RPVCCA_SR_2011_02_01_03_Border_IssuesGrrvOF
MEMORANDUM
UNCIL MEMBERS
DEVELOPMENT
HONORABLE MAYOR &C
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,CO
DIRECTOR
DATE:FEBRUARY 1,2011
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT/:\n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER \JtX--
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner @
RECOMMENDATION
TO:
FROM:
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• A brief report on a personnel change related to the Ponte Vista project in Los
Angeles (San Pedro);
• A report on the revised proposal for the expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant Church
in Rolling Hills Estates;
• A brief report on a letter from Mayor Long to School Board President De La Rosa
regarding the proposal for stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School;
and,
•An update on the Rancho LPG butane storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro).
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues"
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://palosverdes.comlrpv/planning/border issues/201 0/2011 020 1 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
3-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 1, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On January 11, 2011, Elise Swanson, most recently a member of the Ponte Vista
development team, advised Staff that she was returning to Los Angeles City Councilwoman
Janice Hahn’s staff as Deputy Chief of Staff. Ms. Swanson was previously on
Councilwoman Hahn’s Staff in the early- to mid- 2000s, but left to join the Bisno
Development team in about 2005.
Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion Project, Rolling Hills Estates
On December 9, 2010, Staff received the attached Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the revised Rolling Hills Covenant Church (RHCC) project.
The revised project no longer proposes any expansion of the church sanctuary. On
December 20, 2010, Staff forwarded the attached comments on the MND to the City of
Rolling Hills Estates. Our concerns were related to the potential traffic impacts of the so-
called “welcome center” in the former administration building and the potential for off-site
grading impacts at Green Hills Memorial Park. The 30-day public comment period for the
MND ended on January 7, 2011.
On January 18, 2011, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the revised RHCC project and the MND (see attached Staff report). The Staff
report included responses to the concerns that were raised in our comments on the MND,
namely:
• The proposed project would not generate sufficient additional traffic to warrant a
traffic impact analysis; and,
• There is no off-site grading proposed as a part of this current proposal.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission
agreed to approve the project as currently proposed. The Planning Commission was
expected to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the project to the Rolling Hills
Estates City Council at its meeting of January 31, 2011. Staff will continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Proposal, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District/Rolling Hills Estates
On December 13, 2010, the attached letter was sent to School Board President De La
Rosa by Mayor Long. In his letter, Mayor Long reiterates the City Council’s previously-
3-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 1, 2011
Page 3
stated desire for the School Board to submit this proposal for review through the City of
Rolling Hills Estates’ planning entitlement and environmental review process. Also
attached to tonight’s report is a recent e-mail from Rancho Palos Verdes residents about
this proposal. It should be noted that, as of the date that this report was completed, the
District had nothing new to report regarding the status of this proposal. Staff will continue
to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On December 17, 2010, Staff received an invitation from Rancho LPG Holdings, LLC to
attend a January 11, 2011, community meeting regarding the risk analysis for the Rancho
LPG facility on North Gaffey Street in San Pedro. The invitation to attend this meeting was
extended to elected and appointed community representatives, mostly from San Pedro and
its Neighborhood Councils (Northwest, Central and Coastal).
On December 21, 2010, the City Council considered a letter from Mayor Long to Los
Angeles City Councilwoman Hahn regarding the Rancho LPG facility. The letter was
approved with modifications that evening, and sent to Councilwoman Hahn on January 6,
2011 (see attachments). Staff has provided a copy of this letter to Rancho LPG.
The January 11, 2011, meeting hosted by Rancho LPG was held at the Crowne Plaza
Hotel in San Pedro. It was the first opportunity for Rancho LPG to present its own risk
analysis for the butane storage facility. At the outset, Rancho LPG representatives re-
stated their position that the type of catastrophic explosion that occurred last year in San
Bruno, CA could not occur at its San Pedro facility; and that the report prepared last year
on behalf of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC) by Cornerstone
Technologies was flawed and could not be relied upon as a “true” quantitative risk analysis
for the facility.
Rancho LPG’s consultant, Quest Consultants, presented an extremely detailed 2½-hour
oral presentation about the preparation of quantitative risk analyses (in general) and the
risks associated with the Rancho LPG facility (specifically). The analysis 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.
As modeled by Quest, the nearest residents to the Rancho LPG facility would experience a
risk of fatality that is consistent with international standards of “acceptable risk” for similar
facilities. It should be noted that seismic risk was not addressed in Quest’s analysis of the
Rancho LPG facility. The explanation provided was that there is insufficient data available
on the frequency of seismic events for Quest’s risk analysis models to generate meaningful
results. However, it was noted that the refrigerated butane storage tanks have passed
recent inspections and that they comply with the current International Building Code (IBC).
Finally, the Quest representative touched briefly upon the risk of intentional/terrorist attacks
upon the facility.
3-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
February 1, 2011
Page 4
Rancho LPG expects to conduct another similar meeting with elected and appointed
community representatives in May 2011. 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:
• E-mail regarding Elise Swanson’s return to Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s staff
(dated 1/24/11)
• Notice of Intent and revised IS/MND for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project
(received 12/09/10)
• City comments on the revised IS/MND for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project
(dated 12/20/10)
• RHE PC agenda and Staff report for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project
(dated 1/18/11)
• Peninsula News article regarding Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (published
1/20/11)
• Letter from Mayor Long to School Board President De La Rosa regarding the
Peninsula High School stadium lights proposal (dated 12/13/10)
• E-mail regarding Peninsula High School stadium lights proposal (dated 1/17/11)
• Invitation letter for Rancho LPG meeting (received 12/17/10)
• Letter from Mayor Long to Councilwoman Hahn regarding the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility (dated 1/6/11)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20110201_BorderIssues_StaffRpt.doc
3-4
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox ---_._------------
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,January 24,2011 12:06 PM
To:'Kit Fox'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
SUbject:FW:Old News or New News,keep 'replies to all'decent and respectful,please
Hi Kit-
FYI -Border Issues.It doesn't appear that you were copied on this email chain.
CP
--------------
From:Richard Wagoner [mailto:rwagoner@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,January 24,2011 11 :48 AM
To:Mark R Wells
Cc:RPV City CounCil;Richard Brunner;burlingl02@aol.com;Pat Carroll;VINCE Castiglione;
chad.christian@ecolab.com;Leon Cohen;Planning Commission;G.Cornell;dean@atiniui.nhm.org;dan dixon;
Ken Dyda;PVPN Editor;electrala@att.net;Doug Epperhart;Jerry Gaines;Jim Gordon;John Greenwood;Jay
Hatefi;Barry Hildebrand;info@coastalsanpedro.org;info@rneighborhoodsarel.org;jwcampeau@sbcglobal.net;
Peter Lacombe;Steve LaPine;Jeffrey Lewis;Donna Littlejohn;Mike Logan;Andy Mardesich;Leah Marinkovich;
John Maya;Kara McLeod;Diana Nave;Pat Nave;Melissa Pamer;Connie Reynolds;Gabriel Rivas;Ramee;April
Sandel;John Stinson;Gordon Teuber;Lucie Thorsen;Rob Thorsen;Dave Trujillo
SUbject:Re:Old News or New News,keep 'replies to all'decent and respectful,please
I am concerned,and believe it is a conflict of interest,I am surprised that COlUlcilwoman Hahn brought
her on board.I believe there is an explanation needed on why someone so obviously biased on this
project may some day act as an advisor to the Councilwoman.There is no way to suspend the conflict
of interest.
Richard Wagoner
On Jan 24,2011,at 11:36 AM,Mark R Wells wrote:
Many of you may know by now or are just learning that Ms.Elise Swanson is now the Deputy Chief of
Staff to Councilwoman Hahn.
Naturally I wrote a post on my blog and I am concerned about what will happen at Ponte Vista.
I have been assured by someone within Ms.Hahn's office that Ms.Swanson won't be working on
matters regarding Ponte Vista.However,as Deputy Chief of Staff,Ms.Swanson's responsibilities will
include Ponte Vista matters to a degree,I feel.
For those of you who do not know some history,Ms.Swanson left Councilwoman Hahn's office to
work for Robert H.(Bob)Bisno,back in 2005 when the office trailers were place at Ponte Vista at San
Pedro.
Ms.Swanson's position as a Vice President included being in charge of on-site marketing,community
1/26/2011 3-5
Page 2 of2
relations,and all local aspects of Bob Bisno's attempts to gain approval to build "2,300"condominium
units in northwest San Pedro.
The number of units changed during Ms.Swanson's tenure,and she was present when Bob was sent
away and at least one new development team emerged.
I do not know what the circumstances of Ms.Swanson's leaving matters regarding Ponte Vista at San
Pedro and I do not know if or who has replaced her in her former position.
I will write a post concerning my current feelings and findings regarding the latest proposals for Ponte
Vista.
As I have stated previously and I continue to feel strongly that there must be no more than 831 total
units constructed at the site and there is nothing wrong with others asserting that the current zoning on
the site,must remain.
Thank you and Happy New Year.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
www.polltevista.blogspot.com
www.eastrpv.blogspot.com
1/26/2011 3-6
3-7
1
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
INITIAL STUDY, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Rolling Hills Covenant Church South Campus
Improvement Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Niki Cutler, AICP, Principal Planner
(310) 377-1577
4. Project Location: Rolling Hills Covenant Church South Campus
2222 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
(See Figures 1 and 2: Regional Location and
Project Location, as well as Section 8
Description of Project for additional details.)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Rolling Hills Covenant Church
2222 Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
6. General Plan Designation:
Institutional (Planning Area 1) and within the
Cultural Resources Overlay
7. Zoning:
I (Institutional) and OS-R (portions of parking
area leased from the Metropolitan Water
District)
8. Description of Project:
Project Location
The project site is the South Campus of the Rolling Hills Covenant Church. As shown in
Figures 1 and 2, the project site is located at 2222 Palos Verdes (PV) Drive North in the City of
Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County, California. The site lies along the south side of PV
Drive North approximately 2,000 feet east of the intersection of PV Drive North and PV Drive
East. The project site is located along the City of Rolling Hills Estates eastern boundary and
borders the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of the following improvements to the existing 7.25-acre, 63,162-
ft2 (building space) Rolling Hills Covenant Church South Campus:
3-8
2
Construction of a new, 2-story, 15,286-square foot (ft2) Administration Building (intended for
non-worship uses);
Remodel of the facility’s existing Administration Building to create a new entry and Welcome
Center;
Construction of a new, 2-story, 946-ft2 maintenance shed;
Reconfiguration of the existing parking lot (no net change in the number of parking spaces);
and
Landscape and hardscape improvements.
These improvements are described in the subsections below and illustrated in Figure 3.
Proposed Administration Building
The proposed Administration Building is a roughly “L” shaped, 2-story, 15,286-ft2 building that
would be placed at the rear of the campus in an area that is currently occupied by part of the
site’s existing parking lot, part of the existing outdoor staircase, and unused space. The
proposed structure would house offices, cubicles, classrooms, conference rooms, volunteer
rooms, and support spaces (e.g., bathrooms, a kitchen/breakroom, storage spaces, lobbies,
etc.). See Table 1 for a summary of the proposed spaces in the Administration Building and
Table 2 for summary of the net increase in uses (considering both the proposed Administration
Building and proposed remodel of the campus’ existing Administration Building).
