CC SR 20180426 01 - General Plan Final Draft
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: April 26, 2018
Subject: Consideration and possible action to adopt the updated General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map
Subject Property/Location: City-wide
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk
2. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Brooks
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: So Kim, Deputy Director of Community Development
4. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
5. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
6. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Brooks
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/26/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to adopt the updated General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-__, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
updated General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map.
2) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-__, adopting the updated General Plan and the
General Plan Land Use Map.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: So Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 2018-__ for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (page A-1)
B. Resolution No. 2018-__ for the General Plan and Land Use Map (page B-1)
C. P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12 (page C-1)
D. Updated General Plan Land Use Map (page D-1)
E. Existing General Plan Land Use Map (page E-1)
F. Public Comments (page F-1)
The proposed updated General Plan document (clean and track change versions), a
document containing all of the proposed land use changes, and all associated
documents are available on the City’s website at http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-
Plan-Update. Hard copies of the General Plan document (clean and track change
versions) were provided to the City Council on April 3, 2018 and made available to the
public at City Hall (Community Development Department) and Miraleste and Peninsula
Center Libraries. Additionally, the Planning Commission Staff Reports between 2012
and 2018 are available on the City’s website.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City adopted its original General Plan in 1975. While amendments have been
approved by the City Council since that time, the General Plan and the associated Land
Use Map were never updated. As such, on January 12, 2002, the City Council
acknowledged that portions of the General Plan are factually incorrect and outdated,
and initiated a comprehensive update. The then-City Council created a 15-member
General Plan Update Steering Committee, consisting of one member representing each
of the various Commissions, Committees, and Organizations within the community (two
representatives were selected from the Planning Commission) to review all of the
existing goals and policies of the General Plan, and to make recommendations as to the
extent to which such goals and policies needed to be maintained, amended or
eliminated, and whether new goals and policies needed to be added.
On December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee presented its recommendations to the
City Council, at which time, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with updating the
General Plan Goals and Policies, factual information within the General Plan, and the
general format of the General Plan to make the Plan more user friendly.
On September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
Workshop to “Kick off” the General Plan Update process. A few months later in late
2009, the Planning Commission began reviewing a comprehensive update of the General
Plan, which extended over more than 70 public hearings.
On March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. P.C. 2018-12,
recommending that the City Council approve the updated General Plan and associated
Land Use Map. The updated General Plan maintains the majority of the original 1975
goals and policies, and has been updated to represent the current development of the
City, current economic and demographic data, City Council-approved land use
decisions over the years, Planning Commission directed edits, Staff’s proposed text
changes, and statutory requirements. Many of the elements have been retitled in the
updated 2018 General Plan document to be consistent with element titles required by
the State. In summary, the update can be characterized more as a facelift than a rewrite
of the 1975 General Plan.
BACKGROUND
What is a General Plan?
California law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan “for the physical
development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the
planning agency’s judgement bears relation to its planning” (Gov. Code §65300).
General plans benefit local communities as they reflects the community vision that helps
set priorities throughout the planning process and informs decision-makers about
community values and how a community will grow. The goals and policies contained
within general plans affect building decisions, encourage energy efficiencies, influence
2
development of the infrastructure, promote consistent and better projects, and integrate
planning and processes.
Required Elements of a General Plan.
Every city and county must adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan” (Gov.
Code §65300). The general plan must cover a local jurisdiction’s entire planning area
and address the broad range of issues associated with a city’s or county’s development.
The general plan must address the jurisdiction’s physical development, such as general
locations, appropriate mix, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure.
The general plan must be internally consistent among all elements, with no policy
conflicts, either textual or diagrammatic, and any referenced external documents. Since
the general plan affects the welfare of current and future generations, state law requires
that the plan take a long-term perspective, establishing long-term goals and policies.
While a general plan contains a community’s vision for future growth, California law
requires the following 8 “elements” or topic categories to be covered in a general plan
as listed and summarized below (Gov. Code §65302):
Circulation: correlates with the land use element and identifies the general
location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.
Conservation: addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural
resources, including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits.
Environmental Justice: identifies objectives and policies to reduce pollution
exposure, improve air quality, promote public facilities, improve food access,
advance access to housing, and increase physical activity in identified
disadvantaged communities.
Housing: assesses current and projected housing needs for all economic
segments of the community. In addition, the housing element embodies policies
for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for that purpose.
By statute, the housing element must be updated every five or eight years,
according to a schedule set by the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD).
Land Use: designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of land
for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and
grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private
uses.
Noise: identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms
the basis for land use distribution determinations.
3
Open Space: details plans and measures for the long–range preservation and
conservation of open–space lands, including open space for the preservation of
natural resources, the managed production of resources, agriculture, outdoor
recreation, and public health and safety.
Safety: establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks
associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards, as well as from
other concerns such as drought. This element must include an Air Quality section
that establishes policies and programs to reduce impacts to air quality in the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Each element, regardless of statutory requirement, assumes the same legal standing
and must be consistent with other elements and the format. In other words, once
adopted, any additional optional elements, such as Visual Resources and Fiscal
Elements, become an integral part of the general plan with the same force and effect as
the mandatory elements. There is no mandatory structure or maximum number of
elements that a general plan must include.
The Government Code requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
to “develop and adopt guidelines for the preparation of and the content of the mandatory
elements required in city and county general plans” (Gov. Code §65040.2). According to
the Government Code, the guidelines shall be “advisory to each city and county in order
to provide assistance in preparing and maintaining their respective general plans” (Gov.
Code §65040.2(c)). In November 2017, the OPR released its 2017 State of California
General Plan Guidelines (GPG) to assist local governments in preparing general plans.
The 2017 GPG includes a completeness checklist for statutory requirements, additional
related data, and policies to consider.
Required Goals and Policies of a General Plan
Government Code Section 65302 specifies that “[t]he General Plan shall consist of a
statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text
setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals”. Hence a general
plan needs to be structured in a way that includes policies used to implement those
goals. A goal is a general expression of community values and direction, expressed as
ends. These are not actions. A policy is a specific statement that guides decisions that
help implement a general plan’s vision. Simply put, goals are better understood as
“where the City wants to go” and the policies as “how the City gets there.”
4
Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan
The City’s General Plan was originally adopted on June 26, 1975, and was organized
into the following 5 Elements:
Natural Environment Element
Socio/Cultural Element
Urban Environment Element
Land Use Plan
Fiscal Element
The City’s General Plan currently contains a total of 28 goals and 190 policies in the
respective Elements. With the exception of amendments to address the adoption of the
City’s Coastal Specific Plan (1978), annexation of the “Eastview” portion of the City
(1984), the State Mandated Housing Element updates (2014), and certain minor
amendments, the original General Plan has never undergone a comprehensive update.
On January 12, 2002, the City Council acknowledged that portions of the General Plan
are factually incorrect and outdated, and initiated a comprehensive update. The then-
City Council expressed that a thorough review of the existing goals and policies was a
necessary first step, and that this step would help to define the direction and scope of
work to be conducted by the Council, Staff and the community. Further, similar to the
effort to adopt the first General Plan, the City Council expressed the importance of
including public input, encouraging the use of local talent within the community, and
specifically forming a General Plan Update Steering Committee to assist in the update
process. The then-City Council created a 15-member General Plan Update Steering
Committee, consisting of one member representing each of the various Commissions,
Committees, and Organizations within the community (two representatives were
selected from the Planning Commission).
The purpose of the Steering Committee was to review all of the existing goals and
policies of the General Plan, and to make recommendations as to the extent to which
such goals and policies need to be maintained, amended, or eliminated, and whether
new goals and policies need to be added. Additionally, the Steering Committee was
provided, for reference purposes, with the original Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan
Goals Report, which was originally used by the City Council to prepare the 1975
General Plan. The Goals Report was originally prepared by a “grass-roots” committee of
more than 210 residents formed for the purpose of identifying various goals for the City.
Beginning on October 30, 2002, the Steering Committee held a total of 22 public
meetings, on an average of once a month. Through the Committee’s work, the City
Council learned that, apart from the need for some textual changes to the goals and
policies, as well as changes to the factual information within the Plan, the breadth and
scope of the existing goals and policies that were created in 1975 still applied for the
most part. Given that there were no significant changes to the vision, goals or policies
from the original General Plan, this project was termed as an “Update.”
5
On December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee presented its recommendations to the
City Council, at which time, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following
for future consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council:
1. Draft proposed amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies as
recommended by the General Plan Update Steering Committee;
2. Update the factual information within the General Plan; and
3. Propose improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the
mandatory Elements to make the Plan more user friendly.
At that same meeting, the City Council directed Staff to release a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to obtain consultant assistance with updating the technical
components of the General Plan, and disbanded the Steering Committee.
In April 2006, Staff sent out an RFQ to obtain consultant assistance with updating the
General Plan. On February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement with
three consulting firms to assist Staff with preparing the then-technical studies (Air
Quality, Noise, and Traffic Analysis).
On September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint
Workshop to kick off the General Plan Update process. At the Workshop, the Council
received a presentation by Staff, heard public testimony, and provided direction to Staff
on proposed changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, land use designations for
certain properties, General Plan new topic areas, role of the various City Committees,
and the overall update process.
Beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct public hearings on
the update of the General Plan. To date, nearly 70 public hearings have occurred at the
Planning Commission level. Initially, the Commission reviewed and approved draft text
for each individual Element before reviewing the complete document. In 2013, the
Commission reviewed and accepted a comprehensive draft of the updated General Plan.
Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that were inadvertently left out and
text amendments based on new statutes were introduced by Staff and reviewed by the
Commission. In 2015, the Commission again reviewed and accepted a comprehensive
draft of the updated General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map.
In late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General Plan document
and determined that certain text was legally insufficient, exposing the City to potential legal
challenges, and that the technical studies (Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be
updated given the recent statutes. Accordingly, the City contracted with Environmental
Science Associates (ESA), who completed new technical studies in 2017. The technical
studies were reviewed and accepted by the Commission in 2017 and incorporated in
the General Plan document.
On November 27, 2017, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
6
released the 2017 General Plan Guidelines that identify mandatory and optional
elements of the General Plan and provides recommended policy language. In response,
Staff and the City Attorney updated the General Plan document to reflect the current
mandatory statutory requirements.
On March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, and
after considering evidence introduced in the records including public testimony,
unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12 (Attachment C-1), recommending
that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan and Land Use Map, with
certain wordsmith and clarification edits and designating Gateway Park as Passive-
Recreation.
On March 22, 2018, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City circulated, for a 30-day public comment period, the project’s Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), finding that the updated General Plan will not result in adverse
impacts to the surrounding environment that cannot be mitigated to a less than
significant impact. A list-serve message was also issued announcing the availability of
the MND and announcing the date and time of tonight’s special City Council meeting.
On April 4, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News
and a list-serve message was sent announcing the availability of the final draft of the
General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, and the associated Environmental
Document. On April 6, 2018, hard copies of the notices were mailed to all property
owners affected by proposed land use changes, as well as adjacent property owners
(approximately 4,500 public notices). Staff received 11 public comments (see
Attachment F-1) in response to the public notice, which is addressed under Additional
Information in this Staff Report.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Updates to the 1975 General Plan
All of the state mandated Elements are included in the updated document. However, the
existing 5 Elements have been reorganized and renamed to be consistent with 7 of the
State Law’s mandated elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open
Space, Safety, and Noise) and the optional Fiscal and Visual Resources Elements are
included in the Updated General Plan. Additionally, the Environmental Justice element
has been added which incorporates discussions under the Social Services section of
the 1975 General Plan. Furthermore, as most of the 1975 Goals and Policies are still
valid today, the Commission only suggested minor changes to the original Steering
Committee’s recommended changes. The goals and policies have been reorganized at
the beginning of each relevant element.
Below is a summary of the proposed updates to the 1975 General Plan based on the
current development of the City, current economic and demographic data, City Council-
approved land use decisions, Planning Commission directed edits, Staff’s proposed
7
changes, and statutory requirements. The changes are discussed below under each
section heading of the updated 2018 General Plan based on the sequential layout of the
document.
Acknowledgements
The Acknowledgements section lists all past and present City Council, Planning
Commissioners, and various Committee members, as well as City Staff who had input
in preparing the final draft.
Table of Contents
The Table of Contents follows the following format:
I Introduction .............................................................................................................I-1
1 Palos Verdes Peninsula ..........................................................................I-1
2 History of the City ....................................................................................I-1
3 What is a General Plan and What are its Regulatory Requirements? ..I-2
4 Adoption of the General Plan ..................................................................I-4
II Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................AA-1
III Definitions ............................................................................................................. D-1
IV Circulation Element .............................................................................................. C-1
V Conservation and Open Space Element ......................................................... CO-1
VI Environmental Justice Element ......................................................................... E-1
VII Fiscal Element ...................................................................................................... F-1
VIII Land Use Element .............................................................................................. L-1
IX Noise Element ..................................................................................................... N-1
X Safety Element ..................................................................................................... S-1
XI Visual Resources Element .................................................................................. V-1
XII Appendices ........................................................................... Under Separate Cover
1 Air Quality Technical Report .......................................................................
2 Greenhouse Gas Technical Report ............................................................
3 Noise and Vibration Technical Report ........................................................
4 Traffic Impact Analysis ................................................................................
5 Environmental Document ...........................................................................
Each section and element has its own detailed Table of Contents and page numbering,
which will allow each element be updated individually in the future instead of a
comprehensive update of the entire General Plan. Thus, the Table of Contents and
pagination for the entire General Plan document will not have to be updated when future
updates to individual elements are made.
I Introduction
This Section provides the background to the purpose of the General Plan and updated
statistical information on the City including population.
8
II Acronyms and Abbreviations
This is a new Section to provide the reader with a centralized location to review
acronyms and abbreviations that can be found throughout the General Plan.
III Definitions
This Section renames the 1975 General Plan’s ‘Glossary of Terms’ at the end of the
Document and moves it to the beginning of the Document for easier reference.
IV Circulation Element (mandatory element)
This element renames the existing Infrastructure Element to the Circulation Element.
The Circulation Element is not simply a transportation plan, but rather a strategy
addressing infrastructure needs of the circulation of people, goods, energy, water,
sewage, storm drainage, and communications. Below is a checklist that contains issues
that are legally required in Gov. Code §65302(b).
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code
§65302(b)(1)
Existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, terminals, military airports and ports, and other local
public utilities and facilities
Identified funding for infrastructure identified in circulation
element
Correlated with the land use element
Gov. Code
§65302(b)(2)
Public transportation, bicycle, pedestrian, automobile, and
commercial goods
Needs of children, persons with disabilities, and seniors
The following modifications are proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Deletes infrastructure-related narrative at the beginning and adds a new
introductory section describing the role and purpose of the element.
• Deletes outdated descriptions of improvements to freeways outside of the City
limits.
• Relocates the air quality discussion to the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Climate Change discussions under the Safety Element.
• Updates discussions related to arterial, collector, and local streets; level of
service and a list of streets operating at unacceptable levels of service; and
future conditions based on the 2017 Traffic Study.
• Adds a discussion on effects the Portuguese Bend Landslide has on the City’s
circulation system.
• Relocates the vehicle noise discussion to the Noise Element.
• Updates public transportation information.
9
• Updates the trail network discussion.
• Updates infrastructure, resource (water, natural gas, and electricity),
disposal/recovery systems (sewer systems, solid waste, flood control and storm
drain systems), communications systems discussions based on completed
projects and improved technology.
V Conservation and Open Space Element (mandatory elements)
This Element renames the existing Natural Environment Element to the Conservation and
Open Space Element. In the statutory descriptions of the two separate Conservation
Element and Open Space Element, a number of the same issues appear in both
elements. In order to minimize redundancies or internal conflicts in the General Plan,
these elements have been combined into a single element, Conservation and Open
Space Element. Additionally, the Cultural Resources subsection of the existing
Socio/Cultural Element has been included as part of the Conservation and Open Space
Element.
The Conservation and Open Space Element describes the jurisdiction’s natural resources:
land, water, ecosystem services and living resources, and the benefits that these
resources provide to the community. This element also identifies areas that provide value
in an essentially undeveloped condition and creates a plan to preserve such areas. The
element includes goals and policies for their retention, enhancement, and development,
which guides the comprehensive and long-range preservation of open space lands that
are important to the conservation of the State’s natural resources. Below is a checklist
that contains issues that are legally required in Gov. Code §65302(d).
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code
§65302(d)(1)
Water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other
waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural
resources.
Gov. Code
§65302(d)(3) Floodwater Accommodation
Gov. Code §65563
Long range and comprehensive
Plan for preservation and conservation of open space lands,
including the following[GY1][SK2]:
Gov. Code
§65560(b)
Open space for natural resources, managed production of
resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, military
support, tribal resources.
Inventory of the open lands.
Gov. Code
§65562(a)
Policies provide that open space “must be conserved wherever
possible”
Gov. Code
§65562(b) Co-ordinated with state and regional plans
Gov. Code §65564,
65566, 65567,
65910
Action plan
10
The following modifications are proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Adds an introductory section.
• Relocates the discussion on climate and air quality to the Safety Element as part
of the updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change discussion.
• Updates topography, geologic conditions, geotechnical factors, and landslide
information.
• Adds a coastal discussion consistent with the 1978 Local Coastal Program.
• Updates mineral resources and hydrology discussions.
• Adds a discussion on the City’s Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).
• Updates ocean resources management discussion.
• Updates open space and recreational resources, including descriptions of all
City-owned and County-owned public parks and facilities in the City.
• Updates school district facilities discussion.
• Adds descriptions of the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
• Adds discussion related to City-acquired private property.
• Adds discussion on the City’s Parks Master Plan.
• Deletes text on agriculture as the single zoned area is now obsolete.
• Adds text on the grove of trees planted at Ryan Park and Malaga Cove Library
under Historical Resources based on the Rancho de Los Palos Verdes Historical
Society and Museum’s list of dedicated historical sites on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.
VI Environmental Justice Element (mandatory element)
This is a new Element mandated by Senate Bill 1000 requiring both cities and counties
that have disadvantaged communities to incorporate environmental policies in their
general plans, either in a separate Environmental Justice Element or by integrating related
goals, policies, and objectives throughout other elements. Disadvantaged communities
means an area that is low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental
pollution or other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or
environmental degradation. While there are no disadvantaged communities in the City,
Staff replaced the existing Social Services section of the Socio/Cultural Element with the
new Environmental Justice Element as many of the existing Social Services goals and
policies qualify under this Element. Additionally, Staff believes that the additional policies
and required discussion benefits the City. Below is a checklist that contains issues that
are legally required in Gov. Code §65302.
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code
§65302(h)(1)
Identify disadvantaged areas within the area covered by the
general plan
Gov. Code §
65302(h)(1)(A)
Identify objectives and policies to reduce exposure to
pollution - including improving air quality; promote public
11
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
facilities; promote food access; promote safe and sanitary
homes; promote physical activity; and reduce any unique or
compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities.
Gov. Code §
65302(h)(1)(B)
Identify objectives and policies to promote civil engagement
in the public decision making process in disadvantaged
communities
Gov. Code §
65302(f)(4)
Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements
and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged
communities
The following modifications are proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Replaces the social services introduction with the definition, purpose, and
background of Environmental Justice.
• Adds new goals and policies. No changes were made to the Committee’s amended
Social Service Goals and Policies as they are now placed under this Element.
• Deletes social and cultural development discussion.
• Updates the existing Senior Services discussion under a new heading named
Setting.
• Adds text related to public input and participation and environmental and health
risks (promotion of public facilities, safe and sanitary homes, and healthy food
access and physical activity).
• Adds text related to special events, PVIC, Reach program, and dog parks.
VII Fiscal Element (optional element)
The Fiscal Element of the General Plan establishes the policy framework necessary to
guide all of the City’s short- and long-term fiscal decisions. It serves to assist in making
fiscal decisions from a comprehensive perspective and intended to ensure that the fiscal
aspects of policy issues are considered whenever and wherever possible. The following
modifications are proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Replaces and reduces the existing introductory narrative to simplify the purpose
and layout of the Fiscal Element.
• Replaces the existing text as it reflects specific information about the fiscal state
in 1975 with less specific text to avoid being outdated soon after adoption, while
providing a snapshot in time, and to provide an understanding of what’s
happening in the City. As with all elements, Staff intends to update individual
elements periodically.
VIII Land Use Element (mandatory element)
This Element renames the existing Urban Environment Element to the Land Use
Element. This Element reflects the community’s vision; promotes thoughtful, equitable,
and accessible distribution of different land uses, including residential, commercial, and
12
open space; and aligns with other general plan elements. Below is a checklist that
contains issues that are legally required in Gov. Code §65302(a).
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code §65302(a)
General distribution, location, and extent of the following,
including discussions about density and intensity, and
potential for flood for each: housing, business, industry, open
space, education, public facilities, solid and liquid waste
disposal, and other.
Greenways and areas subject to flood plain mapping.
Gov. Code
§65302(a)(1) Timberland production
Gov. Code
§65302(a)(2) Impact on military land use compatibility and readiness
Gov. Code §
65302(b)(1) Correlation with the circulation element
The following modifications are also proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Expands the introduction section to include the purpose and content of the land
use element.
• Adds text on the new land use designations, such as Open Space Hillside and
Open Space Preservation.
• Updates acreage of land use types.
• Adds a discussion on primary and secondary urban activity areas.
• Updates retail facilities, commercial, and office space information.
• Adds a description of cemetery activity in the City.
• Deletes most of the outdated content related to future commercial activity.
• Adds a discussion related to the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
• Updates the service station section.
• Updates the discussion on City facilities and provides a list of all City parks.
• Updates the discussion related to fire description, county facilities, state facilities,
and federal facilities.
• Updates the discussion related to school facilities and added historical enrollment
data for PVPUSD.
• Expands the recreational land use discussion to include acreage, parkland or in-
lieu (Quimby) fees, and census data.
• Adds a dog park section.
• Removes most of the discussion under agriculture as the only area designated
as Agriculture is proposed to be removed.
• Updates the discussion on population description including updated acreage per
density and census data.
• Updates and expands the Overlay Control Districts section to include the City-
created Automotive Service, Mira Vista, and Equestrian Overlay Districts.
• Expands the specific plan district section to include the Coastal Specific Plan,
13
Western Avenue, and Eastview Park Specific Plan District.
• Adds a discussion on the City’s former redevelopment project area and its
history.
• Adds discussion about the Landslide Moratorium Area and its history.
• Updates compatibility of adjacent activity areas to the City, including border
issues.
• Adds unincorporated island, fringe or legacy communities as required per SB
244.
IX Noise Element (mandatory element)
This Element updates the existing Sensory Environment Element, which has two
subsections: Noise and Visual Aspects of the Plan, by eliminating the Sensory
Environment Element and creating a Noise Element, and renaming the Visual Aspects
of the Plan to a standalone Visual Resources Element. The purpose of the Noise
Element is to ensure that a local planning area limits the exposure of the community to
excessive noise levels in noise-sensitive areas and at noise-sensitive times of day.
Below is a checklist that contains issues that are legally required in Gov. Code
§65302(f).
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code
§65302(f)(1)
A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise
problems in the community and shall analyze and quantify, to
the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body,
current and projected noise levels for all sources.
Gov. Code
§65302(f)(2)
Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and
stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL)
or day-night average level (Ldn).
Gov. Code
§65302(f)(3)
The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing
a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes
the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.
Gov. Code §
65302(f)(4)
The noise element shall include implementation measures
and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable
noise problems, if any.
The following modifications are also proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Replaces most of the existing text based on the 2017 Noise Study.
• Updates airport operations data, included the discussion related to helicopter
routes, and City’s involvement with the LAX Community Noise Roundtable.
X Safety Element (mandatory element)
The Safety Element’s purpose is to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of death,
injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods,
droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards. Below is a
14
checklist that contains issues that are legally required in Gov. Code §65302(g).
Statutory Citation Brief Description Requirement
Gov. Code §65302(g)
Identification of unreasonable risks and policies for the
protection of the community from such risks.
Seismic risks, flooding, wildland and urban fires, climate
change adaptation and resilience, feasible mitigations, and
other considerations.
Mapping and implementation.
The following modifications are also proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Replaces the introduction to include text related to the Joint Hazard Mitigation
Plan and the purpose of the safety element.
• Updates the discussion related to fire hazards and adds a fire hazard zone
section.
• Updates the discussion related to geologic hazards.
• Deletes air pollution discussion as updated information was added under the
climate change section.
• Replaces the outdated emergency services, healthcare, flood control, police
protection, disaster preparedness and response, emergency communications,
animal control, and air pollution control sections in its entirety.
• Updates codes and ordinances sections to be less specific and more general so
that the data is not outdated immediately after adoption of the General Plan.
XI Visual Resources Element (optional element)
This Element updates the existing Sensory Environment Element, which has two
subsections: Noise and Visual Aspects of the Plan, by eliminating the Sensory
Environment Element, creating a Noise Element, and renaming the Visual Aspects of
the Plan to a standalone Visual Resources Element. The purpose of the Visual
Resources Element is to preserve and enhance views and vistas, resources, visual
character, and access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public. The following
modifications are proposed in the updated 2018 General Plan:
• Expands the introduction section.
• Updates the definition of Views, Vistas, and View Corridors, replaces and
expands most of the existing text to include information from the View
Restoration Guidelines and the voter-approved Proposition M.
Miscellaneous Format Changes
• In the 1975 General Plan, the goals are found at the beginning, and the policies
at the end, of each element. In the proposed 2018 General Plan, the policies are
placed immediately after the goals at the beginning of each element as
recommended by the Commission.
15
• The existing General Plan includes historical data and information specific and
applicable to 1975. While most of the information has been updated as part of
the final draft, the technical data has been removed to avoid having an obsolete
document soon after the City’s adoption of the updated General Plan.
Additionally, unnecessary narratives and repeated information across different
elements were consolidated and the updates were focused on the requirements
based on the 2017 OPR Guidelines to create a shorter and more concise
document.
• All of the elements include required maps and graphics. The maps are updated
versions of the existing maps (known as figures in the 1975 General Plan) and
were generated based on the City’s current GIS information.
• Grammatical and typographical changes identified by the public and the
Commission have been incorporated.
• Based on the Commission’s suggestion, the Final Draft is a result of an outside
consultant’s (DUDEK) technical editing and formatting to ensure a well-written,
polished, and cohesive plan.
• The technical studies will be listed under Appendices to the General Plan, but as
a separate attachment. The same is envisioned for the environmental document
that will be prepared prior to City Council review of the Final Draft.
