO COMMl!.NTS AND l!:RRATA
AUGUST 2012 U5-6U DIlRP VALLEY DltIVl!:AND ~24,-95G INDIAN PE:AK ROAD MIXED-USI!.RllSIDl;;NTJAl.PROJllCT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATl!.S.CAl,.II'Oll.NIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC WORKS
LETTER CODE:L~4
DATE:August 13,2012
Response L-4-1
The comment is introductory and summarizes the project description provided in the DEIR.This
comment does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no
further response is required.
Response L-4-2
The County's comments regarding the cumulative traffic impacts at the Crenshaw Boulevard/Silver Spur
Road and Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North intersections is aclmowledged.The City has
confirmed that the intersection of Crenshaw :Boulevard/Silver Spur Road is govemed solely by the City
ofRolling Hills Estates.Therefore,no analysis ofthis key intersection based on the County's TLA.
Guidelines is required.
The County ofLos Angeles shares joint jurisdiction over the intersection of Crenshaw BoulevardIPalos
Verdes Drive North.It should be noted that Mitigation Measure 4.13.10,outlined in Section 4.13 of the
DEJR,identifies the mitigation necessary to offset the project's incremental Llllpact.
Nonetheless,level of service (LOS)calculations have been prepared for the intersection of Crenshaw
BouIevardIPalos Verdes Drive North using the parameters/guidelines specified in the Los Angeles
County Department ofPublic Works Traffic Impact Analysis Report C1Uidelines (County's TIA
Guidelines)dated January 1,1997.
The attached table (Table 2)presents the results of the LOS calculations using the County's TIA
Guidelines for with and without trip reductions for the existing project land uses.The Table indicates that
the proposed project will have a cumulative impact at the intersection of Crenshaw BoulevardIPalos
Verdes Drive North using the County's TIA Guidelines,LOS Standards and Significant Impact
Thresholds.
As such,the project applicant would be required to pay its fair share ofthe construction cost associated
with the implementation of the following mitigation measure at this intersection to offset the cumulative
impact oftraffic generated by the proposed project The identification of improvements to Crenshaw
BoulevardIPalos Verdes Drive North was included in Mitigation Measure 4.13~10 to address the
project's contributory impacts to this intersection.Additional clarification of specific improvements at
this intersection have been added to Measure 4.13-1 O~as follows:
For the Crenshaw BoulevardIPalos Verdes Drive North futersectioll,proposed
modifications to the intersection include:1)re-striping and/or widening of the
northbound aQRfoach to provide an additional northbound through lane;2)
conversion ofthe southbound right turn lane into a shared through/right tum lane and
72
C-129
LS.....ASSOOIATES.11'10.VOl.UME IH.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .....ND ERRAT.....
AUGUST 20a SOS-SiS DEEP VALLEY OltlVE ANO 924-950 IN!)lAN Pl::AK 1l.0AD MIXED.USE RESlDI!l'!'rIAL P.R.OJECT
ROLLING HIt.1.S esTATES.OALIFORNIA
3)provision oran additional departure lane in the southbound direction.The
construction of these improvements will require review and approval from the
governing jurisdictions.
Please note that the 2010 Revised Traffic hnpact Analysis and Parking Study also identifies the project's
fair share for this location as a total of 7.99 percent.
Please also see revisions to Mitigation Measure 4.13-10 identified in Response to Comment L~3~24.
Response L-4-3
See response L-4-2.
Response L-4-4
According to the City,the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard/Silver Spur Road is governed solely
by the City ofRol1i..'"1g Hills Estates.Therefore,no analysis of this key intersection based on the
County's TIA Guidelines is required.Also see response L-4-2.
Response L-4-5
The comment requests that a copy of a soils report dated December 8,2008,by Pacific Soil
Engineering,Inc.,be added to Appendix E in the DEIR.Comment is noted.No letter or report dated
December 8,2008 by Pacific Soil Engineering,Inc.was received for the project.A comment letter
dated December 2,2008,was included in Appendix E of the DEIR.
Response L-4-6
The use of geosynthetic fabric has been conditionally approved by the City of RoIling Hills Estates as
part of the Grading Plan Review process.Alternative methods of mitigation are available.The final
recommendations concerning surficial slope stability will be made by the geotechnical consultant of
record during and as a part of rough grading operations.
Response L-4-7
The comment provided a correction to a statement in the DEIR regarding the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works.The sentence on page 4.7-2 of the DEIR has been corrected as follows
and included in the Errata as part of the Final EIR to be considered by decision-makers:
Drainage Network.Because Machado Lake Watershed is highly urbanized,urban
and stonn water runoff is primarily conducted through an extensive network of
underground stonn drain facilities.The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works maintains the system of stonn drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The
Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD)only maintains flood control
73
C-130
l.SA ASSOCiATI!S.iNC,
AUGUST lOU
VOLIIMI!HI.RESPONSE TO CO:llMI!NTS ANti I!ll1l.ATA
6SS-US DEliI'VALLEY DRIVE AND 920-9S0 IliDlAN PIlAK.ROAD MIXED·IISl!ltI!SIDl!NTIAL PltOJl!OT
ltOLl.lN(l HH.LS l!STAT.l!S,CALlPOIUll,A
facilities that have faunally been transferred to the Flood Control District for
oReration and maintenance.
Response L-4-8
The comment stated that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works should be contacted in
t111;)event any proposed alternations,connections,or encroachments affect LACFCD facilities.
Comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.No further
response is required.
74
C-131
TABLE 2
YEAR 20131meilSECTlON CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Year 2013 Ambienf Growlh PI".Project Vear 2013 Ambienl Grllwlh Plus Prlljeet PI".Cumul.tive
(I)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)
Year 2013 Ambient
Yc3r 2013 Amniont Vear 2013 Ambient Grc>",tlJ PIns Project
Ye.r 2008 Exisling Ycar 2U13 Ambient Plu.Project Trallk Significant Projeel Growth Pill.Proje.<:t Significant Cunmilltivc PillS Cumulative with Significant Cllmllialive
Time Traffic Conditi.n..Traffic Conditions__~.nditions ._Imoael Pins C"mlll.live Impael Cumulative Mitillation Imnae,with MilioatioB
Key Intersection Period ~~I LOS VIC Rati.I LOS Wen.li.TLOS Changi'in VIC I YesINo VIC Ralio j LOS CI••nge in VIC I YcslNo VIC Ratio T LOS Change 10 VIC I VesiNo
With"ut Trip Reductifmff"Existi"g Pr"ft.cl u.'i!$
14.Crenshaw Boulevard .,I I I I I I -I IAM1.159 F UlZ F 1.218 F 0.006 No 1.278 F 0.066 Ves uso F -0.032 No
Palos Verdes Drive North PM 0.764 C 0.797 C 0.805 D 0.008 No 0.915 E 0.118 YeS 0_765 C -11.032 No
WirI,Trip Reduct;""jur ExiBti1lg Pr"ject Uses
14.Crenshaw Boulevard at AM 1.159 I F 1.212 I F 1.217 r F 0.005 I No 1.277 I F 0.065 Q;J 1.183 [~-0.029 I No
Palos Verd..~Drive North PM 0.764 C 0.797 C 0.798 C 0.001 No 0.908 E 0.111 0.763 -0.034 No
.!'I..2l1l;
Bold RCM/LOS vMues indQtt:'ad-vme service fcv.r,ts.ba.~.d on li\County LOS ~Iandllms.
C:\l),}e"\"<'''l~l\'l.t s~I~~·("I.<I\l.(lo;:lll S'I!lli~'~\~raJ:\'tllltrnl"l Filcs·("f)flIdll.()";'Qllk('"ltttiV1,\.'V",g~(l ~tb'\1I1;!J.t ~C;;t"'~lCI..,.Cl'-~-::t't\1..:;·~t2 ,f",
C
-
1
3
2
LSh hSSOCIAT1!.S.litO.
AUGUST 2012
VOl.UIdE III.RESPONSE TO OOMMI!NTS AND I!ll.RATA
US-GU \:II!Ei'VAl.LBV \)RIVB ANI>92<-950 INDIAN PI!:AK ROAD t.l!XED -US.!!RESIDENTIAL PR.0JEOT
ROI.LING lllLI.S ESThTES.CAl.IPORNIA
PUBLIC AJ.'lD INTERESTED PARTIES
75
C-133
P-1
Carmen La
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
Niki·
Deborah Pracilio
Friday,July 27,2012 1:29 PM
Niki Cutler
Carmen La
RE:655 Deep Valley Drive &924 Indian Peak EIR Comments
IP-1-3
We can provide a general response about the City's peer review process.Did you want to add anything else?
Deby
-----Original Message--··-
From:Niki Cutler [mailto:NikiC@cLrolling-hlJls-estates.ca.usl
Sent:Friday,July.27,2012 10:25 A~il
To:Carmen Lo
SUbject:FW:655 Deep Valley Drive &924 Indian Peak EIR Comments
---··Or/ginal Message-----
From:Craig Knickerbocker fmailto;cknlckerbocker@knickassoc.coml
Sent:Thursday,July 26,2012 10:14 PM
To:N/ki Cutler
Co:David Wahba
Subject:655 Deep Valley Drive &924 Indian Peak EIR Comments
Dear Ms ..Cutler,
As part of the neighbor comment period for the above referenced property development,,would like to make comments
that I believe may in fact materially impact the safety and security of my commercial medical bUilding property located at
827 Deep Valley Drive,RHE.
it is a welf known fact for a decade now that the SUbject property suffered a substantial landslide.When buying my
property many years ago,I spent much time with soils engineers assuring that my property which is right next door,would
not be likely suffer the same loss.,was assured that my property sits on upward strata while the subject property sits on
downward strata.I have no real expertise on this issue but have great concern that a massive grading operation such as
proposed,could in fact cause a catastrophe to my property and the medical tenants that serve our community and make
their living from my building.
I would strongly recommend that the City require several geotechnical consulting opinions and or reports prior to allowing
this grading operation to move forward.Specifically there is a road and a building pad at the high southeast corner of the
property that hangs dangerously over my property.For the sake of the City,the developer,the medicaf tenants,and my
ownership,I strongly recommend that the best engineers are consulted and their reports are peer reviewed.
IP-1-1
P-1-2
If the above precautions are taken and all are convinced that the development is safe,then I would be very supportive of
the EIR findings.I think this project will improve aesthetics,be a benefit to the community,improve property values,and
be of great benefit to all.
In concfusion,I support the EIR findings while strongly advising that there be additional geotechnical peer review required.
Thank you,
Craig Knickerbocker
Sent from my iPad
1
P-1-4
C-134
LS'"A&SOCIATIlS.11<0.
AUGUST 2012
VOl.UME II!,RIlSPONSE TO OOMMIlNTS AND ERllAT...
S55-U5 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 9H-950 INDIAN !'E;AK ROAD MIXIlD-1,rSE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
ROLl..INQ lULLS ESTATES.CALIFORNIA
CRAIG KNICKERBOCKER
DATE:July 26,2012
Response P-l-l
The comment is introductory,expresses concerns regarding the safety and security of Mr.
Knickerbocker's commercial medical building property located at 827 Deep Valley Drive.This
comment does not raise any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no
further response is required.This comment will be fOlwarded to the decision-makers for their
consideration.
Response P-1-2
The commenter expresses his concern regarding geological impacts and substantial1andslide might
appear on his property and the adjacent medical building,which serve the community due to the
construction of the proposed project.Please see Response P-1-3 below.
Response P-1-3
Although no qualitative assessment exists to rate engineers,it can be said that qualified/registered
engineers and geologists have been contracted by the owner for consulting services.The results of
their studies and recommendations for construction have been submitted to the appropriate agencies
for review and comment.The geotechnical consultant for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
conditionally approved the project.In addition,the geotechnical consultant for Rolling Hills Estates
has provided review COlTanents that have been "suitably addressed"and recomnlends that the project
proceed.
As part of the grading operations,the geotechnical consultant of record will provide observation and
testing services to confinn that geologic conditions are as anticipated.If unanticipated conditions are
encountered,the recommendations will be reviewed and revised as necessary.
Response P-1-4
The comment is a conclusion to the letter stating the commenter's support ofthe project,if
appropriate geotechnical peer review is conducted.This comment does not raise any environmental
issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR.,and no further response is required.This comment
will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
77
C-135
P-2
Ms.Niki Cutler,AICP
Principal Planner
City ofRHE Planning Dept.
4045 Palos Verdes Dr.North
Rolling HiIls Estates,CA 90274
,1 I
\
,,.....~
31 Cypress Way
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
August 6,2012
RE:Draft Environmental Impact Report for Planning Application No.01 -07
D..ear Ms.Cutler:
I feel that the proposed 655~683 Deep Valley Drive project for 148 residential townhouses and I
condominiums including 14,200 square feet of commercial space is both ill advised and inappropriate,P-2-1
particularly in light ofthe original concept ofRoHing HiIIs Estates as a "semi-rural"city.
When you include the 655-683 Deep Valley Drive project to the cumulative projects already appl"oved
for construction on Deep Valley Drive,you get
Deep Valley Drive
627
655~683
827
901
927
Residential Units
58 unit condos
148 unit townhouses &condos
16 unit condos
41 unit senior condos
(recently constructed)
75 unit residential condos
+Sq.Ft.Commercial Space
5810 sf
14200 sf
unknown sf
2000 sf
Over less than Y2 mile,on a narrow curving street that already has many'busi-nes'ses,office buildings,a I
major Post Office,and the main Library,you are planning to add 338 residential units and 22,010 P-2-3
square feet of commercial space?
With the resulting increase in traffic,accessing the Post Office,the Library or local businesses may I
become very difficult and time consuming.Parking on Deep Valley Drive may become near impossible,
partIcularly since the 655~683 Project is unable to provide sufficient parking per the Code/shared parking.
P-2-4
All this may well destroy the ambiance that drew people to Rolling Hills Estates in the fIrst place.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Forsythe
I P-2-5
C-136
LSA ASSOCIATES.INC.VOl.UMlI HI>RESPONSIt TO OOIdUENTS ANI>ERRATA
AUGUST ~nlZ US-G8S DEEP VALLEY DRIVE AND 5H-55~iNDIAN PEAK l!OAD MIXED-UllE RESIDIlNT~AL PROJECT
ROLl.lNG HILLS IlSTATRS.OAl.IPORNiA
MARILYN FORSYTHE
LETTER CODE:P.2
DATE:August 6,2012
Respon~~P-2-1
The comment is introductory and expresses opposition to the project.This comment does not raise
any environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR,and no further response is
required.This comment will be forwarded to the decision~makers for their consideration.
Response P-2-2
The comment provides information of the approved cumulative projects.All the projects used for
conducting cumulative impacts are based on the build out ofthe project and the SurrOUI:lcltl:l,g?n~a,
including all other mowlipiopbsed projeCts in the sUrrounding area described in the DEJR.All
projects that have been approved for construction within the surrounding area are included as part of
our CL.'1alysis.Table 4.A provides the listing ofcumulative projects that were considered in the
cumulative impact analysis.This list was approved by City staff.
Response P-2-3
The comment is a statement questioning the location of the project.The comment does not raise any
specific environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR.This comment will be
forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
Response P-2-4
The comment states a concern related to congestion and parking related to accessing the Post Office,
the Library,and other local businesses.The coromenter also expresses the opinion that the proposed
project cannot provide sufficient parking space.The comment does not raise any specific
environmental issues under CEQA or their treatment in the DEIR.This comment will be forwarded to
the decision-makers for their consideration.
Response P-2-5
The comment states that the commenter opposes the proposed project and all of the concerns will
destroy the ambiance of the City.The comment does not raise any specific environmental issues
under CEQA or their treatment in the DEm..The commenter's opposition to the proposed project is
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
79
C-137
LSA ASSOCIATU,INC.
AUGUST ~H~
VOLUME Ill.IU:;SI'ONSE TO COMMENTS AND EltltATA
.55-SS!D£EP VALLEY DltlVE AllD $2+-950 INDIAIl PllAlC ROAD MIXED-USE ll.ESlDElfTIAL PROJllCT
ROLLING HI1.LS ESTATES,CALlI'01l;NIA
EIRERRATA
INTRODUCTION
Any corrections to the DElR text and figures generated either from responses to comments or
independently by the CitY;are stated in this section of the Final BIR.The DEIR text and figures have
not been modified to reflect these Final EIR.modifications.
These Final EIR errata are provided to clarifY.refine,and provide supplemental infonnation for the
propos~d 655-683 Deep Valley Drive and 924-950 Indian Peak Road Mixed Use Residential Project
DElR.Changes may be corrections or clarifications to the text and figures of the original DEIR.
Other changes to the Final EIR clarifY the analysis in the DElR based upon the information and
concerns raised by commenters during the public review period.None of the infonnation contained in
these Final EIR.modifications constitutes significant new infonnation or changes to the analysis or
conclusions of the DEIR.
The infmmation included in this EIR.errata that resulted from the public connnent process does not
constitute substantial new infonnation that requires recirculation of the DEIR.CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15088.5,states in part:
(a)A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information
is added to the E1R after public notice is given ofthe availability ofthe draft EIR
fOf public review under Section 15087 but before certification.As used in this
section,the tenn "information"can include changes in the project or
environmental setting as well as additional data or other information.New
infonnation added to an EIR is not "significant"unless the ErR is changed in a
way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a
substantial adverse environmental effect of the proj ect or a feasible way to
mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative)that the
project's proponents have declined to implement "Significant new infonnation"
requiring recirculation includes,for example,a disclosure showing that:
(1)A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2)A substantial increase in the severity ofan environmental impact would
result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance.
(3)A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project.but the project's proponents decline to
adopt it.