Table 1
Proposed Administration Uses Summary
Use Size (ft2)
Office (16) 3,304
Cubicle (6) 1,046
Classroom (4) 3,848
Conference Room (4) 1,140
Volunteer Room (4) 574
Reception/Lobby 973
Children Welcome Center 945
Bathrooms 976
Kitchen/Break Room 300
Other (e.g., storage, circulation, etc.) 2,180
Total 15,286
Table 2
Proposed Net Increase in Uses
Use Proposed for
Removal
Proposed Administration
Building – Upper Level
Proposed Administration
Building – Lower
(Children’s) Level
Net Gain
Classrooms 0 0 4 4
Conference
Rooms
1 3 1 3
Cubicles 4 6 0 2
Offices 9 13 3 7
Volunteer
Rooms
0 0 4 4
3-9
3
Proposed Remodel of the Existing Administration Building
The proposed project includes remodeling the existing Administration Building to create a
Welcome Center and a main entrance to the facility. The proposed remodel would remove the
office space, conference room, and other administrative uses from this structure and replace
these spaces with a welcome area, lobby, reception desk, kitchen, reading rooms/prayer
spaces, restrooms, volunteer rooms, and storage space. No increase in floor area is proposed.
However, the front elevation would be remodeled to create a main entrance to the facility.
Proposed Maintenance Shed
The proposed project includes constructing a new, 2-story, 946-ft2 maintenance shed. The
proposed maintenance shed would be located immediately south of the existing Sanctuary
Building in a currently unoccupied area.
Proposed Parking Lot Reconfiguration
The proposed project includes reconfiguring the site’s parking lot to provide space for the
proposed Administration Building. However, no change in the number of parking spaces is
proposed. The proposed layout maintains 505 parking spaces, with 271 existing spaces to
remain in place and 234 spaces to be created. Of the proposed spaces, 152 would be asphalt
paved and 82 would utilize a permeable paving material. Of note, the Church’s leased parking
lot on the adjacent Metropolitan Water District property would remain unchanged.
Landscape and Hardscape Improvements
The proposed project includes reconstructing the Church’s main entry from PV Drive North,
reconstructing the Church’s secondary (eastern) access drive from PV Drive North, and
enhancing the site’s landscaping. Under the proposed plan, the main entry would be repaved
and a round-a-bout and drop-off area would be installed near the proposed Welcome Center.
Proposed improvements to the secondary access drive include realigning and widening the
drive to accommodate three lanes and installing a right-turn pocket on PV Drive North
Proposed landscape improvements include parking lot/street trees, courtyards, and an
expanded playground area along the southeast (rear) side of the proposed Administration
Building.
Requested Discretionary Entitlements
The proposed project requires the following City Discretionary actions:
City Discretionary Actions
Decision Making Body Action Required
City Council, with a recommendation
from the Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit
Neighborhood Compatibility Determination
Grading application to prepare the site
Zone Text Amendment to allow grass paving to qualify
as landscaping for the purposes of meeting the
minimum landscape area requirements
3-10
4
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The surrounding area includes a cemetery (Green Hills Memorial Park) to the east of the church
property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the Palos Verdes Reservoir to the west, and a
tennis club facility (Jack Kramer Club), the North Campus of the Rolling Hills Covenant Church,
and single-family residential to the north across PV Drive North. South of the church property
lies an “overflow” parking lot (owned by MWD and leased to the church) and open
space/drainage detention areas. A multi-family residential complex in the City of Lomita also
exists to the east of the proposed facility, immediately north of the Green Hills Memorial Park.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
None.
11. References:
The documents listed below are incorporated into this document by reference and are
available for review in the Planning Department of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which
is located in City Hall, 4045 Palos Verdes Drive North Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274.
a. California, State of, the Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zone Map, Torrance Quadrangle, 1999.
b. Rolling Hills Estates, City of, General Plan, 1992.
c. Rolling Hills Estates, City of, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Rolling Hills Estates General Plan Update, September 1992.
d. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code.
e. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Public Facilities Impact Fee Report. June 13, 2008.
f. Rolling Hills Estates, City of. Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Guidelines.
June 14, 2004.
g. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Analysis Guidance
Handbook.
h. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document –
Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
12. Appendices
a. Analysis of Transportation/Traffic Impacts of the Rolling Hills Covenant Church
Improvements, Willdan Engineering, October 13, 2010.
b. URBEMIS Model Output
3-11
5
REPORT PREPARERS
The following consulting firm assisted the City of Rolling Hills Estates in the preparation of this
Initial Study:
Willdan
13191 Crossroads Parkway South, Suite 405
Industry, California 91746-3497
3-12
6
FI
G
U
R
E
1
–
R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
3-13
7
FI
G
U
R
E
2
–
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
3-14
8
FI
G
U
R
E
3
–
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
–
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
3-15
9
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service Systems
Agriculture Resources
Cultural Resources
Hydrology / Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality
Geology /Soils
Land Use / Planning
Population / Housing
Transportation / Traffic
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been address by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Printed Name For
3-16
10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers, except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factor
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis.)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact”
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should formally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
3-17
11
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:
I LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the General Plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Propose a use not currently permitted by the General
Plan Use Map?
d) Propose a use not currently permitted by the Zoning
Ordinance and Zoning Map?
e) Result in an increase in density beyond that permitted in
the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance?
f) Have an architectural style or use building materials that
are substantially inconsistent with neighborhood
compatibility requirements?
g) Propose a use, which is incompatible with surrounding
land uses because of the difference in the physical scale
of development, noise levels, light and glare and traffic
levels or hours operation?
h) Detract substantially from the rural character, as define
in the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan of the City?
i) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
I(a). No Impact – The proposed construction of a new 2-story Administration Building,
remodel of the facility’s existing Administration Building to create a new entry and
Welcome Center, construction of a new 2-story maintenance shed and
reconfiguration of the existing parking lot along with introducing landscape and
hardscape improvements, is consistent with the underlying zoning of the property
(“I”-Institutional) and surrounding equestrian, private recreational and residential
uses. Given that the proposed improvements would occur entirely on the existing
RHCC site, the location and design of the proposed project would not divide an
established community and would cause no related impacts.
I(b). No Impact - The project site is currently zoned (“I”) Institutional and designated
“Institutional” in the City’s General Plan. The proposed new buildings and renovation
of existing buildings for new purposes would continue the institutional use of the site
as a church and worship center, which is consistent with the general plan and zoning
designations of the site and compatible with the surrounding land uses. In addition,
the project site is located in the following overlay zones:
Cultural Resources Overlay – this designation applies to those areas that have been
designated as having a high sensitivity for cultural resources and where future
development may affect these resources. The Conservation Element of the General
3-18
12
Plan details appropriate actions that must be followed when property is included
within this designation.
Scenic Corridor Overlay – this designation applies to all properties on major
roadways, where scenic vistas, as designated in the Conservation Element of the
General Plan are located. The Scenic Corridor applies to all properties abutting PV
Drive North. The Conservation Element of the General Plan outlines specific
guidelines for future development along these roadways.
The new improvements and continued church campus use of the site will not conflict
with the City’s “Scenic Corridor Overlay” designation, which is discussed in III(d, h, i)
below, or the Cultural Resources Overlay, as described in VIII below.
I (c). No Impact – The proposed project is consistent with the land use designations for
the site.
I (d). No Impact - The proposed project is consistent with the zoning for the site.
I (e). No Impact – The proposed project is within the density limits established in the
City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The Land Use Element of the City’s
General Plan identifies a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 to 1.0 for the
Institutional General Plan designation and corresponding I zoning district. A 0.75
FAR for the site translates into 236,857 ft2 of maximum allowable building space for
the 315,810-ft2 site. With the proposed project, there would be 79,838 ft2 of building
space on the site, which is well below the FAR requirement.
In addition to the FAR requirement, the City’s Zoning Code (Section 17.20.050)
establishes a maximum lot coverage of 20% for the I zoning district. This translates
into a maximum lot coverage of 63,162 ft2 for the 315,810-ft2 site. With the proposed
project, the total lot coverage onsite would be 49,226 ft2, which complies with the lot
coverage requirement.
I (f). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is the construction of a new
2-story Administration Building, remodel of the facility’s existing Administration
Building to create a new entry and Welcome Center, construction of a new 2-story
maintenance shed and reconfiguration of the existing parking lot along with
introducing landscape and hardscape improvements. All of these improvements will
be constructed in a single phase. Detailed architectural plans developed for the
proposed structures and reconfigured parking areas indicate that a majority of the
building improvements will be located behind existing buildings and will not be visible
from PV Drive North.
The architectural plans for the project also indicate that the design of the buildings
and the exterior building materials chosen for the project improvements were
developed to blend with the existing architecture of the church campus and
associated buildings. Also, a majority of the proposed improvements are centrally
located on the property and, therefore, will not significantly affect adjoining uses (a
cemetery and water reservoir). Please see discussion under III - Aesthetics.
I (g). Less Than Significant - The scale and character of the proposed project is
consistent with other uses in the area. The church facilities (Covenant Church South
3-19
13
Campus) lies along the south side of PV Drive North approximately 2,000 feet east of
the intersection of PV Drive North and PV Drive East. The surrounding area includes
a cemetery (Green Hills Memorial Park) to the east of the church property, a large
water reservoir (Palos Verdes Reservoir) to the west, and a tennis club facility,
church facility, and single-family residential to the north across PV Drive North.
South of the church property lies an “overflow” parking lot (owned by MWD and
leased to the church) and open space/drainage detention areas.
The project site has been used as a church campus since the 1970’s. The
proposed improvements to the campus are largely for administrative and classroom
purposes. No expansion of the sanctuary or sanctuary seating is proposed. The
tallest new structure that would be located on the property is 27-feet for the proposed
new Administration Building. This structural height is within the current height
requirements (27-feet) for the “I”-Institutional Zone. It is also lower in height than the
existing church sanctuary building and steeple.
Churches and other religious institutions are conditionally permitted uses in the “I” –
Institutional zone. The applicants are required to obtain the approval of a conditional
use permit (CUP) for the proposed improvements along with a Neighborhood
Compatibility determination. The conditional use permit will allow the City to
establish “operating conditions” for the campus that will regulate such things as noise
levels, light and glare, traffic levels, and hours of operation. It should be noted,
however, that the proposed improvements are meant to accommodate existing
activities on the church campus. The proposed improvements are not being provided
to meet an increase in church school enrollment or an increase in the size of the
congregation itself (i.e., there is no proposed expansion of the sanctuary or
sanctuary seating capacity). Operations on the church campus will remain much as
they are today.
One additional facet of the proposed improvements includes the installation of new
landscape and hardscape surfaces on the project site, mostly concentrated in either
existing or reconfigured parking areas on the campus. Hardscape improvements
would include the use of “grasscrete”,
which is a permeable parking surface not currently permitted by the Code in the City
of Rolling Hills Estates. Consequently, a Zone Text Amendment is being proposed
that will allow the use of this kind of surface for parking purposes not only on the
Covenant Church property but on other properties in Rolling Hills Estates as well.
The installation of permeable surfaces for parking purposes (whether “grasscrete” or
similar product) would result in a reduction of surface run-off and lessen the potential
for parking lot contaminants to reach City storm drains.
I(h). No Impact – The project is consistent with the zoning, General Plan land use
designation, and scenic corridor overlay for the property. The proposed
improvements to the Covenant Church would not detract from the rural character of
the City.
I(i). No Impact – The proposed project is not located in an area which is subject to any
habitat conservation plan.