16
Proposed Amendments to the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map
The General Plan not only includes the various Elements, which contain text and graphics,
but also includes a Land Use Map of the entire City that “generally” identifies land uses for
all property within the City. In 1975, when the original General Plan was created, a
corresponding Land Use Map was also created. Shortly after adopting the Land Use Map,
the City adopted a Zoning Map, which further delineates and identifies the specific zoning
district for each property within the City. The main difference between the General Plan
Land Use Map and the Zoning Map is that the General Plan Land Use Map more broadly
defines various uses within the City, while the Zoning Map creates more specificity. For
example, the General Plan Land Use Map will have a Land Use titled “Residential 2-4
dwelling units per acre”, whereas the Zoning Map provides more specificity by breaking
down this broader General Plan Land Use designation into more detail with the “RS-2”,
“RS-3” and “RS-4” Zoning districts. Each Zoning district is then defined within the
Municipal Code with varying development standards assigned to each district. By State
Law, the Zoning Map is supposed to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map.
There are ambiguities between the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map and the 2012
Zoning Map that needs to be corrected for consistency.
The existing General Plan Land Use Map (“proposed land use map”) was adopted on
June 26, 1975. The table below lists 22 land use changes approved by the City Council
since 1975, including the annexation of Eastview. The proposed 2018 General Plan
Land Use Map includes these changes.
Council-Adopted Land Use Changes
Location Description Date
Tract 28750 – Peacock Ridge
and Highridge Road
Change land use designation, from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to
Residential 4-6 du/ac
10-4-77
Tract 27832, Lots 1-8 Indian
Valley Road
Change non-conforming land use
from Residential 2-4 du/ac to
Residential 6-12 du/ac
9-5-78
Coastal Zone Establish regulations for
development in the Coastal Zone 12-19-78
Former Los Cerros (Ave. Esplendida
& Ave. Classica) and Tierra Alta
(Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring
Road) School
Change land use from Institutional
to Residential 2-4 du/ac
10-2-79
17
Council-Adopted Land Use Changes
Location Description Date
980 Silver Spur Road Change land use from
Commercial Office to Commercial
Retail – remove Natural Overlay
Control District
(Commission accepted a
proposed land use designation
of Recreational-Passive)
6-17-80
Former Abalone Cove school site Change land use from
Agriculture to Commercial
Recreational (Commission
accepted a proposed land use
designation of Open Space
Preservation as this area is
part of the NCCP area)
4-20-82
Former School District property at
Trump National Golf Club
Change land use from
Institutional to Residential 1-2
du/ac
9-7-82
Residential Planned
Development (Villa Capri)
Tract No. 44239
Change land use from
Commercial Retail to
Residential 6-12 du/ac
8-7-84
3945 Dauntless Drive Change land use from
Institutional to Residential 2-4
du/ac
9-7-82
Eastview Annexation Amend General Plan to
include policies/land use
designations for Eastview
Annexation
8-7-84
28041 Hawthorne Blvd. Change land use designation from
Residential to Commercial-Retail 9-13-88
City Wide Create Automotive Service
Overlay Control District 11-3-93
1 Seacove (formally known as both
6108 and 6100 PVDS), 6118 PVDS
(Wayfarers Chapel Office), 6124
PVDS (Fire Station)
Change land use designation from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to
Commercial-Office for 6108 and
6118 PVDS; Residential 2-4 du/ac
to Institutional for 6124 PVDS
3-4-97
5303 Bayridge Change land use designation from
Residential 1 du/5ac to Residential
2-4 du/ac
3-17-98
1 Seacove (formally known as both
6108 and 6100 PVDS)
Change land use designation from
Commercial Office to Residential
2-4 du/ac
4-22-03
18
Council-Adopted Land Use Changes
Location Description Date
30937 Cartier Drive (Interpretation
Procedure approved by the
Director, not City Council)
Move Natural/Environment Hazard
boundary line 3-21-05
Upper San Ramon Canyon area
(30648, 30650, 30652, 30658,
30676, 30678, 30680, 30682 PVDE
& 2803, 2809, 2817, 2823, 2829,
2837, 2845 San Ramon Drive)
Move Natural/Environment Hazard
boundary line and change the land
use designation on several
properties from
Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
(Commission accepted a
proposed adjustment to further
reduce the Hazard areas on
30648, 30650, 3076, 30678
PVDE)
12-6-05
3324 Seaclaire Drive Move Natural/Environment Hazard
boundary line and change the land
use designation from
Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
11-10-07
28220 Highridge Road
(0.010-acre portion of a 28-unit
condominium project annexed from
Rolling Hills Estates)
Change the land use designation
from Institutional to Residential 12-
22 du/ac
10-21-08
5555 Crestridge Road Relocate Natural/Environment
Hazard boundary line and change
the land use designation from
Natural/Environment Hazard to
Institutional
03-03-09
11, 21, 31, 41 Nantasket Drive
(formally 32639 Nantasket Drive)
Change the land use designation
from Commercial-Recreational to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
09-21-10
5656 Crest Road Change land use designation from
Residential 1-2 du/ac to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
4-21-15
10 Chaparral Lane Relocate the Natural/Environment
Hazard boundary line and change
the land use designation from
Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 1-2 du/ac
8-4-15
19
In addition to the above Council-approved land use changes, the table below lists the
proposed land use changes that were reviewed and accepted by the Commission at
duly noticed public hearings since 2011. As there are over 700 properties subject to
these land use changes, the specific addresses are not listed in the table below.
Instead, a 74-page document named “Planning Commission Approved Changes” is
available on the City’s webpage (http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update) that
provides maps, proposed changes, and affected property addresses or Assessor’s
Parcel Number as a reference. The discussion following the Table below describes the
proposed changes in greater detail.
Proposed Land Use Changes
Location Description
699 specific properties Reduce the Natural/Environment Hazard
designated areas as recommended by the City
Geologist in 2013.
Portion of a residential tract
east of Hawthorne and Silver
Change land use designation, from Residential
2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac
All properties that comprise
the Palos Verdes Nature
Preserve
Establish a new zoning designation of Open
Space Preservation
Certain properties located
seaward of Seacove Drive to
match the 1978 Coastal
Specific Plan Land Use Map.
Change land use designation, from Residential
2-4 du/ac to Residential 1-2 du/ac
Certain residential properties
located landward of Seacove
Drive
Change land use designation from Residential
6-12 du/ac and Residential 4-6 du/ac to
Residential 2-4 du/ac to match the 1978
Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map
City-owned portion of Ladera
Linda Park
Change land use designation from Institutional-
Educational to Institutional-Public
City-owned vacant land on
Silver Spur
Change land use designation from Commercial
to Recreational-Passive
Park properties: Pointe
Vicente School Access Trail,
Island View vacant land,
Eastview Park, Vanderlip Park,
Clovercliff Park, Martingale
Trailhead Park, and East Crest
Road Parcel
Change land use designations from Residential
≤ to 1 du/ac (Pointe Vicente, Island View),
Open Space Recreational (Eastview Park),
Residential 2-4 du/ac (Vanderlip, Clovercliff, E
Crest), and Residential 1-2 du/ac (Martingale)
to Recreational-Passive
Former School District
property on Trump National
Change land use designation from Institutional-
Educational to Residential ≤ to 1 du/ac
Portions of Tract 31617
(Seacrest), 33206 (Crest),
37818 (Via La Cresta), 45667
(Tramonto, Nuvola, Albero),
and 46651 (Seabreeze)
Change land use designations to Residential 1-
2 du/ac instead of having two different land use
designations separating the same
neighborhood
20
Proposed Land Use Changes
Location Description
Portions of Tract 50667 (east
end of Trump National)
Change land use designation so that the entire
tract is Residential ≤1 du/ac instead of having
two different land use designations separating
the neighborhood
Tract 16540 (Portuguese Bend
Club)
Change land use designation from Residential
≤1 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac per the City
Council’s action in 2009.
3778 Coolheights Change land use designation from Residential
1-2 to Natural/Environmental Hazard per a
1998 Settlement Agreement between the City
and the property owner.
Reduce the Natural/Environment Hazard designated areas on 699 specific properties
The Hazard areas identified on the City’s General Plan land use map were designated
with the Open-Space Hazard (OH) zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map. However, for
some unknown reason, the boundaries of the OH District on the Zoning Map did not
exactly match the boundaries of the General Plan’s Hazard land use designation. In 2011,
the Commission approved minor changes to some of the General Plan’s Hazard land use
boundaries to match the more precise parcel specific Zoning Map’s OH boundaries so that
properties had a General Plan land use designation (Hazard) and Zoning District
designation (OH) that were consistent.
Also, the original Zoning Code was adopted in 1975 to establish the limited uses and
development permitted within the Open-Space Hazard (OH) zoning district. Per the Zoning
Code (Chapter 17.32), the OH district “prevents unsafe development of hazardous areas
that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety purposes.” The Code
goes on to indicate that the OH districts are comprised of areas where the slope exceeds
35%, experiencing down slope movement, unstable for development, where grading of the
land may endanger public health and safety due to erosion, the ocean bluff areas, and
areas subject to flooding from storm water.
The disparity between the mapping of the General Plan’s Hazard areas and the Zoning
Map’s OH zoning boundaries, along with a history of concerns raised by property owners
through the years about the inaccuracy of the OH mapping on the Zoning Map, prompted
Staff to task the City Geologist to review the Hazard land use mapped Citywide to
determine if it was consistent with existing topographic and geologic conditions that
warranted such zoning pursuant to the General Plan. Specifically, the then-City Geologist
was tasked to do the following:
• Review the Open-Space Hazard land use mapping throughout the City (using the
zoning map as a reference since it contains parcel line information) to determine if
existing topographic and geologic conditions warrant a Hazard land use designation
using the criteria described in Section 17.32.010 of the Zoning Code; and,
21
• Based on the above review, adjust the existing Hazard boundary lines so that they
are located outside of developed or developable portions of parcels, in an effort to
limit the Hazard areas to hillsides, areas of known active or historical landslides,
and areas where preservation of the topography was necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare.
The then-City Geologist submitted an evaluation report to City Staff with a number of
proposed adjustments to the mapping of Hazard land use areas throughout the City. In
summary, the City Geologist’s recommended changes would affect the “Hazard”
designation on approximately 1040 individual properties. While 699 properties would
have their existing Hazard land use boundary either reduced or removed, approximately
374 properties would either see an increase in the amount of Hazard land use, or a new
Hazard land use designation. The Planning Commission directed Staff to move forward
with reducing or removing the existing Hazard boundary lines as the affected properties
were improperly inhibited in some way, without justification, from certain types of
development. Examples of changes include moving the existing Hazard boundary line at
the center of the home to the top of the slope in the rear yard so that the existing improved
areas are designated Residential while the unimproved slope areas are designated as
Hazard. The Planning Commission felt that it would be unfair to do anything less than
that as the proposed changes would make the designations become a little closer to the
reality of the physical situation that are on the affected properties.
The Planning Commission also directed Staff to change the name of the zoning
designation for hillside areas to “Open-Space Hillside” instead of its current “Hazard”
designation. By doing so, the landslide moratorium area and other known landslide areas
in the City would retain the “Open-Space Hazard” designation. The “Open-Space Hillside”
zoning designation would not impose any new development restrictions on a property as it
would be limited to extreme slope areas that are already prohibited from building
development by the Zoning Code.
Additionally, Staff also asked the State Appraisal’s Office and the L.A. County Assessor’s
office to see if the change from a designation of “Hazard” to “Open Space Hillside” would
affect the appraised value or assessed property value. Both offices opined that the change
in names should not affect a property’s appraised value or assessment, and the use of
“Open-Space Hillside” may sound more attractive to potential buyers.
Portion of a residential tract east of Hawthorne and Silver
The residential area located east of the Hawthorne Blvd. and Silver Spur Rd. intersection
has two separate land use designations affecting approximately 100 properties. Some
areas are designated as Residential 4 to 6 dwelling unit per acre (R 4-6) and other areas
as Residential 2 to 4 dwelling unit per acre (R 2-4). More specifically, some of the
properties identified with the General Plan Land Use designation of R 4-6 should be R 2-
4 while other properties with the General Plan Land use designation of R 2-4 should be R
4-6 for consistency with the Zoning Map designations. There will be no real change as a
22
result of increasing or decreasing the underlying General Plan land use designation of
the 100 affected properties because the zoning designation is not changing and they
would still be subject to the same development standards as currently required. This is
because no adjustments are being made to the existing Zoning Map, which is the more
specific map that denotes the actual zoning districts and boundaries. Additionally, all of
the subject lots are already developed and cannot be further subdivided.
All properties that comprise the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve
The City’s NCCP/HCP requires the City to “amend relevant sections of the RPV
General Plan to identify all Preserve lands and their attendant land use restrictions.”
Since the existing General Plan Land Use Map does not have a land use classification
for “Preserve,” a new land use designation titled “Open Space Preservation” is
proposed to classify the preserve areas identified in the 2018 NCCP/HCP. The new “Open
Space Preservation” only applies to City-owned properties and one parcel owned by the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy enrolled in the NCCP/HCP Preserve.
Certain properties located seaward of Seacove Drive to match the 1978 Coastal
Specific Plan Land Use Map
The Coastal Specific Plan was adopted in 1978 and includes a Land Use map for the
coastal area that is not consistent with the 1975 General Plan Land Use map which
should have been revised to reflect the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use map. Despite
the differences in the two maps, all subsequent development applications/requests have
been analyzed per the Coastal Specific Plan.
Amendments are proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map to clean up any
ambiguities between it and the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use map. The proposed
General Plan Land Use Map changes focus on Subregions 3, 4, 6, and 7 affecting 17
existing residential properties and 2 existing multi-family residential complexes (Palos
Verdes Bay Club and Avana Apartments).
23
City-owned Portion of Ladera Linda Park
In 1975, when the General Plan was adopted, the Ladera Linda park site was owned and
operated by the School District and was designated with a General Plan Land Use
designation of “Institutional-Educational.” Since the City-owned portion of Ladera Linda is
no longer owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD), a land
use designation of “Institutional-Public” is proposed as a clean-up item to the General Plan
Land Use Map. The change in land use designation would not impact the current and
future facilities or operations, and is simply a better representation of the property that is
under the City’s ownership.
City-owned Vacant Land on Silver Spur
In 1994, the City acquired a vacant property (2.05 acre) located on the north side of
Silver Spur Road, at the intersection of Deep Valley Road. This City-owned property
consists of a steep hill that slopes up from the street. A land use designation change
from Commercial to Recreational-Passive is proposed because there are no plans for
commercial development on this property that is currently being used as open space.
Various City-acquired Properties
The City acquired various parcels for open space purposes since the adoption of the
1975 General Plan Land Use Map. These parcels include a 15’ wide pathway (Point
Vicente School Access Trail – 0.12 acre), a vacant canyon (Island View – 5.17 acre),
Eastview Park as part of the 1984 annexation of Eastview, a pocket park (Clovercliff
Park - 0.18 acre), East Crest Road parcel adjacent to the Cal Water site (0.17 acres)
for potential trail connection purposes, Vanderlip Park (1.3 acres), Martingale
Trailhead Park, and Founders, Marilyn Ryan Sunset and Vista Catalina Parks, which
were dedicated to the City as part of the approval for the Trump National Golf Club. All
of these open space properties, many of which are already improved with park
amenities, are proposed to have a land use designation of Recreational-Passive.
Gateway Park Land Use Designation
In 2008, the City Council adopted the Coast Vision Plan, which identified an area, now
known as Gateway Park, to be the future home of an equestrian center with riding rings
and public parking that would also serve as a trailhead to the Preserve. On June 30,
2015, the City Council removed Gateway Park from the Parks Master Plan. As there are
no longer any plans to improve the area known as Gateway Park, the Planning
Commission at its March 27, 2018 meeting recommends that the existing land use
designation (Agriculture, Natural/Environment Hazard and Residential ≤1 du/ac) be
changed to Recreation-Passive, which is comparable with the land use designation for
the City-owned property across Palos Verdes Drive South.[GY3][SK4]
Former School District Property on Trump National
24
In 1975 when the General Plan Land Use Map was adopted, the approximately 8.5 acre
parcel owned by the PVPUSD was designated as Institutional-Educational. In the mid-
1990’s, entitlements were issued by the City to build an 18-hole golf course, Clubhouse,
residential lots, and public amenities on what is now known as the Trump National Golf
Course. Since the subject property is improved with a golf course under the ownership
of Trump National, the land use designation is proposed to be changed from
Institutional-Educational to Residential - less than or equal to 1 dwelling unit/acre.
City-approved Residential Tracts
Since incorporation, several vacant parcels have been subdivided and developed as
residential tracts (Residential Planned Development). Most of these tracts were
created based on specific development standards that deviate from the Code
requirements. While a land use change should have been considered as part of the
entitlement process, this was never done. As a result, there are City-approved tracts
with underlying land use designations that are inconsistent and some with two different
land use designations that split the tract. As a result, land use designation changes are
proposed to the following residential tracts as a clean-up to the land use map: 31617
(Seacrest), 33206 (Crest), 37818 (Via La Cresta), 45667 (Tramonto, Nuvola, Albero),
46651 (Seabreeze), and 50667 (east end of Trump National). In 2009, for the same
reasons, the City Council adopted Ordinance 496U to clean-up Tract 16540
(Portuguese Bend Club).
3778 Coolheights Drive
In December 1996, the City purchased the 160-acre Forrestal Property for the purpose
of protecting sensitive habitat and allowing for passive recreational public use, which is
now part of the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Excluded from the purchase was
a 2.46 acre lot located at the terminus of Coolheights Drive, which the seller at the time
(Diamond Brothers Three) intended to develop with a single-family residence. However,
Mr. Ortolano, who resides adjacent to the subject parcel, filed a lawsuit against the City
and the developer claiming prescriptive rights over a portion of the property. In
September 1998, the City entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the land
dispute involving Mr. Otolano Jr. According to the settlement agreement, approximately
0.26 acres of the 2.46 acre lot and approximately 0.19 acres of the City-owned Forrestal
Property was conveyed to Mr. Ortolano. The recorded grant deeds for these areas (now
known as 3778 Coolheights Drive) prevent any construction, improvements, and
developments that would require permits from the City. Additionally, according to the
Settlement Agreement, a 10’ portion was reserved to the public as an easement for
pedestrian ingress, egress, hiking, trail and mountain biking, and other recreational
purposes. Given this, the settlement agreement requires a land use designation
change from “Residential” to “Natural Environment/Hazard”.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Mr. Ortolano or his representatives may not
oppose, protest or otherwise object to a General Plan amendment to designate said
area as “Natural Environment/Hazard” and a corresponding zoning designation of
“Open-Space Hazard” so that the newly created lot could not be developed with a
25
residence.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Future Zoning Map Amendments
The land use changes described in the previous section will also require consistency
amendments to the designations shown on the City’s zoning map. As the General Plan
process only involves land uses, the zone changes to these properties will be subject to
a future public hearing with the Planning Commission and the City Council, which will
occur later this year.
Future Local Coastal Specific Plan Amendment
The Local Coastal Specific Plan (LCP) may need to be amended to reflect the updated
General Plan and Land Use Map. If an amendment is warranted after further review of
the LCP, the process will follow a separate track similar to the Zoning Map Amendment,
requiring a future public hearing with the Planning Commission and the City Council,
which may occur later this year.
Public Correspondence
In response to the public notice, Staff received 11 emails proposing certain
amendments be made to the General Plan (see Attachment F). In summary, the public
comments focus on adding text for clarity; modifying the proposed noise mitigation
regulations because they may be too burdensome to homeowners; removing the
proposed air quality mitigation measures as the language is too vague and difficult to
regulate; strengthening the discussion regarding certain aircraft noise; ensuring
accuracy with the updated 2018 General Plan Land Use Map; and expressing concerns
with the unchanged Recreational ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ land use designations. A more
detailed discussion of the public comments (shown as underlined text) and Staff’s
response (shown as regular text) is provided below.
Eastview is shown as light grey – Open Space Hillside – on the proposed 2018
General Plan Land Use Map: Open Space Hillside is shown as light green. The only
light grey area is Green Hills Memorial Park, which is designated Cemetery.
Under the Land Use Element, Commercial Land Use Designation, more language
should be added to include the canyons, streams, water drainage, and hazard to
hillside as related to land reuse and “built out” of the City: The Land Use Element is
required to include the general distribution, location, and extent, including
discussions about density and intensity, and potential for flood for housing, business,
industry, open space, education, public facilities, solid and liquid waste disposal, and
other. The General Plan and its associated elements are not intended to be a
detailed descriptive document to speculate how existing land uses could be reused
depending on the site specific conditions, which may include various topographical
conditions.
26
27
Circulation Element Policy No. 20(e) reads that “The City shall provide appropriate
support to the property owners offering easements.” This policy should be made
clearer by including language stating that the City will provide compensation: In the
past, property owners have dedicated portions of their property as easements for
future trail connections on their property without the City providing any
compensation. While the City may, on a case-by-case basis, provide compensation
for any land acquired, easements are simply the rights to use a portion of one’s
property without taking ownership. Staff recommends that the policy language
remain as is.
Circulation Element Policy No. 38 states “Encourage the establishment of
undergrounding assessment districts by homeowners in areas of existing overhead
lines.” This could be a big financial burden to homeowners and this policy should be
clarified so there is a clear understanding that this is a want and not a need: The
policy is written to “encourage” undergrounding and is not a requirement of
homeowners. Staff believes that no additional clarification is needed to the policy.
Further clarification on potential risks to Avenida Feliciano should be provided in the
General Plan: The General Plan and its associated elements are intended to be
general and not site specific. Flood zones and potential risks are adequately
addressed in the Safety Element.
What does level of service standard of “Acceptable” mean? Traffic impacts are
determined by assessing traffic volumes at intersections and roadway segments and
assigning a level of service (LOS). Level of service is a method of describing the
operating efficiency of a roadway or intersection. Typically, it is described on a scale
from A to F, with F being the most congested and A representing free-flow
conditions. Currently in the City, intersections and roadways are considered
impacted if they exceed LOS D; thus, LOS E and F are unacceptable levels during
the morning peak hours and/or the afternoon peak hours. The Circulation Element
identifies existing intersections that are currently operating at unacceptable LOS E
and F. All other intersections are considered acceptable.
Proposed noise mitigating construction practices may be burdensome to
homeowners: The Noise Element and the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies
measures to mitigate construction noise. These measures include providing noise
attenuating shields/barriers, placing construction equipment away from sensitive
receptors (neighboring residences), locating equipment in staging areas away from
sensitive receptors, constructing a temporary wall to deteriorate noise attenuating
effects, adjusting all audible back-up alarms at the lowest level unless safety
provisions require otherwise, including sound-muffling material to line storage bins
etc., and restricting parking and queuing construction trucks outside of permitted
construction hours. The standard conditions that apply to construction projects
currently include temporary fencing and restricting parking/queuing construction
trucks outside of permitted construction hours. The additional mitigation measures
include the requirement for staging areas to be as far away from sensitive receptors
28
as feasible and lowering back-up alarms to a level unless safety provisions require
otherwise. Staff does not believe that the additional noise mitigation measures will
create a burden to homeowners as these measures are recommended only when
deemed feasible and practicable.
Proposed Air Quality mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
related to dust mitigation are too vague and difficult to regulate: Mitigation measures
AQ-2, AQ-3, and AQ-6 related to dust mitigation are not new requirements. These
are standard conditions that apply to all projects both ministerial and discretionary.
The aircraft noise impacts section in the Noise Element should be strengthened to
include specific references to plane, helicopter, and ultralight noise and related
impacts: Staff will strengthen the Noise Element and make minor amendments and
propose any changes at the April 26th City Council meeting.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) submitted their
comments in response to the 2017 Air Quality Study and proposed mitigation
measures: The AQMD comments were forwarded to the consultant (ESA) that
prepared the 2017 Air Quality Study for a response. ESA’s response to all
comments will be provided to the City Council as late correspondence.
The areas designated as Residential on the Land Use Map appears to be
inaccurate, especially the Trump National Golf Course, Ocean Terraces
Condominiums, and the PV Bay Club: The proposed 2018 General Plan Land Use
Map is accurate as the underlying land use map is Residential for these properties.
The unchanged Active and Passive Recreation creates problems as these terms are
used to imply different interpretations. Are the Active and Passive designations really
necessary?: Discussions about the existing Active and Passive terms occurred over
several meetings with the Planning Commission. In the end, it was agreed to keep
the existing definitions. All existing parks were individually reviewed to determine
which ones should be designated as Active or Passive. Other than Hesse Park and
Robert E Ryan Park, all other parks were designated as Recreational Passive based
on the original definitions.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On March 22, 2018, notice of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated (30-
day minimum) to public agencies, published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News,
posted on the City’s website, and a message was sent to the General Plan listserve
subscribers. The original public notice incorrectly stated that tonight’s meeting will begin
at 7 p.m. A revised notice with the correct meeting time was reissued on April 6th.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council’s consideration:
29
1. Identify specific changes to the General Plan document and/or Land Use
Map, direct Staff to return with a revised document for consideration at a
future meeting, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
2. Direct Staff to take no action at this time.
30
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE UPDATED 2018 GENERAL
PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2002, the City Council initiated a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and formed a 15-member General Plan Update Steering
Committee to assist in the update process;
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee’s
recommendations, along with a General Plan Update Program, were presented to the
City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following for future
review by the proposed Planning Commission and City Council: (1) Draft proposed
amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies as recommended by the General
Plan Update Steering Committee; (2) Update the factual information within the General
Plan; and (3) Propose improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the
mandatory elements to make the Plan more user friendly. The City Council also directed
Staff to obtain a consultant to assist with updating portions of the General Plan and
disbanded the General Plan Update Steering Committee;
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement
with three consulting firms to assist Staff with the update;
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint workshop to kick off to the General Plan Update process;
WHEREAS, beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct
public hearings on the update of the General Plan document and the General Plan Land
Use Map;
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the draft of
the updated General Plan. Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that
were inadvertently left out and text amendments based on new statues were introduced by
Staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2015, the Planning Commission again
reviewed and accepted a complete draft of the updated General Plan and the General
Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, in late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General
Plan document and determined that certain text was legally insufficient and the technical
studies (Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be updated given the recent statutes.
Accordingly, the City contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who
completed the technical studies in 2017. The technical studies were reviewed and
accepted by the Planning Commission in 2017;
A-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and a list-serve message was sent announcing the March 27th public
hearing with the Planning Commission and the availability of the final draft of the
General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2018, a public notice announcing the availability of the
Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and final draft of the General Plan
and Land Use Map was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News, mailed to
appropriate public agencies, and posted on the City’s website for a comment period of
more than 30-days, commencing on March 22, 2018, and concluding on April 26, 2018.