(4)The draft ElR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conc1usory
in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
81
C-138
LSA ASSOClA'rI!.S.Hie.
AUGUST 2012
VOl,UMf.Ill.RESI'ONSE TO eOMMI!NTS AND ERR....TA
.~5-G88 DEEP'VALLEY DR.lvE ....ND 81.4-950 INDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXED.USE RESIDlll'lTIAL.I"ROJI!OT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CALIFORNIA
(b)Recirculation is not required where the new infonnation added to the EIR merely
clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
The changes to the DEIR included in these Final ErR.modifications do not constitute "significant"
new infomlation because:
•No new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new niitigation
measure;
•There is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that would result
unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the identified significant impacts to a level of
insignificance;
•No feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
pFeviously analyzed has been proposed or identified that would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project;and
•The Draft EIR is not fundamentally or basically inadequate or conclusory in nature such that
meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Therefore,recirculation of the DEIR is not required because the new information added to the DEIR
through these modifications clarifies or amplifies infonnation already provided or makes insignificant
modifications to the already adequate DEIR.
For simplicity,the DEIR modifications contained in the following pages are in the same order as the
infonnation that appears in the DEIR.Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeoms)where
text has been.removed and by underlining (underlille)where text has been added.The applicable page
numbers from the DEIR are also provided where necessary for easy reference.
PAGE 4.11-1 OF THE DEIR
The text on page 4.11-1 in Section 4.11,Public Services and Utilities Section ofthe DEIR was revised
to provide clarification.This change to the DEIR does not result in a significant impact and has no
material ejJecton thefindings ofthe Final EIR.
The Fire Department's emergency service system consists of fire and paramedic services.This system
utilizes fully capable engines~paramedic engines,paramedic squads,paramedic assessment engines
that contain lirr.ited paramedic equipment fout:aflEi are staffed with one paramedic who can begin
advanced life support efforts prior to the arrival of the squad},t1le--certification of all firefighters to a
level of Emergency Technician,an extensive automatic defibrillator program,and a 24-hour Air
Squad helicopter program.The Fire Department also has a Forestry Division that is feapon4ing to
bmsh clearance,frre an1:s,ana vegetation maaagemen-1:responsible for the review or environmental
Unl?acts related to development,;develol?ment of vegetation management plans,;brush clearance;;
coordination of wildland fire planning;;review of fuel modification plans,;and has Fire Prevention,
Air and Wildland.Lifeguard and Health Hazardous Materials Divisions.The Fire Department
maintains two Urhan Search ana Resoue fUSAR1 Task Force fIre stations:Fire Station 103 in Pico
Rivera and Fire Station 1324 in Lancaster.and four Hazardous Materials Task Forces at the following
82
C-139
I.SA ASSOCIATI!.S.HlO.VOl.UME Ill,IU~SI'ONSR TO COMI.111NTS AND llRRATA
AUGUST 2012 ~H-S8S DERP VALLRY DRIVE AND 92"-950 INDIAN P:RAK ItOAD MIXED-UBI!.Rl!SIDllNTIAL PROJECT
ROI.LING HILLS ESTATES.CAl.IFORNIA
rITe stations:Fire Station 43 in the City ofIndustry,Fire Station 76 in Valencia,Fire Station 105 in
Compton,and Fire Station 129 in Lancaster.
PAGE 4.8-1 AND PAGE 4.8-11 OF THEDEIR
The text on pages 4.8-1 and 4.8-11 in Section 4.8,Land Use Section ojthe DEIR was revised to
reflect the correct in/ormation.This change to the DEJR does not result in a significant impact and
has no material riffect on thefindings o/the Final EJR.
Comprising 10.4 aereS-tac1,the proposed project site is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates
fG#yj-between Deep Valley Drive...~renshaw Boulevard...and Indian Peak Road.Implementation
ofthe proposed project requires review ofa Precise Plan ofDesign,,gplan review,a Conditional Use
Permit,a Vesting Tentative Tract Map,!"Grading Plan,and threewe-Variances.Tbis section ofthe
EIR addresses the relationship between the proposed uses on site and the existing and planned uses in
the surrounding area,as well as consistency of the proposed project with adopted plans and zoning
regulations.Where appropriate.mitigation measures are identified.
Proposed.Planning and Zoning Actions.Implementation ofthe proposed project requires plan review,
a conditional use permit,a precise plan ofdesign,a vesting tentative tract map,approval of a grading
plan,and threewe variances.The proposed project does not include a General Plan Amendment or E!
Zone Change.The project includes demolition of existing office buildings and the construction of a
mixed-use commercial/residential development on the approximately 10.42 ac project site.
PAGE 4.5-2 OF THE DEIR
The text on page 4.5-2 in Section 4.5,Geology and Soils Section 0/the DEIR was revised to include
the additional local geology and soils conditions injonnation.This change to the DEJR does not
result in a significant impact and has no material effect on the findings ofthe J:r'lnal EIR.
Local Geologic Setting.The project site is located on the south side of the Silver Spur graben,a
down-dropped block that forms Deep Valley.The graben is interpreted to be formed by steeply
dipping nonnal faults although there is some discussion that the graben could be the headward
expression of a very large,deep landslide feature that encompasses a large portion of the northern
flank of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.The geotechnical evaluation of the site attributes the graben
feature to nonnal faulting that is likely associated with the northwesterly extension of the Cabrillo
fault zone.The graben is defmed by a steep contact between the bedrock on the south and colluvial
:infill materials on the north.This contact/graben crosses the site from the northwest to the southeast
and sub parallels Indian Peak Road.The causative fault is covered by the infill materials (Le.,
colluviums)as well as va.rylng depths ofartificial fil1.The contact may form the headward limits of
the recent landslide.
The underling bedrock structure has been depicted as a relatively,broad synclinal fold.The axis of
the fold is roughly defmed by subsurface data and transects the site in an approximate east-west
alignment.The fold axis is likely impacted by the buried~graben forming fault.Based on data from
83
C-140
LSA ASSOQIATIOS.INO.VOLUME 111,R)':S!'Ol'lSe TO OOMMENTS ANI)ERRATA
AUGUST ~0l2 GU-US DEn!'VALLEY l.lUVE;AND SH-D5~INIHAN I'EAIC.ROAD M.IXED-USE RESiDENTIAL PROJECT
ROLLING HILLS I!.STA'I'I!S.CAL"'ORNIA
PSE's studies ofthe adjacent site located south of Indian Peak Road,minor fold axes are mapped
subparallel to the synclinal axis.
The bedrock fonnation is moderately hard a."ld moderately fractured in the upper 10 to 20 feet,
becoming hard to very hard at depth.with occasional fractures.The upper portion ofthe bedrock
section adjacent to the western property boundary is moderately to highly sheared with abundant
fractures.This fractured rock may be impacted by faulting or could be the lateral limits of a landslide
that extends offsite to the west.
Subsurface Conditions.The Altamira Shale Member of the Monterey fonnation is the bedrock unit
that underlies the site.This unit consists primarily of diatomaceous marine claystone and siltstone,
and occasional lenses of thin-bedded sandstone,hard siliceous concretions,and tuffbeds.
One landslide has been mapped on the site and has recently failed.It is located approximately in the
center of the project site and failed toward Deep Valley Drive.The feature is approximately 70 feet
deep and has a rupture surface orientated to the northeast,dipping at approximately 10 degrees.The
landslide debris consists of artificial fill,colluvial soils and minor amounts of bedrock.
Minor occurrences often-ace deposits were encountered at depth in the central portion afthe site.
These deposits are described as gravelly sand to sand.Colluvial soils were observed throughout the
site,These materials are covered by artificial fill and range in thickness from a few feet in the eastern
portion of the project to as much as 45+feet in the western portion of the site.Colluvium can be
generally described as a silty sand that varies from loose to dense with depth.
Artificial fill covers the entire site and ranges in thickness from several feet to as much as 40+feet.
These fill materials are generally loose to medium-dense and consist of a vmied admixture of sands,
silts,m1d clays.The fill was placed in at least three phases in the 50s,60s and early 70s.Reports
documenting the placement of these materials are not available.The majority of the fill was placed in
the eastern portion of the project to construct the existing fill slope.
Groundwater Conditions.Groundwater was not encountered in the recent subsurface explorations
and is not reported in the published literature.The underlying strata are considered nonwater-bearmg.
Slight to moderate seepage was encountered in several boring excavations.This occurrence is
interpreted as perched water that has percolated from the surface along natural discontinuities (e.g.,
bedding planes,fractures)and is primarily the result ofrainfall and landscape irrigation.
PAGE 1-8 (Table I.A),PAGE 4.5-15,AND PAGE 7-8 OF THE DEIR
The suggested language regardingadjacent jurisdictions has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.5-
3 in Section 4.5,Geology,o/the DEIR.This change to the DEIR does nat result in a significant
impact and has no material effect on the findings o/the Final BIR.Table l.A is hereby modified to
.reflect revisions to the mitigation measure identified below:
84
C-141
LSA ASSOCIATllS.INC.VOI.UME Ill>RESPONSE TO COMMIlNTS AND IlRRATA
AUGUST ~oa S~5-GU PltllP VAI.l.EY DRIVIt ANI>924-950 iNDIAN PEAK ROAD MiXED-trSE IU~SiDE!lTIAl.PROJECT
Jl.Ol.L1NO HIl.!.S I!STATIlS,OALU'ORNIA
Mitigation Measure
4.5~3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits~the City of Rolling Hills Estates Building
Official (or designee)and the City ofRolling Hills Estates Engineer (or designee)
shall review and approve final design plans to ensure that landslide-resistant design
has been incorporated into fmal site drawings in accordance with the most current
California Building Code~current Grading Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates,and the Earthwork Specifications presented in the Final geotechnical review
prepared for the proposed project.Any components ofthe design that are required to
be placed outside of the City ofRolling Hills Estates shall require additional review
and/or approval by the affected jurisdiction.
PAGE 1-11 (TABLE 1.A)AND PAGE 4.6-17 OF THE DEJR
The suggested language regarding a maintenance agreement has been added to the Mitigation
Measure section ofthe DEJR This change to the DEIR does not result in a significant impact and has
no materials effect on thefindings ofthe Final EJR Table l.A is hereby modified to reflect revisions to
the mitigation measure identified below:
Mitigation Measure
4.6-i Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for buildings associated with the
project,the project applicant shall submit a maintenance plan to the City's Director
of Public Works for review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address
slope drainage facilities and require the owner to maintain any such facilities in a
state of good repair.The maintenance agreement shall "run with the land."The
approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Record's Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy by the City ofRolling Hills Estates.
PAGE 1~13 (TABLE l.A)AND PAGE 4.7-19 OF THE DEIR
The mitigation in Section 4.7 ofthe Hydrology and Water Quality Section ofthe DEIR was expanded
to ensure that storm runoffmanagementfacilities are properly maintained and that nmo!fon slopes
acijacent to Indian Peak retain the integrity intended by the design engineer.This change to the DEIR
does not result in a significant impact and has no material effect on the findings ofthe Final EIR.
Table l.A is hereby modified to reflect revisions to the mitigation measure identified below:
Mitigation Measure
4.7-5 Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of OCCUPanCY for buildings associated with the
project the project applicant shall submit a maintenance ulan to the City~s Director
ofPubIic Works for review and approval.The maintenance agreement shall address
slope drainage facilities and reguire the owner to maintain any such facilities in a
state of good repair.The maintenance agreement shall "run with the land."The
approved maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County
Recorder's Office.Such recordation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy by the City ofRolling H'iHs Estates Building Official.
85
C-142
LSA ASSOC!.A1'I!S.INC.VOI.UMl!XlI.ItESPOli"Sl!TO COMMENTS AND ERR.ATA
AUCUST :O~12 655-633 DEllI'VALI.EY DR.!VE AND 92~-B50 INDI.....N PlIAK ROAD MlXl!D-I1Sl!Kl!S!J)IlNTIAI.PROJIlOT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CALIPORNlA
PAGE 1-12 (TABLE l.A)AND PAGE 4.7-19 OF THE DEIR
The mitigation in Section 4.7 ofthe Hydrology and Water Quality Section ofthe DEIR was revised to
provide clarification.This change to the DEIR does not result in a significant impact and has no
material effect on the findings ofthe Final EIR Table l.A is hereby modified to reflect revisions to
the mitigation measure identified below:
Mitigation Measure
4.74 Prior to issuance of a building pennit for construction of the project,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 andlor
modifications of existing drainage facilities necessary to accommodate inereaseet
existin~andlor 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 management
plan.
PAGE 1-18 THROUGH PAGE 1-19 AND PAGE 1-20 THROUGH PAGE 1-21
(TABLE l.A),AND PAGE 4.13-29 OF THE DEIR
The suggested language has been added to Mitigation Measures 4.13-7,4.13-8,and 4.13-10 in
Section 4.13,Transportation and Circulation,ofthe DEIR.This change to the DEIR does not result
in a significant impact and has no material effect on the findings ofthe Final EIR.Table I.A is hereby
modified to reflect revisions to the mitigation measures identified below:
Mitigation Measures
4.13-5
4.13-6
Hawthorne Boulevard at Siiver Spur Road.Prior to issuance of an occupancy
pennit,the applicant shall design,construct,complete,and provide evidence to the
City's Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director that the northbound approach and
departure on Hawthorne Boulevard will be restriped to provide dual left-tum lanes,
one through lane,and a shared through right-turn lane.Restriping the southbound
approach and departure on Hawthorne Boulevard to provide a second left-turn lane
will be required,as well as restriping the westbound approach on Silver Spur to
provide a second left-turn lane.Removal of medians shall be required,as necessary,
to minimize the need to widen.The signal shall be modified,with appropriate signing
and striping modifications.Any modifications within the City ofRancho Palos
Verdes will reguire review,concurrence,and approval by the City ofRancho Palos
Verdes Department ofPublic Works.
Drybank Drive at Silver Spur Road.Prior to issuance of an occupancy pennit,the
applicant shall design,construct,complete.and provide evidence to the City's Traffic
Engineer and Public Works Director that the eastbound approach on Silver Spur
Road shall be restriped to provide an exclusive right-tum lane as well as signal
86
C-143
LSA ASSOCIATES,INC.VOLUME nit ReSPONSE '1'0 COl.lMEWrS AND KRllATA
AUGUST ~Ol'S56_&83 1l:E1\P VAl.LEY DRIVE AND 9l<~-1l50 INDIAN l'EAK !tOAD MIXED.USE RKSIPENTIAL l'ROJECT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.QALIPORNIA
modifications and appropriate signing and striping modifications.Any modifications
witlrirt the City of Rancho P§los Verges will reqyire review.concurrence.and
approval by the City ofRancho Palos Verdes Department of Public Works.
Payxnent ofFees.Prior to issuance of an occupancy pennit,the applicant shall,at the
City's discretion,provide one ofthe following contributory mitigation methods:
(1)contribution equal to the project's share of the estimated construction costs for the
necessary mitigation measures to offset its cumulative impact at the four key
intersections below,(2)pay the appropriate fees to offset its cumulative impact at the
four key intersections below,or (3)fully participate in the City's Development
Impact Fee (DIP)program,All estimated costs pursuant to this mitigation measure
shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.The four key intersections with
contributory impacts are:Hawthorne Boulevard at Indian Peak Road,Crenshaw
Boulevard at Indian Peak Road,Hawthorne Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive North,
and Crenshaw Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive North.All estimated costs pursuant
to t.bis mitigation measure shall be approved by the City's Traffic Engineer.
Subsequent to completion of this mitigation,the applicant shall provide evidence to
the City's Traffic Engineer and Public Works Director.Anv modifications within the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes will require review,concurrence,and approval by the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department ofPublic Works.In addition,prior to
issuance of an Occupancy Permit,the applicant shall construct or pay its
proportionate fair share ofthe costs to the governing jurisdictions CLe .•City of
Rolling Hills Estates,City of Rancho Palos Verdes and/or Los Angeles County)for
the recommended improvements to mitigate the project's cumulative im12act at the
intersections ofHawthom~J;1Qulevardllndian.Pe.ak Road.Crenshaw
BoulevardlIndian Peak Road and Crenshaw BoulevardIPalos Verdes Drive North.
Fort-he Crenshaw BoulevardJPalos Verdes Drive North Intersection.12roposed
modifications to the intersection include:1)re-stri12ing and/or widening of the
northbound approach to provide an additional nOlthbound thrQugh lane;2)
conversion of the southbound-ri£ht tum lane into a shared through/right turn lane and
3)provision of an additional departure lane in the southbound direction.The
construction of these improvements will reguire review and 8Imroval from the
governing jurisdictions.
PAGE 4.7-2 OF THE DEIR
The comment provided a correction to a statement in the DEIR regarding the Los Angeles County
Department ofPublic Works.The sentence on page 4.7-2 ofthe DEIR has been corrected as below.
This change to the DEIR does not result in a significant impact and has no material effect on the
findings ofthe Final EIR.
Drainage Network.Because Machado Lake Watershed is highly urbanized.urban
and stonn water runoff is primarily conducted through an extensive network of
underground stonn drain facilities.The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works maintains the svstem of storm drains in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The
87
C-144
LSA ASSOCIATeS.INC.
AUQUST 2012
VOLUME Ill<ReSPONSE TO COMl.IP.J'.lTS AND £llI\ATA
S~5-US DEl!P VALLEY DRIVE AND '24-'50 fNDIAN PEAK ROAD MIXED-USE RESlPI!NTIAL l'ROJECT
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES.CALll'OJ.<NfA
LACFCD only maintains flood control facilities that have fonnally been transferred
to the Flood Control District for operation and maintenance.
