The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_SR_2010_05_04_11_RDSSC_Code_AmendmentDate: Subject: PUBLIC HEARING May 4,2010 Planning Case No.ZON2003-00377 (Code Amendment,Zone Change and Environmental Assessment):Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change Subject Property:Citywide 1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Wolowicz 2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale 3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Associate Planner Fox 4.Public Testimony: Appellants:NtA Applicants:City 5.Council Questions: 6.Rebuttal:NtA 7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Wolowicz 8.Council Deliberation: 9.Council Action: 11-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM UNCIL MEMBERS I DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY C JOEL ROJAS,AICP,CO U DIRECTOR MAY 4,2010 PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2003-00377 (CODE AMEND- MENT,ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS- MENT)1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner~ RECOMMENDATION DATE: SUBJECT: Continue the public hearing to May 18,2010. DISCUSSION In 2003,the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC),charged with the task of reviewing the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The RDSSC was composed of City residents,Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and,on August 1,2006,presented its recommended Code amendments to the City Council for its consideration.The City Council reviewed the RDSSC recommendations and authorized the initiation of a formal Code Amendment and Zone Change to enact them.The Planning Commission reviewed the RDSSC recommendations (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)at a series of public hearings held between November 2007 and December 2009.On December 8,2009,the Planning Commission adopted a resolution summarizing its recommendations to the City Council. On March 29,2010,a public hearing was scheduled for tonight's meeting for the City Council to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendations and the proposed draft CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM UNCIL MEMBERS I DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY C JOEL ROJAS,AICP,CO U DIRECTOR MAY 4,2010 PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2003-00377 (CODE AMEND- MENT,ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS- MENT)1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner~ RECOMMENDATION DATE: SUBJECT: Continue the public hearing to May 18,2010. DISCUSSION In 2003,the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC),charged with the task of reviewing the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The RDSSC was composed of City residents,Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and,on August 1,2006,presented its recommended Code amendments to the City Council for its consideration.The City Council reviewed the RDSSC recommendations and authorized the initiation of a formal Code Amendment and Zone Change to enact them.The Planning Commission reviewed the RDSSC recommendations (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)at a series of public hearings held between November 2007 and December 2009.On December 8,2009,the Planning Commission adopted a resolution summarizing its recommendations to the City Council. On March 29,2010,a public hearing was scheduled for tonight's meeting for the City Council to discuss the Planning Commission's recommendations and the proposed draft 11-2 MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377) May 4,2010 Page 2 Negative Declaration (NO),with notices mailed to nearly two thousand (2,000)affected residents 1 and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April 1,2010.However, as a result of the reconsideration of the appeal of the Marymount College Expansion Project on tonight's agenda,Staff now recommends continuing this public hearing to May 18,2010.Staff notified the public of this recommendation via e-mail and listserve messages on April 7 and April 9,2010. It should be noted that the 30-day public comment period for the draft NO prepared for this project ended on May 1,2010.As of the date of this report,Staff had received many telephone and e-mail inquiries requesting clarification of the proposed Code Amendment and Zone Change-particularly from Eastview residents-but no written comments on the NO or the project itself.On April 13,2010,Staff was invited to attend the Rolling Hills Riviera homeowners association meeting to answer the community's questions about the proposed project.If members of the public wish to speak on this item at tonight's meeting and cannot return to do so on May 18,2010,Staff recommends opening the public hearing to acceptthese comments,and then continuing the public hearing to May 18,2010. CONCLUSION In conclusion,Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing in this matter to May 18,2010. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For informational purposes only,a complete copy ofthe Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/NO)prepared for this project is attached to tonight's report.Attached to the IS/NO is the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on December 8,2009 (P.C.Resolution No.2009-52),which enumerates the specific Code language and zoning changes proposed. Attachments: •Initial Study/Negative Declaration (dated March 29,2010) M:\ProjectsIZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\20100504_StaffRpt_CC.doc 1 While the proposed miscellaneous amendments to the City's single-family residential development standards would generally apply citywide,the proposed zone changes would only affect properties in Eastview.Therefore,public hearing notices were mailed to the owners of all detached,single-family residences in Eastview. MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377) May 4,2010 Page 2 Negative Declaration (NO),with notices mailed to nearly two thousand (2,000)affected residents 1 and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April 1,2010.However, as a result of the reconsideration of the appeal of the Marymount College Expansion Project on tonight's agenda,Staff now recommends continuing this public hearing to May 18,2010.Staff notified the public of this recommendation via e-mail and listserve messages on April 7 and April 9,2010. It should be noted that the 30-day public comment period for the draft NO prepared for this project ended on May 1,2010.As of the date of this report,Staff had received many telephone and e-mail inquiries requesting clarification of the proposed Code Amendment and Zone Change-particularly from Eastview residents-but no written comments on the NO or the project itself.On April 13,2010,Staff was invited to attend the Rolling Hills Riviera homeowners association meeting to answer the community's questions about the proposed project.If members of the public wish to speak on this item at tonight's meeting and cannot return to do so on May 18,2010,Staff recommends opening the public hearing to acceptthese comments,and then continuing the public hearing to May 18,2010. CONCLUSION In conclusion,Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing in this matter to May 18,2010. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For informational purposes only,a complete copy ofthe Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/NO)prepared for this project is attached to tonight's report.Attached to the IS/NO is the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission on December 8,2009 (P.C.Resolution No.2009-52),which enumerates the specific Code language and zoning changes proposed. Attachments: •Initial Study/Negative Declaration (dated March 29,2010) M:\ProjectsIZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\20100504_StaffRpt_CC.doc 1 While the proposed miscellaneous amendments to the City's single-family residential development standards would generally apply citywide,the proposed zone changes would only affect properties in Eastview.Therefore,public hearing notices were mailed to the owners of all detached,single-family residences in Eastview. 11-3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.Project title: Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377 (Code Amendment,Zone Change and Environmental Assessment) 2.Lead agency namel address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 3.Contact person and phone number: Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5228 4.Project location: Citywide City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5.Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 6.General plan designation: Varies 7.Coastal plan designation: Varies a.Zoning: Varies 9.Description of project: The proposed "Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change"would enact miscellaneous revisions to provisions of the City's Development Code that regulate the development of single-family residential neighborhoods.These include,but are not limited to: City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.Project title: Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377 (Code Amendment,Zone Change and Environmental Assessment) 2.Lead agency namel address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 3.Contact person and phone number: Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310)544-5228 4.Project location: Citywide City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5.Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 6.General plan designation: Varies 7.Coastal plan designation: Varies a.Zoning: Varies 9.Description of project: The proposed "Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change"would enact miscellaneous revisions to provisions of the City's Development Code that regulate the development of single-family residential neighborhoods.These include,but are not limited to: 11-4 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 •Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots •Eastview Rezoning from RS-4 to RS-5 •Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) •Courtyard Area Lot Coverage •Private Street Easement Lot Coverage •Flag-Lot Lot Coverage •Minimum Driveway Areas •Driveway Landscape Buffers •Tandem Parking •Front and Street-Side Wall and Fence Height •Chain Link Fencing along Palos Verdes Drive West •Clarification of Permitted Encroachments into Setbacks •Resolution of Inconsistencies Regarding the Depth of Omamental Pools •Development Standards for Minor Structures Encroaching upon Setback Areas The specific Development Code revisions proposed are described in detail in the attached P.C.Resolution No.2009-52,as adopted by the City's Planning Commission on December 8,2009.Graphic depictions of the boundaries of the proposed Eastview Re-Zoning and Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)are included below as Figures 1 and 2,respect- ively. 10.Descriptl,on of project site (as it currently exists): The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total area of about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastline.Elevations range from sea level to 1,480 feet.The population of the City is over 42,000 and the character of the community is primarily residential with about 15,000 single-family residences,40 multi-family properties and 155 commercial/institutional parcels.The City is largely built out,with most development activity in the City's single-family neighborhoods consisting of the expansion and/or redevelopment of existing residences,with the occasional development of new residences on vacant lots.There are few large contiguous parcels remaining to be subdivided for single-family residential use. On-site Existing residential,commercial,insti- tutional and open space land uses in See description above. the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Northeast, East & Southeast The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles (Harbor City,Wilmington and San Pedro) The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles serve as gateways to the Port of Los Angeles and the harbor area.They are developed with a mixture of single-and mUlti-family residential,commercial and industrial uses. Page 2 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 •Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots •Eastview Rezoning from RS-4 to RS-5 •Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) •Courtyard Area Lot Coverage •Private Street Easement Lot Coverage •Flag-Lot Lot Coverage •Minimum Driveway Areas •Driveway Landscape Buffers •Tandem Parking •Front and Street-Side Wall and Fence Height •Chain Link Fencing along Palos Verdes Drive West •Clarification of Permitted Encroachments into Setbacks •Resolution of Inconsistencies Regarding the Depth of Omamental Pools •Development Standards for Minor Structures Encroaching upon Setback Areas The specific Development Code revisions proposed are described in detail in the attached P.C.Resolution No.2009-52,as adopted by the City's Planning Commission on December 8,2009.Graphic depictions of the boundaries of the proposed Eastview Re-Zoning and Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)are included below as Figures 1 and 2,respect- ively. 10.Descriptl,on of project site (as it currently exists): The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total area of about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastline.Elevations range from sea level to 1,480 feet.The population of the City is over 42,000 and the character of the community is primarily residential with about 15,000 single-family residences,40 multi-family properties and 155 commercial/institutional parcels.The City is largely built out,with most development activity in the City's single-family neighborhoods consisting of the expansion and/or redevelopment of existing residences,with the occasional development of new residences on vacant lots.There are few large contiguous parcels remaining to be subdivided for single-family residential use. On-site Existing residential,commercial,insti- tutional and open space land uses in See description above. the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Northeast, East & Southeast The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles (Harbor City,Wilmington and San Pedro) The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles serve as gateways to the Port of Los Angeles and the harbor area.They are developed with a mixture of single-and mUlti-family residential,commercial and industrial uses. Page 2 11-5 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 South & Southwest Northwest North Pacific Ocean The City of Palos Verdes Estates The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills The Pacific Ocean borders the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for roughly 7.5 miles,and includes tidepools and sandy beaches.There is a State marine reserve at Abalone Cove. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the oldest city on the ,Palos Verdes Peninsula.It is primarily developed with single-family residential neighborhoods, with commercial and multi-family development at Lunada Bay and Malaga Cove. The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the 1950s,and both emphasize a semi-rural equestrian lifestyle.The major com- mercial center on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The City of Rolling Hills is gated and contains no commercial development. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 3 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 South & Southwest Northwest North Pacific Ocean The City of Palos Verdes Estates The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills The Pacific Ocean borders the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for roughly 7.5 miles,and includes tidepools and sandy beaches.There is a State marine reserve at Abalone Cove. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the oldest city on the ,Palos Verdes Peninsula.It is primarily developed with single-family residential neighborhoods, with commercial and multi-family development at Lunada Bay and Malaga Cove. The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the 1950s,and both emphasize a semi-rural equestrian lifestyle.The major com- mercial center on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates.The City of Rolling Hills is gated and contains no commercial development. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Page 3 11-6 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Figure 1 Eastview Re-Zoning from RS-4 to RS-5 Areas outlined in RID to be re-zoned from RS-4to RS ..5 Page 4 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Figure 1 Eastview Re-Zoning from RS-4 to RS-5 Areas outlined in RID to be re-zoned from RS-4to RS ..5 Page 4 11-7 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Figure 2 Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-S) Are.a outlined in BLUE to be designated Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) Page 5 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Figure 2 Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-S) Are.a outlined in BLUE to be designated Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) Page 5 11-8 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality o Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils o Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Hazards &Hazardous Materials 0 HydrologylWater Quality o Land Use/Planning o PopulationIHousing o Transportationffraffic DETERMINATION: o Mineral Resources o Public Services o Utilities/Service Systems o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: o o o o I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that,although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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. ,find that the proposed project MAY have a Upotentially significant impact"or Upotentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment.but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required but 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 on the proposed project,nothing further is required. Printed Name: Signature:-----,p:..::;...:.-----:.;C-------Date:March 29,2010 -=....:::.:...:..=~==~=:.::.:...For:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 6 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. o Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality o Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils o Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Hazards &Hazardous Materials 0 HydrologylWater Quality o Land Use/Planning o PopulationIHousing o Transportationffraffic DETERMINATION: o Mineral Resources o Public Services o Utilities/Service Systems o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: o o o o I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that,although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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. ,find that the proposed project MAY have a Upotentially significant impact"or Upotentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment.but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required but 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 on the proposed project,nothing further is required. Printed Name: Signature:-----,p:..::;...:.-----:.;C-------Date:March 29,2010 -=....:::.:...:..=~==~=:.::.:...For:City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 6 11-9 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x x x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods In the City fall within scenic vistas identified in the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon identified scenic vistas. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City may include scenic resources or historical structures. However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon scenic resources. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the replacement of undeveloped land areas with built environments,which would change the visual character of the site and surroundings. However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon visual character. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's eXisting single-family residential neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the construction that would introduce additional sources of light and glare.However,the implementation ofthe proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon day-or nighttime views. Page 7 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x x x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods In the City fall within scenic vistas identified in the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon identified scenic vistas. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City may include scenic resources or historical structures. However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon scenic resources. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the replacement of undeveloped land areas with built environments,which would change the visual character of the site and surroundings. However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon visual character. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the construction that would introduce additional sources of light and glare.However,the implementation ofthe proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon day-or nighttime views. Page 7 11-10 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g»,timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govemment Code section 511 04(g»? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? x x x x x Comments: a-e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are no lands containing significant agricultural or forest resources within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.Therefore,the proposed project will have no impact upon agricultural and forest resources. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1 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 Callfomia Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.In determining whether impacts to forest resources,induding timberiand, are significant environmental effects.lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board 2 Where available,the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Page 8 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g»,timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Govemment Code section 511 04(g»? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? x x x x x Comments: a-e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are no lands containing significant agricultural or forest resources within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.Therefore,the proposed project will have no impact upon agricultural and forest resources. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1 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 Callfomia Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.In determining whether impacts to forest resources,induding timberiand, are significant environmental effects.lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board 2 Where available,the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Page 8 11-11 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an eXisting or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x x x x Comments: a-d)The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within the South Coast Air Basin,which is an area of non-attainment for Federal air quality standards for ozone (03),carbon monoxide (CO),and suspended particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5).The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Construction activity with the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods could result in the movement of soil and the operation of construction equipment.Based upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)guidelines for estimating air quality impacts from construction activities,the development of individual parcels would not exceed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for nitrous oxides (NOx),CO,PM 10 or PM2.5•Therefore,the air quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)Since the zoning of the City's single-family residential neighborhood does not permit industrial or commercial uses,no objectionable odors are expected to be generated as a result of the proposed project. a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? x x Page 9 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x x x x Comments: a-d)The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within the South Coast Air Basin,which is an area of non-attainment for Federal air quality standards for ozone (03),carbon monoxide (CO),and suspended particulate matter (PM 10 and PM2.5).The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Construction activity with the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods could result in the movement of soil and the operation of construction equipment.Based upon the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)guidelines for estimating air quality impacts from construction activities,the development of individual parcels would not exceed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for nitrous oxides (NOx),CO,PM 10 or PM2.5•Therefore,the air quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)Since the zoning of the City's single-family residential neighborhood does not permit industrial or commercial uses,no objectionable odors are expected to be generated as a result of the proposed project. a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? x x Page 9 11-12 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands,as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.),through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? x x x x Comments: a-d,f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located with the City's eXisting single-family residential neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,the biological resources impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)The City has a Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance,which is codified as Chapter 17.41 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.This ordinance only applies to parcels over two (2)acres in size that contain Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)habitat.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are made up of lots that are smaller than two (2)acres in size and do not contain CSS habitat.As such,any conflicts ofthe proposed project with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are expected to be less than significant. a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuantto §15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x x x Page 10 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands,as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.),through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? x x x x Comments: a-d,f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located with the City's eXisting single-family residential neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,the biological resources impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)The City has a Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance,which is codified as Chapter 17.41 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.This ordinance only applies to parcels over two (2)acres in size that contain Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)habitat.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are made up of lots that are smaller than two (2)acres in size and do not contain CSS habitat.As such,any conflicts ofthe proposed project with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are expected to be less than significant. a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuantto §15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x x x Page 10 11-13 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 d}Disturbed any human remains,including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? Comments: a}The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods In the City may Include historical structures.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-signlficant Impacts upon historical resources.. b-d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the City's Archaeology Map,some single-family neighborhoods In the City may be located within areas of possible area of archaeological and paleontological resources.In cases where the development or redevelopment of an Individual residential property may have impacts upon potential cultural resources,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.Otherwise,the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon archeological and paleontological resources. 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 faultr ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure,in- cludin Ii uefactlon? Iv)Landslides? b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located.on a geological unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X X X X x x Page 11 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007 -00377 March 29,2010 d}Disturbed any human remains,including those interred outside of formal X cemeteries? Comments: a}The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods In the City may Include historical structures.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-signlficant Impacts upon historical resources.. b-d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the City's Archaeology Map,some single-family neighborhoods In the City may be located within areas of possible area of archaeological and paleontological resources.In cases where the development or redevelopment of an Individual residential property may have impacts upon potential cultural resources,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.Otherwise,the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon archeological and paleontological resources. 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 faultr ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure,in- cludin Ii uefactlon? Iv)Landslides? b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located.on a geological unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X X X X x x Page 11 11-14 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-o0377 March 29,2010 d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable 'of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? x x Comments: a,cod)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of Conservation,some single-family neighborhoods in the City are located within areas that are potentially subject to earthquake-induced landslides and/or liquefaction.These neighborhoods may also be within the vicinity of the Palos Verdes fault zone.The soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are also generally known to be expansive and occasionally unstable.Given the known and presumed soils conditions in and around City's single-family residential neighborhoods, it is expected that soil investigations,reviewed and conceptually approved by the City's geotechnical consultant,will be required on a case-by-case basis prior to development or redevelopment within of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.Otherwise,the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon soil stability. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.During grading and construction operations for any new residences in these neighborhoods,top soil will be exposed and removed from individual properties.It is the City's standard practice to require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for wind-and waterborne soil for construction projects.Therefore,the effects of erosion or loss of topsoil related to the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City are reliant upon septic tanks and alternative waste water disposal systems because sanitary sewer systems are not available.In cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property is proposed in a neighborhood without access to a sanitary sewer, the adequacy of the subject property to accommodate septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Otherwise,any geology/soils impacts related to septic systems are expected to be less-than-significant. ~)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with any applicable plan.policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-f<;lmily residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential nei hborhoods.Thea rovalofthe ro osed ro"ectcouldleadtothefuturedevelo mentorredevelo mentofsin le- Page 12 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-o0377 March 29,2010 d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable 'of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? x x Comments: a,cod)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of Conservation,some single-family neighborhoods in the City are located within areas that are potentially subject to earthquake-induced landslides and/or liquefaction.These neighborhoods may also be within the vicinity of the Palos Verdes fault zone.The soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are also generally known to be expansive and occasionally unstable.Given the known and presumed soils conditions in and around City's single-family residential neighborhoods, it is expected that soil investigations,reviewed and conceptually approved by the City's geotechnical consultant,will be required on a case-by-case basis prior to development or redevelopment within of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.Otherwise,the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon soil stability. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.During grading and construction operations for any new residences in these neighborhoods,top soil will be exposed and removed from individual properties.It is the City's standard practice to require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for wind-and waterborne soil for construction projects.Therefore,the effects of erosion or loss of topsoil related to the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City are reliant upon septic tanks and alternative waste water disposal systems because sanitary sewer systems are not available.In cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property is proposed in a neighborhood without access to a sanitary sewer, the adequacy of the subject property to accommodate septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Otherwise,any geology/soils impacts related to septic systems are expected to be less-than-significant. ~)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with any applicable plan.policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-f<;lmily residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential nei hborhoods.Thea rovalofthe ro osed ro"ectcouldleadtothefuturedevelo mentorredevelo mentofsin le- Page 12 11-15 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 family residences throughout the City,but will not directly grant any entitlement for such development or redevelopment. Based upon data obtained from Coo/California.org,the average California household generates thirty-eight (38)tons of carbon dioxide (C02)emissions annually.Currently,there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.However,the potential,future development and redevelopment of residences in the City would include features that tend to offset the carbon footprint of their development.For example, the use of water would continue to be carefully controlled,and reducing the use of water reduces energy use related to the transport of water.New residences would be constructed to.the most current energy efficiency standards of the current BUilding Code (i.e.,Title 24).The development and redevelopment of homes within existing single-family residential neighborhoods would tend to counteract the negative effects of sprawl by "in-filling"established residential neighborhood rather than converting raw land to urban use.For all of these reasons,the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b)California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006),a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB)regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions.These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent)and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.Currently,there are no adopted plans,policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of new, single-family residences.However,as such plans,policies and regulations are adopted in the future,the development and redevelopment of new homes in the City would be subjectto and consistent with them.For this reason,the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? x x x x x Page 13 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 family residences throughout the City,but will not directly grant any entitlement for such development or redevelopment. Based upon data obtained from Coo/California.org,the average California household generates thirty-eight (38)tons of carbon dioxide (C02)emissions annually.Currently,there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.However,the potential,future development and redevelopment of residences in the City would include features that tend to offset the carbon footprint of their development.For example, the use of water would continue to be carefully controlled,and reducing the use of water reduces energy use related to the transport of water.New residences would be constructed to.the most current energy efficiency standards of the current BUilding Code (i.e.,Title 24).The development and redevelopment of homes within existing single-family residential neighborhoods would tend to counteract the negative effects of sprawl by "in-filling"established residential neighborhood rather than converting raw land to urban use.For all of these reasons,the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. b)California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006),a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB)regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions.These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent)and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.Currently,there are no adopted plans,policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of new, single-family residences.However,as such plans,policies and regulations are adopted in the future,the development and redevelopment of new homes in the City would be subjectto and consistent with them.For this reason,the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? x x x x x Page 13 11-16 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-o0377 March 29,2010 t)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? g}Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h}Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,Injury,or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x x x Comments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the CIty's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Conventional residential construction practices are not expected to involve the transport,disposal, emission or handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are many public and private school within or in the vicinity of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.However,conventional residential construction practices are not expected to involve the emission or handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project upon schools are expected to be less than significant. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Only four (4)existing single-family residence are Included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e-t)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles ofTorrance Municipal Airport,but there are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater risk associated with liVing In the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. g)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's eXisting single-family residential neighborhoods.In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP. h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Based upon maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CaIFire),the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.As such,newconstruction in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is SUbject to compliance with the most-recent building codes for fire-safe construction.Therefore,the wildfire hazard impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. Page 14 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-o0377 March 29,2010 t)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? g}Impair Implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h}Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,Injury,or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x x x Comments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the CIty's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Conventional residential construction practices are not expected to involve the transport,disposal, emission or handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are many public and private school within or in the vicinity of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.However,conventional residential construction practices are not expected to involve the emission or handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project upon schools are expected to be less than significant. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Only four (4)existing single-family residence are Included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. e-t)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles ofTorrance Municipal Airport,but there are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater risk associated with liVing In the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. g)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP. h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Based upon maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CaIFire),the entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.As such,newconstruction in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is SUbject to compliance with the most-recent building codes for fire-safe construction.Therefore,the wildfire hazard impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. Page 14 11-17 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Violate any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sUbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater (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 off-site? 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? x x x x x x x x x x Page 15 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Violate any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements? b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sUbstantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater (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 off-site? 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water quality? g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? x x x x x x x x x x Page 15 11-18 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 Comments: a,c-f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods may alter the topography of properties and increase the amount of impermeable surface area.Future development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods may also result in changes to the current drainage patterns of the area,as well as the potential for erosion and run-off during construction. In such limited cases where a lot falls within or adjacent to a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)and involves the creation of two thousand five hundred square feet or more (:::2.500 SF)of impervious surface,the City already requires the review and approval of the project by the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)consultant.Therefore,the hydrologylwater quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be to less than significant.. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment in these neighborhoods will not involve or require the withdrawal of groundwater because residential water service throughout the City is provided by the California Water Service Company. g-h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.However,there are no Federally-mapped 100-year flood hazard areas anywhere within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. i)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are above-and underground reservoirs maintained by California Water Service Company and the Metropolitan Water District within and/or in the vicinity of some of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods. Nevertheless.the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater risk associated with living in the vicinity of these reservoirs. j)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation for Emergency Planning proVided by the State of California Emergency Management Agency and the California Geological Survey,some single-family neighborhoods in the City are located within areas that are potentially subjectto tsunami inundation.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater osk associated with liVing in the vicinity of the City's coastline. a)Physically divide an established com- munity? 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 plan,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com- munity Conservation Plan? x x x Page 16 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007·00377 March 29,2010 Comments: a,c-f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods may alter the topography of properties and increase the amount of impermeable surface area.Future development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods may also result in changes to the current drainage patterns of the area,as well as the potential for erosion and run-off during construction. In such limited cases where a lot falls within or adjacent to a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)and involves the creation of two thousand five hundred square feet or more (:::2.500 SF)of impervious surface,the City already requires the review and approval of the project by the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)consultant.Therefore,the hydrologylwater quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be to less than significant.. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment in these neighborhoods will not involve or require the withdrawal of groundwater because residential water service throughout the City is provided by the California Water Service Company. g-h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.However,there are no Federally-mapped 100-year flood hazard areas anywhere within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. i)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are above-and underground reservoirs maintained by California Water Service Company and the Metropolitan Water District within and/or in the vicinity of some of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods. Nevertheless.the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater risk associated with living in the vicinity of these reservoirs. j)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation for Emergency Planning proVided by the State of California Emergency Management Agency and the California Geological Survey,some single-family neighborhoods in the City are located within areas that are potentially subjectto tsunami inundation.