Additionally, a list serve message was sent to the General Plan subscribers;
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2018-12, recommending that the City Council approve the updated General Plan
and General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, a revised public notice with the corrected 6 p.m.
starting time for the April 26th public hearing was mailed to all appropriate agencies and
property owners affected by and adjacent to proposed land use changes;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 26, 2018,
in compliance with law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the California
Government Code and Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code, entertained the written and
oral report of staff, and took public testimony .
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
Section 2: The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public comments upon it, and other
evidence and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner
required by law, and there is no substantial evidence, provided appropriate mitigation
measures are imposed, that the approval of the updated 2018 General Plan and
General Plan Land Use Map would result in a significant adverse effect upon the
environment.
Section 3: With the imposition of the following mitigation measures that
address impacts upon air quality and noise and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, the proposed project's potential significant impacts will be reduced below a
level of significance:
AQ-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or
covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile.
A-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3 of 5
AQ-2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
measures shall be taken in areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to
minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line.
AQ-3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
construction vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud,
and dirt from being released or tracked off site.
AQ-4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the
Applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other
debris from being tracked onto the City’s public roadways, and if tracked, the
Applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City’s
public roadways.
AQ-5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no
trucks shall be allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks
are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in
cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded
such that the material does not touch the General Plan Update Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 front, back, or sides of the cargo
compartment at any point less than 6” from the top and that no point of the load
extends above the top of the cargo compartment.
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the Applicant
shall demonstrate to the Director of Community Development’s satisfaction that
dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that
require regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-7: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all
excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure,
grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
AQ-8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including
proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems.
N-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing,
storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or
covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile.
N-2: Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed
away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Non-noise producing
equipment, such as trailers, may be located as a sound barrier between the
stationary noise sources and sensitive receptors.
A-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4 of 5
N-3: Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance
between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors during
all project construction.
N-4: Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The temporary construction
barriers can use particle boards or gypsum boards, with no gaps or holes in them
that could potentially deteriorate the noise attenuation effect.
N-5: Unless safety provisions require otherwise, adjust all audible back-up
alarms at the lowest volume appropriate for safety purposes.
N-6: Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply wood or rubber liners to metal
bin impact surfaces) to line or cover hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
N-7: When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging
areas on-site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment.
These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities
and neighboring properties.
N-8: Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or portable barriers or encloses to
reduce operating noise of noise producing equipment, such as jackhammers and
pavement breakers.
Section 4: Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the
public hearing, including the Initial Study, Staff Report, and the minutes and records of
the proceedings, the City Council has determined that the project as conditioned and
mitigated will not have a significant environmental impact and also finds that the
preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto complies with CEQA.
Therefore, the City Council does hereby adopt this Resolution No. 2018-__, certifying
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by this reference, making certain environmental findings to approve
the updated 2018 General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2018.
Susan Brooks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
A-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5 of 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2018-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 26, 2018.
City Clerk
A-5
.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Mitigated Negative Declaration
April 2018
A-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Initial Study
Project Title ................................................................................................................. 1
Lead Agency Name and Address ................................................................................ 1
Contact Person and Phone Number ............................................................................ 1
Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ......................................................................... 1
General Plan Designations .......................................................................................... 1
Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 1
Prior Environmental Document .................................................................................... 2
Description of Project .................................................................................................. 2
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ............................................................................ 5
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 5
Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required .............................................................. 6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 7
Determination .............................................................................................................. 7
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 8
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...................................................................... 10
3. Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 10
4. Biological Resources ............................................................................................. 12
5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 15
6. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................. 15
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 17
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... 19
9. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................. 21
10. Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 23
11. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................. 25
11. Noise ................................................................................................................... 26
13. Population and Housing ......................................................................................... 28
14. Public Services ...................................................................................................... 29
15. Recreation ............................................................................................................. 29
16. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................. 30
17. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................. 32
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................... 34
19. Earlier Analysis ...................................................................................................... 35
20. References ............................................................................................................ 36
List of Appendices
Appendix A: General Plan
Appendix B: General Plan Land Use Map Changes
Appendix C: ESA. Air Quality Technical Report. July 2017
Appendix D: ESA. Noise and Vibration Technical Report. November 2017
Appendix E: ESA. Traffic Impact Analysis. August 2017
Appendix F: ESA. Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. July 2017
A-7
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1
INITIAL STUDY
Project Title: Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update
Lead Agency Name & Address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Contact Person and Phone Number:
So J. Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
(310) 544-5222
sok@rpvca.gov
Project Location: The project site is the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City), which is
located in southwestern Los Angeles County, along the Palos Verdes
Peninsula of the Southern California coastline and approximately 25 miles
southwest of downtown Los Angeles.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
General Plan Designations:
Varies. As part of the General Plan Update project, there are proposed
changes to the land use designation(s) for various properties to: 1) ensure
consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the City’s
Zoning Map; 2) ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use
Map and the City’s Coastal Specific Plan Map; 3) add a new “Open Space
Preservation” land use designation to address the preserve properties
designated through the City’s NCCP; 4) clarify that the location of the
“Hazard” land use designation is located only within existing active
Portuguese Bend Landslide areas and bluff top areas, while a new “Open
Space Hillside” designation is located in canyon areas; and 5) clarify the
type of “Recreational” land use designation (either “Passive” or “Active”) for
all City park areas. See attached Appendix B for a list of all proposed land
use changes.
Zoning: Varies. While this project (General Plan Update) does not change any
existing zoning designations, as a result of this project, to ensure
consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map,
future changes to the Zoning Map and Ordinance to implement the
changes noted above (see “General Plan Designations” above) will be
necessary.
Prior Environmental Document:
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the original 1975
General Plan.
A-8
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2
Description of Project:
The proposed project is an Amendment to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan. Full
copies of the proposed Final Draft of the updated General Plan can be found on the City’s website
(http://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update), at the Planning Division of City Hall, and at
the Miraleste and Peninsula Center libraries. Compact Disc and hard copy versions of the
General Plan Update may also be purchased at City Hall in the Planning Division.
Background:
The original General Plan was adopted on June 26, 1975. With the exception of relatively major
General Plan amendments to address the adoption of the City’s Coastal Specific Plan (1978),
annexation of the “Eastview” portion of the City (1984), and the State Mandated Housing Element
Updates (most recently 2014), only a variety of relatively minor amendments to the original
General Plan have occurred to date. Thus, since adoption in 1975, the original General Plan had
never been comprehensively updated.
At its January 12, 2002 meeting, the City Council discussed master plan issues and specifically
focused upon updating the City’s General Plan. The City Council acknowledged that portions of
the General Plan need updating and directed Staff to take the initial steps to assist the City Council
in determining the direction and extent of the needed update. The City Council expressed that a
thorough review of the goals and policies was a necessary first step, and that this would help to
define the direction and extent of future updating work to be conducted by the Council, Staff, and
the community. Further, similar to the effort to adopt the first General Plan, the City Council
expressed the importance of including public input, encouraging the use of local talent within the
community, and specifically forming a General Plan Update Steering Committee to assist in the
update process. The City Council then determined that one person from each of the following
Commissions, Committees and Organizations within the community (but two persons from the
Planning Commission) should be represented on the General Plan Update Steering Committee:
• City’s Planning Commission
• City’s Recreation and Parks Committee
• City’s Finance Advisory Committee
• City’s Traffic Committee
• City’s Equestrian Committee
• City’s Disaster Preparedness Committee
• Council of Homeowner’s Association
• Council of Homeowner’s Association – Eastview Representative
• Peninsula Seniors
• Peninsula Youth Recreation League Council
• Docents – Los Serenos de Point Vicente
• School District
• Chamber of Commerce
• Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
The purpose of the Steering Committee was to review all of the goals and policies of the General
Plan and to make recommendations as to the extent to which such goals and policies needed to
be maintained, amended or eliminated, and whether new goals and policies needed to be added.
Additionally, in order to assist the City’s undertaking of its General Plan Update; a non-City
sponsored “grass-roots” committee of more than 210 residents formed for the purpose of
preparing a “Goals Report” that identified various goals for the City. This “Goals Report” was
A-9
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3
provided to each member of the Steering Committee, which also considered it in making the
Steering Committee’s own review and findings in its report to the City Council.
Beginning on October 30, 2002, the Steering Committee held a total of 22 public meetings, on an
average of once a month. Through the Committee’s work, the City Council learned that, apart
from the need for some textual changes to the goals and policies, as well as changes to the factual
information within the Plan, for the most part the context of the existing goals and policies that
were created in 1975 still applied through to the present. As such, given that there are no
significant changes to the vision, goals or policies from the original General Plan, this project has
been termed as an “Update”.
During the preparation of the updated General Plan, the Planning Commission held 70 public
meetings prior to their consideration of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration of the General Plan
Update. Additionally, the Finance Advisory Committee, Traffic Safety Commission and the
Emergency Preparedness Committee all provided input on the Fiscal, Circulation and Safety
Elements, respectively, during public meetings. Prior to each meeting on the General Plan, a
public notice was published in the Peninsula News and delivered through the City’s list-serve
email subscribers list. Additionally, public notification was also provided in cases where Land
Use Map changes were proposed to specific properties.
Summary of Amendments:
While the proposed General Plan Update does include changes to the existing General Plan’s
goals and policies, text, and graphics, these changes do not result in significant changes to the
City’s overall vision of its development pattern, including no changes to the existing development
envelopes or intensification of existing land uses that would necessitate additional infrastructure
facilities, or result in increased traffic.
With exception to the General Plan Housing Element, which tracks on a separate State
Mandated updating schedule and which was adopted by the City in 2014 and certified by the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as being in compliance
with State Law, all of the other General Plan elements are being amended to some degree
through this project. The original 1975 General Plan was divided into six separate sections; I)
Introduction, II) Natural Environment Element, III) Social/Cultural Element, IV) Urban
Environment Element, V) Land Use Plan, and VI) Fiscal Element. The proposed project re-
organizes the existing plan into nine separate sections to enhance the document’s ease of use.
Below is a brief summary of the changes to each element.
• Introduction: The section provides an overview/history of the Palos Verdes Peninsula and
the City, background on the State requirements/guidelines of a General Plan, and
background on the City’s process in preparing the final draft of the updated General Plan.
Changes to this section are proposed to bring the 1975 document up to date.
• Circulation Element: This section presents a plan to ensure that utilities and transportation,
including public transportation services, are constantly available to permit orderly growth
and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. This Element provides a framework
within which individual property owners can plan the development of their property and be
assured that basic infrastructure and services are available and adequate. This Element
provides an area-wide assessment of the different public transit, services, and utilities for
a broader understanding of service provision. Further, it is envisioned that transportation
improvements (new or retrofitted) will provide opportunities to improve safety, access, and
mobility for all travelers and recognize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral
A-10
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4
elements of the transportation system, thereby using complete street concepts to integrate
the needs of all users of the roadway system consistent with the California Complete
Streets Act of 2008.
• Conservation and Open Space Element: This section provides an evaluation of the basic
ecological and environmental units dealing with the natural factors of land, climate,
hydrology, biotic resources, geotechnical factors, and the systematic relationships that
must exist among them. This Element provides a discussion of each of these ecological
and environmental units as it applies individually to Rancho Palos Verdes, then in
appropriate classification combinations. Each of these combinations is classified into two
categories: (1) preservation of natural resources and open space, and (2) public health
and safety. These two categories are combined to develop the Conservation and Open
Space Element, which becomes a guide for the City’s natural environmental resource
management policies.
• Environmental Justice Element: This section address environmental justice through the
development of a comprehensive set of goals and policies, consistent with State
requirements, to encourage greater public participation and reduce environmental
hazards to target populations in the City. This Element serves as a blue-print for the
physical development of the City and is intended to assist elected and appointed officials
in the decision-making process.
• Fiscal Element: This section establishes the policy framework necessary to guide all of
the City’s short- and long-term fiscal decisions. In addition to identifying policies that City
officials will follow in conducting the financial affairs of the City, it serves as a planning
document to assist in making fiscal decisions from a comprehensive perspective. It is
intended to ensure that the fiscal aspects of policy issues are considered whenever and
wherever possible.
• Land Use Element: This section is a composite of the other elements of the General Plan.
The determination of appropriate land uses is derived from the natural environmental,
socio/cultural, and urban environmental constraints and opportunities analyzed
throughout the General Plan. Other sections of the General Plan also contain land use
policies.
• Determinants of appropriate uses include the following: natural environmental constraints:
climate, geotechnical factors, hydrology, and biotic resources; social and cultural
resources and needs of the community and region; existing and future adjacent
development patterns, intensities, and structural types; capacity of infrastructure, both
local and regional; safety; and visual and noise considerations.
• Noise Element: This section identifies existing and potential future sources of noise within
the community, and to identify strategies to limit the exposure of the community to
excessive noise levels.
• Safety Element: This section identifies hazards; assesses vulnerability; analyzes risk; and
contains goals, policies, and objectives to reduce risk and prevent loss from future natural
hazard events within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (City). This Element first discusses
the various hazards that may impact the City, including wildfire hazards, flood hazards,
geologic hazards, and other hazards. This discussion is followed by Emergency Services
available to the City in addressing these hazards, including risk assessment, leading to
policies to help address these impacts.
A-11
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5
• Visual Resources Element: This section provides guidance through establishment of
goals and policies to ensure the continued preservation, restoration, and enhancement of
significant visual resources within the City.
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures:
The City is built out with minimal vacant developable lots scattered throughout the City, mostly in
established neighborhoods. The General Plan assumes a complete build out of the City by year
2035. The General Plan Update contemplates a slight population increase though the General
Plan build-out. The bulk of this increase will be reflected in low density residential development.
The City’s adopted and certified 2013-2021 Housing Element contemplates modest gains in
population growth projections. More specifically, the Southern California Association of
Governments 2012 Regional Transportation Plan Forecast shows an increase of 100 persons
and 100 households over a period of 12 years (between 2008 and 2020). Taking into account the
average gain from the current year of 2018, the projected increase is approximately 136 persons
and 136 households by year 2035. With the current population at 42,435, this is less than a 1%
increase for the next 17 years.
The General Plan does not entitle any development project or require that the City meet the
buildout projections. Subsequent implementation and projects under the General Plan would be
evaluated for consistency with the plan and in light of the environmental analysis provided in this
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Given the limited number of vacant infill lots in the City, combined
with a modest projected population increase by 2035, the continued compliance and
implementation of General Plan goals and policies, Municipal Code, NCCP/HCP Plan, and
adopted guidelines (Height Variation, View Restoration, Neighborhood Compatibility), the impacts
from implementing the General Plan will remain less than significant, with appropriate additional
mitigation measures to address air quality and noise impacts as a result of future short-term
construction. Below lists the required mitigation measures to reduce future construction related
air quality (AQ-) and noise (N-) impacts to a less than significant level.
AQ-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and
unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or covered when material is not
being added to or removed from the pile.
AQ-2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, measures shall be
taken in areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from
crossing the boundary line.
AQ-3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles
leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or
tracked off site.
AQ-4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the Applicant’s
contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being
tracked onto the City’s public roadways, and if tracked, the Applicant’s contractor shall be
responsible for cleaning up the impacted City’s public roadways.
AQ-5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be
allowed to transport excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that
no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are
either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material does not touch the
A-12
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6
front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6” from the top and
that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment.
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate
to the Director of Community Development’s satisfaction that dust generated by grading
activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and
the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-7: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and
grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.
To assure compliance with this measure, grading activities are subject to periodic
inspections by City staff.
AQ-8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction
equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and
exhaust control systems.
N-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and
unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously stabilized or covered when material is not
being added to or removed from the pile.
N-2: Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Non-noise producing equipment, such as
trailers, may be located as a sound barrier between the stationary noise sources and
sensitive receptors.
N-3: Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors during all project
construction.
N-4: Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The temporary construction barriers can use
particle boards or gypsum boards, with no gaps or holes in them that could potentially
deteriorate the noise attenuation effect.
N-5: Unless safety provisions require otherwise, adjust all audible back-up alarms at the lowest
volume appropriate for safety purposes.
N-6: Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply wood or rubber liners to metal bin impact
surfaces) to line or cover hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
N-7: When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to
minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be
located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties.
N-8: Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or portable barriers or encloses to reduce
operating noise of noise producing equipment, such as jackhammers and pavement
breakers.
Other Agencies Whose Approval is Required: None.
A-13
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 7
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.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy/Mineral Resources Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Material Recreation
Hydrology and Water Quality X Noise Agricultural Resources
X Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described under Summary of Impact
and Mitigation Measures have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets,
if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated”. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
project
Signature:
Date: 3-21-2018
Printed Name: So Kim, Deputy Director/Plng Manager For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
A-14
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic
vista? 1 √
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historical
buildings, within a state scenic
highways?
1 √
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
1,8 √
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
1,8 √
Comments:
a) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is mostly built-out, with only handful of vacant developable lots scattered
throughout the City, mostly within existing residential tracts, that can accommodate additional development. The
General Plan update (“project”) is based on a built-out scenario of the City.
Upon incorporation, the City developed the policies in its General Plan and has adopted various planning documents
to assist the public in proposing and reviewing developments in accordance to the General Plan and Municipal Code
to preserve visual resources, including scenic vistas. The Visual Resources Element describes a vista is defined as a
confined view that is usually directed toward a dominant element or landmark (e.g. lighthouse). A vista, unlike a view,
may be created by features that visually frame the vista. Each vista has, in simplest terms, a viewing station, an object
or objects to be seen, and intermediate features that frame the vista. If one or more of the elements already exist and
are allowed to remain, then the others must be designed in harmony. There are no officially designated scenic
highways within the City.
Future actions under the project have the potential to encroach on scenic vistas, through the introduction of new
structures. However, the General Plan includes the following Visual Resources Element’s goals and policies that direct
future discretionary projects to ensure the continued preservation, restoration, and enhancement of significant visual
resources within the City that guides development in a manner that enhances and preserve vistas and the visual
character while being compatible with a neighborhood; and new light sources must be mitigated to prevent light
pollution associated with developments. Impacts to vistas, visual character, and day and nighttime views as a result
of new light sources would be less than significant because developments would comply with the goals and policies
of the General Plan and the following adopted guidelines to protect visual resources and the aesthetics of the
community. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Visual Resource Element’s Goal:
• Preserve views and vistas for the public benefit and, where appropriate, the City should strive to enhance
and restore these resources and the visual character of the City, and provide and maintain access for the
benefit and enjoyment of the public.
Visual Resources Element Policies:
• Develop controls to preserve existing significant visual aspects from future disruption or degradation.
• Enhance views and vistas where appropriate, taking into account traffic safety along major thoroughfares.
• Preserve and enhance existing positive visual elements and restore those that have been lost.
• Consider the visual character of neighborhoods consistent with the General Plan and Neighborhood
Compatibility Guidelines.
• Develop and post signs regarding vista points to provide safe off-road areas to enjoy views.
• Develop and maintain, in conjunction with appropriate agencies, public access to paths and trails for the
enjoyment of views.
A-15
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• For developments that are proposed within areas that impact the visual character of a corridor, require
developers to incorporate treatments into their projects that enhance a corridor’s imagery.
• Require developments that will impact corridor-related views to mitigate their impacts.
• Develop a program for the restoration of existing areas that negatively impact view corridors.
• Require residents and developers to mitigate light pollution associated with developments.
• Maintain strict sign standards to ensure that signs are harmonious with the buildings, neighborhood, and
other signs in the area.
• Work with adjoining jurisdictions to preserve and restore the view corridors from major thoroughfares, taking
into account traffic safety.
View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines - In November 1989 the voters of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes passed an initiative to protect views by establishing height limits for residential structures and foliage.
This View ordinance was codified into the City’s Municipal Code. Subsequently, guidelines and review procedures
were adopted by the City Council to implement the ordinance and codes related to building structure heights and for
view impairment caused by foliage. These guidelines are known as the Height Variation Guidelines and the View
Restoration and Preservation Guidelines and Procedures, respectively. To be consistent with the intent to protect
views and vistas from residential properties, the City Council also adopted a policy to protect views impaired by foliage
located on City-owned property. View restoration requests involving City-owned trees are processed by the City
through the issuance of a City Tree Review Permit application pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code.
Guidelines and Procedures for Neighborhood Compatibility - The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan contains
policies regarding many aspects of residential development including neighborhood compatibility. Neighborhood
compatibility is an urban design concept that attempts to balance new residential development with the preservation
of the rural and semi-rural character of the City. To this end, in 2003, the City adopted recommended Neighborhood
compatibility guidelines for property development in the City as a means to further the objectives of the General Plan
to preserve and enhance the character of established neighborhoods. The suggested neighborhood compatibility
guidelines are meant to assist residents and developers in the preparation and design of residential development
projects by review of a project’s scale, architecture and setbacks within the context of the immediate, surrounding
neighborhood.
Coastal Specific Plan - A Coastal Specific Plan was prepared in 1978 to further study and assess resources along the
Rancho Palos Verdes coastline. One of the goals of the Coastal Specific Plan was to provide additional guidance
beyond the General Plan and further define policy for visual resources and development along the coastline.
Accordingly, the Coastal Specific Plan further defined the General Plan’s concepts of visual corridors and viewing
focal points as they pertain to the City’s coastline. The Coastal Specific Plan also contains community design
guidelines to ensure public and private development conforms to the principles set forth in the General Plan.
Western Avenue Specific Plans - The intent and purpose of the Western Avenue Specific Plans were to establish a
guide for the comprehensive redevelopment or renovation of the existing commercial development located along
Western Avenue. The Specific Plans include design and regulatory standards that are tailored to the unique features
and characteristics of the area. In addition, the Specific Plans were prepared to protect adjacent residential property
from the impacts of commercial development and to encourage the revitalization of the area. The plans identify themes
that both create a Rancho Palos Verdes identity and distinguish the area from neighboring Los Angeles. The plans
integrate the unique aspects of the Eastview area into the overall character of Rancho Palos Verdes, assist in
preserving views, and improve the urban design for this area.
A-16
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 2, 8 √
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
2 √
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Gov’t Code section 5104(g))?
2, 8 √
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
1, 2 √
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?
1, 2 √
Comments:
There is only one specific area in the City designated for Agricultural use, which makes up a portion of a future public
park. This future park consists of 17 acres of undeveloped land that lies over an active landslide area. This area was
purchased by the City in 2005 for the purpose of providing an access point or gateway to the City’s abutting Open
Space Preserve area, particularly for equestrian use. The City has an in-concept plan for the subject area with the
Agricultural land use designation to be developed with an equestrian park. This area is not used for agricultural use
and the City does not have future plans for agricultural purposes. As such, there is no conversion of farmland that is
proposed as part of the project. The land use for this one remaining area is proposed to be changed from Agricultural
to Recreational-Passive to accommodate the future park. However, this does not remove the agricultural use in the
City as it is allowed in Residential and Open Space land use designations either by-right or with an approval of a
Conditional Use Permit, depending on the size. Therefore, the project would cause less than significant impact to
agricultural use in the City and no mitigation is required. With regards to forest land, there are none in the City and
therefore, the project would result in no impact.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3. AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of any applicable air
quality plan?
1, 5, 15 √
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
1, 5, 15 √
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
1, 5, 15 √
A-17
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 11
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? 1, 5, 15 √
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? 1, 5, 15 √
Comments:
South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and
the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, the smoggiest region of the United States.
Rancho Palos Verdes is part of the Western Region of AQMD’s four-county jurisdiction. AQMD is responsible for
controlling emissions primarily from stationary sources of air pollution, including anything from large power plants and
refineries to the corner gas station. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean with
mild winds that typically transport the air pollutants generated in the urbanized areas of the Los Angeles Basin, away
from the City and towards the inland areas to the east. As a result, with the rare exception of on-to-off shore wind
conditions (known as the Santa Anas, or Santa Ana winds), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ air pollutant level is
better than the Los Angeles basin and consistently registers below the State and Federal emission standards.
Specifically, the City is located at the southwest tip of the South Coast Air Basin, which is an area of non-attainment
for Federal air quality standards for ozone (O 3 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5). The implementation of the project would guide future development in the City in a manner that could temporarily
generate air pollutant emissions during short-term construction. Based upon the AQMD guidelines for estimating air
quality impacts from construction activities, the development of individual 1-acre parcels would not exceed Localized
Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for nitrous oxides (NO X ), CO, PM10 or PM2.5. The General Plan policies below are
intended to mitigate potential significant impacts, to a less than significant level.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy:
• Collect baseline data for air and water quality to develop standards for evaluation of the impacts of current
or proposed development in and adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes.
Environmental Justice Element Policy:
• Implement policies and programs identified in the City’s Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP) in order to
improve air quality in the City.
Safety Element Policies:
• Continue to review development proposals for potential regional and local air quality impacts per the
California Environmental Quality Act, and if potential impacts are identified, require mitigation to reduce the
impact to a level that is less than significant, where technically and economically feasible.
• Continue to enforce Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations 1 building construction requirements and
apply standards that promote energy conservation.
While, compliance with the existing federal and state regulations, AQMD rules and regulations, and the above General
Plan policies may reduce air quality impacts, construction emissions may still result in a potentially significant impact.
To reduce construction-related emissions to a level less than significant, the following mitigation measures would be
required.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed
areas shall be continuously stabilized or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the
pile.
AQ-2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, measures shall be taken in areas
disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible emissions from crossing the boundary line.
AQ-3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles leaving the site
shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site.
1 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also titled the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, was created and is periodically updated by the California Building Standards Commission in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.
A-18
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
AQ-4: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, the Applicant’s contractor shall be
responsible for minimizing bulk material or other debris from being tracked onto the City’s public roadways,
and if tracked, the Applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the impacted City’s public
roadways.
AQ-5: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be allowed to transport
excavated material off-site unless the trucks are maintained such that no spillage can occur from holes or
other openings in cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered with tarps; wetted and loaded such that
the material does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo compartment at any point less than 6” from
the top and that no point of the load extends above the top of the cargo compartment.
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of
Community Development’s satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require
regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-7: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and grading activities shall
cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure compliance with this measure,
grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
AQ-8: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction equipment shall be kept in
proper operating condition, including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
8 √
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
8 √
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?
8 √
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?
8 √
A-19
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local polices or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
8 √
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
8, 12 √
Comments:
In 1996, Rancho Palos Verdes entered into an agreement with the State Department of Fish and Game (whose name
was subsequently changed to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
collectively referred to as “Wildlife Agencies”, to take the lead in the preparation of a Natural Community Conservation
Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). The City’s NCCP/HCP identifies and provides for protection and
management of a diverse natural wildlife while allowing for compatible public use and appropriate development growth.