3-20
14
II RECREATION & OPEN SPACE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of any City designated areas for hiking
or horse or bicycle riding?
b) Reduce the ratio of parkland in the City to below 6.7
acres per 1,000 residents as designated in the General
Plan?
c) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the open space would occur or
be accelerated?
d) Individually or cumulatively considered result in a loss of
any (i) existing parkland, (ii) open space, as defined by
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan, (iii) private or
public recreational facilities as defined by the Rolling
Hills Estates General Plan for recreational purposes
and/or (iv) the replacement of privately owned public
recreational facility as defined by the General Plan with
non-recreational facilities as defined in the General
Plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
II(a-d). No Impact - The proposed project is the expansion of an existing church facility, with
additional building space for non-worship (administration and Sunday school) uses, a
maintenance shed, a reconfigured parking lot, and associated circulation and
landscape improvements. Since all proposed improvements would occur onsite, the
proposed project would not result in the loss of any existing hiking trails, horse or
bicycle riding facilities, parkland, open space, or other public or private recreational
facilities. Similarly, since the proposed project would not result in an increase in the
City’s population, the project would not reduce the City’s parkland-to-person ratio
and would not increase the use of any parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, the
proposed project would not adversely impact any recreational facilities or open space
areas.
III AESTHETICS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Not meet the Rolling Hills Estates development
standards or neighborhood compatibility standards in a
substantial manner?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect (i.e. development standards, design
guidelines, etc)?
c) Include new electrical service box and utilities lines
above ground?
d) Be located within a view corridor and include
unscreened outdoor uses or equipment inconsistent with
the rural character, as defined by the City of Rolling Hills
Estates General Plan?
3-21
15
III AESTHETICS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
e) Result in the loss of any (i) Environmentally Sensitive
Area as defined by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, (ii)
natural undeveloped canyon or (iii) hillside area?
f) Obstruct the public’s view of (i) scenic resources or (ii) a
scenic corridor or (iii) vista as identified (on a case-by-
case basis)?
g) Contrast with the surrounding development and/or
scenic resources due to the project’s height, mass, bulk,
grading, signs, setback, color or landscape?
h) Be located along a City designated scenic or view
corridor and contrast with the surrounding development
and/or scenic resources due to the project’s height,
mass, bulk, grading, signs, setback, color or landscape?
i) Substantially: (i) remove natural features, or (ii) add
man-made features, or (iii) structures which degrade the
visual intactness and unity of the scenic corridor or
vista?
j) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area
that will exceed the standards established in the
Municipal Code, illuminate areas outside the project
boundary, and use excessive reflective building
material?
k) Include roadway improvements that will result in a
substantial decrease of open space or trees?
l) Include roadway improvements that are not consistent
with the surrounding landscape?
m) Result in the installation of a traffic signal that is not
justified by signal warrants or documented roadway
hazards?
n) Result in the installation of a traffic signal in a residential
neighborhood1?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
III(a-b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation – The proposed project is the construction
of a new 2-story Administration Building, remodel of the facility’s existing
Administration Building to create a new entry and Welcome Center, construction of a
new 2-story maintenance shed and reconfiguration of the existing parking lot along
with introducing landscape and hardscape improvements. All of these improvements
would be constructed in a single phase. Detailed architectural drawings submitted by
the applicants include building facades and rooflines which will closely match that of
the existing buildings located on the site. Like the existing improvements, the sides of
the new buildings will be stucco painted to match the existing buildings and asphalt
shingle pitched roofs that match the roof pitches of the existing buildings on the
property.
The proposed improvements to the Covenant Church South Campus are consistent
with the property development standards for the Institutional zone (RHE Municipal
Code § 17.20.010). In addition to these standards, and since the project site lies
1 For purposes of this traffic signal threshold only, a signal is considered to be located in
residential neighborhood if it is within or abutting a residentially zoned property.
3-22
16
along a Scenic Corridor identified in the City’s General Plan (see subsection III [d, h,
i]), the project is subject to the objectives of the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility
Ordinance (as outlined in RHE Municipal Code § 17.62.030). These objectives
consist of the following five topics:
Natural Amenities;
Neighborhood Character;
Scale;
Style;
Privacy;
Landscaping; and
Views.
The proposed additions to the Covenant Church South Campus are expected to
comply with all of the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility objectives. The proposed
building additions (largely for administrative and educational purposes) respect the
natural amenities of the site and surroundings; are of a scale that is consistent with
the existing onsite facilities and surrounding properties; contain design elements that
blend in with the existing buildings on the Campus (e.g., pitched asphalt shingle
roofing and painted stucco building exteriors); and also include improved
landscaping of the parking facilities that serve the Campus. In addition, the
proposed additions would not encroach upon the privacy of any surrounding facilities
and would not negatively impact any views (see subsection III[f-g]).
Mitigation Measure AES-1 is included to ensure final designs of the proposed new
structures on the South Campus comply with the objectives of the City’s
Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance. With the incorporation of this measure, the
proposed project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted
for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including the
City’s neighborhood compatibility standards.
Mitigation Measure AES-1: Prior to issuance of construction permits, Planning
staff shall review the materials and colors of the proposed structures, including
but not limited to, the new 2-story Administration Building, remodel of the facility’s
existing Administration Building, and the new 2-story maintenance shed, to
ensure compatibility with the existing structures and compliance with the
objectives of the City’s Neighborhood Compatibility Ordinance (as outlined in
RHE Municipal Code § 17.62.030).
III(c) No Impact - The proposed project is to provide expanded administrative services
building and classroom spaces for an existing church campus. No new above-
ground utility lines or service boxes would be installed with this project.
III(d, h, i) Less than Significant Impact – The project site is located along PV Drive North,
which is a designated “Scenic Corridor” in the City’s General Plan (see Exhibit 5-2 of
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan). Rolling Hills Estates’ Scenic Corridors are
roadways that traverse areas of aesthetic quality or offer views of aesthetic features.
The following criteria were used in designating Scenic Corridors in the City2:
2 City of Rolling Hills Estates General Plan, see pg. 5-18.
3-23
17
Areas which characterize the rural or urban form of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates.
Significant historic places or sites of interest.
Outstanding topographic features or unique natural features.
Urban design and architecture unique to the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
Important viewsheds where preservation is warranted.
The proposed project involves construction of a new 2-story Administration Building,
remodel of the facility’s existing Administration Building to create a new entry and
Welcome Center, construction of a new 2-story maintenance shed and
reconfiguration of the existing parking lot along with introducing landscape and
hardscape improvements. Improvements proposed near the PV Drive North frontage
include modifying the existing Administration building and turning it into a Welcome
Center and reconfiguring parking stalls located in the main parking lot which has
access from PV Drive North.
The South Campus is currently terraced into a series of level pads. The existing
buildings and surface parking areas have been built on these pads. Structures are
terraced along the pads. The existing landscaping is ornamental in nature and is
concentrated in the parking areas. While these existing parking areas would be
reconfigured, the natural topography would not be substantially impacted. Moreover,
there would be no significant impacts to natural amenities such as topography, native
landscaping or other natural features.
The improvements required to convert the existing Administration building into a
Welcome Center consist primarily of the modification of interior spaces of the
building. Building doors and windows would be changed; however, the visible
exterior of the building would remain largely unchanged from its current condition.
Regardless, the South Campus buildings would remain largely screened from view
from PV Drive North due to setbacks and landscaping. Like the existing building, the
proposed new administration building and classroom spaces would be setback over
100 feet from PV Drive North. The proposed project would also enhance the existing
landscaping in the parking areas. The existing main vehicular entrance from PV
Drive North would be redesigned and re-landscaped with trees and shrubs. This
proposed driveway improvement would also replace deteriorating pavement and
improve the appearance of the entrance to the Campus.
In addition to not adversely affecting the aesthetic quality or character of the project
environs, the proposed project would not block or obstruct views of any scenic
resources. The proposed structures and landscaping are similar in height and
density to the existing facilities and vegetation onsite and are consistent with the
open space character of the surrounding land uses. The new buildings are also
proposed to be located behind the existing structures on the project site and,
therefore, would not be visible from PV Drive North.
In summary, due to (1) the intent of the project to improve facilities onsite and
provide additional administrative and classroom space without increasing the seating
capacity of the sanctuary; (2) the mature vegetation that surrounds the site, (3) the
3-24
18
enhanced landscaping proposed as part of the project; and (4) the project’s setback
from PV Drive North, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse
impacts on the PV Drive North Scenic Corridor. Specifically, the proposed project
would not include unscreened outdoor uses or equipment that are inconsistent with
the rural character of the City; would not contrast with the surrounding development
or scenic resources; and would not degrade the visual intactness and unity of the
scenic corridor.
III(e) No Impact – The proposed project will not result in the loss of any Environmentally
Sensitive Areas, undeveloped canyons or hillside areas. The project site is currently
being used as a church campus and immediately abuts a cemetery and reservoir.
The proposed improvements to the existing Campus will not remove any natural
features on the site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts related
to the loss of an Environmentally Sensitive Area, natural undeveloped canyon, or
hillside area.
III(f-g) Less than Significant Impact - There are no scenic resources that would be
obstructed with the proposed improvements to the existing church campus. The
Covenant Church South Campus has been in operation on the project site since the
1970’s and is immediately adjacent to a cemetery and reservoir site. Therefore, the
use of the project site is compatible with adjacent uses. The project confines new
construction to the rear of existing buildings on the site. Because of the setback and
mature trees along PV Drive North, the proposed improvements to the site would be
screened from the public view.
See also Section III (d, h, i), above.
III(j). Less Than Significant with Mitigation – The project site is currently separated
from PV Drive North by a 20-ft landscaped setback area, a horse trail, and mature
trees planted in existing parking areas. These areas shield both the project site from
light and glare from the roadway as well as drivers on PV Drive North from project
light and glare. Existing exterior lighting on the site includes parking lot lights,
security lighting, and landscape/accent lights.
The proposed project includes replacing some the facility’s parking lot lights as part
of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration, and replacing/installing accent and
landscaping lights. Section 17.20.050(J) of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code
requires development projects in the “I” zoning district to comply with the Municipal
Code’s lighting standards for residential districts (Section 17.42.030 of the City’s
Municipal Code). However, certain portions of the residential lighting standards are
not appropriate for religious institution parking lots. As a result, mitigation measure
AES-2 requires the project proponent to apply for a Special Use Permit to be exempt
from complying with the power/light intensity requirements (item “B”) of the City’s
residential lighting standards (Section 17.42.030[B] of the City’s Municipal Code).
Importantly, the project will still be required to meet Section 17.42.030(D), which
limits any indirect illumination of neighboring properties to four-tenths footcandle at
the property line or less. After mitigation, the proposed project would not create a
substantial source of light or glare and any related impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measure AES-2: Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the
project proponent shall apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to be exempt from
3-25
19
the power/light intensity requirements (item “B”) of the City’s residential lighting
standards (Section 17.42.030[B] of the City of Rolling Hills Estates’ Municipal
Code). The SUP application shall include a lighting plan that demonstrates
compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.42.030(D), which limits any indirect
illumination of neighboring properties to four-tenths footcandle at the property line
or less.
III(k-l). No Impact –. The proposed project does not include any roadway improvements,
other than minor modifications to the south side of PV Drive North to accommodate
the proposed entryway improvements. These minor improvements would not result
in a loss of open space or a loss of trees, and would have no discernable change to
the surrounding landscape.
