Loading...
CC SR 20191001 02 - Sol y Mar Compliance Review PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 1, 2019 Subject: Consideration and possible action to conduct a review of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012- 00067 for the Sol y Mar Senior Condominium Housing Project located at 5601 Crestridge Road (Planning Case No. PLCU2019-0014) Recommendation: Conduct a review of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012-00067 for the Sol y Mar Senior Condominium Housing Project; and, Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, thereby amending certain conditions of approval of Resolution No. 2013-31. 1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk 2. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 3. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Duhovic 4. Staff Report & Recommendation: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner 5. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias): 6. Public Testimony: Principal Parties 10 Minutes Each. The appellant or their representative speaks first and will generally be allowed ten minutes. If the applicant is different from the appellant, the applicant or their representative will speak following the appellant and will also be allowed ten minutes to make a presentation. A. Applicant: Taylor Morrison Property Owner: Sol y Mar Homeowners Association (HOA) i. Mayor Duhovic invites the Applicant to speak. (10 mins.) B. 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. Rebuttal: Mayor Duhovic invites brief rebuttals by Appellant and Applicant. (3 mins) Normally, the applicants and appellants will be limited to a three (3) minute rebuttal, if requested after all other interested persons have spoken. 8. Council Questions of Appellant (factual and without bias): 9. Council Questions of Applicant (factual and without bias): 10. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Duhovic 11. 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. 12. 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. Cover Page RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/01/2019 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to conduct a review of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012- 00067 for the Sol y Mar Senior Condominium Housing Project located at 5601 Crestridge Road (Planning Case No. PLCU2019-0014) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Conduct a review of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012-00067 for the Sol y Mar Senior Condominium Housing Project; and, (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__, thereby amending certain conditions of approval of Resolution No. 2013-31. FISCAL IMPACT: In accordance with the City Council-adopted fee schedule, the Applicant paid the $3,089 compliance review fee. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Resolution No. 2019-__ and Exhibit A, B and C (page A-1) B. City Council Resolution No. 2013-30 for EIR (page B-1) C. City Council Resolution No. 2013-31 for Entitlement Applications (page C- 1) D. Recorded Final Tract Map No. 71878 (page D-1) E. Final Tract Map overlaid with aerial photo (page E-1) F. Minor Modification Memo Nos. 1-4 and Verdura wall minor modification (page F-1) G. Roof Memorandum dated August 12, 2016 (page G-1) H. Clarification Memorandum dated August 23, 2016 (Page H-1) I. Status Report dated June 14, 2016 (https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15003/Attachment-I-6-14- 16-status-report) J. Public correspondence (page J-1) 1 BACKGROUND: On December 12, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012 - 22, recommending that the City Council certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-23, recommending that the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 & ZON2012-00067 for a new 60-unit senior condominium subdivision (formerly known as the Crestridge Senior Housing Condominium Project and now named the Sol y Mar Senior Condominium Project). As the project included a subdivision and vesting tentative tract map, final approval of the project was required by the City Council. On May 21, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013 -30 (Attachment B), certifying the EIR, making certain environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2013-31 (Attachment C), approving, with conditions of approval, the project. Grading for the project began shortly after building permits were issued in October 2013. During the course of construction, questions were raised by the general public and the Planning Commission related to the following:  Building pad and roof ridgeline elevations  Retaining walls located along the street frontage and within the development  Landscaping intended to screen the retaining walls  Roof pitch changes to certain buildings  Roof colors for certain buildings  Verification of the building density (i.e. W ere the proper number of buildings being constructed per the City Council approvals?) In response, Staff presented the Planning Commission with five status reports, as summarized below: Internal Retaining Walls, Building Pad and Ridgeline Elevations During plan check for the fine grading and the structures, discrepancies regarding the roof ridgeline and pad elevations, and retaining walls on the site were discovered between the plans approved by the City Council and the plans submitted to Building and Safety. Later, discrepancies were also found between the structural building plans, rough grading plans, and the precise grading plans that were submitted to Building and Safety. To resolve these discrepancies and to permit the revised roof ridgeline and pad elevations, and additional internal retaining walls, several minor modifications were approved by the then-Director in 2015, with a subsequent memorandum issued by the current Director in 2016 to further clarify the revisions. Verdura Retaining Walls and Landscape Screening 2 Staff presented several status reports to the Planning Commission throughout 2015 regarding two new Verdura walls that had been approved by the then-Director through a minor modification in February 2014. These retaining walls were not on the original plans approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council. As part of these status reports, Staff reported that the then -Director approved increasing the height of the two 4-foot-tall retaining walls to 7-foot-tall Verdura walls, with a condition for landscape screening the installation of the Verdura retaining walls and cable safety railing as a minor modification. Roof Pitch Changes As part of the status reports presented to the Planning Commission, Staff reported that the former project planner approved roof pitch changes to Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 in order to comply with the Council-approved highest roof ridgeline elevations because the building pad elevations had changed, as noted above. In order to comply, the developer revised the plans modifying the roof type from a pitched roof to a mansard roof for Building Nos. 15, 17 and 18. Additionally, Building Nos. 7 and 14 were required to be lowered based on Condition No. 115, which required the roof pitches of these two buildings to be lowered from 3:12 to 1 ¾ :12 (which is essentially a flat roof) to reduce the overall building heights by three feet to address potential view impacts. Based on these revisions, in June 2014, the former project planner administrat ively approved the mansard roofs for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18, and there is no record that the former Director approved a minor modification for the roof change. Color, Texture and Glare Concerns for Changed Roofs In response to the changes from a pitch roof to a mansard roof and the installation of a bright white thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing material on the flat portion of the mansard roof for certain buildings described above, a number of neighbors raised concerns with potential impacts as a result of the color, texture and glare of the new roofs. Working with the developer, a Pli-Dek material was selected as the approved material to be used on the flat portions of the buildings with mansard roofs. Specifically, Sherwin Williams 6047 (Hot Cocoa) color Pli-Dek material was approved for Building No. 15, Sherwin Williams 6061 (Tanbark) color Pli-Dek material was approved for Building Nos. 14 and 17, and Sherwin Williams 2836 (Quartersawn Oak) color Pli-Dek material was approved for Building Nos. 7 and 18. The Pli-Dek material was selected as the best match to the roof tiles in terms of color, texture, finish, and compatibility with other multi-family developments in the immediate neighborhood. The neighbors agreed to these changes, which were memorialized in a memorandum dated August 12, 2016. Additionally, it was agreed that the project conditions of approval would be modified accordingly at the time the compliance review occurs. Staff worked with the developer to resolve all the above issues and construction continued until July 2018, at which time the final certificate of occupancy was issued . 3 DISCUSSION Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 2013-31 states that the conditions of approval shall be subject to review and modification at a noticed public hearing held one year after issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed. Although the condition of approval states that the Planning Commission shall review the conditions, this compliance review is being considered by the City Council because according to Section 17.60.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the compliance reviews shall be conducted by the final deciding body, in this case the City Council, which took the final action in approving the original project. Conducting a compliance review provides an opportunity for the City to assess the effectiveness of the existing conditions, based on current operations. It also provides the City with the ability to add, delete, and modify conditions based on changed circumstances or unforeseen impacts that may not have been addressed as part of the previous approval. This compliance review is discussed in the following order: 1. Compliance with the City Council-adopted conditions of approval; 2. Compliance with the Director-approved minor modification conditions of approval; 3. Staff-Recommended amendments to the conditions of approval; and, 4. Public comments and requests This compliance review reflects Staff’s assessment of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval, as well as issues raised by the Sol y Mar Homeowners’ Association (HOA) and residents during the review period. 1. Compliance with the City Council-adopted Conditions of Approval The following is a summary of conditions of approval that require specific actions and operational compliance by the developer (Taylor Morrison) or the Sol y Mar HOA (see conditions of approval in the attached City Council Resolution Nos. 2013-30 and 2013-31 for specific language). The conditions are generally listed in numerical order and by subject matter:  Condition Nos. 1-10 – General conditions that describe the project and administrative conditions. These conditions have been met as the development has been constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans, and where changes have been made, additional permits have been processed to memorialize these changes. Additionally, pursuant to Condition No. 9, Staff recently verified that none of the landscaping within the development exceeds the height of the line depicted on Exhibit B of Resolution No. 2013-31. 4  Condition Nos. 11-15, 42-46, and 80-83 – Tract Map conditions regarding survey monumentation, street names and unit numbering, and park, open space and other dedications. All required materials for the recordation of the final Tract Map were submitted and approved by the City Council on January 20, 2015. On June 17, 2015, Final Tract Map No. 71878 (Attachment D) was filed with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s Office. Also, the Public Works Department verified in March 2019 that the developer has properly set the tract’s survey monuments. The developer paid the City the required in-lieu park fee in the amount of $1,278,322.21 and also dedicated the pedestrian trail easement for the Crestridge Trail, which connects to the Vista Del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail in the City’s Vista Del Norte Reserve, a sub-area of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.  Condition Nos. 16-22, 37-41, and 95-97 – Public services, utilities and streets. Various bonds were submitted pursuant to the conditions of approval to ensure construction of and connection to a sanitary system, proper construction of improvements in the public right-of-way, and repair of any damage to the existing City rights-of-way. The sewer improvements were accepted by the Public Works Department and the bond was released in December 2016. The street improvements were completed and the bond was released in December 2018. All utilities have been provided underground and the development is served by cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water services.  Condition Nos. 23-36 – Water and drainage. The Building and Safety Division and the Fire Department signed off on the availability of water for residential and firefighting use. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) plan was approved and installed. A Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) was implemented to manage the post-construction runoff from the site and comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The final NPDES compliance verification was issued by the City in January 2019.  Condition Nos. 47-57 – Grading. The grading has been completed per City approvals, and all phases of the rough and precise grading have been signed off. However, Staff has not released the grading bond nor intends to until some outstanding items, as discussed below, have been completed.  Condition Nos. 58-70 – Common area improvements and CC&Rs. 5 The Crestridge trail has been constructed connecting to the Vista Del Norte Reserve and directional signs have been installed. The required guest parking spaces have been provided. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which were recorded on December 21, 2015, have been provided to the City. There are still some open permits that have yet to be made final for some of the common area improvements, including the bocce ball courts and fire pit. Staff will not sign off on the final inspection for these common area improvements nor release the grading bond until all issues associated with the development have been resolved.  Condition Nos. 71-79 – Lighting. A lighting plan was approved by Staff in April 2016, and last month, Staff verified that the lighting was installed in substantial compliance with the City’s approved lighting plan. However, the building permit for the common area site lighting has not been made final by the Building and Safety Division because, as described below, the developer is making some minor changes. Specifically, Staff is currently working with the developer and HOA to finalize the on-site lighting to address concerns that certain areas of the site are inadequately illuminated. Staff is working to address this concern with the developer, who indicated that an updated lighting plan providing additional low-wattage, downcast lighting at these various locations will be submitted shortly. Staff anticipates receiving the revised lighting plan by the October 1 City Council meeting.  Condition No. 84 – Affordable housing. In October 2017, after review and approval of the applicable documents by the City Attorney, the developer finalized the sale of the three affordable housing units to very low-income buyers in compliance with this condition.  Condition Nos. 85-94 – Geology. The project was constructed pursuant to the approved plans, which included the appropriate City-approved geotechnical reports. This was verified pursuant to the submitted grading and drainage certifications.  Condition Nos. 98-104 – Biology. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures were complied with during construction regarding protection of the adjacent Vista del Norte Reserve and nesting birds.  Condition Nos. 105-106 – Cultural resources. 6 All conditions of approval and mitigation measures were complied with during construction regarding cultural resources and no cultural resources were found on the site during construction.  Condition Nos. 107-113 – Noise. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures regarding noise were complied with during construction.  Condition Nos. 114-128 – Development Standards. The conditions of approval relating to development standards include height and setback requirements. As previously reported, minor modifications were approved between 2015 and 2016 to address retaining wall revisions and to resolve discrepancies regarding the building pad and ridgeline elevations. During construction, pad elevation, finished floor and building height certifications for each structure were accepted by the City. 2. Compliance with the Director-Approved Minor Modification Conditions of Approval  Verdura Retaining Walls Staff has verified that the height of the Verdura retaining walls constructed along the street frontage comply with the minor modification memorandums and that the honeysuckle plants have grown to adequately screen the retaining walls.  Internal Retaining Walls, Building Pad and Ridgeline Elevations The project complies with all the conditions of approval associated with the minor modification approvals for the revised numbers of internal retaining walls, and updated building pad and ridgeline elevations. A matrix describing the revised and approved building pad, finished floor and bui lding ridgeline elevations has been incorporated into the updated conditions of approval as Exhibit C (Attachment A).  Roof Color, Texture and Glare Staff has verified that the roof materials were installed in compliance with the conditions of approval and minor modifications as it relates to color, texture and glare. The approved roof color, texture, and maintenance requirements have been incorporated into the revised conditions of approval attached to this report as Condition Nos. 129 and 130 (Attachment A). 3. Staff-Recommended Amendments to the Conditions of Approval 7 Based on Staff’s compliance assessment, public comments, previous minor modification approvals, and discussions with the Developer, the HOA, and Sol y Mar residents, Staff proposes the following amendments to the conditions of approval to address concerns raised with the project (deleted text shown in strikethrough and new text shown in bold underline).  Building Pad and Ridgeline Elevations As stated above, a matrix memorializing the revised and constructed building pad, finished floor and building ridgeline elevations has been incorporated into the updated conditions of approval as Exhibit C (Attachment A). Also, Condition Nos. 120 and 121 have been edited to reflect the reference change to the updated matrix for the building heights, pad elevations, and finish floor elevations, from the plans approved by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012 and by the City Council on March 5, 2013.  Retaining Walls (Minor Modification Nos. 1 and 2) Condition No. 51 has been updated per the Minor Modification No s. 1 and 2 to read: 51. The construction of three new garden walls, retaining walls, and combination walls shall be permitted to be constructed as part of the proposed project these include one, 6 foot high upslope retaining wall behind each of the three structures on the west side of the development, as illustrated on the approved plans submitted into Building and Safety and as shown in the chart below. Subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. 8  Roof Changes (Memo Approved on August 12, 2016) In August 2016, the Director of Community Development issued a memorandum regarding the material, color, texture, and maintenance of the flat portions of the mansard roofs on Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18. Staff recommends the following additions to the conditions of approval to memorialize this memorandum: 129. The Pli-Dek Waterproof Deck Coating System shall be inspected every 3 years (from initial installation) by an Approved Applicator (Contact Pli-Dek for details). Exposed urethane caulking at penetrations and flashing seams shall be inspected annually. If general cleaning is needed, mild soap and water and a push broom shall be used to remove any dirt. When finished, the entire roof shall be hosed off to remove all soap. These requirements shall be incorporated into the official "Homeowners Association Maintenance Guide” for the Sol y Mar HOA. 9 130. The following are the approved colors for the roof tiles and the fine knock-down texture Pli-Dek roof surface for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18:  Building Nos. 7 & 18: 3605 San Benito Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 2836 (Quartersawn Oak) for the Pli-Dek surface;  Building No. 15: 3636 Piedmont Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 6047 (Hot Cocoa) for the Pli-Dek surface; and,  Building Nos. 14 & 17: 3813 San Mateo Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 6061 (Tanbark) for the Pli-Dek surface. Modifications to the above-mentioned approved roof colors shall require approval by the City council as a revision to the Conditional Use Permit at a duly noticed public hearing. Also, in the August 12, 2016, memorandum, it was documented that the roof design for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 changed to a mansard roof, from a pitched roof. Staff recommends that Condition No. 115 be amended to further memorialize this change: 115. Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check, the buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 13, 2012, shall be modified by adding the following: Pursuant to the Director-issued Memorandum dated August 12, 2016, the roofs of Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18 shall be allowed to be modified from a pitched roof to mansard-style roof.  Private Unit Patio Improvements Since residents have begun moving into the residences, several Site Plan Review permits have been issued for improvements on the private patios , such as patio pavers, built-in BBQs, outdoor kitchens, planters, etc. The conditions of approval do not explicitly address residents’ modifications to the first floor private patios. As such, Staff proposes the following amendment to clarify what is permitted for the private first floor patios: 131. Minor improvements, including but not limited to built-in BBQs, paved patios, fountains, spas, planters, and decking are allowed for the private patio areas for each residence with the approval of a Site Plan Review Permit. Prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Grading permits from the Building & Safety Division, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Sol y Mar HOA for the proposed work, which shall 10 consist of a written approval letter from the HOA and a stamped plan which shows all proposed work. Public Comments and Requests On September 12, 2019, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius from the project's boundary, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the developer, announcing that the City Council will conduct a review of the Applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012-00067 and consider revisions to the conditions of approval at its October 1, 2019, meeting. At this time, Staff has received numerous phone calls, letters, and emails in response to the public notice (Attachment J) expressing concerns including the proposal to change some of the guest parking spaces to permit parking for the residents, privacy issues between units, use of the public trails by non -residents, duplicate address numbers, and allowances for caregivers under the age of 55 to live in the community. Staff also received a letter from the HOA prior to the public notice being published regarding several issues they wish to be addressed during the compliance review. Staff has summarized and responded to these comments as described below:  Conversion of Guest Parking Spaces to Permit Parking Staff received a letter in August 2019 from the Sol y Mar HOA, requesting that the conditions be modified to allow them to issue up to 10 residents a parking permit to park an authorized vehicle in a guest parking space overnight. The HOA proposes to monitor this parking permit program with the use of their existing security patrol, or additional monitoring staff. Staff does not support this request as it would result in a reduction in the required number of guest parking spaces, which is needed because the width of the private streets cannot accommodate parked vehicles. That is why the conditions of approval require that the development provide 31 guest parking spaces which equates to approximately 25% of the required 120 residence parking spaces per the multiple-family residential district parking standards. While Staff has received one letter requesting that the residents be allowed to park in the guest spaces, without any additional permitting or monitoring, Staff has received numerous letters from residents of the development opposed to this proposal.  Additional Site Lighting Staff received multiple emails from residents of the development earlier this year regarding the need for additional lighting in the public areas of the site to adequately illuminate the common areas, such as the dog park path, the stairs along the public trail/private sidewalk, the stairs adjacent to the bocce ball court, the stairs down to the firepit, and the picnic area adjacent to the bocce ball court. After discussing the issue with the HOA and the developer, the developer has agreed to update the lighting plan by installing additional light fixtures in these 11 areas. The additional lighting fixtures will match the existing 4’ tall bollards found throughout the site. Based on the existing lighting condition, Staff does not believe that the additional bollards, which are low and downcast fixtures, would result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties. Although the majority of correspondence Staff received is in favor of this additional lighting, Staff received one letter from a resident who is opposed to this additional lighting, as he believes it would encourage the public’s use of the trail during non-public trail hours. This resident also stated that it is impossible to know whether a resident or the public is using the public trail after the allowed trail use hours (same as the Preserve trails), and so it should be closed to everyone between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise. Additional comments have been submitted by other residents regarding concerns about the public’s use of the trail easement that traverses the community. However, as the easement allows for the public’s use of the pedestrian trail, Staff does not recommend making any changes to the public’s use of the trail.  Relocation of Public Trail Within Existing Easement The HOA has inquired whether it would be able to move the public trail from the sidewalk directly adjacent to the rear of the residences on Calle Stellare, to the edge of the landscape area, north of these residences. It requested that this relocated trail be jointly funded and completed by the developer, the HOA, and the City. The trail would still be located within the existing public trail easement, which encompasses the entire landscaped area north of the residents on Calle Stellare (see Attachment E). Staff reviewed the approved plans, and also consulted with the developer and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy to determine if this proposal was feasible. It appears that there is no reason why the trail could not be moved, but this would have to be completed at a cost borne by the HOA because it was constructed in accordance with the City’s approvals.  Miscellaneous Requests/Comments Staff has also recently received a request from a neighbor for additional landscaping that will grow taller than the existing landscape, to further screen the buildings. Staff will be working with the HOA and the neighbors to discus s this request. However, Condition No. 29 specifies that the landscaping include foliage/trees of a type of species that can be maintained so as not to exceed the height of the highest visible roof ridgelines of the development. Additionally, it should also be noted that after receiving some neighbor comments that the building façades that face Crestridge would not be adequately screened by the low-lying vegetation that was proposed on the landscape plan, the developer planted some additional trees in this area. Other miscellaneous suggestions/requests that Staff believes could be addressed directly with the HOA and not require the City Council’s formal 12 consideration include installing privacy hedges on private patios (first floor), public trespassing off the public trail easement, adding a rain protective awning to the mailboxes and/or front doors of the residences, and duplicate address numbers on different streets within the development. Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that the project has been constructed and is operating in substantial compliance with the City Council-adopted conditions of approval, and that certain conditions of approval be modified to memorialize modifications made to the project during construction. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2019-__ with revised conditions of approval to be read into the record at tonight’s meeting. 2. Direct Staff to further revise the conditions of approval based upon City Council discussion and public comments, and continue this matter to a date certain. 3. Determine that Sol y Mar is not in compliance with the City Council-adopted conditions of approval, and provide Staff and Sol y Mar with further direction. 4. Take no action. 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (NO. ZON2012-00067) FOR THE SOL Y MAR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON CRESTRIDGE ROAD (CASE NO. PLCU2019-0014). WHEREAS, on February 22, 2012, applications for an Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit (ZON2012-00067) and Tentative Tract Map (SUB2012-00001) were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above) condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge Road (then APN 7589-013-009); and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information, Staff deemed the project applications complete on April 20, 2012, pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), Government Code Section 65920 et seq.; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079) (the “EIR”); and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the “Initial Study”) for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, and on May 29, 2012, the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released to the public and public agencies for a comment period of 3 1 days (through June 29, 2012). Further, a Public Notice was mailed on May 29, 2012, to the 57 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently, the Notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 31, 2012. Furthermore, the notice was posted on the City’s website, and emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the City’s website listserv for this project. Lastly, a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall, Hesse Park, the local libraries, and made available on the City’s website for the public to download and review; and, A-1 WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide verbal comments on the IS/NOP, at which time the Planning Commission extended the comment period through July 12, 2012; and, WHEREAS, after the NOP comment period ended, the Draft EIR was prepared taking various comments into account. After completing the Draft EIR, the document was made available to the public on August 21, 2012, for a 48-day public comment period that concluded on October 8, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012 , the Planning Commission held a public comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments, in addition to the typical written comments, on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on October 25, 2012, the Final EIR was completed and Notice was provided via mail and publication in the Peninsula News that a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13, 2012 , to review the Final EIR and the entitlement applications for the proposed project. Subsequently, a notice was emailed to the 611 people registered on the City’s listserv for this project; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project, the Final EIR and the responses to the comments receive d regarding the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting, landscaping, trail use, and tower height, and return to the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012 with Resolutions for consideration; and, WHEREAS, on the December 11, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted P .C. Resolution No. 2012-22, recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; and, adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-23, recommending that the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA, the City Council continued the public hearing to the April 2, 2013, City Council meeting at the applicant’s request; and, A-2 WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, at the applicant’s request, the public hearing was continued to May 21, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project, the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and the Planning Commission recommendation, and adopted Resolution Nos. 2013 -30 and 2013-31, conditionally approving Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 AND ZON2012-00067 for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit to allow the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 2013-31, a Compliance Review was required for the project within one year after issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed, which occurred on July 17, 2018; and, WHEREAS, on September 12, 2019, a public notice of the Compliance Review was mailed to owners of property within a 500’ radius of the project site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and the property owner, in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 17.80.090, and published in the Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 1, 2019, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. (“CEQA”), the State’s CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City’s Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), this decision by the City Council (i) constitutes a minor modification/revision to the existing Conditions of Approval of City Council Resolution No. 2013-31 to reduce the impacts of the site on adjacent properties; and (ii) will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this decision is not subject to CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations Sections 15601(b)(2), 15301, and 15061(b)(3) as the existing mitigation measures for the project’s EIR adopted under City Council Resolution No. 2013-30 remain in full force and effect. A-3 Section 2: Attached hereto as Exhibit A are conditions governing this use -- including existing, new, and modified conditions—all incorporated herein. In accordance to Condition No. 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2013-31, this determination includes adding new conditions; amending existing Conditions of Approval based on Staff’s assessment of the Applicant’s compliance with the Conditions of Approval, memorializing previous Minor Modifications approved by the Director; and issues raised by the Sol y Mar Homeowners’ Association (HOA), residents, and neighbors during the review period. The amendments to the conditions are summarized as follows (deleted text shown in strikethrough and new text shown in underline): A. Condition No. 51 is amended to allow for the additional retaining walls and combination walls that were proposed, approved, and constructed pursuant to Minor Modification Nos. 1 and 2: 51. The construction of three new garden walls, retaining walls, and combination walls shall be permitted to be constructed as part of the proposed project, as approved by Minor Modification #1 and #2, and these include one, 6 foot high upslope retaining wall behind each of the three structures on the west side of the development, as illustrated on the approved plans submitted into Building and Safety and as shown in the chart below. Subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. A-4 B. Condition No. 115 is amended to document the August 12, 2016 Memorandum allowing the roof design for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 to be changed from a pitch roof to a mansard roof: Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check, the buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 13, 2012 as follows: Pursuant to the Director-issued Memorandum dated August 12, 2016, the roofs of Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18 shall be allowed to be modified from a pitched roof to mansard-style roof. C. Condition Nos. 120 and 121 are amended to reflect the updated and corrected building pad, finish floor and roof ridgeline elevations reconciled by the memorandum issued by the Community Development Director on August 23, 2016: 120. With the exception of the buildings identified in Condition No. 115 above, the maximum building heights shall be limited to the ridgeline elevations identified on the updated matrix approved by the Director of the Community Development Department on August 23, 2016, and attached herein as “Exhibit B” in the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2013, and approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for every building, prior to roof sheathing inspection. 121. The pad elevations for each structure shall be limited to the pad elevations identified on the updated matrix approved by the Director of the Community Development Department on August 23, 2016, and attached herein as “Exhibit B”grading plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012, and approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building pad, prior to construction of each building on that pad. Furthermore, a FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION for each building shall also be provided prior to placement of concrete. C. Condition Nos. 129 and 130 are added to incorporate Conditions of Approval from the memorandum issued on August 12, 2016, which addressed changes to material, colors and texture to the flat portion of the mansard-roofed buildings: A-5 129. The Pli-Dek Waterproof Deck Coating System shall be inspected every 3 years (from initial installation) by an Approved Applicator (Contact Pli-Dek for details). Exposed urethane caulking at penetrations and flashing seams shall be inspected annually. If general cleaning is needed, mild soap and water and a push broom shall be used to remove any dirt. When finished, the entire roof shall be hosed off to remove all soap. These requirements shall be incorporated into the official "Homeowners Association Maintenance Guide”for the Sol y Mar HOA. 130. The following are the approved colors for the roof tiles and the fine knock-down texture Pli-Dek roof surface for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18:  Building Nos. 7 & 18: 3605 San Benito Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 2836 (Quartersawn Oak) for the Pli-Dek surface;  Building No. 15: 3636 Piedmont Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 604 7 (Hot Cocoa)for the Pli-Dek surface; and,  Building Nos. 14 & 17: 3813 San Mateo Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 6061 (Tanbark) for the Pli-Dek surface. Modifications to the above-mentioned approved roof colors shall require approval by the City council as a revision to the Conditional Use Permit at a duly noticed public hearing. D. Condition No. 131 is added to clarify what is permitted on the first-floor private patio areas of the residences: 131. Minor improvements, including but not limited to built-in BBQs, paved patios, fountains, planters, and decking are allowed for the private patio areas for each residence with approval of a Site Plan Review Permit. Prior to the issuance of any Building and or Grading permits from the Building & Safety Division, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Sol y Mar HOA for the proposed work, which shall consist of a written approval letter from the HOA and a stamped plan which shows all proposed work. A-6 Section 3: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Sect ion 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable shortened periods of limitation. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report and all of the documents that were presen ted to the City Council, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts Resolution No. 2019-__, amending and adding certain conditions for Conditional Use Permit No. ZON2012-00067 in the attached Exhibits “A” and “B”, which are incorporated herein by this reference, for the Sol y Mar development on property located at Crestridge Road (Case No. PLCU2019-0014). A-7 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1st day of October 2019. _______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) A-8 I, Emily Colborn, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2019-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on October 1, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Emily Colborn, City Clerk A-9 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 71878 (PLCU2014-0014) General 1. This approval is for the following: A. A 60-unit, for-sale, age-restricted (55 years and older) condominium housing complex, distributed amongst 18 individual buildings B. Three (3) units affordable to "Extremely Low" and/or "Very Low" income households in accordance with the City's lnclusionary Housing requirements. C. A private and public trail system in open space areas on the north, and a public trail through the development connecting Crestridge Road with the public trail system in open space areas on the north. D. A 13,000-square foot outdoor community recreation area located at the northeastern corner of the site. The amenities for this area include a patio, a community conversation and gathering stage, a sundeck and outdoor living room, barbeque facilities, bocce ball courts, and picnic tables. E. A 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck providing secondary, centralized community amenities for the project's residents. The Community Service Center building will provide a recreation and lounge area for community gatherings, kitchen, computer center/business room, office, fitness room, bathrooms, indoor and outdoor fireplaces, outdoor living area, spa, barbeque and seating area. The Community Service Center could also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for regular resident activities like movie nights, book clubs and cooking classes. F. A gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road. The vehicular entry gate would have a key pad and call box. A-10 G. A pedestrian entry tower and access point adjacent to the gated vehicular access. H. An internal private street that is a minimum of 26 feet wide. I. A total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the two-car garages available for each condominium unit. J. A community garden area at the northwest portion of the site (behind the existing Belmont Assisted Living facility) for the residents and/or owners of the Crestridge Senior Housing Condominium project. 2. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. The developer shall supply the City with one mylar, one copy, and an electronic copy of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. 4. This approval expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, unless extended per the Subdivision Map Act and Municipal Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map. 5. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED; with the Institutional Zoning District; the mitigation measures, conditions and development standards contained in PC Resolution No. 2012-22 and PC Resolution No. 2012-23; City Council Resolution No. 2013-31; and, the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 7. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained in PC Resolution No. 2012-22 and A-11 City Council Resolution No. 2013-30 for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be adhered to. The mitigation measures are repeated herein under the appropriate subject heading, sometimes with clarifying language that may differ from the MMRP. Where the conditions differ from the mitigation measures, the stricter of the two shall govern. All costs associated with implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be the responsibility of the Developer, and/or any successors in interest. 8. The Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be subject to review and modification, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing held one year after issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed. At the review hearing, the Planning Commission may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius from the entire project's boundary, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. As part of the one year review, the Planning Commission may consider and review compliance with all the conditions of approval, assess any lighting and noise impacts, and address any other concerns raised by Staff, the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the review. 9. In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive, Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, all private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it wil l not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit 8 to City Council Resolution No. 2013-31). If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any residence along Mistridge Drive, Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive, then said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity (other than the aforementioned grading activity) are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at A-12 the project site or in the adjoining street rights-of-way before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. 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, subject to approval by the building official. AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. Tentative Tract Map No. 71878 11. The proposed project approval permits 60, age restricted (aged 55+) condominium units on the existing 9.76-acre subject parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 71878, as approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. 12. Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation, the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City's Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures, etc. 13. The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown on the Tentative Tract Map. 14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, copies of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director and the City Attorney. Said CC&R's shall reflect the applicable conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. All necessary legal agreements, including homeowners' association, deed restrictions, covenant, dedication of development rights, public easements and proposed methods of maintenance and perpetuation of drainage facilities and any other hydrological improvements shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the approval of the Final Map. County Recorder 15. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, the developer shall submit a preliminary guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee owners and interest holders. The account for this A-13 preliminary title report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. Public Works and City Engineer Conditions 16. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to final certificate of use and occupancy, the following items shall be addressed: • Sidewalk must be constructed on Crestridge Road that provides for a total sidewalk width of 6' from Face of Curb to Back of Sidewalk (to match existing conditions on Crestridge Road). • Relocate electrical facilities along Crestridge Road to provide for 4' clear sidewalk access to match other updated facilities and to adhere to ADA. • Provide for ADA compliant access across the top of the proposed site entry driveway on Crestridge Road. • Indicate the ADA path of travel from Crestridge Rd. throughout the interior of the site. • Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in reviewing the construction plans. 17. Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, the Applicant shall ensure the following to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director: • No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right-of-Way. • All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet away from driving edge). • Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the ROW. The engineer shall provide a longitudinal profile of the driveway approach and driveway centerline depicting vertical curves and slopes. • Driveway approach slope and details needs to comply with APWA STD PLAN 110-0 (latest edition) and other applicable drawings. • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study (include off-site areas affecting the development) shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall include detail drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, and storm drains which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. • It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain any landscaping in the abutting public right-of-way and keep it in a safe condition. • Any cuts made into the existing asphalt roadway of Crestridge Road will A-14 require full width resurfacing of the road for a length to be determined by the Director of Public Works or his designee. • All damaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt in front of the proposed property must be removed and replaced in kind. • All ADA improvements shall be completed by the developer in the ROW. • Catch basins shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean" painted on them in the ROW and on the property. • Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain inlets, including existing catch basins where a connection to the development's system is required. • Plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). • Plans shall provide Sewer connection information, and shall be approved by LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. • Plans shall provide clear sight triangle at driveway per Caltrans standards. Sewers 18. A bond, cash deposit, or other City approved security, shall be posted prior to recordation of the Final Map or start of work, whichever occurs first, to cover costs for construction of and connection to a sanitary sewer system, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works. 19. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Public Works Director a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if any, and state that the County is willing to maintain all connections to said trunk lines. 20. Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation, dedication and use of local main line sewer and separate laterals to serve each unit of the land division. 21. Sewer easements may be required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements. 22. Prior to construction, the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance Division. A-15 Water 23. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work, whichever comes first, the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in addition to either: a. An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system; or b. An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving water utility to construct the water system, as required, and has deposited with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of the water system. 24. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the water purveyor and that, under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the needs of the developed tract. 25. At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking, plans and specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval, and shall comply with the City Engineer's standards. Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned above. 26. The project shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. The City Engineer shall determine domestic flow requirements. Fire flow requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of approval by the Fire Chief is required. 27. Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire Department has determined that there is adequate firefighting water and access available to said structures. 28. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for the project include the following interior water-conservation measures: A-16 • Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve; • Install water-conserving clothes washers; • Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow; and, • Install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets. 29. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for the common open space areas for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. If the Community Development Director utilizes a landscape consultant to review the plans, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said view. Said plans shall incorporate, at a minimum, the following water-conservation measures: • Extensive use of native plant materials. • Low water-demand plants. • Minimum use of lawn or, when used, installation of warm season grasses. • Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low water demand plants. • Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil's water- holding capacity. • Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems. • Use of reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater or grey water for irrigation. In addition, the landscaping plan shall include the following: • A pesticide management plan to control the introduction of pesticides into site runoff. The pesticide management plan shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. • Landscaping at or near the proposed driveway that does not obstruct a driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department. • Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit 8, to Resolution No. 2012-23, which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the development. Drainage 30. All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit final of the last building. A-17 31. Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction. 32. Subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division, prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a stormwater management plan which shows the on- site and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is maintained. The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows. 33. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the developer shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the project. The developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before construction activities begin on the project site. 34. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), including sandbags, shall be used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities. 35. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. 36. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City's NPDES consultant shall review and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site. Streets 37. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the applicant shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the Director of Public Works for any approved improvements within the public right-of-way of Crestridge Road. 38. The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (those streets to be determined by the A-18 Director of Public Works) which may be damaged during development of the project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall post a bond, cash deposit or City approved security, in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works to be sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant structures as a result of this development. Said streets shall be videotaped by the applicant and submitted to the Public Works Department on CD prior to issuance of a grading permit. 39. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project, and subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, the Applicant shall be responsible for installing 1) a "STOP" sign and stop bar at the project driveway that intersects with Crestridge Road. This feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for building permit review. (Mitigation Measure T-4) Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Sherriff's Department, the text of said sign shall be worded in such a way and the location of said sign shall be placed in such a way that the sign will be enforceable by the Sherriff's Department. 40. Landscaping, walls or other site improvements at or near the proposed project driveway shall not obstruct a driver's clear line of sight, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (Mitigation Measure T-4) 41. On-street parking shall be prohibited along the property frontage within the identified sight visibility lines as determined by the Public Works Director. (Mitigation Measure T-4) Survey Monumentation 42. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 43. Within twenty-four (24) months from the date of filing the Final Map, the developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City Engineer. 44. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. 45. All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance A-19 with the Subdivision Map Act. Street Names and Unit Numbering 46. Any street names and/or unit numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer. Grading 47. Prior to recordation of the final map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 48. Permitted hours and days for grading of the site, including site preparation, import and export, shall be limited to the hours between 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday, with no such activities permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit. 49. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by the applicant. Said insurance policy must name the City and its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds and be issued by an insurer with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best's Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 50. Approval of the project shall allow a total of 147,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 143,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. Any revisions that result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council as a revision to the grading application. 51. The construction of new garden walls, retaining walls, and combination walls shall be permitted to be constructed as part of the proposed project, as illustrated A-20 on the approved plans submitted into Building and Safety and as shown in the chart below. Subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. 52. A construction plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. Said plan shall include but not be limited to: limits of grading, estimated length of time for rough grading and A-21 improvements, location of construction trailer, location and type of temporary utilities. The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited. 53. Prior to filing the Final Map, a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist. This grading plan shall include a detailed engineering, geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the project's California State Licensed geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions, as approved by the City. 54. Grading shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code". 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, haul routes used to transport soil exported from the project site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations. In reviewing the haul route, the Public Works Director shall take into account and consideration the school traffic along the haul routes, and shall have the ability to modify the approved haul route, modify the hours of the grading operation, and impose any traffic-control conditions in the interest of public safety, if deemed necessary. 56. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel-fueled construction equipment. a) All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission standards. b) Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout construction. Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than five minutes. c) Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications. d) The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized. e) Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment (such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric), when feasible. f) The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical A-22 size. Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible. h) During the smog season (May through October), the construction period should be lengthened as permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (a)) 57. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust emissions: a) All exposed, disturbed, and graded areas onsite shall be watered three times (3x) daily until completion of project construction to minimize the entrainment of exposed soil. b) Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating activities. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. c) Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: • Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet of freeboard. • All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. d) Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. e) During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. f) The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing, rumble plates, or another method achieving the same intent. g) Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, A-23 preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. h) Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. i) All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent and visible location at the construction site, and must be maintained throughout the construction process. All notices and the signs must indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. j) Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. k) Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. I) Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans. m) These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b)) Common Area Improvements and CC&Rs 58. The community garden area at the northwest portion of the site shall not be planted with any type of trees, including but not limited to citrus trees, avocado trees, etc. The individual gardens in this area shall not be enclosed with any fencing taller than 42-inches in height. 59. In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive, Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, all common landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-31). If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any residence along Mistridge Drive, Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive, then said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view. 60. The Community Service Center shall not be rented to or used by non-residents A-24 or non-owners of the community. Additionally, the Center shall be closed daily by no later than 10 pm. 61. The entry tower shall be limited to a maximum height of 16-feet, as measured from adjacent finish grade to the highest point of the structure. 62. An improved public pedestrian access trail shall be provided through the community and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. Specifically, the trail system shall be provided for the general public that connects Crestridge Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail located on the City's Reserve property to the north. 63. The pedestrian access point at the entry tower shall not contain a gate or other similar enclosure that would prevent the general public from entering, or discouraged from entering, the site to access the trailheads at the rear of the property or the trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. Further, public access shall not be impeded by any gate, fence, or improvement along the entire length of the public trail easement. 64. The public trail shall be limited to pedestrian use only; and shall facilitate and ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north. 65. The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the City trails shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. 66. Directional signage shall be posted along the entire length of the public trail to guide the general public through the development and to the two trials identified above. The location and signage design shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation 67. Any temporary or permanent project signage shall require the approval of a sign permit by the Community Development Director, and shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 17.76.050(E)(2). 68. No parking shall be allowed on the internal private street. 69. The internal private street shall be maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. A-25 70. A minimum of 31 guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained throughout the development. Lighting: 71. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 72. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a final site lighting plan, prepared by a lighting consultant, for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall include the location, height, number of lights, foot candles by area and, estimates of maximum illumination on site with no spill/glare at the property line. The lighting color temperature shall be limited to a range between 2,700 to 3,700 Kelvin for lights. The lighting plan shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixtures on the buildings and throughout the entire project site are designed and installed so as to contain light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. The light source on each fixture shall be shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. 73. Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low, downcast, bollard- type fixtures, not to exceed forty-two 42" inches in height and shall employ downcast and shielded luminaires. 74. No one light fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts, and the light source shall not be directed toward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel of property or properties other than upon which such light source is physically located. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way. 75. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building is more than 7-feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building, with the exception of ceiling lights in the ceilings above exterior covered balconies. 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, the applicant shall request that the Director or his designee conduct an inspection of the site to ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent properties or cause A-26 a negative impact to adjacent properties or public rights-of-way and that the light sources on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. Upon determination by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact, the property owner shall modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director. 77. All exterior lighting fixtures on the grounds, pathways and common areas, including any street lights, shall not exceed 5 feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade. 78. No internally-illuminated signage may be used on the project site. 79. All proposed lighting shall be shielded so that it is down-cast and does not create any direct illumination impacts to off-site properties. Street Names and Numbering 80. Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer. Park. Open Space and Other Dedications 81. Prior to final tract map recordation, the applicant shall pay to the City a fee equal to the value of parkland in lieu of the dedication of such land to the City, pursuant to the provision of Section 16.20.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. 82. A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedicated to the City and recorded on the Final Tract Map to connect Crestridge Road with the two existing trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. The trail portions at the north of the development that are not associated with the trail network for project residents shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director. 83. The community services building, internal roadway and public trail shall all be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, prior to the building permit final for the first condominium building. Affordable Housing A-27 84. The applicant shall construct three (3) units affordable to households with very low incomes. The three (3) affordable units shall be similar in exterior appearance, interior appointments, configuration and basic amenities (such as storage space and outdoor living areas) to the market rate units in the proposed project, as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to building permit final of the affordable units. Covenants and agreements required by Chapter 17.11 of the City's Municipal Code must be recorded against the three (3) affordable units, which shall be specifically designated, concurrently with the recordation of the final map or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any building, whichever occurs first. Geology 85. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City's Building Official, the applicant shall obtain final approval of the grading and construction plans from the City's geotechnical consultant. This review shall include analysis of any potential impacts resulting from the former landslide condition on the subject property. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal of all soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical consultant in order to grant such final approval. 86. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited. 87. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer shall submit a Geology and/or Soils Engineer's report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites in the proposed subdivision. Such soils are defined by Building Code Section 2904 (b). 88. An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas. 89. Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shall be required. These recommendations include maintenance of a uniform, near optimum moisture content in the slope soils, and avoidance of over-drying or excess irrigation, which will reduce the potential for softening and strength loss. In addition, slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting of the slope with approved, deep rooted, A-28 lightweight, drought resistant vegetation, as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control devices, and a continuous rodent control program. Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall, before the rainy season, and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned, as necessary, after each rainstorm. Access to the slopes, including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths, should be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Mitigation Measure GE0-2(a)) 90. The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support the project and underlying adverse geologic structure. The system requires a design and depth of embedment that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event the offsite slope failed. (Mitigation Measure GE0-2(b)) 91. An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following completion of grading. The report shall include the results of in-grading density tests, and a map clearly depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths, removal area locations and depths, sub-drainage system locations and depths and geological conditions exposed during grading. (Mitigation Measure GE0-2(c)) 92. If required by the final geotechnical report, as reviewed and approved by the City Geologist, the applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for possible movement following implementation of the project. The number and location of the inclinometer stations shall be determined by the City Geologist. The applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual readings are no longer necessary. In addition, readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2 times average monthly rainfall) or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project site. If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action, the project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable. Further monitoring by inclinometers may be required, if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City. (Mitigation Measure GE0-2(d)) A-29 93. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit, the project applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geology and Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants (2003) including: • Following grading, the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade shall be tested. The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high expansion potential. Following completion of grading and until slabs and footings are poured, the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out. Pre- saturation is also recommended. (Mitigation Measure GE0-3(a)) 94. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include one or more of the following techniques, as determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Geologist: • Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils. All imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material; and • On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18, Division Ill of the UBC. (Mitigation Measure GE0-3(b)) Utilities 95. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide evidence of confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide water, wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal, that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed project. 96. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for the project includes the following interior water- conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances: Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve; Install water-conserving clothes washers; Install water- conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow; and, install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets. 97. All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer's expense. A-30 Biology: 98. Site disturbance, including brush clearance, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 - August 30), if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presenc e/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community Development Department. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California, nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (e.g. 30-50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. (Mitigation Measure 810-3) 99. The following measures shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for the site: • Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the initiation of construction. • Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. (Mitigation Measure BI0-4(a)) 100. No species listed in the Cai-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006) or identified as potentially invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan (2004) will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the site. Species listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus mol/e), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifo/ia), black locust (Robinia pseudo- acacia), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). In addition, to the extent feasible the proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trails, scenic overlooks, and community gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project. Native habitat elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon, California sagebrush, coastal bluff buckwheat, native grasses, and native perennial forbs A-31 as part of the planting palette. (Mitigation Measure BI0-4(b)) 101. Grading and building plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and approval shall identify areas for construction staging, fueling and stockpiling. These areas shall be located as far as practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve, and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary. (Mitigation Measure BI0-4(c)) 102. Cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to the City's Reserve property shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species approved by the PVPLC. 103. Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance. 104. Construction adjacent to drainage shall occur during periods of minimum flow (i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species. Cultural Resources 105. If cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction, the construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are stopped, and shall notify the City Building and Safety Department immediately to arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the nature, extent, and potential significance of any cultural resources. If such resources are determined to be significant, appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. Depending upon the nature of the find, such mitigation may include avoidance, documentation, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings, and shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. After the find is appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. (Mitigation Measure CR-1) 106. Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading and excavation. Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading activities are occurring. Additional monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be required to provide adequate coverage if earth-moving activities are occurring simultaneously. Any cultural resources discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall A-32 be reported immediately to the paleontologist. In the event undetected buried resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Measures may include testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution. All testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review or transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City. (Mitigation Measure CR-2) Noise 107. The applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requires all of the following: • Construction contracts that specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. • That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice by the developer, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the project. All notices shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. • That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible. • That during construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. (Mitigation Measure N-1(a)) 108. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks and other A-33 construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way prior to the grading and construction hours specified in condition nos. 10 and 48, above. (Mitigation Measure N-1(b)) 109. The construction contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to minimize off- site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). This would reduce noise levels associated with most types of idling construction equipment. (Mitigation Measure N-1(c)) 110. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. (Mitigation Measure N-1(d)) 111. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. (Mitigation Measure N-1(e)) 112. Excavation and conditioning activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday and located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). (Mitigation Measure N-1(f)) 113. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. (Mitigation Measure N-1(g)) Development Standards 114. Unless specific development standards for the development of the property are contained in these conditions of approval, the development of the lots shall comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code. 115. Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check, the buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 13, 2012, shall be modified as follows: A-34 Building containing units 23 and 24: A hip roof shall be added to the East end of the building so that most of the building is below 16 feet in height in order to reduce roof mass at the East end of the building. Building containing units 19, 20, 21, 22: Hip roofs shall be added to both West and East building ends; the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12, to 1- 3/4:12; and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot, from 10 feet to 9 feet in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at both ends of the building. Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24-feet. Building containing units 45 and 46: A hip roof shall be added to the East end of the building; the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12, to 1-3/4:12; and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot, from 10 feet to 9 feet in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at the East end of building. Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24- feet. Pursuant to the Director-Issued Memorandum dated August 12, 2016, the roofs of Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18 shall be allowed to be modified from a pitched roof to mansard-style roof. AMENDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. 116. All buildings shall maintain minimum setbacks of at least twenty-five feet (25'- 0") front and street side setbacks, and twenty (20'-0") side and rear. setbacks. 117. Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the Development Code. 118. The private driveway and parking areas shall meet Fire Department standards, including any painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane and turn-arounds. 119. Prior to building permit issuance, the building elevations shall be revised to provide architectural trim and detailing on any blank 2-story facades of the facing wings of the building. 120. With the exception of the buildings identified in Condition No. 115 above, the maximum building heights shall be limited to the ridgeline elevations identified on the updated matrix approved by the Director of Community A-35 Development on August 23, 2016, and attached herein as “Exhibit B”. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for every building, prior to roof sheathing inspection. ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. 121. The pad elevations for each structure shall be limited to the pad elevations identified on the updated matrix approved by the Director of Community Development on August 23, 2016, and attached herein as “Exhibit B”. PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building pad, prior to construction of each building on that pad. Furthermore, a FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION for each building shall also be provided prior to placement of concrete. ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. 122. The approved project shall consist of sixty (60) 2-bedroom condominium units, age restricted to 55 years and older. 123. The approved project shall provide and maintain a 2-car enclosed garage for each unit. Further, a minimum of 31 off-street guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. 124. Chimneys, vents and other similar features shall be no higher than the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 125. The following attached unit development standards from Chapter 17.06 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code shall apply to all units in the building: a. No plumbing fixture or other such permanent device which generates noise or vibration shall be attached to a common wall adjacent to a living room, family room, dining room, den or bedroom of an adjoining unit. All plumbing fixtures or similar devices shall be located on exterior walls, on interior walls within the unit or on common walls, if adjacent to a similar fixture or device. b. All water supply lines within common walls and/or floors/ceilings shall be isolated from wood or metal framing with pipe isolators specifically manufactured for that purpose and approved by the city's building official. In multistory residential structures, all vertical drainage pipes shall be surrounded by three-quarter-inch thick dense insulation board or full thick A-36 fiberglass or wool blanket insulation for their entire length, excluding the sections that pass through wood or metal framing. The building official may approve other methods of isolating sound transmission through plumbing lines where their effectiveness can be demonstrated. c. All common wall assemblies which separate attached single-family units shall be of a cavity-type construction. d. All common wall assemblies which separate all other attached dwelling units (multiple-family condominiums, stock cooperatives, community apartment houses) or a dwelling unit and a public or quasi-public space shall be of a staggered-stud construction. All common wall assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty-five STC (sound transmission class). e. All common floor/ceiling assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty STC (sound transmission class) and a minimum rating of fifty-five IIC (impact insulation class). Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings, but must be retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced by another insulation. f. STC and IIC ratings shall be based on the result of laboratory measurements and will not be subjected to field testing. The STC rating shall be based on the American Society for Testing and Materials system specified in ASTM number 90-66t or equivalent. The IIC rating shall be based on the system in use at the National Bureau of Standards or equivalent. Ratings obtained from other testing procedures will require adjustment to the above rating systems. In documenting wall and floor/ceiling compliance with the required sound ratings, the applicant shall either furnish the city's building official with data based upon tests performed by a recognized and approved testing laboratory, or furnish the building official with verified manufacturer's data on the ratings of the various wall and floor/ceiling assemblies utilized. 126. Fences and walls located within the 25-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42") in height, with the exception of the intersection visibility triangle at the driveway and Crestridge Road, where the height of any fences or walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. No perimeter fencing is approved with these entitlements; however, any future request to install perimeter fencing shall be subject to review and A-37 approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation of any perimeter fencing. 127. With the exception of solar panels, roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not permitted. Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear- and side-yard setback areas, provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in excess of 65 dBA at the property line. 128. The condominium development is a senior housing development for seniors aged 55 and older. The development shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Laws governing senior housing for seniors aged 55 and older. 129. The Pli-Dek Waterproof Deck Coating System shall be inspected every 3 years (from initial installation) by an Approved Applicator. (Contact Pli-Dek for details). Exposed urethane caulking at penetrations and flashing seams shall be inspected annually. If general cleaning is needed, mild soap and water and a push broom shall be used to remove any dirt. When finished, the entire roof shall be hosed off to remove all soap. These requirements shall be incorporated into the official "Homeowners Association Maintenance Guide” for the Sol y Mar HOA. ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. 130. The following are the approved colors for the roof tiles and the fine knock-down texture Pli-Dek roof surface for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17, and 18:  Building Nos. 7 & 18: 3605 San Benito Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 2836 (Quartersawn Oak) for the Pli-Dek surface;  Building No. 15: 3636 Piedmont Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 604 7 (Hot Cocoa)for the Pli-Dek surface; and,  Building Nos. 14 & 17: 3813 San Mateo Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 6061 (Tanbark) for the Pli-Dek surface. Modifications to the above-mentioned approved roof colors shall require approval by the City council as a revision to the Conditional Use Permit at a duly noticed public hearing. ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. A-38 131. Minor improvements, including but not limited to built-in BBQs, paved patios, fountains, planters, and decking are allowed for the private patio areas for each residence with approval of a Site Plan Review Permit. Prior to the issuance of any Building and/or Grading permits from the Building & Safety Division, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Sol y Mar HOA for the proposed work, which shall consist of a written approval letter from the HOA and a stamped plan which shows all proposed work. ADDED PER RESOLUTION NO. 2019-__ ON OCTOBER 1, 2019. A-39 Mistridge Drive Residen ce A-40 Mistridge Drive Residenc e A-41 Exhibit B Mistridge Drive Residenc e A-42 Exhibit B Seaside Heights Drive Residence A-43 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline (H) Pad 71.5 71.5 71 71.5 71.3 72.2 (L) Pad 61.5 61.5 61 61.2 61 61.9 (H) Pad 69.5 69.5 69 69.5 69.3 70.2 (L) Pad 59.5 59.5 59 59.2 59 59.9 (H) Pad 68 68 69 68 67.8 68.7 (L) Pad 58 58 59 57.7 57.5 58.4 (H) Pad 65.3 65.3 64.8 65.3 65.1 66 (L) Pad 55.3 55.3 54.8 55 54.8 55.7 (H) Pad 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.1 64 (L) Pad 53.3 53.3 53.3 53 52.8 53.7 (H) Pad 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.6 62.5 (L) Pad 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.5 51.3 52.2 (H) Pad 59.3 59.3 58.4 59.3 59.1 60 (L) Pad 49.3 49.3 48.4 49 48.8 49.7 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 58.4 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 47.5 47.3 48.2 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 58.4 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 47.5 47.3 48.2 (H) Pad 56.8 56.8 55.9 56.8 56.6 57.5 (L) Pad 46.8 46.8 45.9 46.5 46.3 47.17 (H) Pad 55.3 55.3 55.9 55.3 55.1 56 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 45 44.8 45.67 (H) Pad 55.3 55.3 55.9 55.3 55.1 56 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 45 44.8 45.67 (H) Pad 54 54 54 54.1 53.8 54.8 (L) Pad 44 44 44 43.8 43.5 44.74 Reconciled by Director on July 29, 2016 Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) 1175.2 1174.1 1174.1 1170.40.000.00 1186.5 1186 -0.50 -0.50 1187.8 1185.8 1185.8 1181.2 1179.6 1178.1 1188.5 1188.5 1188 -0.50 -0.50 1180.3 1178.8 0.00 0.00 1180.3 1180.3 0.00 0.00 1182.3 1182.3 1181.8 -0.50 -0.50 1185 1185 1186 1.00 1.00 1186.5 1174.8 1175.4 0.60 0.60 1174.8 1174.8 1175.4 0.60 0.60 1176.3 1176.3 1175.4 -0.90 -0.90 1172.7 1171.6 1172.3 1172.3 1172.9 0.60 0.60 1171.6 1172.3 1172.3 1172.9 0.60 0.60 1173.8 1173.8 1172.9 -0.90 -0.90 1174.8 Lot 13 Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 1178.8 1178.8 PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) 117111711171 Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) 1188.1 1186.1 1186.1 1181.5 1179.9 1178.4 1175.5 1174.4 1174.4 1173 1171.9 1171.9 1170.7 Exhibit C A-44 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 55.5 55.5 55.8 55.5 55.3 56.2 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 45.2 45 45.87 (H) Pad 55.5 55.5 55.81 55.5 55.3 56.2 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 45.2 45 45.87 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47 47.5 47.3 48.17 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.5 47.3 48.17 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.5 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.5 47.3 48.17 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 75.7 1201.1 1172.5 1172.5 1172.8 0.31 0.30 1172.5 1172.5 1172.8 0.30 1171.80.30 0.00 0.00 1171.8 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 0.00 0.00 1174.8 1174.8 1174 -0.80 -0.80 1173.7 1173.7 68.4 1191.7 1191 -0.40 -0.4064.4 64 0.00 0.0068.4 68.4 1173.7 64.4 1187.8 1195.4 1195.4 1195.4 0.00 0.0068.4 68.4 1191.4 1191.4 1191 -0.40 -0.4064.4 64 64.4 1187.8 71.7 1197.7 75.7 1198.7 1198.7 1198.4 -0.30 -0.3071.7 71.4 1202.7 1202.7 1201.4 68.4 1191.7 71.7 1197.7 1202.7 1202.7 1201.4 -0.80 -1.3075.7 74.9 1198.7 1198.7 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 1201.1 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 25 Lot 26 One Pad 64.4 One Pad 64.4 One Pad One Pad Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 1191.4 1191.4 -0.80 -1.3075.7 74.9 68.4 68.4 71.7 71.7 75.7 75.7 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 71.7 71.4 1195.4 1195.4 1195.4 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 75.5 75.5 71.5 71.5 68.2 68.2 64.2 64.2 65.1 65.1 69.1 69.1 72.4 72.4 76.4 76.4 1172.1 1172.1 1174 1174 1174 1188.1 1188.1 1192 1192 1198 1198 1201.4 1201.4 A-45 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 80 1206 80 1206 82.8 1208.8 1206.8 1206.8 1206.7 -0.10 -0.1079.8 79.7 1206.8 1206.8 1206.7 -0.10 -0.1079.8 79.7 82.8 1208.8 1212.2 1212.2 1211.9 -0.30 -0.3085.2 84.9 1212.2 1212.2 1211.9 -0.30 -0.3085.2 84.9 85.2 1211.2 85.2 1211.2 -0.70 -0.7089.2 88.5 1216.2 1216.2 1215.5 -0.70 -0.7089.2 88.5 89.2 1215.2 89.2 1215.2 81.4 1212.3 1212.3 1212.3 0.00 0.0085.3 85.3 1212.3 1212.3 1212.3 0.00 0.0085.3 85.3 1216.2 1216.2 1215.5 85.3 1211.3 85.3 1211.3 1208.4 1208.4 1208.4 0.00 0.0081.4 81.4 1208.4 1208.4 1208.4 0.00 0.0081.4 81.4 81.4 1207.4 1207.4 1204.5 1204.5 1204.5 0.00 0.0077.5 77.5 78.5 1204.5 Lot 31 Lot 32 Lot 33 Lot 34 Lot 35 Lot 36 Lot 27 Lot 28 Lot 29 Lot 30 Lot 37 Lot 38 Lot 39 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 79.8 79.8 82.8 82.8 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 85.2 1209.8 1209.8 1209.8 0.00 0.0082.8 82.8 1209.8 1209.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 One Pad One Pad 85.3 85.3 81.4 81.4 77.5 One Pad One Pad One Pad 85.2 89.2 89.2 82.8 82.8 77.3 81.2 81.2 85.1 85.1 89 89 85 85 82.6 82.6 79.6 79.6 80.7 80.7 83.5 83.5 85.9 85.9 89.9 89.9 86 86 82.1 82.1 78.2 1206.6 1206.6 1208.88 1208.88 1211.5 1211.5 1215.5 1215.5 1211.6 1211.6 1207.5 1207.5 1204.8 A-46 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.9 66.6 66.4 67.33 (L) Pad 56.3 56.3 56 56.3 56.1 57 (H) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.9 66.6 66.4 67.33 (L) Pad 56.3 56.3 56 56.3 56.1 57 (H) Pad 64.8 64.8 64.3 64.8 64.6 65.53 (L) Pad 54.8 54.8 54.5 54.5 54.3 55.2 (H) Pad 69.3 69.3 68.8 69.6 69.4 70.33 (L) Pad 59.3 59.3 58.8 59.3 59.1 60 (H) Pad 70.8 70.8 70.8 71.1 70.9 71.83 (L) Pad 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.6 61.5 (H) Pad 72.3 72.3 72.8 72.6 72.4 73.33 (L) Pad 62.3 62.3 62.8 62.3 62.1 63 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 1204.5 1204.5 1204.5 0.00 0.0077.5 77.5 78.5 1204.5 73.5 1199.5 1196.6 1196.6 1195.7 -0.90 -0.9069.6 68.7 1196.6 1196.6 1195.7 -0.90 -0.9069.6 68.7 69.6 1195.6 69.6 1200.5 1200.5 1192.6 1192.6 1192.7 3.10 0.1065.6 68.7 1192.6 1192.6 1192.7 0.10 0.1065.6 65.7 65.6 1189.2 65.6 1189.2 1195.6 1180.9 1180.9 -0.50 1.30 1180 1180 1179.7 -0.50 -0.30 1179.1 1185.5 1181.5 1181.5 1181.2 -0.40 -0.30 1181.5 1181.5 1181.2 -0.40 -0.30 1184.5 1184.5 1185.8 0.50 2.30 1186 1186 1187.8 0.00 1.80 1186.9 1188.51187.5 1187.5 1189.8 Lot 43 Lot 44 Lot 45 Lot 46 Lot 47 Lot 48 Lot 40 Lot 41 Lot 42 65.6 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 77.5One Pad 73.5One Pad 73.5 69.6 69.6 73.5 73.4 73.5 1199.5 1200.4 -0.10 -0.1073.5 73.4 1200.5 1200.5 1200.4 -0.10 -0.10 65.4 65.4 69.4 69.4 73.3 73.3 77.3 78.2 74.2 74.2 70.3 70.3 66.3 66.3 1204.8 1199.8 1199.8 1195.9 1195.9 1189.5 1189.5 1181.2 1181.2 1179.4 1185.8 1187.2 1188.8 65.6 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 52 A-47 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 74.3 74.3 74.3 74.6 74.4 75.33 (L) Pad 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.1 65 (H) Pad 76.3 76.3 75.8 76.6 76.4 77.33 (L) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.8 66.3 66.1 67 (H) Pad 79 79 78.6 79.3 79.1 80 (L) Pad 69 69 68.6 69 68.8 69.7 (H) Pad 80.5 80.5 80.6 80.8 80.6 81.5 (L) Pad 70.5 70.5 70.6 70.5 70.3 71.2 (H) Pad 82 82 82.1 82.3 82.1 83 (L) Pad 72 72 72.1 72 71.8 72.7 (H) Pad 87.4 87.4 86.6 87.7 87.5 88.43 (L) Pad 77.4 77.4 76.6 77.4 77.2 78.1 (H) Pad 88.9 88.9 88.6 87.7 87.5 88.43 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 77.4 77.2 78.1 (H) Pad 88.9 88.9 88.6 89.2 89 89.93 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 78.9 78.7 79.6 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information -0.50 1.30 1189.5 1189.5 1191.3 0.00 1.80 1190.4 1192.51191.5 1191.5 1192.8 0.10 0.10 1194.2 1194.2 1193.8 -0.40 -0.40 1193.6 1195.11195.7 1195.7 1195.8 -0.80 -0.80 1197.2 1197.2 1197.3 0.10 0.10 1196.7 1201.71202.6 1202.6 1201.8 -0.30 -0.30 1204.1 1204.1 1203.8 -0.30 -0.30 1201.7 1203.21204.1 1204.1 1203.8 Lot 58 Lot 59 Lot 55 Lot 56 Lot 57 Note: Lot # 19, 20, 21, 22, 45 and 46 were required to be reduced by a total of 3' in order to protect views (Condition No. 115 of Resolution No. 2013-31. The ridgeline elevations shown under the CC Approved column, show the ridgelines approved by the CC before being reduced by 3'. The ridgeline elevatins shown under the Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 column show the final ridgeline elevations that will be constructed, which comply with the City Council's requirements of Condition No. 115, to reduce the ridgelines by at least 3'. 1193.9 1195.4 1197 1202 1202 1203.5 1190.7 1192.8 Lot 60 Lot 53 Lot 54 A-48 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT(CASE NOS.ZON2012-00067&SUB2012-00001)LOCATED AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD(APN 7589-013-009). WHEREAS, on February 22, 2012, applications for an Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit (Z0N2012-00067) and Tentative Tract Map (SUB2OI2- 00001) were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above) condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge Road(APN 7589-013-009); and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information, Staff deemed the project applications complete on April 20, 2012, pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), Government Code Section 65920 et seq.; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079)(the EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, and on May 29, 2012, the Initial Study IS)and Notice of Preparation(NOP)were released to the public and public agencies for a comment period of 31 days(through June 29, 2012). Further,a Public Notice was mailed on May 29, 2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently, the Notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 31, 2012. Furthermore, the notice was posted on the City's website, and emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the listserve for this project. Lastly,a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall, Hesse Park,the local libraries,and made available on the City's website for the public to download and review; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide verbal comments on the IS/NOP,at which time the Planning Commission extended the comment period through July 12, 2012; and, WHEREAS, after the NOP comment period ended, the Draft EIR was prepared taking various comments into account. After completing the Draft EIR,the document was made available to the public on August 21, 2012 for a 48-day public comment period that concluded on October 8, 2012; and, WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments, in addition to the typical written comments, on the Draft EIR; and, B-1 WHEREAS, on October 25, 2012,the Final EIR was completed and Notice was provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13, 2012 to review the Final EIR and the entitlement applications for the proposed project. Subsequently, a notice was emailed to the 611 people registered on the City's listserve for this project; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given anopportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project,the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting,landscaping,trail use,and tower height, and return to the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012 with Resolutions for consideration; and, WHEREAS, on the December 11, 2012,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-22, recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; and, adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-23, recommending that the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project;and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the City Council continued the public hearing to the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting at the applicanth request; and, WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, at the applicant's request,the public hearing was continued to May 21, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project, the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and the Planning Commission recommendation: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. The City contracted with independent consultants for the preparation of the technical studies for the EIR and on May 29, 2012, prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a). Comments on the Notice of Preparation were accepted during an extended 45-day comment period ending on July 12, 2012. During the scoping period, the City held an advertised public meeting on June 26, 2012, to facilitate public input regarding the scope of the EIR. Resolution No. 2013-30 Page 2 of 5 B-2 Section 2: The City completed the Draft EIR, together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices"), on August 22, 2012. The City circulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public and other interested parties from August 22, 2012 through October 8, 2012,for a 48-day comment period. In addition to receiving written comments submitted during this time, public comments were received at the September 25, 2012, regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Section 3: During the Draft EIR public comment period, including at the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the City received numerous letters and comments. Responses to each of the individual comments, including a number of master responses, were prepared and made available on October 25, 2012. The comments and responses are found from pages 8-1 through 8-83 of the Final EIR, and are incorporated herein by reference. The written responses to comments were made available for public review in the Community Development Department, at the Rancho Palos Verdes Public Library and on the City's website. After reviewing the responses to comments, the revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR, the Planning Commission concluded that the information and issues raised by the comments and the responses thereto did not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 4: The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, including Appendices, and the Comments and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, dated October 2012; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 5: Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the content of the Final EIR,the public comments upon it, and other evidence before the Commission prior to making a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project.The City Council finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as to the Project. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in the Final EIR and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings do not constitute new information requiring further recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. Section 6: Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council finds that the comments regarding the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments were received by the Commission; that the Planning Commission and the City Council received documents and public testimony regarding the adequacy of the EIR; and that the Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony and the Final EIR. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,as to the Final Project. Section 7: Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning Commission and City Council, and consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council finds that the Project will not cause any significant environmental impacts after mitigation except in the area of aesthetics (Visual Character and Quality of the Site). Explanations for why the impacts Resolution No. 2013-30 Page 3 of 5 B-3 other than the foregoing were found to be less than significant are contained in the Environmental Findings set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution and are more fully described in the Final EIR, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference Section 8: Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning Commission and City Council, and consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council finds that the Project will create a significant unavoidable impact to aesthetics(Visual Character and Quality of the Site). This significant impact is further described in the attached Exhibit "A", titled Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and in the Final EIR. The findings in Exhibit A explain that all feasible mitigation, including project revisions, have been incorporated to reduce the level of this impact to the degree feasible, but that even after mitigation, this impact remains significant. Section 9: The EIR describes, and the Planning Commission and City Council have fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. With respect to each of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR, the City Council hereby makes the findings, set forth in Exhibit"A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. On the whole, the Project is environmentally superior to other feasible alternatives. As such,the City Council finds that all other alternatives and variations are infeasible or are not environmentally preferable for the reasons set forth in Exhibit"A". Section 10: For the significant and unavoidable impact, consisting of aesthetics (Visual character and Quality of the site) as identified in the Final EIR as "significant and unavoidable," consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations"that is set forth in Exhibit"A",which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council finds that each of the overriding benefits, by itself,would justify proceeding with the Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged to be significant in the record of proceedings. Section 11: The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of the Project's approval. City staff shall be responsible for enforcement and monitoring the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit"B". Section 12: Forthe foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, Environmental Assessment and other components of the legislative record, in the Final EIR, in the attached Exhibit "A", titled "Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and in the public comments received by the Planning Commission and City Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies the Final EIR and adopts the attached Exhibit"A",titled"Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project" and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "B") associated with Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067,thereby allowing 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and older Resolution No. 2013-30 Page 4 of 5 B-4 condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009). PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21St day of May 2013. r Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California County of Los Angeles ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2013-30 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 21, 2013. LitS)a_eref- __ City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-30 Page 5 of 5 B-5 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2013-30 EXHIBIT"A" to Resolution No.2013-30 FACTS, FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT SCH #2012051079 Lead Agency: City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 Contact: Mr. Eduardo Schonborn, AICP,Senior Planner 310) 544-5228 May 21,2013 Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 1 of 39 B-6 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II Description of Project Proposed for Approval 2 III Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant in the Initial Study/Notice Of Preparation 5 IV Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant 12 V Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant With Mitigation and Findings 18 VI Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings 28 VII Alternatives to the Proposed Project 30 VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 34 A Introduction 34 B Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 34 C Overriding Considerations 34 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 2 of 39 B-7 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS I INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts,presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis,makes one or more of three findings for each impact,and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. There are three possible finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to Section 15091 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings relevant to the project are presented in Sections V and VI. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project will cause unavoidable significant impacts,the Lead Agency may still approve the project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further,as provided in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects, and approves the project. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 3 of 39 B-8 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,the CEQA Lead Agency,finds and declares that the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing Project Environmental Impact Report(EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the proposed Crestridge Senior Housing Project,herein referred to as the "project." Based upon its review of the EIR,the Lead Agency finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency,and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. On December 11,2012,the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-22,recommending that the City Council Certify the EIR. Subsequently,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council certified the EIR at its hearing of March 5,2013. The Final EIR is comprised of the following elements: The Final Crestridge Senior Housing EIR,including the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and changes made to the EIR based on the comments received, November 2012;); and Mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The remainder of this document is organized as follows: II. Description of project proposed for approval; III. Effects determined to be less than significant in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation; IV. Effects determined to be less than significant; V. Effects determined to be less than significant with mitigation and findings; VI. Environmental effects that remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation and findings; VII. Alternatives to the proposed project;and VIII. Statement of Overriding Considerations. II DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL The proposed Crestridge Senior Housing project would involve the development of a senior- restricted (55+years of age or older) for-sale residential community.The proposed project would include 60 attached residential units at an overall density of 6.15 units per acre.Of the 60 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 4 of 39 B-9 units,three units would be dedicated affordable units available to very-low-income households, in accordance with the City's inclusionary housing requirements. The proposed townhome-style and single-level living stacked flat residences would have two bedrooms and two bathrooms in six different floor plans,ranging from approximately 1,700 square feet to 2,100 square feet. The units would be two stories in height with up to five residences per structure. The main architectural style of the residences and other onsite structures would be Spanish Colonial. Elements of this style include the use of arches,tile roofs, window grilles,wrought iron,corbels, tile or stone decorative elements low-pitched,exterior courtyards,tiled parapets and stucco walls. Other complimentary architectural styles would also be incorporated in the residential building designs. Proposed landscaping includes a mix of native and non-native plants and trees. Maximum building heights would be approximately 27 feet from finished grade. Several proposed buildings would exceed 16 feet in height above existing grade,and thus the project requires approval of a Conditional Use permit pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.26.040.B. A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment would be required to allow the proposed mix of uses and density. To accomplish the project, the existing slope would be excavated to accommodate flat building pads stepping gradually downward from west to east. Much of the ridge itself would be removed and graded generally flat. The maximum depth of excavation would be approximately 40 feet at the western portion of the site. Site preparation would involve excavation of approximately 145,000 cubic yards of material(soil and rock) and placement of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of fill material. The project grading and construction would occur over approximately 13 months and be would be completed in 2014. Construction access would be from Crestridge Road. The project would include a number of community amenities. A private community trail system would be provided in open space areas in the northern portion of the site adjacent to the Vista del Norte preserve. A portion of the on-site trails including a pedestrian connection from Crestridge Road to the preserve would be open to the public,which would serve to connect the off-site City trails on the neighboring Preserve with Crestridge Road through the proposed development. The community trails would also access the proposed 13,000-square-foot outdoor community recreation area located at the northeastern corner of the site. The amenities proposed for this area would include a patio and trellis,a community conversation and gathering stage, a sundeck and outdoor living room,barbeque facilities,bocce ball courts, and picnic tables. An approximately 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck would provide a second,centralized community amenity for the residents. The proposed project would have a gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road. The vehicular entry gate would have a key pad and call box with sufficient stacking distance at the entrance to allow multiple cars to enter without impeding traffic on Crestridge Road. Remote and keypad entry would be two options for residents accessing the site through the gate.Visitors would be able to use the call boxes to call residents to open the gates. A turnaround would be provided should visitors not be able to reach a resident to be allowed inside the community. Pedestrian City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 5 of 39 B-10 entry would also be provided adjacent to the driveway;however,it would be an un-gated pedestrian walkway with an entry feature. Once inside the community,internal private streets would be designed to be a minimum of 26 feet wide. No parallel parking would be allowed on the streets. Guest parking would be provided by 31 perpendicular parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the two-car garages available to each resident. Public pedestrian access would be provided through the community. A sidewalk and trail system would be provided that connects visitors and residents from Crestridge Road through the site to view points and to the City's property to the north. As specified above, the pedestrian access would not be gated;this would facilitate and ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north The table below provides a summary of proposed development. Lot Size 9.76 acres Senior Residential Units 60 Density 6.15 dwelling units/acre Maximum Building Height Approximately 27 feet from finished grade 142,342 sf(units and garages) Project Square Footage 2,400 sf(community room) 144,742 sf(total) Building Footprints 90,527 sf(21%of site) Streets/Parking/Driveways 62,798 sf(15%of site) Private Yards 16,404 sf(4%of site) Open Space/Landscaping 255,394 sf(60%of site) 120 garage spaces(2 per unit) Parking 31 uncovered spaces(0.52 per unit) 151 spaces(2.52 spaces/unit) Community Trails 13,000-sf outdoor community recreation area O patio and trellis O conversation and gathering stage O sundeck and outdoor living room O barbeque facilities O bocce ball courts o picnic tables 2,400 sf Community Service Center Community Amenities o recreation and lounge area o kitchen O computer center/business room O office O fitness room O indoor and outdoor fireplaces O outdoor living area O spa O barbeque O seating area Community garden and orchard sf=square feet Source:Trumark Companies,2012 r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 6 of 39 B-11 III EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION The City of Rancho Palos Verdes conducted an Initial Study to determine significant effects of the project. In the course of this evaluation,certain impacts of the project were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The effects determined not to be significant are not included in primary analysis sections of the Final EIR (refer to Appendix A, Initial Study and Notice of Preparation,in the Draft EIR). AESTHETICS Will the project: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no scenic resources such as trees,rock outcroppings,or historic buildings on the site, and there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, development of the project would not affect any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Will the Project: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project area is not located in an area designated as Prime or Unique Farmland,or within Farmland of Statewide Importance. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning offorest land, or result in a loss offorest land? No Impact. The subject property is not zoned or otherwise designated for agricultural uses,nor is the site subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project site is not located adjacent to agricultural operations,and currently contains no significant agricultural operations. As such,no conflicts with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agricultural use would occur. The project would not involve conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 7 of 39 B-12 No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. As such,project development will not have the potential to result in the loss or conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. AIR QUALITY Will the Project: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will involve adding 60 residential units for seniors in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The residential use of the property will not generate objectionable odors during normal operations. Therefore, the project will not generate objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Will the Project: 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? No Impact. The project site is located in a suburban area surrounded by development. There are no watercourses or wetlands on or adjacent to the project site. The project does not involve development in a federally protected wetland and does not involve improvements that would impair or interrupt hydrological flow into a wetland. CULTURAL RESOURCES Will the Project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve construction of new structures on a vacant site. There are no historic structures located on the adjacent properties;therefore,the project will not affect historic resources. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? No impact. No known burial sites have been identified within the project area or in the vicinity and given the previous disturbance at the site the likelihood of finding human remains is low. In the unlikely event that human remains were discovered at the site,California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all construction or excavation must be stopped in the event of an accidental City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 8 of 39 B-13 discovery of any human remains until the County coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Will the Project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Alquist-riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City. The project site is located approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the inactive Cabrillo Fault and approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Palos Verdes Fault. Therefore,the potential for surface rupture at the project area is considered low. The project site is located within an area that has low to no potential for liquefaction. Further,project construction would be required to conform to the California Building Code as adopted by the City in Section 15.04.010 of the Municipal Code,which further reduce any impacts caused by unstable soils. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than significant. According to the California Department of Conservation Seismic Hazard Zones Map,the site is not located in an area that is subject to settlement due to seismic shaking,liquefaction, or lateral spreading. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less than Significant. The proposed development would be connected to the City sewer system and would not use on-site septic systems for wastewater treatment. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Will the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant.The project would involve construction of 60 residential units on vacant land. By their nature,the proposed residential uses would not involve the transport,use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials and would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 9 of 39 B-14 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? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant. The project will not be located in an area with known soil or groundwater contamination,will not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling of hazardous materials,and was not determined to be at risk for any hazards in a Phase I prepared for an adjacent property. Therefore,the potential for the proposed project to release hazardous materials would be extremely low. 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? 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? No Impact. The project site is located over three miles from the nearest airport/airstrip, the Torrance Municipal Airport. No impacts are anticipated. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not change the alignment of or access through streets serving the project site or surrounding area,and thus would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Would the project 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? Less than significant. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,including the project site,is identified as a High Fire Hazard Area. However,Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Section 8.08.010 adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code,Title 32, as the Fire Code of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The County maintains fire safety requirements, development standards and regulations,and standard fees,for new development. Building standards for fire hazards,including roof coverings,construction materials, structural components,and clearing of brush and vegetative growth,are administered by the LACFD and the City's Building and Safety Division. The new residential buildings would be required to be constructed to the City's most recently adopted Building Code. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Will the Project: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 10 of 39 B-15 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?Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency the project site is located outside the 100-year flood zone). Therefore,no significant flood impacts are anticipated. 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? No Impact. No dams or levees are located in the vicinity of the project site. In addition,the project area does not lay within any known dam inundation zones. Thus,the potential for flooding due to dam failure is low Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Less than significant. The project site is approximately two miles from the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 1,167 feet above sea level. In addition, the project area is located outside a tsunami inundation area. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project would involve construction of 60 residential units on a single parcel of land that is surrounded by residential, open space, and institutional uses. The project would not physically divide an established community. No impacts would result. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant. With approval of a Conditional Use Permit, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. Also, the project would be generally consistent with the intent of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Conceptual Trails Plan due to the provision of pedestrian pathways through the site that link Crestridge Road with the Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 11 of 39 B-16 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?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? No Impact. The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan states that there are no mineral resources present within the community that would be economically feasible for extraction. Construction of 60 residential units on a vacant site would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value locally,regionally,or to the State. NOISE For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? No Impact. The project area is not included within an airport land use plan,and is approximately 13 miles from the Los Angeles and Long Beach airports,and approximately three miles from Torrance Municipal Airport. The project is also not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Significant impacts relating to aircraft noise are not anticipated. POPULATION AND HOUSING Will the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly? Less than significant.The current estimated population of the City is 41,897. With implementation of the proposed project,the population in the City would total 42,057. The population projections for Rancho Palos Verdes anticipate a population of 43,215 in 2020. Therefore,the increase in residents would not exceed planned growth forecasts in the City. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any housing or people, as the site is currently vacant. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 12 of 39 B-17 which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public services? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect any services. RECREATION Will the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment? Less than significant. The project could incrementally increase the use of recreational facilities in the project vicinity,but would not cause substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. The project area contains existing residential uses and is adequately served by recreational facilities. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay fees pursuant to City Municipal Code Section 16.20.100. Recreational amenities are included in the project; impacts of the construction of these facilities have been addressed as part of the project's potential effects as a whole. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Will the Project: Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Will the Project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?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? Less than significant. There is currently available capacity at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP),which will treat wastewater from the site. Therefore,the JWPCP will have capacity to treat the additional flow of wastewater from the project and no improvements in the wastewater treatment system will be required. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 13 of 39 B-18 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new expended entitlements needed? Less than significant.The project will generate demand for approximately 11,700 gpd or 13.1 acre-feet per year of water. Based on current and projected water supplies and demand for the West Basin Municipal Water District,sufficient water will be available to meet demand associated with the project. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant. Puente Hills Landfill is the primary landfill used by the City and has approximately 4,200 tons per day of available capacity. Although the project would incrementally increase solid waste generation, the daily solid waste generation by the project will be within the available capacity at the Puente Hills Landfill. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 14 of 39 B-19 IV EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IN THE EIR The City of Rancho Palos Verdes found that the project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a number of environmental topics discussed in the EIR,without the need for mitigation. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each topic area listed below. AESTHETICS Scenic Views or Vistas. The proposed project is located in an area with rolling topography allowing views of developed and undeveloped hillsides in several directions from public and private viewpoints. The proposed project would alter the view of the project site from several of these viewpoints,but would not block or otherwise have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista,including those identified in the General Plan. This is a Class III, adverse,but less than significant impact. Note that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further reduce impacts on impacts from viewpoints in the surrounding area. Recommended Mitigation Measure: AES-1 Tree Maintenance. All landscaping throughout the development (in both the common areas and in private yard and balcony areas) shall be maintained so not exceed the height of the line depicted on the photographs taken from properties along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive (Exhibit B,to Resolution No. 2013-31). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit for City review and approval a landscape plan for the project site. The plan shall demonstrate that: Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B, to Resolution No. 2013-31, which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the development. Light and Glare. The proposed project would result in new sources of light and glare on and around the project site due to introduction of new buildings, hardscape and associated lighting. Some of the new light and glare would be visible from public and private viewpoints. However,with required adherence to the lighting restrictions in City's zoning ordinance,impacts related to light and glare would be Class III,less than significant. AIR QUALITY Operation of the Project. Operation of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. However,regional emissions would not exceed r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 15 of 39 B-20 SCAQMD operational significance thresholds.Therefore,operational impacts to regional air quality would be Class III,less than significant. Consistency with Regional Plans. The proposed project would generate population growth,but such growth is within the population projections upon which the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)is based. Therefore,proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP and impacts would be Class III,less than significant. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations from Increased Traffic. Vehicle traffic associated with the proposed project could incrementally increase localized carbon monoxide (CO) levels. However,CO levels would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for further CO hotspot analysis and would not be expected to exceed federal or state ambient air quality standards. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Candidate, Sensitive or Special Status Species.The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant. Riparian Habitat.The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. GEOLOGY Seismically-Induced Ground Shaking.Seismically induced ground shaking could destroy or damage structures and infrastructure,resulting in loss of property or risk to human safety. However,mandatory compliance with applicable City of Rancho Palos Verdes and California Building Code requirements would reduce impacts to a Class III,less than significant,level. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.The proposed project would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions. However,GHG emissions generated by the project would not exceed the applicable significance thresholds. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 16 of 39 B-21 Consistency with Adopted Plans,Policies or Regulations. Development facilitated by the proposed project would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions. However,the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG reduction strategies set forth by the 2006 Climate Action Team Report as well as the 2008 Attorney General's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures. Impacts would be Class III,less than significant. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Construction Discharge and Surface Water Quality. During grading for and construction of the proposed project,the soil surface would be subject to erosion and the downstream watershed,including the Pacific Ocean,could be subject to temporary sedimentation and discharges of various pollutants. However,with implementation of NPDES requirements,impacts related to the potential for discharge of various pollutants,including sediment,would be Class III,less than significant. Operational Discharge and Site Drainage. Development of the proposed project would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the project site,and would also generate various urban pollutants such as oil,herbicides and pesticides,which could adversely affect surface water quality. Increased impermeable surfaces on the site could also increase the flow rate of stormwater off the site compared to existing conditions resulting in increased erosion in downstream drainage channels. However,with implementation of NPDES requirements and the proposed onsite stormwater detention facilities,impacts related to surface water quality would be Class III, less than significant. NOISE Construction Noise. Project construction would intermittently generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the site. However,the project would be required to comply with the City's regulations pertaining to the allowable timing of construction activities, and construction noise would not be expected to exceed typical levels associated with grading and construction. Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less than significant. Note that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further reduce temporary noise levels associated with project construction. Recommended Mitigation Measures: N-1(a) Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program. The applicant shall provide,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requires all of the following: Construction contracts that specify that all construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 17 of 39 B-22 That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice,at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase,regarding the construction schedule of the project. All notices shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles,installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources,maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential areas,and electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible. That during construction,stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. N-1(b) Construction Vehicle Idling. During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 am,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction. N-1(c) Staging Area. The construction contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). This would reduce noise levels associated with most types of idling construction equipment. N 1(d) Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. N 1(e) Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. N-1(f) Restrictions on Excavation and Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation,and conditioning activities shall be restricted to City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 18 of 39 B-23 between the hours of 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday and located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). N-1(g) Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all noise- generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. Such techniques may include,but are not limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. Construction Vibration. Project construction activities could generate intermittent levels of groundborne vibration affecting residences and buildings adjacent to the project site. However, these impacts are temporary in nature and would not exceed existing thresholds. Therefore,impacts would be Class III,less than significant. Traffic Noise. Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase noise levels on area roadways. However,the increase in noise would not exceed significance thresholds and would therefore be Class III,less than significant. Operational Noise. Operation of the proposed project would generate noise levels that may periodically be audible to existing uses near the project site. Onsite noise sources would include parking lot noise, deliveries and other service vehicles,visitors,and onsite machinery. However,noise from these sources would be below the thresholds used for this analysis and consistent with City Codes. Therefore, impacts would be Class III,less than significant. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Intersections. Project-generated traffic would increase traffic volumes and incrementally reduce levels of service at each of the five study intersections. However, the level of service impact would not exceed City thresholds at any intersection. Therefore,impacts to study area intersections would be Class III, less than significant. Roadway Segments. Project-generated traffic would not exceed LOS standards for Crestridge Road. Therefore, impacts to street segments would be Class III, less than significant. Storage Capacity. Project-generated traffic would not affect vehicle storage capacity at the intersection of Crenshaw Boulevard/Crestridge Road. Storage capacity for the westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Highridge Road/Hawthorne Boulevard is currently inadequate and would remain inadequate in the Year 2015 scenario. However,project generated traffic would r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 19 of 39 B-24 not exacerbate issues with storage capacity.Therefore,impacts to intersection queuing would be Class III,less than significant. Site Access and Internal Circulation.Vehicles exiting and entering the site would experience delays equivalent to LOS B during the AM and PM peak period for Year 2015 traffic conditions. In addition,review of the current site plan indicates that the proposed project driveway would provide an adequate storage reservoir to accommodate vehicles entering the site. The internal circulation system is also deemed to be adequate. Therefore, impacts related to site access and internal circulation would be Class III,less than significant. Note that the following mitigation measure is nonetheless recommended to further to further improve site circulation and access. Recommended Mitigation Measure: T-4 Site Access. Install a stop sign and stop bar at the proposed project driveway on Crestridge Road. This feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for building permit review. Further, landscaping at or near the proposed driveway shall not obstruct a driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department. CMP Arterial Monitoring Intersections. Project-generated trips at identified Congestion Management Program(CMP)locations would be below CMP thresholds for arterial monitoring intersection locations. Also,there are no CMP freeway monitoring locations in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, the existing transit service in the project area would adequately accommodate the increase of project generated transit trips. Impacts would therefore be Class III, less than significant. Construction Traffic. Access to Crestridge Road and the project site during project grading and construction would be provided via Highridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard. Although there would be an increase of traffic during grading and construction, construction traffic would not result in any significant impacts to key study intersections. Therefore,impacts relating to construction traffic would be Class III,less than significant. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 20 of 39 B-25 V EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION, AND FINDINGS The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, the Technical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(1) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the following potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR in the following categories: Air Quality, Biological Resources,Geology,Traffic and Circulation. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR is incorporated by reference. AIR QUALITY The project's potential impacts with regard to air quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.2,Air Quality,of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Construction-Related Air Emissions. Construction activity would generate on and off site air pollutant emissions that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD) construction thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOr) and particulates less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). On-site construction-related emissions would also exceed SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 and particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impacts to air quality from construction activities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measures: AQ-1(a) Construction Equipment Controls. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of NO„ associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment. 1. All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission standards. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 21 of 39 B-26 2. Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout construction. Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than five minutes. 3. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers'specifications. 4. The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized. 5. Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment(such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric), when feasible. 6. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. 7. Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible. 8. During the smog season (May through October), the construction period should be lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. AQ-1(b) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust emissions: 1. All exposed, disturbed, and graded areas onsite shall be watered three times (3x) daily until completion of project construction to minimize the entrainment of exposed soil. 2. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating activities. Application of water(preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. 3. Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet offreeboard. All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 4. Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 5. During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties), all clearing,grading,earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site or on-site. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 22 of 39 B-27 6. The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing, rumble plates, or another method achieving the same intent. 7. Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. 8. Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. 9. All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent and visible location at the construction site,and must be maintained throughout the construction process. All notices and the signs must indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. 10. Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. 12. Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans. 13. These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project's potential impacts with regard to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3,Biological Resources,of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Wildlife Movement and Corridors. The proposed project would not be expected to interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However,native bird species commonly encountered in urban areas could nest in the dispersed toyon shrubs and Brazilian peppertrees found at the project site. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 23 of 39 B-28 The potential impacts to wildlife movement associated with the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measure identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measures: BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Site disturbance shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 - August 30),if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible,a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence,location,and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community Development Department.The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California,nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance. In the event that active nests are discovered,a suitable buffer (e.g. 30- 50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests and no construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g. the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting birds surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 16 and February 1. Consistency with Natural Conservation Community Plan.The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. In addition,the project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan area. However,potential introduction of non-native plant species associated with on-site landscaping could conflict with the adopted Natural Conservation Community Plan (NCCP). Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impacts resulting from conflicts with the NCCP associated with the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 24 of 39 B-29 BIO-4(a) Construction Best Management Practices. The following measures shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for the site: Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the initiation of construction. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. BI04(b) Provisions for Invasive Species and Native Habitat Elements in the Landscaping Plan. No species listed in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006) or identified as potentially invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan(2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the site. Species listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia),Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops),Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia),black locust(Robinia pseudo-acacia),myoporum(Myoporum laetum), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), and pines (Pinus spp.). In addition,to the extent feasible the proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project. Native habitat elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon, California sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat,native grasses,and native perennial forbs as part of the planting palette. BIO-4(c) Construction Staging and Stockpiling Areas. Grading and building plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and approval shall identify areas for construction staging,fueling and stockpiling. These areas shall be located as far as practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve,and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's potential impacts with regard to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in the Initial Study,Appendix A to the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Will the Project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 25 of 39 B-30 Potential to Disturb Undiscovered Archaeological or Paleontological Resources. Previous archaeological studies in the project area and at the site itself have not identified any archaeological resources. In addition,the site and surrounding areas have been extensively disturbed over the years. Therefore, the potential for archeological resources,unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features to be found onsite is low. However,construction activity for the residential units would involve earthwork such as grading and trenching,which has the potential to unearth yet-to-be discovered archaeological and paleontological resources. However,potential impacts to previously unknown resources are likely mitigable with standard mitigation measures and procedures to be followed if resources or remains are discovered during grading and site preparation. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impacts upon archaeological or paleontological resources associated with the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. CR-1 Discovery Procedure. If cultural resources are encountered during construction, the construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are stopped, and shall notify the City Building and Safety Department immediately to arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the nature, extent,and potential significance of any cultural resources. If such resources are determined to be significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. Depending upon the nature of the find, such mitigation may include avoidance, documentation,or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. After the find is appropriately mitigated,work in the area may resume. CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading and excavation. Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading activities are occurring. Additional monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be required to provide adequate coverage if earth- moving activities are occurring simultaneously. Any cultural resources discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall be reported immediately to the paleontologist. In the event undetected buried resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 26 of 39 B-31 resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Measures may include testing, data recovery,reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution. All testing, data recovery,reburial, archival review or transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City. GEOLOGY The project's potential impacts with regard to geology that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4,Geology, of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Slope Stability. The slope stability analysis prepared for the project site concluded that the on- site existing and proposed slopes could be subject to landslides. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impacts from slope instability as a result of the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of a mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure: GEO-2(a) Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shall be required. These recommendations include maintenance of a uniform,near optimum moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the potential for softening and strength loss. In addition,slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting of the slope with approved, deep rooted, lightweight, drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control devices, and a continuous rodent control program. Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall,before the rainy season,and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned,as necessary, after each rainstorm. Access to the slopes,including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths,should be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils. The City of Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 27 of 39 B-32 GEO-2(b) The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support the project and underlying adverse geologic structure. The system requires a design and depth of embedment that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event the offsite slope failed. GEO-2(c) An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following completion of grading. The report shall include the results of in-grading density tests,and a map clearly depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths,removal area locations and depths, sub-drainage system locations and depths and geological conditions exposed during grading. GEO-2(d) If required by the final geotechnical report, as reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,the applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for possible movement following implementation of the project. The number and location of the inclinometer stations shall be determined by the City Geologist. The applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual readings are no longer necessary. In addition,readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall event(>2 times average monthly rainfall) or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project site. If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable. Further monitoring by inclinometers may be required,if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City. Expansive Soils. The proposed project is located in an area underlain by expansive soils. Expansive soils swell or heave with increases in moisture content and shrink with decreases in moisture content. The shrinking and swelling of soil beneath structures can potentially result in cracking of foundations and other structural damage. Finding Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 28 of 39 B-33 The potential impacts from expansive soils as a result of the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measures: GEO-3(a) Geotechnical Recommendations. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the project applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geology and Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants 2003) including: Following grading, the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade shall be tested. The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high expansion potential. Following completion of grading and until slabs and footings are poured, the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out. Pre- saturation is also recommended. GEO-3(b) Expansive Soil Removal and/or Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include one or more of the following techniques, as determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer and approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department: Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils. All imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The project's potential impacts with regard to traffic and circulation that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8, Traffic and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Sight Distance. Adequate vertical sight distance would be provided from the proposed project driveway to the crest on Crestridge Road. However, a motorist's sight distance could be obstructed by future project landscaping and/or hardscape along the project frontage. Finding r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 29 of 39 B-34 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The potential impacts related to sight distance have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level by virtue of the mitigation measure identified in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure: T-5 Maintain Sight Distance. Final project plans shall show that landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the proposed project driveway is designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed. In addition,curbside parking shall be prohibited along the property frontage within the identified sight visibility lines shown on Figure 4.8-5 of the EIR. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 30 of 39 B-35 VI ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION AND FINDINGS The EIR for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project identifies potentially significant environmental impacts within one issue area which cannot be fully mitigated and is therefore considered significant and unavoidable ("Class I"). That impact is related to Aesthetics. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR,Technical Appendices and the administrative record,finds,pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(3),that to the extent this impact remains significant and unavoidable,such impact is acceptable when weighed against the overriding social,economic,legal,technical, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,included as Section VIII of these Findings. The Class I impact identified in the FEIR document is discussed below,along with the appropriate findings per CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. AESTHETICS SIGNIFICANT AND UNA VOIDABLE IMPACT AFTER MITIGATION. Visual Character and Quality of the Site. The proposed project would introduce structural development,new landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site, and project grading would substantially alter the site's slope and ridgeline topography. In addition,the site is identified on the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Visual Aspects Map as a"canyon and ridge" feature and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character;" grading for and construction of the proposed project would eliminate both of these attributes. Findings Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. Facts in Support of Findings The existing visual character of the project site is defined by both its undeveloped, open condition and its topography,which consists of a moderate to steep slope and a ridgeline.The General Plan's Visual Aspects Map (General Plan Figure 41) identifies the project site,together with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve, as "Canyons and Ridges" and as "Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character." The proposed project would substantially alter the visual character of the site related to its topography by grading the existing slopes into stepped,relatively flat pad areas,and by removing the site's natural ridgeline. The existing open,undeveloped visual character,which is accentuated and made more visible to the public by the site's sloping topography,would be completely altered to a fully developed condition. The substantial alteration of the visual character of the project site and proposed removal of the visual aspects as identified in the General Plan would result in a significant adverse impact related to the visual character and r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 31 of 39 B-36 quality of the site. Mitigation measures are not available to reduce the impact of the proposed project to the visual character of the site. The overriding social,economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining,unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 32 of 39 B-37 VII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Draft EIR,in Section 6.0 Alternatives (incorporated by reference), discusses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project,and the City Council's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in sections V and VI,above,and to the project objectives, as stated in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR. In making the following alternatives findings,the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Draft EIR,including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. A NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This alternative assumes that development of the proposed project would not occur and that the site would remain an undeveloped hillside. The site would remain in its current condition and no improvements (including trails)would occur. Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services, consistency with the existing Institutional Zoning at the site and compatibility with existing development in the area, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, render this alternative infeasible. Facts in Support of Finding The No Project alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable aesthetics impact as it would not change the visual character of the site. The proposed project's potentially significant but mitigable aesthetic impacts,such as light and glare,impacts to biological resources related to nesting birds and non-native plant species, geology impacts related to slope stability and expansive soils, traffic impacts related to sight distance at the project entrance, and construction impacts related to air quality,would also be avoided. However, the No Project alternative would not provide new senior housing opportunities in Rancho Palos Verdes or the pedestrian trails that would connect Crestridge Road to the Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve. As such, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project or the Institutional Zoning in place at the site. Implementation of the No Project alternative would not preclude future development on the site. The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. r City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 33 of 39 B-38 B REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This alternative assumes that 12 new senior-restricted (55+years of age or older) for-sale residential units would be developed on the project site. These units would be located along Crestridge Road and would correspond to units 1 to 12 as shown on the site plan for the proposed project(see Figure 2-4 of the Draft EIR). As with the proposed project,the height of several of these units would exceed 16 feet above existing grade;therefore,a conditional use permit would be required. Access would be provided through the site to the City-owned lands Vista Del Norte Preserve) to the north. The undeveloped portion of the property would be restored with native vegetation,with pedestrian trails connecting this area of the site to the adjacent preserve. Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services, and compatibility with form and scale of existing development in the area, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, render this alternative infeasible. Facts in Support of Finding The intent of this alternative is to provide the public and City decision makers with a comparative analysis between the impacts of the proposed project and a reduced project which would reduce but not avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable visual character impacts.The Reduced Project Alternative would introduce structural development,new landscaping,and hardscape to an open and undeveloped site. While the intensity of grading required for this alternative would be substantially reduced when compared to the proposed project,alteration of the site's slope and ridgeline topography would likely still be required to accommodate development of this alternative at the project site. Due to the reduction in grading required, this alternative would also reduce impacts related to aesthetics,air quality,biological resources, geology, greenhouse gases,hydrology and water quality,noise and transportation and circulation;however,with the exception of air quality, these impacts are already less than significant with implementation of the proposed project. This alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetics associated with the proposed project. This alternative would achieve some of the objectives of the proposed project,but not to the extent desired by the applicant. In addition, the reduced density of this alternative may not be economically feasible. The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. C OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ALTERNATIVE This alternative involves incorporation of the site into the adjacent Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve and maintaining the site as open space. Recreational amenities would be added to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 34 of 39 B-39 site for use by the public,including trails connecting to the existing Vista Del Norte Ecological Preserve,which would replace the existing informal paths used by the public at present. Amenities such as an overlook area with seating would also be added. This alternative would require a change in the land use designation and zoning for the site from Institutional to Open Space. As part of this alternative, the site could be designated as reserve open space under the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Communities Conservation Planning NCCP) Subarea Plan. Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services, consistency with the existing Institutional Zoning at the site, compatibility with existing development in the area, cost of land aquisition and existing environmental and view character of the area, as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, render this alternative infeasible. Facts in Support of Finding This alternative would avoid the significant impact to visual character that would result from implementation of the proposed project. However,it would not achieve any of the project objectives discussed in Section 2.0,Project Description, of the DEIR. For example, as noted in Section 2.0 Project Description, the proposed project provides market rate and affordable senior housing. In addition, the proposed project would provide a residential community that is of a scale and density that is consistent with the adjacent senior housing facilities. This alternative would not fulfill the intent of the existing Institutional Zoning at the site and would require a change in land use designation and zoning to accommodate formal open space at the site. Finally, this alternative would require the expenditure of funds to acquire the site;there are other properties that would be higher priorities for acquisition for these purposes based on superior aesthetic, recreational or biological resources. The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. D OTHER INSTITUTIONAL USE This alternative would involve development of an approximately 18,000 square foot, single- story (16 feet maximum height)building, or strip of buildings depending on the use or uses at the site, directly adjacent to Crestridge Road that would be occupied uses allowed under the site's Institutional Zoning. The remainder of the site would be left in its current undeveloped state. Grading at the site would be limited to only what is required to accommodate the building and the supporting infrastructure;retaining walls would be constructed at the rear of the structure to limit the amount of alteration required to the slopes north of Crestridge Road. No on-site parking would be provided as part of this alternative;therefore, all workers and visitors to the site would be required to use on-street parking. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 35 of 39 B-40 This alternative would not include provision for a pedestrian link to the adjacent Vista Del Norte Preserve. Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological,or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of senior housing in proximity to services, provision of pedestrian trails, compatibility with existing development in the area and existing environmental and view character of the area,as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, render this alternative infeasible. Facts in Support of Finding While this alternative would not achieve the project objectives stated in Section 2.0,Project Description,it would reduce the significant unavoidable impact related to the change in the visual character of the site to a less than significant level. However,it would not continue the senior housing and services development of the area,and a project at the small scale contemplated in the alternative might not be economically feasible. The findings for the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 36 of 39 B-41 VIII STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following: CEQA requires that the decision maker balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,the adverse environmental effects may be considered"acceptable." Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) but are not avoided or substantially lessened,the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations,the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination(Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines). The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project(the project), Responses to Comments and the public record,adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on the project. B SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Although mitigation measures have been included where feasible for potential project impacts as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for the following project impact: Aesthetics-Visual Character and Quality of the Site. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact are discussed in the Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR and are summarized in Section VI, Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation, and Findings,in the Statement of Facts and Findings. C OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed action involves discretionary actions needed for approval of the Crestridge Senior Housing Project. Analysis in the EIR for this project has concluded that the proposed project City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 37 of 39 B-42 would result in an impact to aesthetics that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. All other potential significant adverse project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through mitigation measures in the Final EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that the significant unavoidable adverse project impacts,which would remain significant after mitigation,are acceptable and are outweighed by social,economic and other benefits of the project. Further,the alternatives that were identified in the Final EIR would not provide the project benefits, as summarized below, to the same extent as the proposed project: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to lessen project impacts to less than significant levels;and furthermore, that alternatives to the project are infeasible because while they have similar or fewer/reduced environmental impacts,they do not provide all of the benefits of the project,or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible when compared to the project,as described in the Statement of Facts and Findings. 2. The project is consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan land use designation and Institutional Zoning,with approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit. As such,development of the site with senior housing is consistent with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site;Belmont Village and Mirandela. 3. The project is compatible in form and scale with the adjacent senior housing facilities and as such would complement the pattern of development in the area. Conversion of this site to designated open space would require a land use designation and zone change and potentially require a financial outlay by the City that could potentially be directed more beneficially elsewhere. 4. The City's Housing Element(2010) encourages and facilitates development of senior housing through density bonuses for new housing that provide at least 50% of all units for seniors. Further, the project will provide for additional affordable senior housing to qualified lower-income households,consistent with the City's inclusionary housing requirements and the City's certified Housing Element. 5. The project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing public pedestrian pathways that link Crestridge Road to trails on the Vista del Norte Ecological Preserve to the north. Further,the inclusion of this pedestrian link between Crestridge Road and the trails on the Preserve will facilitate implementation of the Conceptual Trails Plan. Signage will help direct the public through the project site to the public trails and trailheads. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 38 of 39 B-43 6. The determination that the proposed project will result in an unavoidable adverse impact on the visual character and quality of the site is based on the identification of the project site,together with the adjacent Vista del Norte Preserve, as "Canyons and Ridges" and as"Undeveloped Lands Impacting Visual Character in the Visual Aspects Map of the City's General Plan(General Plan Figure 41). These designations were placed on the site in 1975, at a time when the environmental and view character of the surrounding area were different from present. While at one time there may have been expansive views of the site and its associated ridgelines from Crenshaw Boulevard and beyond (as identified in on General Plan Figure 41) much of these views of the site have been blocked by development along Silver Spur Road since the General Plan was adopted. As such,while the existing designations necessitated an impact finding of significant and unavoidable,the conditions that prompted the inclusion of those designations in the 1975 General Plan exist to a lesser extent today. 7. The project will add new senior residential units,increasing the availability of this type of housing in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to serve local seniors. The location of the project site will allow creation of a residential community in walking and bicycling distance to services to the north and thus has the potential to result in reduced per- capita greenhouse gas emissions. 8. Any development at the project site will require substantial grading activities to lower the site to maintain views from the upslope residential properties to the south. Reducing the number of residences or altering the type of development at the site would not be economically feasible given the amount of earthworks that would still be required to accommodate development. Therefore, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR,Technical Appendices and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations that has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit A Page 39 of 39 B-44 Poi Interpretive Center Parking Expansion Project IS/MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting program is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation. For each mitigation measure recommended in the EIR, specifications are made herein that identify the action required and the monitoring that must occur. In addition, a responsible agency is identified for verifying compliance with individual conditions of approval contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). To implement this MMRP, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will designate a Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Coordinator Coordinator"). The coordinator will be responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures incorporated into the project are complied with during project implementation. The coordinator will also distribute copies of the MMRP to those responsible agencies identified in the MMRP, which have partial or full responsibility for implementing certain measures. Failure of a responsible agency to implement a mitigation measure will not in any way prevent the lead agency from implementing the proposed project. The following table will be used as the coordinator's checklist to determine compliance with required mitigation measures. Key: DRP Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning ED Los Angeles County Engineering Department EP Los Angeles County Public Works Environmental Programs Division LACFD Los Angeles County Fire Department BD Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety County of Los Angeles r 1 B-45 Cre enior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone! Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments AESTHETICS AES-1 Landscape Maintenance. In order to minimize Once prior to Community Review landscape view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences issuance of building Development plan for compliance along Mistridge Drive, Oceanridge Drive and Seaside permits,once prior Department— with the measure, Heights Drive, all [private/common] landscaping to occupancy Planning and and ensure throughout the development shall be maintained so that clearance Zoning implementation in it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and Division the field depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, which are on file with the Planning Department(Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-31). If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any residence along Mistridge Drive, Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive,then said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit for City review and approval a landscape plan for the project site. The plan shall demonstrate that: Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B, to Resolution No. 2012-31,which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the development. AIR QUALITY AQ-1(a) Construction Equipment Controls.The Periodically during Onsite Verification of following shall be implemented during construction to grading and construction implementation in minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel-fuelled construction manager, the field during construction equipment. Community grading and Development construction 1. All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Department— Tier 4 EPA emission standards. Building and 2. Construction contractors shall minimize equipment Safety Division idling time throughout construction. Engines shall City of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 2 of 13 B-46 CreM19nior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments be turned off if idling would be for more than five minutes. 3. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications. 4. The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized. 5. Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment(such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas,or electric),when feasible. 6. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. 7. Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996(with federally mandated clean diesel engines)shall be utilized wherever feasible. 8. During the smog season(May through October), the construction period should be lengthened as permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. AQ-1(b) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. The Periodically during Onsite Verification of following shall be implemented during construction to grading and construction implementation in minimize fugitive dust emissions: construction manager, the field during Community grading and 1. All exposed,disturbed,and graded areas onsite Development construction shall be watered three times(3x)daily until Department— completion of project construction to minimize the Building and entrainment of exposed soil. Safety Division 2. Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating activities. Application of water(preferably reclaimed, if available)should penetrate sufficiently to minimize City of Rancho Palos Verdes 3Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 3 of 13 B-47 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments fugitive dust during grading activities. 3. Fugitive dust produced during grading,excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet of freeboard. All graded and excavated material,exposed soil areas,and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways,shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust.Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate.Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 4. Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 5. During periods of high winds(i.e.,wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties),all clearing, grading,earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard,either off-site or on- site. 6. The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing, rumble plates, or another method achieving the same intent. 7. Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day,if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes 4Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B rPage 4 of 13 B-48 Cre enior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments streets and roads. 8. Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors,shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. 9. All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent and visible location at the construction site,and must be maintained throughout the construction process. All notices and the signs must indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. 10. Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. 11. Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. 12. Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans. 13. These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications.Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Site Once prior to Community Verification of disturbance, including brush clearance, shall be initiating grading or Development completed surveys, prohibited during the general avian nesting season construction; if work Department— if applicable; February 1 —August 30), if feasible. If breeding season planned during Planning and verification that avoidance is not feasible,a qualified biologist shall nesting season,Zoning prescribed conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to periodically during Division measures taken if City of Rancho Palos Verdes 5Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 5 of 13 B-49 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments determine the presence/absence, location,and status of grading and species observed any active nests on or adjacent to the project site.The construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community Development Department. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided.To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California, nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer(e.g. 30-50 feet for passerines)should be established around such active nests. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. B10-4(a) Construction Best Management Practices. Once prior to Onsite Verification in the The following measures shall be employed as part of initiating grading or construction field that education construction monitoring for the site: construction, manager, takes place and periodically during Community fencing erected and Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site grading and Development maintained Reserve and the need to keep equipment and construction Department personnel within the project site prior to the initiation of construction. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. B10-4(b) Provisions for Invasive Species and Native Once prior to Community Review landscape Habitat Elements in the Landscaping Plan. No issuance of grading Development plan for compliance species listed in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory or building permits, Department— with the measure, 2006)or identified as potentially invasive ornamental once prior to Planning and and ensure species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea occupancy Zoning implementation in Plan(2004)will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the clearance Division the field site. Species listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia(Acacia longifolia), Sydney golden wattle(Acacia cyclops), Peruvian pepper tree(Schinus City of Rancho Palos Verdes 6Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B rPage 6 of 13 Ell B-50 Cre enior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or Compliance Initials Date Comments Frequency Party p molle), Brazilian pepper tree(Schinus terebenthifolia), black locust(Robinia pseudo-acacia), myoporum Myoporum laetum),gum tree(Eucalyptus spp.), and pines(Pinus spp.). In addition,to the extent feasible the proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trails,scenic overlooks,and community gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project. Native habitat elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon,California sagebrush,coastal bluff buckwheat, native grasses, and native perennial forbs as part of the planting palette. B10-4(c) Construction Staging and Stockpiling Once prior to Onsite Review plans for Areas. Grading and building plans submitted for the issuance of grading construction proper staging, proposed project for City review and approval shall or building permits, manager, fueling and identify areas for construction staging,fueling and periodically during Community stockpiling stockpiling. These areas shall be located as far as grading and Development locations,verify practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve,and not construction Department— compliance in field closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary. Building and Safety Division CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1 Discovery Procedure. If cultural resources are Ongoing during site Onsite If potential cultural encountered during grading or construction,the preparation and construction resources are construction manager shall ensure that all ground grading manager, encountered,verify disturbance activities are stopped, and shall notify the Community that work is City Building and Safety Department immediately to Development stopped and found arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the Department— materials are nature,extent, and potential significance of any cultural Planning and properly assessed resources. If such resources are determined to be Zoning and addressed significant,appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the Division resources must be identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. Depending upon the nature of the find, such mitigation may include avoidance, documentation, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings,and shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. After the find is appropriately City of Rancho Palos Verdes 7Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B rPage 7of13 B-51 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments mitigated,work in the area may resume. CR-2 Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the Ongoing during site Onsite Verify that qualified commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a preparation and construction paleontologist is qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading manager, retained and on grading and excavation. Monitoring onsite shall occur Community site during grading, whenever grading activities are occurring. Additional Development and that all monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be Department— measures are required to provide adequate coverage if earth-moving Building and taken if resources activities are occurring simultaneously. Any cultural Safety and discovered resources discovered by construction personnel or Planning and subcontractors shall be reported immediately to the Zoning paleontologist. In the event undetected buried resources Divisions are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Measures may include testing, data recovery, reburial,archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution. All testing,data recovery, reburial,archival review or transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-2(a) Compliance with the recommendations Once prior to Onsite Verify included in the previous geotechnical studies undertaken issuance of grading construction implementation at the site shall be required. These recommendations permits,ongoing manager, during grading and include maintenance of a uniform, near optimum during project Community construction moisture content in the slope soils,and avoidance of grading and site Development over-drying or excess irrigation,which will reduce the preparation Department— potential for softening and strength loss. In addition, Building and slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting Safety Division of the slope with approved,deep rooted, lightweight, drought resistant vegetation,as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control devices,and a continuous rodent control program. Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall, before the rainy season,and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned,as necessary,after City of Rancho Palos Verdes 8Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 8 of 13 B-52 Cre enior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone! Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments each rainstorm.Access to the slopes, including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths, should be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils. The City of Ranch Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit. GEO-2(b) The proposed retaining wall at the top of the Once prior to Onsite Verify that plans existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site issuance of grading construction comply with shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support permits, ongoing manager, measure,and the project and underlying adverse geologic structure. during project Community implementation The system requires a design and depth of embedment grading and site Development during grading and that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event preparation Department— construction the offsite slope failed. Building and Safety Division GEO-2(c) An as-graded geotechnical report shall be Once following Onsite Review as-graded prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following completion of construction report completion of grading.The report shall include the grading manager, results of in-grading density tests, and a map clearly Community depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths, Development removal area locations and depths, sub-drainage system Department— locations and depths and geological conditions exposed Building and during grading. Safety Division GEO-2(d) If required by the final geotechnical report, as Once following Onsite Verify reviewed and approved by the City Geologist,the completion of construction implementation applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at grading;every six manager, during grading and the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for months during the Community construction possible movement following implementation of the lifetime of the project Development project. The number and location of the inclinometer or until the City Department— stations shall be determined by the City Geologist. The Geologist agrees Building and applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings that semi-annual Safety Division along with any recommendations from a geotechnical readings are no engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime longer necessary of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi- annual readings are no longer necessary. In addition, readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month(>2 times average monthly rainfall)or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project site. City of Rancho Palos Verdes 9Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 9 of 13 B-53 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action,the project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable. Further monitoring by inclinometers may be required, if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City. GEO-3(a) Geotechnical Recommendations. Prior to Once prior to Onsite Verify issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit,the issuance of building construction implementation project applicant shall comply with all recommendations or grading permits, manager, following grading contained within the Geology and Geotechnical once following Community and construction Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants completion of Development 2003)including: grading Department— Building and Following grading,the expansion potential of the Safety Division exposed subgrade shall be tested.The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high expansion potential. Following completion of grading and until slabs and footings are poured,the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out. Pre- saturation is also recommended. GEO-3(b) Expansive Soil Removal and/or Once prior to Onsite Verify Treatment.Suitable measures to reduce impacts from issuance of building construction implementation or grading permits, manager, during grading andexpansive soils could include one or more of the periodically during Community constructionfollowingtechniques,as determined by a qualified grading DevelopmentgeotechnicalengineerandapprovedbytheCity Geologist: Department— Building and Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-Safety Division expansive soils. All imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material;and On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18, Division City of Rancho Palos Verdes 1 OResolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B rPage 10 of 13 B-54 Cre nior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone! Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments III of the UBC. NOISE N-1(a) Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Once prior to Onsite Review and The applicant shall provide,to the satisfaction of the issuance of grading construction approve plan,verify Community Development Director,a Noise Mitigation and and building permits; manager, implementation Monitoring Program that requires all of the following: ongoing during Community during grading and project grading and Development construction Construction contracts that specify that all construction Department— construction equipment,fixed or mobile,shall be Building and equipped with properly operating and maintained Safety Division mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice by the developer,at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the project. All notices shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities,as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible. That during construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is City of Rancho Palos Verdes 11 Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 11 of 13 B-55 Crestridge Senior Housing Project EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicating Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments directed away from sensitive noise receivers. N-1(b) Construction Vehicle Idling. During demolition, Ongoing during Onsite Verify construction and/or grading operations,trucks and other project grading and construction implementation construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at construction manager, during grading and the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way Community construction prior to the grading and construction hours. Development Department— Building and Safety Division N-1(c) Staging Area. The construction contractor shall Once prior to Onsite Verify provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site grading and construction implementation transportation of heavy construction equipment. These construction; manager, during grading and areas shall be located to maximize the distance between ongoing during Community construction activity and sensitive receptors(neighboring residences project grading and Development and institutional uses). This would reduce noise levels construction Department— associated with most types of idling construction Building and equipment. Safety Division N 1(d) Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel Ongoing during Onsite Verify equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors project grading and construction implementation and shall be equipped with factory recommended construction manager, during grading and mufflers. Community construction Development Department— Building and Safety Division N 1(e) Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Ongoing during Onsite Verify Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and project grading and construction implementation similar power tools and to power any temporary construction manager, during grading and structures,such as construction trailers or caretaker Community construction facilities. Development Department— Building and Safety Division N-1(f) Restrictions on Excavation and Ongoing during Onsite Verify Foundation/Conditioning. Excavation and conditioning project grading and construction implementation activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:15 construction manager, during grading and AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday and located to Community construction maximize the distance between activity and sensitive Development Department— City of Rancho Palos Verdes 12Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 12 of 13 B-56 Cre nior Housing Project EIR MI Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Monitoring Responsible Action Indicatin Compliance Verification Mitigation Measure/Condition of Approval Milestone/ Agency or g Frequency Party Compliance Initials Date Comments receptors(neighboring residences and institutional uses). Building and Safety Division N-1(g) Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For Ongoing during Onsite Verify all noise-generating construction activity on the project project grading and construction implementation site,additional noise attenuation techniques shall be construction manager, during grading and employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent Community construction feasible. Such techniques may include, but are not Development limited to,the use of sound blankets on noise generating Department— equipment and the construction of temporary sound Building and barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive Safety Division receptors. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION T-4 Site Access. Install a stop sign and stop bar at the Once prior to Onsite Review plans for proposed project driveway on Crestridge Road. This issuance of building construction compliance with the feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for permits,once prior manager, measure,and verify building permit review. to occupancy Community implementation in Development the field Department— Building and Safety Division . T-5 Maintain Sight Distance. Project plans shall show Once prior to Onsite Review plans for that landscaping and/or hardscape at or near the issuance of building construction compliance with the proposed project driveway is designed such that a permits, once prior manager, measure,and verify driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed,to the to occupancy Community implementation in satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In addition,Development the field curbside parking shall be prohibited along the property Department— frontage within the identified sight visibility lines shown on Building and Figure 4.8-5 of the EIR. Safety Division City of Rancho Palos Verdes 13Resolution No.2013-30 Exhibit B Page 13 of 13 B-57 RESOLUTION NO. 2013-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE NOS. SUB2012- 00001 AND ZON2012-00067 FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDOMINIUM HOUSING PROJECT (CASE NOS. ZON2012-00067 & SUB2012-00001) LOCATED AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE ROAD (APN 7589-013-009). WHEREAS, on February 22, 2012, applications for an Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Permit (Z0N2012-00067) and Tentative Tract Map SUB2OI2-00001)were submitted to the Community Development Department for 147,000 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 60-unit senior (age restricted to 55 years and above) condominium housing project on a vacant 9.76-acre parcel located at 5601 Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009); and, WHEREAS, after the submittal of additional information, Staff deemed the project applications complete on April 20, 2012, pursuant to the State Permit Streamlining Act PSA), Government Code Section 65920 et seq.; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse Number 2012051079) (the "EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study(the"Initial Study")for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, and on May 29, 2012, the Initial Study (IS) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released to the public and public agencies for a comment period of 31 days (through June 29, 2012). Further, a Public Notice was mailed on May 29, 2012 to the 57 property owners that are within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently,the Notice was published in the Peninsula News on May 31, 2012. Furthermore, the notice was posted on the City's website, and emailed to the 587 email addresses that are registered on the listserve for this project. Lastly, a copy of the Initial Study was made available at the public counter at City Hall, Hesse Park, the local libraries, and made available on the City's website for the public to download and review; and, WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public scoping meeting to provide a forum for agencies and members of the community to provide verbal comments on the IS/NOP, at which time the Planning Commission extended the comment period through July 12, 2012; and, WHEREAS, after the NOP comment period ended, the Draft EIR was prepared taking various comments into account. After completing the Draft EIR, the document was made available to the public on August 21, 2012 for a 48-day public comment period that concluded on October 8, 2012; and, C-1 WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public comment session to provide the public with an opportunity to submit verbal comments, in addition to the typical written comments, on the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on October 25, 2012, the Final EIR was completed and Notice was provided via mail and publication in the PV Peninsula News that a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on November 13, 2012 to review the Final EIR and the entitlement applications for the proposed project. Subsequently, a notice was emailed to the 611 people registered on the City's listserve for this project; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 13, 2012, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and further present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project, the Final EIR and the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to include conditions to address lighting, landscaping, trail use, and tower height, and return to the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012 with Resolutions for consideration; and, WHEREAS, on the December 11, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-22, recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; and, adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-23, recommending that the City Council conditionally approve Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067 for a proposed 60-unit condominium subdivision known as the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and CEQA, the City Council continued the public hearing to the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting at the applicant's request; and, WHEREAS, on April 2, 2013, at the applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to May 21, 2013; and, WHEREAS, on May 21, 2013, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the entitlements associated with the Project, the Final EIR, the responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and the Planning Commission recommendation: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project includes 60 age-restricted (aged 55+), for-sale condominium units accessed by one driveway at the southwestern portion of the site. The 60 units will be located within 18 different buildings distributed throughout the site, where Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 2 of 12 C-2 some buildings will be two-story structures and others will be split-level, two-story structures. The proposed project also includes a 2,400 square foot community building for the residents of the development; a community garden area for the residents at the northwest portion of the site; an outdoor community recreation area at the northeast portion of the site; and a series of public and private pedestrian trails. Three of the condominium units are proposed to be made available to qualified very-low-income senior households in accordance with the City's inclusionary affordable housing requirements contained in Chapter 17.11 (Affordable Housing). To facilitate the development, a total of 147,000 cubic yards of grading is proposed, which includes 145,000 cubic yards of cut(143,000 cubic yards of export)and 2,000 cubic yards of fill. The topography of the site will be lowered by as much as approximately 38-feet on the western side of the property to create a flatter and lower site. This grading will result in the structures on the west side of the property being well below the maximum 16-foot height limit, as measured from existing grade. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Section 2: Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 71878 to subdivide the 9.76-acre site for a 60-unit, age-restricted aged 55+), condominium project: A. The proposed map and the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. The goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan "to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community." Additionally, it is a policy of the General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites". Furthermore, it is a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality." The proposed project meets this goal and these policies as it provides an aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land uses and serves the needs of residents within the community, and is consistent with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site; Belmont Village and Mirandela, respectively. Lastly, based upon the proposed 60-unit project, the applicant shall be obligated to provide three(3)dwelling units or their equivalents) that are affordable to households with very low incomes. Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 3 of 12 C-3 B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that the subject property measures 9.76-acres in area and is sufficient in size to accommodate the proposed Senior Housing Condominium Project. The buildings are sufficiently spaced, the project provides for open space, outdoor recreational areas for the future tenants, complies with applicable setbacks, and has a density of approximately 6 units to the acre. C. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, nor are they likely to cause serious public health problems. The subject property has never been developed and has remained a vacant parcel. Further, there have been past approvals and proposals that call out the subject property for the use that is now being proposed. There are no sensitive plant or animal species; no known historical, archaeological or paleontological resources; and no known hazardous materials or conditions on the subject property. In the event that any of these are encountered prior to or during construction of the project, the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval will reduce any potential impacts upon the environment, fish and wildlife, sensitive habitats or public health to less-than-significant levels. D. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. There are no known public access easements across the subject property that should be preserved as a part of this project. However, since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) calls for a trail to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road below, the project will provide and record a public pedestrian trail easement through the development, consistent with the City's CTP to connect Crestridge Road with the trails in the City's Preserve property to the north adjacent to Indian Peak Road. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Section 3: Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a conditional use permit to; 1) establish a senior condominium residential development project on the subject property; and, 2) to allow certain building heights to exceed the Institutional District's development standards of 16'-0" tall and one-story: A. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by Title 17 (Zoning) or by conditions imposed under Section 17.60.050 to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood, such as: 1. The proposed structures will comply with and exceed all of the required setbacks of the Institutional zoning district. 2. Parking throughout the site will be provided to residents of the facility within dedicated 2-car garages for each unit, and visitor parking will be available Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 4 of 12 C-4 throughout the site. 3. The proposed project will contain landscaping throughout the facility and will be conditioned to minimize view impairment by requiring the landscaping to be maintained to specified height limits, and the appearance of the buildings will not be apparent due to the landscaping. 