The NCCP/HCP also provides comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, including but not
limited to species listed under the California Endangered Species Act or federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The City developed a landscape-scale database of biological resources and land-use information to allow the City and
Wildlife Agencies to make informed land-use and conservation decisions for future projects. This database mapped
the vegetation communities and sensitive species distributions, along with their potential habitat. The NCCP/HCP also
provided measures for habitat restoration of disturbed areas within the Preserve, with a required minimum level of
restoration and enhancement to be accomplished each year. Approximately 8,616.6 acres of land are within the
NCCP/HCP area, including native habitats, non-native habitats, disturbed areas, and developed lands. Although the
NCCP/HCP covers vegetation and wildlife species found across the entire City, it also created a designated “Preserve”
to conserve and re-vegetate sensitive native habitats within Rancho Palos Verdes and provide adequate habitat
linkages between patches of conserved habitat.
Through a partnership with the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy (PVPLC), the City was able to acquire
upwards of 1,400 acres of land through public dedications of City-owned land, private donations of land and formal
land purchases. This partnership not only lead efforts in the various forms of land acquisitions for the designated
Preserve areas, but also provided necessary support for the design and implementation of the formal NCCP/HCP.
The City is in the process of updating the NCCP/HCP at this time. Due to the large quantity of land acquired by the
City and the desire to ensure that sensitive, native habitats are re-vegetated and conserved over time, the City also
created a new General Plan Land Use designation referred to as the Open Space Preservation for these areas. The
Land Use Element describes the purpose of the Open Space Preserve as providing permanent open space buffers
within the community; protecting sensitive plant and animal communities; and providing opportunity for passive
recreational uses. This designation includes portions of properties acquired by the City for open space purposes that
previously had other Land Use Designations such as Hazard and Residential. These properties have been
consolidated under the ownership of the City to form the “backbone” of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. Additionally,
the Land Use Element includes a new policy requiring that all land within the Open Space Preservation land use
designation be utilized in compliance with the City’s NCCP. The Open Space Conservation Element also includes the
following goals and policies specific to NCCP, therefore the project would result in less than significant impact and no
additional mitigation is necessary:
Conservation and Open Space Element Goals:
• To conserve, protect, and enhance the City’s natural resources; beauty; and open space for the benefit and
enjoyment of its residents and the residents of the entire region. Future development shall recognize the
sensitivity of the natural environment and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection
of it.
• To protect and preserve all significant archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the
City.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policies:
• In addition to the State-designated Abalone Cove Ecological Reserve, establish the rocky intertidal areas
throughout the remainder of the City’s coastline as marine reserves and enforce all regulations concerning
marine resources (Resource Management District RM 7).
• Require developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats (RM 8) to describe the nature of the impact on
the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offset the impact.
A-20
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 14
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Require developments within Resource Management Districts containing natural vegetation (RM 9) to
revegetate with appropriate native plants wherever possible when clearing of vegetation is required.
• Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state in all existing and proposed
developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies, and encourage the re-
establishment of appropriate native plants, especially fire retardant natives such as saltbrush, near fuel
modification setback areas.
• Implement the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP/HCP.
• Continue to implement the City’s Natural Overlay Control District and its performance criteria.
• Continue to implement the natural environment policies of the Coastal Specific Plan.
• Collect baseline data for air and water quality to develop standards for evaluation of the impacts of current
or proposed development in and adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes.
• Pursue the acquisition of rights over the offshore tidelands area related to the City’s coastline. Develop
proposals for grants and recognition as protected areas.
• Encourage study of and funding to preserve native flora and fauna.
• Work with neighboring jurisdictions to manage contiguous wildlife and habitat areas and recreational
amenities such as trails.
• Encourage the restoration of vegetation throughout the City to indigenous native plant species. Encourage
use of locally native plant species in City landscaping.
• Develop balanced programs to provide safe public access to the coastline consistent with protecting the
environment.
• Promote programs to encourage volunteer efforts to repair, protect, and improve the environment.
• Make every effort to preserve or restore natural hydrology when projects impact canyons or other natural
drainage areas when such efforts do not conflict with public safety.
• Ensure the maximum preservation of the natural scenic character and topography of the City consistent with
reasonable economic uses.
Land Use Element Policy:
• All land with an Open Space Preservation Land Use Designation shall be used in compliance with the City’s
Natural Community Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).
Safety Element Policy:
• Continue to support the preservation of natural resources and open spaces throughout the City.
With the acquisition of land since the original adoption of the 1975 General Plan, new land use designation of Open
Space Preserve for protection of these areas and policies within the Land Use and Open Space Conservation
Elements, there will be no adverse effect on any sensitive or protective species, riparian habitat, or wetlands and there
will be no interference with the movement of native or migratory fish or wildlife species as a result of the proposed
General Plan Update. Future projects would be required to comply with applicable local ordinances and the City’s
NCCP, ensuring the protection and appropriate mitigation for any impacted biological resources. Additionally, the
project does not create any conflict with local policies, ordinances, or with the City’s NCCP. Therefore, no additional
mitigation is required as there will be less to no impacts to biological resources as a result of the project.
A-21
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
1, 7 √
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
1, 7 √
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
1, 7 √
d) Disturbed any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries and Native
American burial sites?
1, 7 √
Comments:
The Conservation Open Space Element identifies the grove of trees planted at Ryan Park; Malaga Cove Library; the
lighthouse at Point Vicente, which has guided sailors since 1924 and was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1980; Portuguese Bend, which served as a pick-up point for smuggling operations when the land was ruled
by Spanish viceroys; Villa Francesca (i.e., the peppertree gatehouse to the Portuguese Bend community), which was
placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986; the estate of Frank Vanderlip, principal founder and
developer of much of the Palos Verdes Peninsula; the Harden Estate (i.e., the Portuguese Point gatehouse); the
Portuguese Bend Riding Club and stables, which serves as the hub of a social sector in the area; and Wayfarers
Chapel, which was designed by Lloyd Wright, son of the renowned American architectural pioneer Frank Lloyd Wright,
and placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2005. These sites and structures represent the major
historical points in Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other features, such as the Narcissa gatehouse to Portuguese Bend,
are also well known, but they are more points of interest than points of historical significance, given the criteria
promulgated in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. There are no changes to these historical and
archaeological sites as part of the project, and therefore there are no impacts to historical and archaeological
resources.
Paleontological resources or fossil remains, are not considered endangered due to their wide distribution through the
Peninsula. However, should a particular site exhibit a high degree of paleontological significance as a result of its own
CEQA analysis as part of a future development proposal, applicable preservation, excavation and/or no action option
would be added as conditions of approval. Additionally, outside of the Green Hills Memorial Cemetery, there are no
known sites with human remains that would be disturbed as a result of the project. However, if human remains are
discovered as part of construction or other ground-disturbing activities, the City would be notified and work would
immediately halt. The County coroner would be notified according to California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 70850.5. If the remains are determined to be Native American,
the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section
15064.5(d) and (e) would be followed. Therefore, there will be no impacts as a result of the project.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the proposal:
a) Expose people or structure to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a
known fault?
6 √
A-22
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6 √
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 6 √
iv) Landslides? 2, 6, 8,
12 √
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?
6, 8, 12 √
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in the Uniform Building Code,
thus creating substantial risks to life or
property?
√
e) Have soils incapable or adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems, where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
6, 12 √
Comments:
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for
human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and
is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. According to the State of California Department of Conservation
website, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not one of the cities identified as being affected by Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zones as of May 1, 1999. However, the Seismic Zone Map released in March 25, 1999 show
earthquake induced landslides and liquefaction zones in portions of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The project
does not function as an entitlement that allows development on specific properties. However, land use changes that
may lead to subsequent consistency zone changes may allow for a less stringent development regulations on some
properties. More specifically, there are disparities between the mapping of the General Plan’s Hazard areas and the
Zoning Map’s Hazard boundaries, along with a history of inaccuracies as to hazard mapping raised by the residents
throughout the years. To address this issue, the City Geologist was tasked to review the General Plan’s mapped
Hazard areas to determine if it was consistent with existing topographic and geologic conditions that warranted such
zoning pursuant to the General Plan. Based on reviewing the Hazard areas throughout the City, the City Geologist
found that some boundary lines need to be adjusted as the Hazard designation included developed or developable
potions of parcels, which are not considered hazardous areas from a geologic standpoint. Additionally, applicable site-
specific environmental geological analysis as well as compliance with the Uniform Building Code are required prior to
any development over non-hazard designated areas to prevent or mitigate potential adverse impacts. The project
would not change conditions related to ground shaking, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse because of the lack of land use changes that could implicate these geologic conditions. Implementation of
existing laws, regulations, policies, and the following General Plan goals and policies would minimize seismic hazards
impacts to people and structures; erosion and loss of topsoil; development in areas with unstable or expansive soil;
use of septic tanks to a less than significant impact level. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Policy:
• Discourage the installation or extension of any infrastructure component into any area known to be hazardous
unless appropriate liability safeguards (such as geological hazard abatement districts) are in place and
adequate mitigation measures are incorporated into the design.
Conservation and Open Space Policy:
• Permit development within the Sea Cliff Erosion Area (Resource Management, RM 1) only if demonstrated,
through detailed geologic analysis, that the design and setbacks are adequate to ensure public safety and to
A-23
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
maintain physical, biologic, and scenic resources. Due to the sensitive nature of RM 1, this area is included
as an integral part of the Coastal Specific Plan.
• Require any development within the Resource Management Districts of high slopes (RM 3) and dormant
landslide area (RM 5) to perform at least one, and preferably two, independent engineering studies
concerning the geotechnical, soils, and other stability factors (including seismic considerations) affecting this
site following established geological industry standards.
• Prohibit activities that create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon-wall erosion, or potential for
landslide within Resource Management Districts containing hydrologic factors (RM 6).
• Seek funding for the identification, acquisition, preservation, and/or maintenance of historic places and
archaeological, paleontological, and geological sites.
Safety Element Goal:
• Protect life and property and reduce adverse economic, environmental, and social impacts resulting from any
geologic activity.
Safety Element Policy:
• Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations using best practices that include design and
construction standards based upon appropriate levels of risk and hazard.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
5, 15 √
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
5, 15 √
Comments:
As a member of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), the City collaborated with the SBCCOG
on the development of the ERAP. The City has conducted two inventories of community-wide greenhouse gas
emissions, one for the baseline year of 2005 (future emissions reductions will be measured against this year) and
another for 2007. Additionally, the SBCCOG calculated inventories for 2010 and 2012. The City’s community and
municipal GHG emissions decreased 8 percent from 2005 to 2012, falling from 289,289 Metric Ton(MT)CO 2 e in 2005
to 266,176 MTCO 2 e in 2012.
The Business-As-Usual forecasts estimate future emissions consumption patterns and emission factors with the
anticipated growth in the City. Anticipated growth is estimated using data from regional planning scenarios developed
by Southern California Association of Governments, the City, and other relevant sources. The City’s community and
municipal Business-As-Usual emissions in 2020 are estimated to be 262,363 MTCO 2 e, or approximately a 9.5%
decrease from the 2005 baseline emissions of 289,289 MTCO 2 e. By 2035, emissions are estimated to decrease by
approximately 9.4% from the baseline level to 262,083 MTCO 2 e. The City’s greenhouse gas inventory is summarized
in the table below.
CITYWIDE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY (MTCO 2 e)
Category
2005
Baselin
e
BAU
2020 2035
Adjusted BAU
2020
Adjusted
2035
Municipal Emissions 2,291 2,291 2,291 2,177 2,177
Community Emissions 287,025 260,072 259,792 229,481 190,653
Total Citywide Emissions 289,289 262,363 262,083 231,658 192,830
A-24
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 18
Reduction from 2005 Baseline __ -9.5% -9.4% -20% -33%
Numerous State measures, have been approved and/or adopted that will reduce GHG emissions in the City, once
implemented. These measures do not require additional City action, but are accounted for in the City’s emissions
forecasts to provide a more accurate picture of future emissions and the level of action needed to reduce emissions
to levels consistent with State recommendations. This forecast is called the Adjusted Business-As-Usual forecast.
Under the Adjusted Business-As-Usual scenario, City emissions were estimated to be 231,658 MTCO 2 e in 2020 and
192,830 MTCO 2 e in 2035. These emissions levels are 20% lower in 2020 than 2005 levels and 33% lower than 2005
levels by 2035. In 2020, the City is expected to meet the State-aligned reduction target through existing efforts and
legislation. In 2035, the City would need to reduce 44,270 MTCO 2 e emissions below the 2035 Adjusted Business-As-
Usual scenario to meet the State-aligned target. As a result, there will be no impacts as a result of the project.
The City has started implementing new reduction measures and/or augmenting existing efforts as outlined in the City’s
ERAP to meet the State-aligned target. Ongoing implementation of reduction measures provides additional reductions
that will further help mitigate climate change and provide additional coverage if State measures do not achieve their
anticipated reductions. The ERAP measures primarily focus on ways to reduce energy as energy usage accounted
for 42% of all City GHG emissions in 2012. The City is implementing energy efficiency strategies, as outlined in the
ERAP, to increase energy efficiency in both existing and new residential and commercial development, increase
energy efficiency through water efficiency, and decrease energy demand through reducing the urban heat island
effect. These City actions, combined with state measures, will lead to a 24% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and
54% reduction from 2005 levels by 2035. The City also includes the following General Plan goals and policies.
Therefore, there is no conflict with an applicable plan and no impacts as a result of the project.
Noise Element Policies:
• Encourage the state and federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise emissions.
• Encourage state law enforcement agencies to vigorously enforce all laws that call for the control and/or
reduction of noise emissions.
• Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining jurisdictions to study and/or control noise emissions.
Environmental Justice Policy:
• Implement policies and programs identified in the City’s Emissions Reduction Action Plan (ERAP) in order to
improve air quality in the City.
Safety Element Policies:
• Continue to work with South Bay Cities Council of Governments to develop an Energy Efficient Climate Action
Plan and a Climate Action Plan that would include strategies that consider the unique characteristics and
conditions of the City.
• Promote new energy efficient buildings and retrofit existing public facilities to be as energy efficient as feasible.
• Continue to manage the City transportation fleet’s fueling standards to achieve the greatest number of hybrid
and alternative fuel vehicles.
• Support development of publicly accessible alternative fuel infrastructure.
• Encourage utility companies to provide informational literature about energy conservation for the public at
City facilities.
• Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation routes and amenities to serve the travel needs of
residents and visitors. Where feasible, connect major destinations such as parks, open spaces, civic facilities,
retail, and recreation areas with pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation infrastructure; promote shared
roadways; and require new development and redevelopment projects to provide pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transportation amenities and streetscape improvements.
• Continue to support the preservation of natural resources and open spaces throughout the City.
• Continue to review development proposals for potential regional and local air quality impacts per the
California Environmental Quality Act, and if potential impacts are identified, require mitigation to reduce the
impact to a level that is less than significant, where technically and economically feasible.
• Continue to enforce Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations 2 building construction requirements and
apply standards that promote energy conservation.
• Continue to promote and encourage participation in the City’s Voluntary Green Building Construction
Program and award participating developers with a streamlined entitlement process and up to 50% rebate
on permitting fees.
• Continue to implement the required components of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and continue
to work with Los Angeles County on annual updates to the CMP.3
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A-25
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous material?
√
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
√
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of and existing or
proposed school?
1
√
d) Be located on a site, which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
√
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
√
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
√
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
1 √
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?
1, 13 √
Comments:
a)-c) Implementation of the project would guide future development in the City in a manner that could result in the
public’s exposure to hazardous materials from increased transport, use, or accidental release of hazardous materials.
Compliance with existing federal and state regulations and implementation of the following General Plan goals and
policies would reduce risks of accidents associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
2 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also titled the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, was created and is periodically updated by the California Building Standards Commission in response to a
legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption.
3 A CMP was enacted by the State Legislature to improve traffic congestion in California’s urban areas. In accordance with the
state statute, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority adopted and updated several CMPs. Cities are
required to continue adopting an annual self-certified conformance resolution for conformance with the CMP requirements.
A-26
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
to a less than significant level, therefore no additional mitigation is required. Additionally, the Municipal Code requires
compliance with construction hours, approved haul routes, geologic recommendations and other conditions to mitigate
or minimize any adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Element Policies:
• Discourage the installation or extension of any infrastructure component into any area known to be hazardous
unless appropriate liability safeguards (such as geological hazard abatement districts) are in place and
adequate mitigation measures are incorporated into the design.
Conservation and Open Space Policies
• Based on current information from state and federal agencies, the City should periodically publish a list of
toxic chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides that are determined to be damaging to the
environment, with particular concern for the marine environment. This list should be distributed to all
applicants for business licenses in the City. Additionally, the City should make efforts (including brochures,
pamphlets, website, and local community television) to continually inform and educate all residents and
business operators about the impact of chemicals such as fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides on the
environment, and to encourage responsible use and disposal of such materials.
Environmental Justice Element Goal:
• Protect the environment in order to reduce environmental hazards in the community.
Safety Element Policies:
• Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations using best practices that include design and
construction standards based upon appropriate levels of risk and hazard.
d) The Point Vicente Interpretive Center is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. This is a formerly used defense site where a Nike missile system was located.
There was lead contaminated soil on the site that was remediated in 2003. There is on-going recurring review and site
inspection every 5 years. This area is now a public park with a whale watching area, picnic tables, benches, and is
home to the Point Vicente Interpretive Center with exhibits and a banquet room often rented for private events. As this
area is already developed, there will be no impact caused by the project.
e)-f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and therefore, there
will be no impact caused by the project.
g) The City is relatively built out with limited developable vacant parcels in various locations throughout the City. Since
there is no concentration of vacant parcels in a single area and most are located within existing residential tracts, the
future development of these parcels would not impair the implementation of or interfere with existing emergency plans.
Therefore, there will be no impact caused by the proposed project.
h) Wildland fires are uncontrolled, non-structure fires other than prescribed fires that occur in the wildland area. They
are often considered beneficial to wildlands, as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and
reproduction. Heat waves, droughts, and cyclical climate changes such as increased vegetation due to heavy rainy
seasons such as with El Niño can dramatically increase the risk and alter the behavior of wildfires. Development in
some localities has extended into canyon areas and in some cases has reduced the fire hazard by removing the
vegetation. However, development has also introduced the human element into more outlying locations, sometimes
upslope from the fuel, thus increasing the fire hazard. The causes of wildland fires are numerous and include lightning,
human carelessness, arson, and utility sparks either by transformer failure or wildlife shorting live lines. Nine out of
ten wildfires are reportedly caused by some human interaction. Of all the fires recorded on the Peninsula, only 1 was
caused by natural events such as lightning. The project does not create new lots, the proposed land use amendments
do not create higher density uses, and only existing infill vacant lots will be developed in the future. With the
implementation of the existing federal and state regulations and the following General Plan goals and policies, the
exposure to people and structures to wildfires will be less than significant. Therefore, no additional mitigation is
required.
Conservation and Open Space Policies:
• Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state in all existing and proposed
developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies, and encourage the re-
A-27
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
establishment of appropriate native plants, especially fire retardant natives such as saltbrush, near fuel
modification setback areas.
Safety Element Goal:
• Provide for the protection of the public through effective law enforcement and fire protection programs and
volunteer programs such as Neighborhood Watch and the Community Emergency Response Team.
Safety Element Policies:
• Promote education and safety awareness pertaining to all hazards that affect Rancho Palos Verdes residents
and adjacent communities.
• Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations using best practices that include design and
construction standards based upon appropriate levels of risk and hazard.
• Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure law enforcement and fire protection mutual
aid in emergency situations.
• Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities with
adequate back-up throughout all areas of the City.
• Continue to cooperate with fire protection agencies in utilizing public facilities for water and refueling location.
• Develop and implement stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential
in coordination with fire protection agencies.
• Implement reasonable and consistent house numbering and street naming systems.
• Coordinate with the Fire Department to provide adequate emergency access to all streets, including the end
points of cul-de-sacs, and along the sides of structures.
• Ensure the availability of paramedic rescue and fire suppression services to all areas of the City.
• Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and
healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency
communications facilities or identify construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these
facilities are located in flood hazard zones.
• Establish cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood, fire, and
climate change protection.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the proposal:
a) Violate any water quality standard or
wastewater discharge requirements? 8 √
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?
1, 8 √
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, in a manner, which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site?
1, 10 √
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas including
through the alteration of the course of
a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on or off site?
1, 10 √
A-28
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
1 √
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?
11 √
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? 11 √
Comments:
Implementation of the project would provide for future development that could alter existing stormwater runoff and
associated pollutants. However, the potential for stormwater flows to affect water quality would be controlled through
implementation of Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 (Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution), which includes the City’s
Low Impact Development Ordinance (Municipal Code 13.10.065). Existing areas of future development would
minimally affect groundwater recharge because existing areas of open space will be preserved and permeable areas
are required (Municipal Code 17.02). Drainage review is required for all future development in the City. The properties
within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes are exempted from Flood Hazard Maps due to its topographic nature. This
action was initiated and accomplished by the County of Los Angeles prior to 1984 and this amendment will not affect
the exemption. Regardless, implementation of the following General Plan policies and enforcement of existing grading
(Municipal Code 17.76.040), erosion (Municipal Code 13.10 Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control), and
floodplain (Municipal Code 15.42 Floodplain Management) regulations would result in less than significant impact.
Therefore, no additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Element Goal:
• Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that there are adequate storm drains, water systems,
and sewer systems to serve the residents.
Circulation Element Policies:
• Encourage the retention of all remaining natural watercourses in their natural state.
• Require developers to install and develop a mechanism for ongoing maintenance of necessary flood control
devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazards induced by proposed upstream developments.
• Require that all flood control/natural water source interfaces and systems minimize erosion.
• Promote compliance with regulations controlling pollution impacts generated by development runoff.
• Promote compliance with regulations controlling discharge of wastewater into the ocean.
Conservation and Open Space Element Policies:
• Stringently regulate irrigation, natural drainage, and other water-related considerations in new developments
and existing uses affecting existing or potential slide areas.
• Prohibit activities that create excessive silt, pollutant runoff, increase canyon-wall erosion, or potential for
landslide within Resource Management Districts containing hydrologic factors (RM 6).
• Make every effort to preserve or restore natural hydrology when projects impact canyons or other natural
drainage areas when such efforts do not conflict with public safety.
Safety Element Policies:
A-29
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 23
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Avoid or minimize the risks of flooding to new development.
• Evaluate whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identify construction
methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones.
• Maintain the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during flooding.
• Locate, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and
healthcare facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency
communications facilities or identify construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these
facilities are located in flood hazard zones.
• Establish cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood, fire, and
climate change protection.
i) j) There are no dams and levees in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Given that there are no rivers, there is no
potential exposure to seiche. Additionally, all available buildable vacant areas are located significantly above sea level,
preventing exposure to tsunamis. As evidenced in the City’s zoning map, areas with potential susceptibility to mudflow,
such as Open Space Hazard zones do not permit new residential construction. Therefore, there will be no impact.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Physically divide an established
community? 1, 2 √
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal plan, or zoning
ordinance?
1, 2, 3, 8 √
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
1, 4 √
Comments:
a) The project will have no impact to the established community since it simply takes into account the built-out scenario
of the City. The existing developable vacant lots are located within existing residential tracts, peppered throughout the
City. All future development will follow established land use patterns, applicable development standards and guidelines
based on the designated zoning district (Municipal Code Title 17), subject to Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines
established by the City for residential development to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood, and the following
General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, there will be no impact.
Circulation Element Policy:
• Review any proposed development, major new resource uses, or significant changes to resource systems
for impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and community.
Land Use Policies:
Compatibility of Adjacent Land Use Areas
• Work in conjunction with neighboring jurisdictions when development plans are submitted to the City or other
jurisdictions that generate impacts on the City across jurisdictional lines.
Residential
• Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other
design amenities to meet the City’s standards.
• Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all residential neighborhoods so as to maintain
local standards of housing quality and design.
• Maintain and update the Development Code with quality standards, being flexible to new technology and
techniques of building.
A-30
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Require all developments that include open space held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to
protect these areas from further development and to establish mechanisms enforceable by the City to ensure
continued maintenance.
• Encourage energy and water conservation in housing design.
• Require that development reasonably protects corridor-related views.
• Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.
• Enforce height controls to reasonably minimize view obstructions.
• Encourage all development to preserve neighboring site privacy.
• Require all new housing and significant improvements to existing housing to consider neighborhood
compatibility.
Commercial
• Place commercial and institutional developments under the same building orientation controls as residential
developments in regard to topographic and climatic design factors.
• Require that commercial and institutional activity buffer and mitigate negative impacts on adjoining residential
areas.
• Require commercial and institutional development to be designed to maximize pedestrian safety.
• Require that scenic view preservation by commercial and institutional activities be taken into account not only
in the physical design of structures and signs, but also in night lighting of exterior grounds.
• Require commercial and institutional sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the
view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.
• Specify the mix of standard and compact parking spaces for new development to ensure that all parking
requirements are met.
• Require adequate screening or buffering techniques for all new and existing commercial activities in order to
minimize odors, light, and noise pollution.
Institutional (Public, Educational, and Religious)
• Require any new schools and encourage existing schools to provide adequate on-site parking and
automobile access.
• Incorporate the Coast Guard Station into Lower Point Vicente Park when it is deactivated.
• Coordinate with the school district on cross-jurisdictional issues.
• Encourage implementation of plans for pedestrian and bicycling networks linking residential areas with
schools for the safety of children.
• Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites.
• Encourage mitigation of the adverse aesthetic impacts of utility facilities.
• Encourage the unification of the Eastview students into the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
Recreational
• Encourage local groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of recreation facilities.
Agricultural
• Encourage preservation of agricultural activities.
Open Space Preservation
• All land with an Open Space Preservation Land Use Designation shall be used in compliance with the City’s
Natural Community Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).
b) The proposed General Plan Update includes modifications to the Hazard boundary line, or a land use change for
portions of 699 individual properties. The Hazard areas will be more accurate, limited to hillsides, areas of known
active or historical landslides and areas where preservation of the topography was necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare. The land use designation name for the “Hazard” areas will be changed to “Open-Space
Hillside” for all properties except those within the Coastal Bluffs, Landslide Moratorium Area, and other known landslide
areas.
Additional land use changes are proposed to correct ambiguities between the General Plan Land Use Map and the
Zoning Map. The primary reason for the differences is that the 1975 General Plan Land Use Map have colored ‘blobs’
that represent areas with different land uses while the 2012 Zoning Map includes individual parcels and is more
A-31
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
accurate due to the use of more advanced technology to create the map. As such, the General Plan Land Use Map
will include minor corrections to better represent the land use areas as intended.