III(m-n) No Impact – The project does not include the installation of a traffic signal and the
proposed improvements to the church campus are not anticipated to trigger any
traffic warrants.
IV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Itself, or when cumulatively considered result in a traffic
impact. A change in Level of Service (LOS) from C to D
or D to E is a traffic impact. Within LOS C or D, a
change in ICU value greater than 0.02 is an impact and
within LOS E or F a change in ICU greater than 0.01 is
an impact. For unsignalized intersections, an impact
occurs when the addition of project traffic increases the
Level of Service to an unacceptable level (less than LOS
C)?
b) Trigger one or more signal warrants?
c) Include design features, uses, or traffic volumes that
may cause traffic hazards such as sharp curves, tight
turning radii from streets, limited roadway visibility, short
merging lanes, uneven road grades, pedestrian, bicycle
or equestrian safety concerns, or any other conditions
determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be a hazard?
d) Result in additional access points on arterial streets as
defined by the General Plan?
e) Result in a residential project that will result in a
secondary access point?
f) Create one or more access points on a roadway that is
not the primary frontage?
g) Create a flag lot3 adjacent to an arterial street, as
defined by the General Plan?
3 A flag lot is defined as a lot located behind another lot that has normal street frontage. A flag lot includes
a strip of land that goes out to the street and is generally used for an access drive. There are two distinct
parts to a flag lot; the flag, which comprises the actual building site, located behind another lot, and the
pole, which provides access from the street to the flag. A flag lot results from the division of a large lot
with the required area and depth for two lots, but which has insufficient width to locate both lots on the
street frontage.
3-26
20
IV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
h) Result in inadequate parking capacity as determined by
the City in evaluating the reasonably foreseeable
demands of the specific project?
i) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IV(a). Less Than Significant Impact – In accordance with the City of Rolling Hills Estates’
Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Guidelines4, projects that generate less than 50
trips during both the AM or PM peak hours do not require a traffic impact analysis.
Similarly, the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) does
not require traffic impact analyses for projects that contribute less than 50 trips to
CMP arterial monitoring intersections during either the AM or PM weekday peak
hours5.
The only component of the proposed project that would generate new vehicle trips is
proposed expansion of the Sunday School Classroom use. As detailed in the
project’s Analysis of Transportation/Traffic Impacts6 (contained in Appendix A of this
document), the proposed expansion would conservatively generate an additional 43
vehicle drips during the peak hour of Sunday School (see Table IV-1, below). This
amount of trip generation is too low to warrant a formal traffic impact analysis
pursuant to either the City’s standards or the CMP standards. Therefore, project-
induced trips are not expected to impact the Level of Service (LOS) of any adjacent
intersections and the project’s traffic impacts would be less than significant.
Table IV-1
Trip Generation
ITE Land Use 5601 Calculated Rate2
Sunday School Rooms
Avg. Rate
per 1000 sq.ft. Trips
Avg. Rate
per 1000 sq.ft. Trips
3,848 sq. ft. 9.59 37 11.25 43
1Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 8th Edition; Rate "Church" Land Use 560,
Sunday Peak Hour of Generation.
2Based on attendance records of the Rolling Hills Covent Church’s existing educational facilities.
IV(b). No Impact – The project’s limited increase in trip generation is not anticipated to be
sufficient to trigger signal warrants at the project’s entrance (PV Drive North) or at
any other intersections.
4 City of Rolling Hills Estates, Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology Guidelines, June 14, 2004.
5 Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angles County, Congestion Management Program for Los
Angeles County, 2004.
6 Willdan Engineering, Analysis of Transportation/Traffic Impacts of the Rolling Hills Covenant Church
Improvements, October 13, 2010.
3-27
21
IV(c). Less than Significant Impact – The proposed project includes internal an internal
circulation network and improvements to the site’s three existing access points,
which would require an encroachment permit from the City’s Public Works Director
for improvements within the PV Drive North right-of-way. The project’s Analysis of
Transportation/Traffic Impacts7 (contained in Appendix A of this document)
concluded the following regarding the proposed circulation:
Based on preliminary analysis, the circulation pattern appears adequate. A new
circulation pattern is proposed in the vicinity of the new Administration Building.
This circulation pattern does not create any unusual conflicts in circulation.
The proposed project has 3 existing access points along PV Drive North. A new
right turn only/deceleration lane is proposed on PV Drive North at the most
easterly driveway. In addition to this lane, the driveway access is proposed to be
widened to accommodate two inbound lanes and one outbound lane. These two
improvements are intended to minimize conflicts between incoming movements
as well as improve circulation at this driveway. The proposed project does not
include any design features, uses, or traffic volumes that would cause hazards.
The proposed project would be less than significant with regards traffic safety.
IV(d). No Impact – No additional access points are proposed.
IV(e). No Impact – The project is not a residential project and the project site would not
add any new access points.
IV(f). No Impact –No new access points would be created as part of this project.
IV(g). No Impact – This is not a residential project and no lots are being created as part of
this project.
IV(h). Less than Significant Impact – The Rolling Hills Covenant Church South Campus
currently has a total parking supply of 672 spaces. This parking supply consists of
505 onsite spaces and 167 spaces on an adjacent property, which the Church leases
from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California. The proposed
project would continue to provide 672 spaces for the Church’s South Campus. The
onsite parking lot would be reconfigured, but would continue to contain 505 parking
spaces. The 167 leased spaces from the MWD would not be affected by the
proposed project. No compact spaces are proposed and 30 handicap spaces would
be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The City requires a parking ratio of one parking space for every 300 square feet of
gross square footage with the following exceptions:
For pre-schools – one space for each staff member, plus one space for each
seven children (based on maximum enrollment).
7 Ibid.
3-28
22
For chapel and sanctuaries – one space for every 33 square feet of public
seating area.
Based on these requirements, the number of required parking spaces for the
church/sanctuary would dictate the facility’s overall parking requirement. The
Church’s total sanctuary area is 20,614 sq. ft., which would result in the need for 625
parking spaces. Therefore, the total parking supply of 672 spaces satisfies the City’s
code requirements. Given the preceding discussion, the project would not cause any
significant parking impacts.
IV(i). No Impact – The project would not conflict with any alternative transportation plans,
policies, or programs.
V AIR QUALITY Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Fail to meet the applicable State and Federal air quality
plan (i) because the project may cause or contribute to
emission of identified air pollutants in excess of levels
stated in the plan or (ii) where it may fail to implement a
remedial or mitigation measure required under the
appropriate plan?
b) Results in emission of identified pollutants in excess of
the pounds per day or tons per quarter standards
established by SCAQMD?
c) Cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality regulations (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors) where the incremental effect of the project
emissions, considered together with past, present, and
reasonably anticipated future project emissions, increase
the level of any criteria pollutant above the existing
ambient levels?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people because the project may cause an
odiferous emission, including emissions resulting from
vehicles, that is noxious, putrid, having an appreciable
chemical smell, or having an appreciable smell of human
or animal waste, rendering, or by-products?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
V(a-c) Less than Significant With Mitigation – The City of Rolling Hills Estates is within
the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is an airshed that regularly exceeds
ambient air quality standards (AAQS) – i.e., a non-attainment area. The SCAB is
designated a non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine
particulate matter (PM2.5), and ozone (O3). The SCAB is currently a designated
attainment area for the remaining criteria pollutants, which include carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
3-29
23
The proposed project would generate air pollutants from both construction and
operation activities. Construction of the proposed improvements would include
demolition of a portion of the existing asphalt parking lot and other exterior
hardscape; minor grading to formalize a building pad; building construction; paving;
landscaping; and painting. These construction activities would generate air pollutants
from equipment exhaust and earth disturbance.
The project’s construction emissions were calculated for the project using the
URBEMIS 2007 Model (version 9.2.4). The resulting estimated construction
emissions are show in Table V-1. Table V-1 compares the project’s construction
emissions with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s)
regional and localized significance thresholds. The complete results of the project’s
URBEMIS Model run are included in Appendix B of this document.
Table V.1
Estimated Construction Emissions
(lbs/day on the worst-day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Construction Emissions 31.93 23.50 12.97 0.00 4.58 1.79
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD LSTs1 n/a 189 2,108 n/a 46 11
Significant? No No No No No No
LST = Localized Significance Threshold
1Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised July 2008. Based on
Appendix C Localized Significance Screening Threshold Tables for a site that is located in “Southwest Coastal LA County”, greater than 5
acres in size, and at least 50 meters from the closest sensitive receptor.
As shown in Table V-1, construction of the proposed project would not generate air
pollutants in excess of either the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds or
localized significance thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not cause or
substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation and would not
generate pollutants in excess of SCAQMD standards.
During operation, the project would generate air pollutants from vehicles arriving and
departing the site, landscape maintenance equipment exhaust, natural gas
combustion, and other area sources. The URBEMIS 2007 Model (version 9.2.4) was
used to estimate the air pollutant emissions that would be generated by operation of
the proposed project. Table V-2 compares the project’s operation emissions with the
SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. The complete results of the project’s
URBEMIS Model run are included in Appendix B of this document.
Table V-2
Area and Operation Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Project Area and Operation Emissions 1.60 1.92 19.06 0.02 3.15 0.62
SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
As show in Table V-2, the project’s area and operation emissions would be well
below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project’s operation
and area emissions would not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation, and impacts are considered less than significant.
3-30
24
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the
surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate
change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases
contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth due to their transparency to
short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long
wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) include carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide. Collectively GHGs are measured as
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-
highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions,
accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and
commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with
about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three
executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders
(EO) include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, Executive Order (EO) S-
03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07. AB 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, is one of the most significant pieces of environmental
legislation that California has adopted. Most notably, AB 32 mandates that by 2020,
California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels.
The SCQAMD has adopted a “Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold”. This document contemplates
GHG Significance Thresholds for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency.
While the SCAQMD is not the lead agency for the proposed project, the SCAQMD’s
threshold is considered in this CEQA document as a reference for comparative
purposes. The SCAQMD’s draft GHG Significance Threshold establishes a 5-tier
threshold flowchart, with Tier 3 identifying a screening threshold of 10,000 metric
tons per year (MT/yr) of CO2e for industrial projects. A Tier 3 screening threshold of
3,000 MT/yr of CO2e for commercial and residential projects was also considered by
the SCAQMD but was not adopted.
The project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS 2007 model (see
Appendix B). The proposed project is estimated to generate 447.31 MT/yr of CO2,
plus an inconsequential about of methane and nitrous oxide. While the SCAQMD
has not identified screening thresholds that correspond to institutional facilities, the
project’s GHG emissions would be substantially below the lowest considered
(residential and commercial) screening thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project’s
contribution to global climate change caused by GHG emissions is not considerable.
V(d). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not establish any new
odor-generating activities. During project construction, equipment may generate
some mild odors. However, such odors typically dissipate within close proximity of
the source and there are no immediately adjacent residences. Therefore, the
proposed project would not cause any significant adverse odor impacts.
3-31
25
VI NOISE Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of code requirements (Chapter 8.32)?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VI(a). Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project would result in
long-term noise impacts on the adjacent uses surrounding the project, since the
proposed project consists largely of “internal building improvements” consisting of
new administrative office and classroom spaces as well as remodeling the interior of
the existing administration building to create a “Welcome Center.” The project site is
bounded on one side by PV Drive North and the other sides by a cemetery and water
reservoir. The improvements to the church campus would not impact adjacent
properties.