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater osk associated with liVing in the vicinity of the City's coastline. a)Physically divide an established com- munity? 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 plan,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com- munity Conservation Plan? x x x Page 16 11-19 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development and redevelopment of single-family residence would occur within existing neighborhoods.As such,it would not divide theses neighborhoods;rather,it would constitute "in-fill"development within the community. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential devefopment standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions include the rezoning of the single-family residential neighborhoods in the City's Eastview area from RS-4 to RS-5;and the establishment of an Overlay Control District for the Mira Vista neighborhood in Eastviewto:1)acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area,which is generally characterized by very small homes on small lots,with substandard or no off-street parking facilities;and 2)allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay area,in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood, and with the needs and desires of current property owners.Such zoning changes are consistent with the underlying Residential,4-6 DUlacre land use designation for these portions of Eastview,and with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan governing the establishment of Overlay Control Districts.Therefore,the proposed project's conflicts with any existing land use and planning regulations are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located within the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,any inconsistency of the project with the City's NCCP is expected to be less than significant. a)Result in the loss of availability of a known minerai resource that would be of 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? x x ~omments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are no mineral resources known or expected to exist within any of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable stan- dards of other agencies? x Page 17 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development and redevelopment of single-family residence would occur within existing neighborhoods.As such,it would not divide theses neighborhoods;rather,it would constitute "in-fill"development within the community. b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential devefopment standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions include the rezoning of the single-family residential neighborhoods in the City's Eastview area from RS-4 to RS-5;and the establishment of an Overlay Control District for the Mira Vista neighborhood in Eastviewto:1)acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area,which is generally characterized by very small homes on small lots,with substandard or no off-street parking facilities;and 2)allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay area,in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood, and with the needs and desires of current property owners.Such zoning changes are consistent with the underlying Residential,4-6 DUlacre land use designation for these portions of Eastview,and with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan governing the establishment of Overlay Control Districts.Therefore,the proposed project's conflicts with any existing land use and planning regulations are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located within the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,any inconsistency of the project with the City's NCCP is expected to be less than significant. a)Result in the loss of availability of a known minerai resource that would be of 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? x x ~omments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.There are no mineral resources known or expected to exist within any of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable stan- dards of other agencies? x Page 17 11-20 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? x x x x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a noise ordinance.However,General Plan Noise Element Policy No.5 "[requires]residential uses in the 70 dB(A)location range to provide regulatory screening or some other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance."The Noise Levels Contour diagram in the General Plan does not depict single-family residential neighborhoods as falling with the 70 dB(A)noise contour.There- fore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant. b-d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential developmentstandards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the Gity's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future construction activity related to the development or redevelopment of properties in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods would create short-term construction-related noise.The City already imposes limitations on the days and hours of construction activity,which are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Mondays through Saturdays.Therefore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant. e-f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles ofTorrance Municipal Airport,but there are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater noise associated with living in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g .•by proposing new homes or businesses)or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? x Page 18 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ground borne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? x x x x x Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a noise ordinance.However,General Plan Noise Element Policy No.5 "[requires]residential uses in the 70 dB(A)location range to provide regulatory screening or some other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance."The Noise Levels Contour diagram in the General Plan does not depict single-family residential neighborhoods as falling with the 70 dB(A)noise contour.There- fore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant. b-d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential developmentstandards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the Gity's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future construction activity related to the development or redevelopment of properties in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods would create short-term construction-related noise.The City already imposes limitations on the days and hours of construction activity,which are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Mondays through Saturdays.Therefore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant. e-f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles ofTorrance Municipal Airport,but there are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater noise associated with living in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g .•by proposing new homes or businesses)or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? x Page 18 11-21 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase in the number of residential dwelling units in the City.Therefore,the population and housing impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. b-c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.No existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities,need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental im- pacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i)Fire protection?X ii)Police protection?X iii)Schools?X iv)Parks?X v)Other public facilities?X Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment within the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods would be characterized as "In-fill"development.Such development or redevelopment would not place substantial additional burdens on public services.Therefore,the public services impacts ofthe project are expected to be less than significant. Page 19 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction X of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase in the number of residential dwelling units in the City.Therefore,the population and housing impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. b-c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.No existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmental facilities,need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental im- pacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i)Fire protection?X ii)Police protection?X iii)Schools?X iv)Parks?X v)Other public facilities?X Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment within the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods would be characterized as "In-fill"development.Such development or redevelopment would not place substantial additional burdens on public services.Therefore,the public services impacts ofthe project are expected to be less than significant. Page 19 11-22 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,.X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase in the population of the City that would impose a burden upon recreational facilities.Therefore,the impacts of the proposed project upon the use of recreational facilities are expected to be less than significant. b}The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The use and development of the City's recreational facilities are regulated under the provisions of the Open Space Recreation (OR)zoning regulations,not the single-family residential zoning regulations.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or polley establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X X Page 20 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,.X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase in the population of the City that would impose a burden upon recreational facilities.Therefore,the impacts of the proposed project upon the use of recreational facilities are expected to be less than significant. b}The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The use and development of the City's recreational facilities are regulated under the provisions of the Open Space Recreation (OR)zoning regulations,not the single-family residential zoning regulations.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or polley establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X X X Page 20 11-23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 d)SUbstantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incom- patible uses (e.g.farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency ac- cess? f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? x x x Comments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Based upon the most-current ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 210,Single-Family Detached Housing),the development of any new residences in existing single-family residential neighborhoods would only be expected to generate ten (10)dally trips and one (1)peak-hour trip per residence,while the redevelopment of existing residences would generate no additional trips.Any additional trips resulting from "in-fill"development in existing single- family residential neighborhoods will be negligible.Therefore,the transportation/traffic impacts ofthe proposed project are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods will have no impact upon air traffic patterns. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of roadways in the City. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the creation of traffic hazards. e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP,nor would it have any impact upon emergency access. f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of pUblic transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to conflicts policies,plans or programs for alternative modes of transport. a)Exceed wastewater treatment require- ments of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? x Page 21 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 d)SUbstantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incom- patible uses (e.g.farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency ac- cess? f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? x x x Comments: a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Based upon the most-current ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 210,Single-Family Detached Housing),the development of any new residences in existing single-family residential neighborhoods would only be expected to generate ten (10)dally trips and one (1)peak-hour trip per residence,while the redevelopment of existing residences would generate no additional trips.Any additional trips resulting from "in-fill"development in existing single- family residential neighborhoods will be negligible.Therefore,the transportation/traffic impacts ofthe proposed project are expected to be less than significant. c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods will have no impact upon air traffic patterns. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of roadways in the City. Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the creation of traffic hazards. e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP,nor would it have any impact upon emergency access. f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of pUblic transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to conflicts policies,plans or programs for alternative modes of transport. a)Exceed wastewater treatment require- ments of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? x Page 21 11-24 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction ofwhich 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 providers existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal.state,and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? x x x x x x Comments: a-c,e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are served by sanitary sewers,although some utilize septic tanks.These neighborhoods are similarly served by both public and private storm drain systems. The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is not expected to place substantial additional burdens upon these systems.Therefore,the utilities/service systems impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.California Water Service Company proVides the City's water service.Given that the City is largely built out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is expected to be relatively small.In cases where new construction is proposed on vacant lots,individual property owners would be responsible for connecting to existing water-distribution facilities in the area,including the costs of making such connections.As such,the water supply impacts ofthe proposed project are expected to be to less than significant. fog)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Given that the City is largely built out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is expected to be relatively small.The City's single-family residential neighborhoods already'have access to solid waste disposal services through existing City contracts with residential waste haulers.Therefore,the solid waste disposal impacts are expected to be less-than-significant. Page 22 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction ofwhich 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 providers existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal.state,and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? x x x x x x Comments: a-c,e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are served by sanitary sewers,although some utilize septic tanks.These neighborhoods are similarly served by both public and private storm drain systems. The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is not expected to place substantial additional burdens upon these systems.Therefore,the utilities/service systems impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.California Water Service Company proVides the City's water service.Given that the City is largely built out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is expected to be relatively small.In cases where new construction is proposed on vacant lots,individual property owners would be responsible for connecting to existing water-distribution facilities in the area,including the costs of making such connections.As such,the water supply impacts ofthe proposed project are expected to be to less than significant. fog)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.Given that the City is largely built out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is expected to be relatively small.The City's single-family residential neighborhoods already'have access to solid waste disposal services through existing City contracts with residential waste haulers.Therefore,the solid waste disposal impacts are expected to be less-than-significant. Page 22 11-25 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory? x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. These revisions will not significantly 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;or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.The proposed project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history.Therefore,the effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be less than significant. b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumUlatively considerable?4 x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity ofthe City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. The approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement to develop or redevelop these lots.On an individual basis,the development or redevelopment of single-family residences on existing lots would not be expected to have any adverse impact upon the environment.Since the homes in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are owned by numerous individual owners,they are very unlikely to be developed or redeveloped concurrently,but rather on a piecemeal basis over a period of many years.Therefore,the cumulative effects of the proposed project area expected to be less than significant. c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. As discussed above,all of the potentially environmental effects of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant levels.Therefore,the proposed project will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly. 4 "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects. Page 23 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory? x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. These revisions will not significantly 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;or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.The proposed project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history.Therefore,the effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be less than significant. b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumUlatively considerable?4 x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity ofthe City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. The approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement to develop or redevelop these lots.On an individual basis,the development or redevelopment of single-family residences on existing lots would not be expected to have any adverse impact upon the environment.Since the homes in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are owned by numerous individual owners,they are very unlikely to be developed or redeveloped concurrently,but rather on a piecemeal basis over a period of many years.Therefore,the cumulative effects of the proposed project area expected to be less than significant. c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? x Comments: The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods. As discussed above,all of the potentially environmental effects of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant levels.Therefore,the proposed project will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly. 4 "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects. Page 23 11-26 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a)Earlier analysis used.Identify and state where they are available for review. Comments:Not applicable. 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. Comments:Not applicable. 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 of the project. Comments:Not applicable. Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference:Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,321094, 21151;Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v.Monterey Board of SupeNisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990). 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District.CEQA AIR Quality Handbook.Diamond Bar,Califomia: November 1993 (as amended). 4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California,Division of Mines and Geolo 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Natural Communities Conservation Plan.Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 7 Institute of Traffic Engineers,ITE Trip Generation,7 Edition. 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS)database and maps 9 State of California,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps.Sacramento,California,accessed via website,March 2008 10 Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of the State of California and the California Geological Survey 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e.,'Cortese List") 13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element Page 24 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a)Earlier analysis used.Identify and state where they are available for review. Comments:Not applicable. 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. Comments:Not applicable. 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 of the project. Comments:Not applicable. Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference:Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,321094, 21151;Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v.Monterey Board of SupeNisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990). 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District.CEQA AIR Quality Handbook.Diamond Bar,Califomia: November 1993 (as amended). 4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California,Division of Mines and Geolo 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Natural Communities Conservation Plan.Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 7 Institute of Traffic Engineers,ITE Trip Generation,7 Edition. 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS)database and maps 9 State of California,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps.Sacramento,California,accessed via website,March 2008 10 Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of the State of California and the California Geological Survey 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e.,'Cortese List") 13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element Page 24 11-27 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 ATTACHMENTS: P.C.Resolution No.2009-5i M:\Projeets\ZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\Inilial Study.doc Page 25 Environmental Checklist Case No.ZON2007-00377 March 29,2010 ATTACHMENTS: P.C.Resolution No.2009-5i M:\Projeets\ZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\Inilial Study.doc Page 25 11-28 ("',i P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2009-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ENACT THE RECOMMEN- DATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2007 -00377) WHEREAS,in 2003 the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC)-composed of City residents,Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers-and charged the RDSSC with the task of reviewing 'the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and eventually presented a summary of its recommended amendments to the City Council for its consideration; and, WHEREAS,on August 1,2006,the City Council authorized the initiation of a Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)to imple- ment the RDSSC recommendations;and, WHEREAS,on October 24,2007,and August 17,2009,notices for the Planning Commission's consideration of the RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change were, published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Cooe,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 13,2007,February 12,2008,March 11,2008,April 8,2008,May 13,2008, June 10,2008,JUly 8,2008,July 22,2008,September 8,2009,October 13,2009, November 10,2009 and December 8,2009,at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff reports of those dates. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS ,FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code. ". Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. ("',i P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2009-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ENACT THE RECOMMEN- DATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2007 -00377) WHEREAS,in 2003 the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC)-composed of City residents,Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers-and charged the RDSSC with the task of reviewing 'the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and eventually presented a summary of its recommended amendments to the City Council for its consideration; and, WHEREAS,on August 1,2006,the City Council authorized the initiation of a Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)to imple- ment the RDSSC recommendations;and, WHEREAS,on October 24,2007,and August 17,2009,notices for the Planning Commission's consideration of the RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change were, published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Cooe,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 13,2007,February 12,2008,March 11,2008,April 8,2008,May 13,2008, June 10,2008,JUly 8,2008,July 22,2008,September 8,2009,October 13,2009, November 10,2009 and December 8,2009,at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff reports of those dates. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS ,FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code. ". Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. 11-29 Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment.and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 are necessary to preserve the public health,safety.and general welfare in the area. while balancing property rights. Section 5:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17 and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the areas of the "Eastview"portion of the City that are currently zoned "RS-4"shall be re-zoned "RS-5," as depicted in the areas outlined in red on the attached Exhibit 'A.' Section 6:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17 and incorporated therein by reference.shall be amended such that the "Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)"shall be established in the "Eastview"portion of the City.specifically affecting .lots located within Tract No.16010,as recorded on September 8.1949 in Book 353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles,including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract.but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578.Pages 7 through 8 (inclusive).of maps of the County of Los Angeles;as depicted in the area outlined in blue on the attached Exhibit 'B.' Section 7:Section 17.40.080 of Title 17 is hereby established to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 17.40.080 Mira Vista overlay control district rOC-5)and regulations A.Purpose.The pumose of the Mira Vista overlay control district rOC-5)is established to: 1.Acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area.which is generally characterized by veN small homes on small lots.with substandard or no off-street parking facilities;and. 2.Allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay area.in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood.and with the needs and desires of current property owners. B.Application.The Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)shall be applicable to lots located within Tract No.16010.as recorded on September 8.1949 in Book 353.Pages 23 through 29 On elusive ).of maps of the County of Los Angeles. including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract.but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 2 of 13 Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment.and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 are necessary to preserve the public health,safety.and general welfare in the area. while balancing property rights. Section 5:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17 and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the areas of the "Eastview"portion of the City that are currently zoned "RS-4"shall be re-zoned "RS-5," as depicted in the areas outlined in red on the attached Exhibit 'A.' Section 6:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17 and incorporated therein by reference.shall be amended such that the "Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)"shall be established in the "Eastview"portion of the City.specifically affecting .lots located within Tract No.16010,as recorded on September 8.1949 in Book 353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles,including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract.but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578.Pages 7 through 8 (inclusive).of maps of the County of Los Angeles;as depicted in the area outlined in blue on the attached Exhibit 'B.' Section 7:Section 17.40.080 of Title 17 is hereby established to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 17.40.080 Mira Vista overlay control district rOC-5)and regulations A.Purpose.The pumose of the Mira Vista overlay control district rOC-5)is established to: 1.Acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area.which is generally characterized by veN small homes on small lots.with substandard or no off-street parking facilities;and. 2.Allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay area.in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood.and with the needs and desires of current property owners. B.Application.The Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)shall be applicable to lots located within Tract No.16010.as recorded on September 8.1949 in Book 353.Pages 23 through 29 On elusive ).of maps of the County of Los Angeles. including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract.but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 2 of 13 11-30 No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8 Onclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles. C.Development Standards.The following development standards shall apply to lots subject to the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5).If not specified below,the RS-5 zoning district and other general development standards shall apply. 