Additional land use changes are proposed for consistency with the existing uses of the site. More specifically, existing
parks with recreational amenities and improvements have inconsistent land use designations of Residential,
Agricultural, Commercial and Hazard. Land use designation changes to Recreational-Passive is proposed for these
park properties for consistency with the current use of the sites. With these changes to the land use designations,
there are no impacts as a result of the proposed General Plan Update.
c) In 1996, the City entered into a Planning Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Planning) subarea plan that would
encompass the entire City. The purpose of the NCCP is to identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural
wildlife diversity, while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth. Subsequently, in 2004, the
City adopted a Palos Verdes Peninsula (PVP) Subarea NCCP Plan that identified an approximate 1,400-acre habitat
preserve. In 2005 and 2009, the City completed land acquisitions necessary for the creation of the 1,400 acre Preserve
identified in the 2004 NCCP. The City’s NCCP requires the City to “amend relevant sections of the RPV General Plan
to identify all Preserve lands and their attendant land use restrictions”. Since the existing General Plan Land Use Map
does not have a land use classification for “Preserve”, a new land use designation of “Open Space Preservation” will
be created to classify the preserve areas identified in the 2004 PVP NCCP/HCP Plan. The NCCP/HCP is being
updated by the City at this time. The new “Open Space Preservation” will only apply to City-owned properties and one
parcel owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. Therefore, there are no impacts as a result of the project.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of future value to the region and the
residents of the State?
1 √
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?
1, 8 √
Comments:
Three exploratory wells were drilled in what is now Rancho Palos Verdes. The Lesco Oil Corporation well was drilled
in June 1947 just south of what is now 25th Street, and the McVicar well, in the vicinity of what is now the Trump
National Golf Club, was drilled in 1951. All of these wells were drilled along the coast, where the Miocene layer is
deepest. According to the logs filed with the State Division of Oil and Gas, nothing was found in these wells. From
1948 to 1958, the land in Rancho Palos Verdes was quarried for basalt, diatomaceous earth, and Palos Verdes stone.
The only valuable material known to exist in Rancho Palos Verdes that has not at one time or another been
commercially extracted is basalt, which reportedly exists at the main branches of Agua Amarga Canyon. These
quarries were operated for nearly 10 years, closing their operation in 1958. Considering the rather low market value
of the various mineral resources in Rancho Palos Verdes relative to the land’s value as residential or commercial real
estate, it is highly unlikely that landowners of the remaining vacant parcels would wish to utilize the land for mining or
quarrying operations. Given the community’s goal of maintaining a rural atmosphere, conflicts which might otherwise
arise relative to desired land use are not likely to occur. Therefore, there will be no impacts to mineral resources as a
result of the proposed project.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
A-32
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local General Plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
1, 9 √
b) Exposure of persons to, or generation
of, excessive groundbourne vibration
or groundbourne noise levels?
1, 9 √
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
1, 9 √
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1, 9 √
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?
√
Comments:
The General Plan calls for a slight population increase though General Plan build-out. The bulk of this increase will be
reflected in low-density residential development and therefore would not require the extensive and ongoing use of
heavy trucks that commercial, industrial, or other land uses might induce. Heavy trucks are a major contributor to
increased noise levels in the environment.
In addition to the low-density residential growth that will continue to characterize Rancho Palos Verdes’ future
development, the State of California has set noise standards for motor vehicles. Since the state regulates noise
emissions from motor vehicles, a major source of noise in Rancho Palos Verdes, the City is preempted from passing
any laws or ordinances that call for stricter regulations or enforcement related to vehicle noise emissions. For this
reason, the City is highly dependent on the state for control and enforcement in this area. Therefore, the City
encourages the State Legislature and the state law enforcement agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, to
actively pursue legislation to reduce and control vehicle noise emissions and to vigorously enforce all such laws.
After General Plan build-out, future traffic noise levels along the major arterials and collector roads within the City
would add 0.2 to 0.7 dBA CNEL to corresponding existing traffic noise levels along arterials and major collector roads
within the City. This range of traffic noise level change is not considered significant and thus no significant growth-
related traffic noise impacts would occur on existing uses throughout the City.
Based on the Land Use Element and Circulation Element of the General Plan, it is anticipated that development would
occur on parcels along the City’s major arterial roadways before General Plan build-out in 2040. To reduce potential
noise impacts to these vacant parcels, the Noise Element includes the following goals and policies to reduce noise
impacts and additional mitigation measures are listed below.
Noise Element Goal:
• Through proper land use planning and regulations, to provide for a quiet and serene residential community.
Noise Element Policies:
Transportation Noise
A-33
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Encourage through traffic to existing arterials and collectors so that local roads are not used as by-passes or
shortcuts, in order to minimize noise.
• Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to and from construction sites to minimize noise.
• Encourage the state and federal governments to actively control and reduce vehicle noise emissions.
• Encourage state law enforcement agencies to vigorously enforce all laws that call for the control and/or reduction
of noise emissions.
Community Noise
• Develop an ordinance to control noise commensurate with local ambiance.
• Maintain current and up-to-date information on noise control measures, on both fixed-point and vehicular
noise sources.
• Coordinate with all public agencies, especially our adjoining jurisdictions to study and/or control noise emissions.
Land Use Planning and Noise Control
• Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., with land strip buffers, landscaping, and site design.
• Regulate land use so that there is a minimal degree of noise impact on adjacent land uses.
• Require strict noise attenuation measures where appropriate.
• Review noise attenuation measures applicable to home, apartment, and office building construction, make
appropriate proposals for the City zoning ordinance, and make appropriate recommendations for modifying the
Los Angeles County Building Code as it applies to the City.
• Require the minimization of noise emissions from commercial activities by screening and buffering techniques.
While construction of future development will be in compliance with the Noise Element goals and policies as well as
applicable Municipal Code requirements, there may continue to be a potential for significant impact. To reduce
construction-related noise levels to less than significant, the following mitigation measures would be required.
Mitigation Measures
N-1: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and unpaved disturbed areas
shall be continuously stabilized or covered when material is not being added to or removed from the pile.
N-2: Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors
nearest the project site. Non-noise producing equipment, such as trailers, may be located as a sound barrier
between the stationary noise sources and sensitive receptors.
N-3: Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise
sources and noise-sensitive receptors during all project construction.
N-4: Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The temporary construction barriers can use particle boards or gypsum
boards, with no gaps or holes in them that could potentially deteriorate the noise attenuation effect.
N-5: Unless safety provisions require otherwise, adjust all audible back-up alarms at the lowest volume appropriate
for safety purposes.
N-6: Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply wood or rubber liners to metal bin impact surfaces) to line or cover
hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
N-7: When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to minimize off-site
transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between
staging activities and neighboring properties.
N-8: Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or portable barriers or encloses to reduce operating noise of noise
producing equipment, such as jackhammers and pavement breakers.
e), f) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not contain, border on, or is in close proximity of any airports so as to
cause exposure to noise levels resulting from an airport or a private air strip. Therefore, there will be no impact caused
by the project.
A-34
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly or indirectly (e.g. through
projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure)?
1 √
b) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? 1 √
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
1 √
Comments:
a) The General Plan Update contemplates a slight population increase though General Plan build-out. The bulk of this
increase will be reflected in low density residential development. The City’s adopted 2013-2021 Housing Element
contemplates modest gains in population growth projections. More specifically, the Southern California Association of
Governments 2012 Regional Transportation Plan Forecast shows an increase of 100 persons and 100 households
over a period of 12 years (between 2008 and 2020). Taking into account the average gain of 8 persons per year, from
the current year of 2015, the population is projected to increase by approximately 40 persons and 40 households by
year 2020. With the current population at 41,643, this is less than a 1% increase for the next 5 years. Given the minimal
increase in the projected population growth, there will be no impacts as a result of the proposed General Plan Update.
b)-c) The General Plan’s build-out scenario takes into account the development of all remaining developable parcels
in the City, thereby creating more units. It does not involve displacing or replacing any existing housing, especially
affordable housing. Therefore, there will be no impacts as a result of the projects.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provisions of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i) Fire protection? 1, 2 √
ii) Police protection? 1, 2 √
iii) Schools? 1, 2 √
iv) Parks? 1, 2 √
v) Other public facilities? 1, 2 √
Comments:
The General Plan Update contemplates a slight population increase though General Plan build-out. The bulk of this
increase will be reflected in low density residential development. These remaining vacant lots are scattered within
existing residential tracts in the City. Given the limited number of vacant lots within established residential tracts and
a less than 1% increase in the population over the next 5 years, the impacts to public services would be nominal and
therefore will result in less than significant impacts. No mitigation required.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A-35
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 29
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
1, 2 √
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
1, 2 √
Comments:
The General Plan Update contemplates a slight population increase though General Plan build-out. The bulk of this
increase will be reflected in low density residential development. These remaining vacant lots are scattered within
existing residential tracts in the City. Given the limited number of vacant lots within established residential tracts and
a less than 1% increase in the population over the next 5 years, the impacts to recreation would be nominal. The
General Plan includes the following goals and policies to reduce impacts to recreational facilities. Therefore, the project
will result in less than significant impacts. No additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Element Policies:
• Implement the Trails Network Plan to meet the recreational needs of the community while maintaining the
unique character of the Peninsula.
Conservation and Open Space Policies:
• Provide appropriate access to public land.
• Seek Los Angeles County, state, federal, and private funds to acquire, improve, and maintain recreational lands.
• Encourage institutions to provide public use of its recreation facilities.
• Encourage building additional parks and playing fields, where appropriate, for multiple uses by various
recreational groups.
Environmental Justice Element Policies:
• Encourage and provide facilities and resources for recreational, social, cultural, and educational programs for
residences.
• Design recreational facilities including parks and trails for the use of older adults in the City with limited mobility.
• Continue to provide a variety of active and passive parks and recreational activities accessible to all
residents.
Land Use Element Goal:
• Endeavor to provide, develop, and maintain recreational facilities and programs of various types for a variety
of activities.
• Land Use Element Policy:
• Encourage local groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of recreation facilities.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
1, 8 √
A-36
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 30
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 result in substantial safety risks?
√
d) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment?
√
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? 1 √
f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
1, 8 √
A-37
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 31
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
Given that the proposed increase in population and housing as a result of the General Plan Update’s build out scenario
is relatively minor with a projection of approximately 40 persons and 40 households by year 2020, along with most
vacant lots located within established residential tracts scattered throughout the City, there will be no substantial
adverse impacts to transportation and traffic levels, patterns, uses, access, etc. The housing unit increase will be site-
specific and as with all construction, any proposed project resulting from the proposed amendment will be reviewed
in regards to design and adequate parking capacity on-site. Additionally, the following General Plan goals and policies
will apply and applicable site-specific traffic analysis will be reviewed prior to future construction for any potential
impacts. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts to transportation/traffic as a result of the project and no
additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Goals:
• Provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and comprehensive system of roads and trails, and coordinate them
with other jurisdictions and agencies.
• Facilitate mobility of residents through an adequate public transportation system with consideration of the
City’s demographics.
• Where appropriate, use complete street concepts to integrate the needs of all users of the roadway system
consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.
Circulation Policies:
• Balance traffic impacts to residential neighborhoods with efficient traffic flow and public safety by
implementing appropriate traffic-calming measures.
• Require any new developments or redevelopment to provide streets wide enough to support the City’s future
traffic needs and to address potential impacts to nearby intersections resulting from such developments.
• Encourage synchronization and coordination of traffic signals along arterials.
• Ensure that future residential developments provide direct access to roadways other than arterials.
• Work with other Peninsula cities and/or regional agencies to improve public transportation on the Peninsula
and to provide access to other destinations in the region.
• Implement the Trails Network Plan to meet the recreational needs of the community while maintaining the
unique character of the Peninsula.
• Coordinate and cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop trail networks.
• Prohibit motorized vehicles from using paths and trails, except for disabled access and emergency or
maintenance vehicles.
• Require that all new developments, where appropriate, establish paths and trails.
• Seek funding for acquisition, development, and maintenance of trails.
• Implement trails on existing rights-of-way and easements in accordance with the Trails Network Plan. Where
applicable, consideration should be given to adding crosswalk pushbuttons at proper equestrian height levels
where equestrian trails traverse signalized intersections.
• Include safety measures, such as the separation of uses, fences, and signage, in the design and construction
of paths and trails.
• Encourage the safe and courteous use of trails by educating users as appropriate.
• Provide appropriate public access to the City shoreline.
• Explore options to develop a City equestrian park.
• Require adequate off-street parking for all existing and future development.
• Develop appropriate ordinances to regulate street parking, parking on narrow residential streets, and parking
of recreational, commercial, and/or oversized vehicles.
• Coordinate and cooperate with school districts, and parent and community groups to provide safe and
proximate access to schools.
• Require detailed analysis for all proposals to convert local public roads into private streets or retain new local
roads as private property. Conditions for establishing private streets should include:
o The road is a truly local road and is not needed as a collector or arterial road.
o Provisions are made to guarantee the future upkeep of the streets.
o Dedication of non-vehicular easements may be required.
• Reflect the elements of the City’s Trails Network Plan in appropriate City processes and procedures. For
each trail category, the City’s action should include the following:
o Category I (Definition: These trails are defined as existing, dedicated trails that meet the City’s trail
standards. Inspect and maintain all existing trails on a regular basis.
A-38
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 32
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
o Category II (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail segments that cross
undeveloped, privately owned land that is zoned as being developable). These trails and trail segments
should be implemented when the respective parcels of land are developed. Consider these trails, or
alternate approaches to provide equivalent access, in all new developments.
o Category III (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail segments that are located
on existing trail easements, City property, or street rights-of-way, and that require implementation or
improvements). Require consideration by the City Department of Public Works or the Department of
Recreation and Parks of these trails or alternate approaches to provide access prior to bid solicitation
for projects.
o Category IV (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails and trail segments that cross privately
owned land designated as Open Space or Open Space Hazard, or on land owned by a public utility or
public agency). These trails and trail segments involve the acquisition of easements and may require
implementation or improvements. Implement these trails by soliciting voluntary offers to dedicate
easements. Where appropriate, the City should seek the dedication of an easement as a mitigation
measure for significant property improvements.
o Category V (Definition: These trails are defined as proposed trails that would primarily benefit
neighborhood residents and that cross privately owned land). Implement these trails only upon initiation
by affected property owners or community groups. The City shall provide appropriate support to the
property owners offering easements.
• If City land is sold, record any appropriate public access easement, restriction, reservation, and/or right-of-
way.
• Provide descriptions of relevant trails in the Trails Network Plan to potential applicants when inquiries for
development are first made.
• Design and construct new trails in accordance with the Trails Network Plan and other national, state, and
local standards, where appropriate.
• When constructing paths and trails, require the use of construction techniques that minimize the impact on
the environment.
• Align trails to maximize access to scenic resources, where appropriate.
• Include the bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan or alternate approaches to provide access, prior to
approval of proposals for land development through a subdivision of land application and/or conditional use
permit application.
• Require consideration of the inclusion of bikeways in the Conceptual Bikeways Plan or alternate approaches
to provide access during project design for all City Department of Public Works or Department of Recreation
and Parks projects.
Environmental Justice Policy:
• Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation including biking and walking.
Safety Element Policy:
• Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation routes and amenities to serve the travel needs of
residents and visitors. Where feasible, connect major destinations such as parks, open spaces, civic facilities,
retail, and recreation areas with pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation infrastructure; promote shared
roadways; and require new development and redevelopment projects to provide pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transportation amenities and streetscape improvements.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
√
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment √
A-39
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 33
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
√
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
√
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
√
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal
needs?
√
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statures and regulations related to
solid waste?
√
Comments: The General Plan Update contemplates a slight population increase though General Plan build-out. The
bulk of this increase will be reflected in low density residential development. These remaining vacant lots are scattered
within existing residential tracts in the City. Given the limited number of vacant lots and a less than 1% increase in the
population over the next 5 years (by 2020), compliance with federal, state, and the following General Plan goals and
policies, the impacts to utilities and service systems would be nominal. Therefore, there will be less than significant
impact as a result of the project and no additional mitigation is required.
Circulation Goal:
• Work with other jurisdictions and agencies to ensure that there are adequate storm drains, water systems,
and sewer systems to serve the residents.
Circulation Policies:
• Ensure that the resource companies provide all areas of the City with adequate service, including adequate
backup and growth capabilities.
• Encourage the use of alternative water and energy generation sources.
• Promote, practice, and encourage workable energy and water conservation techniques.
• Review any proposed development, major new resource uses, or significant changes to resource systems
for impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and community.
• Encourage the use of recycled/reclaimed water in the irrigation of large open space areas, including golf
courses, open space areas owned by homeowners’ associations, and City parks and ballfields.
• Encourage the California Water Company to complete a conservation plan that provides for the availability
of a recycled water system in the City.
• Underground all new power lines and communications cables and implement programs to place existing lines
and cables underground, where feasible.
• Encourage the establishment of undergrounding assessment districts by homeowners in areas of existing
overhead lines.
• Investigate funding sources to be used in local undergrounding programs for areas of existing overhead lines.
Conservation and Open Space Policies;
A-40
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 34
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Stringently regulate irrigation, natural drainage, and other water-related considerations in new developments
and existing uses affecting existing or potential slide areas.
Safety Element Policies:
• Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities with
adequate back-up throughout all areas of the City.
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
4 √
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
1 √
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
1 √
Comments:
a) In 1996, the City entered into a Planning Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to develop an NCCP (Natural Communities Conservation Planning) subarea plan that would
encompass the entire City. In 2004, the City adopted a Palos Verdes Peninsula (PVP) Subarea NCCP/HCP Plan that
identified an approximate 1,400-acre habitat preserve. In 2005 and 2009, the City completed land acquisitions
necessary for the creation of the 1,400 acre Preserve identified in the 2004 NCCP/HCP. The City is currently updating
the HCCP/HCP Plan. Since the existing General Plan Land Use Map does not have a land use classification for
“Preserve”, a new land use designation of “Open Space Preserve” will be created to classify the preserve areas
identified in the 2004 PVP NCCP Plan. The new “Open Space Preserve” only applies to City-owned properties and one
parcel owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy. Therefore, there are no impacts as a result of the project.
b)-c) The proposed General Plan Update is based on a future build out of the remaining vacant lots scattered within
established low density residential tracts within the City, and maintenance of the existing development patterns of the
community. The proposed project is a text update to the existing General Plan, its goals and policies along with a
series of land use changes which will be reflected in the updated General Plan Land Use Map. As repeated in previous
sections, the number of remaining lots are minimal and will consist of infill development within existing residential
neighborhoods. Additionally, the projected population growth is less than 1% over the next 5 years. Furthermore, site
specific analysis will be required prior to the development of any vacant lot. As such, the project will not have
A-41
General Plan Update
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 35
Issues and Supporting Information
Sources
Sources Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
cumulatively considerable impacts and will have no significant adverse impacts to on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Comments: An EIR was certified with the original 1975 General Plan and a copy is available within the existing 1975
General Plan document (pages 253-261).
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: The earlier EIR is sectioned into broader categories: Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action, Any
Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the Proposal is Implemented, Mitigation Measures
Proposed to Minimize the Impact, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, the Relationship Between Local Short Term
Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity, Any Irreversible
Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented, and the Growth-
Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action. The EIR appeared to have answered all of the checklist items in more
generalized format, referring to sections of the General Plan document itself. The EIR states that the General Plan
document in itself is a mitigation measure as it proposes to protect and manage the natural environment of the City
and, through the environmental analysis of specific development proposals, it is intended that specific mitigation
measures would be required. Additionally, mitigation measures were often contained in policy statements of each
element within the General Plan.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Comments: None.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact
Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001
2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 2012 Zoning Map
3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report,
Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978
4 City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Map
5 ESA. Air Quality Technical Report. July 2017.
6 The Seismic Zone Map (3/25/99), Department of Conservation of the State of California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone (5/1/99)
7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map
8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
9 LSA. Noise and Vibration Technical Report. November 2017.
10 U.S. Geological Survey Map
11 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (Torrance & San Pedro Quadrangle: March 1, 2009)
12 FEMA. DFIRM Map. 2010
13 County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. 2009
14 ESA. Traffic Impact Analysis. August 2017.
15 ESA. Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. July 2017
A-42
Exhibit “B”
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Project: Amendment to the City’s General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map
Location: Citywide
Lead Agency: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...... …………………………………………………………………………………………………….2
Purpose...…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......2
Environmental Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………………2
Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements ............................................................................................ 2
II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 3
Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................................................................................... 3
Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures ......................................................................................... 3
Mitigation Monitoring Operations ................................................................................................................ 3
III. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist .................................................................................................... 5
IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table ........................................................................................................ 6
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 1
A-43
I. INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the amendment to the City’s General Plan and General Plan
Land Use Map.
The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency
that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant
environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or
avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project.
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the
project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid
impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or
monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are
implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as
amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA
(CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with
the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of
Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section
21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has
adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.
The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For
those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having
jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or
responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program."
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 2
A-44
II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of future projects including final design, pre-grading,
construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES
The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist
The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation
Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of
verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the
mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist.
Mitigation Monitoring Program Files
Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized,
and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Community Development
Compliance Verification
The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Director. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist
shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation
measure is completed.
MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS
The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure:
1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Community Development shall designate a party responsible
for monitoring of the mitigation measures.
2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Community Development shall provide to the party
responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the
mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information.
3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification
column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase,
unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Community Development with advice from Staff or another City department, is
responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined,
the Director of Community Development would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design,
construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 3
A-45
III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
INTRODUCTION
This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes on April 26, 2018. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study.
* Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative.
* Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented.
* Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation.
* Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has
been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 4
A-46
MITIGATION MEASURES
TYPE
TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
1. AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and
unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously
stabilized or covered when material is not being
added to or removed from the pile.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-2: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and
taken in areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and
to minimize visible emissions from crossing the
boundary line.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-3: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, construction vehicles
leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt,
mud, and dirt from being released or tracked off site.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-4: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, the Applicant’s
contractor shall be responsible for minimizing bulk
material or other debris from being tracked onto the
City’s public roadways, and if tracked, the Applicant’s
contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up the
impacted City’s public roadways.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-5: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, no trucks shall be
allowed to transport excavated material off-site
unless the trucks are maintained such that
no spillage can occur from holes or other openings in
cargo compartments, and loads are either: covered
with tarps; wetted and loaded such that the material
does not touch the front, back, or sides of the cargo
compartment at any point less than 6” from the top
and that no point of the load extends above the top
of the cargo compartment.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or
Building Permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to
the Director of Community Development’s
Construction Prior to issuance of any
grading or building permits
Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 5
A-47
MITIGATION MEASURES
TYPE
TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
satisfaction that dust generated by grading activities
shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403 and
the City Municipal Code requirements that require
regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-7: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, all excavating and
grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as
instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. To assure
compliance with this measure, grading activities are
subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
AQ-8: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, construction
equipment shall be kept in proper operating
condition, including proper engine tuning and
exhaust control systems.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
2. NOISE
N-1: During construction, including grading,
excavating, and land clearing, storage piles and
unpaved disturbed areas shall be continuously
stabilized or covered when material is not being
added to or removed from the pile.
Construction During construction Property Owner /
applicant.
Community
Development
Department
N-2: Place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive
receptors nearest the project site. Non-noise
producing equipment, such as trailers, may be
located as a sound barrier between the stationary
noise sources and sensitive receptors.
Construction Prior to and during
construction
Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
N-3: Locate equipment staging in areas that will
create the greatest distance between construction-
related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors
during all project construction.
Construction Prior to and during
construction
Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 6
A-48
MITIGATION MEASURES
TYPE
TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
N-4: Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The
temporary construction barriers can use particle
boards or gypsum boards, with no gaps or holes in
them that could potentially deteriorate the noise
attenuation effect.
Construction
Prior to construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
N-5: Unless safety provisions require otherwise,
adjust all audible back-up alarms at the lowest
volume appropriate for safety purposes.
Construction
During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
N-6: Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply
wood or rubber liners to metal bin impact surfaces)
to line or cover hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
Construction
During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
N-7: When feasible to do so, the construction
contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to
minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction
equipment. These areas shall be located to
maximize the distance between staging activities and
neighboring properties.
Construction
Prior to and during
construction
Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
N-8: Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or
portable barriers or encloses to reduce operating
noise of noise producing equipment, such as
jackhammers and pavement breakers.
Construction
During construction Property Owner /
Applicant
Community
Development
Department
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No. 2018-__ Exhibit B - Page 7
A-49
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 1 of 10
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING THE 2018 GENERAL
PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2002, the City Council initiated a comprehensive
update to the General Plan and formed a 15-member General Plan Update Steering
Committee to assist in the update process;
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee’s
recommendations, along with a General Plan Update Program, were presented to the
City Council. The City Council directed Staff to proceed with the following for future
review by the proposed Planning Commission and City Council: (1) Draft proposed
amendments to the General Plan Goals and Policies, as recommended by the General
Plan Update Steering Committee; (2) Update the factual information within the General
Plan; and (3) Propose improvements to the general format of the General Plan and the
mandatory elements to make the Plan more user friendly. The City Council also directed
Staff to obtain a consultant to assist with updating portions of the General Plan and
disbanded the General Plan Update Steering Committee;
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement
with three consulting firms to assist Staff with the update;
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission
held a joint workshop to kick off to the General Plan Update process;
WHEREAS, beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct
public hearings on the update of the General Plan document and the General Plan Land
Use Map;
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the draft of
the updated General Plan. Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that
were inadvertently left out and text amendments based on new statues were introduced by
Staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2015, the Planning Commission again
reviewed and accepted a complete draft of the updated General Plan and the General
Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, in late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General
Plan document and determined that certain text was legally insufficient and the technical
studies (Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be updated given the recent statutes.
Accordingly, the City contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who
completed the technical studies in 2017. The technical studies were reviewed and
accepted by the Planning Commission in 2017;
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and a list-serve message was sent announcing the March 27th public
B-1
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 2 of 10
hearing with the Planning Commission and the availability of the final draft of the
General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News and a list-serve message was sent announcing the April 26th
public hearing with the City Council and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was
circulated (30-day minimum) to public agencies, posted on the City’s website, and a
message was sent to the General Plan listserve subscribers;
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2018-12, recommending that the City Council approve the updated General Plan
and General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2018, a revised public notice with the corrected 6:00 p.m.
starting time for the April 26th public hearing was mailed to all appropriate agencies and
property owners affected by, and adjacent to, proposed land use changes;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 26, 2018,
in compliance with law, including compliance with the relevant provisions of the California
Government Code and Rancho Palos Verde Municipal Code, entertained the written and
oral report of staff, and took public testimony.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein.