The City's General Plan has established standards for noise and land use
compatibility for the various land use categories in the City. The established levels
are based on existing noise levels obtained through field monitoring, projected noise
levels, and community expectations to maintain an environment that is free from all
unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise. Table IV-1 indicates the maximum noise
level when measured at the property line for each category of land use. The maximum
daytime noise level applicable to the South Campus is 55 dBA while the maximum
night-time noise level is 45 dBA.
Table IV-1 indicates the applicable noise standards for three major land use
categories in the City. These standards apply to all receptor properties within a
designated noise zone, which includes Zones I, II and M. The RHCC South Campus
is subject to the requirements of Zone I.
Table IV-1
Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone/Land Use Time Interval
Exterior Noise Level
(dBA)
Zone I/Residential and
Agriculture 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 55
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 45
Zone II/Commercial 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 65
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 55
Zone III/Industrial-Quarry
Operations* 7:00 A.M. -10:00 P.M. 75
10:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M. 45
Source: City of Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code
A church is considered a sensitive use. As the proposed project would expand the
existing church’s classroom and administrative facilities, the proposed project would
3-32
26
locate a noise sensitive use in an area currently acceptable for church uses. Based
on the City's noise ordinance, the project site is located within noise Zone I, which
requires an ambient noise level of 55 dBA and 45 dBA during the daytime and
evening hours, respectively. Given the low level of ambient noise on the project site,
the proposed project is consistent with the above referenced policy, and no
significant impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
Construction noise associated with heavy equipment vehicles, building activities and
transport of materials and debris may result in short term increases in noise levels to
the nearby properties, which include a private recreational facility (tennis club) and
residential and church properties located across PV Drive North from the church
campus and a multi-family residential complex to the east of the site. Of these uses
that could be potentially disturbed, only the residential units would be sensitive
receptors to construction noises. The single-family residential uses to the north are
separated from the project site by PV Drive North, trees, and vegetated areas
located on the church property itself as well as along PV Drive North. The multi-
family residential uses to the east are separated from the project site by a cemetery
structure. The closest residential uses to the site (the multi-family complex in
Lomita) are more than 100 feet from the project site and would be largely shielded
from construction noise by an existing cemetery structure. Additionally, project
construction noise would be masked by traffic noise on PV Drive North and noise
would be buffered from the surrounding uses due to their distance from the site and
the mature vegetation that surrounds the church property.
Furthermore, noise during construction would be required to comply with City’s noise
ordinance. Per Section 8.32.210 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code,
construction activities (using any power equipment) are only allowed between 7:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed at any time on Sundays and
holidays. Given the short-term nature of the project’s construction noise, existing City
noise ordinance requirements, and the distance to residences, short-term noise
impacts would be less than significant.
VII BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be a project, other than a minor lot improvement
undertaken by an individual homeowner, and be located
in a high ecological sensitivity area as defined by the
General Plan and not preserve ecological habitat that is
found at the project site in accordance with the
guidelines established by the General Plan Conservation
Element.
b) Conflict with General Plan policies for protecting
biological resources.
c) Result in the loss of any (i) Environmentally Sensitive
Area as defined by the City of Rolling Hills Estates, (ii)
natural undeveloped canyon or (iii) hillside area.
3-33
27
VII BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
d) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including
but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means.
g) Interfere substantially with (i) the movement of any
native resident or (ii) migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or (iii) impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites.
h) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number, or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal.
i) Have biological resource impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable.
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VII(a-i) No Impact – The project site is highly disturbed due to human activity. Since the
1970’s, the site has been utilized as the South Campus of the Covenant Church and
has been fully improved with structures such as a sanctuary, administration building,
classrooms, paved parking areas, and structures used for other church-related
purposes.
Currently, vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental trees and landscaping in
existing parking areas. No natural vegetative communities exists onsite. The site
contains no natural physical features or otherwise significant topographical features
that provide biological resource value. As such, the project will not result in a loss of
an environmentally sensitive area, a natural undeveloped canyon or a hillside.
The project site is not located within an Ecological Overlay zone identified on Exhibit
5-1 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed building additions to the
South Campus would cause no impacts related to the City’s Ecological Overlay
zone. Furthermore, the project would not conflict with any General Plan policies for
protecting biological resources, as none exist onsite.
No change in use or significant change to the Covenant Church South Campus
would occur as a result of this project. No sensitive, threatened or endangered
3-34
28
species are present on the project site. Also, there is no sensitive habitat, riparian
habitat, or wetlands on the project site. Given the highly disturbed nature of the
project site, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident, bird or fish species, impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites or impact any plant species.
There are no biological resources on the project site. Therefore, the project would
not cause any biological resource impacts and would not considerably contribute to
any significant cumulative biological resource impacts.
VIII CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be located in high cultural sensitivity area as defined by
the Rolling Hills Estates General Plan and will result in
grading in excess of 20 cubic yards of soil.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical or archeological resource as defined in §
15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
VIII(a-b). Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation – The project site lies within
an area of “High Sensitivity” for cultural resources, as shown on Exhibit 5-3 of the
Rolling Hills Estates General Plan. The General Plan (pg. 5-23) states, “High
sensitivity areas within the Peninsula planning area include those areas which have
not been previously surveyed or have been subject to historic human disturbance
other than agriculture. Based on the demonstrated prehistoric settlement pattern for
coastal Southern California and on the density of recorded archaeological sites
within the planning area, those portions of the planning [area] which retain their
natural character and which have not been subject to surveys specifically related to
the identification of cultural resources are considered to have a high potential for the
presence of cultural resource sites.”
While the site lies within an overall area that is sensitive area for cultural resources,
the entire site has been previously graded for the construction of the existing Church
campus. As such, any archaeological resources that may have existed onsite have
likely been eradicated from the site. Furthermore, the project requires only minimal
grading. No subterranean basements or parking decks are proposed, and the
proposed buildings/additions would be located on portions of the site that have been
previously graded and improved. Nevertheless, due to the area’s sensitivity for
cultural resources, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 requires an archaeological monitor to
be onsite during all grading and trenching activities. With the incorporation of this
measure, the proposed project would not significantly impact any archaeological
resources.
3-35
29
In regards to historical resources, the Los Angeles County Historical Directory does
not record any historic sites within the vicinity of the site of the proposed project.
The existing structures on-site are not considered architecturally or historically
significant by the City or any other group. There are no historic structures or
objects on-site or within adjacent areas. As a result, the proposed project will not
result in any impacts on historical resources.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: Grading, trenching, and excavation activities on
the project site shall be monitored by a qualified archeological monitor approved
by the City. If buried archeological resources are uncovered during construction,
all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the
monitor can assess the significance of the archaeological resources and
recommend to the City the appropriate action. The Planning Director shall be
notified of any finds and the recommendation of the monitor within 24-hours. At
the conclusion of monitoring, a report of findings with an appended itemized
inventory of specimens shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Director
to indicate completion of project monitoring. Disposition of recovered prehistoric
artifacts shall be made in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
In the event of the accidental discovery of any human remains, the steps and
procedures specified in Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines
15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code 5097.98 shall be implemented.
VIII(c). No Impact – There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic
features on this fully developed site. Furthermore, the proposed improvements
would be constructed in an area that has previously been developed, and the
minimal grading that would be required would occur in surfical soils that have
previously been disturbed. No grading into deep earth materials that could contain
paleontological resources would occur. Similarly, no unique geological features exist
onsite and no landform modification is proposed. Therefore, the proposed project
would have no impact on paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
VIII(d). Less than Significant Impact – There are no known human remains on the site.
The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used
for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not
expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the
unlikely event that human remains are encountered during project construction, State
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires the project to halt until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the
remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with
these regulations would ensure the proposed project would not result in significant
impacts due to disturbing human remains.
3-36
30
IX GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Involve modifications on slopes greater than 2:1?
b) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
v) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risk to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
IX(a) Less than Significant Impact –The site slopes generally downward in a
southwesterly direction from PV Drive North. No slopes greater than 2:1 exist on the
site, and no landform modifications or other substantial grading is proposed for the
project. Therefore, while the site includes a slight slope, the project’s related impacts
are less than significant.
IX(b-c). Less Than Significant Impact – The project site contains no known active or
potentially active faults nor is it within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.
The potential for ground rupture on the site is considered to be very low.
However, the project site will be subject to the effects of seismic activity from the
numerous faults found within the region. The Palos Verdes Peninsula itself lies at
the juncture of a number of known active fault systems. Detectable ground shaking
in the City of Rolling Hills Estates may be caused by earthquakes occurring on a
number of faults in the area, including the San Andreas, Palos Verdes, Newport-
Inglewood, Cabrillo, Redondo Canyon, and Santa Monica-Malibu Coast Fault
systems. The intensity of seismic ground shaking at any given location is influenced
by the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the epicenter, and local geologic
and topographic conditions. The amount of damage caused by seismic ground
3-37
31
shaking generally depends on the size, shape, age, and engineering characteristics
of affected structures.
Ground motion and related hazards resulting from earthquakes along any of the
aforementioned faults may result in significant seismic related hazards. The
potential for fault rupture is addressed at the state level by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The legislature’s intent was to provide a statewide
seismic hazards mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and
counties in fulfilling their responsibilities for protecting the public health and safety
from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure,
and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes. As previously mentioned, the
project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone.
The project site is also not within a liquefaction or earthquake-induced landside
hazard area depicted on the Seismic Hazard Evaluation Map, Torrance Quadrangle
prepared by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG).
Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral movement of earth
materials due to ground shaking. The topography at the project site and in the
immediate vicinity is relatively flat. Under these circumstances, with groundwater
deeper than 50 feet below ground surface (bgs), the potential for lateral spreading is
considered low.
The project area is also not subject to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard due to the
project location, the topography of the site and vicinity, and the distance to large
bodies of water.
Similarly, with the application of standard construction practices and regulatory
requirements, soil erosion and loss of topsoil is not a concern for the site. Erosion
from stormwater runoff is controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), which requires sedimentation and erosion controls to be
implemented. Wind erosion during construction is controlled by SCQAMD Rule 403,
which requires fugitive dust to be reduced with the application of best available
control technologies.
IX(d). Less than Significant Impact – The construction of the proposed project would
involve limited grading operations associated with the preparation of the site.
These operations are not anticipated to leave soils uncovered or exposed for long
periods and would not result in significant Ioss of top soils or erosion. Furthermore,
according to the soils survey conducted by the United States Department of
Agriculture, the project site is underlain by Ramona-Placentia soils association.
These soils are generally well drained and do not represent a constraint to
development. As a result, impacts associated with the loss of top soil and erosion
are not significant.
IX(e). No Impact – No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are
proposed as part of the implementation of the proposed development. Sewer
connections will be made to existing lines in the surrounding streets. As a result,
no impacts will occur with regard to sewers or alternative wastewater disposal
systems.
3-38
32
X HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Be located in the Hazard Management Overlay Zone.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle petroleum, or
petroleum byproducts, or hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
f) Be located (i) within an area covered by an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, (ii)
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
and (iii) will result in a safety hazard for people working
in the project area.
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
X(a) Less than Significant Impact – As depicted on Exhibit 8-1 of the City’s General
Plan, a portion of the project site is shown to be an area of “Major Slope (Gradient
Greater than 40%)” and, thus, is partially within a Hazards Management Overlay
Zone. However, no construction would occur on any steep slopes. Rather, all
construction would occur on the existing grading building pad that contains the
Church structures and parking lot. Therefore, the proposed project would not result
in any significant impacts related to the City’s Hazard Management Overlay Zone.