4. The subject site will be lowered by up to 38'from existing grade to create the proposed building pads, internal roadway and parking area, and will create a manageable slope for the site to accommodate the development, which would continue to slope from west to east, but it would be less of a dramatic slope. Further, lowering the site will bring the western portion of the project closer in elevation to the adjacent Belmont Assisted Living facility,which was also lowered substantially from its pre-construction grade; and, lowering the site also reduces the height of the existing slopes along the roadway, which will be planted as part of the project, and will minimize the use of retaining walls along the street. Furthermore, lowering the site substantially and reducing the height of some of the structures reduces the potential view impacts over the site from the upslope residences to the south along Mistridge Drive. 5. The building designs are of a residential character, with a mix of two-story structures and split-level two story structures, and will be consistent with other residential type structures along Crestridge Road, such as the Belmont Assisted Living Facility, Mirandela Senior Apartments, and the Canterbury Congregate Care Facility, as well as the residential character of the existing single-family residential neighborhoods to the east and south of the site. B. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. The project takes direct access from Crestridge Road, a collector roadway connecting Crenshaw Boulevard and Highridge Road. The project plans and traffic study have been reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. The traffic study considered five intersections and focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the morning and evening commute peak hours and found that the five (5) key study intersections currently operate and are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with project implementation. The cumulative projects analysis also found that the five (5) key study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS with the addition of project generated traffic. Construction traffic was also assessed since construction includes 143,000 cubic yards of export, and concluded that the increased traffic generated by the project will not exceed the impact threshold. Lastly, sight distance related to the project's access way onto Crestridge Road is adequate due to a mitigation measure limiting landscaping height and prohibiting curbside parking along Crestridge Road within the identified sight visibility lines. C. In approving the subject use for age-restricted (aged 55+), Senior condominiums at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof. The use will not be in conflict with other Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 5 of 12 C-5 uses in the area and will add to the mixture of housing types offered by providing additional senior housing. Since the project includes structures that exceed 16-feet above existing grade, Staff conducted view analyses from various residences along Seaside Heights, Mistridge, and Oceanridge Drives. The residences are located to the south of the project site, and contain up to 180-degree views over the subject property. The residences along Oceanridge and Seaside Heights Drives are at a substantially higher elevation than the subject property, and the proposed development will not project into their views. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact upon views (i.e., adverse effect) to the residences along Seaside Heights and Oceanridge Drives. The residences along Mistridge Drive are lower in elevation than the residences along Oceanridge Drive. Consequently, although they are higher in elevation than the subject property, due to the topography of the area, these residences do not have a view of the Santa Monica Bay; rather, their views are predominantly of the Los Angeles basin over the subject property and in a northeasterly direction over the abutting Mirandela Senior Housing Project. Staff visited several residences along Mistridge Drive, which have been incorporated into the Aesthetics section of the EIR with view simulations. There are 9 structures that are above the 16-foot height limit dispersed throughout the site as follows: a) four, 2-story split level structures that front along Crestridge Road; b) one, 2-story split-level structure along the easternmost side of the development; c) one, 2-story split-level structure in the middle of the development; d) one, 2-story structure in the middle of the development; and, e) two, 2-story structures at the rear of the development. Ultimately, of the 9 structures that are above the 16-foot height limit, the two- story structures (a total of 3 that are identified as "d" and "e", above) result in some type of view impairment, as the portions above the 16-foot height limit(i.e., 16-feet above existing grade) impair a small portion of the city view at the bottom of the view frames from the existing residences on Mistridge Drive. The proposed structures that are along Crestridge Road and the eastern property line (identified as "a" and "b", above) are at lower elevations than the other structures on the site; as a result, these structures are in the foreground and will not project into the view frames from the residences along Mistridge Drive. The remaining 3 structures along the rear of the development and in the middle of the development (identified as "d" and "e", above) are also above the 16-foot limit (i.e., 16-feet above existing grade). Since these buildings are located near the center of the site, they are in the middle of the view corridors of the properties along Mistridge Drive. The heights of these proposed structures, coupled with the location within the view frames, makes them more apparent Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 6 of 12 C-6 and results in some type of view impairment from the residences along Mistridge Drive. As a result, these buildings have been modified in the following manner: Reduce the plate heights of the structures containing units 19 thru 22, and 45 and 46 —This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 2-feet. Reduce the roof pitch from 3:12, to 1.75:12 for the structures containing units 19 thru 22, and 45 and 46—This reduces the height of the buildings by up to 1-foot Change the roofs on the eastern portions of the three buildings from gable roofs to hip-pitched roofs—This reduces the amount of horizontal projections and opens up more view. The modifications will result in a reduction in the structure heights by 3-feet, resulting in structures that are approximately 23-feet above finish grade, and reduces the roof massing with incorporation of a hip on these buildings. Consequently, these modifications minimize the view impairment such that the buildings will minimally project into the city lights views while maintaining the larger panoramic view from the residences along Mistridge Drive. D. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan. Specifically, the goal of the Urban Environment Element of the General Plan is "to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community." Additionally, it is a policy of the General Plan to "Review the location and site design of future institutional uses very carefully to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites". Furthermore, it is a Housing Activity Policy of the City's General Plan to "[require]all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality." The proposed project meets this goal and these policies as it provides an aesthetically pleasing senior housing project that is compatible with existing land uses and serves the needs of residents within the community, and is consistent with the City's vision for the site and surrounding area as evidenced by the approved development pattern of senior housing to the west and east of the site; Belmont Village and Mirandela, respectively. Lastly, based upon the proposed 60-unit project, the applicant shall be obligated to provide three(3)dwelling units or their equivalents) that are affordable to households with very low incomes. E. The subject property is not located within an overlay control district. F. Conditions, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed upon this project. Specifically, as included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and as shown in the exhibits attached to City Council Resolution Nos. 2013-30 and 2013-31, and briefly described below, the project includes conditions that address: Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 7 of 12 C-7 Limitations on the heights of walls and fences; Conditions regarding the placement and type of exterior light fixtures; Requirements for marking fire lanes and prohibiting parking therein; Requirements for compliance with the City's attached unit development standards regarding the transmission of sound and vibration through common walls and floors; Requirements for dedication of an easement for trail purposes, consistent with the Conceptual Trails Plan. Requirements for water-conserving landscaping and irrigation; Further limitations or restrictions on the height of foliage and trees; and, Restrictions on the number and types of signage for the project. Limitations on the heights, roof types and roof pitches for the buildings identified above. Section 4: Consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a Grading Permit for 147,000 cubic yards of grading related to the development of the proposed condominium project: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code. The proposed project encompasses 147,000 cubic yards of total earth movement cut and fill combined) throughout the 9.76-acre parcel. The grading will substantially lower the existing topography in an effort to maintain views over the subject property. The site will be lowered by approximately 38-feet on the west side of the site, which will result in structures that are lower than the existing topography. Grading of the entire site will occur, and will serve to accommodate the various structures on-site, the internal roadway that will loop through the development, the community building and the outdoor recreation area. Since the intent of the grading is primarily to lower the site's topography, there will be 143,000 cubic yards of export. The export will lower the site to provide a better designed project and will allow the majority of the buildings to be set lower on the site than could be allowed "by right" without the proposed grading (or with less grading). B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The proposed grading results in most structures being lower than would be permitted by right" without the proposed grading. Furthermore, while there is some fill throughout the site, no fill under buildings is necessary and the proposed project will not significantly affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from neighboring properties. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural. The existing site topography slopes from west to east, and the topography is higher than the adjacent developments Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 8 of 12 C-8 i.e., Belmont and Mirandela). Artificial fill has been identified at the site, which was placed during grading operations for the construction of Crestridge Road along the southerly property line. The site also slopes up from Crestridge Road to the middle of the site, then slopes down towards the City's Reserve property to the north. Thus, some of the slopes on the site appear to have been manmade and are not natural. Nonetheless, the majority of the grading is to lower the site, and in doing so the resulting structures will be in line with the developments on either side, which slopes down from west to east. Due to the existing topography of the site, which is convex in shape, the grading will also prepare the site for development. The existing contours will be removed, but the finished contours will ensure a gentler sloping site that continues to slope from west to east. D. While portions of the topographic features appear to be man-made as a result of the construction of surrounding roadways, and not of a natural topographic feature, the proposed project still considers the topographic features and appearance of the existing site by creating new slopes that are similar to the existing slopes. There will continue to be a transitional slope up to Belmont and down to Mirandela, which aid in creating a stepped development that is in line with the adjacent developments. As a result, the proposed development would not be topographically out of scale with the surrounding area. E. The required finding that, for new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Section 17.02.040(A)(6) of the Development Code, is not applicable because the proposed project is not a new single-family residence. F. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage, and minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. The proposed project is a new residential tract, although it is not a single family subdivision. This intent of this finding is to minimize the visual impacts and disturbance of existing vegetation that commonly occurs with cut-and-fill grading of terraced single-family neighborhoods. The grading will lower the site and will result in a development that steps down from west to east such that there is an aesthetic symmetry linking the developments on either side. As a result, the slopes and pervious areas will contain landscaping to prevent erosion and create an aesthetically pleasing site. Further, the landscaping will be conditioned so as to prevent foliage from growing above the heights of the buildings and creating view impairment to the residents to the south of the site. Thus, as proposed and conditioned, adequate landscaping will be provided throughout the site to make the project less apparent. G. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The proposed project involves a private roadway that loops within the development to provide access to the various buildings, and includes one Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 9 of 12 C-9 ingress/egress point along Crestridge Road. The street will slope with the resulting topography and will be of a width that can accommodate two-way traffic, will prohibit street parking, and will accommodate emergency personnel. Lastly, beside the ingress/egress driveway along Crestridge Road, the interior roadway will not be visible from the public rights-of-way. H. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. A Biological Resources Assessment was performed for the EIR. According to the assessment, the subject property is regularly cleared and maintained through disking and grubbing. As such, there is no protected habitat (CSS) present on site. Further, non-native vegetation is present on the site, which provides for poor habitat for wildlife species. The site is, however, adjacent to the City's Reserve property. As such, there are mitigation measures proposed to minimize disturbance and impacts to the City's Reserve, which includes native landscaping, especially for those areas that abut the City's Reserve. I.The proposed project is inconsistent with 3 of the grading criteria contained within Municipal Code Section 17.76.040(E)(9) pertaining to grading on slopes over 35% steepness, maximum finished slopes, and maximum depth of cut or fill. However, a deviation from the criteria regarding grading on slopes greater than 35% is hereby approved because the grading will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare, since development of the subject site will require City Geologist approval and building permits that will ensure that the proposed project will not threaten public health, safety and welfare. Furthermore, a deviation to the criteria regarding maximum finished slopes and maximum depth of cut and fill is hereby approved because unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading and other circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. However, it is important to consider that the subject site is a vacant parcel with undulating topography and some un-compacted fill material that was placed on the site previously must be removed and exported in order to render the site buildable. Lastly, grading down of the site provides better views and a better visual representation of the project and consistency with the surrounding areas are circumstances that warrant approval of the increased depth of cut and fill. In regards to a deviation from the grading criteria regarding maximum finished slopes, upslope retaining wall heights, and restricted grading areas, the City Council finds that: a) The criteria of subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 are satisfied, as noted in A through E above. b) The project is consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit, which is 1) to permit reasonable development of land, 2) ensure the maximum Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 10 of 12 C-10 preservation of natural scenic character of the area consistent with reasonable economic use of the property, 3) ensure that the development of land occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands, and 4)ensure that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the proposed project will lower the site while maintaining a similar topographic configuration of a flatter area with slopes,thereby helping to preserve views over the site and not cause visual impacts, which will develop the site in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands. In doing so the project permits the reasonable development of land while maintaining the natural scenic character. c) Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Lowering the site will ensure less than significant view and visual impacts. Development proposals on large vacant parcels with similar grading have been approved in the past; approval of this project is consistent with prior actions on other Institutional uses along Crestridge Road, namely the Belmont Assisted Living Facility and the Mirandela Senior Affordable Housing projects wherein those sites were also lowered substantially for the same purposes. Lastly, departure from the standards of subsection E)(9) of Municipal Code Section 17.76.040 will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other properties, because a geological report for this project has been submitted to and approved by the City geologist. Section 5: Based upon the Final EIR and the record before the Planning Commission and City Council, and consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council finds that the Project will create a significant unavoidable impact to aesthetics (Visual Character and Quality of the Site). This significant impact is further described in the Exhibit "A", titled "Facts, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the Environmental Effects for the Crestridge Senior Housing Project" of Resolution No. 2013-30, which is incorporated herein by this reference . Section 6: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 2013-30, are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project by this reference. Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable shortened periods of limitation. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports and all of the documents that were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Minutes and other records of the proceedings related to this application, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves Tentative Tract Map No. 71878, Conditional Use Permit, and Grading Permit (Planning Case Nos. SUB2012-00001 and ZON2012-00067), in conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact Report,to allow the subdivision of Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 11 of 12 C-11 a 9.76-acre site into sixty (60), age-restricted (aged 55+), senior condominium units, located at 5601 Crestridge Road (APN 7589-013-009), subject to the recommended conditions of approval in the attached Exhibits "A" and "B", which are incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of May 2013. C-)/ i1 • yor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California County of Los Angeles ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2013-31 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 21, 2013. City Clerk Resolution No. 2013-31 Page 12 of 12 C-12 EXHIBIT `A' TO RESOLUTION 2013-31 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 71878 PLANNING CASE NOS. ZON2012-00067 & SUB2012-00001) General 1. This approval is for the following: A. A 60-unit, for-sale, age-restricted (55 years and older) condominium housing complex, distributed amongst 18 individual buildings B. Three (3) units affordable to "Extremely Low" and/or "Very Low" income households in accordance with the City's Inclusionary Housing requirements. C. A private and public trail system in open space areas on the north, and a public trail through the development connecting Crestridge Road with the public trail system in open space areas on the north. D. A 13,000-square foot outdoor community recreation area located at the northeastern corner of the site. The amenities for this area include a patio, a community conversation and gathering stage, a sundeck and outdoor living room, barbeque facilities, bocce ball courts, and picnic tables. E. A 2,400 square-foot Community Service Center building and sundeck providing secondary, centralized community amenities for the project's residents. The Community Service Center building will provide a recreation and lounge area for community gatherings, kitchen, computer center/business room, office, fitness room, bathrooms, indoor and outdoor fireplaces, outdoor living area, spa, barbeque and seating area. The Community Service Center could also be used for community gatherings and as a social venue for regular resident activities like movie nights, book clubs and cooking classes. F. A gated vehicular access off of Crestridge Road. The vehicular entry gate would have a key pad and call box. G. A pedestrian entry tower and access point adjacent to the gated vehicular access. H. An internal private street that is a minimum of 26 feet wide. I. A total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the two-car garages available for each condominium unit. C-13 J. A community garden area at the northwest portion of the site (behind the existing Belmont Assisted Living facility) for the residents and/or owners of the Crestridge Senior Housing Condominium project. 2. Within ninety (90) days of this approval, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. The developer shall supply the City with one mylar, one copy, and an electronic copy of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. 4. This approval expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the tentative tract map by the City Council, unless extended per the Subdivision Map Act and Municipal Code. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map. 5. Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED; with the Institutional Zoning District; the mitigation measures, conditions and development standards contained in PC Resolution No. 2012-22 and PC Resolution No. 2012-23; City Council Resolution No. 2013-31; and, the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 6. The Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 7. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) contained in PC Resolution No. 2012-22 and City Council Resolution No. 2013-30 for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be adhered to. The mitigation measures are repeated herein under the appropriate subject heading, sometimes with clarifying language that may differ from the MMRP. Where the conditions differ from the mitigation measures, the stricter of the two shall govern. All costs associated with implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be the responsibility of the Developer, and/or any successors in interest. 8. The Conditions of Approval contained herein shall be subject to review and modification, as deemed necessary and appropriate by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing held one year after issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the last building constructed. At the review hearing, the Planning Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 2 of 25 C-14 Commission may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as deemed necessary and appropriate. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500' radius from the entire project's boundary, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code Section 17.80.090. As part of the one year review, the Planning Commission may consider and review compliance with all the conditions of approval, assess any lighting and noise impacts, and address any other concerns raised by Staff, the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the review. 9. In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive, Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, all private landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-31). If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any residence along Mistridge Drive, Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive, then said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity (other than the aforementioned grading activity) are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit. Tentative Tract Map No. 71878 11. The proposed project approval permits 60, age restricted (aged 55+) condominium units on the existing 9.76-acre subject parcel as shown on Tentative Tract Map No. 71878, as approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. 12. Prior to submitting the Final Map for recordation, the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City's Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures, etc. 13. The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown on the Tentative Tract Map. 14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, copies of the Covenants, Conditions and Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 3 of 25 C-15 Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director and the City Attorney. Said CC&R's shall reflect the applicable conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. All necessary legal agreements, including homeowners' association, deed restrictions, covenant, dedication of development rights, public easements and proposed methods of maintenance and perpetuation of drainage facilities and any other hydrological improvements shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the approval of the Final Map. County Recorder 15. If signatures of record title interests appear on the final map, the developer shall submit a preliminary guarantee. A final guarantee will be required at the time of filing of the final map with the County Recorder. If said signatures do not appear on the final map, a preliminary title report/guarantee is needed that covers the area showing all fee owners and interest holders. The account for this preliminary title report guarantee shall remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. Public Works and City Engineer Conditions 16. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to final certificate of use and occupancy, the following items shall be addressed: Sidewalk must be constructed on Crestridge Road that provides for a total sidewalk width of 6' from Face of Curb to Back of Sidewalk (to match existing conditions on Crestridge Road). Relocate electrical facilities along Crestridge Road to provide for 4' clear sidewalk access to match other updated facilities and to adhere to ADA. Provide for ADA compliant access across the top of the proposed site entry driveway on Crestridge Road. Indicate the ADA path of travel from Crestridge Rd. throughout the interior of the site. Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in reviewing the construction plans. 17. Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, the Applicant shall ensure the following to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director: No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way. All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach (minimum 2 feet away from driving edge). Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the ROW. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 4 of 25 C-16 The engineer shall provide a longitudinal profile of the driveway approach and driveway centerline depicting vertical curves and slopes. Driveway approach slope and details needs to comply with APWA STD PLAN 110-0 (latest edition) and other applicable drawings. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study (include off-site areas affecting the development) shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall include detail drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, and storm drains which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. It is the property owner's responsibility to maintain any landscaping in the abutting public right-of-way and keep it in a safe condition. Any cuts made into the existing asphalt roadway of Crestridge Road will require full width resurfacing of the road for a length to be determined by the Director of Public Works or his designee. All damaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt in front of the proposed property must be removed and replaced in kind. All ADA improvements shall be completed by the developer in the ROW. Catch basins shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean" painted on them in the ROW and on the property. Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain inlets, including existing catch basins where a connection to the development's system is required. Plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Plans shall provide Sewer connection information, and shall be approved by LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Plans shall provide clear sight triangle at driveway per Caltrans standards. Sewers 18. A bond, cash deposit, or other City approved security, shall be posted prior to recordation of the Final Map or start of work, whichever occurs first, to cover costs for construction of and connection to a sanitary sewer system, in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works. 19. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Public Works Director a written statement from the County Sanitation District approving the design of the tract with regard to the existing trunk line sewer. Said approval Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 5 of 25 C-17 shall state all conditions of approval, if any, and state that the County is willing to maintain all connections to said trunk lines. 20. Approval of this subdivision of land is contingent upon the installation, dedication and use of local main line sewer and separate laterals to serve each unit of the land division. 21. Sewer easements may be required, subject to review by the City Engineer, to determine the final locations and requirements. 22. Prior to construction, the subdivider shall obtain approval of the sewer improvement plans from the County Engineer Sewer Design and Maintenance Division. Water 23. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to commencement of work, whichever comes first, the subdivider must submit a labor and materials bond in addition to either: a. An agreement and a faithful performance bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer and guaranteeing the installation of the water system; or b. An agreement and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer indicating that the subdivider has entered into a contract with the serving water utility to construct the water system, as required, and has deposited with such water utility security guaranteeing payment for the installation of the water system. 24. There shall be filed with the City Engineer a statement from the water purveyor indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the water purveyor and that, under normal operating conditions, the system will meet the needs of the developed tract. 25. At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking, plans and specifications for the water systems facilities shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval, and shall comply with the City Engineer's standards. Approval for filing of the land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned above. 26. The project shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities that shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. The City Engineer shall determine domestic flow requirements. Fire flow Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 6 of 25 C-18 requirements shall be determined by the Fire Department and evidence of approval by the Fire Chief is required. 27. Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire Department has determined that there is adequate firefighting water and access available to said structures. 28. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for the project include the following interior water-conservation measures: Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve; Install water-conserving clothes washers; Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow; and, Install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets. 29. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for the common open space areas for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. If the Community Development Director utilizes a landscape consultant to review the plans, the applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said view. Said plans shall incorporate, at a minimum, the following water-conservation measures: Extensive use of native plant materials. Low water-demand plants. Minimum use of lawn or, when used, installation of warm season grasses. Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low water demand plants. Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil's water- holding capacity. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems. Use of reclaimed wastewater, stored rainwater or grey water for irrigation. In addition, the landscaping plan shall include the following: A pesticide management plan to control the introduction of pesticides into site runoff. The pesticide management plan shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. Landscaping at or near the proposed driveway that does not obstruct a driver's clear line of site to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department. Foliage/trees are of a type of species than can be maintained so as not to exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photos in Exhibit B, to Resolution No. 2012-23, which are the highest visible roof ridgelines of the development. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 7 of 25 C-19 Drainage 30. All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit final of the last building. 31. Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction. 32. Subject to review and approval by the City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division, prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a stormwater management plan which shows the on-site and off-site stormwater conveyance system that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off of the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the Director of Public Works and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that default drainage capacity is maintained. The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows. 33. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the developer shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the project. The developer shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before construction activities begin on the project site. 34. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), including sandbags, shall be used to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities. 35. In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed project. 36. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City's NPDES consultant shall review and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site. Streets 37. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the applicant shall post a bond or other Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 8of25 C-20 security acceptable to the Director of Public Works for any approved improvements within the public right-of-way of Crestridge Road. 38. The contractor shall be responsible for repairs to any neighboring streets in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (those streets to be determined by the Director of Public Works) which may be damaged during development of the project. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall post a bond, cash deposit or City approved security, in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works to be sufficient to cover the costs to repair any damage to streets or appurtenant structures as a result of this development. Said streets shall be videotaped by the applicant and submitted to the Public Works Department on CD prior to issuance of a grading permit. 39. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project, and subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, the Applicant shall be responsible for installing 1) a "STOP" sign and stop bar at the project driveway that intersects with Crestridge Road. This feature shall be shown on all project plans submitted for building permit review. (Mitigation Measure T-4) Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Sherriffs Department, the text of said sign shall be worded in such a way and the location of said sign shall be placed in such a way that the sign will be enforceable by the Sherriff s Department. 40. Landscaping, walls or other site improvements at or near the proposed project driveway shall not obstruct a driver's clear line of sight, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. (Mitigation Measure T-4) 41. On-street parking shall be prohibited along the property frontage within the identified sight visibility lines as determined by the Public Works Director. Mitigation Measure T-4) Survey Monumentation, 42. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 43. Within twenty-four (24) months from the date of filing the Final Map, the developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City Engineer. 44. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 9 of 25 C-21 45. All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Street Names and Unit Numbering 46. Any street names and/or unit numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer. Grading 47. Prior to recordation of the final map or the commencement of work, whichever occurs first, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to cover the costs of grading in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 48. Permitted hours and days for grading of the site, including site preparation, import and export, shall be limited to the hours between 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday, with no such activities permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code without a special construction permit. 49. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than 5 million dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by the applicant. Said insurance policy must name the City and its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds and be issued by an insurer with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best's Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 50. Approval of the project shall allow a total of 147,000 cubic yards of earth movement, consisting of 145,000 cubic yards of cut and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, of which 143,000 cubic yards will be exported from the site. Any revisions that result in a substantial increase to the aforementioned grading quantities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council as a revision to the grading application. 51. The construction of three retaining walls shall be permitted as part of the proposed project. These include one, 6-foot high upslope retaining wall behind each of the three structures on the west side of the development, as illustrated on the approved plans. Subject to review and approval by the Community Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 10 of 25 C-22 Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. 52. A construction plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. Said plan shall include but not be limited to: limits of grading, estimated length of time for rough grading and improvements, location of construction trailer, location and type of temporary utilities. The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited. 53. Prior to filing the Final Map, a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist. This grading plan shall include a detailed engineering, geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the project's California State Licensed geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them. It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions, as approved by the City. 54. Grading shall conform to Chapter 29, "Excavations, Foundations, and Retaining Walls", and Chapter 70, "Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code". 55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, haul routes used to transport soil exported from the project site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations. In reviewing the haul route, the Public Works Director shall take into account and consideration the school traffic along the haul routes, and shall have the ability to modify the approved haul route, modify the hours of the grading operation, and impose any traffic-control conditions in the interest of public safety, if deemed necessary. 56. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel-fuelled construction equipment. a) All diesel construction equipment shall meet Interim Tier 4 EPA emission standards. b) Construction contractors shall minimize equipment idling time throughout construction. Engines shall be turned off if idling would be for more than five minutes. c) Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers' specifications. d) The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized. e) Construction contractors shall use alternatively fueled construction equipment (such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric), when feasible. 