1.Minimum Setbacks.The following minimum building setbacks shall be maintained: Front 20' Interior Side 5' Street Side 10' Rear 15' 2.Front Entry Porch.A front entry porch shall be permitted to encroach into the required front-yard setback,provided that the following criteria are met:. a.The footprint of the porch does not exceed 50 square feet in area; b.The footprint of the porch does not encroach more than 5 feet into the required front yard;and, c.The height of the porch does not exceed 16 feet in height or the highest roof ridgeline,whichever is lower. 3.Front-Yard Landscaped Area.If a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project,where applicable a landscaped parkway shall be provided by the property owner.Approvals for parkway landscaping shall be obtained from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of bUilding or grading permits.In addition,at least 50%of the front yard area shall be maintained as landscape area,in accordance with as defined in Section 17.48.030(D). 4.Driveways.In cases where a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project,if a garage is located in the rear of a property,a minimum 9-foot-wide driveway shall be provided that utilizes grass strips or "grasscrete."If a garage is located at the front of a property.a minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the side property line and the nearest edge of the driveway. 5.Garages.As alternatives to the minimum off-street parking requirements specified in Section 17.02.030(E),enclosed garage spaces may be provided as follows: a.Tandem parking spaces in an attached garage,provided that each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E);or, b.Detached garage encroaching to within five feet of the rear property line proVided that: i.The each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E); ii.The maximum height of the garage does not exceed twelve feet;and, p.e.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 3 of 13 No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8 Onclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles. C.Development Standards.The following development standards shall apply to lots subject to the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5).If not specified below,the RS-5 zoning district and other general development standards shall apply. 1.Minimum Setbacks.The following minimum building setbacks shall be maintained: Front 20' Interior Side 5' Street Side 10' Rear 15' 2.Front Entry Porch.A front entry porch shall be permitted to encroach into the required front-yard setback,provided that the following criteria are met:. a.The footprint of the porch does not exceed 50 square feet in area; b.The footprint of the porch does not encroach more than 5 feet into the required front yard;and, c.The height of the porch does not exceed 16 feet in height or the highest roof ridgeline,whichever is lower. 3.Front-Yard Landscaped Area.If a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project,where applicable a landscaped parkway shall be provided by the property owner.Approvals for parkway landscaping shall be obtained from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of bUilding or grading permits.In addition,at least 50%of the front yard area shall be maintained as landscape area,in accordance with as defined in Section 17.48.030(D). 4.Driveways.In cases where a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is required for a project,if a garage is located in the rear of a property,a minimum 9-foot-wide driveway shall be provided that utilizes grass strips or "grasscrete."If a garage is located at the front of a property.a minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the side property line and the nearest edge of the driveway. 5.Garages.As alternatives to the minimum off-street parking requirements specified in Section 17.02.030(E),enclosed garage spaces may be provided as follows: a.Tandem parking spaces in an attached garage,provided that each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E);or, b.Detached garage encroaching to within five feet of the rear property line proVided that: i.The each garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section 17.02.030(E); ii.The maximum height of the garage does not exceed twelve feet;and, p.e.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 3 of 13 11-31 (".\ \" iii.The Director determines that the detached garage will not result in significant view impacts from the viewing area of any nearby properties.J. iv.All other development standards are met,including but not limited to lot coverage,side setbacks and construction on extreme slopes. 6.Lot Coverage.Notwithstanding the underlYing zoning within the overlay control district area,the maximum permitted lot coverage shall be 52%,as defined in Section 17.02-040(A)(5). Section 8:Table 02-A "Single-Family Residential Development Standards"of Section 17.02.030(A)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as depicted in the attached Exhibit 'C'(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language). Section 9:Section 17.02.040(A)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language.): 5."Lot'coverage"means that portion of a Jot or building site which is occupied by any building or structure,including oourtyards whioh are fully eRolosed or wh.ioh have a maximum of ORe e:xterior eRtF8ROO;trellises;decks over thirty inches in height (as measured from existing adjacent grade);parking areas;driveways;or impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width and/or one patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot coverage calculation).(The lot coverage of a oouFtyard wh,iGh ,is Rot fully eRG/osed shaH be oalcWated by the direotor aslt it ~Fe fully eRGlo8ed by dr'8V'ling aR ,imagiRary liRe be~eR the '1/'8#8 OR elther side of the eRtF8RSe to the GouFtyard.\t'lhOR the wa#s OR either side of the eRtraRoo are of l:JReveR leRgth, the imagiRary liRe shall be aR O*teRsioR of the eRd of the wall OR the shortest Bide of the oouFtyard,see diagram below.) P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 4 of 13 (".\ \" iii.The Director determines that the detached garage will not result in significant view impacts from the viewing area of any nearby properties.J. iv.All other development standards are met,including but not limited to lot coverage,side setbacks and construction on extreme slopes. 6.Lot Coverage.Notwithstanding the underlYing zoning within the overlay control district area,the maximum permitted lot coverage shall be 52%,as defined in Section 17.02-040(A)(5). Section 8:Table 02-A "Single-Family Residential Development Standards"of Section 17.02.030(A)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as depicted in the attached Exhibit 'C'(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language). Section 9:Section 17.02.040(A)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language.): 5."Lot'coverage"means that portion of a Jot or building site which is occupied by any building or structure,including oourtyards whioh are fully eRolosed or wh.ioh have a maximum of ORe e:xterior eRtF8ROO;trellises;decks over thirty inches in height (as measured from existing adjacent grade);parking areas;driveways;or impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width and/or one patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot coverage calculation).(The lot coverage of a oouFtyard wh,iGh ,is Rot fully eRG/osed shaH be oalcWated by the direotor aslt it ~Fe fully eRGlo8ed by dr'8V'ling aR ,imagiRary liRe be~eR the '1/'8#8 OR elther side of the eRtF8RSe to the GouFtyard.\t'lhOR the wa#s OR either side of the eRtraRoo are of l:JReveR leRgth, the imagiRary liRe shall be aR O*teRsioR of the eRd of the wall OR the shortest Bide of the oouFtyard,see diagram below.) P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 4 of 13 11-32 Section 10:Section 17.48.040 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure.Open space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the definition of lot coverage,as defined in Section 17.02.040(A).Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02).For purposes of calculating lot coverage. a private street easement area shall not be considered a part of the lot area.For flag lots.the "pole"portion of any flag lot that is encumbered by an access easement benefiting another property shall not be considered a part of the lot area.In no case shall any hardscape or other improvements within a private street easement or a flag-lot "pole"that is encumbered by an access easement be counted as lot coverage.In multiple-family residential units,private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open space. Section 11:Section 17.96.2020 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): "Private street"means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which mayor may not have frontage on a public street.For purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage,a private P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 5 of 13 Section 10:Section 17.48.040 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure.Open space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the definition of lot coverage,as defined in Section 17.02.040(A).Lot coverage shall not exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02).For purposes of calculating lot coverage. a private street easement area shall not be considered a part of the lot area.For flag lots.the "pole"portion of any flag lot that is encumbered by an access easement benefiting another property shall not be considered a part of the lot area.In no case shall any hardscape or other improvements within a private street easement or a flag-lot "pole"that is encumbered by an access easement be counted as lot coverage.In multiple-family residential units,private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open space. Section 11:Section 17.96.2020 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): "Private street"means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which mayor may not have frontage on a public street.For purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage,a private P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 5 of 13 11-33 /-'\ ,')(" street easement shall not be considered a part of a lot.A private street does not mean a "driveway.J1 Section 12:Section 17.02.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): E.Parking/Driveway Standards. 1.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage.and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway.on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space,as determined by the director. 2.A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage.and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway.on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing five thous~nd square feet or more of habitable space,as determined by the director. 3.A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever is the street of access. 4.In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on a property,parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards). 5.An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth,with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over the space.An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. 6.The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel: a.'A driveway shall be a minimum width often feet;and b.A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten percent or more,and which are fifty feet or more in length. 7.Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of- way. 8.A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the adjacent driveway,unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the drivewav'to less than ten feet,in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director. p.e.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 6 of 13 /-'\ ,')(" street easement shall not be considered a part of a lot.A private street does not mean a "driveway.J1 Section 12:Section 17.02.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): E.Parking/Driveway Standards. 1.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage.and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway.on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space,as determined by the director. 2.A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in a garage.and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as a driveway.on the property of each single-family dwelling unit containing five thous~nd square feet or more of habitable space,as determined by the director. 3.A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever is the street of access. 4.In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on a property,parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards). 5.An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth,with a minimum of seven feet of vertical clearance over the space.An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth. 6.The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on a residential parcel: a.'A driveway shall be a minimum width often feet;and b.A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which have an average slope of ten percent or more,and which are fifty feet or more in length. 7.Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of- way. 8.A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the adjacent driveway,unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the drivewav'to less than ten feet,in which case the width of the landscape buffer may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director. p.e.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 6 of 13 11-34 1"",\l , ftB.All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department.If there is any inconsistency between the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County fire department,the stricter shall apply. 10.Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of subsections (1)and (2)of this section.provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5)of this section. Section 13:Section 17.76.030(C)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit.Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located bewieen the front property line and the B*teFior faeade of the existing single family residenoe oIosest to the front property line within the front-Yard setback area or bep/Jeen the street s,'de property line and the existlng single famity residenoe olosest to.the ..stFget side property line shall meet the following standards:. i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and Building Height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and BUilding Height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property /ine of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not SUbject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a),except as P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 7 of 13 1"",\l , ftB.All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications of the Los Angeles County fire department.If there is any inconsistency between the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los Angeles County fire department,the stricter shall apply. 10.Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum requirements of subsections (1)and (2)of this section.provided that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5)of this section. Section 13:Section 17.76.030(C)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit.Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located bewieen the front property line and the B*teFior faeade of the existing single family residenoe oIosest to the front property line within the front-Yard setback area or bep/Jeen the street s,'de property line and the existlng single famity residenoe olosest to.the ..stFget side property line shall meet the following standards:. i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and Building Height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and BUilding Height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property /ine of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not SUbject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a),except as P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 7 of 13 11-35 restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing.provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(Environmental Protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located between the (FORt property line and the eNterior faoade of the 6*isting single within front and stFeet side setbaoks within the front-yard and street-side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. b..Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 8 of 13 restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing.provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(Environmental Protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located between the (FORt property line and the eNterior faoade of the 6*isting single within front and stFeet side setbaoks within the front-yard and street-side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks, Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. b..Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 8 of 13 11-36 c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental Protection) of this title. Section 14:Section 17.76.030(E)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 5.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line;in side yards between the street side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line;and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South;8RfJ i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and. ii SilverSpurRoa~ Section 15:Section 17.48.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): E.Exceptions. 1.Architectural Features.Cornices,belt courses and other similar architectural features may project into the required setback area not more than four inches for each foot of the required setback;provided,that no portion.of such an architectural feature is located or projects below eight feet above grade;and provided,that there are no vertical supports or members within the required setback area.Garden windows FRay projeot into the required setbaok area not FRore than four inches for each foot of the requiFod setbaok;pre'lidod,that there are no ',LOrtioal supports within the required setbaok area.Ea'Jes FRay projeot into the required setbaok not FRore than six inches fo ...each foot of the required setbaok. 2.Garden Windows and Window Coverings.Garden windows and window coverings.including retractable awnings.may project into the required interior side and rear year setback areas not more than four inches for P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 9 of 13 c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental Protection) of this title. Section 14:Section 17.76.030(E)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 5.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line;in side yards between the street side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line;and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South;8RfJ i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and. ii SilverSpurRoa~ Section 15:Section 17.48.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): E.Exceptions. 1.Architectural Features.Cornices,belt courses and other similar architectural features may project into the required setback area not more than four inches for each foot of the required setback;provided,that no portion.of such an architectural feature is located or projects below eight feet above grade;and provided,that there are no vertical supports or members within the required setback area.Garden windows FRay projeot into the required setbaok area not FRore than four inches for each foot of the requiFod setbaok;pre'lidod,that there are no ',LOrtioal supports within the required setbaok area.Ea'Jes FRay projeot into the required setbaok not FRore than six inches fo ...each foot of the required setbaok. 2.Garden Windows and Window Coverings.Garden windows and window coverings.including retractable awnings.may project into the required interior side and rear year setback areas not more than four inches for P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 9 of 13 11-37 .,.r-" () "" (~"\ .<~. each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback area. 3.Roof Eaves.Roof eaves may pro;ect into the required setback not more than six inches for each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback areas.Roof eaves shall not be calculated towards lot coverage as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(5). ~.Fireplace Chimneys.Chimneys may project two feet into any required setback. Q6.Minor Structures and Mechanical Equipment.Trash enclosures,storage sheds or playhouses less than one hundred twenty square feet, doghouses,play/sports equipment,fountains,light fixtures on a standard or a pole.flag poles.enclosed water heaters,barbecues,outdoor kitchens.garden walls,air conditioners,pool filters,vents and other minor structures or mechanical equipment shall not be located in any setback area in residential districts except as specified below: a.Minor structures and equipment less than six inches in height,as measur~d from adjacent finished grade,may be located in any required front,side or rear setback; b.Minor structures and mechanical equipment which exceed six inches in height,as measured from adjacent finished grade,may be permitted within an interior side or rear setback area by the director,through a site plan review application,unless the minor structure is a play house less than 120 square feet.a dog house.or plav/sports equipment.then a site plan review application shall not be required;provided that no significant adverse impacts will result and provided that: i.,Noise levels from mechanical equipment do not exceed sixty-five dBA as measured from the closest property line, ii.No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment, exceeds six feet in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade), iii.If located within a rear setback area which abuts a public or private street,the minor structure or mechanical equipment is not visible from the public or private street, iv.No part of any mechanical equipment,including but not limited to pool/spa equipment and air conditioning/heating equipment,extends within three feet of the property line,and v.No part of any minor structure extends within three feet of the property line.However,minor structures (not mechanical equipment)may be allowed to abut the side or rear property line;provided,that the minor structure: (A)Is placed adjacent to an existing solid wall; (B)Does not exceed the maximum height of the adjacent solid wall,up to a maximum ofsix feet; P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 10 of 13 .,.r-" () "" (~"\ .<~. each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback area. 3.Roof Eaves.Roof eaves may pro;ect into the required setback not more than six inches for each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback areas.Roof eaves shall not be calculated towards lot coverage as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(5). ~.Fireplace Chimneys.Chimneys may project two feet into any required setback. Q6.Minor Structures and Mechanical Equipment.Trash enclosures,storage sheds or playhouses less than one hundred twenty square feet, doghouses,play/sports equipment,fountains,light fixtures on a standard or a pole.flag poles.enclosed water heaters,barbecues,outdoor kitchens.garden walls,air conditioners,pool filters,vents and other minor structures or mechanical equipment shall not be located in any setback area in residential districts except as specified below: a.Minor structures and equipment less than six inches in height,as measur~d from adjacent finished grade,may be located in any required front,side or rear setback; b.Minor structures and mechanical equipment which exceed six inches in height,as measured from adjacent finished grade,may be permitted within an interior side or rear setback area by the director,through a site plan review application,unless the minor structure is a play house less than 120 square feet.a dog house.or plav/sports equipment.then a site plan review application shall not be required;provided that no significant adverse impacts will result and provided that: i.,Noise levels from mechanical equipment do not exceed sixty-five dBA as measured from the closest property line, ii.No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment, exceeds six feet in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade), iii.If located within a rear setback area which abuts a public or private street,the minor structure or mechanical equipment is not visible from the public or private street, iv.No part of any mechanical equipment,including but not limited to pool/spa equipment and air conditioning/heating equipment,extends within three feet of the property line,and v.No part of any minor structure extends within three feet of the property line.However,minor structures (not mechanical equipment)may be allowed to abut the side or rear property line;provided,that the minor structure: (A)Is placed adjacent to an existing solid wall; (B)Does not exceed the maximum height of the adjacent solid wall,up to a maximum ofsix feet; P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 10 of 13 11-38 ("., \, (C)Is less than one hundred twenty square feet in size; and (D)Is located a minimum of three feet from an adjacent structure,unless the structures are parallel and abutting each other,as determined by the director. c.The following minor structures shall be permitted within a front yard setback area provided that the minor structure does not exceed 42- inches in height,as measured from adjacent pre-construction grade: i.Balustrades and columns: ii.Light fixtures,including light fixtures attached to a standard. a pole or a column: iii.Fountains,provided that the fountain is within the maximum front yard landscape requirement and is not operated between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.:and: iv.Ornamental ponds less than 18 inches deep. v.Decorative landscape elements.including but not·limited to: rocks,boulders,raised planter beds,pilasters and statuary. §.4.Decks,Walkways and Paving.Decks,asphalt paving,concrete walkways or similar ground surfacing less than six inches in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),shall not be subject to setback requirements.Decks (including any railing),six inches to thirty inches in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),may be permitted in any setback area upon determination by the director,through a site plan review application,that no significant adverse impacts will result. Z.e.Swimming or Ornamental Pools.Swimming pools,spas,ornamental pools and any other body of water measuring FRore thaR eighteen tweRty .fo.lH inches or more deep,may be located within an interior or rear yard setback;provided,that no portion of said pool is located closer than three feet from the property line.Ornamental ponds less than eighteen tweRty .fo.lH inches deep may be iocated within any required setback and may abut any property line. ~.Foundations and Footings.Below grade foundations and/or footings for above ground main buildings may be located in any setback;provided, that no portion of the foundation or footing is located closer than three feet from the property line. ~.Subterranean Structures.SubterranfJan structures,including holding tanks,which are located entirely below grade shall not be extended any closer than half of the required setback to any property line or three feet from the property line,whichever is greater. 108.Fences,Walls and Hedges.Fences,walls and hedges may be permitted within any front,interior side,street side or rear yard setback pursuant to Section 17.76.030 (Fences,walls and hedges). P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 11 of 13 ("., \, (C)Is less than one hundred twenty square feet in size; and (D)Is located a minimum of three feet from an adjacent structure,unless the structures are parallel and abutting each other,as determined by the director. c.The following minor structures shall be permitted within a front yard setback area provided that the minor structure does not exceed 42- inches in height,as measured from adjacent pre-construction grade: i.Balustrades and columns: ii.Light fixtures,including light fixtures attached to a standard. a pole or a column: iii.Fountains,provided that the fountain is within the maximum front yard landscape requirement and is not operated between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.:and: iv.Ornamental ponds less than 18 inches deep. v.Decorative landscape elements.including but not·limited to: rocks,boulders,raised planter beds,pilasters and statuary. §.4.Decks,Walkways and Paving.Decks,asphalt paving,concrete walkways or similar ground surfacing less than six inches in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),shall not be subject to setback requirements.Decks (including any railing),six inches to thirty inches in height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),may be permitted in any setback area upon determination by the director,through a site plan review application,that no significant adverse impacts will result. Z.e.Swimming or Ornamental Pools.Swimming pools,spas,ornamental pools and any other body of water measuring FRore thaR eighteen tweRty .fo.lH inches or more deep,may be located within an interior or rear yard setback;provided,that no portion of said pool is located closer than three feet from the property line.Ornamental ponds less than eighteen tweRty .fo.lH inches deep may be iocated within any required setback and may abut any property line. ~.Foundations and Footings.Below grade foundations and/or footings for above ground main buildings may be located in any setback;provided, that no portion of the foundation or footing is located closer than three feet from the property line. ~.Subterranean Structures.SubterranfJan structures,including holding tanks,which are located entirely below grade shall not be extended any closer than half of the required setback to any property line or three feet from the property line,whichever is greater. 108.Fences,Walls and Hedges.Fences,walls and hedges may be permitted within any front,interior side,street side or rear yard setback pursuant to Section 17.76.030 (Fences,walls and hedges). P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 11 of 13 11-39 (' Section 16:Section 17.76.030(E)(3)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 3.