X(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project involves an expansion of an
existing church facility. This use does not involve the use, storage, disposal or
distribution of large quantities of materials that may be considered hazardous.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
X(c-d). No Impact - The site is currently developed with an existing church, landscaping,
and paved parking area. The proposed expansion of the church facility would not
3-39
33
establish any new uses or activities that would create, emit, and/or handle hazardous
materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment and would not emit
hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
X(e). Less Than Significant Impact - The project site has been the site of the Rolling
Hills Covenant Church since the 1970’s. Past use of the site is not known or
expected to have caused any contamination of the site. Furthermore, there are no
records of any hazardous material incidents that have affected the property and the
site is not listed in the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s)
Envirostor database8. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related
to hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
X(f-g) No Impact - The City is located approximately 3 miles southwest of Torrance
Municipal Airport. The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located
approximately 15 miles to the northwest. The project is not located within a
designated aircraft crash zone, nor would it involve any improvements that would
otherwise affect airport operations. As a result, the proposed project would not
present a safety hazard related to aircraft or airport operations.
X(h) Less Than Significant Impact – The project provides adequate street access, and
project operations would not interfere with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The project site plan is subject to review and approval
by the Fire Department in order to ensure adequate provision of fire hydrants and
access. This step in the permitting process ensures adequate emergency response
and access.
X(i) Less Than Significant Impact –The project site is located within a predominantly
suburban setting. The project is required to comply with all pertinent fire code and
ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, and fire
flows. Specific fire code requirements will be addressed during the building fire plan
check. Compliance with the fire code and ordinance requirements would reduce the
risks to a less than significant level.
XI HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
8 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Database, web application
<www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov>, accessed October 12, 2010.
3-40
34
XI HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or offsite?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XI(a, c, f) Less than Significant Impact - Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water
discharges from storm drain systems9 to waters of the United States. The City of
Rolling Hills Estates is a co-permittee in the Los Angeles County storm drain system
permit or “municipal permit” (Order No. 01-182; NPDES No. CAS0041 as amended
by Orders R4-2006-0074 and R4-2007-0042).
As special provision, the Los Angeles County Municipal Permit requires permittees to
maintain and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan ("SUSMP").
Development and redevelopment activities that are deemed “priority” projects (based
on the type and scale of the project) are further required to develop and implement
project-specific SUSMPs or Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (USWMPs) that
9 Storm drainage systems are described as Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) and
include streets, gutters, conduits, natural or artificial drains, channels and water courses or other
facilities that are owned, operated, maintained or controlled by an Permittee and used for purposes of
collecting, storing, transporting, or disposing of storm water.
3-41
35
identify the specific design features and best management practices (BMPs) that will
be implemented for the project and are applicable to the project. Given the small
scale of the proposed expansion, the proposed project would not be considered a
“priority” project pursuant to the Countywide municipal permit. As such, a project
specific USWMP is not required for the project. However, the project is still required
to implement the minimum requirements of the Countywide SUSMP. As part of its
normal project approval and construction oversight activities, the City of Rolling Hills
Estates monitors compliance with these requirements.
The Los Angeles County Municipal Permit also requires that Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) be prepared for all construction projects with disturbed
areas of 1 acre or greater. The statewide NPDES construction permit maintained by
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) also requires a SWPPP for
construction projects that involve one or more acres of land disturbance. The
SWPPP is required to outline the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction.
These BMPs will minimize construction-induced water pollutants by controlling
erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and
providing non-storm water management procedures.
In addition to Section 402, Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to
designate uses for all bodies within state boundaries (intrastate waters) and to
establish water quality criteria for those water bodies. Those water bodies that do
not satisfy the water quality criteria for their designated uses are identified as
impaired. In order to improve the quality of impaired water bodies and thus achieve
the water quality criteria, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires
states to establish Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards that apply to
tributary sources for impaired water bodies. The storm drain system that serves the
project site drains into the upper reaches of Los Angeles Harbor, which is identified
as an impaired water body. TMDLs have been adopted for Los Angeles Harbor for
nutrients and trash, and additional TMDLs for toxics and metals are currently in
development.
The proposed project would not generate any additional water pollutants and
therefore would not adversely affect the water quality in Los Angeles Harbor. The
project site is currently largely developed with structures, parking lots, and other
hardscape. Thus, typical non-point source urban stormwater pollutants are currently
generated onsite, such as trash, oils/vehicle fluids, metals, and nutrients. While
these pollutants would continue to be generated on the site after project
implementation, the project would not increase the amount of impermeable surface
on the site and would not noticeably increase the amount of human activity onsite.
Thus, the amount of pollutants collected by stormwater flowing over the site would
not increase. Furthermore, the proposed project would replace a portion of the
currently paved parking lot with a grasscrete-style permeable parking area. This
proposed permeable parking area would reduce the amount of pollutants in
stormwater generated onsite, particularly the amount of metals and oils/vehicle fluids
that collect in paved parking lots. Therefore, the proposed project would not
adversely impact stormwater quality or the water quality of Los Angeles Harbor.
XI(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The proposed project would not directly use any
groundwater to serve the project site; therefore, no substantial depletion of
groundwater resources is anticipated. Likewise, as previously discussed, the
3-42
36
proposed project would not increase the amount of impermeable surface on the
project site. Thus, the proposed project would not impede percolation of stormwater
into the underlying substrate.
XI(d-e) Less Than Significant Impact – Drainage onsite generally flows from north to
south, following the site’s contours. Stormwater leaving the site flows into a drainage
ditch at the rear (south) of the site. The proposed project would not alter this
drainage pattern. In addition, the proposed project would not increase the volume of
stormwater flowing from the project site because, as previously discussed, the
proposed project would not increase the amount of impermeable surface onsite.
Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern or
contribute runoff water in a manner that would cause flooding or exceed the capacity
of the storm drainage system. Drainage impacts are, therefore, less than significant.
XI(g-j) No Impact – According to the City’s General Plan there are no widespread 100-year
flood problems within the City and thus no 100-year flood maps are available or
required. The project would, therefore, not result in the placement of uses within a
100-year flood zone. The project site is not within the inundation area, should the
nearby reservoir fail. The project site is not within an area that would be subject to
seiche or tsunami.
XII AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XII(a). No Impact – The project site is located in a developed area in the City of Rolling
Hills Estates, which is an urbanized area of Los Angeles County. The proposed
project site is not currently used for productive agricultural purposes. The project site
is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance.
XII(b). No Impact – No agricultural resources are identified in the City’s General Plan and
no agricultural resources are present on the project site. The site is not identified in
the City’s General Plan as subject to a Williamson Act contract and the site is not
zoned for agricultural use. Given that (1) no change in use is proposed onsite; (2)
3-43
37
the site is not currently used for productive agricultural purposes, and (3) the project
would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract, impacts are less than significant.
XII(c). No Impact – The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Additionally, the proposed church facility expansion would not, in any way, hinder
the operations of any existing agricultural practices since no agricultural practices
exist onsite or in the directly adjacent surrounding areas.
XIII MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIII(a). No Impact – The proposed project is not located on any known bank of minerals.
The site is outside of any of the Mineral Resource Zone boundaries identified by the
City on Exhibit 5-4 of the Conservation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, the
proposed project would have no impact on the availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value.
XIII(b). No Impact – The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the loss of
availability of any mineral resource that would be of future value.
XIV POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XIV(a). No Impact – No new residential units are proposed as part of this project. The
16,232-square-foot expansion of the church facility would be for support facilities
(administration and Sunday school uses) and would not lead to an increase in
3-44
38
church members. The proposed expansion would not induce population growth and
would cause no related impacts.
XVI(b-c). No Impact –The site is not used for residential uses, and thus no displacement of
housing or persons would result.
XV PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project: result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services?
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Other public facilities?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XV(a). Less Than Significant Impact - The City of Rolling Hills Estates contracts with the
Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District, which provides fire
protection services to a number of incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas
in Los Angeles County. The response station within a 4 mile vicinity of the project is
the Los Angeles Fire Station #106, located at 413 Indian Peak Road. This station
maintains a 3-man engine, 2-man paramedic unit, and a 4-man truck. The City
Rolling Hills Estates is in close proximity to both the City of Rolling Hills’, City of
Palos Verdes Estates’, and City of Lomita’s fire stations, which are available to
provide additional resources in a major event. The Fire Department seeks to
maintain a 5-minute response time. The Department has review and approval
authority over building plans in subsequent phases of planning and design to ensure
that Fire Department regulations and requirements are adhered to. The impacts
upon fire protection services are, therefore, anticipated to be less than significant.
XV(b). Less Than Significant Impact - The City of Rolling Hills Estates contracts with the
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for police protection and law enforcement
services. The main Sheriff’s station serving the City is located at 26123 Narbonne
Avenue, Lomita, California. This station is located approximately 1.4 miles to the
north of the site and employs 83 sworn officers at the station. The emergency
response times average five minutes or less. The Sheriff’s Department’s service
standards are a 6-minute emergency response time, a 20-minute immediate
response call response time, and a 1-hour report call response time. The impacts
upon police protection services are expected to be less than significant, as the small
scale of the project is anticipated to result in a negligible increase in demand for
policing services.
3-45
39
XV(c). No Impact – The project would not induce growth and would not generate additional
students that would attend the schools in the area.
XV(d). No Impact –The proposed project is a 16,232-square foot expansion of an existing
religious facility and would not noticeably increase the demand for public services.
XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVI(a). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed church facility expansion would a
nominal, if any, increase in restrooms use. Existing wastewater facilities are
designed to accommodate the level of growth anticipated in local General Plans.
The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning and land use
designations for the project site. See also response XVI(b, d, e), below.
XVI(b,
d, e) Less Than Significant Impact – The project site is served by the California Water
Service Company (CWSC), which purchases water from the Metropolitan Water
District (MWD). MWD’s water sources are the State Water Project and the
Colorado River. CWSC water is stored locally in the Palos Verdes Reservoir, which
has a capacity of approximately 361,097,200 gallons. The average water
consumption in the City is approximately 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd). The
proposed project would not result in a need for new or substantial alterations to local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, due to the limited amount of
additional water required to serve the project.
3-46
40
Wastewater generated by the project would be treated at the Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 385 mgd
and currently processes and average flow of 280.5 mgd. The project is not
anticipated to result in a need for new or substantial alternations to the existing
sewer system due to the limited amount of additional sewage that would generated
by the project. Impacts are, thus, anticipated to be less than significant.
XVI(c). Less Than Significant Impact – Existing storm drain facilities are anticipated to be
adequate to accommodate project flows as discussed more fully under the
Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Initial Study.
XVI(f). Less Than Significant Impact – Refuse disposal and recycling services to the City
and the project site are provided by a private entity, Waste Management, which
contracts with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (SDLAC or Districts)
for disposal of refuse. The SDLAC maintains multiple refuse disposal facilities,
including three landfills, five gas-to-energy/refuse-to-energy facilities, two material
recover facilities, and various recycling facilities and transfer stations. Refuse
collected in Rolling Hills Estates is currently disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill.