0 The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 11 of 25 C-23 size. h) Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated clean diesel engines) shall be utilized wherever feasible. i)During the smog season (May through October), the construction period should be lengthened as permitted by the City's Municipal Code so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a)) 57. The following shall be implemented during construction to minimize fugitive dust emissions: a) All exposed, disturbed, and graded areas onsite shall be watered three times (3x) daily until completion of project construction to minimize the entrainment of exposed soil. b) Pre-grading/excavation activities shall include watering the area to be graded or excavated before commencement of grading or excavating activities. Application of water (preferably reclaimed, if available) should penetrate sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. c) Fugitive dust produced during grading, excavation, and construction activities shall be controlled by the following activities: Trucks transporting material on and off the site must be tarped from the point of origin or must maintain at least one feet of freeboard. All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways, shall be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. d) Ground cover must be replaced in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. e) During periods of high winds (i.e., wind speed sufficient to cause fugitive dust to affect adjacent properties), all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations shall be curtailed to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from being an annoyance or hazard, either off-site or on-site. 0 The contractor must provide adequate loading/unloading areas that limit track-out onto adjacent roadways through the utilization of wheel washing, rumble plates, or another method achieving the same intent. g) Adjacent streets and roads shall be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads. h) Personnel involved in grading operations, including contractors and subcontractors, shall wear respiratory protection in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 12 of 25 C-24 i)All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site must be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet must also be posted in a prominent and visible location at the construction site, and must be maintained throughout the construction process. All notices and the signs must indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. j)Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the project must be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. k) Signs shall be posted on-site limiting construction traffic to 15 miles per hour or less. I)Dust control requirements shall be shown on all grading plans. m) These control techniques must be indicated in project specifications. Compliance with the measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. (Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b)) Common Area Improvements and CC&Rs 58. The community garden area at the northwest portion of the site shall not be planted with any type of trees, including but not limited to citrus trees, avocado trees, etc. The individual gardens in this area shall not be enclosed with any fencing taller than 42-inches in height. 59. In order to minimize view impairing foliage when viewed from the residences along Mistridge Drive, Oceanridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, all common landscaping throughout the development shall be maintained so that it will not exceed the height of the line illustrated and depicted on the photographs taken from the residences along Mistridge Drive and Seaside Heights Drive, which are on file with the Planning Department (Exhibit B to City Council Resolution No. 2013-31). If it is brought to the City's attention that foliage in the development exceeds the aforementioned line and impairs a view as viewed from any residence along Mistridge Drive, Seaside Heights Drive or Oceanridge Drive, then said foliage shall be trimmed down to a level that no longer impairs the view. 60. The Community Service Center shall not be rented to or used by non-residents or non-owners of the community. Additionally, the Center shall be closed daily by no later than 10pm. 61. The entry tower shall be limited to a maximum height of 16-feet, as measured from adjacent finish grade to the highest point of the structure. 62. An improved public pedestrian access trail shall be provided through the community and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. Specifically, Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 13 of 25 C-25 the trail system shall be provided for the general public that connects Crestridge Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail located on the City's Reserve property to the north. 63. The pedestrian access point at the entry tower shall not contain a gate or other similar enclosure that would prevent the general public from entering, or discouraged from entering, the site to access the trailheads at the rear of the property or the trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. Further, public access shall not be impeded by any gate, fence, or improvement along the entire length of the public trail easement. 64. The public trail shall be limited to pedestrian use only; and shall facilitate and ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north. 65. The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the City trails shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. 66. Directional signage shall be posted along the entire length of the public trail to guide the general public through the development and to the two trials identified above. The location and signage design shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation 67. Any temporary or permanent project signage shall require the approval of a sign permit by the Community Development Director, and shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 17.76.050(E)(2). 68. No parking shall be allowed on the internal private street. 69. The internal private street shall be maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. 70. A minimum of 31 guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained throughout the development. Lighting: 71. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 72. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a final site lighting plan, prepared by a lighting consultant, for the review and approval of the Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 14 of 25 C-26 Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall include the location, height, number of lights, foot candles by area and, estimates of maximum illumination on site with no spill/glare at the property line. The lighting color temperature shall be limited to a range between 2,700 to 3,700 Kelvin for lights. The lighting plan shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixtures on the buildings and throughout the entire project site are designed and installed so as to contain light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. The light source on each fixture shall be shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. 73. Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low, downcast, bollard- type fixtures, not to exceed forty-two 42" inches in height and shall employ downcast and shielded lumieres. 74. No one light fixture shall exceed 1,200 watts, and the light source shall not be directed toward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel of property or properties other than upon which such light source is physically located. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way. 75. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building is more than 7-feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building, with the exception of ceiling lights in the ceilings above exterior covered balconies. 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, the applicant shall request that the Director or his designee conduct an inspection of the site to ensure that there is no spill-over of light onto adjacent properties or cause a negative impact to adjacent properties or public rights-of-way and that the light sources on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. Upon determination by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact, the property owner shall modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director. 77. All exterior lighting fixtures on the grounds, pathways and common areas, including any street lights, shall not exceed 5 feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade. 78. No internally-illuminated signage may be used on the project site. 79. All proposed lighting shall be shielded so that it is down-cast and does not create any direct illumination impacts to off-site properties. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 15 of 25 C-27 Street Names and Numbering 80. Any street names and/or house numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer. Park, Open Space and Other Dedications 81. Prior to final tract map recordation, the applicant shall pay to the City a fee equal to the value of parkland in lieu of the dedication of such land to the City, pursuant to the provision of Section 16.20.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. 82. A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedicated to the City and recorded on the Final Tract Map to connect Crestridge Road with the two existing trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. The trail portions at the north of the development that are not associated with the trail network for project residents shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director. 83. The community services building, internal roadway and public trail shall all be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, prior to the building permit final for the first condominium building. Affordable Housing 84. The applicant shall construct three (3) units affordable to households with very low incomes. The three (3) affordable units shall be similar in exterior appearance, interior appointments, configuration and basic amenities (such as storage space and outdoor living areas) to the market rate units in the proposed project, as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to building permit final of the affordable units. Covenants and agreements required by Chapter 17.11 of the City's Municipal Code must be recorded against the three (3) affordable units, which shall be specifically designated, concurrently with the recordation of the final map or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for any building, whichever occurs first. Geology 85. Prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City's Building Official, the applicant shall obtain final approval of the grading and construction plans from the City's geotechnical consultant. This review shall include analysis of any potential impacts resulting from the former landslide condition on the subject Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 16 of 25 C-28 property. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal of all soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical consultant in order to grant such final approval. 86. All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited. 87. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the developer shall submit a Geology and/or Soils Engineer's report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites in the proposed subdivision. Such soils are defined by Building Code Section 2904 (b). 88. An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas. 89. Compliance with the recommendations included in the previous geotechnical studies undertaken at the site shall be required. These recommendations include maintenance of a uniform, near optimum moisture content in the slope soils, and avoidance of over-drying or excess irrigation, which will reduce the potential for softening and strength loss. In addition, slope maintenance shall include the immediate planting of the slope with approved, deep rooted, lightweight, drought resistant vegetation, as well as proper care of erosion and drainage control devices, and a continuous rodent control program. Brow ditches and terraces shall be cleaned each fall, before the rainy season, and shall be frequently inspected and cleaned, as necessary, after each rainstorm. Access to the slopes, including foot traffic outside of designated pedestrian footpaths, should be minimized to avoid local disturbance to surficial soils. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department shall review and approve all final plans for slope maintenance prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(a)) 90. The proposed retaining wall at the top of the existing cut slope at the eastern boundary of the site shall be designed as a buried retaining wall to support the project and underlying adverse geologic structure. The system requires a design and depth of embedment that would safeguard onsite improvements in the event the offsite slope failed. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(b)) 91. An as-graded geotechnical report shall be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant following completion of grading. The report shall include the results of in-grading density tests, and a map clearly depicting buttress fill keyway locations and depths, removal area locations and depths, sub-drainage system locations and depths and geological conditions exposed during grading. (Mitigation Measure GEO-2(c)) Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 17 of 25 C-29 92. If required by the final geotechnical report, as reviewed and approved by the City Geologist, the applicant shall install permanent inclinometer stations at the site to allow the northern slope to be monitored for possible movement following implementation of the project. The number and location of the inclinometer stations shall be determined by the City Geologist. The applicant shall submit a record of inclinometer readings along with any recommendations from a geotechnical engineer to the City every six months during the lifetime of the project or until the City Geologist agrees that semi-annual readings are no longer necessary. In addition, readings and geotechnical recommendations shall be submitted to the City following a heavy rainfall month (>2 times average monthly rainfall) or following a magnitude 5.0 or greater seismic event within 20 miles of the project site. If the geotechnical engineer determines that sufficient movement has taken place that warrants further corrective or preventative action, the project applicant shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the costs of implementing any remediation recommended by the geotechnical engineer to ensure that the slope remains stable. Further monitoring by inclinometers may be required, if recommended by the geotechnical engineer or required by the City. Mitigation Measure GEO-2(d)) 93. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or Building Permit, the project applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained within the Geology and Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Group Delta Consultants (2003) including: Following grading, the expansion potential of the exposed subgrade shall be tested. The design of foundations and slabs shall consider the high expansion potential. Following completion of grading and until slabs and footings are poured, the exposed soil and bedrock materials shall be periodically wetted to prevent them from drying out. Pre-saturation is also recommended. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3(a)) 94. Suitable measures to reduce impacts from expansive soils could include one or more of the following techniques, as determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Geologist: Excavation of existing soils and importation of non-expansive soils. All imported fill shall be tested and certified by a registered Geotechnical Engineer and certified for use as a suitable fill material; and On-site foundations shall be designed to accommodate certain amounts of differential expansion in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the UBC. (Mitigation Measure GEO-3(b)) Utilities 95. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide evidence of confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide water, wastewater Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 18 of 25 C-30 treatment and solid waste disposal, that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed project. 96. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall ensure that construction plans and specifications for the project includes the following interior water- conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances: Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve; Install water-conserving clothes washers; Install water- conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow; and, install one-and-one-half gallon, ultra-low flush toilets. 97. All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer's expense. Biology: 98. Site disturbance, including brush clearance, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 — August 30), if feasible. If breeding season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Community Development Department. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by MBTA and the Fish and Game Code of California, nesting bird surveys shall be performed twice per week during the three weeks prior to the scheduled vegetation clearance. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (e.g. 30-50 feet for passerines) should be established around such active nests. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the City-approved biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. (Mitigation Measure B1O-3) 99. The following measures shall be employed as part of construction monitoring for the site: Contractors shall be educated regarding the off-site Reserve and the need to keep equipment and personnel within the project site prior to the initiation of construction. Temporary construction fencing shall be placed at the planned limits of disturbance adjacent to the Reserve. (Mitigation Measure BIO-4(a)) 100. No species listed in the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (2006) or identified as Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 19 of 25 C-31 potentially invasive ornamental species in the Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Subarea Plan (2004) will be utilized in the landscaping plan for the site. Species listed in the Subarea Plan include everblooming acacia (Acacia longifolia), Sydney golden wattle (Acacia cyclops), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebenthifolia), black locust (Robinia pseudo- acacia), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.), and pines Pinus spp.). In addition, to the extent feasible the proposed project shall incorporate native habitat elements into the landscaping plan for the 1.67-acre passive park with trails, scenic overlooks, and community gardens in the northern portion of the Crestridge Senior Housing development project. Native habitat elements include using locally sourced native shrubs such as toyon, California sagebrush, coastal bluff buckwheat, native grasses, and native perennial forbs as part of the planting palette. (Mitigation Measure B1O-4(b)) 101. Grading and building plans submitted for the proposed project for City review and approval shall identify areas for construction staging, fueling and stockpiling. These areas shall be located as far as practical from the Vista del Norte Preserve, and not closer than 70 feet from the Preserve boundary. (Mitigation Measure Bl0-4(c)) 102. Cut/fill slopes not subject to fuel modification and adjacent to the City's Reserve property shall be re-vegetated with appropriate native species approved by the PVPLC. 103. Avoid sidecasting of materials during road and utility construction and maintenance. 104. Construction adjacent to drainage shall occur during periods of minimum flow i.e., summer through the first significant rain of fall) to avoid excessive sedimentation and erosion and to avoid impacts to drainage-dependent species. Cultural Resources 105. If cultural resources are encountered during grading or construction, the construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are stopped, and shall notify the City Building and Safety Department immediately to arrange for a qualified archaeologist to assess the nature, extent, and potential significance of any cultural resources. If such resources are determined to be significant, appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the resources must be identified in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. Depending upon the nature of the find, such mitigation may include avoidance, documentation, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. The archeologist shall complete a report of excavations and findings, and shall the report to the South Central Coastal Information Center. After the find is Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 20 of 25 C-32 appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. (Mitigation Measure CR- 1) 106. Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist approved by the City to monitor grading and excavation. Monitoring onsite shall occur whenever grading activities are occurring. Additional monitors in addition to one full-time monitor may be required to provide adequate coverage if earth-moving activities are occurring simultaneously. Any cultural resources discovered by construction personnel or subcontractors shall be reported immediately to the paleontologist. In the event undetected buried resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the area and the paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Measures may include testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review and/or transfer to the appropriate museum or educational institution. All testing, data recovery, reburial, archival review or transfer to research institutions related to monitoring discoveries shall be determined by the qualified paleontologist and shall be reported to the City. Mitigation Measure CR-2) Noise 107. The applicant shall provide, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a Noise Mitigation and Monitoring Program that requires all of the following: Construction contracts that specify that all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other state required noise attenuation devices. That property owners and occupants located within 0.25 miles of the project site shall be sent a notice by the developer, at least 15 days prior to commencement of construction of each phase, regarding the construction schedule of the project. All notices shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the mailing or posting and shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a contact name and telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. That prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official how construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment and vehicles, installing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, maximizing the distance between construction equipment staging and parking areas and occupied residential areas, and electric air compressors and similar power tools, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 21of25 C-33 That during construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. (Mitigation Measure N-1(a)) 108. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way prior to the grading and construction hours specified in condition nos. 10 and 48, above. (Mitigation Measure N-1(b)) 109. The construction contractor shall provide staging areas onsite to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). This would reduce noise levels associated with most types of idling construction equipment. (Mitigation Measure N-1(c)) 110. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory recommended mufflers. (Mitigation Measure N-1(d)) 111. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. (Mitigation Measure N-1(e)) 112. Excavation and conditioning activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:15 AM and 4:15 PM, Monday through Friday and located to maximize the distance between activity and sensitive receptors (neighboring residences and institutional uses). (Mitigation Measure N-1(fl) 113. For all noise-generating construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure N-1(g)) Development Standards. 114. Unless specific development standards for the development of the property are contained in these conditions of approval, the development of the lots shall comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code. 115. Prior to submittal of plans to the Building and Safety Division for plan check, the buildings identified in the associated Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 13, 2012, shall be modified as follows: Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 22 of 25 C-34 Building containing units 23 and 24: A hip roof shall be added to the East end of the building so that most of the building is below 16 feet in height in order to reduce roof mass at the East end of the building. Building containing units 19, 20, 21, 22: Hip roofs shall be added to both West and East building ends; the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12, to 1-3/4:12; and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot, from 10 feet to 9 feet in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at both ends of the building. Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24-feet. Building containing units 45 and 46: A hip roof shall be added to the East end of the building; the roof pitch shall be changed from 3:12, to 1-3/4:12; and the plate heights of the units shall be reduced by 1 foot, from 10 feet to 9 feet in order to reduce the overall building height by 3 feet and reduce the roof mass at the East end of building. Maximum overall building height shall be limited to 24- feet. 116. All buildings shall maintain minimum setbacks of at least twenty-five feet (25'-0") front and street side setbacks, and twenty (20'-0") side and rear setbacks. 117. Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the Development Code. 118. The private driveway and parking areas shall meet Fire Department standards, including any painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane and turn-arounds. 119. Prior to building permit issuance, the building elevations shall be revised to provide architectural trim and detailing on any blank 2-story facades of the facing wings of the building. 120. With the exception of the buildings identified in Condition no. 115 above, the maximum building heights shall be limited to the ridgeline elevations identified in the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2013, and approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for every building, prior to roof sheathing inspection. 121. The pad elevations for each structure shall be limited to the pad elevations identified on the grading plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2012, and approved by the City Council on March 5, 2013. PAD ELEVATION CERTIFICATION REQUIRED for each building pad, prior to construction of each building on that pad. Further, a FINISH FLOOR Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 23 of 25 C-35 ELEVATION CERTIFICATION for each building shall also be provided prior to placement of concrete. 122. The approved project shall consist of sixty (60) 2-bedroom condominium units, age restricted to 55 years and older. 123. The approved project shall provide and maintain a 2 car enclosed garage for each unit. Further, a minimum of 31 off-street guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. 124. Chimneys, vents and other similar features shall be no higher than the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 125. The following attached unit development standards from Chapter 17.06 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code shall apply to all units in the building: a. No plumbing fixture or other such permanent device which generates noise or vibration shall be attached to a common wall adjacent to a living room, family room, dining room, den or bedroom of an adjoining unit. All plumbing fixtures or similar devices shall be located on exterior walls, on interior walls within the unit or on common walls, if adjacent to a similar fixture or device. b. All water supply lines within common walls and/or floors/ceilings shall be isolated from wood or metal framing with pipe isolators specifically manufactured for that purpose and approved by the city's building official. In multistory residential structures, all vertical drainage pipes shall be surrounded by three-quarter-inch thick dense insulation board or full thick fiberglass or wool blanket insulation for their entire length, excluding the sections that pass through wood or metal framing. The building official may approve other methods of isolating sound transmission through plumbing lines where their effectiveness can be demonstrated. c. All common wall assemblies which separate attached single-family units shall be of a cavity-type construction. d. All common wall assemblies which separate all other attached dwelling units (multiple-family condominiums, stock cooperatives, community apartment houses) or a dwelling unit and a public or quasi-public space shall be of a staggered-stud construction. e. All common wall assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty-five STC (sound transmission class). f.All common floor/ceiling assemblies which separate dwelling units from each other or from public or quasi-public spaces (interior corridors, laundry rooms, recreation rooms and garages) shall be constructed with a minimum rating of fifty STC (sound transmission class) and a minimum Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 24of25 C-36 rating of fifty-five IIC (impact insulation class). Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required ratings, but must be retained as a permanent part of the assembly and may only be replaced by another insulation. g. STC and IIC ratings shall be based on the result of laboratory measurements and will not be subjected to field testing. The STC rating shall be based on the American Society for Testing and Materials system specified in ASTM number 90-66t or equivalent. The IIC rating shall be based on the system in use at the National Bureau of Standards or equivalent. Ratings obtained from other testing procedures will require adjustment to the above rating systems. In documenting wall and floor/ceiling compliance with the required sound ratings, the applicant shall either furnish the city's building official with data based upon tests performed by a recognized and approved testing laboratory, or furnish the building official with verified manufacturer's data on the ratings of the various wall and floor/ceiling assemblies utilized. 126. Fences and walls located within the 25-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42") in height, with the exception of the intersection visibility triangle at the driveway and Crestridge Road, where the height of any fences or walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. No perimeter fencing is approved with these entitlements; however, any future request to install perimeter fencing shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to installation of any perimeter fencing. 127. With the exception of solar panels, roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not permitted. Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear- and side-yard setback areas, provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in excess of 65 dBA at the property line. 128. The condominium development is a senior housing development for seniors aged 55 and older. The development shall comply with all applicable Federal and State Laws governing senior housing for seniors aged 55 and older. Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit A Page 25 of 25 C-37 Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit B Page 1 of 4 Exhibit B E, Zr',_~_ I" = We.- tz p b A . . : ' , ,44410,.4:: ' r if..i "1 1, Far:. .."'s ir•uni s 1 1 1 1.0, „, viii. i d. .....41 ilLii- Lore&Ate, 4..* Alt-4. i ' 4. r • t,r ..,.. '1,''''V ..•ra,r; ... ., .. fr .... "04,. . a ......=.., a . . - ,,* Elk , i,... ik*%. ...7 ''.,..,4 ak''.'. %%. „, 4 ,'' i 1.1 tip.I "W„. #17 lr- lauri' Li: i' ,, I-119, 1 sie. ....:-11: 13, :7 Ill, A gk,,:21111:)".- -: ilk.1 4. 4 A 1r Nki, ' °' ':4:114: ' %i 4. 41. 11,4101''. IA 1*.4.:'*.,t. , - ., '.. .-1,11 ittife.., .' 7111r.is•,,,,,,,i.,„. t....i.1 , .4,_„,_. •,,,,:, ,....AI„job,, ,,,,,-- i k; , 1.. 0,r,,,%. ..ita,,(:::‘,';:. N''v 4 ....w,44,4--— -4' ilekNot riti 4 I el,..`, ' '4,,, ,,,.... ,, 'r*,,,1 •IP,,,,4'*' ,4E,...,,..',,,,,,, ,.If ie4.,,;j:.;‘,. ., • ,,4-.,..-- -ir.-;'...' ,..,:',,,,,;V '-....,- ':,1_,..p. gi-,_.--,-,.' .,-..,,..', -..- =.- - , --- ,, ,..t.lot• .'a' . .,_.„ ,,,,,: r. i,..%. .', , ; , A' l'*.,'*' 111:0•',i,' ‘'4,,,...L.. 7 le,.11.41$ AY ''' ''''. ' ' 'it v i * --. - '. .74.-ta- • - a- , ,, r, ,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,E, ... .r ,. :if . i - .4 1."-; ' ' ivi: ..,? '`leIri..::,:‘ ''' ',..'' ' ' 4 ,44*14 iitill") 6- -411 -4.4 - '4 • ‘ , •' . V''.g‘e 1 i4414 ,qk 4. ‘..*:1 '1'........•. 41' ,. '''''...•,' ,• ., e."-•. .. ."' t..4.47':,.1'' .1.''.' likk 4•.W ....• i • '.. i.'•'' i . . ',•' •1,'1:"' ‘‘' • * 1 a . . •.'*• , TO 4 :•4,,A kk.,-.. .r,-*,,, •-, !,,•:. .,.„ ,:,,:::.- , , -....„---,,?s4.-,,,b.,..4, ;,,y,-,..-'-;_ i.,.. ,,,,.:,.... ,,, :. :1,*.t.,., __. :- c iA', 4 Y k: ; * -, ? ',. Pr 4 '4,1 t :, - 'fl,, 'i,...,„ -! b. , ;wiit14.4y41.g..„,.: .i;,-;-,4,0t: .., ,:, ., ..- : , ,4',.,- _ ,, _• i., . - kir-:. .• .,. , jr, ' .i, ' . , a: ' '• ''.. . '''4' ' ' SA 1 c ..1.*:'' ' . '-• '• " '4;t:::Mrilt-.1)tf 41:: *''''''1 .4`A4:1V';(...:..4 • ' i'',,'i...-. Mistridge Drive Residence C-38 Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit B Page 2 of 4 Exhibit B v-N;(.. _ k. s r-+ 4 ll y t ee.c, .a` 114 m'+.:k'. r T --4 a i rah.,; r r fry ` p u givikiti. ..,0.-.. 4' I AV •e s, , ,L.6 4 1.," 4,,s x , , i ,,...... m1e+ 1411 1111111414* og, ; .,,7_,' : ,1 --'44:" ...,.: 1)1 , s ,.. ' , 41414.11tH IP. 110fr-,is ilea* --- —iii,_ 4„ 7 ..,. , "'-. J.... ,3‘'-'4.,., - t t ice 1 ' '' WA- k1 Mistridge Drive Residence C-39 Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit B Page 3 of 4 Exhibit B li lilt 1,7, '- . a ,. ..., . • k La.-- I-- e„r ..40 littiv A I i, . -".: 414 T ,...„, ..- 7 : r . , p y f..fl.. 1 A 4 r n J,'i ° 'S a 4 • r !"SGr• °,• A 't"S" ,j'• f w. ,SI.J++ f y 5 v 2' : 4 Yr• ` ',!.° -i -•,T, r, •.` 0 Al 1 Y Jr„r ,yS+. x`.: Y:,• sF ' 4. .. i„,,,, re,-,xi., tis,.. 3,---,,,,,, ,, ,ttz._ i' ,, f_..;_,.... , . 4, . MU”"' , :\'':.'''e.1‘'1''‘:: ''. I',,' r y - r 4.,,. 4 -t 4 ae.: ai`.x_.tit:.a:,..`'i teis.,__*i,..m.. - .r.ia. r.:?j41"".••°:.r i.• :Am " ' N. is 7M Mistridge Drive Residence C-40 Resolution No. 2013-31 Exhibit B Page 4 of 4 Exhibit B 3 k M , 111141 4400:, Aill y 4 r ' ,-11,.µ• a •- v d w` atil T.* .11T "111": . .1 Elfir litilhaikt:'' y v • .III hr Air r, T • L t 1.... #*,r r,. Y it r Itr 'Ytt Y n f r , - F. .A`'f, _-',,. , n?« °'AwAe: t+L fir, ji: r, a - tyCCr1"fir 1 !-. i o r r/{ t `1 F 1i M w1. 1` w ft t '•.. Srk. v '.4?" •r + I•• r T 1 r y `h wr7sr " 40. I.•$;;, _ L :, - T1" r.; • , . i ;_ •, ti- T_ ._.•"`°.•--.-... \• ' .' " f' #r,i ..r te'•.. 4 -iF_______ ------- Seaside Heights Drive Residence C-41 BOOK t3o«. PAGE l 5 BEING ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 71878 TRACT NO. 71878 SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS 1 NUMBERED LOT 9.76 ACRES GROSS ~1 rn ~nl 111111 ·20150718301. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUN 1 7 2015 FILED AT REQUEST OF OWNER ~O :=r L'J-pl{ •N BOOK ' oca<i ATPAGE lQ-(l BEING ALL OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 288, PAGES 44 AND 45 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. OfMAPS LOS ANGELES COUNTY,~ FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES Reglsba-RecorclerlCounty Clfllll by~Ct~ OepulJ GREGORY A. HELMER, LS. 5134 ~ DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER, 2013 OWNERSHIP STATEMENT: WE HEREBY STATE THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS OF OR ARE INTERESTED IN THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LI~S. Ai'll WE CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. WE ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THE EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. WE FURTHER STATE THAT WE KNOW OF NO EASEMENT OR STRUCTURE EXISTING WITHIN THE EASEMENTS HEREIN OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OTHER THAN PUBLICLY OMD WATER LINES, SEWERS, OR STORM DRAINS, AND THAT WE WILL GRANT NO RIGHT OR INTEREST WITHIN THE BOlJllOARIES OF SAID EASEMENTS OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH RIGHT OR INTEREST IS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE SAID EASEMENT. AS A DEDICATION TO PUBLIC USE, WHILE ALL OF CRESTRIDGE ROAD WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVISION REMAINS A PUBLIC STREET, WE HEREBY ABAl\OON ALL RIGHTS, EXCEPT FOR ONE DRIVEWAY OPENING FOR LOT 1, AND GRANT TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SAID STREET. IF ANY PORTION OF SAID STREET WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THIS SUBDIVISION IS VACATED SUCH VACATION TERMINATES THE ABOVE DEDICATION AS TO THE PART VACATED. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE ERECTION OF BUILDINGS OR OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP AS GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS. TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: NAME: TITLE: \OVV\ B~iV"i-e.. v i c....~ f\r~sic:kV'\t- NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF DY' ~n©e-) SS BY: d, ... i?b-: NAME: -'._) aM<. ~ ().... \ ~o \ d Q TITLE: V i c.<. '\=¥<--Si d<f'""\+ ON Oc.tober ~,'LOI~ BEFORE ME R..ebecc.!\ N;il~ . NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED Toro Saint '1 :!"~mt' A. ;rso\ d . WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) )15/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT ~/srtE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN Hj6/1;1'.:R/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY( JES), AND THAT BY H~/!i<R/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUl.E:NT. I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND: Tu~ Y\~ (SIGNATURE) __ R~e'cecc~ \.la \\ (PRINT NAME) CONDOMINIUM NOTE: MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN 0 ( d Y\~ e_. CCXJNTY. MY coMM 1 ss ION EXP rnEs 1 In\ ' ; COMMISSION NO. \9YQC} 3 \ THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 60 UNITS. ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUCH UNITS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND PROVIDED FOR OVER CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SAID SUBDIVISION AS IDENTIFIED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM PLANS TO BE RECORDED ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THIS MAP IS RECORDED AND/OR AS MAY ALSO BE IDENTIFIED IN OTHER RECORDED DOCUMENTS FOR THIS SUBDIVISION. GEOLOGY REPORT: A GEOLOGY REPORT WAS PREPARED BY LGC GEOTECHNICAL INC. ON JANUARY 8, 2014 AND SIGNED BY TIM LAWSON, CEG 1821, GE 2626 IS ON FILE AT DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES. H:\POATA\1384558\CAOO\MAPP!NC\TR 71878\7tll78_01.DWG SHARRIS 10/7/14 3:29 pm l c..{_ ,.. FEE$ ___ _ CONSULTINl3 SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQ\£ST OF TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IN DECEMBER, 2013. I HEREBY STATE· THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CMORMS TO THE C()fl[)JTIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER Ai'll LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON, ARE IN PLACE OR WILL BE IN PLACE WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS FROM THE FILING OF THIS MAP, THAT SAID MONl.Jt,£NTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED Ai'll THAT THE TIE NOTES ON ALL CENTERLINE MOtu.E:NTS SHOWN AS "TO BE SET" WILL BE ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS FROM THE FILING DATE SHOWN HEREON. DA FEE Code 20 ~· GREGORY A. HELMER, L.S. 5134 DATE CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP ENTITLED TRACT NO. 71878; THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ANY APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ANY LOCAL ORDINANCES APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED THIS 41\>t 6AY OF ~~ • 201!- 1= :SC. ·"4· FREDERICK R. JOt£S Ji R.C.E. 36665, L.S. 5458 CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DATE: \'2..-!\-\.\ CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIF~1!T THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, BY MOTION, AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF ClaJUI~ , 20/£, APPROVED THIS MAP AND ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, SUB~TOIVEl.ENTS THE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PURPOSES AS SI-OWN ON THIS MAP AND ALSO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR AN EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. AND DID ALSO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF ALL RIGHTS OF DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM ABUTTING LOTS TO CRESTRIDGE ROAD, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 66477. 1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT Ai'll DID ALSO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. DATE: CARLA MORREALE CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSl.ENTS LEVIED UNOER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. BOND CERTIACATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN FILED AND DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 66492 AND 66493 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. FICER. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Y OF OS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY: 06· 17· 15" DATE ASSESSMENTS CERTIFICATE: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT SECURITY IN THE At.+.'UIT OF$ 27ct,975.00 HAS BEEN FILED WITH T~BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AS SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSl.ENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES ON THE LAND SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT NO. 71878 AS REQUIRED BY LAW· EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FICE , BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY: DATE 136658 D-1 SCALE: 1" = 100' MONUMENT NOTES: 110001 FOUND GEAR SPIKE & WASHER STAMPED "RCE 29220", FLUSH IN PAVEMENT PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 110061 FOUND LEAD & NAIL, FLUSH ON TOP OF MEDIAN ISLAND GUTTER PER R.S.B. 87/46 110091 FOUND GEAR SP I KE & WASHER STAMPED "RCE 29220", FLUSH. IN PAVEMENT, IN LIEU OF 2" I .P. & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220" PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 SFN; SET 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "L.S. 5134"; ESTABLISHED CORNER PARALLEL WITH CRESTRIDGE ROAD AND RECORD DISTANCE PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. 