88
C-145
PV News article regarding hearing for Brickwalk,LLC Project
C-146
~.1..I..1..U..,,\,;.1..:I.l.Vll ...-0-.....-.....-
City weighs granting condo project special permissions
Thursday,September 13,2012 2:21 PM PDT
Developer could buck height,parking requirements and stabilize landslide.
By Jeremiah Dobruck,Special to the News
RHE -Rolling Hills Estates'Planning Commission is weighing approval of a large condo and commercial
project that would break some city guidelines.
The tradeoff is the developer is building on a landslide area that has remained covered in black tarp for
years.The developer,Stephen Jordan of the Long Beach-based Auric Group,would have to stabilize the area
-fixing a headache and eyesore for the city -to continue.
Jordan wants to put 148 townhome condo units on the 10 acres between 655 to 683 Deep Valley Drive and
924 to 950 Indian Peak Road and build more than 20,000 square feet of retail space along the Brickwalk
portion of Deep Valley Drive.
This would include the demolition of office buildings at 655 Deep Valley Drive,and 924 and 950 Indian Peak
Road.
Because the lot is oddly shaped with a steep slope and is a landslide area,the costs of grading and
stabilizing the slide will run high.
To offset this,developers are asking the city to waive height and setback requirements that allows them to
add square footage and -they hope -make the project economically feasible.
RHE would normally limit these condos to 44 feet high or three stories,but in this case,the city is
considering allowing the main building to stretch to 56 feet high and allow decorative towers to reach up to
70 feet high.
The applicant is also asking that the city waive a requirement for them to build 49 more parking spaces at
the commercial development and waive some setback requirements.
Niki Cutler,RHE's principal planner,said the city isn't considering doling out the variances as a trade to
entice the developer to fix the landslide.They are only being considered because it's an exceptionally
difficult property to build on.
"This property truly is unique,"she said.
Nevertheless,she continued,the city has counted on the developer fixing the slide since it happened in
1997.
"The city currently doesn't have financial resources to repair the slide,"Cutler said.
These variances,as well as the difficulties of building on a landslide,were the main topic of discussion at a
Sept.4 Planning Commission meeting where the project was introduced to the panel.
When some residents complained about being blindsided by the large development,commissioners and city
C-147
.I.J.J.J..J.I.¥"".1...:U.V.l..J...L """0--'-'.&.-
staff reminded them that this is the beginning of a long process and all decisions will have to be approved by
the City Council.
RHE resident Marilyn Forsythe was concerned this development combined with others along Deep Valley
Drive could destroy the rural ambiance of the city by adding congestion.
There are three more condo developments planned for Deep Valley Drive,amounting to another 149 units
and almost 8,000 square feet of commercial space in the area.
Those developments were approved years ago,but all the developers delayed construction to the point that
their approvals expired.
However,in a mass extension approved in October 2011,the City Council granted those projects and three
other developments until 2014 to build.
The city has begun conducting traffic studies at major intersections along Silver Spur Road,Hawthorne
Boulevard,Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North.
City staff has so far concluded that many of the intersections will need added and adjusted lanes to
accommodate .the thousands of extra car trips through them each day.
The public hearing on the development remains open and before the Planning Commission.Residents can
voice their opinions at the commission's next meeting on Tuesday,Sept.17 at 7 p.m.at RHE City Hall,
located at 4045 Palos Verdes Drive East.
Former News'reporter Jeremiah Dobruck is a freelance writer and will be a regular contributor to the News.
C-148
Notice of Completion/Availability of DEIR
for San Pedro Community Plan Update
C-149
DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING
200 N.$PRINCSTREET,ROOM 525
Los ANCElES,CA 90012-4801
AND
6262 VAN NUYS BLVD.,SUITE 351
VAN NUYS,CA 91401
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WIlliAM ROSCHEN
PRESII)ENT
REGINA M.FREER
VICE-PRESIDENT
SEAN O.BURTON
DIEGO CARDOSO
GEORGE HOVAGUIMIAN
JUSTIN KIM
ROBERT LESSIN
BARBARA ROMERO
MICHAEL K.WOO
JAMfS WIlliAMS
COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II
(213)978·1300
CITY OF Los ANGELES
CALIFORNIA
ANTONIO R.V1LLARAIGOSA
MAYOR
August 9,2012
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AVAILABILITY OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ENV-2009-1558-EIR
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.2008021004
45 DAY COMMENT PERIOD
COMMENTS DUE DATE:SEPTEMBER 24,2012
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
MICHAEL J.LOGRANDE
DIRECTOR
(213)978-1271
ALAN BELL,AICP
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(213)978·1272
LISA WEBBER,AICr
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
(213)978-1274
EVA YUAN·MCDANIEL
DEPUTYDIRECTOR
(213)978·1273
FAX:(213}978·127S
INFORMATION
www,planning.lacity.org
To:Interested Parties
A community plan update has been proposed for San Pedro,for which a draft Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared.
The comment period for the San Pedro Community Plan Update Draft EIR is 45 days.
The comments due date is September 24,2012.
PROJECT NAME:San Pedro Community Plan Update
PROJECT LOCATION:The San Pedro Community Plan covers 3,674 acres situated in the
southern portion of the City of Los Angeles.The Community Plan Area is located adjacent to the
Port of Los Angeles,the Pacific Ocean,and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.It is generally
bounded by:Taper Avenue on the north;John S.Gibson Boulevard,Harbor Boulevard,the West
Channel of the Port of Los Angeles,and Cabrillo Beach on the east;the Pacific Ocean on the
south;and the western border of Los Angeles with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Proposed San Pedro Community Plan (Proposed Plan)
includes changes in land use designations and zones that are intended to accommodate growth
anticipated in the SCAG 2030 Forecast.It is a conservative growth plan that aims at preserving
existing single-family residential neighborhoods and accommodating a variety of housing
opportunities near public transit,services,and amenities.The Proposed Plan would preserve the
charact~r of existing single-family and lower density neighborhoods by maintaining lower
density land use designations and limiting the allowed residential density of some neighborhood
commercial areas.The Proposed Plan seeks to direct growth away from existing residential
neighborhoods by focusing growth in higher-intensity commercial centers,including emphasis of
the downtown as San Pedro's regional center with increased residential andcommerdlll.ci,~tivity.
The policies emphasize the importance of planning for sustainability,i~proved mobility,more
C-150
open space,plazas,and parks,and better urban design.There are also policies for improving the
attractiveness and functionality of Downtown San Pedro,the Gaffey Street and Pacific Avenue
commercial corridors,and the North Gaffey Street industrial areas.,The establishment of lively
and walkable commercial districts while retaining positive elements of San Pedro's small-town
environment is a key goal of the Proposed Plan.Proposed land use changes would be
implemented by Plan amendments,zone changes,and height district changes and other long
range implementation programs.
ANTICIPATED SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS:Potentially significant
impacts have been identified with regard to aesthetics,air quality,greenhouse gas emissions,
hydrology (sea level rise),noise,public services (parks,public schools),transportation,and
utilities (water supply,energy,wastewater,and solid waste.)With implementation of proposed
mitigation measures,no significant and unavoidable impacts are expected with regard to parks,
public schools,energy,wastewater,or solid waste.However,there may be significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts on aesthetics,air quality,greenhouse gas emissions,hydrology
(future sea level rise),noise,transportation,and water supply.
DOCUMENT REVIEW AND COMMENT:The Draft EIR is available online at the
Department of City Planning's website [http://cityplanning.lacity.org/(Select New Community
Plans,click on the map of San Pedro then "What's New")].Printed copies of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)are available for review at local libraries (listed
below)and at the City of Los Angeles,Department of City Planning at 200 North Spring Street,
Room 667,Los Angeles.The printed copies include a CD with all the Draft EIR appendices.
The Draft EIR Appendices include associated documents.
Printed copies of the Draft EIR are available for review at the following Library Branches:
1)Central Library -630 West 5th Street,Los Angeles,CA 90071
2)San Pedro Regional Branch Library -931 S.Gaffey Street,San Pedro,CA 90731
3)Harbor City-Harbor Gateway Branch Library -24000 S.Western Ave,Harbor City,CA 90710
CDs including the Draft EIR and Appendices are available for purchase from the Planning
Department for $7.50 per copy.Contact Cherry Yap at 213-978-1164 to purchase one.
If you wish to submit comments following review of the Draft EIR,please reference the file
number ENV-2009-1558-EIR,and submit them in writing by September 24,2012.Please direct'
your comments to:
Debbie Lawrence,San Pedro Community Planner
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
200 North Spring Street,Room 667
Los Angeles,CA 90012
Debbie.Lawrence@lacity .org (e-mail),213-978-1163
A public hearing for the proposed San Pedro Community Plan and Draft EIR will be held,and a
separate hearing notice will be mailed at a later date for such purpose.
Michael J.LoGrande
Director ofPlanning
~~/tt4i~
Debbie Lawrence,Policy Planning Division
C-151
Executive Summary from DEIR
for San Pedro Community Plan Update
C-152
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
SAN PEDRO
COMMUNITY PLAN
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No.2008021004
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
Draft EIR Executive Summary
Prepared for
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring Street,Room 667
Los Angeles,California 90012-4801
Prepared by
Atkins
12301 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 430
Los Angeles,California 90025
August 2012
C-153
CHAPTER 2 Summary
2.1 PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed San Pedro Community Plan and
implementing ordinances (proposed plan),the environmental impacts,mitigation measures,and residual
impacts with the proposed plan.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
This Draft EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables
them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action.This Draft EIR
identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects,as well as ways in which those
impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels,through the imposition of mitigation measures
(MMs),or through the implementation of alternatives to the proposed plan.
2.3 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PLAN
The proposed San Pedro Community Plan is one of the thirty-five Community Plans that comprise the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive General Plan and is intended to promote an arrangement of
land uses,streets,and services that will encourage and contribute to the economic,social,and physical
health,safety,welfare,and convenience of the people who live and work in the Community.The
proposed plan will allocate land for the range of uses that the community will need through 2030,
including land for housing,jobs,services and recreation,and improve the link between land use and
transportation in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan F~ework (GPF),the citywide
growth strategy.The Community Plan's goals,objectives,policies,and programs are specific,action-
oriented ideals which the City will promote during the lifespan of the proposed plan.
The GPF is a long-range,citywide,comprehensive growth strategy.It is a special element of the General
Plan that plans for the future,and replaces the Concept Los Angeles and the Citywide Plan (adopted in
1974).Therefore,the GPF looks at the City as a whole and provides a citywide context within which
community planning takes place.The GPF neither overrides nor supersedes the Community Plans.It
guides the City's long-range growth and development policy,establishing citywide standards,goals,
policies,and objectives for citywide elements and community plans.The GPF provides demographic
estimates and build-out capacity calculations for the community plan areas through 2010.The Citywide
elements provide long-range policy direction that takes into account citywide goals ~nd needs to guide
more detailed planning efforts,including Community Plans.The Transportation Element of the General
Plan sets forth objectives,policies,and programs to guide the location and development of the City's
transportation facilities and programs linking parts of Los Angeles with each other and other parts of the
region.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2-1
C-154
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.3 Summary of Proposed Plan
Draft EIR
August 2012
The project is the proposed San Pedro Community Plan and implementing ordinances,which are
intended to:
•Focus growth into Framework-identified Centers and corridors while preserving single-family
neighborhoods,and open space.
•Accommodate projected growth by providing for a range of housing options, mixed uses,and
commercial space for future employment opportunities.
•Maximize development opportunities around existing and future transit systems while minimizing
adverse impacts.
•Improve the function,design,and economic vitality of the commercial areas.
•Preserve and enhance the positive characteristics of existing land uses.
•Preserve and strengthen commercial developments to provide a diverse job-producing economic
base,provide neighborhood services,and enhance the appearance of these areas.
•Encourage the protection,enhancement,and conservation of valuable community resources
(natural,historic,and cultural)and community identity and identify appropriate mitigation
measures to minimize project impacts.
•Provide for the development of civic,cultural,religious,education,and other community uses such
as libraries,fire stations,community centers,police facilities,parks,schools,etc.
•Include a comprehensive program of resource protection,enhancement,conservation,and re-use
and provide mitigation of impacts of the project.
•Enhance the positive characteristics of residential neighborhoods while providing a variety of
housing opportunities.
•Preserve and strengthen industrial areas and support environmentally sensitive industrial and
employment centers that provide local and regional jobs and bolster the community's economic
and physical condition.
Adoption of the San Pedro Community Plan and implementing ordinances would result in changes to
zoning and height districts,initiate plan amendments to land use plan designations,and amend overlay
zones,as appropriate.Plan amendments would potentially change or refine plan designations and
footnotes and make changes to other Citywide Elements,as necessary.In concert with the proposed
General Plan amendments,new zones may be necessary to maintain General Plan consistency
(implemented by ordinance).The zoning would serve to regulate development standards,such as heights
of structures,setbacks,lot coverage,density and intensity,open space,use of land,parking,and design.
Overlay zones,districts,and other plans would additionally be established to regulate development that is
consistent with the General Plan,enhance the unique character of neighborhoods,and accommodate
growth within the San Pedro CPA.
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2·2
C-155
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.4 Classification of Environmental Impacts
2.4 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Under CEQA,a "significant impact"represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical
change to the environment.In evaluating specific effects,this Draft EIR identifies thresholds of
significance for each effect,evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect,and
then characterizes the effects as impacts in the following categories:
•Less Than Significant-Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental
conditions
•Potentially Significant-Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental
conditions that can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by implementation of proposed
potentially feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project
alternative
•Significant and Unavoidable-Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing
environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible
mitigation measures.
2.5 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following significant and unavoidable impacts would result from future development of the
proposed plan.A detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in Section 4.2 (Air Quality),
Section 4.10 (Noise),and Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic)of this document.
•Aesthetics
>Implementation of the proposed plan could have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could substantially damage scenic resources,including,
but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could create a new source of substantial light or glare that
could adversely affect day-or nighttime views in the area.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could result in development of structures that would
shade shadow-sensitive uses for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April),or for more than four
hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April
and late October).
•Air Quality
>Implementation of the proposed plan could violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
a criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2-3
C-156
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.5 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Draft EIR
August 2012
>Implementation of the proposed plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
>Implementation of the proposed plan would result in development that could contribute
substantial emissions of greenhouse gases.
>Project emissions of greenhouse gases would have the potential to conflict with the
implementation of AB 32.
•Hydrology/Water Quality
>A small shoreline segment of the CPA,east of Pacific Avenue and extending south to Point
Fermin,could be exposed to flooding from future sea level rise,partially from incremental
effects from the growth anticipated by the CPA.
•Noise
>Construction of development pursuant to the proposed plan could result in exposure of
persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies.
>Construction of development pursuant to the proposed plan could generate or expose persons
or structures to excessive groundborne vibration.
>Construction of development pursuant to the proposed plan could result in a substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project.
•Traffic
>The volume-weighted average V/ C ratio under the proposed plan would substantially exceed
that of existirig traffic conditions,and the number of roadway segments projected to operate at
unsatisfactory levels of service would substantially exceed that of existing traffic conditions.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could result in impacts to emergency access during
construction.
>Implementation of the proposed plan could conflict with an applicable congestion management
program,including,but not limited to,level of service standards and travel demand measures,
or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways.
•Utilities/Services Systems
>The proposed plan could impact water supplies that serve the CPA.While water supply is
expected to be adequate,LADWP is looking at a number of strategies to serve citywide growth,
including additional conservation measures,use restrictions,recycling programs,and regulatory
changes that may occur over the life of the plan.
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2-4
C-157
Draft EIR
August 2012
2.6 ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.6 Alternatives
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)and recent court cases,an EIR must:
Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,or to the location of the project,which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives.
Further,CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)state:
The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be
more costly.
Alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR (Chapter 6)include the following:
•Alternative 1:No Project (1999 Plan)-This legally mandated alternative,which is not subject to
the requirements to meet most of the project objectives of the proposed plan or to substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project,reflects conditions likely to occur in the future
without the adoption of the proposed plan.Rather,future land uses in the San Pedro CPA would
be guided by continued implementation of the 1999 Plan.
•Alternative 2:SCAG 2030 Forecast-Under this alternative,employment,housing,and
population levels are analyzed at levels based on those projected by SCAG for the year 2030
(population and housing as adjusted).
2.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1),Table 2-1 (Summary of Environmental Effects and
Mitigation Measures)contains the following:a summary of less-than-significant,potentially significant,or
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the proposed plan;mitigation
measures that would reduce or avoid those effects;and the level of significance of the impacts following
the implementation of mitigation measures.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2·5
C-158
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the proposed plan could have PS MM4.1-1 The City shall ensure that review of individual discretionary projects addresses SU
a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.Implementation aesthetic concerns as appropriate to minimize site-specific aesthetic impacts,including
of feasible mitigation measures would reduce this impact,but impacts to views,scenic resources,lighting,and shading.
not to less than significant.Therefore,this impact is significant
and unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-2 Implementation ofthe proposed plan could PS MM4.1-1 would apply.SU
substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway.Implementation of feasible mitigation
measures would reduce this impact,but not to less than
significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-3 Implementation of the proposed plan could PS MM4.1-1 would apply.SU
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings.Implementation of feasible
mitigation measures would reduce this impact but not to less
than significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-4 Implementation of the proposed plan could create PS MM4.1-1 would apply.SU
a new source of substantial light or glare that could adversely
affect day-or nighttime views in the area.Compliance with
existing codes and regulations and implementation of feasible
mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than
significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2-6 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
5
9
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the proposed plan could result
in development of structures that would shade shadow-
sensitive uses for more than three hours between the hours of
9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late
October and early April),or for more than four hours between
the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
(between early April and late October).Compliance with design
guidelines and policies and implementation of feasible
mitigation measures would reduce this impact,but not to less
than significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
PS MM4.1-1 would also apply.