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen twenty few inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences,walls and gates shall meet City specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. Section 17:Section 17.96.1460 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): "Swimming or ornamental.pool"means any body of water measuring mOFe than eighteen tVlORty foEJF inches or more deep at its deepest point,whether above or below the surface of the ground."Ornamental pool"means any body of water measuring less than eighteen inches in depth at its deepest point,whether above or below the surface of the ground. .Section 18:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked, expired or are othelW~se terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existed prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 19:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance and to all development applications that have not been decided upon prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 20:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and .findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes,and other records of proceedings,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend miscellaneous provisions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code and the City's Zoning Map to enact the recommendations of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377). P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 12 of 13 (' Section 16:Section 17.76.030(E)(3)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): 3.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen twenty few inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences,walls and gates shall meet City specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. Section 17:Section 17.96.1460 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents deleted language): "Swimming or ornamental.pool"means any body of water measuring mOFe than eighteen tVlORty foEJF inches or more deep at its deepest point,whether above or below the surface of the ground."Ornamental pool"means any body of water measuring less than eighteen inches in depth at its deepest point,whether above or below the surface of the ground. .Section 18:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked, expired or are othelW~se terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existed prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 19:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance and to all development applications that have not been decided upon prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 20:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and .findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes,and other records of proceedings,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend miscellaneous provisions of Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Municipal Code and the City's Zoning Map to enact the recommendations of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377). P.C.Resolution No.2009-52 Page 12 of 13 11-40 /""'"\.,'C' PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this ~til day of December 2009,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Knight,Perestam~Ruttenberg,Tetreault and Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner NOES:none ABSTENTION:none, ABSENT:Chairman Lewis RECUSALS: Joel Dire none ::teffiey Lewjs~u ...w Gl""n-,sTl...u1C.. y\~Chairman M:\Projecls\zON2007-00377 (Citywide.Residential Development Standards)\2009120B_Reso_PC.doc P.C.Resolution No.2009-R Page 13 of 13 /""'"\.,'C' PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this ~til day of December 2009,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Knight,Perestam~Ruttenberg,Tetreault and Tomblin, Vice Chairman Gerstner NOES:none ABSTENTION:none, ABSENT:Chairman Lewis RECUSALS: Joel Dire none ::teffiey Lewjs~u ...w Gl""n-,sTl...u1C.. y\~Chairman M:\Projecls\zON2007-00377 (Citywide.Residential Development Standards)\2009120B_Reso_PC.doc P.C.Resolution No.2009-R Page 13 of 13 11-41 Areas outlined in RED to be re-zoned from RS-4 to RS-5 EXHIBIT 'A' Proposed Eastview Re-Zoning RS-4 to RS-5 Areas outlined in RED to be re-zoned from RS-4 to RS-5 EXHIBIT 'A' Proposed Eastview Re-Zoning RS-4 to RS-5 11-42 Area outlined in BLUE to be designated Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) EXHIBIT 'B' Proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-S) Area outlined in BLUE to be designated Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5) EXHIBIT 'B' Proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-S) 11-43 TABLE 02-A:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development standards that apply to single-family residential areas,see Articles VI and VII of this title.The number which follows an "RS-"designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre permitted in the zone;the "RS-A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted. !DISTRICT.•.!LOT DIMENSIONS'MINIMUM SETBACKS"·MINIMUM SETBACKS""·MAX..IMUM MAXI..MUM.........•.·PARKING '.•1'i d FOR CITY CREATED LOTS FOR LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO.LOT i HEIGHT",REQUIREMENTsIiINCORPORATION/ANNEXATION CO"ERAGEJli 4.7 ; :~:.'I II i'Tn :IONE:I~5[r~H~Eils1~5q'II:~[l~D:r:ep=~:=~1=h~=~=Tt=~b=~~==III' i I ..1 ::....................•.~I~~~j .~.I.~~;...............................•.....................II '~I~~j 1.~.I~~j 1 '~~~~::d.garage. IIRS-A-5 1!;cres....•I 200 ..il.300 :I ~0 il 3~..mml 1.~:~I 20 JI 2~,I 1.~II ~I~I 15 il.....6%·1 1.~:~~~~~i~~~itablell ~~~1 ...~J[~~~iJ~JOo_[1sg-Jl..~2mH25 H12mjLm~2ml~2Jlm~oJ15j!5mJ ..m10m1L1~,-[.25%.t:.cc:1l3 ~:~~~eS:d3garagel jRS-2 11~~:oooJ 90 11 120 11 20 1 20 1 10 i~1 20 II 20 II 15,1 5 :fW Irsil 40%r 16 ,spaces I IRS·:3-m·][l{OOO[80·][~1..~i[~~~]I ~~il.m1.~.mll.m ~~JC~][~~]J ['~~mm:[~!C~·]I 1.~j·[j~~[=~1j~·]J I fRs4..·..m·l~~:jooo:[·75 ..··f'100j]['j20 .j[20-'Co][~~'...•[1~][~om-[15""["s'][..1~...J[15 .1 [50%j"-[....16·..·_..I I·Rs=5..-··lr~Ioo-[·65j·..[~oom_;[:oJj'[·2~J[T~[2~[3[~=·[~][~][~~J[~5J[~ZOIo='[]~~-"J . 1.For an existing lot which does not meet these standards,see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities). 2.Lots of record,existing as of November 25,1975 (adoption of this Code),or within Eastview and existing as of January 5,1983 (annexation),shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks. 3.For description,clarification and exceptions,see Chapter 17.48 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height). 4.For a description of height measurement methods and the height variation process,see Section 17.02.040 ofthis chapter.A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission for consideration,if any of the following is proposed: A.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street-side property line. B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage); C.Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story). D.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence;or E.Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter. 5.For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)ofthis chapter. 6.A garage with direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever is the street of access. 7.Exterior stairs to an upper story are prohibited,unless leading to and/or connected to a common hallway,deck or entry rather than a specific room, 8.For purposes of calculating lot coverage.a private street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage. EXHIBIT 'C' Proposed Table 02-A TABLE 02-A:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development standards that apply to single-family residential areas,see Articles VI and VII of this title.The number which follows an "RS-"designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre permitted in the zone;the "RS-A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted.• !DISTRICTH LOT DIMENSIONS'MINIMUM SETBACKS"·MINIMUM SETBACKS""·MAXIMUM:AXIMU PARKING 'I !-,FOR CITY CREATED LOTS rN'6~~~~~~I~~~;~::~~lb~cov'E~GEJ!IHEI~7H~'-REQUIREMENTs AREA iWlDTH [DEPTH INTERIOR STREET IREAR'!FRONT INTERIOR STREET!IREAR DD less than 5,000 I-,--~Dn B~~l;'~~cSIDE n:rl'fiJ l E ISIDE :~I E~E~~;::~:e II :I .SIDES',I~::spaces '/,iRS-A-5 i5 I 200 f"3001201f"30!10T20--'12Olj20 ml1Ol~1 6%~r5=,00=0=s=.f.=o=r.=-1 I ;acres i I :LiL:LiL.L]!ILII!L.more of habitable ~~~1 ...~J[~~~iJ~JOo_[1sg-Jl..~2.jL25 H12J.~2 ..1~2.H.~oJ15j!5.J 10 HJL1~J[.25%.i[~G :~~~eS:d3garage I jRS-2 1120,000r 90 .f12Ol 20 rzo-I15,'1 5 ·.i,40%spaces I i !is.f.!d i I . , IRS·:3-""][l{OOO[80'][~1..~i JI.1.~..i i[~~]]['~~..I[~!1 1.~1·[1~~I fRS4 """"-..0r'7s "T 1001]["120 r20-'CO][~~'J1~][~o--[15 ""['5'J [1 ~J[15 .l [50%1---[---16'-'-'I !RS-5":r~IOO-['651"'[~oo--;[:oJI'['2~][2~[3[~='[[~][~~J[~5]C~ZOIo='C]~~---'. 1.For an existing lot which does not meet these standards, see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities). 2.Lots of record,existing as of November 25,1975 (adoption of this Code),or within Eastview and existing as of January 5,1983 (annexation),shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks. 3.For description,clarification and exceptions,see Chapter 17.48 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height). 4.For a description of height measurement methods and the height variation process,see Section 17.02.040 ofthis chapter.A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission for consideration,if any of the following is proposed: A.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street-side property line. B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage); C.Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story). D.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence;or E.Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter. 5.For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)ofthis chapter. 6.A garage with direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever is the street of access. 7.Exterior stairs to an upper story are prohibited,unless leading to and/or connected to a common hallway,deck or entry rather than a specific room. 8.For purposes of calculating lot coverage,a private street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street easement shall not be counted as lot coverage. EXHIBIT 'C' Proposed Table 02-A 11-44 Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect 27823 South Montereina Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Via E-Mail April 19,2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re:No Increase in Side-yard Setbacks Requirements for Pre-Incorporation Lots Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to address my concerns with the Planning Case No. ZON2007-0037. As an Architect practicing in the Palos Verdes Peninsula,I have completed numerous residential addition and remodel projects.Every day,I face the challenge of accommodating new needs within existing structures and conditions in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Therefore,I understand first-hand the importance of improving zoning codes to better serve our community.I do support the majority of the zone change and code amendments.However,I do not support the increase in the requirements concerning the Side-Yard Setbacks. Currently for lots with interior side yards,the requirements are 5 feet on each side, totaling a minimum of 10 feet per lot.The proposed requirement would maintain the 5 feet minimum on each side but increase the totallot requirement to 15 feet.This would place an undue burden for homeowners. 1.Creation of Nonconforming Conditions Although the rezoning of the Eastview area seeks to reduce the number non-conforming lots,the revision to the Side-Yard setback requirements will increase the current number of existing nonconforming homes due to their built conditions. Negative consequences abound including the complication of future improvements for these homeowners as well as negative effects upon property values due to nonconforming conditions. 1 Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect 27823 South Montereina Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Via E-Mail April 19,2010 Rancho Palos Verdes City Council 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re:No Increase in Side-yard Setbacks Requirements for Pre-Incorporation Lots Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to address my concerns with the Planning Case No. ZON2007-0037. As an Architect practicing in the Palos Verdes Peninsula,I have completed numerous residential addition and remodel projects.Every day,I face the challenge of accommodating new needs within existing structures and conditions in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Therefore,I understand first-hand the importance of improving zoning codes to better serve our community.I do support the majority of the zone change and code amendments.However,I do not support the increase in the requirements concerning the Side-Yard Setbacks. Currently for lots with interior side yards,the requirements are 5 feet on each side, totaling a minimum of 10 feet per lot.The proposed requirement would maintain the 5 feet minimum on each side but increase the totallot requirement to 15 feet.This would place an undue burden for homeowners. 1.Creation of Nonconforming Conditions Although the rezoning of the Eastview area seeks to reduce the number non-conforming lots,the revision to the Side-Yard setback requirements will increase the current number of existing nonconforming homes due to their built conditions. Negative consequences abound including the complication of future improvements for these homeowners as well as negative effects upon property values due to nonconforming conditions. 1 11-45 2.Vertical Consequences-More Second Story Proposals As opportunities for expansion are reduced on the ground floor,homeowners will seek to resolve their space needs vertically rather than horizontally.This will include more second story proposals in order to satisfy the new requirements.The influx of second story proposals and hence approvals will therefore drastically impact the character of existing single story neighborhoods.This will considerably alter the current privacy, light and views of the homeowners in the area. 3.More Complicated Application Process The application process for new construction will be unnecessarily complicated as well. Increases in various planning applications such as height variances,neighborhood compatibility and minor deviations,will result.This will undoubtedly burden homeowners,create less incentive for home improvements,and discourage renovations and improvements to properties. 4.Economic Change As the economy has slowed,the number of smaller projects has increased.Homeowners have become more modest in their renovations and improvements to their homes,and are more respectful of their neighborhood character.Thus increasing the Side Yard setback requirements is unnecessary to restrict overbuilding. Yours truly, Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect 2 2.Vertical Consequences-More Second Story Proposals As opportunities for expansion are reduced on the ground floor,homeowners will seek to resolve their space needs vertically rather than horizontally.This will include more second story proposals in order to satisfy the new requirements.The influx of second story proposals and hence approvals will therefore drastically impact the character of existing single story neighborhoods.This will considerably alter the current privacy, light and views of the homeowners in the area. 3.More Complicated Application Process The application process for new construction will be unnecessarily complicated as well. Increases in various planning applications such as height variances,neighborhood compatibility and minor deviations,will result.This will undoubtedly burden homeowners,create less incentive for home improvements,and discourage renovations and improvements to properties. 4.Economic Change As the economy has slowed,the number of smaller projects has increased.Homeowners have become more modest in their renovations and improvements to their homes,and are more respectful of their neighborhood character.Thus increasing the Side Yard setback requirements is unnecessary to restrict overbuilding. Yours truly, Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect 2 11-46