Section 2: The updated General Plan includes comprehensive revisions to all
previous elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element,
which was adopted by the City Council, and certified by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development, in 2014. The updated General Plan contains
each of the remaining seven required elements under Government Code Section
65302, as follows:
A. Circulation Element, presenting a plan to ensure that utilities and transportation,
including public transportation services, are constantly available to permit orderly
growth and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
B. Conservation and Open Space Element, combined two elements, providing an
evaluation of the basic ecological and environmental units dealing with the
natural factors of land, climate, hydrology, biotic resources, geotechnical factors,
and the systematic relationships that must exist among them.
C. Environmental Justice Element, addressing environmental justice through the
development of a comprehensive set of goals and policies, consistent with State
requirements, to encourage greater public participation and reduce
environmental hazards to target populations in the City.
B-2
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 3 of 10
D. Land Use Element, describing the distribution and location of land uses,
population density, and building intensity.
E. Noise Element, identifying existing and potential future sources of noise within
the community, and strategies to limit the exposure of the community to
excessive noise levels.
F. Safety Element, identifying hazards; assessing vulnerability; analyzing risk; and
containing goals, policies, and objectives to reduce risk and prevent loss from
future natural hazard events within the City.
Section 3: The updated General Plan also addresses two additional topics that
are of particular importance to the community, as allowed by Government Code section
65303, as follows:
A. Fiscal Element, an optional element, establishing the policy framework
necessary to guide all of the City’s short- and long-term fiscal decisions.
B. Visual Resources Element, an optional element, providing guidance through the
establishment of goals and policies to ensure the continued preservation,
restoration, and enhancement of significant visual resources within the City.
Section 4: The updated General Plan includes the following revisions based
on the current development of the City, current economic and demographic data, City
Council-approved land use decisions, and statutory requirements.
A. Circulation Element (renames the existing Infrastructure Element).
1) Deletes infrastructure-related narrative at the beginning and adds a new
introductory section describing the role and purpose of the element.
2) Deletes outdated descriptions of improvements to freeways outside of the
City limits.
3) Relocates the air quality discussion to the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and
Climate Change discussions under the Safety Element.
4) Updates discussions related to arterial, collector, and local streets; level of
service and a list of streets operating at unacceptable levels of service; and
future conditions based on the 2017 Traffic Study.
5) Adds a discussion on the effects the Portuguese Bend Landslide has on the
City’s circulation system.
6) Relocates the vehicle noise discussion to the Noise Element.
7) Updates public transportation information.
8) Adds airport and seaport discussion, as required per Gov. Code §65302(b).
9) Updates the path and trail network discussion.
10) Updates infrastructure, resource (water, natural gas, and electricity),
disposal/recovery systems (sewer systems, solid waste, flood control and
storm drain systems), communications systems discussions based on
B-3
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 4 of 10
completed projects and improved technology.
11) Adds military airport and port discussion as required per Gov. Code
§65302(b).
B. Conservation and Open Space Element (renames the existing Natural
Environment Element).
1) Adds an introductory section.
2) Relocates the discussion on climate and air quality to the Safety Element as
part of the updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change
discussion.
3) Updates topography, geologic conditions, geotechnical factors, and landslide
information.
4) Adds a coastal discussion consistent with the 1978 Local Coastal Program.
5) Updates mineral resources and hydrology discussions.
6) Adds a discussion on the City’s Natural Community Conservation Plan and
Habitat Conservation Plan (NNCP/HCP).
7) Updates ocean resources management discussion.
8) Updates open space and recreational resources, including descriptions of all
City-owned and County-owned public parks and facilities in the City.
9) Updates school district facilities discussion.
10) Adds descriptions of the City’s Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
11) Adds discussion related to City-acquired private property.
12) Adds discussion on the City’s Parks Master Plan.
13) Adds discussion for military support and tribal resources as required per Gov.
Code §65302(d) and §65560.
14) Deletes text on agriculture as the single zoned area is now obsolete.
15) Adds text on the grove of trees planted at Ryan Park and Malaga Cove
Library under Historical Resources based on the Rancho de Los Palos
Verdes Historical Society and Museum’s list of dedicated historical sites on
the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
C. Environmental Justice Element (replaces the Social Services Element).
1) Replaces the social services introduction with the definition, purpose, and
background of Environmental Justice.
2) Adds new goals and policies. No changes were made to the Committee’s
amended Social Service Goals and Policies as they are now placed under this
Element.
3) Deletes social and cultural development discussion.
4) Updates the existing Senior Services discussion under a new heading named
Setting.
5) Adds text related to public input and participation and environmental and health
risks (promotion of public facilities, safe and sanitary homes, and healthy food
access and physical activity).
6) Adds text related to special events, PVIC, Reach program, and dog parks.
B-4
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 5 of 10
D. Fiscal Element.
1) Replaces the existing introductory narrative with simply the purpose and
layout of the Fiscal Element.
2) Replaces the existing text as it reflects specific information about the fiscal
state in 1975 with less specific text to avoid being outdated soon after
adoption, while providing a snapshot in time, and to provide an understanding
of what’s happening in the City. As with all elements, Staff intends to update
individual elements periodically.
E. Land Use Element (renames the existing Urban Environment Element).
1) Expands the introduction section to include the purpose and content of the
land use element.
2) Adds a text on the new land use designations, such as Open Space Hillside
and Open Space Preservation.
3) Adds discussion on Greenways as required per Gov. Code §65302(a).
4) Updates acreage of land use types.
5) Adds a discussion on primary and secondary urban activity areas.
6) Updates the residential density section to include intensity as required per
Gov. Code §65302(a).
7) Updates the commercial section to include density and intensity as required
per Gov. Code §65302(a).
8) Updates retail facilities, commercial, and office space information.
9) Adds a discussion related to industrial activity as required by Gov. Code
§65302(a).
10) Adds a description of cemetery activity in the City.
11) Deletes most of the outdated content related to future commercial activity.
12) Adds a discussion related to the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
13) Updates the service station section.
14) Updates the institutional section to include density and intensity as required
by Gov. Code §65302(a).
15) Updates the discussion on City facilities and provides a list of all City parks.
16) Updates the discussion related to fire description, county facilities, state
facilities, and federal facilities.
17) Adds the statement that no public or private airports or airstrips exist in the
City, per Gov. Code §65302.3.
18) Updates the discussion related to school facilities and added historical
enrollment data for PVPUSD.
19) Expands the recreational land use discussion to include acreage, parkland or
in-lieu (Quimby) fees, and census data.
20) Adds a dog park section.
21) Removes most of the discussion under agriculture as the only area
designated as Agriculture in the City is proposed to be removed.
22) Adds a timberland production activity section as required by Gov. Code
§65302(a)(1).
B-5
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 6 of 10
23) Adds military readiness section as required by Gov. Code §65302(a)(2)(B).
24) Updates the infrastructure facilities section.
25) Adds solid and liquid waste disposal facilities section, per Gov. Code
§65302(a).
26) Updates the discussion on population description, including updated acreage
per density and census data.
27) Updates and expands the Overlay Control Districts section to include the
Automotive Service, Mira Vista, and Equestrian Overlay Districts.
28) Expands the specific plan districts section to include the Coastal Specific
Plan, Western Avenue, and Eastview Park Specific Plan District.
29) Adds a discussion on the City’s former redevelopment project area and its
history.
30) Adds a discussion about the Landslide Moratorium Area and its history.
31) Adds a flood hazard area discussion, per Gov. Code §65302(a).
32) Updates compatibility of adjacent activity areas to the City, including border
issues.
33) Adds unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy communities as required by SB
244.
F. Noise Element is a new element that was previously part of the Sensory
Environment Element.
1) Replaces most of the existing text based on the 2017 Noise Study.
2) Updates airport operations data, included the discussion related to helicopter
routes, and City’s involvement with the LAX Community Noise Roundtable.
3) Adds a sentence stating that there are no industrial plants in the City as
required by Gov. Code §65302(f)(E).
4) Adds military installation section as required by Gov. Code §65302(f)(1)(D).
G. Safety Element.
1) Replaces the introduction to include text related to the Joint Hazard Mitigation
Plan and the purpose of the safety element.
2) Updates the discussion related to fire hazards and adds a fire hazard zone
section.
3) Updates the discussion related to flood hazards and adds flood hazard zones,
Army Corps of Engineer, and FEMA flood insurance map sections as required
by Gov. Code §65302(g)(2).
4) Updates the discussion related to geologic hazards.
5) Adds climate change section, including discussions related to GHG
emissions, climate change adaptations, and vulnerabilities in the City as
required by Gov. Code §65302(g)(4).
6) Deletes air pollution discussion as updated information was added under the
climate change section.
7) Replaces the outdated emergency services, healthcare, flood control, police
protection, disaster preparedness and response, emergency communications,
animal control, and air pollution control sections in their entirety.
B-6
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 7 of 10
8) Updates the fire protection section including discussions related to minimum
road widths and clearances around structures as required per Gov. Code
§65302(g)(1).
9) Updates codes and ordinances sections to be less specific and more general
so that the data is not outdated immediately after adoption of the General
Plan.
H. Visual Resources Element is a new element that was previously part of the
Sensory Environment Element.
1) Expands the introduction section.
2) Updates the definition of Views, Vistas, and View Corridors, replaces and
expands most of the existing text to include information from the View
Restoration Guidelines and the voter-approved Proposition M.
Section 5: The updated General Plan Land Use Map includes the following
land use designation changes:
A. Land use designation changes approved by the City Council since 1975:
1) Tract 28750 (Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road) - changed land use
designation from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
2) Established regulations for development in the Coastal Zone.
3) Tract 27832 (Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road) - changed non-conforming land
use from Single-family to Multi-family.
4) Ave. Esplendida & Ave. Classica and Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring
Road - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4 du/ac on two
former school sites.
5) 980 Silver Spur Road - changed land use from Commercial Office to
Commercial Retail – remove Natural Overlay Control District.
6) Former Abalone Cove school site – changed land use from Agriculture to
Commercial Recreational.
7) Paseo Del Mar at La Rotunda - changed land use from Institutional to
Residential 1-2 du/ac.
8) Residential Planned Development (Villa Capri) Tract No. 44239 – changed
land use from Commercial Retail to Residential 6-12 du/ac.
9) 3945 Dauntless Drive - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4
du/ac.
10) Eastview Annexation – established land use designations for Eastview
Annexation.
11) 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. - changed land use designation from Residential to
Commercial.
12) Citywide - eliminated non-conforming auto service stations
13) 6108, 6118, 6124 PV Drive South – changed land use designation from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to Commercial for 6108 and 6118 PVDS; Residential 2-
4 du/ac to Institutional for 6124 PVDS.
B-7
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 8 of 10
14) 5325 Ironwood and 5303 Bayridge - changed land use designation from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 1 du/5ac.
15) 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South – changed land use designation from
Commercial Office to Residential.
16) Several properties within the San Ramon Canyon area - moved
Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and change the land use
designation on several properties from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac
17) 3324 Seaclaire Drive – moved Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and
change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 2-4 du/ac.
18) 28220 Highridge Road (0.010-acre portion of a 28-unit condominium project
annexed from Rolling Hills Estates) – changed the land use designation from I
to RM 12-22 du/ac.
19) 32639 Nantasket Drive – changed the land use designation from Commercial
to Residential, (CR to R2-4 du/ac).
20) 5555 Crestridge Road - relocated Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
and change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Institutional.
21) 5656 Crest Road – changed land use designation from Residential 1-2 du/ac
to Residential 2-4 du/ac.
22) 10 Chaparral Lane – relocated the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
and change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to
Residential 1-2 du/ac.
B. Land use designation changes based on recommendations by the City Geologist,
consistency with the 2012 Zoning Map, and consistency with the updated Draft
Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan.
1) 699 specific properties - adjust the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line
so that less areas of the property is designated as Natural/Environment
Hazard as recommended by the City Geologist in 2013.
2) Portion of a residential tract east of Hawthorne and Silver Spur - change land
use designation, from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
3) All properties that comprise the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve - establish
a new zoning designation of Open Space Preservation.
4) Certain properties located seaward of Seacove Drive to match the 1978
Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map - change land use designation, from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 1-2 du/ac.
5) Certain residential properties located landward of Seacove Drive - change
land use designation from Residential 6-12 du/ac and Residential 4-6 du/ac to
Residential 2-4 du/ac to match the 1978 Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map.
6) Citywide - add Natural Overlay Districts consistent with the Zoning Map.
7) City-owned portion of Ladera Linda Park - change land use designation from
Institutional-Educational to Institutional-Public.
8) Vacant land on Silver Spur - change land use designation from Commercial to
Recreational-Passive.
B-8
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 9 of 10
9) Park properties: Pointe Vicente School Access Trail, Island View vacant land,
Eastview Park, Vanderlip Park, Clovercliff Park, Martingale Trailhead Park,
and East Crest Road Parcel - change land use designations to Recreational-
Passive.
10) Portions of Tract 31617, 33206, 37818, 45667, and 46651 - change land use
designations to Residential 1-2 du/ac instead of having two different land use
designations separating the same neighborhood.
11) Portions of Tract 50667 - change land use designation so that the entire tract
is Residential ≤1 du/ac instead of having two different land use designations
separating the neighborhood.
12) Tract 16540 - change land use designation from Residential ≤1 du/ac to
Residential 4-6 du/ac per the City Council’s action in 2009.
13) 3778 Coolheights - change land use designation from Residential 1-2 to
Natural/Environmental Hazard per a 1998 Settlement Agreement between the
City and the property owner.
Section 6: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the
City, acting as Lead Agency, circulated a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) of the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the project on March 22, 2018, beginning a
30-day review period. The MND was posted on the City’s website and a message was
sent to the General Plan listserve subscribers announcing its availability.
Section 7: The draft updated General Plan and Land Use Map was made
available to the public on March 8, 2018 as follows: digital copies were posted on the
City’s website; hard copies available for review at the Community Development
Department of City Hall; and a public notice published in the Peninsula News and a
message sent via list-serve informing the community about opportunities to provide
input or participate in public hearings. Written comments on the draft General Plan and
Land Use Map were encouraged to be submitted between March 8, 2018 and March
27, 2018 and were presented for consideration by the Planning Commission during their
review of the General Plan.
Section 8: The updated General Plan and Land Use Map were completed in
compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.
Section 9: The City Council reviewed and considered the updated General
Plan and Land Use Map and finds that it is consistent with and reflective of the City’s
continuing goals, policies, actions, and intent to adopt a general plan for the physical
development of the City. Based on the foregoing evidence and findings, the City Council
hereby amends the existing General Plan, with the exception of the City’s certified
Housing Element.
Section 10: Based on substantial evidence, both written and oral, from the
public hearing, including the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby adopt this Resolution No
2018-__, adopting the updated 2018 General Plan and General Plan Land Use Map.
B-9
Resolution No. 2018-__
Page 10 of 10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of April 2018.
Susan Brooks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Emily Colborn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify
that the above Resolution No. 2018-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by
the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 26, 2018.
City Clerk
B-10
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP.
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2002, the City Council initiated a comprehensive update to
the General Plan and formed a 15-member General Plan Update Steering Committee to assist
in the update process;
WHEREAS, a non-City sponsored "grass-roots" committee of more than 210 residents
formed for the purpose of preparing a "Goals Report" that identified various goals for the City.
This Goals Report was provided to each member of the General Plan Update Steering
Committee, which also considered it in making the Steering Committee's own review and
findings in its report to the City Council;
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2004, the Steering Committee's recommendations along
with a General Plan Update Program were presented to the City Council. The City Council
directed Staff to proceed with the following for future review by the proposed Planning
Commission and City Council: (1) Draft proposed amendments to the General Plan Goals and
Policies as recommended by the General Plan Update Steering Committee; (2) Update the
factual information within the General Plan; and (3) Propose improvements to the general
format of the General Plan and the mandatory elements to make the Plan more user friendly.
The City Council also directed Staff to obtain a consultant to assist with updating portions of the
General Plan and disbanded the General Plan Update Steering Committee;
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City Council entered into an agreement with
three consulting firms to assist Staff with the update;
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the City Council and Planning Commission held a
joint workshop to kick off to the General Plan Update process;
WHEREAS, beginning in late 2009, the Planning Commission began to conduct public
hearings on the update of the General Plan document and the General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and accepted the draft of the
updated General Plan. Since that time, additional necessary land use changes that were
inadvertently left out and text amendments based on new statues were introduced by Staff and
reviewed by the Planning Commission. In 2015, the Planning Commission again reviewed and
accepted a complete draft of the updated General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, in late 2015, the new City Attorney reviewed the draft updated General Plan
document and determined that certain text was legally insufficient and the technical studies (Air
Quality, Traffic, and Noise) needed to be updated given the recent statutes. Accordingly, the City
contracted with Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who completed the technical studies
in 2017. The technical studies were reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission in
2017;
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 1 of 9
C-1
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2018, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News and a list-serve message was sent announcing the availability of the final draft
of the General Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 27,
2018, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The updated General Plan includes comprehensive revisions to all
previous elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element which was
adopted by the City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development in 2014. The updated General Plan contains each of the remaining
seven required elements under Government Code Section 65302, as follows:
A. Circulation Element, presenting a plan to ensure that utilities and transportation,
including public transportation services, are constantly available to permit orderly growth
and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare.
B. Conservation and Open Space Element, combined two elements, providing an
evaluation of the basic ecological and environmental units dealing with the natural
factors of land, climate, hydrology, biotic resources, geotechnical factors, and the
systematic relationships that must exist among them.
C. Environmental Justice Element, addressing environmental justice through the
development of a comprehensive set of goals and policies, consistent with State
requirements, to encourage greater public participation and reduce environmental
hazards to target populations in the City.
D. Land Use Element, describing the distribution and location of land uses, population
density, and building intensity.
E. Noise Element, identifying existing and potential future sources of noise within the
community, and strategies to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise
levels.
F. Safety Element, identifying hazards; assessing vulnerability; analyzing risk; and
containing goals, policies, and objectives to reduce risk and prevent loss from future
natural hazard events within the City.
Section 2: The updated General Plan also addresses two optional topics that are of
particular to the community, as allowed by Government Code section 65303, as follows:
A. Fiscal Element, an optional element, establishing the policy framework necessary to
guide all of the City's short- and long-term fiscal decisions.
B. Visual Resources Element, an optional element, providing guidance through
establishment of goals and policies to ensure the continued preservation, restoration, and
enhancement of significant visual resources within the City.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 2 of 9
C-2
Section 3: The updated General Plan includes the following revisions based on the
current development of the City, current economic and demographic data, City Council-
approved land use decisions, and statutory requirements.
A. Circulation Element renames the existing Infrastructure Element.
1) Deletes infrastructure related narrative at the beginning and adds a new introductory
section describing the role and purpose of the element.
2) Deletes outdated descriptions of improvements to freeways outside of the City limits.
3) Relocates the air quality discussion to the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate
Change discussions under the Safety Element.
4) Updates discussions related to arterial, collector, and local streets; level of service
and a list of streets operating at unacceptable levels of service; and future conditions
based on the 2017 Traffic Study.
5) Adds a discussion on effects the Portuguese Bend Landslide has on the City's
circulation system.
6) Relocates the vehicle noise discussion to the Noise Element.
7) Updates public transportation information.
8) Adds airport and seaport discussion as required per Gov. Code §65302(b).
9) Updates the path and trail network discussion.
10)Updates infrastructure, resource (water, natural gas, and electricity),
disposal/recovery systems (sewer systems, solid waste, flood control and storm
drain systems), communications systems discussions based on completed projects
and improved technology.
11)Adds military airport and port discussion as required per Gov. Code §65302(b).
B. Conservation and Open Space Element renames the existing Natural Environment
Element.
1) Adds an introductory section.
2) Relocates the discussion on climate and air quality to the Safety Element as part of
the updated Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change discussion.
3) Updates topography, geologic conditions, geotechnical factors, and landslide
information.
4) Adds a coastal discussion consistent with the 1978 Local Coastal Program.
5) Updates mineral resources and hydrology discussions.
6) Adds a discussion on the City's Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat
Conservation Plan (NNCP/HCP).
7) Updates ocean resources management discussion.
8) Updates open space and recreational resources, including descriptions of all City-
owned and County-owned public parks and facilities in the City.
9) Updates school district facilities discussion.
10)Adds descriptions of the City's Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.
11)Adds discussion related to City-acquired private property.
12)Adds discussion on the City's Parks Master Plan.
13)Adds discussion for military support and tribal resources as required per Gov. Code
65302(d) and §65560.
14)Deletes text on agriculture as the single zoned area is now obsolete.
15)Adds text on the grove of trees planted at Ryan Park and Malaga Cove Library under
Historical Resources based on the Rancho de Los Palos Verdes Historical Society
and Museum's list of dedicated historical sites on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 3 of 9
C-3
C. Environmental Justice Element replaces the Social Services Element.
1) Replaces the social services introduction with the definition, purpose, and background
of Environmental Justice.
2) Adds new goals and policies. No changes were made to the Committee's amended
Social Service Goals and Policies as they are now placed under this Element.
3) Deletes social and cultural development discussion.
4) Updates the existing Senior Services discussion under a new heading named Setting.
5) Adds text related to public input and participation and environmental and health risks
promotion of public facilities, safe and sanitary homes, and healthy food access and
physical activity).
6) Adds text related to special events, PVIC, Reach program, and dog parks. This section
was inadvertently shown as existing text in the track change document when it's
actually new language.
D. Fiscal Element.
1) Replaces and reduced the existing introductory narrative to simply the purpose and
layout of the Fiscal Element.
2) Replaces the existing text as it reflects specific information about the fiscal state in
1975 with less specific text to avoid being out dated soon after adoption, while
providing a snapshot in time, and to provide an understanding of what's happening in
the City. As with all elements, Staff intends to update individual elements
periodically.
E. Land Use Element renames the existing Urban Environment Element.
1) Expands the introduction section to include the purpose and content of the land use
element.
2) Adds a text on the new land use designations, such as Open Space Hillside and
Open Space Preservation.
3) Adds discussion on Greenways as required per Gov. Code §65302(a).
4) Updates acreage of land use types.
5) Adds a discussion on primary and secondary urban activity areas.
6) Updates the residential density section to include intensity as required per Gov.
Code §65302(a).
7) Updates the commercial section to include density and intensity as required per Gov.
Code §65302(a).
8) Updates retail facilities, commercial, and office space information.
9) Adds a discussion related to industrial activity as required per Gov. Code §65302(a).
10)Adds a description of cemetery activity in the City.
11)Deletes most of the outdated content related to future commercial activity.
12)Adds a discussion related to the Western Avenue Vision Plan.
13)Updates the service station section.
14)Updates the institutional section to include density and intensity as required per Gov.
Code §65302(a).
15)Updates the discussion on City facilities and provided a list of all City parks.
16)Updates the discussion related to fire description, county facilities, state facilities,
and federal facilities.
17)Adds the statement that no public or private airports or airstrips exist in the City per
Gov. Code §65302.3.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 4 of 9
C-4
18)Updates the discussion related to school facilities and added historical enrollment
data for PVPUSD.
19)Expands the recreational land use discussion to include acreage, parkland or in-lieu
Quimby)fees, and census data.
20)Adds a dog park section.
21)Removes most of the discussion under agriculture as the only area designated as
Agriculture is proposed to be removed.
22)Adds a timberland production activity section as required per Gov. Code
65302(a)(1).
23)Adds military readiness section as required per Gov. Code §65302(a)(2)(B).
24)Updates the infrastructure facility section.
25)Adds solid and liquid waste disposal facilities section per Gov. Code §65302(a).
26)Updates the discussion on population description including updated acreage per
density and census data.
27)Updates and expands the Overlay Control Districts section to include the City-
created Automotive Service, Mira Vista, and Equestrian Overlay Districts.
28)Expands the specific plan district section to include the Coastal Specific Plan,
Western Avenue, and Eastview Park Specific Plan District.
29)Adds a discussion on the City's former redevelopment project area and its history.
30)Added discussion about the Landslide Moratorium Area and its history.
31)Adds a flood hazard area discussion per Gov. Code §65302(a).
32)Updates compatibility of adjacent activity areas to the City, including border issues.
33)Adds unincorporated island, fringe or legacy communities as required per SB 244.
F. Noise Element is a new element that was previously part of the Sensory Environment
Element.
1) Replaces most of the existing text based on the 2017 Noise Study.
2) Updates airport operations data, included the discussion related to helicopter routes,
and City's involvement with the LAX Community Noise Roundtable.
3) Adds a sentence stating that there are no industrial plants in the City as required per
Gov. Code §65302(f)(E).
4) Adds military installation section as required per Gov. Code §65302(f)(1)(D).
G. Safety Element
1) Replaces the introduction to include text related to the Joint Hazard Mitigation Plan
and the purpose of the safety element.
2) Updates the discussion related to fire hazards and adds a fire hazard zone section.
3) Updates the discussion related to flood hazards and adds flood hazard zones, Army
Corps of Engineer, FEMA flood insurance map sections as required per Gov. Code
65302(g)(2).
4) Updates the discussion related to geologic hazards.
5) Adds climate change section, including discussions related to GHG emissions,
climate change adaptations, and vulnerabilities in the City as required per Gov. Code
65302(g)(4).
6) Deletes air pollution discussion as updated information was added under the climate
change section.
7) Replaces the outdated emergency services, healthcare, flood control, police
protection, disaster preparedness and response, emergency communications,
animal control, and air pollution control sections in its entirety.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 5 of 9
C-5
8) Updates the fire protection section including discussions related to minimum road
widths and clearances around structures as required per Gov. Code §65302(8)(1).
9) Updates codes and ordinances sections to be less specific and more general so that
the data is not outdated immediately after adoption of the General Plan.
H. Visual Resources Element is a new element that was previously part of the Sensory
Environment Element.
1) Expands the introduction section.
2) Updates the definition of Views, Vista, and View Corridors, replaces and expands
most of the existing text to include information from the View Restoration Guidelines
and the voter-approved Proposition M.
Section 4: The updated General Plan Land Use Map includes the following land use
designation changes:
A. Land use designation changes approved by the City Council since 1975:
1) Tract 28750 (Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road) - changed land use designation
from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
2) Established regulations for development in the Coastal Zone.
3) Tract 27832 (Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road) - changed non-conforming land use from
Single-family to Multi-family.
4) Ave. Esplendida &Ave. Classica and Indian Valley Rd. &Armaga Spring Road -
changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4 du/ac on two former school
sites.
5) 980 Silver Spur Road - changed land use from Commercial Office to Commercial
Retail —remove Natural Overlay Control District.
6) Former Abalone Cove school site — changed land use from Agriculture to
Commercial Recreational.
7) Paseo Del Mar at La Rotunda - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 1-2
du/ac.
8) Residential Planned Development (Villa Capri) Tract No. 44239 — changed land use
from Commercial Retail to Residential 6-12 du/ac.