AIR QUALITY
SU
Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed plan could PS MM4.2-1 The City,as a condition of approval of all applicable discretionary projects,shall SU
violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an require contractors building projects within the San Pedro CPA to:
existing or projected air quality violation.This is considered a •Use properly tuned and maintained equipment.Contractors shall enforce the idling
potentially significant impact.Implementation of mitigation limit of five minutes as set forth in the California Code of Regulations
measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-4 would reduce this impact,•Use diesel-fueled construction equipment to be retrofitted with after treatmentbutnottolessthansignificantduringconstruction.Therefore,
this impact is significant and unavoidable.products (e.g.engine catalysts)to the extent they are readily available and feasible
•Use heavy-duty diesel-fueled equipment that uses low NOx diesel fuel to the extent it
is readily available and feasible
•Use construction equipment that uses low polluting fuels (Le.,compressed natural
gas,liquid petroleum gas,and unleaded gasoline)to the extent available and feasible
•Maintain construction equipment in good operating condition to minimize air pollutants
•Use building materials,paints,sealants,mechanical equipment,and other materials
that yield low air pollutants and are nontoxic
MM4.2-2 In the event that future projects under the Community Plan cover areas areater
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2-7 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
6
0
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
than 5 acres,appropriate analysis and modeling would be required for CO,NOx,PM10,
and PM2.5.
MM4.2-3 In order to comply with the California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land
Use Handbook (June 2005)and achieve an acceptable interior air quality level for
sensitive receptors,appropriate measures shall be incorporated into project building
design.
MM4.2-4 The City,as a condition of approval for applicable discretionary projects,shall
require developers to implement applicable Greenhouse Gas reduction measures in
project design and comply with regulatory targets.
Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed plan could result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors).Implementation of mitigation
measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-3 would reduce this impact,
but not to a less-than-significant level.Therefore,this
cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.2-5 Implementation of the proposed plan could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.Implementation of project-level mitigation
measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-3 would reduce this impact,
but not to a less-than-significant level for exceedance of LST
thresholds during construction.Therefore,this impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.3-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.This impact is less
than significant.
PS
PS
LTS
MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-3 would apply.
MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-3 would apply.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No mitigation is required.
SU
SU
LTS
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2-8 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
6
1
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.3-2 The proposed plan would not have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community.This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.3-3 The proposed plan would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.This impact is less than significant.
LTS
LTS
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
LTS
LTS
Impact 4.4-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
disturb human remains,including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.Compliance with applicable regulations
would ensure this impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.4-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource.Compliance with applicable
regulations would ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
Impact 4.4-3 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature.Compliance with applicable
regulations would ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
Impact 4.4-4 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.Compliance with applicable regulations would
ensure this impact remains less than significant.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
2-9 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
6
2
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
GEOLOGy/SOILS AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.5-1 The San Pedro Community Plan area is in an LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
area where active faults are present,but the proposed plan
would not cause or accelerate geologic hazards that would
result in substantial damage to structures or infrastructure,or
expose people to substantial risk of injury by exposing people
or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including
the risk of loss,injury,or death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault.Compliance with existing CBC and City of Los
Angeles Building Code regulations would ensure this impact
remains less than significant.
Impact 4.5-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
cause or accelerate geologic hazards which would result in
substantial damage to structures or infrastructure,or expose
people to substantial risk of injury from strong seismic
groundshaking.Compliance with existing CBC and City of Los
Angeles Building Code regUlations would ensure this impact
remains less than significant.
Impact 4.5-3 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
cause or accelerate geologic hazards that would result in
substantial damage to structures or infrastructure,or expose
people to substantial risk of injury involving seismic-related
ground failure,including liquefaction andlor landslides.
Compliance with existing CBC and City of Los Angeles Building
Code regulations would ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2-10 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
6
3
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed plan would not I LTS I No mitigation is required.I LTS
cause or accelerate instability from erosion so as to result in a
geologic hazard to other properties,or accelerate natural
processes of wind and water erosion and sedimentation,
resulting in sediment runoff or deposition that would not be
contained or controlled on site.Compliance with existing state
water quality protection regulations and the CBC and City of
Los Angeles BUilding Code regulations would ensure this
impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.5-5 Implementation of the proposed plan could result I LTS I No mitigation is required.I LTS
in development in areas subject to potential geologic hazards
or unstable soils and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,or collapse.
Compliance with existing CBC and City of Los Angeles Building
Code regulations would ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
Impact 4.5-6 Implementation of the proposed plan would not I LTS I No mitigation is required.I LTS
create substantial risks to life or property as a result of
expansive soils.Compliance with existing CBC and City of Los
Angeles Building Code regulations would ensure this impact
remains less than significant.
Impact 4.5-7 Implementation of the proposed plan would not I LTS I No mitigation is required.I LTS
destroy,permanently cover or materially and adversely modify
one or more distinct and prominent geologic or topographic
features such as hilltops,ridges,hill slopes,canyons,ravines,
rock outcrops,water bodies,streambeds and wetlands.This
impact would be less than significant.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2-11 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
6
4
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would result PS MM4.6-1 The City,as a condition of approval for all applicable discretionary projects,shall SU
in development that could contribute substantial emissions of require developers to implement applicable GHG-reduction measures in project design
greenhouse gases.Implementation of feasible mitigation and comply with regulatory targets.
measure MM4.6-1 would reduce this impact,but not to less
than significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 4.6-2 Project emissions of greenhouse gases would PS MM4.6-1 would apply.SU
have the potential to conflict with the implementation of AS 32.
Implementation of feasible mitigation measure MM4.6-1 would
reduce this impact,but not to less than significant.Therefore,
this impact is significant and unavoidable.
SAFETY/RISK OF UPSET
Impact 4.7-1 Implementation ofthe proposed plan could create LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials.However,
compliance with existing local,state,and federal regulations
and project level conditions of approval would ensure this
impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.7-2 Implementation of the proposed plan could create LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.However,
compliance with existing regulations and project level
conditions of approval would ensure this impact remains less
than significant.
Impact 4.7-3 Implementation of the proposed plan could result LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
in the handling of acutely hazardous materials,substances,or
waste within 0.25 mile of a proposed school,but would not
create a risk to human health from such activities.Compliance
with existing regulations would ensure this impact remains less
than significant.
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2-12 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
6
5
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.7-4 Development under the proposed plan could be
located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5.Compliance with existing regulations would
ensure this impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.7-5 Implementation of the proposed plan,located
within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not
been adopted,within 2 miles of a public/private airport or
public/private use airport,would not result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the CPA.This impact is less than
significant.
Impact 4.7-6 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Compliance with existing local,state,and federal regulations
would ensure that this impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.7-7 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
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.This impact is less than significant.
Impact4.7-&Construction of future development under the
proposed plan could occur adjacent to existing or proposed
school sites,but would not result in increased hazards for
schools.Compliance with existing regulations would ensure
this impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.&-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would
minimally change stormwater flows and volumes but would not
contribute to off-site flooding potential or changes in the
amount of surface water or surface water flow direction or
current.This impact is less than significant.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
HVDROLOGV/WATER QUALITY
No mitigation is required.
2-13
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
6
6
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
expose people or structures to 1DO-year flood hazard or place
structures in locations that could impede or redirect flood flows.
This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.8-3 Small portions of the CPA could be exposed to
inundation by tsunami,but little or no development in those
locations is planned,and existing hazard mitigation programs
that address emergency notification and evacuation would
ensure that this impact remains less than significant.
Impact 4.8-4 Implementation of the proposed plan would
minimally contribute additional stormwater runoff containing
urban pollutants to local water bodies,but would not result in
violation of regulatory standards.This impact is less than
significant.
Impact 4.8-5 Implementation of the proposed plan would
cause negligible changes in surface drainage patterns and
surface water bodies in a manner that could cause erosion or
siltation.This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.8-6 A small shoreline segment of the CPA,east of
Pacific Avenue and extending south to Point Fermin,could be
exposed to flooding from future sea level rise,partially from
incremental effects from the growth anticipated by the CPA.
Implementation of feasible mitigation measure MM4.8-1 would
reduce this impact,but not to less than significant.Therefore,
this impact is significant and unavoidable.
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
PS
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
MM4.8-1 Provide Flood Protection up to the 50-Year Flood plus Sea Level Rise.To
protect structures and people from sea level rise risks,prior to approving discretionary
grading and/or building permits in areas that could be exposed to sea-level rise,the City
shall ensure project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements for a
flood depth of the identified 50-year flood hazard water surface elevation plus a 4.6-foot
(55-inch)rise in sea level for those locations that could be directly affected.All
aboveground structures within predicted sea-level-rise inundation areas shall be flood
proofed and able to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy to this elevation.All
enclosed,belowground structures in predicted sea-level-rise inundation areas shall be
flood proofed in their entirety and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy
from water surface elevations up to 4.6 feet above ground surface.
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
SU
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
2-14 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
6
7
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
LAND USE/PLANNING
Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
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.This impact is
less than significant.
Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
result in a substantial increased potential for land use conflicts
and nuisance relationships between existing and future land
uses.This impact is less than significant.
NOISE
Impact 4.10-1 Development under the proposed plan could LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies.
Compliance with LAMC regulations would ensure this impact is
less than significant.
Impact 4.10-2 Development under the proposed plan would LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.This impact
is less than significant.
Impact 4.10-3 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.This impact is less than significant.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU 2-15 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
6
8
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
Impact 4.10-4 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project.Compliance with LAMC Sections 112.02 and 115.02
would ensure that this impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.10-5 Construction of development pursuant to the
proposed plan could result in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable
standards of other agencies.Project-level environmental
review and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1 0-1 for
discretionary projects would reduce this impact,but not
necessarily to a less-than-significant level.Therefore,this
impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.10-6 Construction of development pursuant to the
proposed plan could generate or expose persons or structures
to excessive groundborne vibration.Implementation of project-
level environmental review and mitigation measure MM4.10-1
for discretionary projects would reduce this impact,but not
necessarily to a less-than-significant level.Therefore,this
impact would be significant and unavoidable.
LTS
PS
PS
No mitigation is required.
MM4.10-1 The City,as a condition of approval for all applicable discretionary projects,
shall require all contractors to include the following best management practices in contract
specifications:
•Re-route truck traffic away from residential streets,if possible.If no alternatives are
available,route truck traffic on streets with the fewest residences.
•Site equipment on construction lots as far away from noise-sensitive sites as possible.
•When construction activities are located in close proximity to noise-sensitive sites,
construct noise barriers,such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material
between activities and noise sensitive uses.
•Avoid use of impact pile drivers where possible in noise-sensitive areas.Drilled piles
or the use of a sonic vibratory pile driver are quieter alternatives where geological
conditions permit their use.Use noise shrouds when necessary to reduce noise of pile
drilling/driving.
•Use construction equipment with mufflers that comply with manufacturers'
requirements.
•Consider potential vibration impacts to older (historic)buildings.
MM4.10-1 would apply.
LTS
SU
SU
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
2-16 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
6
9
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.10-7 Construction of development pursuant to the
proposed plan could result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project due to construction
activities.Implementation of project-level environmental review
and mitigation measure MM4.1 0-1 for discretionary projects
would reduce this impact,but not necessarily to a less-than-
significant level.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
PS MM4.10-1 would apply.SU
POPULATION,HOUSING,AND EMPLOYMENT
Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
induce substantial population growth directly (Le.,new housing
or employment generators)or indirectly (Le.,accelerate
development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected
planned levels)that would result in an adverse physical change
in the environment,and would accommodate the potential
growth in population and/or employment that has been
forecasted to occur by 2030.This impact is less than
significant.
Impact 4.11-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not LTS No mitigation is required.LTS
result in inconsistencies with adopted City and regional housing
polices.This impact is less than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
foreseeably require the addition of a new fire station or the
expansion,consolidation,or relocation of an existing facility to
maintain service,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for fire protection and emergency
response.Compliance with existing regulations would ensure
this impact remains less than significant.
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
LTS No mitigation is required.
2-17
LTS
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
7
0
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
Impact 4.12-2 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
foreseeably require the addition of a new police station or the
expansion,consolidation or relocation of an existing facility to
maintain service,nor cause the construction of which would
cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for police services.Compliance with
existing regulations would ensure this impact remains less than
significant.
Impact 4.12-3 Implementation of the proposed plan could
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the need for new or physically altered school facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times,or other performance objectives for schools.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.12-1 would reduce
this impact to less than significant.
Impact 4.12-4 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered library facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times,or other performance objectives for libraries.
This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.12-5 Implementation of the proposed plan could
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered park facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts.Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.12-2
through MM4.12-4 would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
LTS
PS
LTS
PS
No mitigation is required.
MM4.12-1 Individual project applicants shall pay school fees to the Los Angeles Unified
School District to offset the impact of additional student enrollment at schools serving the
project area.
No mitigation is required.
MM4.12-2 Develop City or private funding programs for the acquisition and construction of
new Community and Neighborhood recreation and park facilities.
MM4.12-3 Establish joint-use agreements with the Los Angeles Unified School District
and other public and private entities which could contribute to the availability of
recreational opportunities in the CPA.
MM4.12-4 Monitor appropriate recreation and park statistics and compare with population
projections and demand to identify the existing and future recreation and park needs of
the San Pedro CPA.
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
2-18 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
7
1
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
us =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Impact 4.13-1 The volume-weighted average VIC ratio under
the proposed plan would substantially exceed that of existing
traffic conditions,and the number of roadway segments
projected to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service would
substantially exceed that of existing traffic conditions.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 would
reduce this impact,but not to a less-than-significant level.The
impact is significant and unavoidable.
Impact4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed plan could
result in inadequate emergency access during construction
unless mitigated.Implementation of mitigation measures
MM4.13-1 would reduce this impact,but not to less than
significant.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed plan could
conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including,but not limited to,level of service standards and
travel demand measures,or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways.Therefore,this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 4.14-1 The proposed plan could affect the capacity of
the water infrastructure that serves the CPA.However,
compliance with existing regulations would ensure this impact
remains less than significant.
PS
PS
PS
LTS
MM4.13-1 Implement development review procedures to ensure that the applicable
Mobility policies of the San Pedro Community Plan are applied and implemented by
individual discretionary development projects when they are considered for approval in the
plan area.
MM4.13-1 would apply.
MM4.13-1 would apply.
UTILITIES/SERVICES SYSTEMS
No mitigation is required.
SU
SU
SU
LTS
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
2-19 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
7
2
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Draft EIR
August 2012
Impact 4.14-2 The proposed plan could impact the water
supplies that serve the CPA.While water supply is expected to
be adequate,LADWP is looking at a number of strategies to
serve citywide growth,including additional conservation
measures,use restrictions,recycling programs,and regulatory
changes that may occur over the life of the plan.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and
compliance with existing regulations would reduce this impact
but not to less than significant.Therefore,this impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.14-3 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board.This impact is less than
significant.
Impact 4.14-4 Implementation of the proposed plan could
result in an inability to accommodate the CPA's projected
wastewater flow,and require or result in the construction of
new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.Implementation of mitigation measures
MM4.14-2 through MM4.14-5 would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Impact 4.14-5 Implementation of the proposed plan would not
result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
that serves or may serve the CPA that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the plan's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments.This impact is less than
significant.
PS
LTS
PS
LTS
MM4.14-1 As part of individual discretionary project review,the Planning Department shall
work with LADWP to ensure appropriate expansion,upgrade,and/or improvement of the
local water distribution system within the CPA as may be necessary to accommodate
anticipated growth.
No mitigation is required.
MM4.14-2 Continue to implement existing water conservation measures,including ultra
low-flush installation and,school educational,public information,and residential
programs,and develop new ones as needed
MM4.14-3 Enforce the City's water conservation ordinance and develop a comprehensive
water reuse ordinance that will establish,among other things,goals on reuse of reclaimed
water
MM4.14-4 Establish water reuse demonstration and research programs and implement
educational programs among consumers to increase the level of acceptance of reclaimed
water
MM4.14-5 Provide incentives for the development of new markets and uses for reclaimed
water
No mitigation is required.
SU
LTS
LTS
LTS
San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004 2·20 City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
C
-
1
7
3
Draft EIR
August 2012
CHAPTER 2 Summary
SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
LTS =less than significant;PS =potentially significant;SU =significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.14-6 Implementation of the proposed plan would
increase solid waste generation and result in the need for
additional solid waste collection routes,recycling,or disposal
facility to adequately handle projected solid waste generation
and disposal needs.Implementation of mitigation measures
MM4.14-6 through MM4.14-8 and compliance with federal,
state,and local regulations would reduce this impact to less
than significant.
Impact 4.14-7 Development under the proposed plan would
comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste.This impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.14-8 Implementation of the proposed plan could
require new energy-supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure or capacity-enhancing alterations to existing
facilities to accommodate projected energy demand,the
construction of which could cause a significant environmental
impact.Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.14-9
through MM4.14-12 and compliance with local,state,and
federal regulations would reduce this impact to less than
significant.
PS
LTS
PS
MM4.14-6 Implement the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan to maximize source
reduction and materials recovery and minimize the amount of solid waste requiring
disposal with the goal of leading the City to achieve zero waste by 2025.
MM4.14-7 Encourage and provide incentives for the processing and marketing of
recyclable items.
MM4.14-8 Accelerate ongoing efforts to provide alternative solid waste treatment
processes and the expansion of eXisting landfills and establishment of new sites.
No mitigation is reqUired.
MM4.14-9 Promote energy conservation and efficiency to the maximum extent that is cost
effective and practical.