According to the Sanitation District, “the Puente Hills Landfill has the capacity to
provide environmentally sound disposal for the residents and businesses of Los
Angeles County until the year 2013.” The landfill receives 12,000 tons of solid water
per day. During construction a temporary increase in construction refuse may occur;
however, it is not expected that this temporary increase will significantly increase the
strain on the current system. The project would not result in a need for new or
substantial alterations to the solid waste disposal system. Impacts to solid waste
disposal are less than significant.
XVI(g). Less Than Significant Impact – The project proponent is required to comply with
all local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (e.g.,
recycling, green waste) and solid waste disposal.
XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
3-47
41
Explanation of Checklist Judgments:
XVII(a). No Impact – The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially affect fish or
wildlife populations or to reduce the number or range of rare or endangered species.
In addition, no locally, state or federally designated examples of major periods in
California history or prehistory have been identified on the site. Mitigation measures
have been included to address any such examples, should they be discovered
during project grading.
XVII(b). Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would not result in impacts
that are cumulatively considerable. The project has the potential to contribute to
cumulative air quality, hydrology, water quality, noise, public services, traffic, and
utility impacts. However, none of these cumulative impacts are significant, except for
cumulative air quality conditions (i.e., the South Coast Air Basin is a non-attainment
basin), and the proposed project would not cause any cumulative impacts to become
significant. Section V(a-c) of this document specifically analyzes the project’s
contribution to cumulative air quality conditions. As identified in this section, the
project’s contribution to both regional and local air quality conditions is not
considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a mandatory finding
of significance due to cumulative impact considerations.
XVII(c). Less Than Significant Impact – – No evidence of a potential for the project to
adversely affect human beings has been identified. Hazards associated with the
project are anticipated to be similar to any other residential development project, and
are less than significant.
3-48
CllY OF
20 December 2010
Niki Cutler,Principal Planner
City of Rolling Hills Estates
4045 Palos Verdes Dr.N.
Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT Comments in Response to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Revised Rolling Hills Covenant Church
Project (PA-15-1 0)
.•1J1l'I.~Dear~r:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the above-mentioned project.As you may
recall,the City commented several times on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for
the previous expansion proposal for Rolling Hills Covenant Church (RHCC)between
February 2002 and May 2004.The City respectfully offers of following comments on
the revised proposal:
1)The Initial Study notes that TransportationfTraffic impacts for this revised
proposal are expected to be less than significant.A "formal"traffic impact
analysis is not warranted on the basis that the project results in an increase of
less than fifty (50)peak-hour trips (I.e.,forty-three (43)peak-hour trips
attributable to the 3,848-square-foot expansion of Sunday school classrooms).
The project description notes that the existing Administration building will be
remodeled into "a new entry and Welcome Center."From the description in the
Initial Study,the size and nature of the use and operation of the "Welcome
Center"is not clear to us and,when combined with the expansion of Sunday
school classrooms,we are concerned that the project may result in sufficient
additional peak-hour trips to (at least)warrant a "formal"traffic impact analysis.
2)The previous proposals for the expansion of RHCC facilities involved substantial
site grading,with exported soil to be transported to the abutting Green Hills
Memorial Park (Green Hills)in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.At the time that
these previous proposals were under consideration,this was a concern to the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes because Green Hills did not have permission to
accept imported fill.The Initial Study for the current proposal notes that "limited
309<10 !-IW,IIIOkNf-BIVi)!R·\NCHO PAlOS VU'Ol<'.CA 90275-5391
PIANNINc'/com )NFOI<l.[MI NI (310)54<1-5228 I HlJllDINC (310)265-7800 I D(1'1.I AX (310)544-52931 E-,'vlAll PlJ\NNINC@''''VCOM3-49
Niki Cutler
20 December 2010
Page 2
grading operations"are proposed,but does not quantify the amount of grading or
indicate whether or not grading will be balanced on site.Please be aware that,in
2007,the City approved a 50-year master plan update for Green Hills that allows
for the importation of nearly 98,000 cubic yards of fill over the life of the master
plan.If the exportation of soil from the project site to Green Hills is proposed or
anticipated as a part of this current proposal,its impacts should be assessed in
the Initial Study.In addition,the approval of the project should be conditioned to
require RHCC to obtain the City of Rancho Palos Verdes'approval for the
importation of fill,consistent with Green Hills'current master plan (if applicable).
Again,thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project.If
you have any questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me at
(310)544-5228 or via e-mail atkitf@rpv.com.
Sincerely,
!{~p
Associate Planner
cc:Mayor Long and City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
M:\Border Issues\Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion\20101220_MNDCommenls.doc
3-50
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, January 18, 2011, 7:30 pm Regular Meeting
Reports and documents relating to each agenda item are on file available for public inspection on our website.
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. SALUTE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. (December 6, 2010)
5. AUDIENCE ITEMS.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION and PRESENTATION TO DAN O’DAY.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR.
None
8. BUSINESS ITEMS.
None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
A.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 15-06; APPLICANT: Mr. Craig Knickerbocker; LOCATION:
N/E of intersection of Tanglewood Lane and Rolling Hills Road; A request for a Tentative
Parcel Map (TPM 061156), Grading Application and Neighborhood Compatibility
Determinations for the subdivision of three lots and construction of two single-family
residences in the RA-20 (Horse Overlay) Zone. (KT)
Staff Report with Attachments 1-4
Attachments 5-9
NOI MND Part 1 of 3
NOI MND Part 2 of 3
NOI MND Part 3 of 3
B.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 15-10; APPLICANT: Rolling Hills Covenant Church;
LOCATION: 2222 Palos Verdes Drive North; To review a Mitigated Negative Declaration
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Neighborhood Compatibility
Determination, Grading Application, and a Code Amendment to permit the parking of
vehicles on a landscaped (i.e., turf block) surface for a 16,232 square foot expansion to the
South Campus of the Rolling Hills Covenant Church. (NC)
Staff Report with Attachments 2 and 3
NOI MND Part 1 of 2 (Attachment 1)
NOI MND Part 2 of 2 (Attachment 1)
10. COMMISSION ITEMS.
11. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS.
A. Appointments to Traffic & Safety Committee, Equestrian Committee, and Environmental
3-51
Advisory Committee.
12. MATTERS OF INFORMATION.
A. Park and Activities Minutes (December 7, 2010).
B. City Council Actions (January 11, 2011).
13. ADJOURNMENT.
3-52
3-53
3-54
3-55
3-56
3-57
3-58
3-59
3-60
3-61
3-62
3-63
3-64
3-65
3-66
3-67
3-68
3-69
3-70
3-71
3-72
3-73
3-74
3-75
3-76
3-77
RHE church’s expansion plan goes to City Council
By Mary Scott, Peninsula News
Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:02 AM PST
RHE — The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission will recommend approval of Rolling Hills Covenant
Church’s new expansion plan — a slimmed down version of its contested proposal in 2006.
City staff will bring forth a resolution for adoption at the commission’s meeting on Jan. 31. The commission
is recommending approval of a Neighborhood Compatibility Determination, minimal grading and a code
amendment to permit vehicle parking on a landscaped surface for the church’s 16,232-square-foot
expansion to its south campus, located at 2222 Palos Verdes Drive North.
The project will then go in front of the City Council.
“It’s so refreshing compared to what we went through a few years ago. It’s been well planned out; it’s been
well thought out. You obviously worked with staff extensively, and the staff has worked with the church. So
it makes our job so much easier. It’s a great project,” Commissioner Judith Bayer told a church
representative.
RH Covenant’s new plan includes the construction of a two-story, 14,890-square-foot administration building
and remodel of the existing administration building, creating a new entry, welcome center, and office and
conference spaces. It also includes the construction of a two-story maintenance shed, parking lot
reconfiguration, expansions of the choir room and Sunday school rooms, and landscape and hardscape
improvements. A reconfigured and expanded children’s playground is proposed as well.
The church intends to repave the main entry off of PV Drive North and install a right-turn pocket, and realign
and widen the easterly access drive. These changes were reviewed and approved by the city’s traffic
engineer, city staff noted.
The existing horse trail, located at the northeastern part of the project site, will be pushed back and
improved for the inclusion of approximately 10 new parking spaces.
Several years ago, RH Covenant proposed a new 20,000-square-foot sanctuary with 1,500 seats and
converting its current sanctuary to a Multipurpose Room. It also included two underground parking
structures. That project was rejected by City Council and community members.
“Unlike the previous project,” the staff wrote in its report, “the current project does not impact level of
service at any intersections, involve sanctuary expansion, propose mass site grading, propose more massive
buildings than existing site buildings, or propose compact parking stalls. Thus, significant items that were
the basis of denial of the previous application have been eliminated in the current proposal.”
The point that seemed it would sink the project at the commission level Tuesday night was parking,
regarding space allotment and if the church could use “turf block” parking as part of its 30-percent
landscape requirement under the institutional zoning code.
Of the 672 requested parking spaces in the new proposal, 505 would be paved at the sanctuary site, and
additional 167 spaces would be located on the adjacent property the church leases from the Metropolitan
Water District. Turf block, an environmentally friendly alternative driveway and parking material, would be
used for 123 of those 167 spaces.
Print Page
Page 1 of 3Print Version
1/20/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/01/20/local_news/news3.prt
3-78
The turf block, which supports the weight of vehicles, allows grass to grow and rainwater to percolate into
the underlying soil, reducing water runoff into the street and storm drain system. The church has included
the turf block as part of its landscape, hoping to satisfy its parking and 30-percent landscape requirements.
However, current city code does not allow for parking on grass at institutional sites.
Current city code requires that all parking spaces in the city shall be “surfaced with a minimum of 5 inches of
imported base materials and a double application of asphalt and gravel to the city engineer’s approval, so as
to be graded and drained so as to dispose of all surface water accumulated within the area.”
However, the code was written decades ago and is not current with today’s standards for the quality of
water runoff, Planning Director David Wahba said.
“[It’s] a typical, conventional 1960s way of doing business. … From a drainage standpoint, in the old days
you wanted water to get away from structures … get it on the streets as quickly as possible. Now, you have
to maintain a lot of water on-site or at least slow it down before it gets to the street. In some cases you
have to treat the water, filter it, before it goes out to the street. The ideal way is to keep it on-site.”
“The parking we’re addressing with percolated pavers [is] to get rid of some of that asphalt. … It’s not a
shopping center where you need to have asphalt reflecting heat and pushing off water all day long, because
it’s only used on Sundays. We can turn a lot of those parking spaces into something that’s green and
landscaped, and accepts water,” said Craig Knickerbocker, the applicant on behalf of the church.
A code amendment would allow RH Covenant and other projects in the city to use alternative solutions, such
as turf block, as well as allow a credit for landscaping.
The commission agreed that the code was “archaic” and suggested the city look into updating it or at least
include a variance for the RH Covenant project.
As for the number of parking spaces, which is determined by the square footage of the sanctuary, newly
installed commission Chair Tim Scott did not agree 672 spaces were adequate for the church’s use.
Per city code, the number of spaces exceeds the requirement, 625, for the project.
During the environmental review, the city’s consultant said there will be an estimated 43 new trips for the
expanded Sunday school, both incoming and outgoing, that would be generated. The surplus 47 spaces are
sufficient for that additional traffic.
Scott, who has been working with the church on this project for approximately 15 years, said there has
been, historically, a need for more parking.
“That’s why the MWD parking is there; that’s why the north campus parking is there,” he said.
“I’m not sure that I agree that the only thing we need to count is the square-footage of the sanctuary plus
some marginal child-care addition,” he continued.