9) 3945 Dauntless Drive - changed land use from Institutional to Residential 2-4 du/ac.
10)Eastview Annexation —established land use designations for Eastview Annexation.
11)28041 Hawthorne Blvd. - changed land use designation from Residential to
Commercial.
12)Citywide - eliminated non-conforming auto service stations
13)6108, 6118, 6124 PV Drive South — changed land use designation from Residential
2-4 du/ac to Commercial for 6108 and 6118 PVDS; Residential 2-4 du/ac to
Institutional for 6124 PVDS.
14)5325 Ironwood and 5303 Bayridge - changed land use designation from Residential
2-4 du/ac to Residential 1 du/sac.
15)6100 Palos Verdes Drive South — changed land use designation from Commercial
Office to Residential.
16)Several properties within the San Ramon Canyon area - moved Natural/Environment
Hazard boundary line and change the land use designation on several properties
from Natural/Environment Hazard to Residential 2-4 du/ac
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 6 of 9
C-6
17)3324 Seaclaire Drive — moved Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and
change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to Residential 2-4
du/ac.
18)28220 Highridge Road (0.010-acre portion of a 28-unit condominium project annexed
from Rolling Hills Estates) — changed the land use designation from I to RM 12-22
du/ac.
19)32639 Nantasket Drive—changed the land use designation from Commercial to
Residential, (CR to R2-4 du/ac).
20)5555 Crestridge Road - relocated Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and
change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to Institutional.
21)5656 Crest Road — changed land use designation from Residential 1-2 du/ac to
Residential 2-4 du/ac.
22) 10 Chaparral Lane — relocated the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line and
change the land use designation from Natural/Environment Hazard to Residential 1-2
du/ac.
B. Land use designation changes based on recommendations by the City Geologist,
consistency with the 2012 Zoning Map, and consistency with the updated Draft Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan.
1) 699 specific properties - adjust the Natural/Environment Hazard boundary line so
that less areas of the property is designated as Natural/Environment Hazard as
recommended by the City Geologist in 2013.
2) Portion of a residential tract east of Hawthorne and Silver Spur - change land use
designation, from Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac.
3) All properties that comprise the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve -establish a new
zoning designation of Open Space Preservation.
4) Certain properties located seaward of Seacove Drive to match the 1978 Coastal
Specific Plan Land Use Map - change land use designation, from Residential 2-4
du/ac to Residential 1-2 du/ac.
5) Certain residential properties located landward of Seacove Drive - change land use
designation from Residential 6-12 du/ac and Residential 4-6 du/ac to Residential 2-4
du/ac to match the 1978 Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map.
6) Citywide - add Natural Overlay Districts consistent with the Zoning Map.
7) City-owned portion of Ladera Linda Park - change land use designation from
Institutional-Educational to Institutional-Public.
8) Vacant land on Silver Spur - change land use designation from Commercial to
Recreational-Passive.
9) Park properties: Pointe Vicente School Access Trail, Island View vacant land,
Eastview Park, Vanderlip Park, Clovercliff Park, Martingale Trailhead Park, and East
Crest Road Parcel - change land use designations to Recreational-Passive.
10)Portions of Tract 31617, 33206, 37818, 45667, and 46651 - change land use
designations to Residential 1-2 du/ac instead of having two different land use
designations separating the same neighborhood.
11)Portions of Tract 50667 - change land use designation so that the entire tract is
Residential 51 du/ac instead of having two different land use designations separating
the neighborhood.
12)Tract 16540 - change land use designation from Residential 51 du/ac to Residential
4-6 du/ac per the City Council's action in 2009.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 7 of 9
C-7
13)27501 Western (Green Hills Memorial Park) - change land use designation from
Commercial-Retail to Cemetery per the City Council's action in 1984 at the time of
Eastview annexation.
14) Eastview single-family residential areas - change land use designation from
Residential 2-4 du/ac to Residential 4-6 du/ac consistent with the 2012 Zoning Map.
15)3778 Coolheights - change land use designation from Residential 1-2 to
Natural/Environmental Hazard per a 1998 Settlement Agreement between the City
and the property owner.
Section 5: The draft updated General Plan and Land Use Map was made available
to the public on March 8, 2018 as follows: digital copies were posted on the City's website; hard
copies available for review at the Community Development Department of City Hall; and a
public notice published in the Peninsula News and a message sent via list-serve informing the
community about opportunities to provide input or participate in public hearings. Written
comments on the draft General Plan and Land Use Map were encouraged to be submitted
between March 8, 2018 and March 27, 2018 and were presented for consideration by the
Planning Commission during their review of the General Plan.
Section 6: The updated General Plan and Land Use Map were completed in
compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.
Section 7: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the updated General
Plan and Land Use Map and finds that it is consistent with and reflective of the City's continuing
goals, policies, actions, and intent to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the
City. Based on the foregoing evidence and findings, the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council amend the existing General Plan, with the exception of the
City's certified Housing Element.
Section 8: 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 adopts P.C. Resolution No 2018-12,
recommending City Council adopt the updated General Plan and Land Use Map.
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 8 of 9
C-8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS LEON,NELSON,TOMBLIN,PERESTAM,
SAADATNEJADI, VICE CHAIRMAN BRADLEY, AND CHAIRMAN JAMES
NOES: NONE
ABSTENTIONS: NONE
RECUSALS: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Williag7/
41,
L2.
4.........16-•
s
Vice Chairman
Ara Mihrani ICP
Director of Community Development and
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2018-12
Page 9 of 9
C-9
Legend
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE
OPEN SPACE HAZARD
RESIDENTIAL 1-2/ OPEN SPACE
RESIDENTIAL <=1 DU/5 ACRE
RESIDENTIAL <= 1 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 1-2 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 4-6 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 6-12 DU/ACRE
RESIDENTIAL 12-22 DU/ACRE
CEMETERY
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL
COMMERCIAL RETAIL
COMMERCIAL OFFICE
INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY
INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS
RECREATIONAL ACTIVE
RECREATIONAL PASSIVE 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Miles
Official General Plan Land Use MapCity of Rancho Palos Verdes
µ
REC
REC
A
A
A
D-1
E-1
From:SUNSHINE
To:So Kim
Subject:Fwd: A Personal note. Consider this an obituary
Date:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 3:14:23 PM
Hi So,
I thought you should see this. I just hope you will make your Staff Report more
"transparent" than "obfuscated". I know, my five emails were just "jousting with
windmills". ...S
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: cprotem73@cox.net, jeanlongacre@aol.com, pvpasofino@yahoo.com,
amcdougall1@yahoo.com, momofyago@gmail.com, wgg@squareoneinc.com,
gordon.leon@gmail.com
Sent: 4/18/2018 1:10:39 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: A Personal note. Consider this an obituary
Hello old friends of our little bit of paradise,
I just read this note from Ara and it made me realize why I have been feeling
so down. I am grieving. The RPV General Plan is dead.
This is just one example of how Staff has no intention of pursuing the City’s
stated Goals when they are in conflict with the United Nation’s Agenda for the
21st Century. The Draft Update is not an effort at life support. It is a mask to
hide the fact that there is no longer any hope.
It doesn’t matter whether it is the City or the PVP Land Conservancy who is
responsible for maintaining trails under the NCCP. Both bodies are devoted
to eliminating them. The ICLEI methodology is to make it happen so slowly
that trail lovers won’t notice what is happening.
I don’t see how even a well written Charter Initiative can save us from the
sabotage which Staff inflicts upon us on a daily basis. The City Council is
powerless. Even the United Nations is just a pawn in the effort to create a
global control institution over human beings. People who appreciate personal
freedoms, like hiking beyond the velvet ropes, are harder to control.
I didn’t realize it at the time. The attached letter to the Editor was a wake-up
call.
So sad. …S
F-1
Subject: RE: Trails impact. Re: Elkmont Canyon-Geologic Investigation Permit (GIP)
Update
Date: 4/17/2018 7:25:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: AraM@rpvca.gov
To: AmyS@rpvca.gov, sunshinerpv@aol.com
Cc: SoK@rpvca.gov, ianaya@rpvca.gov
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Sunshine,
Staff reviewed the CTP at the time the application was submitted to determine
whether a connection can be made between Silver Spur and Hawthorne
traversing the subject property. At this time, we are unable to make the
connection because of improvements on the adjacent properties and the lack
of interest from the neighboring property owners to dedicate a trail easement.
Ara
From: Amy Seeraty
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:03 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE' <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Irving Anaya
<ianaya@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Trails impact. Re: Elkmont Canyon-Geologic Investigation
Permit (GIP) Update
Hello Sunshine-
Thanks for your email. I am familiar with the conceptual trails plan, but not
with this specific section of trail. I will talk to Irving and/or Ara about this
section of trail and your suggestions, and I will definitely reach out to you
soon to discuss further. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amy Seeraty
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
F-2
www.rpvca.gov
amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:38 PM
To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>; Irving
Anaya <ianaya@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Trails impact. Re: Elkmont Canyon-Geologic Investigation Permit
(GIP) Update
Hi Amy,
Has anyone taught you how to use the City's Conceptual Trails Plan? While
you are poking around in Elkmont Canyon, please give some thought to what
it will take to restore the trail connection along the RHE/RPV boundary which
connects the top of Valmonte Canyon with the trail in RPV on the Hawthorne
Blvd roadside. As the Peninsula gets more "built-out", these little recreational
trail loops will become more and more precious.
The SECTION TWO map is not very clear. Start with Trail G1. A trails
network is restored one piece at a time. A voluntary OFFER OF TRAIL
EASEMENT requires a "soft touch". The draft General Plan update is
messing with the difference between "Staff guidance" and "appropriate
support". Either way, Staff is supposed to contribute to enhancing the
regional off-road circulation infrastructure.
Some sort of application has arrived at the RPV Planning Department Counter
with a "trails impact". Now is the time to send a notice to the trail user
community representatives so that they can help make this a friendly
negotiation.
As the Archivist for the PV Loop Trail Project which includes the Peninsula
Wheel Trails Network, I am here to help. ...SUNSHINE 310-377-8761
In a message dated 4/17/2018 2:05:22 PM Pacific Standard
Time,listserv@civicplus.com writes:
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being sent to subscribers of this list who
might be interested in its content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this
message, it is a non-monitored email address. If there is contact information it will be included
in the body of the message.
On March 28, 2018, the City issued a Geologic Investigation Permit (GIP) for geologic
investigation work on the Elkmont Canyon site (APN 7576-026-028). City Planning Staff will be
visiting the site on Wednesday April 18, 2018 with the City Geologist and Applicant’s engineer
F-3
to review the proposed testing locations and to verify compliance with the GIP conditions of
approval. Please click here to view the approved testing location map and conditions of
approval.
Barring any weather-related delays, the actual geologic testing is scheduled to occur on April 24
& 25, 2018. Inquiries should be directed to Amy Seeraty, at (310) 544-
5231 or amys@rpvca.gov.
F-4
F-5
From:April Sandell
To:So Kim
Cc:PC; CC
Subject:(REVISED NOTICE ) RE: A final Draft of the updated General Plan Document, land use map. And associated
Environmental Assessment. (Received by mail today April 9, 2018)
Date:Monday, April 09, 2018 7:22:02 PM
Dear Ms Kim,
First of all, please know I don’t have an abundance of leisure time to respond as fully as I
would like. I apologize for the random bullet points noting my various comments, mis-
spellings and/or unclear language.
Notice of Concerning issues:
* pg 240 of 240 “Future Commercial Activity”
Eastview the “ one opportunity: Western Avenue Corridor, Western Avenue Vision Plan
framing the foundation revisions of the Western Ave. Specific Plan 1.
I am concerned this summary of plans is not likely to be read by but a few.
As far as I can tell;
* The document fails to make clear the original General Plan ( around 1975 or so) did not
include the Eastview area. I think residents’ might better understand the citys' need to
revise the General Plan at this time.
* It is not made clear that Western Ave Specific Plan became part of the San Pedro specific
plan a year or two ago. (Sustainable strategies ) (If I am wrong about this. Let me know)
*. Although, the Borders Issues report was included nothing more was said about the staff’s /
cc decision to reduce the reporting from bi-monthly or monthly to bi annual. Which happened
not too long ago. But obviously not in the best interest of those property owners most affected
by bordering city issues.
* On a colored coded map…..shows Eastview as light grey “ Open space Hillside” which
seems currently not the case.
* Somewhere on page 11 and 12 talks about “must resolve” Equal Status potential conflicts
through clear language and policy consistency. It may be folks are fairly aware of climate
change action plans and local energy assurance plans, but not likely to grasp the over all
impact. The document should/ could provide a broader understanding.
* Land Use issues Page 140 Commercial , would be better understood by the community if
not so broadly said ‘as warranted for future economic and social conditions.
* More should be included regarding troublesome canyons, streams, water drainage and
hazard to hillside as related to land reuse and the “built out” city.
F-6
*# 20 on page 31 Category IV re: public utilities street easement , bikeways, and right of way,
“city shall provide support to the property owners affecting the easement’ ….clearer terms
might be “city will provide compensation’.
*#21 should be included within #20.
* establishing a property assessment for under grounding overhead wires. This could be a big
financial burden and I would not like to see the city pursue at city cost and place lien on the
home/property owner, unless this issue is fully understood as far as city needs and wants are
two separate things.
*It’s my understanding the Avenida Feliciano is within a designated potential flood zone
hazard. Given the western most end at Feliciano is set down hill from the City of Rolling Hills
Estates/reservoir and/or open area draining down hill toward the Ponte Vista/High Park
housing development. So, if that is correct , then affected residents probably would like some
further clarification on potential risks.
*Traffic Conditions. The document explains just south of PV Dr North to Delasonde ,
Delasonde to Trudie , Trudie to Summerland are unacceptable. (Ie Western Ave. Corridor) I
think most would appreciate knowing the standard meaning of “Acceptable”. Obviously ,
you can’t explain the details at this point in adopting a plan yet to be made complete. But
everyone knows the traffic conditions are not great between certain hours but most of the time
reasonably acceptable.
* Topography/ Extreme slopes as related to development and/or redevelopment restrictions or
not.
* Hydrology (Figure 4) the map shows a good deal of arrows directed near and around
Westmont Center (RPV) and Garden Village Shopping Center ( City of Los Angeles). Hmm,
to say the least.
* 7.3 Eastview Park Specific Plan District. Ability to access and maintain the underground
sewer lines. The city’s intent since 1989. Who knew?
* page 25- higher density/views , values, marketability the developer/builder etc. etc. ( note; I
haven’t the time for further mention on this particular issue. Just know, Ms. So, Eastview
residents did not embrace the Western Avenue Vision Plan showing/ displaying high-rise
buildings on Western Ave. Some may have changed their opinions in this regard but to the
best of my knowledge most think the Western Avenue Corridor Vision Plans are not on the
table any longer. (Again, I could be wrong about that and I am not speaking on behalf of
anyone but myself.) If they do read the Draft, then they might speak for themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity for public input.
I do want to mention further, a guy with a petition came to our door yesterday or Saturday.
Anyway, the petition sought signatures for a ballot initiative. Bottomline is, Terrenna Resort
(sp?) and Trump Golf course did not plan for adequate employee parking. Now, this petition
seeks to engage the city with a solution to provide off site parking in another area in the city
and/or provide public transit for San Pedro employees’. I can’t imagine why the city did not
F-7
require employee parking at the site during the planning process.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
RPV, CA 90275
F-8
Friday, April 13, 2018
Greetings So Kim,
The following are comments submitted for the City Council to review as they
consider Updates to the General Plan here in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Although it is important to regulate construction projects, there comes a point
where ordinances and regulations become an excessive burden to home-owners
who are trying to maintain and improve their property. Too many regulations add a
huge burden to city staff also, who must monitor so many details. Many homes in
our city are over thirty years old. They must be improved if our city is to maintain
its characteristic beauty. Often when city regulations are too complicated or
expensive, residents and even contractors simply try to build without obtaining the
proper permits. Please take care to prevent this situation from developing further in
Rancho Palos Verdes.
The proposed general plan contains a lot of new regulations that attempt to
minimize noise during construction projects. I would ask the council to consider the
expense and hassle added to home improvement projects by the following proposed
regulations.
1. Use noise attenuating shields, shrouds, or portable barriers or encloses to reduce operating
noise of noise producing equipment, such as jackhammers and pavement breakers.
2. Place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors nearest the project site. Non-noise producing equipment, such as trailers,
may be located as a sound barrier between the stationary noise sources and sensitive
receptors.
3. Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors during all project
construction.
4. Construct a temporary sound barrier/wall. The temporary construction barriers can use
particle boards or gypsum boards, with no gaps or holes in them that could potentially
deteriorate the noise attenuation effect.
5. Unless safety provisions require otherwise, adjust all audible back-up alarms at the lowest
volume appropriate for safety purposes.
6. Include sound-deadening material (e.g., apply wood or rubber liners to metal bin impact
surfaces) to line or cover hoppers, storage bins, and chutes.
7. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue
and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way in accordance with the
permitted hours of construction.
8. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on-site to
minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be
located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration also refers to some air quality measures that if
adopted could add unnecessary expense and hassle to average homeowners trying
to maintain or improve their property.
F-9
The following proposed requirements are vague and difficult to regulate.
AQ-6: Prior to the issuance of any Grading or Building Permits, the Applicant shall
demonstrate to the Director of Community Development’s satisfaction that dust
generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require
regular watering for the control of dust.
AQ-2: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, measures
shall be taken in areas disturbed to prevent emitting dust and to minimize visible
emissions from crossing the boundary line.
AQ-3: During construction, including grading, excavating, and land clearing, construction
vehicles leaving the site shall be cleaned to prevent dust, silt, mud, and dirt from being
released or tracked off site.
While construction noise and dust are annoying, they are also unavoidable
components of maintaining and improving our community. Please consider these
comments and take care to only add regulations that are necessary and reasonable.
Thank you,
Charity Malin
charityjmalin@mac.com
703-927-6473
30645 Ganado Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
F-10
From:So Kim
To:"gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com"
Cc:judy.rochat@gmail.com; jimmaclellan714@aol.com; jrodjensen@me.com; John Cruikshank; Jeff Calvagna; Ara
Mihranian; Robert Nemeth
Subject:RE: General Plan - Noise Element
Date:Wednesday, April 04, 2018 5:32:00 PM
Hi Gwen,
We will review the language based on your request and propose any amendments as necessary at
the upcoming April 26th City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 4:44 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: judy.rochat@gmail.com; jimmaclellan714@aol.com; jrodjensen@me.com; John Cruikshank
<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Jeff Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: General Plan - Noise Element
Thanks, perhaps you or Ara could look at the language and suggest strengthening it?
Best,
Gwen
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
From: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 23:31:37 +0000
To: gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com<gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com>; So
Kim<SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: judy.rochat@gmail.com<judy.rochat@gmail.com>;
jimmaclellan714@aol.com<jimmaclellan714@aol.com>;
jrodjensen@me.com<jrodjensen@me.com>; John
Cruikshank<John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Jeff Calvagna<jcalvagna@netzero.com>; Ara
Mihranian<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: General Plan - Noise Element
Thank you, Gwen, and I am forwarding your email to the Deputy Community Development Director,
So Kim, who is leading the General Plan Update.
Robert Nemeth
Associate Planner
F-11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 544-5285
rnemeth@rpvca.gov
From: gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com [mailto:gwen@butterfieldcommunications.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 3:26 PM
To: Robert Nemeth <rnemeth@rpvca.gov>; John Cruikshank <John.Cruikshank@rpvca.gov>; Jeff
Calvagna <jcalvagna@netzero.com>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Cc: judy.rochat@gmail.com; jimmaclellan714@aol.com; jrodjensen@me.com
Subject: Re: Follow-up to the LAX Community Noise Roundtable meeting
I noted the general plan update references plane, helicopter and other air related noise. It didn't
seem to capture the seriousness of the plane, helicopter, ultralight etc noise issue.
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
F-12
SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: April 10, 2018
sok@rpvca.gov
So J. Kim, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the
Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final MND.
SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Description
The Lead Agency proposes to amend the existing City of Rancho Palos Verde’s General Plan (Proposed
Project). With the exception of the Housing Element, the Proposed Project will amend all of the other
General Plan elements which are divided into six separate sections: I) Introduction, II) Natural
Environment Element, III) Social/Cultural Element, IV) Urban Environment Element, V) Land Use Plan,
and VI) Fiscal Element1. The Proposed Project will be implemented over time with a buildout year of
2040. “The amended Land Use Element designates approximately 399.48 acres for new residential
development primarily as infill lots, with approximately 756 proposed dwelling units by 2040, of which
668 are designated as single family and 88 are designated as multi-family2.”
SCAQMD Staff’s Summary of Air Quality Analysis
The Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions and compared
them to SCAQMD regional and localized air quality CEQA thresholds of significance in Appendix C, Air
Quality Technical Report, to the MND. Regional construction emissions were modeled based on “an
assumed growth of up to 10 percent of the total anticipated growth within one year, […] beginning in year
20183.” Localized construction emissions were modeled based on the development of a one-acre parcel
with sensitive receptors at 25 meters4. The Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project’s regional and
localized construction air quality impacts would be less than significant5.
The Proposed Project’s air quality impacts during operation were modeled based on the incremental
increase in emissions6. Operational emissions at buildout (year 204) were compared to the existing
conditions (year 2015) to determine the level of significance. Localized operational emissions were based
on the same assumptions (e.g., a one-acre parcel with sensitive receptors at 25 meters). “Because of the
general increase in efficiencies with respect to vehicle emissions and the limited growth anticipated in the
1 MND. Page 3.
2 MND. Appendix C, Air Quality Technical Report. Page 2.
3 Ibid. Page 25.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid. Table 6. Page 37.
F-13
So J. Kim 2 April 10, 2018
Updated General Plan, there is an overall decrease in criteria pollutant emissions at buildout year 2040
compared to the existing emissions in 20157.”
SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD’s Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
(2016 AQMP)8, which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017.
Built upon the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional
perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air
quality challenge in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment.
SCAQMD Staff’s General Comments
SCAQMD staff reviewed the Air Quality Analysis in the main body of the MND and in Appendix C and
has comments on the methodology. Please see the attachment for more information. Additionally, as
described in the 2016 AQMP, to achieve NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031
deadlines. SCAQMD is committed to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The
Proposed Project plays an important role in contributing to NOx emissions reduction. Therefore,
SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate additional mitigation measures in the
Final MND. Finally, the attachment includes a recommendation to include a discussion on SCAQMD
Rule 403(e).
Closing
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency
shall consider the MND for adoption together with any comments received during the public review
process. Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to
the adoption of the Final MND. When responding to issues raised in the comments, response should
provide sufficient details giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There
should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual
information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful
or useful to decision makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project.
SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions
that may arise. Please contact me at lsun@aqmd.gov if you have any questions regarding the enclosed
comments.
Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun, J.D.
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
LS
LAC180327-01
Control Number
7 Ibid. Page 36.
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan.
F-14
So J. Kim 3 April 10, 2018
ATTACHMENT
CEQA Baseline
1. Notwithstanding the general rule that baseline conditions exist at the time of the environmental
review is initiated and that a project’s environmental impacts are assessed by limiting the examination
to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) is published, if there is a published NOP, the use of future baseline is proper in
some cases, supported by substantial evidence in the record. Consideration of future conditions in
determining whether a project’s impacts may be significant is consistent with CEQA’s rules regarding
baseline, especially when the project has a long-term buildout schedule. “[N]othing in CEQA law
precludes an agency … from considering both types of baseline—existing and future conditions—in
its primary analysis of the project's significant adverse effects.” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v.
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 454.). “Even when a project is
intended and expected to improve conditions in the long term--20 or 30 years after an EIR is
prepared--decision makers and members of the public are entitled under CEQA to know the short-
and medium-term environmental costs of achieving that desirable improvement. … [¶] … The public
and decision makers are entitled to the most accurate information on project impacts practically
possible, and the choice of a baseline must reflect that goal.” (See also Communities for a Better
Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310).
The Proposed Project’s operational emissions were estimated for the 2015 CEQA baseline year and
the 2040 future buildout year. The 2015 existing conditions were held constant (i.e. using emission
rates from 2015) and compared to the future year (i.e. using emission rates from the future year).
This approach using a comparison between the Proposed Project’s impacts in the future year (using
emission rates from year 2040) and a 2015 baseline (using emission rates from year 2015) improperly
credits the Project with emission reductions that will occur independent of the Proposed Project due
to adopted state and federal rules and regulations and technology advancements, since these rules and
regulations and technology are expected to improve air quality over time, even in the absence of the
Proposed Project. Therefore, the use of the 2015 baseline may have led to an under-estimation of true
emission increases from the Proposed Project.
The purpose of CEQA is to disclose environmental impacts from the Proposed Project to the public
and decision makers in order to provide the public and decision makers with the actual changes to the
environment from the activities involved in the Proposed Project. By taking credit for future
emission reductions from existing air quality rules, regulations, and emissions reductions strategies,
the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts are likely underestimated. Therefore, SCAQMD staff
recommends that the Lead Agency revise the air quality analysis to include a comparison between the
emissions in year 2040 with the Proposed Project at buildout and the emissions in the same respective
year without the Proposed Project, and use this comparison for disclosure and informational purposes,
at a minimum.
Air Quality Analysis – Interim Milestone Years
2. The Air Quality Analysis years in the MND included only two analysis years: baseline year (2015)
and buildout year (2040). By 2040, the Proposed Project is assumed fully built. Although the
Proposed Project may not be at peak capacity in earlier years, it is possible that due to highe r
emission rates of vehicles, trucks, and equipment in earlier years that peak daily emissions may occur
before 2040. The overall emission rates of vehicles, trucks, and equipment are generally higher in
earlier years as more stringent emission standards and cleaner technologies have not been fully
implemented and fleets have not fully turned over. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the
Lead Agency include interim milestone years (i.e., year 2020, year 2025, year 2030, and year 2035)
in the Air Quality Analysis to ensure the peak daily emissions are identified and adequately disclosed
F-15
So J. Kim 4 April 10, 2018
in the Final MND. The interim milestone years will also assist in the demonstration of progress
overtime from implementing air quality-related General Plan policies.