MM4.14-10 Encourage and provide incentives for the development and use of alternative
sources of energy.
MM4.14-11 Adopt and implement a program to provide technical assistance and
incentives to property owners and developers on building design and/or the use of energy-
efficient systems in new residential,commercial and industrial developments to exceed
existing State of California Energy Code standards.
MM4.14-12 Promote the responsible use of natural resources in accordance with City
environmental policies.
LTS
LTS
LTS
City of LA EIR No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR
CPC No.CPC-2009-1557-CPU
2-21 San Pedro Community Plan EIR
State Clearinghouse No.2008021004
C
-
1
7
4
NWSPNC Planning &Land Use Committee meeting agenda
C-175
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Planning and Land Use Committee Agenda
Wednesday,September 5,2012,6:00 p.m.
Croatian Cultural Center
510 W.7th Street,San Pedro
Agenda
The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Land Use and Public
Works Committee will meet in conjunction with the other San Pedro
Neighborhood Councils to review the recently released San Pedro
Community Plan and associated environmental documents on
Wednesday,September 5th,6:00 pm,at the Croatian Cultural Center at
510 West i h St.(the northwest corner of Pacific Avenue and i h Street).
The agenda is as follows:
1.Introductions
2.Planning Department staff presentation on Community Plan,EIR
and relevant Q conditions
3.Questions and comments from committee members and other
attendees
4.Public Comment
5.Adjourn
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.
C-176
Staff request for a 15-day extension to comment
on the DEIR for San Pedro Community Plan Update
C-177
CITYOF
6 September 2012
Debbie Lawrence,AICP
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring St.,Rm.667
Los Angeles,CA 90012
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Request for Extension of the Public Comment Period for the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the San Pedro Community Plan Update
(Case No.ENV-2009-1558-EIR)
rat!1~
Dear~:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has appreciated the opportunity participate in the San
Pedro Community Plan Update process over the past few years,including last night's
meeting with the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council Land Use and Planning
Committee.We are currently reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),for
which the 45-day public comment period is scheduled to end on 24 September 2012.
However,we find that we will require additional time for our traffic engineer to review the
DEIR,Mobility Element and Transportation Improvement Mitigation Program (TIMP),
particularly as they relate to roadways and bikeways that link and/or intersect with those in
Rancho Palos Verdes.Therefore,we respectfully request an extension of the 45-day public
comment period for the DEIR for at least fifteen (15)additional days to 8 October 2012.
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.
~
.KitFo~CP
Seniof Administrative Analyst
cc:Mayor Misetich and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Eduardo Schonborn,Senior Planner
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer
M:\Border Issues\San Pedro Community Plan Update\20120906_Lawrence_ExtensionRequesLdoc
30940 IIAWTHORNE BLVD /I~NCHO PALOS VERDES.Cl\90275-5391/(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291
WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM!RPV
r;RII"rm ON r~ECYCLED PAPER C-178
Councilwoman Brooks'Study Session report
regarding Rancho LPG butane storage facility
C-179
CrrvOF
STUDY SESSION
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:"
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCILWOMAN SUSAN BROOKS
AUGUST 21,2012
RANCHO LPG BUTANE STORAGE FACILITY
The Rancho LPG butane storage facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive in San
Pedro was constructed beginning in the early 1970s,At the time that construction started,
the City of Los Angeles did not issue a building permit for it because it was believed
(erroneously)that the facility was exempt from City regulation.Eventually,a building
permit was issued and an EIR was prepared.
The facility includes 2 large refrigerated butane storage tanks with a combined capacity of
25 million gallons and several smaller tanks for the storage of propane.The butane stored
in the large tanks is a by-product of petroleum refining at the nearby Valero and BP
refineries.In the past,butane was transported from the site through an underground
pipeline to a nearby berth in the Port of Los Angeles.Currently,butane is transported from
the facility via rail car and tanker truck.
City Staff has been reporting on the Rancho LPG facility as a part of the Border Issues
Status Report for nearly 2 years,but there has been public concern about the facility in the
surrounding community for many years.These concerns were heightened following the
catastrophic explosion of an underground natural gas transmission line in a residential
neighborhood in San Bruno,CA in September 2010.At about this same time,the City of
Los Angeles'Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council commissioned a risk
.assessment of the facility by Cornerstone Technologies.The Cornerstone report identified
a variety of possible accident scenarios,ranging from a relatively small,on-site mishap to a
sudden,catastrophic failure of the butane tanks,with impacts extending for miles.
In response to the Cornerstone report,the facility operator commissioned its own risk
assessment by Quest Consultants.The Quest report of January 2011 concluded that the
area affected by the most catastrophic events that could realistically occur would be
several orders of magnitude less than the most-catastrophic scenario identified in the
Cornerstone report.Third-party independent assessments of the Cornerstone and Quest
C-180
MEMORANDUM:Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility
August 21,2012
Page 2
reports-prepared at the request ofthe U.S.Environmental Protection Agency-generally
concluded that the Cornerstone report was flawed in its analysis of the risk of catastrophic
upset at the facility,while the Quest report defined more realistic scenarios that were
indicative of the actual risk posed by the facility upon the surrounding community.
There is still a great deal of controversy about this facility in the surrounding community.
Community members have questions about a number of critical topics,including (but not
limited to):
•The circumstances of the environmental review of the facility,both at the time of its
construction and since;
•TfJe validity and accuracy of either of the risk assessments recently performed for
the facility;,
•The potential effects of seismic activity from the Palos Verdes fault upon the facility,
including liquefaction and earthquake-induced landslides;and,
•The amount,type and sufficiency of liability coverage afforded to surrounding
residents and property owners by the operator of the facility.
Opponents of the facility have pleaded with local,State and Federal officials and agencies
to have the facility closed and/or relocated.Opponents have also prepared a 12-minute
video called "Before the Ashes"and recently testified before Councilman Joe Buscaino and
the Public Safety Committee of the'Los Angeles City Council in July 2012.
On 2 previous occasions,this City Council has taken a formal position on the facility.In
letters to then-Councilwoman Janice Hahn,Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara
Boxer in 2011,the City Council encouraged the addressees to:
•RegUlarly monitor the facility and enforce all applicable regulations and
environmental review processes with respect to the on-going operation of the facility
and any possible future proposals for its modification,renovation and/or expansion;
and,
•Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for the
dissemination of information and the discussion of issues about the facility.
Given the high level of concern that continues to exist in the surrounding community,I
suggest that the City Council should re-assess its past position and potentially propose
new action regarding this facility.In my view,it is incumbent upon our City Council to take
action to ensure that our community is as safe and protected as possible,and to enlist the
support of surrounding communities on the Peninsula to bring sufficient pressure to bear
upon the facility operator and the local,State and Federal agencies charged with
overseeing this facility.To this end,I recommend that we direct Staff to report back to the
City Council on the next available agenda regarding our available options and strategies to
ensure that the health,safety and welfare of our residents are protected.
C-181
MEMORANDUM:Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility
August 21,2012
Page 3
Attachments
Letter to Councilwoman Janice Hahn (dated 1/6/11)
Letters to Senators Feinstein and Boxer (dated 6/21/11)
"
M:\Border Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20120821_RanchoLPG_StudySessionRpldoc
C-182
January 6,2011
CITYOF RANCHO ,PALOS VERDES
Councllwoman Janice Hahn,15th District
City of Los Angeles
200 N.Spring St.,Room 435
los Angeles,CA 90012
SUBJECT;Cit¥of Rancho Palos Verdes'Concefl'ls regarding the R~U1Cho LPG
Butane Storage Facility,2110 North Gaffey Stree~,San Pedro
Dear Oounai:lwoman Hahn:
As you may be aware,residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been
ooncerm:~d for many years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGa~j butane storage
facility at North Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive.R$CEmtly,these concerns have
returned to the forefront,particularly in the,a:ft.ermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
fallurein the Bay Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re..located
to Pier 400 fn the Port of Los Angeles-'..away from homes,'schoots and local business-·
plans that (for some reason)have never come to frUition.The facility was approved for
th'issite more than thirty (30)yearsago.,af a time When less-rigorous environmental
review'and public participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
Earlier this year,the Northwest San Pedro Nel'ghborhood Council (NWSPNC)
commissioned a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG faoHity.The risk
assessment-released in September 201 Q-identified a variety of possible accident
scenarios for the facility.These ranged from a relatively smalt on-sUe mishap With
impacts mainly contained to the s.ite,to a sudden,catastrophic failure of the butane
storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7..mile radius from the facUity..
The facility's operator,Rancho LPG Holdingsl LLC,has refuted the conclusions of the
NWSPNC risk assessment,and the assessmenfs authors have not (to the City's
knOWledge)responded publicly to questions about how the risk asse.ssment was
prepared or how its conclusions were reached.Although Rancho LPG has stated that it
intends to prepare its own risk assessment of the facility and to publicly release its
findings,there remain today many unanswered questions about the safety of this facility
for residents living nearby.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /I.:ANCHO B\LOS VERDES,CA 90275·5391 C-183
Councilwoman Janice Hahn
January 6,2011
Page 2
IdeaHy,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset"to
surrounding property and neighborhoods.Failing that,however,we wish to be assured
that the facility is operated as safely as possible,and in complete accordance the
regUlations of all local,State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and
these types ·offacllities.To these ends,we respectfully request your assistance in the
fUlfilling the foUowing community objectives:
•Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG sfte and facility,and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible)the City of Los Angeles'land use regulations and the State's
environmental review processe.s (Le.,CEQA)with respect to the on~golng
operation of the facUityand any possible future proposals for its modificatkm,
renovation and/or expansion;and,
•Provide to the general pUblic a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for
the dissemination of information and the discussion of issues about the Rancho
LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and
facility,and to report these issues regularly to our City Council.We look forward to
working with you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and
tranqUility of our respective communities and residents.
Sjnce~~l¥you~s,
"\
."-..-....
~-
Thomas D.Long
Mayor
-..._.....-......."..
/
co:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
IJoel Rojas,Community Development Director'V Kit Fox,Associate Planner
M;\Border Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facillty\20101221_Hahn_RanchoLPG.doc
C-184
CITYOF
THOMAS D.LONG,MAYOR
ANTHONY M.MISETICH,MAYOR PRO TEM
BRIAN CAMPBELL,COUNCILMAN
DOUGLAS W.STERN,COUNCILMAN
STEFAN WOlDWICZ,COUNCILMAN
June 21,2011
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington,DC 20510
SUBJECT:City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility,2110 North Gaffey Street,San Pedro,California
Dear Senator Feinstein:
Residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been concerned for many years
about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas)butane storage facility at North Gaffey Street
and Westmont Drive in San Pedro.Within the past year,these concerns returned to the
forefront,particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline failure in the Bay
Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-Iocated to
the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes,schools and local business-plans that (for
some reason)have never come"to fruition.The facility was approved for its current site
more than thirty (30)years ago,at a time when less-rigorous enVironmental review and
public participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
In September 2010,the City of Los Angeles'Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
(NWSPNC)released a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility,prepared
.by Cornerstone Technologies.The Cornerstone report identified a variety of possible
accident scenarios for the facility.These ranged from a relatively small,on-site mishap
with impacts mainly contained to the site,to a sudden,catastrophic failure of the butane
storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7-mile radius from the facility.
The facility's operator,Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC,immediately refuted the conclusions of
the Cornerstone report,whose authors have not (to the City's knowledge)responded
publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was prepared or how its conclusions
were reached.Rancho LPG subsequently commissioned its own risk assessment of the
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PAlDS VERDES,CA 90275-5391/(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291/WWW.PALOSVERDES,COM/RPV
{,~~>PRINTED ON RECYCLED ~PER C-185
Senator Dianne Feinstein
June 16,2011
Page 2
facility,prepared by Quest Consultants.The findings of the Quest report,which were
publicly released in January 2011,concluded that the area potentially affected by the most
catastrophic events that could realistically occur at the Rancho LPG facility.would be
several orders of magnitude less than the nearly 7-mile radius affected under the most-
catastrophic scenario identified in the Cornerstone report.Despite this,there remain today
many unanswered questions about the safety of this facility for residents liVing nearby.
Ideally,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant "risk of upset"to surrounding
property'and neighborhoods.Failing that,however,we wish to be assured that the facility
is operated as safely as possible,and in complete accordance the regulations of all local,
State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and these types of facilities.
To these ends,we respectfully request your assistance in the fulfilling the following
community objectives:
•Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility,and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible)any applicable Federal regulations and environmental review
processes (Le.,NEPA)with respect to the on-going operation of the facility and any
possible future proposals for its modification,renovation and/or expansion;and,
•Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for the
dissemination of any information and the discussion of issues about the Rancho
LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and facility,
and to report these issues regularly to our City Council.We look forward to working with
you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and tranquility of our
respective communities and residents.
Thomas
Mayor
cc:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Kit Fox,Associate Planner
C-186
CITYOF
THOMAS D.LONG,MAYOR
ANTHONY M.MISETICH,MAYOR PRO TEM
BRIAN CAMPBBl.,COUNCILMAN
DOUGLAS W.STERN,COUNCILMAN
STEFAN WOLDWICZ,COUNCILMAN
June 21,2011
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office BUilding
Washington,DC 20510
SUBJECT:City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility,2110 North Gaffey Street,San Pedro,
California
Dear Senator Boxer:
Residents in San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes have been concerned for many
years about the Rancho LPG (formerly AmeriGas)butane storage facility at North
Gaffey Street and Westmont Drive in San Pedro.Within the past year,these concerns
returned to the forefront,particularly in the aftermath of the catastrophic gas pipeline
failure in the Bay Area community of San Bruno in September 2010.
We understand that plans were made several years ago for this facility to be re-Iocated
to the Port of Los Angeles-away from homes,schools and local business-plans that
(for some reason)have never come to fruition.The facility was approved for its current
site more than thirty (30)years'ago,at a time when less-rigorous environmental review
and pUblic participation processes were in effect than is the case today.
In September 2010,the City of Los Angeles'Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood
Council (NWSPNC)released a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility,
prepared by Cornerstone Technologies.The Cornerstone report identified a variety of
possible accident scenarios for the facility.These ranged from a relatively small,on-site
mishap with impacts mainly contained to the site,to a sudden,catastrophic failure of the
butane storage tanks with impacts extending for a 5-to 7-mile radius from the facility.
The facility's operator,Rancho LPG Holdings,LLC,immediately refuted the conclusions
of the Cornerstone report,whose authors have not (to the City's knOWledge)responded
publicly to questions about how the risk assessment was prepared or how its
conclusions were reached.Rancho LPG subsequently commissioned its own risk
assessment of the facility,prepared by Quest Consultants.The findings of the Quest
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALDS VERDES,CA 90275-5391/(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5291/WWW.PALDSVERDES.COM/RPV
;::~;\PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C-187
Senator Barbara Boxer
June 16,2011
Page 2
report,which were pUblicly released in January 2011,concluded that the area
potentially affected by the most catastrophic events that could realistically occur at the
Rancho LPG facility would be several orders of magnitude less than the nearly 7-mile
radius affected under the most-catastrophic scenario identified in the Cornerstone
report.Despite this,there remain today many unanswered questions about the safety
of this facility for residents living nearby.
Ideally,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and its residents would like to see this facility
relocated to another site that does not pose such a significant Ilrisk of upset"to
surrounding property and neighborhoods.Failing that,however,we wish to be assured
that the facility is operated as safely as possible,and in complete accordance the
regulations of all local,State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over this site and
these types of facilities.To these ends,we respectfully request your assistance in the
fUlfilling the following community objectives:
•Regularly monitor the Rancho LPG site and facility,and enforce (to the maximum
extent possible)any applicable Federal regulations and environmental review
processes (i.e.,NEPA)with respect to the on-going operation of the facility and
any possible future proposals for its modification,renovation and/or expansion;
and,
•Provide to the general public a transparent and accountable clearinghouse for
the dissemination of any information and the discussion of issues about the
Rancho LPG site and facility.
Our Planning Staff continues to monitor issues related to the Rancho LPG site and
facility,and to report these issues regUlarly to our City Council.We look forward to
working with you and the facility's owner/operator to ensure the future safety and
tranquility of our respective communities and residents.
Thomas D.Long
Mayor
cc:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Kit Fox,Associate Planner
C-188
MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
C-189
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
ROOM 395,CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90012
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATiVe DeCLARATION,--__.'-._-"-""'-"-'""''''."",~~."...•.,-.__."~.
,LEAD CITY AGENCY COUNCIL DISTRiCT
Ci~y.of.!-:C?~,l\n.Qel~~____...._.,.."·1~,,_,'..........,............
,PROJECT TITLE :CASE NO.
·ENV-2~11-24!~:~ND ,.._'"'''__..... '__~~221 ~.-?~7~:P.~,L.A!..2pc:~g~1-?~8Q:GU , .
PROJECT LOCATION
1600 W PALOS VERDES DR N
~.......~-.~"....""".,~..~-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The addition of 192 bedrooms to the existing 86 units,construction of a 27,000 sq.ft.student services building with a dining hall,50
;faculty and administrative offices and nine classrooms,construction of a 2,200 square foot maintenance facility,including the removal
·of six dwelling units,construction of a sixteen classroom academic building with studios,laboratories and 32 faculty offices and the
addition of 3,~2 parki tl 9 spacEls.......
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN CITY AGENCY
·James Reeves,Marymount College
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
:Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.........
FINDING:
The City Planning Department of the City of Los Angeles has Proposed that a mitigated negative declaration be adopted for
this project because the mitigation measure(s)outlined on the attached page(s)will reduce any potential significant adverse
effects to a level of insignificance
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)........,........•..._.~-,_.......,._.,..,.",",.-,'....".......""..,~,...".~'.",...'"'"-,.~.,
SEE AITACHED SHEET(S)FOR ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED.