Scott wanted the north campus parking included in the project’s proposal.
mscott@pvnews.com
Page 2 of 3Print Version
1/20/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/01/20/local_news/news3.prt
3-79
The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission will adopt a resolution recommending Rolling Hills Covenant
Church’s new expansion plan. The project, which includes a remodel of the current sanctuary, is smaller than
the church’s previous proposal.
Page 3 of 3Print Version
1/20/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/01/20/local_news/news3.prt
3-80
CITVOF.RAi'lCHO PALOS VERDES
December 13,2010
Dora De La Rosa
President
Board of Trustees
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
375 Via Almar
Palos Verdes Estates,CA 90274
Re:Lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School
Dear Dora:
I am writing to you as one member of the City Council of Rancho Palos Verdes
and not on behalf of the City or the entire Council.I am writing to ask that if the school
district elects to proceed with installing lights at the Palos Verdes Peninsula High
School,it subject the project to the planning process through the City of Rolling Hills
Estates.I understand that the school district's decision to do so would be voluntary.
also understand that the high school is entirely within the boundaries of the City of
Rolling Hills Estates.Nonetheless,many of my constituents are concerned about the
project and have shared their concerns with me.I enclose several dozen letters which I
have received over the past few weeks.
I do not share all of the concerns set forth in the letters.Nor am I presuming to
tell the school district what decision it should make.However,I believe that the
concerns are expressed in good faith and represent the kinds of concerns that often
emerge when a significant project is proposed.The best way to deal with such
concerns,in my opinion,is to subject the project to the normal planning process.In this
case,that process would likely include an application for a conditional use permit
("CUP").The CUP would provide a means for regulating lighting and noise at the high
school in a way that would respond to many of the concerns articulated in the attached
correspondence.In particular,a CUP could require the lights to be accompanied by a
new public address system and regulate the decibel output on that system for night
games. A CUP could also limit the number of night games for which lighting could be
used and could provide requirements regarding security and parking.All of these steps
could go a long way toward mitigating the concerns that have been expressed.
I firmly believe that the most responsible course for the school district to follow,if
it elects to pursue the lighting program,would be to subject the program to the planning
process of the City of Rolling Hills Estates.I know that the City Council of Rancho
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD /I~NCI-IO PALOS VEROES.(;A 90275-5391
2011 Dora De La Rosa_Tom Long.DOC
3-81
Dora Delarosa
December 13,2010
Page 2
Palos Verdes previously expressed its view that the school district should do exactly
that and I ask that the school board give us a favorable response to this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.I appreciate
your assistance.
Thomas D.Long
Mayor of Rancho Palos Ver
TDLlmms
Enclosures
cc:All Rancho Palos Verdes Council Members
Ms.Carolyn Lehr,RPV City Manager
Mayor Steven Zuckerman,Rolling Hills Estates
2011 Dora De La Rosa_Tom Long,DOC 3-82
Page 1 of3
Kit Fox
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,January 17,2011 3:24 PM
To:'Kit Fox'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
SUbject:FW:Friday Night Lights on the Hill
Hi Kit-
FYI -Border Issues.
CP
From:Earl Veits [mailto:eveits@gmail.com]
Sent:Monday,January 17,2011 1:53 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Friday Night Lights on the Hill
To:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
From:Earl and Nancy Veits,RPV Residents
Subject:Friday Night Lights on the Hill
Dear Council Members;
I hope that Council members will support their constituents and assist in all possible ways to overturn
the Board's decision in this matter.
It recently came to my attention that the Board has given a local community group the right to raise
funds for purchasing lighting equipment for the athletic field at Peninsula High School.Apparently the
Board did not understand the community'S concerns related to the recently defeated Marymount
referendum that threatened the property and privacy rights of local Marymount residents.I would have
thought that Board members would have been more sensitive to the issues that were raised during that
referendum.Apparently not,since the Board of Education has ignored the concerns of homeowners in
the Silver Spur area.The issues are the same -a group of individuals forcing their personal interests on
others who will bear the brunt of glaring lights,excessive noise,and declining property values.There is
one difference --residents in the Silver Spur area do not have a voice in the matter.At least those who
proposed and supported the Marymount project asked voters for their approval.In this case,board
members chose to ignore the democratic process and made the decision themselves.
The Board has failed the school and the community by not considering the needs of all students,parents
and residents within its district.Board members do not just represent the athletic team,but they have a
responsibility to represent all who live within the school community.The Board's decision has not
brought the community and school closer together,but has increased the divisiveness within our
community.It has pitted nearby homeowners against the Board and the School-a school that we have
taken great pride in,but has now become a symbol of antagonism and insensitivity toward its neighbors.
1118/2011 3-83
Page 2 of3
Many of us have voted for and contributed additional tax dollars to maintain needed district programs.
It was just last year that the District announced that it would be releasing preliminary layoff notices for
25.5 K-5 Elementary School teaching positions;10.8 Intermediate School teaching positions;13 High
School teaching positions;4 Special Education teaching positions;3.2 Counseling positions;2 Speech
Therapist positions;and 1 Nurse position.In addition to the above notices,approximately 30
certificated temporary employees were issued a notice of release.Also,all certificated administrators
received a letter indicating they may be reassigned,have their work year reduced and/or have a
reduction in salary for 2010-11.Now it's asking that we provide additional funding to support lights on
the athletic field.Where are the District's priorities?Since when has the athletic program taken
precedent over the educational needs of the children?How can district and school personnel expend
their valuable school resources to push students and parents to raise money this project.Every school
email about any event also mentions the lights;there are students walking around with t-shirts
highlighting the project;there is a big banner in front of the school.How can the District possibly feel
that it's ok to mobilize the students at Peninsula High for the purpose of placing lights on the athletic
field and do nothing to replace the lost positions and salary cuts of its personnel?Board members,your
priorities are totally out of whack.You need to go back and reread your mission statement for the
district.
The Board did not exercise due diligence in allowing individuals to proceed with fund raising.Have
Board members given any thought to the following concerns?
1.What studies have you conducted regarding parking along our residential and main streets?These
streets are already heavily impacted because of inadequate parking on the school grounds.
2.How will Silver Spur,Hawthorne,Crenshaw and Palos Verdes Dr.North be impacted with large
numbers of cars coming to night games when many local residents are returning to their homes at
rush hour?Traffic already moves at a snails'pace during rush hours.
3.As a former school administrator for the LAUSD,I can assure Board members that security and
weapons screening need to be conducted to ensure the safety of school personnel and students.
Has there been thought regarding the procedures and personnel needed for this increased
security?
4.The group advocating the stadium lights argues that local businesses will benefit by the activity.
Clearly they must be anticipating that more fast food will sold for those attending the game.Has
consideration been given to determine who will clean the debris along our city streets and parking
areas?
5.How will school officials assure that those attending the game will not be using alcohol or other
substances and then leave to drive through our local neighborhoods?Will there be adequate
police cars to patrol our streets and assure that intoxicated drivers will be not behind the wheel.
6.Have there been any environmental impact studies on how these activities will affect the above
concerns?Ifnot,why hasn't the Board insisted that the studies be conducted before any fund
raising was approved?
7.Have there been any studies on just how far the sound carries and how many residents are affected
by events from present afternoon athletic events?I live Y4 mile away and can attest that the noise
level is considerable from not only the amplified voice of the announcer,but also from the
unamplified sound of the band and spectators.I know that residents can hear the noise generated
from several miles away.If you don't live in the nearby area,you have no idea of just how
1/18/2011 3-84
Page 3 of3
annoying the noise level can be in the afternoon.Now consider the effect of the noise level in the
evening until 9 or 10 pm.
8.Have there been any studies on the impact on the home values ofresidents who live nearby the
school?Clearly those living even a quarter to half mile away will see a decrease in their
valuations.We've all seen our property values dropping from the current financial crises.Those
of us living in areas affected by the additional noise and disturbances from the night activities will
now have to endure additional declines in our home prices.
Our community now consists of many older residents who no longer have children attending the local
schools.We all want our children to have healthy and wholesome athletic experiences while attending
school.But adding stadium lights will not "bring the community together to spend Friday nights
experiencing the magic of night games"in a wholesome,healthy manner.On the contrary,it will divide
the community in ways that few have considered.
The Board does not seem to understand that the limits of its power end at the tip of the other man's
nose.This is not simply a case of putting up lights on the field.This decision deeply affects rights of
privacy,the value and financial loss of our homes,and psychological impact of hundreds of residents in
the nearby area.This decision is an abuse of the Board's power,and Board members have sent a very
clear message that they are not concerned about the impact of late night sporting events on the residents
living nearby the school.I for one will not be supporting their efforts to raise additional funding either
through voluntary donations,parcel tax revenues or bond issues.
The Board could,of course,rescind its decision regarding lights on the athletic field.But,does it have
the courage to do so?I hope it does,but if not,I hope that community has the courage to tell Board
members that they no longer represent the entire school community and that it's time to step down.
1/18/2011 3-85
December 13,2010
Mr.Kit Fox
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391
Dear Mr.Fox,
RECEIVED
DEC 17 2010
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Since May 2009,Rancho LPG Holdings (Rancho)has held a number of regular
meetings with community and neighborhood leaders to continue to keep open the lines
of communication regarding our LPG facility located at 2110 North Gaffey Street in San
Pedro.
Rancho remains committed to continue meeting with elected community representatives
to maintain open communications,and our upcoming meeting will feature an in-depth
presentation of the Risk Analysis for the North Gaffey Street facility.
This letter is an invitation to you for our next meeting on Tuesday,January 11 th ,2011 at
1:30 pm at the Crowne Plaza,located at 601 South Palos Verdes Street,San Pedro.
Due to the safety-sensitive nature of the risk analysis information being presented,this
meeting will not be open to the general public or to the media,but will be by invitation
only.RSVP by January 4,2011 by phone,e-mail or letter is required,and attendees are
asked to check in at the door prior to the meeting.
Please RSVP to Sandra Tetoff at SandIa.Tetoff@plainsmidstream.com or 403-451-
1011.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Rancho LPG Holdings
Scott Sill
Vice President LPG Operations
2110 North Gaffey Street,San Pedro,California 90731-1251,United States
Telephone:310-833-5275 Fax:310-833-5680
3-86
CITYOF
January 6,2011
Councilwoman Janice Hahn,15th District
City of Los Angeles
200 N.Spring St.,Room 435
Los Angeles,CA 90012
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SUBJECT:City of Rancho Palos Verdes'Concerns regarding the Rancho LPG
Butane Storage Facility,2110 North Gaffey Street,San Pedro
Dear Councilwoman Hahn:
As you may be aware,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.Recently,these concerns have
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 Pier 400 in 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
this 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.
Earlier this year,the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC)
commissioned a quantitative risk assessment of the Rancho LPG facility.The risk
assessment-released in September 2010-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,has refuted the conclusions of the
NWSPNC risk assessment,and the assessment's 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.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 [~NCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275·5391 3-87
Councilwoman Janice Hahn
January 6,2011
Page 2
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)the City of Los Angeles'land use regulations and the State's
environmental review processes (i.e.,CEQA)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 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.
Since~eJy you~s,
Thomas D.Long
Mayor
-.~.~
/
cc:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr,City Manager/J~el Rojas,Co.mmunity Development Director'V Kit Fox,ASSOCiate Planner
M;\Border Issues\Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility\20101221_Hahn_RanchoLPG.doc
3-88