Air Quality Analysis – Overlapping Construction and Operational Impacts
3. When specific development is reasonably foreseeable as result of the goals, policies, and guidelines in
the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts and
sources of air pollution that could occur using its best efforts to find out and a good-faith effort at full
disclosure in a CEQA document. Based on a review of the Air Quality Analysis, SCAQMD staff
found that the Lead Agency did not analyze a scenario where construction emissions overlap with
operational emissions. Since implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to occur within the
City over a period of 20 years to year 2040, an overlapping construction and operation scenario may
be reasonably foreseeable, unless the Proposed Project includes requirement(s) that will avoid
overlapping construction and operational activities. To properly analyze a worst-case impact scenario
that is reasonably foreseeable at the time a CEQA document is prepared, SCAQMD staff
recommends that the Lead Agency use its best efforts to identify the overlapping years, combine
construction emissions (including emissions from demolition) with operational emissions, and
compare the combined emissions to SCAQMD’s air quality CEQA operational thresholds of
significance to determine the level of significance in the Final MND. In the event that the Lead
Agency, after revising the Air Quality Analysis, finds that the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts
would be significant, mitigation measures will be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4. For more information on suggested potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead
Agency, please visit SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook website9.
Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures
4. It is unclear what General Plan policies that are capable of reducing air quality impacts have been
incorporated in the MND since both the main body of the MND and the technical appendix are silent
on this. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law
be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. As
such, in addition to Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8, SCAQMD staff recommends that the
Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final MND to further reduce
criteria pollutant emissions.
a) Implement performance standards-based technology review during the development phase of the
Proposed Project. Technology is transforming land use and transportation planning. Since the
Proposed Project will be built over a 20-year period, and as technology continues to advance, the
Lead Agency should take this opportunity to develop a pathway to deploy lowest emission
technologies possible in the development life of the Proposed Project. To facilitate this
requirement, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency develop a plan to assess
equipment availability, equipment fleet mixtures, and best available emissions control devices
every two years beginning two years after the Proposed Project is approved, and specify
performance standards for the technology assessment. A performance standards-based
technology review is generally feasible at a programmatic level for an area-wide and long-range
plan such as the Proposed Project.
b) Require the use of 2010 model year diesel haul trucks that conform to 2010 EPA truck standards
or newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) during
construction and operation, and if the Lead Agency determines that 2010 model year or newer
9 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Accessed at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-
handbook.
F-16
So J. Kim 5 April 10, 2018
diesel haul trucks are not feasible, the Lead Agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model
year NOx emissions requirements, at a minimum.
c) Require that 240-Volt electrical outlets or Level 2 chargers be installed in parking lots that would
enable charging of NEVs and/or battery powered vehicles.
Vehicles that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce
the significant NOx and ROG impacts from this project. It is important to make this electrical
infrastructure available when the project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes
commercially available. The cost of installing electrical charging equipment onsite is
significantly cheaper if completed when the project is built compared to retrofitting an existing
building. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency require the Proposed Project
be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for
vehicles to plug-in.
d) Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of
solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the
facility.
e) Limit parking supply and unbundle parking costs.
f) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots.
g) Use light colored paving and roofing materials.
h) Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.
i) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.
j) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
k) Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
l) Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products.
To further reduce particulate matter from the Proposed Project, SCAQMD staff recommends that the
Lead Agency include the following mitigation measures in the Final MND.
m) Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when
visible plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all disturbed areas.
n) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
o) Sweep all streets at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186, 1186.1 certified street sweepers
or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend
water sweepers with reclaimed water).
p) Apply water three times daily, or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’
specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas, unpaved road surfaces, or to areas where
soil is disturbed.
F-17
So J. Kim 6 April 10, 2018
SCAQMD Rule 403(e) and Permits
5. The Lead Agency included a discussion on general compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 in the
MND. Based on the project description, the Proposed Project is a large operation of approximately
399.48 acres (50-acre sites or more of disturbed surface area; or daily earth-moving operations of
3,850 cubic yards or more on three days in any year) in the South Coast Air Basin. The Lead Agency
is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403(e) – Additional Requirements for Large Operations10,
which includes requirements to provide Large Operation Notification Form 403 N, appropriate
signage, additional dust control measures, and employment of a dust control supervisor that has
successfully completed the Dust Control in the South Coast Air Basin training class11. Therefore,
SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency include a discussion to demonstrate specific
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403(e) in the Final MND. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403(e)
will further reduce particulate matter from the Proposed Project.
6. In the event that development of the Proposed Project requires a permit from SCAQMD (e.g., an
emergency generator rated greater than 50 brake horsepower), SCAQMD should be identified as a
responsible agency for the Proposed Project in the Final MND. Any assumptions used in the air
quality analysis in the Final MND will be the basis for permit conditions and limits. For more
information on permits, please visit SCAQMD webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.
Questions on permits can be directed to SCAQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-
3385.
Other Comment
7. While the CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe the level of technical details in a MND, there are some
guidance on how to handle technical details in an environmental impact report (EIR). “Writing
Environmental Impact Reports in plain language” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15006(q)). “The
information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams,
and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental
impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and
specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting
information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Appendices to the EIR may be
prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public
examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15147).
After reviewing the Air Quality Analysis in the main body of the MND, SCAQMD staff found that
the Analysis there was substantively deficient and lacking. The Analysis in the main body of the
MND did not discuss SCAQMD air quality CEQA significance thresholds for construction and
operation or the methodology that was used to analyze the Proposed Project’s regional and localized
construction and operational air quality impacts. The Analysis did not disclose the Proposed Project’s
construction emissions, although they were disclosed in the technical appendix. The Analysis did not
discuss the impact level of significance before and after Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8
were incorporated. The Analysis did not disclose the Proposed Project’s localized air quality
emissions in the main body of the MND to support a fair argument that the Proposed Project would
not exceed SCAQMD air quality CEQA LSTs significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, or
PM2.5. Lastly, there was no discussion in the main body of the MND on the Proposed Project’s
operational impacts.
10 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403. Last amended June 3, 2005. Accessed at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf.
11 South Coast Air Quality Management District Compliance and Enforcement Staff’s contact information for Rule 403(e)
Large Operations is (909) 396-2608 or by e-mail at dustcontrol@aqmd.gov.
F-18
So J. Kim 7 April 10, 2018
The MND, together with all of the technical appendices, is an informational document to inform
government decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of
proposed activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15002(a)(1)). The Air Quality Analysis in the main
body of the MND should be revised in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision
makers and to the public. For example, the main body of the MND should include a summary of the
environmental setting, regulatory framework that guide the assessment of the Proposed Project’s air
quality impacts, methodology (including modeling tools and any assumptions used), analysis, and
findings from the Air Quality Technical Report (Report) and include a reference to the Report.
F-19
From:sharon yarber
To:PC; So Kim
Subject:General Plan
Date:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:23:54 AM
Dear Commissioners and So,
I want to echo Ken Dyda's comments last night. Overall I think the staff did an excellent job
with updating the GP and I am glad the Commissioners approved sending it on to Council.
Getting this done has been a long and arduous process and the time had come to wrap it up.
Nothing is perfect, and I will send a couple of clean up items (typos, nothing substantive)
when I finish my review.
Thank you for all you do and have done. Great job!
Sharon Yarber
F-20
From:SUNSHINE
To:So Kim; Ara Mihranian; Doug Willmore
Cc:CC; PC; Dave Emenhiser <emenhiser@aol.com>; Bill Gerstner <wgg@squareoneinc.com>;
lowell975@gmail.com; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; ldb910@juno.com; cmoneil@aol.com
Subject:A problem with the purpose of a General Plan Land Use Map
Date:Saturday, March 31, 2018 7:01:21 PM
March 31, 2018
A problem with the purpose of a General Plan Land Use Map
Hi So,
Given that this is an exercise mandated by the State of California, my concerns may
be moot. If this map is used by anyone other than a State level bureaucrat, I am
concerned about its “impressions” and inconsistencies.
The proposed change from Open Space Hazard to Open Space Hillside removes the
“stigma” of Hazard where the previous version of the map inaccurately showed
private property as “hazard areas”. Now that we know where the “steep slopes” are,
all of the areas which are 35 percent slopes and greater (and not ocean bluffs)
should be shown so that the Zoning Map and Development Codes will be
“compliant”. Or, “OPEN SPACE” areas should follow legal meets and bounds like
everything else. Who’s on first?
I can see the logic behind using the same color for Commercial Retail, Office and
Recreational Active, Passive. Shifts between the two choices in each category
should be more flexible than the General Plan Amendment process. It just made me
crazy as a proofreader looking for which is which. You might want to consider giving
each category just one line, each and make the INSTITUTIONAL “blues” more
distinct. There may be an error on Crestridge Road. Or, maybe everything
Institutional should be one line and one color. Who cares?
I am not going to check every density difference in RESIDENTIAL. Trump National
Golf Course is still Zoned Residential? Are the Ocean Terraces Condos and the PV
Bay Club non-conforming? One would think that these two, high-density facilities
that got in before incorporation would “jump out right in your face”. Just curious.
YEA! We are proud of our PV Nature Preserve. Coastal sage scrub habitat is not all
that green. Parks and golf courses are green. Just an impression on the color
choice.
Agriculture is no longer on the LEGEND. Who wasn’t following the General Plan
while attrition happened? “Habitat preservation” is not the same as “rural
atmosphere”. Trails should no longer be called “Flower Field” or “Baby’s Breath”.
Rows of different colors along the coast will never return. Run a search. Save a
page. I think that there should be a specific General Plan Amendment which
removes all mention of agriculture except for the little bit of history in the
Introduction. Both the Japanese and the Caucasian farming families are all gone.
F-21
The chances for “hands on”, Docent led, educational activities have been “buried”
literally. (That tractor on the cover of the existing General Plan still works. Farmer G
asked for only five acres in the perfect climate zone.) So sorry.
The same Midcentury Modern Designer who said “Less is more” also said “Form
follows function”. Is this map following its function?
Following is some chatter about how difficult it is to represent reality on a map. We
might want to consider Google while we redo our open space and trail maps. No
point in “reinventing the wheel”. Social media is a reality. …S 310-377-8761
F-22
From:SUNSHINE
To:So Kim
Subject:Fwd: A problem with the purpose of a General Plan Land Use Map
Date:Saturday, March 31, 2018 7:24:12 PM
Hi So,
I suspect that "the following" which I neglected to paste in, will only make sense to you
and Dan . Scroll on down and put it all in the Public Record as you please. ...S
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: sok@rpvca.gov, aram@rpvca.gov, dwillmore@rpvca.gov
Cc: cc@rpvca.gov, pc@rpvca.gov, emenhiser@aol.com, wgg@squareoneinc.com,
lowell975@gmail.com, mickeyrodich@gmail.com, ldb910@juno.com, cmoneil@aol.com
Sent: 3/31/2018 7:01:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: A problem with the purpose of a General Plan Land Use Map
March 31, 2018
A problem with the purpose of a General Plan Land Use Map
Hi So,
Given that this is an exercise mandated by the State of California, my concerns
may be moot. If this map is used by anyone other than a State level bureaucrat,
I am concerned about its “impressions” and inconsistencies.
The proposed change from Open Space Hazard to Open Space Hillside removes
the “stigma” of Hazard where the previous version of the map inaccurately
showed private property as “hazard areas”. Now that we know where the “steep
slopes” are, all of the areas which are 35 percent slopes and greater (and not
ocean bluffs) should be shown so that the Zoning Map and Development Codes
will be “compliant”. Or, “OPEN SPACE” areas should follow legal meets and
bounds like everything else. Who’s on first?
I can see the logic behind using the same color for Commercial Retail, Office and
Recreational Active, Passive. Shifts between the two choices in each category
should be more flexible than the General Plan Amendment process. It just
made me crazy as a proofreader looking for which is which. You might want to
consider giving each category just one line, each and make the INSTITUTIONAL
“blues” more distinct. There may be an error on Crestridge Road. Or, maybe
everything Institutional should be one line and one color. Who cares?
I am not going to check every density difference in RESIDENTIAL. Trump
National Golf Course is still Zoned Residential? Are the Ocean Terraces
Condos and the PV Bay Club non-conforming? One would think that these two,
high-density facilities that got in before incorporation would “jump out right in
your face”. Just curious.
YEA! We are proud of our PV Nature Preserve. Coastal sage scrub habitat is
F-23
not all that green. Parks and golf courses are green. Just an impression on the
color choice.
Agriculture is no longer on the LEGEND. Who wasn’t following the General Plan
while attrition happened? “Habitat preservation” is not the same as “rural
atmosphere”. Trails should no longer be called “Flower Field” or “Baby’s
Breath”. Rows of different colors along the coast will never return. Run a
search. Save a page. I think that there should be a specific General Plan
Amendment which removes all mention of agriculture except for the little bit of
history in the Introduction. Both the Japanese and the Caucasian farming
families are all gone. The chances for “hands on”, Docent led, educational
activities have been “buried” literally. (That tractor on the cover of the existing
General Plan still works. Farmer G asked for only five acres in the perfect
climate zone.) So sorry.
The same Midcentury Modern Designer who said “Less is more” also said “Form
follows function”. Is this map following its function?
Following is some chatter about how difficult it is to represent reality on a map.
We might want to consider Google while we redo our open space and trail
maps. No point in “reinventing the wheel”. Social media is a reality. …S 310-
377-8761
***
Your comment presents an opportunity to provide some background info about how colors are used
on the Google map.
The Google map uses four shades of green.
-- a bluish green that is used for golf courses and a few other things.
-- another shade of green that is used for things like soccer and baseball fields.
-- a lime green that is used for parks.
-- a very pale green that is used for nature preserves and a few other things.
Due to a technical problem, the pale green color is currently not appearing on the map. But the
other three shades of green can be seen in the map below, which is part of nearby Harbor Park.
F-24
Unfortunately, it's not possible to directly specify the colors of boundary areas.
The color is determined automatically by whatever "category" has been designated for the area.
When a boundary area is added, a "category" must be specified. There are only a limited number of
categories. Examples of categories that might be used for open land areas include Park, Nature
Preserve, Woods, and Golf Course.
There is no category for "unimproved government owned land." If we want this kind of land to
appear with a green color, in PV the only practical choice we have is Park or Nature Preserve.
Some of the PVPLC reserves have category Park and appear as lime green (such as Three Sisters
and Filiorum). Others have category Nature Preserve and appear with the pale green color.
F-25
Most of the categories for PVPLC reserves were specified before I began editing, so I don't know
why some were designated as Parks and some as Nature Preserves.
As you know, PV has quite a few dedicated open space areas that are owned by homeowner
associations. I thought it would be useful to have these areas shaded green on the map. When I
added them, I used category Nature Preserve which seemed closer to being accurate than using
Park.
The map below shows the homeowner association open space through which the east end of Agua
Amarga Canyon runs.
I originally added it with category of Nature Preserve and it appeared with the pale green color. A
paid Google editor later came along and changed the category to Park, which produces the current
lime green color.
One of more frustrating aspects of being a volunteer editor is to have a paid editor come along and
mess up one of your edits like this.
F-26
You wrote:
The City owned portion of Windport Canyon should have its own "green"
F-27
From:SUNSHINE
To:CC; So Kim; Matt Waters; Ara Mihranian
Cc:momofyago@gmail.com; smhvaleri@cox.net
Subject:General Plan Update definitions of recreation activities and Land Use Map
Date:Saturday, April 14, 2018 1:29:13 PM
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: General Plan Update definitions of recreation activities and Land Use Map
The draft General Plan Update which you will be considering on April 26, 2018 has
left the definitions of Active Recreation and Passive Recreation, unchanged from
1984. They have created problems over the years because the text in which these
terms are used imply some different interpretations.
The Open Space Planning and Rec & Parks Task Force requested and received a
clarification from Matt Waters. Ara Mihranian held a special meeting to discuss the
issue with 15 to 20 concerned citizens in relation to the TNP Update. All appears to
have been forgotten.
The definitions which worked best for the Task Force are:
Active Recreation activities are those that are structured by established rules, score
keeping and specific dimensions of the play area.
Passive Recreation activities are not structured by established rules, score keeping
and specific dimensions of the play area.
The problem is with the word “structured” which is sometimes confused as
“structures”. It has been stated that Passive Recreation areas should have no
structures. Not even rest rooms.
The Task Force kicked this around for quite some time and came up with bocci ball
as a marginal activity because it can be played with or without a structural playing
field.
These definitions are very important in relation to designating parkland areas as
either “a” or “p”. Is that really necessary?
There is now a different color on the Land Use Map for OPEN SPACE
PRESERVATION. The draft shows RECREATIONAL ACTIVE and
RECREATIONAL PASSIVE as the same color with the “a”’s and “p”’s to be
decided/added, later. Is this mandated by some higher authority? My concern is that
an “a” designation will preclude some future “structures” which have nothing to do
with “structured activities”.
Another definition of concern is that of a “Viewing Station” as illustrated in the Coastal
F-28
Specific Plan. A conflict arose, a definition was agreed upon but it now appears only
as a City Council Policy. With all the other view related definitions in the draft GP
Update, I suggest it would be appropriate to insert this one, here and now.
Take a drive by the construction site at 3433 Palos Verdes Drive West and you will
clearly see that the definition came too late in the entitlements process. The new
roofline obstructs the view to above the horizon. That is not supposed to be
permitted.
I also suggest that language be inserted so that this Viewing Station criteria applies to
foliage maintenance. Particularly, in relation to the City’s coastal parklands and
preserve properties.
F-29
From:SUNSHINE
To:CC
Cc:So Kim; Elias Sassoon; Ara Mihranian; Cory Linder; jeanlongacre@aol.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com;
amcdougall1@yahoo.com; momofyago@gmail.com; troy@eworld-media.com; pshaw999@msn.com
Subject:General Plan Update Special Meeting. This about trails
Date:Friday, April 13, 2018 5:37:53 PM
MEMO from SUNSHINE
TO: RPV City Council, Staff and interested parties
RE: General Plan Update on Amendment 22, trails processes and procedures
In the tracking version, see page CI-4. Amendment 22 is some text from the
Introduction of the Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP). Staff was not following the
processes and procedures so it was suggested that the directive would have more
clout if it was in the General Plan. The Council approved it.
Unfortunately, Staff still doesn’t know it is there. Or, our intent appeared obvious
when the Trails Committee wrote the Categories by property ownership to assign
which City Department was responsible for pursuing the implementation but that isn’t
obvious enough. The update partially, but not completely, remedies the situation of
needing the relevant department to be named. The, one, department which should
request funding in the Budget to pursue these objectives should be named in each
Category.
Except for the typo, Category I is a good example of correcting a previous error. The
Trails Committee wrote the definitions of the Categories as they are in the CTP
Introduction. Staff added the implementation directives which are in the existing
Amendment 22. Category I says that “Nothing more needs to be done”. Oops. Add
a “close parentheses” at the end of the definition and add that it is the Department of
Public Works who should budget for, inspect and maintain our existing trails on a
regular basis. Under item 25, each Category’s “action” should be given a rewrite with
this clarity in mind.
Item e. Category V has lost part of its implementation directive. Historically, this
category has received the least attention. Since there is no longer a Rec & Parks
Advisory Committee, offers of easements from the public have vanished into a block
hole. To make it clear to those members of the public who thought approval of the
CTP meant the eminent arrival of bulldozers on the “conceptual” trails, Staff added
the disclaimer that Staff would not initiate the implementation of these trails. In the
CTP, the language is… property owners or community groups. The City shall
provide guidance to those who wish to implement these trails... The proposed text
has narrowed it down to… provide appropriate support to the property owners…
(There is that word “appropriate”, again, with no statement about who gets to decide
when something is appropriate enough to act on.) Since we have not been getting
either, I prefer the phrase “provide guidance to property owners and community
F-30
groups”. Given that nobody else has access to the City Attorney and some other
skills, I suggest that the City Manager be designated to implement these requests.
Staff acted upon the Task Force’s recommendation to eliminate Category VI. Yea!.
That leaves the part of the recommendation which changes the format under each of
the other Categories. Council approved that back in 2012. We are still waiting for it
to show up in the draft Trails Network Plan Update (TNP). Something over
$7,000.00 was designated for completion of the TNP in 2013. The revised draft of
the NCCP changes Staff’s responsibilities regarding the TNP. Is the funding to
complete this rewrite clearly in the draft Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget?
Item 26. Seems to me this is not new and should not be buried where it relates only
to trails.
Item 27. This is the point at which the local trails advocates should be notified.
Neither Public Works nor Community Development personnel have been very
effective at representing the whole community’s interest in completing and improving
the trails network amenity.
Item 28. Council has approved the change in the term from “Standards” to “Criteria”.
The TRAILS DEVELOPMENT / MAINTENANCE CRITERIA of July 4, 2012 was
created for world-wide use as a tool for government agencies to define what is
desired without limiting the Designer’s creativity to one segment at a time and
produces a long-standing approval by environmental agencies.
Item 28.d. A statement with this much authority should be a rephrase of Item 25 and
be included in every General Plan reference to a subservient Plan. …consideration
is required of all departments during project design. Ladera Linda is a perfect
example of what can go wrong when a project is designed in isolation.
I am concerned that I have produced more than a page commenting on just one page
of red ink. There are similarly complicated impacts throughout the draft. Please
comment on each of the over-all proposed changes and then give the public more
time to comment on the specific language.
For those who do not have a hard copy of the “tracking” version of the draft Update,
you can find it on the city’s web site if you copy and paste the following on your
internet connection’s Address Bar.
http://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/view/11602
F-31
From:SUNSHINE
To:So Kim
Subject:Re: NCCP connection. Fwd: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush Clearance
Date:Saturday, March 31, 2018 9:13:05 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
Mumzie front page -0049.pdf
Mumzie pg 2 -0055.pdf
Hi So,
Sorry I called you Kim. I will be 70 years old this year. My parents lived to be well
over 90. They cared so I care. RPV ain't what it used to be. What shall it become.
The devil is in the fine print. ...S
In a message dated 3/27/2018 3:09:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, sunshinerpv@aol.com
writes:
Apparently, the PVPLC/NCCP has "eyes" on what gets changed to OPEN
SPACE HILLSIDE on the Draft General Plan Land Use Map. The
Development Code already controls what can be done on 35 percent slopes
because they are a "hazard". Get this "end run" out of the NCCP mess.
TNX. ...S
From: sunshinerpv@aol.com
To: SoK@rpvca.gov
Cc: pc@rpvca.gov
Sent: 3/27/2018 2:36:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: Re: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush Clearance
Hi Kim,
Thanks for the clarification. Elkmont Canyon is one of those gullies
that could support a trail connection. I guess it is not as steep as it
looks or the steep side is in RHE. I'm still looking for some
consistency in what is OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE and what is not.
OPEN SPACE HILLSIDE areas do retain their underlying residential
zoning don't they? (Except, of course, in the Miraleste Parklands
District, right?) ...S
In a message dated 3/26/2018 4:58:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
SoK@rpvca.gov writes:
Hi SUNSHINE,
I sent you the incorrect snapshot. Below is Elkmont Canyon. No changes
are proposed to its existing Residential land use designation.
F-32
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: So Kim
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:50 PM
To: 'SUNSHINE' <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush
Clearance
Hi SUNSHINE,
The disparity between the mapping of the General Plan’s Hazard areas and
the Zoning Map’s OH zoning boundaries, along with a history of concerns
raised by property owners through the years about the inaccuracy of the
Open Space Hazard mapping on the Zoning Map, prompted Staff to task
the City Geologist to review the Hazard land use mapped Citywide to
determine if it was consistent with existing topographic and geologic
conditions that warranted such zoning pursuant to the General Plan.
Specifically, the City Geologist was tasked to review the Hazard land use
mapping throughout the City to determine if existing topographic and
geologic conditions warrant a Hazard land use designation. Based on his
F-33
review, Staff was directed to adjust the Hazard boundary lines on certain
properties so that the Hazard designation is located outside of developed
or developable portions of parcels, in an effort to limit the Hazard areas,
where preservation of the topography was necessary to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare. In 2012, the Planning Commission directed
Staff to move forward with adjusting the General Plan Hazard land use
boundaries in a manner that would decrease the amount of Open Space
Hazard land use designations recommended by the City Geologist.
Additionally, the “Hazard” designation is proposed to be removed as some
property owners may feel as an unwarranted stigma to their property
value, and be replaced with a new designation of Open Space Hillside. This
would only apply to properties outside of the landslide areas and the
Coastal Zone.
As for Elmont Canyon, it is shown on the land use map (see snapshot
below).
Sincerely,
So Kim, AICP
Deputy Director/Planning Manager
Community Development Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.rpvca.gov
(310) 544-5222
From: SUNSHINE [mailto:sunshinerpv@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:25 PM
To: So Kim <SoK@rpvca.gov>
Cc: PC <PC@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
F-34
Subject: Land Use Map and Re: Update-Elkmont Canyon 2018 Brush
Clearance
Hi So,
I'm still trying to figure out what having a "HILLSIDE" land use
designation is supposed to accomplish. My first thought is that
it makes slightly more than 35 percent slopes less onerous
sounding in relation to a grading or other development
application than "HAZARD". Another thought is that it is
private property that could be "preserved". But then, the
Miraleste District's parkland is already preserved. Either way,
why isn't Elkmont Canyon shown? ...S ...310-377-8761
In a message dated 3/26/2018 11:55:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
listserv@civicplus.com writes:
View this in your browser
This message from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is being
sent to subscribers of this list who might be interested in its
content. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this
message, it is a non-monitored email address. If there is
contact information it will be included in the body of the
message.
On March 23, 2018, Mr. Perera, the owner of the Elkmont
Canyon site (APN 7576-026-028), obtained an Encroachment
Permit (Click here to view) from the City’s Public Works
Department which allows vehicular access to the property from
Hawthorne Blvd. in order to complete the annual weed
abatement required by the L.A. County Weed Abatement
Division (enforces laws requiring the removal of weeds, brush,
and debris from vacant properties).
However, it was brought to Staff's attention that the
encroachment permit allowed for "Property access off of
Hawthorne Blvd for Geology Investigation (GIP) and
Weed Clearance", when it should have only been
issued for "Weed Clearance". The City's Public Works
Department has issued a corrected encroachment
permit today which supersedes the permit issued on
3/23 and only allows for: “Property access off of
F-35
Hawthorne Blvd for Weed Clearance” and can be
viewed by clicking here. The Encroachment Permit expires
on April 15, 2018 and is subject to several conditions listed in
the document linked above associated with the weed
abatement work.
Prior to the start of the weed abatement work, on Tuesday
March 27, 2018, City Staff will be meeting with Mr. Perera at
the Elkmont Canyon site, as well L.A. County Weed Abatement
Staff to ensure clarity regarding L.A. County’s requirements for
the 2018 weed abatement. Inquiries should be directed to Amy
Seeraty, Senior Planner, at (310) 544-5231 or via email at
amys@rpvca.gov.
This message has been sent compliments of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes. If you do not wish to continue receiving these
messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by
visiting our website at:
http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx
Please note, The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will not sell or
give your e-mail address to any organization without your
explicit permission.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
Elkmont Canyon on www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click
the following link:
Unsubscribe
F-36
F-37
F-38