•••"......-,.",•••••••-,••••.,••••••••~.,••M ••••••" •..""•••".••••• •••••••......•~•••••_••_,••••••~•..•.._•••••••_ •wO.•••••••,_._...••
Any written comments received during the pUblic review period are attached together with the response of the Lead City
Agency.The project decision-make may adopt the mitigated negative declariation,amend it,or require preparation of an EIR.
.......Any ch~ng~~.~a~e should _b~sup~~~e~.by su~sta~~i.a.le~i~e~.~e in t~~.recor~and..a~prop'ria.t~.~ndings made...........'.....,...
THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS AITACHED...".,-~~.~...-~._"._.__ " _ ,,_.,....._,.._....._"..........._...._,....._.M .__.'"··.n'__. ._._._~....,~~...,..,..'''''.n...
NAME OF PERSON PREPARING THIS FORM ,TITLE 'TELEPHONE NUMBER
ADDRESS:
Marc Woersching
,SIGNATURE (Official)DATE
,200 N.SPRING STREET,7th FLOOR iLOSANGELES,CA.90012 i
,
,""'H ,..",_•...,.,.,_,,_,,"-"",..,A'",~,',~".,".,__"-'-_"",••,,,,,,..,.,....~~,.-_,
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-190
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENV-2011-2478-MND
1-90.Aesthetics (Vandalism)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to graffiti and accumulation of rubbish and debris
along the wall(s)adjacent to public rights-of-way.However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than
significant level by the following measures:
•Every building,structure,or portion thereof,shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition and good repair,and
free from,debris,rubbish,garbage,trash,overgrown vegetation or other similar material,pursuant to Municipal
Code Section 91.8104.
•The exterior of all buildings and fences shall be free from graffiti when such graffiti is visible from a street or alley,
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.15.
1·110.Aesthetics (Signage on Construction Barriers)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to on-site sign age in excess of that allowed
under the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.6205.However,the potential impact will be mitigated to a less
than significant level by the following measures:
•The applicant shall affix or paint a plainly visible sign,on publically accessible portions of the construction barriers,
with th~following language:"POST NO BILLS".
•Such language shall appear at Intervals of no less than 25 feet along the length of the pUblically accessible portions
ofthe barrier.
•The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the visibility of the required signage and for maintaining the
construction barrier free and clear of any unauthorized signs within 48 hours of occurrence.
11I·10.Air Pollution (Demolition,Grading,and Construction Activities)
•All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction,
and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD District Rule 403.Wetting
could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent.
•The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling,and at all
times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.
•All clearing,earth moving,or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (Le.,greater
than 15 mph),so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
•All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming,watering or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust.
•All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive
amount of dust.
•General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize eXhaust emissions.
•Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turned off.
III-50.Air Pollution (Stationary)
•Adverse impacts upon future occupants may result from the project implementation due to eXisting diminished
ambient air pollution levels in the project vicinity.However,this impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level
by the following measure:
•An air filtration system shall be installed and maintained with filters meeting or exceeding the ASH RAE Standard 52.2
Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)of 11,to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety.
V-20.Cultural Resources (Archaeological)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to discovery of unrecorded archaeological
resources.However,the potential impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measures:
•If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of project development,all further development
activity shall halt and:
•The services of an archaeologist shall then be secured by contacting the South Central Coastal Information Center
(657M 278-5395)located at California State University Fullerton,or a member of the Society of Professional
Archaeologist (SOPA)or a SOPA-qualified archaeologist,who shall assess the discovered material(s)and prepare a
survey,study or report evaluating the impact.
•The archaeologist's survey,study or report shall contain a recommendation(s),if necessary,for the preservation,
conservation,or relocation of the resource.
.•The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist,as contained in the survey,
study or report.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-191
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENV-2011-2478-MND
•Project development activities may resume once copies of the archaeological survey,study or report are submitted
to:SCCIC Department of Anthropology,McCarthy Ha1/477,CSU Fullerton,800 North State College Boulevard,
Fullerton,CA 92834.
•Prior to the issuance of any building permit,the applicant shall submit a letter to the case file indicating what,if any,
archaeological reports have been sUbmitted,or a statement indicating that no material was discovered.
• A covenant and agreement binding the applicant to this condition shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
VI-10.Seismic
•Environmental impacts to the safety of future occupants may result due to the project's location in an area of
potential seismic activity.However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the
following measure:
•The design and construction of the project shall conform to the California Building Code seismic standards as
approved by the Department of Building and Safety.
VI-20.Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts
•Short-term erosion impacts may result from the construction of the proposed project.However,these impacts can be
mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measures:
•The applicant shall provide a staked signage at the site with a minimum of 3-inch lettering containing contact
information for the Senior Street Use Inspector (Department of Public Works),the Senior Grading Inspector (LADBS)
and the haUling or general contractor.
•Chapter IX,Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addresses grading,excavations,and fills.All grading
activities require grading permits from the Department of Building and Safety.Additional provisions are required for
grading activities within Hillside areas.The application of BMPs includes but is not limited to the following mitigation
measures;
•a.Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dry weather periods.If grading occurs during the rainy
season (October 15 through April 1),diversion dikes shall be constructed to channel runoff around the site.Channels
shall be lined with grass or roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity.
•b.Stockpiles,excavated,and exposed soil shall be covered with secured tarps,plastic sheeting,erosion control
fabrics,or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilizer.
VII·10.Green House Gas Emissions
•The project will result in impacts resulting in increased green house gas emissions.However,the impact can be
reduced to a less than significant level though compliance with the follOWing measure(s):
•Only low-and non-VOC-containing paints,sealants,adhesives,and solvents shall be utilized in the construction of
the project.
IX-20.Stormwater Pollution (Demolition,Grading,and Construction Activities)
•
IX-50.
•Leaks,drips and spills shall be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be
washed away into the storm drains.
•All vehicle/equipment maintenance,repair,and washing shall be conducted away from storm drains.All major repairs
shall be conducted off-site.Drip pans or drop clothes shall be used to catch drips and spills.
•Pavement shall not be hosed down at material spills.Dry cleanup methods shall be used whenever possible.
•Dumpsters shall be covered and maintained.Uncovered dumpsters shall be placed under a roof or be covered with
tarps or plastic sheeting.
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (Parking Lots with 25+Spaces or Greater than 5,000 s.f.;Food Service
Industry)
•Environmental impacts may result from erosion carrying sediments and/or the release of toxins into the stormwater
drainage channels. However,the potential impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporating
stormwater pollution control measures.Ordinance No.172,176 and Ordinance No.173,494 specify Stormwater and
Urban Runoff Pollution Control which requires the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs).Chapter IX,
Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addresses grading,excavations,and fills.Applicants must meet the
requirements of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)approved by Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board,including the follOWing:(A copy of the SUSMP can be downloaded at:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb41).
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-192
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENV~2011-2478-MND
•Project applicants are required to implement stormwater BMPs to treat and infiltrate the runoff from a storm event
producing 3/4 inch of rainfall in a 24 hour period.The design of structural BMPs shall be in accordance with the
Development Best Management Practices Handbook Part B Planning Activities.A signed certificate from a California
licensed civil engineer or licensed architect that the proposed BMPs meet this numerical threshold standard is
required.
•Post development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates shall not exceed the estimated pre-development rate for
developments where the increase peak stormwater discharge rate will result in increased potential for downstream
erosion.
•Limit clearing and grading of native vegetation at the project site to the minimum needed to build lots,allow access,
and provide fire protection.
•Maximize trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation,clustering tree areas,and
promoting the use of native and/or drought tolerant plants.
•Promote natural vegetation by using parking lot islands and other landscaped areas.
•Any connection to the sanitary sewer must have authorization from the Bureau of Sanitation.
•Incorporate appropriate erosion control and drainage devices,such as interceptor terraces,berms,vee-channels,
and inlet and outlet structures,as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building Code.Protect outlets of CUlverts,
condUits or channels from erosion by discharge velocities by installing a rock outlet protection.Rock outlet protection
is physical devise composed of rock,grouted riprap,or concrete rubble placed at the outlet of a pipe.Install sediment
traps below the pipe-outlet.Inspect,repair,and maintain the outlet protection after each significant rain.
•All storm drain inlets and catch basins within the project area must be stenciled with prohibitive language (such as
NO DUMPING -DRAINS TO OCEAN)and/or graphical icons to discourage illegal dumping.
•Legibility of stencils and signs must be maintained.
•Materials with the potential to contaminate stormwater must be:(1)placed in an enclosure such as,but not limited
to,a cabinet,shed,or similar stormwater conveyance system;or (2)protected by secondary containment structures
such as berms,dikes,or curbs.
•The storage area must be paved and sufficiently impervious to contain leaks and spills.
•The storage area must have a roof or awning to minimize collection of stormwater within the secondary containment
-area.
•The owner(s)of the property will prepare and execute a covenant and agreement (Planning Department General
form CP-6770)satisfactory to the Planning Department binding the owners to post construction maintenance on the
structural BMPs in accordance with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan and or per manUfacturer's
instructions.
•(Parking Lots with 25 or More Spaces or 5,000 Square feet of Lot Area:Residential,Commercial,Industrial,
Public Facility)
•Trash container areas must have drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement diverted around the area(s).
•Trash container areas must be screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash.
•Reduce impervious land coverage of parking lot areas.
•Infiltrate runoff before it reaches the storm drain system.
•Runoff must be treated prior to release into the storm drain.Three types of treatments are available,(1)dynamic
flow separator;(2)a filtration or (3)infiltration.Dynamic flow separator uses hydrodynamic force to remove debris,
and oil and grease,and are located underground.Filtration involves catch basins with filter inserts.Filter inserts must
be inspected every six months and after major storms,cleaned at least twice a year.Infiltration methods are typically
constructed on~site and are determined by various factors such as soil types and groundwater table.
•Prescriptive Methods detailing BMPs specific to this project category are available.Applicants are encouraged to
incorporate the prescriptive methods into the design plans.These Prescriptive Methods can be obtained at the
Public Counter or downloaded from the City's website at:www.lastormwater.org.(See Exhibit D).
Increased Noise Levels (Demolition,Grading,and Construction Activities)
•The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance No.144,331 and 161,574,and any
subsequent ordinances,which prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses
unless technically infeasible.
•Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday,and 8:00
am to 6:00 pm on Saturday.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-193
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENV-2011-2478-MND
•Demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment
simultaneously,which causes high noise levels.
•The project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling
devices.
XIV-20.Pubric Services (Police -De"'!olition/Construction Sites)
•Fences shall be constructed around the site to minimize trespassing,vandalism,short-cut attractions and attractive
nuisances.
XIV-30.Public Services (Police)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the location of the project in an area having
marginal police services.However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the
following measure:
•The plans shall incorporate the design gUidelines relative to security,semi-public and private spaces,which may
include but not be limited to access control to building,secured parking facilities,walls/fences with key systems,
well-illuminated public and semi-public space designed with a minimum of dead space to eliminate areas of
concealment,location of toilet facilities or building entrances in high-foot traffic areas,and provision of security guard
patrol throughout the project site if needed.Please refer to "Design Out Crime Guidelines:Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design",published by the Los Angeles Police Department.Contact the Community Relations
Division,located at 100 W.1st Street,#250,Los Angeles,CA 90012;(213)486-6000.These measures shall be
approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
XVI-10.Increased Vehicle Trips/Congestion
•An adverse impact may result from the project's traffic generation.An investigation and analysis conducted by the
Department of Transportation has identified significant project-related traffic impacts which can be mitigated to less
than significant level by the following measure:
•Implementing measure(s)detailed in said Department's communication to the Planning Department dated 7-24-12
and attached shall be complied with.Such report and mitigation measure(s}are incorporated herein by reference.
XVII·20.Utilities (Local Water Supplies.All New Construction)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the cumulative increase in demand on the
City's water supplies.However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following
measures:
•If conditions dictate,the Department of Water and Power may postpone new water connections for this project until
water supply capacity is adequate.
•Install high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gpf),including dual-flush water closets,and high-efficiency urinals
(maximum 0.5 gpf),including no-flush or waterless urinals,in all restrooms as appropriate.
•Install restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute.
•A separate water meter (or submeter),flow sensor,and master valve shutoff shall be installed for all landscape
irrigation uses.
•Single-pass cooling equipment shall be strictly prohibited from use.Prohibition of such equipment shall be indicated
on the building plans and incorporated into tenant lease agreements.(Single~pass cooling refers to the use of
potable water to extract heat from process equipment,e.g.vacuum pump,ice machines,by passing the water
through equipment and discharging the heated water to the sanitary wastewater system.)
XVll-40.Utilities (Local Water Supplies.New Residential)
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the cumulative increase in demand on the
City's water supplies.However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the follOWing
measures:
•Install no more than one showerhead per shower stall,having a flow rate no greater than 2.0 gallons per minute.
•Install and utilize only high-efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less)in the project,if proposed to be
provided in either individual units and/or in a common laundry room(s}.If such appliance is to be furnished by a
tenant,this requirement shall be incorporated into the lease agreement,and the applicant shall be responsible for
ensuring compliance.
•Install and utilize only high-efficiency Energy Star-rated dishwashers in the project,if proposed to be provided.If such
appliance is to be furnished by a tenant,this requirement shall be incorporated into the lease agreement,and the
applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance.
XVII-gO.Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling)
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-194
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ENV-2011-2478-MND
•Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the creation of additional solid waste.
However,this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measure:
•(Operational)Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper,metal,glass,
and other recyclable material.These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as a part of the project's regular
solid waste disposal program.
•(Construction/Demolition)Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit,the applicant shall provide
a copy of the receipt or contract from a waste disposal company providing services to the project,specifying recycled
waste service(s),to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety.The demolition and construction
contractor(s)shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that recycles demolition and/or
construction-related wastes.
•(Construction/Demolition)To facilitate on-site separation and recycling of demolition-and construction-related
wastes,the contractor(s)shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction.
These bins shall be emptied and the contents recycled accordingly as a part of the project's regular solid waste
disposal program.
XVII~1 00.Utilities (Solid Waste Disposal)
•
•All waste shall be disposed of properly.Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle demolition and
construction materials including:solvents,water~based paints,vehicle flUids,broken asphalt and concrete,bricks,
metals,wood.and vegetation.Non recyclable materials/wastes shall be taken to an appropriate landfill.Toxic wastes
must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site.
ENVM 2011 M 2478-MND C-195
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
ROOM 395,CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90012
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
INITIAL STUDY
and CHECKLIST
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15063)
LEAD CITY AGENCY:COUNCIL DISTRICT:
~j.tt?!~os.._~~~elE!.s _____.."""_'."___...ICD 15 .~.~~.~lC_E..~.AH.N
:RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:Department of City Planning
:'E':;VIRONMEN~~:L-CASE;-"""""""""''''•.JRELAT'EO CASe'S:--"-__.__-....•.•-.._--...--
~~Y.-~.~~1-~~?~~~~'?...____."'~~.?9.!.~..-~~!9~P~.~,..~~g:.20.!~.::?~~g::9U _.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO.:;0 Does have significant changes from previous actions.
V Does NOT have significant changes from previous actions.
:PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A 5-PHASE,COLLEGE CAMPUS W/CLASSROOM SEATING FOR 520 STUDENTS IN 25 CLASSROOMS,RES
ACCOMODATIONS FOR 800 PERSONS,WITH 700 COMMUTER STUDENTS,14,400 SQ FT STUDENT CENTER AND 417
,PARKING STALLS.....~,
:ENV PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The addition of 192 bedrooms to the existing 86 units,construction of a 27,000 sq.ft.student services building with a dining hall,50
faculty and administrative offices and nine classrooms,construction of a 2,200 square foot maintenance facility,inclUding the removal,
of six dwelling units,construction of a sixteen classroom academic building with studios,laboratories and 32 faculty offices and the
,additio~of ~42 parkinQ.spaces...............'"
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS:
The immediate area around Marymount College is planned as an eductional district with the Rolling Hills Prep School immediately to
the east.Further out are single family homes to the north,some single family homes and a cemetary to the west,the open space of
the fo~malN.l1i"'~!hou.~i~g.t().the.s.()~~~.~n.d !~~()i1tank fa~f!1.s ..!oth.~east,e~s.t..~!~l1i~ElY .~!~~e.t....."...,
PROJECT LOCATION:
,1600 W PALOS VERDES DR N
•."_,._•._•..••v·,_.•~_......_...
.COMMUNITY PLAN AREA:
WILMINGTON -HARBOR CITY
STATUS:
i AREA PLANNING COMMISSION:.CERTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD
;HARBOR COUNCiL:
NORTHWEST SAN PEDRO
I V Does Conform to Plan
,D Does NOT Conform to Plan
'"__"~,.,..···..'v _••_.__v'~"""••, ·M ••_~_.v •..".~_._____.,~...•,•..1 _.",••__._"'.._.""',
EXISTING ZONING:
,RD6-1XL
;MAX.DENSITY/INTENSITY
ALLOWED BY ZONING:
1.5:1 floor/area ratio
i
;GENERAL PLAN LAND USE:
LOW RESIDENTIAL
MAX.DENSITY/INTENSITY
:ALLOWED BY PLAN
1DESIGNATION:
..._.__...,___.__..__;7 d~elli~~.~.~i~s E~r .~c:~.""..
,PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY:
.6.47 units/acre
ENV-2011-2478-MND
.LA River Adjacent:
NO
C-196
Determination (To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
o 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 on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
o I find 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 addressed by mitigation measures based on 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.
o 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
DEC LARA TION,inclUding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing
further is required.
~,.......~......,
'~~~=,====C=ily=PI=an="=er====="'"=_=_.=~...=..=_=(=2=13=)=97=8=-1=47=0====::::>
Signature Title Phone
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 factors 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 off-site as well as on-site,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 that 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 a mitigation
measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to "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 "Earlier Analyses,"as described in (5)below,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.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-197
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 sources 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 normally
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.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-198
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.
!V AESTHETICS·-·"~-···"~··~,I ;,'GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS"-
10 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST i 0 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
RESOURCES I MATERIALS
V AIRQUALITY i V HYDROLOGY AND WATER
!0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES I QUALITY
I V CULTURAL RESOURCES !D LAND USE AND PLANNINGIVGEO~~".~:~_~~~~__J~~_;~~~L RESOURCE~,,,_
o POPULATION AND HOUSING !
V PUBLIC SERVICES IoRECREATIONI I
..,TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC IIVUTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMSl
j 0 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF I
I SIGNIFICANCE !
~~
j ....,...."'....__....".,...,.......",-.J..,J.
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the lead City Agency)
Background
PROPONENT NAME:
James Reeves,Marymount College
APPLICANT ADDRESS:
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST:
Department of City Planning
PROPOSAL NAME (if Applicable):
Marymount College Campus Master Plan
ENV-2011-2478-MND
PHONE NUMBER:
(310)377-5501
DATE SUBMITTED:
09/22/2011
C-199
Potentially
significant
impact
Potentially
significant
unless Less than
mitigation significant
incorpo~~~,:~_.__...~.~e.act .,.~.?.~r.n"ac.~..
I.AESTHETICS
...•._~._~,~__.",,~,..'".M.",..•..,..,.~,,~.,~•.,~.,.,.._."•._....~_._,.~_........._.,........w,,--•••..•..•..
~I .'~"v:....
,b.Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,
rock outcroppings,..a.~~h.isto.~!!?~,tli.l~~~~~.~~t~in .a s~ate~ce~!c ..~~~~~~¥?.........
ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
u.rro.un.di.ng~,?_...,..,.. ' .
reate a new source of 5ubstantiallight or glare which would adversely affect
ay.(l.r n.ig~ttime ..~~w~.i~.~,~~ar~a.?",..........._.
II.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
••,.,,-~¥~.~"__"••_",'W","·....__•.A~.''''_____<.."•,,",""~'"...'"_••_••~.".._,"
: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 nonagricultural use?
'I b.Conflict with existing zOIlI~g'f~~agricultural use,or a Williamson Act.contract?
.....•.'".
c.Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code section 12220(g»,timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code secUol']51104(g»?
e.Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location
or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
•••••1
III.AIR QUALITY
~. ..
a..Conflict wi~~or obstruct implementation.of the applicable air quality plan?.v'..
,b.·Violate any air quality standard or contribute sUbstantially to an existing or
project~~..al!,gua)ityVi,?r.ati00?.."....:....
.c.Result in a cumUlatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (inclUding releasing emissions which exceed
...gu.a~!itative thresh.0l~s ..for.o~?n~.pr~c~rsors )?,....., ,
d.Expose sensitive receptors to SUbstantial pollutant concentrations?.....,-._....","..
e.Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........-....._......- __.
a.Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat
modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special
status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or u.S..Fish and Wildlife Service?
Ih.1 Have'a"~~b~ta~ti;1 adverse ';ffe~t~n-;;~y~ip~rian'habit~t'~~-~th~rs;;:;siti~e"..."""
natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c.:H;ve'a sUb~ta~ti~i"~d-;;~s~"~ff~'cl onfed~~~iiypr;t;~t~d';;ti'andsas d'efi~;;d"''''''''- .
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (inclUding,but not limited to,marsh,
.vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological
in!~r.r..~p!i?n.,~~r.~~~(i!,r ,n1~.a.l1s~.,,_,_.__"....._.._'..
",-'."",,-.,,,.,..".,.."""..~"~,~.,~.-,....'-
;d.:Interfere SUbstantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
!fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors?.()r.!rr:'p..~~e.,.~~~.~s~of..~~~i~.~..~!~~.~~f~..n.u.r.sery site~.~."..,...."."'".......,'"."
tlict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
~..~~..a~r.~~,.e!~.~erv~.~i.o~.p?lic.¥~r ?r~in~~.<?~?..'.''".
,~~".....<"...,.,.......
,
,",.....~v'''',_n'"',••
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural
Community Conservation Plan.or other approved local,regional.or state
,.~.~~itat.~?~s~.rvation plan?,,'_...,_,"..
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-200
Potentially
significant
i'!1.p'a~~'.
i a.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource ~s.d~~~~d in §.!5~6.~.:~?,_",
se a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
~r~'pu.r..~~antto.§1.~.064 ..5.?.."__.._.._.
irectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
n!9ue~~~~o~i~..!~~t.u~~?,_...._.
Potentially
:significant
'unless Less than
mitigation significant
in:o!.po!a.~~.~__~~p~ct.
isturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal
emeteries?.........1 _.,..,j _.,."....,."""."..".".'-"",..~...-
EOLOGY AND SOILS
.•i <'<,.~._.•.~••.__'V~~'._. _..-_~,_.•••_.",--•
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including
the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: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.,.....-
b.Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including
.the risk of loss,.injury,ord.e:ath Involvjng:f:)tro~gs~ismic $1rounds~~kjl1g?
I c.Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including
the risk of loss,injury,or death involving:Seismjc~related ground failure,
,including liquefaction?
d ..Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including
the risk of loss,injury,or death inv()ly:ing:Landslides?
Ie.IResult in sUbst~nti~1 soil erosion or the loss of top~oH?
.1
....v
.,""i .
f.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 off-site
I.andslide,lateral spreading~subsidence,Iigu~!'!lction or co/l<:\p~.e?
located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform
i1ding Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?
Ha~~soils'i~c~p~ble'Oi'~'d~qu'at~iy's~pp~rti~g"the'u~~·of ;~pfj'~'ta~k;';r''1 ...
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disp()s~J.~f wa~te'N<itl:~r?.
II.GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS......",'-""_"-
Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may
have a sig~ifi~antirnpac.t on the El.I1'1i.ron.rn~I1.t?..
t with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
cing the ~mi~~.io~s ..~f.~reenho.~~~l;l.I3~~?_.
VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS....""............,...............".'...,_".
,a.Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine .~~~..~~P.~,r.!~~~.~~?r._~i~p.~.~al ..9.~..~~z~~~?~.~.~.~~!i.a~s?...._..
b.Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
,hazardous materials into the environment?
_,._.~.,,,,••••••••••,•••,",__..¥'~""'"_••,•".__.__•••_•••~",.....'v",..·.,""'·,.·..·,,"".
i•••1 •••
,.•.,.,.i ,,_.•_~.
c •.Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed s?-~.?ol?__..........,...,....._..
located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
piled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,
.....,.\Y.?~~9..1!.create...~"~i~~lficant ~~~ar~..t?..t~~.E~?!.~~..?.r:.th_e:~nvir~:mm~.~!?_....."....".._.
e.For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan
has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workingi~.~~~p'~?j~~!a~ea..?..,..__..•,__.__...'.._,
project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in ~t==y
~ty h~~ar~..!()!ye<?ple..re,sidingor wor..kin.~i.~.t~~project ar~~?...,_..~~'-""""==='1="=-~--'~
•Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ¥
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?.._.,...__=-....,."'....w"""_.w,..........,,_~-........_~_'""""_~,..,._"'..............,................-..._~·..>Jh"'w........._~_"'._""""......,•••"',..""'...,.\"""'~«~._..~..........~,............,"""""'..........,.,_..._~............"'""...._,...,_~_,-'>I',....,.,..,...."'""..n__~_........._,......__••<•••,....,
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-201
;Potentially
significant
.....~mpac,:t.,.
h•.Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death
involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
.areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
.,,-~,..•.•••,.• ___••,•-.-..•._._•••,.__...~••,,_"_.••••~......~..~".~",..._.••~¥"N'_~"'~~,~.,~•••_•......~'"....
IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
........--,••~__••~...••'••"•• •0"_y ...._,._w.....,"'-"
uality standards or waste discharge requirements?
_•.,,,,"'_"~.~...•.._..."._._.••~.N_·".·..,,~·_.·_"."•..•N ••..•~."..•"......~.""......"''''''_"N .•.•.,'~H'
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
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
eXisting.Il'1I'l~.Y:'.e.:~~!'p!ann~~,us.~_s.for.~~ic~p~rmi~~.~a.'{~~~e~~rSl~~~~>'7
ie.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 off-site?
...~•••••~~._,•••·."',~,,~·n ~__",,.,~~._."__N.._._...'..···'M...••~,w'_'••~'._.w._.
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 off.sit~?.....
Ie.Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f ..Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water quality?
;g.Place h~uSi~g within a 1oei-yea~fio~d h'azard area ~s lTIapped on ~federal .
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
,I h.Pla~~within a 1'OO-y~~r ft~od haza~darea ~tructures Which ~~uld ilTIpede 0;'
redIrect flood flows?
".
..".Y._...
Y ...
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?
~""""'~~~~-~-~"""-O.""''''-'''''''''''-'''''''-''''='''''''-''"""",,,,,,,,,,__,",,,,,,,,",",,,,=-il----,,,,,,,,,,......,-:t=''''''"''''..............""""!"'----'-t=~~::"""""""""lationbyseiche,tsunami,or mudflow?V
USE AND PLANNING
,.....,--••••*
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
purposee>f a.vo~9i~~?r~it!gating an enviro.~men~a.l effect~.
onflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
on~erva.ti~~plan?....
Xl.MINERAL RESOURCES
••".•"._.".,.,.....",_,~,,,,,_.".....•.•~__,.,,,.·OL·"•..•.•.•.~_••...~...........'.""•.••.~_••••••.~~....~.
a.Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
~e ..r.~~!?~a_nd t.h.~.r.~~.i?e~!s.o,~t~e.:..~.!."!~~?_............___,.,''''_...._"
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.pl.a.n?.._ _,_,,..,........_,...._.......
NOISE
a.Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable
standard~.of.?the~..~~_~~.~!~~?...,.._.....,.......................,.......__..."
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or .
~r()!:1~.~?o.~~.~n~ise 1~~el..:>7._.__'_.._"•.........
c.'A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project v'
...'v!.ci~i~.~~?y.~,~:~71~eXistinl;1.~!t~,~~~t~e projec~?_...._..........""'.._.....".,."...._._..."...._..,...
v
........~.,......."."",.
C-202
Potentially
significant
Potentially unless
significant mitigation
._.ilfl~~~~,.....J ~n~?rp~~~~!~
'e•.For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan
has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
LATlON AND HOUSING_.'_.,"_v "-_"~".'M -.~••~_._"~.•.•"'~'•.,,..'NO'.,,,,,,.N ""'''~___•,
8.Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,through !
_~xt~n~!.o~()f r().l:l~so~o,th~!.i!.'!.'"a~!fucture)?.. . .,....,".'.
Less than
significant
.i.mpact
>b.Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the
co.n~tru?ti~~~!~epla~t:}ment ho.U~i~g ~I~~~~l!::~~...............
c.Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of
~eplacer'l1~nthollsillg elsewhere?
~~~~~o~:~::Ult in sUbst~~ti~1 adverse phYSi~i'im'pact~a~sociated ...'.!
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
·PUblicse.r\ficEl~:Fire protecti()~?..
b.: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
:publIcs(iJ.rvices:Police IJrotection?.,..'
c •.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 ser:vices:.Scho()I~?...........,..............L.
id..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:Parks.~......""..........", .
....).-.--
,
i V,
,,
1,
,
Ie.iWould 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:gt~~r ~~b.l.i,~.!':lcj~~t:~:""..........'""..................,".."........._....
.XV.RECREATION
,.__,,."¥_,,,".",,,,.,_,.n ••••"",•••"..".,.~.,__•••••d,_"•••,•••••••
auld the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
~t:r.i~r~~?~,?!.t~..E'..facility ~~~Jd ".~9.ur()r.?~~~.?~~~!.~!.~d?"".>..""..
b.,Does the project Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
i expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical
,effect on the environment?
RANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC
••••••••••••••~"",',.",,..Q ,_•••,__~~'......,."".,"_",',",,_.,.~_..~••"••"""••••••___.,,.~••••"•••••••4 •••,_".,._'",__~,_w "".""••,",,',"_.,,.••••.*_
a •.Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of 'It/'"i
·effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account
all modes of transportation inclUding mass transit and non-motorized travel
,and relevant components of the circulation system,inclUding but not limited to
·intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,
,and mass transit?i
,1 _~__.-...,~.....",,:>..•,.,...,..._"'t,,·,t;<~~,,_.,.,...,_.__.~..".~.._',.'.,.,.'<"."I"''.,."""""""·.,>.>_~<,~,_...,......,...~.~~,•.."._>~'''''___•..-""',-...,.,....,.>-'''d '--''"''''''''·_,~,,.,.,,,,~
ENV -20 11-2478-MND C-203
Potentially
significant
_._!m"p.!:,~!.
Potentially
significant
unless Less than
,mitigation significant
:inc~r.p..o..r!.!!~~..._..!~p'a~!....._.;_~.().~n:l.p.a~t
b.Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,but ."not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for
,designated ro~~.s.0t h.ighY"~¥.s.?........"'...."_'_'"__._.'''''''"'''''''"N ...,.....-.0.".,,""~..~"~.....'.0 ....'••_......N...~ange In ai,traffic pallerns,Including ."'ar an increasa In Imffic .Va~ge in I()c~.ti.?~..!~~!re~ults in sUbstantia.1 ~~!e~f!~~~?...........,.._._-'-..-_....,~_..__....~.~"N'"'..".-.-•.......-.-..
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or .;
..'dan.~~r?~!.!nters.ec~io.!!~ro.r..i.nco~l:'.at!~!e.u.~I9~{~:.!J.:.~.~~r~"~~~!p~~.nt!?......._....•___.....~'N~'··••...~.,,........................,.•,"WON"~~,....,.<~.,.........~.......-e ..Result in inadequate emergency access?V•.............v·'~"",..~,....,••,,~<....~.__.~•••._.....-.,.....-.-..~.,........."...-...,..._-~~.,
f.Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit,Vbicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or jsafetyofsuchfacilitiessupportingalternativetransportation(e.g.,bus
turnouts,bicycl~~acks)?.'.......~..~....,...........".•_,...~•••w ..,-.._~..,.~~......_.".--;--........"._...._...."......_........
AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ,
"..................,_....~....
a.Exceed wastewater treliltment requirements of the applicable Regional Water :VQualityControl.~o~rd?........,........._......,,............-...................
:b.Require or result in the construcUon of new water or wastewater treatment V:facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could
cause sig~ifIc.an~e.nvironmental effec.~s?...,,.........._........_-......
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or VexpansionofexistingfacRities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effec~?,._....................,
fficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ,."ants and resourcEl~~or are~ew or expande~El~titIEllllents needed?...I ....
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves ,V
>or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
.projected d~ma~d in addition !o.!he .P!.9v~~e.r.:s exi.s~n_g~.?,r:n~i!!'1~n~s.~.....................,..~._...•._.._.~...
f..Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the II V
..proj~~t'~S?Ii~yv~stedisposal ne~~s?..........,......~......,..,...._..~....-..'~......'"......".'..~.•••••••¥•...",.,...,.................,..
~~~~;;~;~;~t~;;:::ID:h:.::n:~:~.V
...~....."......~.,...........-...."...........-
...................•..,....._..,.....".....~~.......
,V,
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
Iplantoranimalcommunity,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
i ...'per.i?~~?f.<?aliforn,i.a history or pr.e.h.i,s,tory?.._......-_......._..,.......~'.,...
!b-:Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively Vconsiderable?("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the i
effects of past projects,the effects of other curren!projects,and the effects of i
prob~~.I~.f~!~r.~pr~!e?!~)?.."._.,._••••_••••¥....,,...•..,...."....,~~,••,..,~...........-._--~..,"'.".~...,.".~...."~.~...,,,'........•".~~.,."••,H ~..."._"..".......w._.._--.,~.......H'~"'~~~'~......,......,.•..'._....._"H'
hI:'project have environmental effects which will cause substantial Veeffectsonhumanbeings,either directly or indirectly?;,._..,_...__..._=....~,.:!.,':'_.....~."w....·.~"~.~..,~...,,~.'."""'~'..'..,.......,.~.."s'.............'...,......"A..''''~f''''~.._'~.._ff~••_..n •.~.............""~,.,.""....~""'''_~..._.,_.._...~......, ,••"...N'".~.._MV__,NM'...._--...._..,•••_.H",•.••""""'~'....
Note:Authority cited;Sections 21083,21083.05,Public Resources Code.Reference:Section 65088.4,Gov.Code;Sections 21080,
21083.05,21095,Pub.Resources Code;Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov!.v.City of Eureka (2007)147 Cal.App.4th 357;Protect
the Historic Amador Waterways v.Amador Water Agency (2004)116 Cal.App.4th at 1109;San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown
Plan v.City and County of San Francisco (2002)102 Cal.App.4th 656.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-204
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The Environmental Impact Assessment includes the use of official City of Los Angeles and other government source reference
materials related to various environmental impact categories (e.g.,Hydrology,Air Quality,Biology,Cultural Resources,etc.).The State
of California,Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology MSeismic Hazard Maps and reports,are used to identify
potential future significant seismic events;including probable magnitudes,liquefaction,and landslide hazards.Based on applicant
information provided in the Master Land Use Application and Environmental Assessment Form,impact evaluations were based on
stated facts contained therein,including but not limited to,reference materials indicated above,field investigation of the project site,
and any other reliable reference materials known at the time.
Project specific impacts were evaluated based on all relevant facts indicated in the Environmental Assessment Form and expressed
through the applicant's project description and supportive materials.Both the Initial Study Checklist and Checklist Explanations,in
conjunction with the City of Los Angeles's Adopted Thresholds GUide and CEQA Guidelines,were used to reach reasonable
conclusions on environmental impacts as mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The project as identified in the project description may cause potentially significant impacts on the environment without mitigation.
Therefore,this environmental analysis concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be issued to avoid and mitigate all
potential adverse impacts on the environment by the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions contained and expressed in
this document;the environmental case file known asENV-2011-2478-MND and the associated case(s),AA-2011-2479-PMLA.
CPCM2011-2480-CU .Finally,based on the fact that these impacts can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant,and based on the
findings and thresholds for Mandatory Findings of Significance as described in the California Environmental Quality Act,section 15065.
the overall project impact(s)on the environment (after mitigation)will not:
•SUbstantially degrade environmental quality.
•SUbstantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat.
•Cause a fish or Wildlife habitat to drop below self sustaining levels.
•Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community.
•Reduce number,or restrict range of a rare,threatened,or endangered species.
•Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
•Achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals.
•Result in environmental effects that are indiVidually limited but cumulatively considerable.
•Result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
All supporting documents and references are contained in the Environmental Case File referenced above and may be viewed in the
EIR Unit,Room 763,City Hall.
For City information.addresses and phone numbers:visit the City's website at http://www.lacitY.org ;City Planning Mand Zoning
Information Mapping Automated System (ZIMAS)cityplanning.lacity.orgl or EIR Unit,City Hall.200 N Spring Street,Room 763.
Seismic Hazard Maps Mhttp://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/
Engineering/lnfrastructurerropographic Maps/Parcellnformation -http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/index01.htm or
City's main website under the heading "Navigate LA".
PREPARED BY:
Marc Woerschinq
ENVM 2011-2478-MND
TITLE:
City Planner
TELEPHONE NO.:
(213)978~1470
DATE:
08/15/2012
C-205
Impact?Ex lanation
Mitigation
Measures
APPENDIX A:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION TABLE
I.AESTHETICS
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The low rise bUildings planned by the
college will have a minimal impact on
views of the harbor and ocean from the
Palos Verdes hills.
b.NO IMPACT There are no significant scenic resources
on the project site.
c.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Aesthetic impacts may result from 1-90,1.110
MITIGATION INCORPORATED graffiti vandalism and from The required mitigation measures will
unapproved signage on construction minimize the aesthetic impact of
barriers.graffiti and construction fances with
signs and handbills.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT No additional lighting will be added to the
residential buildings and parking lot
lighting will be shielded.
II.AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
a.NO IMPACT The project site consists of former Navy
housing and is not farmland.
b.NO IMPACT The project site is zoned RD6 for low
density residential uses and is not
covered by a Williamson Act contract.
c.NO IMPACT The project site consi·sts of former Navy
housing that is consistent with the
existing R06 zone and is not farmland.
d.NO IMPACT The project site is not farmland.
e.NO IMPACT The project site is not farmland.
III.AIR QUALITY
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The classroom seating for 520 and dorms
for 800 students are below the threshold
for a significant impa·ct of 813 students
established by the SCAQMD.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The classroom seating for 520 and dorms
for 800 students are below the threshold
for a significant impact of 813 students
established by SCAQMD.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The classroom seating for 520 and the
dorms for 800 students are below the
threshold for a cumulatively significant
impact established by AQMO.
d.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Construction activities will result in air 11I-10,III-50
MITIGATION INCORPORATED quality impacts.The mitigation measures will protect
existing and future residents of the
college campus from poor ambient air
quality and from construction
emissions and dust.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-206
Impact?Explanation
Mitigation
Measures
e.NO IMPACT Beause this is a college rather than an
industrial or commercial use,no
objectionable odors will be emitted.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project site is former Navy housing
and is not a habitat for sensitive or special
status species.
b.NO IMPACT The project site is former Navy housing
and is not a riparian habitat or sensitive
natural community.
c.NO IMPACT The project site is former Navy housing
and is not Federally protected wetlands.
d.NO IMPACT The project site is former Navy housing
and is not habitat used by migratory
wildlife.
e.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT There are no protected trees on the
project site.
f.NO IMPACT There are no habitat conservation plans
aplicable to the project site.
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES
a.NO IMPACT There are no historical resources listed on
the project site.
b.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The area is designated as a location of V-20
MITIGATION INCORPORATED archaeological sites.This mitigation measure requires
monitoring to ensure that items with
archaeological significance will be
preserved.
c.NO IMPACT There are no paleontological resources
listed for the area that includes the project
site.
d.NO IMPACT The project site is not designated as an
area containing human remains.
VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The project site is located in the VI-10
MITIGATION INCORPORATED vicinity of an earthquake fault.The building code requirements that
bUildings be seismically strengthened
provide further protection from
earthquake damage.
b.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The project site is located in the VI·10
MITIGATION INCORPORATED Vicinity of an earthquake fault.The building code requirements that
building foundations be properly
engineered will provide further
protection from liquefaction during an
earthquake.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project site is not in an area subject
to seismic related ground failure,including
liquefaction.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project site is not in an area
designated as being at risk for landslides.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-207
Impact?Ex lanation
Mitigation
Measures
e.NO IMPACT The project site is former Navy housing
with buildings,pavement and landscaping
with minimal erosion resulting from the
construction of the new buildings and
parking lots.
f.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The project site is not located in an VI-20
MITIGATION INCORPORATED area designated to be at risk for These mitigation measures will reduce
landslides,lateral spreading,the amount of soil erosion and loss
subsidence or collapse.from construction grading.
g.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project site is not located in an area
with expansive soil.
h.NO IMPACT The project will be connected to the
sewer system.Septic tanks will not be
used.
VII.GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The additional bedrooms,parking VII-10
MITIGATION INCORPORATED spaces and classrooms and offices This mitigation measures will ensure
added by this project will increase that reduced emissions from paints,
emissions of green house gasses.sealants and solvents will occur
during construction.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The modest amount of additional green
house gas emissions does not conflict wth
plans,poliies and regulations to reduce
green house gasses.
VIII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Because the proposed project is a private
college rather than an industrial use,few
if any hazardous materials will be used or
transported.
b.NO IMPACT Because the project is a private college
rather than an industrial uses,the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment is very unlikely.
c.NO IMPACT Because the project is a private college
rather than an industrial use the emission
or handling of hazardous materials,
substances or waste within a quarter mile
of a school is very unlikely.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project is not located on a
list of hazardous materials sites pursuant
to Code Section 65962.5.
e.NO IMPACT The project site is not located within two
miles of a public airport.
f.NO IMPACT The project site is not located in the
vicinity of a private airstrip.
g.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project,consisting of
additional bedrooms,classrooms,offices
and parking spaces,is not likely to
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan.
ENV-2011~2478-MND C-208
Impact?Explanation
Mitigation
Measures
h.NO IMPACT The project site is not located at the edge
of an urbanized area adjacent to or
intermixed with wildlands prone to fires.
IX.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Water quality impacts may result from IX-20,IX-SO
MITIGATION INCORPORATED construction activities and from runoff These mitigation measures will reduce
from surface parking lots.the impacts on water quality from
construction and stormwater runoff.
b.NO IMPACT The proposed project will obtain water
from the City's water mains.No
groundwater will be depleted.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT No streams or rivers exist on the project
site.
d.NO IMPACT No streams or rivers exist on the project
site.
e.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The addition of the buildings for the
classrooms and offices and the parking
Jots will result in a modest increase in the
amount of runoff water.
f.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The facilities of this private college are not
likely to have any other impacts on water
quality.
g.NO IMPACT The project site is not located within a 100
year flood hazrd area.
h.NO IMPACT The project site is not located within a 100
year flood hazard area.
i.NO IMPACT The project site is not located in an area
that would be flooded as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam.
j.NO IMPACT The project site is not located in an area
sUbject to seiche.tsunami or mUdflows.
X.LAND USE AND PLANNING
a.NO IMPACT The project does not involve the
construction of physical barriers.Rather it
will add more bedrooms,buildings and
parking lots to an existing campus which
remains open to the public.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project is consistent with the existing
community plan and the RD6 zoning
provided that a conditional use permit is
obtained.
c.NO IMPACT There are no habitat conservation plans
or community conservation plans
applicable to the project site.
XI.MINERAL RESOURCES
a.NO IMPACT There are no known mineral resources on
the project site.
b.NO IMPACT There is no locally important mineral
resources recovery site designated for the
project site by a local land use plan.
XII.NOISE
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-209
Impact?Explanation
Mitigation
Measures
a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS There will be periodic increases in XII-20 -,,\
MITIGATION INCORPORATED noise levels resulting from future The mitigation measures will reduce
construction activity on the campus.construction noise levels.
b.NO IMPACT The additlonal bedrooms,offices,
classrooms,dining hall and parking
spaces proposed for this private college
are not industrial uses and will not expose
persons to excessive groundbourne
vibration or groundbourne noise levels.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The additional vehicle traffic generated by
this project will result in an increase in
ambient noise levels but not an increase
that is substantial.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The additional vehicle traffic generated by
this project will result in tempodrary or
periodic increases in noise levels but not
increases that are substantial.
e.NO IMPACT The proposed project is not within two
miles of an airport.
f.NO IMPACT The proposed project is not in the vicinity
of a private airstrip.
XIII.POPULATION AND HOUSING
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed addition of 192 bedrooms
to the existing dormatory buildings will
allow for an increased student population
on campus.However,the increase is not
significant.
b.NO IMPACT The removal of six dwelling units in order
to construct a maintenance facility is not a
significant reduction because it is more
than offset by the addition of 192 new
bedrooms to the existing residential
buildings.
c.NO IMPACT The removal of six dwelling units will not
result in persons being displaced because
the removal of the units is more than
offset by the addition of 192 bedrooms to
the other residences and because
students occupy college dorms only for
the duration of the school year.
XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project is within a 1.5 mile
service radius of an Fire Dept.engine
company and truck company,with a
regional fire station located next to the
project site.The impact of the proposed
structures on fire protection services is
not significant.
b.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The additional students resulting fromt XIV-20,XIV-30
MITIGATION INCORPORATED he 192 bedrooms to be added to the The mitigation measures will result in
dorms is a significant impact On the an enhanced level of security during
provision of police protection.and after construction.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-210
Impact?Explanation
Mitigation
Measures
c.NO IMPACT Because the new bedrooms are for
college students rather than for families,
there will few if any additional students
attending the public schools.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The addition of 192 bedrooms to the
eXisting residential buildings would result
in a modest increase in the demand for
parks and recreational facilities that is
partially offset by basketball and vollyball
courts and grassy open space on the
project site.
e.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The addition of 192 new bedrooms will
not have a significant effect on the need
for other public facilities.
XV.RECREATION
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The addition of 192 bedrooms to the
existing residential buildings will result in
a modest increase in the demand for
parks and recreational facilities that is
partially offset by basketball and vollyball
courts and grassy open areas on the
project site.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The volley ball and basket ball courts are
part of a developed neighborhood of
former Navy housing.There will be no
new construction and no adverse physical
impacts on the environment.
XVI.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
a.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The addition of 192 bedrooms,faculty XVI-10
MITIGATION INCORPORATED offices and classrooms would result in The required mitigation measures
a significant increase in a.m.and p.m.recommended by DOT will reduce the
peak vehicle trips that will reduce the traffic impacts on nearby intersections
effectiveness for the circulation to a level of insignificance.
system.
b.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The addition of 192 bedrooms,faculty
MITIGATION INCORPORATED offices and classrooms would result in
an increase in a.m.and p.m.peak
vehicle trips that will have a significant
impact on a congestion management
program.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project site is not near an airport and
the low rise buildings will have no impact
on air traffic patterns.
d.NO IMPACT No changes in the street patterns are
proposed as part of this project.
e'NO IMPACT No changes in the street patterns,
including those that would restrict
emergency access,are proposed as part
of this project.
f.NO IMPACT No changes in the circulation patterns
that would affect public transit.bicycle or
pedestrian facilities are proposed as part
of this project.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-211
1m act?Explanation
Mitigation
Measures
XVII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The addition of 192 bedrooms,faculty
offices,class rooms and a dining hall will
generate only a modest amount of
wastewater which will not exceed the
wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The additional wastewater generated by
this project will not require the
construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilitiesor the expansion of
existing facilities,
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project will add two new
buildings and parking which will result in a
modest increase in stormwater runoff that
is not of a sufficient volume to require the
construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities.
d.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The two buildings and additional
bedrooms will result in a modest increase
in the amount of water required for
Marymount College.
e.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The increased amount of wastewater XVII-20,XVII-40
MITIGATION INCORPORATED generated by the additional bedrooms The mitigation measures will reduce
and the two buildings exceeds the water use and thus the amount of
threshold of 4,000 gallons per day.wastewater generated by this project.
f.POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The amount of solid waste generated XVII-gO,XVII·100
MITIGATION INCORPORATED by the additional bedrooms and two The mitigation mesures will ensure
new buildings exceeds the threshold of that construction generated waste and
tive tons or more per week.waste generated by the buildings after
completion of construction is recycled.
g.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT All waste generated during and after
completion of construction will be
disposed of at local landfills in accordance
with federal,state and local laws.
XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project will be constructed on a site
which is former Navy housing so there
will be no reduction in the amount of
habitat for wildlife or destruction of native
plant species.
b.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT All project related impacts have been
reduced to less than significant levels.
None of the identified impacts have been
identified as resulting in commulatively
considerable impacts.
c.LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The proposed project consists of the
construction of additional bedrooms and
two new structures for classrooms,faculty
offices and a dining hall and parking
spaces.None of these uses are industrial
in nature that would involve the use of
hazardous materials that would cause
substantial adverse effects on humans.
ENV-2011-2478-MND C-212
Staff comments on MND for Marymount College San Pedro Campus
C-213
CITYOF
17 September 2012
Marc Woersching
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
200 N.Spring St.,yth FI.
Los Angeles,CA 90012
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
ADMINISTRATION
VIA ELECTRONIC &U.S.MAIL
SUBJECT:Comments Regarding the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case
No.ENV-2011-2478-MND)for the Marymount College San Pedro Campus
Project .
Dear Mr.Woersching:
On 5 September 2012,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes learned that,on or about 30 August
2012,the City of Los Angeles published notice of the above-mentioned Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND),thereby setting a 20-day deadline for the submittal of comments on the
MND by 19 September 2012.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has been involved in the review
of the Marymount College San Pedro Campus project with the City of Los Angeles'Northwest
San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)for the past year.
The primary issue of concern to Rancho Palos Verdes regarding this project is its traffic impact.
particularly related to trips between the proposed San Pedro Campus on Palos Verdes Drive
North and the College's main Rancho Palos Verdes Campus on Palos Verdes Drive East.We
note that the Initial Study (IS)identifies "Potentially Significant Impacts Unless Mitigation
Incorporated"with respect to "[conflicts]with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system"and "[conflicts]with an
applicable congestion management program"(Checklist Item Nos.XVl.a and XVl.b).The
explanation of environmental impacts then offers Mitigation Measure XVI-10 to address Item
Nos.XVl.a and XVl.b,which claims that "[the]required mitigation measures recommended by
DOT will reduce the traffic impacts on nearby intersections to a level of insignificance."
However,Mitigation Measure XVI-10 cites-but does not provide a copy of-the 24 July 2012,
communication between the Department of Transportation and the Planning Department that
.purports to detail the implementing measure(s)necessary to fully mitigate the project's traffic
impacts to less-than-significant levels.
As mentioned above,our City has been involved in the review of this project as a participant in
the NWSPNC planning review process for nearly a year.We have appreciated that our
suggestions to expand the scope of the traffic impact analysis of the project to address our
City's concerns were welcomed by the College and their traffic consultant.That is why it is so
distressing to find that the proposed MND does not include any detail about how our City's
concerns will be addressed.
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /RANCHO rJALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 /(310)544-5205/FAX (310)544-5281
WWW.PALOSVERDES.COM/RPV
I"RINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER C-214
Marc Woersching
17 September 2012
Page 2
Beyond the proposed MND,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is also concerned that the
environmental analysis of this project does not adequately capture its full scope and range of
potential impacts.Enclosed is the "Marymount College Campus Locator Map"from the
College's website.As shown on this map,the San Pedro Campus is but one of five (5)
geographically dispersed facilities that make up this institution.While the MND focuses on the
relationship and impacts (primarily traffic)between the San Pedro Campus and the Main
Campus in Rancho Palos Verdes,it does little to acknowledge or address the relationship of
these facilities with the College's Waterfront Campus and arts center in downtown San Pedro or
its existing Pacific View West residential community on West 24 th Street in San Pedro.The City
of Rancho Palos Verdes is concerned that the effects of these interrelations have not been
adequately addressed in the MND.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully requests that the City of Los Angeles suspend the
review pe\iod for the proposed MND,and recirculate a corrected MND that:
•Includes the missing DOT correspondence of 24 july 2012;and,
•More fully addresses the environmental impacts of the interrelationship of the San Pedro
Campus project with all four (4)of the other Marymount College facilities in San Pedro
and Rancho Palos Verdes.
Please note that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes also reserves the right to raise additional
issues and concerns based upon the corrected and recirculated MND.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.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.Sp'7
KitFO~
Senior Administrative Analyst
enclosure
cc:Mayor Misetich and Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Carolynn Petru,Deputy City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Ara Mihranian,Deputy Community Development Director
Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer
M:\Border Issues\Marymount College San Pedro Campus\20120917_Woersching_MNDComments.doc
C-215
C-216