288/44-45, FROM MON. NO. 1015 SFN; SET NOTHING; STABLISHED AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF CRESTRIDGE ROAD AND THE PROLONGATION OF LOT LINE FROM MON. NO. 2014 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220", UP 0.4' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.8. 365/24-27 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220", UP 0.1' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27; S77'18'45"E 0.18' FROM CORNER FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220", UP 0.2' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 110181 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220" PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 29220", UP 0.1' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 9553", DOWN 0.2' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B 288/44-45; N36'07'37"E 0.44' FROM CORNER FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 9553", DOWN 0.3' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. 288/44-45; N36'07'37"E 0.40' FROM CORNER; ACCEPTED FOR LINE FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 9553", UP 0.3' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. 288/44-45 FOUND 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "RCE 9553", UP 0.7' PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. 288/44-45; N24'50'59"E 1 .04' FROM CORNER; ACCEPTED FOR LINE SFN; SET 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED 8 II • PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 24655 P.M.8. 292/62-63 TRACT NO. 71878 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOOK I 3~'/ PAGE / '1 SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS BASIS OF BEARINGS AND COORDINATES: THE BASIS OF COORDINATES FOR THIS TRACT MAP IS THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD 83 (CCS83, EPOCH 2007.00), ZONE 5. COORDINATES DETERMINED LOCALLY UPON THE FOLLOWING CONTROL STATIONS AS PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY (NGS): GREGORY A. HELMER, L.S. 5134 DATE OF SURVEY: DECEMBER, 2013 STATION PVHS PVRS VTIS NORTHING 1742328.08 1740239.29 1717933.68 EASTING 6448570.50 6464237.89 6472307.22 DESCRIPTION GPS CORS PVHS (AJ1915) GPS CORS PVRS (AJ1916) GPS CORS VTIS (AJ1936) CC NB U LTI N t3 BOUNDARY CONTROL SHEET AREA TABLE LOT 1 (GROSS) 9.76 AC± GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA 2.84 AC± PRIVATE DRIVE/FIRE LANE 1.24 AC± PEDESTRIAN TRAIL (PORTIONS 0.08 AC± LYING OUTSIDE OF GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA & PRIVATE DRIVE) LOT 1 (NET) 5.60 AC± PARCEL 2 PARCEL MAP NO. 25271 P.M.8. 288/ 44-45 ~ • BASIS OF BEARINGS: BETWEEN STATION "PVHS" AND STATION "PVRS" BEING N82'24'22"W LEGEND: SFN SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING 0 SET 2" IRON PIPE WITH NAIL & TAG STAMPED "L.S. 5134" 6 SET 8" SPIKE & BRASS WASHER STAMPED "L.S. 5134" a FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 120001 MONUMENT NOTE REFERENCE NUMBER t t INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP PARCEL 2 PARCEL MAP NO. 70957 P.M.8. 365/24-27 400. oo' DATA TABLE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N24'50'59"E N65' 10' 48"W N36'07'37"E N59'51'23"E 02'48'56" 440.00' N36'43'11"E 30'35'54" 400.00' N53'27'43"W N53'27'43"W 19'42'34" 550.00' 22'34'30" 550.00' N36'07' 37"E 123.41' 160.24' 101.92' 100.00' 21.62' 45.94' 213.62' 130.77' 207.70' 189.20' 216.70' 0.44' 10. 81' 109.42' 95.54' 109. 78' LOT 1 A':::. !;}.J ·rep":' · Oo • ._, !?°; <: ----3' <t";·'if ~ ---NB3'25°32"E 363.4 GROSS AREA: 9.76 AC± NET AREA: 5.60 AC± PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 70957 P.M.B. 365/24-27 DISTANCE PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. ~~R=2soo.oo· f'\n 288/44-45, FROM MON. NO. 2014 @' ~.--~J__""~ 29f~~TRl0GE FOUND BOAT SPIKE & WASHER STAMPED "RCE 13167", ·~ ~ ,,,-~;--:~E=.::-N84'03'37 I\' 603 .70 , SEE DETAIL "A" 1£REON DOWN 0.2' IN PAVEMENT PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, -2015 ---_59J_.02 . P.M.B. 365/24-27 -NB 4 '03'37"1\' 1151.81 ._-870.78'-592.92' l5oool FOUND 2" BRASS DISC IN WELL MONUMENT WITH PUNCHMARK, DOWN 0.7' PER R.S.B. 87/46 l5oo1I FOUND LEAD & TAG STAMPED "LA co ENGR", FLUSH ON TOP OF MEDIAN CURB PER R.S.B. 87/46 FOUND GEAR SPIKE & WASHER STAMPED "RCE 29220", FLUSH IN PAVEMENT PER PARCEL MAP NO. 70957, P.M.B. 365/24-27 FOUND BOAT SPIKE WITH PUNCHMARK, DOWN 0.2' IN PAVEMENT, NO REFERENCE, IN LIEU OF SPIKE & WASHER & TIN STAMPED "R.C.E. 13167" PER PARCEL MAP NO. 25271, P.M.B. 288/44-45; ACCEPTED AS P. I. H:\PDATA\13815~\CADD\MAPPING\m 71878\71878_02.0WG SHARRIS 11/4/14 1:2& pm DETAIL •a• NOT TO SCALE -592.92' 870. 78' -N84'03'37"W 1151.81' DETAIL "A• NOT TO SCALE . -rr<2--- II 136658 D-2 SCALE: 1" = 60' DETAIL •c• NOT TO SCALE PARCEL ·J NOTES: SEE SHEET 2 FOR MONUMENT NOTES, BASIS OF BEARINGS AND COORDINATES, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA, LEGEND AND AREA TABLE. PARCEL MAP NO. 24555 P.M.8. 292/52-53 DETAIL "D" NOT TO SCALE •o• 1-EREON -- H:\POATA\1JHSl\CAOD\MAPPING\11't ne1e\7Hl7!_0J.OWG SHARRIS 11/4/14 9:.51 om TRACT NO. 71878 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 532.20' . $' N84 03'37"W 603. 70' --°2~ --£CA. C~ESTRIDGE ROAD $' N84 03'37"W 870.78' ---- BOOK /3~q PAGE I T-- SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS DATA TABLE DATA TABLE ~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~~ PARCEL 1 PARCEL MAP NO. 70957 P.M.8. 355/24-27 EASEMENT NOTES: 20.90' 52.33' 55.56' 37. 13' 46.95' 46.93' 63.20' 48.48' 40. 17' 11 . 10' 28.27' 18.96' 88.83' 18.96' 10.53' 11. 98' 9.32' 46.18' 13.59' 23.31' 30.75' 18.89' 23.72' 35.95' 32.94' 56.63' 25.01' 7.29' 30.98' 26.68' 35.65' 22.76' 23. 71' 17.96' 13.94' 11. 82' 7.59' 53.28' 18.00' 32.38' 5. 18' 11.09' 0 'Ii' • ~ DENOTES AN EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PURPOSES DEDICATED HEREON TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES. ([> DENOTES AN EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAIL PURPOSES DEDICATED HEREON TO THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES. 136658 D-3 E-1 From:Joel Rojas To:Yvonne Benschop Cc:Leza Mikhail Subject:RE: 5601 Crestridge Road - Sol y Mar - Certificates of Occupancy Date:Monday, September 21, 2015 3:53:21 PM Yvonne I explained the situation to the City Manager and he concurs with me approving a minor modification to allow the CofO’s on buildings 9,12 and 18 prior to the trails and rec center being completed and operational provided the rec center and all public trails are completed and operational before a CofO is issued on the next building and a completion bond in an amount necessary to complete the rec center and public trails is provided to the city. Please work with Leza on this. Thanks Joel From: Yvonne Benschop [mailto:YBenschop@taylormorrison.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:28 PM To: Joel Rojas Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: 5601 Crestridge Road - Sol y Mar - Certificates of Occupancy Joel: I have looked at the buildings and construction schedule and what we ask is the following: ð Temporary occupancy of the model building (building 10) ð Certificate of occupancy for phase 1 in December (buildings 9, 12 & 18) = 9 units ð Recreation center to be completed in late February to early March 2016 Let me know if you need any further information from me. Thanks. Yvonne Benschop Land Project Manager 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: +19493411210 Email: YBenschop@taylormorrison.com www.taylormorrison.com This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee you should not distribute or copy this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail by mistake please delete it from your system. F-1 F-2 CITY OF Rl-\NCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: BACKGROUND ADDRESS FILE -5601 CRESTRIDGE (APN 7589-013-009) JOEL ROJAS, COMMUN T OPMENT DIRECTOR MAY 19, 2015 MINOR MODIFICATION #2 (ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS), #3 (PAD & RIDGELINE ELEVATION CHANGES) AND# 4 (CAISSONS EXCEEDING 10' IN DEPTH) -(CASE NO. SUB2012-00001 & ZON2012-00067) Lez a M ikhail, Associate Planner ~ On September 4, 2014, the Developer submitted plans to Building and Safety Plan to initiate the Plan Check process for Precise Grading (Case No . BLD2014-00701 ). The grading included 32,000 cubic yards of excavation, 31,000 cubic yards of exportation, and 1,500 cubic yards offill. During the Plan Check process, it came to Staff's attention that there were a number of new retaining walls proposed throughout the interior of the project site. Given the addition of new retaining walls, the Building Division required the applicant to submit a separate Plan Check submittal for only the retaining walls. Therefore, on December 8, 2014, the Developer submitted plans into Building and Safety Plan Check for new retaining walls within the interior of the subject lot (Case No. BLD2014- 00992). The new walls varied in height between 2' and 8'. Additionally, on June 30, 2014 , the Developer submitted plans to Building and Safety to initiate the Plan Check process for the structural review of 21 new buildings (a total of 60 units) throughout the subject property (BLD2014- 00498). In January and February 2015, upon reviewing all of the abovementioned plans that were submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check, Planning Staff discovered that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations for the 60-unit condominium project were not the same as the plans approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. Additionally, Staff found that a number of new, internal retaining walls that were not originally approved by the City Council were added to the plan. Lastly, during the Plan Check process, the Developer altered the foundation system to include a number of caissons. Given the discrepancies found between the pad and ridgeline elevations, and additional retaining walls and foundation caissons, the Plan Check for the Precise Grading (Case No. BLD2014-00701) and Retaining Walls (Case No. BLD2014-00992) was put on hold until the Planning Division could reconcile the variations in pad elevations and new retaining walls, which is the subject this Memorandum and discussed further under the "Discussion" portion below (Minor Modification #2 for the new retaining walls, Minor Modification #3 for the changes to the pad and ridgeline elevations and Minor Modification #4 for the addition of caissons to Building Nos. 1-5). F-3 Notwithstanding the discrepancies described above, the Developer requested that the City allow them to continue with their Plan Check process, despite not having Planning approval for the variation in pad and ridgeline elevations, and new retaining walls. In order to allow the applicant to continue the Plan Check process, the City required that the Developer submit an "At Risk" statement acknowledging that they are requesting the continuance of the Plan Check at their own risk, fully acknowledging that some of the proposed retaining walls and/or precise grading elevations could require further Planning review and approval through additional permits, formal revisions to their approved Planning Entitlements, or Minor Modifications to their approved Planning Entitlements, all of which could potentially result in required changes to the plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check. On February 19, 2015, the Developer submitted the required "At Risk" statement. Shortly thereafter, the Building and Safety Division commenced with the Plan Check process, with the caveat that Building Permits would not be issued until final Planning approval was obtained for the modified pad and ridgeline elevations, and all of the new interior retaining walls. DISCUSSION Pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6 of Resolution No. 2013-31, "the Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission" In reviewing the modified plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check for the Precise Grading, Retaining Walls and Structural Building Plans, the Director determined that three (3) Minor Modifications could be approved for the deviation in the plans from the May 21, 2013 City Council-approved plans. Below is a discussion of the minor modifications for the addition of new interior retaining walls (Minor Modification #2), minor changes to the pad and ridgeline elevations (Minor Modification #3) and the addition of caissons to Building Nos. 1-5 (Minor Modification No. 4). Minor Modification #2 (Interior Retaining Walls) As noted in the Background section, it came to Staff's attention that the Developer added a number of proposed garden walls ("GW"), measuring less than 3' in exposed height, and retaining walls ("RW"), measuring more than 3' in exposed height, throughout the project site. According to the Developer, some of the walls became necessary as a result of the Building and Safety Plan Check process for the following reasons: 1) Additional retaining walls were necessary to satisfy drainage requirements and ADA criteria; 2) ADA accessibility criteria affected a larger area of the site which required retaining walls to create more paths, ramps and flatter areas throughout the site; and, 3) Drainage refinements during final design required changes to the grades and the need for additional walls or changes to the height of walls to better direct and control on-site drainage. Given the past concerns raised by the City Council regarding a previous Director-level Minor Modification for two (2) 'Verdura' walls along Crestridge Dr., on January 28, 2015, Staff informed the City Council in the Weekly Administrative Report (attached) of the Director's intention to approve a Minor Modification to allow the addition of a number of new retaining walls throughout the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project. Given that no City Council members raised a concern at that time with a Director-level Minor Modification for the additional retaining walls throughout the property, the Developer was notified that the additional walls would be approved as a Minor Modification provided the walls are consistent with other applicable conditions and code F-4 requirements. Below is a table illustrating the new garden walls ("GW"), retaining walls ("RW") and combination walls ("CW") that are the subject of this Minor Modification. For clarification purposes, combination walls are considered a garden wall or retaining wall (or any combination thereof) with a guardrail on top that is required for safety purposes by the California Building Code . Table 1: List of New Garden Walls, Retaining Walls and Combination Walls with Heights Wall "C" Wall "D" Wall "E" Wall "H" Wall "I" Wall Type (GW/ RW I CW) RW RW RW cw cw GW cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw RW cw cw cw cw cw cw cw 6.3' 7.9' 4.2' 3' 4 .5 ' 1.3' 2.2 ' 1.9' 4.5' 2 .2' 2.2' 2 .2' 2 .5' 1.9' 2.2' 4' 4.1' 4.5' 2.2' 4' 5.5' 1.8' 3.3' 4 .5' 4 .5' 3 .1' 4' 4' Height of Guardrail if re uired n/a n/a n/a 3.5' 3.5' n/a 3 .5 ' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5 ' 3 .5' 3.5' 3.5 ' 3.5' 3 .5' n/a 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3 .5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5 ' *RUA= Restricted Use Area (Buildings not permitted beyond Restricted Use Setback Line) Total Height 6.3' 7.9' 4.2' 6.5' 8' 1.3' 5.7' 5.4' 8' 5.5' 5.5' 5.5' 6' 5.4' 5.7' 7.5' 7.6' 8' 5.7' 7.5' 5.5' 5.3' 6.8' 8' 8' 6.6' 7.5' 7.5' As illustrated in the table above, the majority of the new walls are combination walls and are designed with either a garden wall or retaining wall with a guardrail on top. According to Section 17. 76.030(C)(2)(b)(ii), "when combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side." In reviewing the plans and wall heights, all of the new combination walls will be less than 8' in height, as measured from the low side of the wall, and less than 7' in height, as measured from the high side of the wall. Additionally , the retaining walls that exceed 4.5' in height will not require any guardrails by the California Building Code as they are not located adjacent to a walking F-5 surface. Therefore, these combination walls meet the requirements of the Development Code, and the new retaining walls continue to meet the grading criterion that was originally approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. Four (4) of the twenty-eight (28) new walls, specifically the combination walls, are proposed to be located beyond a "Restricted Use Area" line which was established through the geologic review of the project, and is recorded on the official Tract Map No. 71878. Specifically, these walls are referenced on the plans as walls "BB," "DD," "EE," and "GG." According to Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 2013-31, "All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited." As part of the historic geologic review of this project site, a Restricted Use Area was established by a previous Developer's (Trumark) Geotechnical Consultant (Geotek, Inc .) and provided on the approved Tract Map. Sometime during the Plan Check process, the current Developer (Taylor Morrison) obtained a new Geotechnical Consultant (LGC Geotechnical, Inc.) who recommended the inclusion of the walls beyond the Restricted Use Area. Ultimately, the Developer's Geologist provided a report that was approved by the City's Geologist stating that the new walls beyond the Restricted Use Area are not integral to the structural stability of the adjacent structures/residences, and all hazards have been eliminated or mitigations have been approved and incorporated into the project specifications. Furthermore , the Developer's Geologist confirmed that the walls would not pose an eminent threat to public health or safety should the walls fail in the future from land movement as they are not tied to the adjacent structures or public walking paths. Additionally, on May 12, 2015, the Developer's new Geotechnical Consultant and Registered Professional Engineer (Timothy S. Mallis) submitted statements that the retaining walls are geotechnically suitable for their intended use and are adequate to resist all lateral and vertical loadings, with the caveat that they may exhibit some slight movement due to large seismic events. Further, they note that such a seismic event will not jeopardize the structural capacity of the walls in any way . Given that the City Geologist noted that the Developer's Geologist eliminated and/or mitigated all hazards to their satisfaction for these specific combination walls, the Applicant has met the requirements of Condition No . 86 . Notwithstanding the fact that the combinations walls are acceptable to be constructed in their proposed locations, the Restricted Use Area designation is not proposed to be eliminated. Staff reviewed the public record of the public hearings and confirmed that previous discussions of the Restricted Use Area noted that walls were never proposed in this area, but did not state that they were prohibited. Furthermore, there was no discussion from the public, Staff, Planning Commission or City Council regarding a strict prohibition of the retaining walls in the Restricted Use Area. Given these facts, coupled with the City Geologist's approval of all of the walls listed in Table 1 above, the Community Development Director is approving Minor Modification #2 to allow the new garden walls, retaining walls and combination walls to be constructed on the subject property. As a result of this Minor Modification, Condition No . 51 of Resolution No. 2014-31 is modified as illustrated below, with eliminated language in strikethrough and new language in bold and underline type. 51. The construction of tAfee new garden walls, retaining walls , and combination walls shall be permitted to be constructed as part of the proposed project, as approved by Minor Modification #1 and #2, and Th ese includ e o ne , 6 foot hig h upslope retaining wall be hin d ea c h of t he th ree structu res on the west si d e of th e eleYelopmen t, as illustrated on the approved plans submitted into Building and Safety. Subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. F-6 Minor Modification #3 Minor Changes to Pad and Ridgeline Elevations As discussed in the Background section of this report, during the Plan Check process it came to Staff's attention that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations of the proposed structures were modified from the City Council-approved plans . In reviewing the history of the public hearings, Staff found that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a project based on plans that were dated November 2012 . These plans indicated the same pad and ridgeline elevations as the plans dated June 2012 , which were the plans used to construct and certify the silhouette required for the analysis of the project. Additionally, after the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, Staff found that that the City Council reviewed and approved plans dated January 30, 2013. In reviewing the three sets of plans (June 2012, November 2012 and January 2013), Staff confirmed that that pad and ridgeline elevations across all three plans were exactly the same. As such, Staff was able to afirm the final City Council-approved pad and ridgeline elevations . However, the pad and ridgeline elevations of the plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check appeared to be based on a plan dated March 30 , 2012, which was before the project silhouette was certified in June 2012. Given concerns relayed throughout the public hearing process related to view impairment from six (6) specific lots (lot nos. 19-22 and 45-46), Staff prepared a matrix title "Pad and Ridgeline Elevation Matrix" (attached), which outlines all of the pad and ridgeline elevations across all plans approved by the City and submitted in to Building and Safety. In comparing the pad and ridgeline elevations of the Plan Check submittal (plans dated March 2012), it became apparent that there were deviations in some of the pad and ridgeline elevations as compared to the City Council-approved plans. While a majority of the pad and ridgeline elevations were lower than those approved by the City Council, twelve (12) of the lots exhibited pads higher than what was approved , and sixteen (16) of the lots exhibited ridgelines higher than what was approved. Furthermore, as required by Condition No. 115 of Resolution No . 2013-31, the final ridgeline elevations of Lot Nos. 19-22 and 45-46 were not lowered by a minimum of 3'. Staff discussed these modifications with the Developer who noted that they were still looking into the final grade elevations and ridgeline elevations as a result of the engineering and precise grading plans that were being prepared for structural review , and noted that the City Council requirements to reduce certain ridgeline heights would be addressed with their final submittal for Building Permits . The Developer noted that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations may slightly change as a result of preparation of the structural and precise grading plans (engineered plans), but that the changes would be nominal and would not affect the structures that were required to be lowered due to view impairment concerns . As a result, the Developer submitted all of their final plans for verification by Planning on May 11 , 2015. As illustrated in the attached Matrix , a majority of the pad and ridgeline elevations on the Final Building and Safety Plans are lower than those approved by the City Council , wtih the exception of a few properties where the ridgeline elevations are slightly taller. However, the units that result in ridgelines that are slightly taller were not the subject of view impairment discussions. In fact, the final ridgelines for the structures that were required to be lowered by 3' (Lot Nos. 19-22 and 45-46) were lowered by more than 3'. As a result, the Community Developer Director is approving Minor Modification No. 3, finding that the Final Building and Safety Plans are in substantial compliance with the City Council-approved plans, with the exception of some nominal changes in the pad and ridgeline elevations of a few structures that were not subject to the view impairment restrictions of Condition No. 115, as summarized in the attached matrix. F-7 Minor Modification #4 (Caisson Foundation System) As noted in the Background section, during the Plan Check process, the Developer decided to include a number of caissons on certain buildings to provide the property structural stability necessary to construct the residences. Specifically, the Developer is proposing the following caissons: • Building No. 1 (Lot s 1-3): Fifteen (15) 15-foot deep caissons, eight (8) 25-foot caissons, and nine (9) 30-foot caissons. • Build ing No. 2 (Lots 4 -6): Thirteen (13) 15-foot deep caissons and nineteen (19) 20-foot deep caissons • Build in g No . 3 (Lots 7-9): One (1) 15-foot caisson, twelve (12) 20-foot caissons, eight (8) 25- foot caissons, three (3) 30-foot caissons and eight (8) 35-foot caissons. • Buil ding No . 4 Clots 10-12): Nine (9) 25-foot caissons, fourteen (14) 30-foot caissons, eight (8) 35-foot caissons and one (1) 40-foot caisson • Building No. 5 (Lot s 13-15): Thirteen (13) 30-foot caissons According to Section 17.76.040(C)(7) (Grading Permit) of the Development Code, "caisson foundations or excavation for a footing or foundation ten feet or more below existing grade shall require the approval of a minor grading permit." While the Developer received approval of a Major Grading permit for a large amount of cut and fill on the property, the original approval did not address the actual engineered foundation system . Given that caisson foundations meet the requirements of the Development Code, and continue to meet the grading criterion that was originally approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013, the Director can approve the addition of the caissons through a Minor Modification. CONCLUSION This memorandum memorializes the rationale for the approval of Minor Modification #2 for the approval of a number of new garden walls, retaining walls and combination walls throughout the, interior of the project site, Minor Modification #3, memorializing minor changes to pad and ridgeline elevations as a result of the Plan Check process, and Minor Modification #4, allowing the addition of a caisson foundation system to Building Nos. 1-5, pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6 of Resolution 2013-31 that authorizes the Director to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results. ATTACHMENTS • Pad and Ridgeline Elevation Matrix -Prepared by City Staff • "At Risk" Letter -From Developer • City Geologist Approval of Retaining Walls • Letters from Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant & Structural Engineer • January 28, 2015 Weekly Administrative Report (excerpt) F-8 Pad & Ridgeline Elevation Matrix F-9 Lot Number Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline (H) Pad 71.5 1188.5 71.5 1188.5 71 1188 (L) Pad 61.5 61.5 61 -0.50 -0.50 71.5 1187.8 61.2 (H) Pad 69.5 1186.5 69.5 1186.5 69 1186 (L) Pad 59.5 59.5 59 -0.50 -0.50 69.5 1185.8 59.2 ---- (H) Pad 68 1185 68 1185 69 1186 (L) Pad 58 58 59 68 1185.8 57.7 . . --------. (H) Pad 65.3 1182.3 65.3 1182.3 64.8 1181.8 (L) Pad 55.3 55.3 54.8 65.3 1181.2 55 -0.50 -0.50 (H) Pad 63.3 1180.3 63.3 1180.3 63.3 1180.3 (L) Pad 53.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 1179.6 53 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 61.8 1178.8 61.8 1178.8 61.8 1178.8 (L) Pad 51.8 51.8 51.8 61.8 1178.1 51.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 59.3 1176.3 59.3 1176.3 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 49.3 49.3 48.4 59.3 1175.2 49 -0.90 -0.90 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 57.8 1174.1 47.5 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 57.8 1174.1 47.5 (H) Pad 56.8 1173.8 56.8 1173.8 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 46.8 46.8 45.9 56.8 1172.7 46.5 .... (H) Pad 55.3 1172.3 55.3 1172.3 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 55.3 1171.6 45 (H) Pad 55.3 1172.3 55.3 1172.3 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 55.3 1171.6 45 -. ~ .-~ (H) Pad 54 1171 54 1171 54 1171 (L) Pad 44 44 44 54.1 1170.4 43.8 .... See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information F-10 Lot Number Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 25 Lot 26 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved {Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal {Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations {b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline (H) Pad 55.5 1172.5 55.5 1172.5 55.8 1172.8 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 55.5 1171.8 45.2 - ------- (H) Pad 55.5 1172.5 55.5 1172.5 55.81 1172.8 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 55.5 1171.8 45.2 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57 1174 -0.80 -0.80 57.8 1173.7 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47 47.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 57.8 1173.7 47.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 57.5 1173.7 47.5 One Pad 64.4 1191.4 64.4 1191.4 64 1191 -0.40 -0.40 64.4 1187.8 One Pad 64.4 1191.4 64.4 1191.4 64 1191 -0.40 -0.40 64.4 1187.8 One Pad 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 0.00 0.00 68.4 1191.7 One Pad 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 0.00 0.00 68.4 1191.7 One Pad 71.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 71.7 1197.7 One Pad 71.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 71.7 1197.7 One Pad 75.7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74.9 1201.4 -0.80 -1.30 75.7 1201.1 One Pad 75.7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74.9 1201.4 -0.80 -1.30 75.7 1201.1 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information F-11 PC Approved CC Approved Difference in Pad and FINAL B&S (Plans (Plans Plan Check Submittal Ridgeline Elevations Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same APPROVED PLANS Lot Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) (Plans Dated March 2012) (b/w CC Approved Plans and (City Approved May 2015) Number Differneces Plan Check Submittal) Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Lot 27 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 80 1206 Lot 28 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 80 1206 Lot 29 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 Lot 30 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 Lot 31 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84.9 1211.9 -0.30 -0.30 85.2 1211.2 Lot 32 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84.9 1211.9 -0.30 -0.30 85.2 1211.2 Lot 33 One Pad 89.2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.5 1215.5 -0.70 -0.70 89.2 1215.2 Lot 34 One Pad 89.2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.5 1215.5 -0.70 -0.70 89.2 1215.2 Lot 35 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 0.00 0.00 85.3 1211.3 Lot 36 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 0.00 0.00 85.3 1211.3 Lot 37 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 Lot 38 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 Lot 39 One Pad 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 0.00 0.00 78.5 1204.5 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information F-12 Lot Number Lot40 Lot 41 Lot42 Lot 43 Lot44 Lot45 Lot46 Lot 47 Lot48 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 52 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline One Pad 77.5 One Pad 73.5 One Pad 73.5 One Pad 69.6 One Pad 69.6 One Pad 65.6 One Pad 65.6 (H) Pad 66.3 (L) Pad 56.3 (H) Pad 66.3 (L) Pad 56.3 (H) Pad 64.8 (L) Pad 54.8 (H) Pad 69.3 (L) Pad 59.3 (H) Pad 70.8 (L) Pad 60.8 (H) Pad 72.3 (L) Pad 62.3 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1200.5 73.5 1200.5 73.4 1200.5 73.5 1200.5 73.4 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 65.7 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 68.7 1181.5 66.3 1181.5 65.9 56.3 56 1181.5 66.3 1181.5 65.9 56.3 56 1180 64.8 1180 64.3 54.8 54.5 1184.5 69.3 1184.5 68.8 59.3 58.8 1186 70.8 1186 70.8 60.8 60.8 1187.5 72.3 1187.5 72.8 62.3 62.8 1204.5 1200.4 1200.4 1195.7 1195.7 1192.7 1192.7 1181.2 1181.2 1179.7 1185.8 1187.8 1189.8 0.00 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.90 -0.90 -0.90 -0.90 - -"°' ·, -. I -' --- ·---- ·:-·,:--: . --- -0.40 -0.30 -0.40 -0.30 -0.50 -0.30 .. .. -----· See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 78.5 1204.5 73.5 1199.5 73.5 1199.5 69.6 1195.6 69.6 1195.6 65.6 1189.2 65.6 1189.2 66.6 1180.9 56.3 66.6 1180.9 56.3 64.8 1179.1 54.5 69.6 1185.5 59.3 71.1 1186.9 60.8 72.6 1188.5 62.3 F-13 PC Approved CC Approved Difference in Pad and FINAL B&S (Plans (Plans Plan Check Submittal Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Ridgeline Elevations APPROVED PLANS (Plans Dated March 2012) Lot Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) (b/w CC Approved Plans and (City Approved May 2015) Number Differneces Plan Check Submittal) Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridge line (H) Pad 74.3 1189.5 74.3 1189.5 74.3 1191.3 74.6 1190.4 Lot 53 (L) Pad 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 (H) Pad 76.3 1191.5 76.3 1191.5 75.8 1192.8 76.6 1192.5 Lot 54 (L) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.8 66.3 (H) Pad 79 1194.2 79 1194.2 78.6 1193.8 79.3 1193.6 Lot 55 (L) Pad 69 69 68.6 69 (H) Pad 80.5 1195.7 80.5 1195.7 80.6 1195.8 80.8 1195.1 Lot 56 (L) Pad 70.5 70.5 70.6 70.5 (H) Pad 82 1197.2 82 1197.2 82.1 1197.3 82.3 1196.7 Lot 57 (L) Pad 72 72 72.1 72 (H) Pad 87.47 1202.6 87.47 1202.6 86.6 1201.8 -0.87 -0.80 87.7 1201.7 Lot 58 (L) Pad 77.4 77.4 76.6 77.4 (H) Pad 88.9 1204.1 88.9 1204.1 86.6 1203.8 -2.30 -0.30 87.7 1201.7 Lot 59 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 77.4 Lot 60 (H) Pad 88.9 1204.1 88.9 1204.1 88.6 1203.8 -0.30 -0.30 89.2 1203.2 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 78.9 Note: Lot# 191 201 211 221 45 and 46 were required to be reduced by a total of 3' in order to protect views (Condition No. 115 of Resolution No. 2013-31. The ridgeline elevations shown under the CC Approved column1 show the ridgelines approved by the CC before being reduced by 3'. The ridgeline elevatins shown under the FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS show the final ridgeline elevations that will be constructed1 which comply with the City Council's requirements of Condition No. 1151 to reduce the ridgelines by at least 3'. F-14 "At-Risk11 Letter from Developer F-15 Taylor Morrison February 17, 2015 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn : Joel Rojas TAYLOR MORRlfiON OF CAl !FORNIA. l LC Southern Ca!ifornia Division 8105 Ir· ino Con I or Di-:1 c~ Suite 14b0 I!' ·in<i, CA 9261B p . (949) 34 i -12('{) f. (849) 34 i -11\00 tay'orr nornson .corn RE: SOL Y MAR CONDO PROJECT AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE RD . RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA. 90275 TRACT 71878 RETAINING WALL PRECISE GRADING WALL PLAN CHECK SUBMITIAL Dear Mr. Rojas, We, Taylor Morrison of California, are requesting to submit precise grading plan with retaining walls into Building and Safety Plan Check prior to formal planning approval is obtained for our tract 71878, 5601 Crestridge Rd . Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275. We do so at our own risk, fully knowing that some of the proposed retaining walls may require the addition of guard rails which could require additional planning approvals if the combination wall heights exceed the code -allowed heights; and, If the walls exceed the code allowed maximum combination wall heights, the walls may have to be modified to meet code height limitations. Thank you, Taylor Morrison of California, LLC Marta Flores Vice President F-16 City Geologist Approval of Retaining Walls F-17 TD 6253 PN 97082-1620 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ROUGH GRADING CHECKLIST Date Received : Date of Report : Consultant: Sign ed By: Date of PG PR : Date of Response : Date of Report: Date of Precise Plans: Prior Reports by LG C Date of Report: Date of20-scale Plans: Date of Response: Date of Re sponse : Date of Report: February 19. 2015 Date Completed: February 23, 20 J 5 February 11, 20 IS (As-Graded Ph ase 2 -Lots 1-15. 35-36, 47-60) LGCGcotechnical Their Job No.: 13060-01 Tim l.awson , GE, CTG January 13 . 2015 November 25, 2014 November 26. 2014 License/Expiration Date: G E 2626 Exp 6/30/ I 5 C EG 1821 Exp 2 /29/l 6 Prior Reviews: February 11, 2015 December 22, 2014 November 17, 2014 (As-Graded Phase 1 --Lots 16-46) October 27, 2014 December 15, 20 14 November 24, 2014 November 7, 2014 April 2. 2014 (interim cut grading) March 19. 2014 March 4. 2014 Prior Reviews : January 28 , 2014 (Segmental Retaining Wall Letter) February 19, 2014 January 8, 2014 April 11, 2014 March 26. 2014 March 7, 2014 Date of Change Consultant Letter : of January 14,2014 February 28 , 2014 February 5, 2014 January 30. 2014 Prior Consultant: Previous Reports: Prior Consultant: Previous Reports: Prior Consultant: Previous Rep orts : Applicant Name: Site Address: Lot'Tract No.: Curr ent Project: Prior Permitted Project: Proposed Project : GeoTek. Inc. Their .lob No.: .I u ly 26, 2013 Prior Review: October 12, 2012 July 27, 2012 (Update Report and 40 scal e GPR) March 5. 2012 (Set back review) Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc . Their Job No .: August 26, 2008 Prior Reviews : April 25, 2008 December 7, 2006 October 19, 2006 March 23, 2006 February 8, 2006 November 18, 2005 October 7, 2005 Group Delta Consultants, lnc. Their Job No.: April 13 , 2005 Prior Reviews : February 16, 2005 December 23, 2004 March 21. 2003 Taylor Morrison 5601 Crestridge Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Tract 71878 A.P.N.: As-built Phase 2 grading Lots 1-J 5, 35-36, 47-60 Rough grading 0787-CR3 August 13, 2013 October 30. 2012 August 13,2012 March 26 , 2012 102604 September 9 , 2008 May 20, 2008 December 15, 2006 November 2, 2006 April 18, 2006 February 28, 2006 December 14. '.?.005 L-569A April 22, 2005 March 4 , 2005 January 7, 2005 April 7, 2003 60 single-family attached residential homes (two to five unit structures). associated site improvements including paved walkways, concrete flatwork. retaining and free standing walls. gazebos, and associated landscaping. Proposed structures are to consist ofone to lwo- stories with some being split level with intervening retaining walls. Other improvements are to include com1m111ity garden plots (hand watered only) and a storm water detention system. S \shwcrhniniccro.;\I Q97\9708'.2 -.970f.:2-162D 27 11 ; rC\ icw 1ont:!h r'radinf.' nlrnsc:: 2 2-15 rlo1: 560 I Crcstridec F-18 TD 6253 PN 97082-1620 CITY OF RANCllO PALOS VERDES GEOTECBNICAL REVIEW ROUGH GRADING CHECKLIST Recommended Actions: Planning Department: X In Concepl Approval for Planning Purposes --Cut grading X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes -Final Grading (April 11. 2014) X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes -Precise Grading Building and Safety: __ Report Approved X Conditional Approval (See Below) __ Addi1ional Jnpul Required 11erns requiring response/further evaluation: 1. None Geolechnical Review Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 2. A review of the precise plans subrn itted with the report dated November 25, 2014 and response dated January 13, 2015 indicate numerous areas that are within I 0 feet of building foundations are flatter than the 2 percent required by the 2013 CBC building code Section 1804.3 and the submitted soils report. It is recommended that these areas be redesigned to meet the building code minimums. 3. Certification of rough grading and rough grading reports should be issued and reviewed prior to issuance of permits for retaining walls. precise grading or underground utilities unless covered under rough grading pe1111it or other separnte pem1it -Complctcd for all building areas. Final rough grading report for area north of phase I still to be completed. 4 . Note to City Staff: Staff should confinn that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E./G.E.) have signed the final dated precise grading plans thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical confonnance with the Consultanl's original report and associated addenda. The GE shall stamp plans and indicate GE Number. 5. Building slabs may not meet minimum code requirements of Section 1808.7.4. Building Official shall determine compliance. 6. The consultant shall be on-site during the excavation of caissons to verify geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. A memo providing location, depth and suitability of caisson excavations shall be provided to the city inspector prior to placement of steel and concrete pour. 7. Note to City Staff: All retaining walls with retained soil over six feel shall be designed with seismic loading per consultants repo1t and any associated addenda. Limitations : Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechn ical practices with in the local area. The scope ofour services for th is third party review has been I imited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced repmt and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re-analysis ofrepo1ted data andlor calculations and preparation of amended construction or design rcco111111endations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certi f1cation, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance ofliabi lity for final c.Jesign or constru{c1>n re · m,1.ne n !i ns made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. _ .,A,.'f It ./ ~· ,.. ..._ BY: BY: ))11 ,~ ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Dante P. omingo, R '.E. 57939 Expires 6/30/16 KLING CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. ~60 I C1 ~stridac F-19 Letter from Applicant's Geotech and Engineer F-20 May 12, 2015 City of Palos Verdes Building and Safety RE: Taylor Morrison Home Tr. No. 71878 Sol Y Mar site and retaining walls located past the Geotechnical Setback Line. The site/retaining walls that are located past the Geotechnical Setback are adequate to resist all lateral and vertical loadings -but might exhibit some slight movement due to large seismic events. This will not jeopardize the structural capacity of the walls in any way. Therefore, after review and consultation with the Geotechnical engineer, the site and any low retaining walls are ok. Over 60 Years of Service ... Thank You! BLOCK CD Family Owned Sinoe 1946 SER'l~CE • LEADERSH!P • C~U.ILWITY Concrvla Masonry Units OBP Blend.d Prvdum ORCO Wal Symim ORCO l'cMngs!Dnes Allan Black Seg11111111ol Reloi.mg Wal• Orange I Los Angeles Heaclquarten 11100 Beach Blvd. Stanlon, CA 90680 (7141527-2239 (714) 895-.4021 FAX Mail Address P.O. 8oxE Stanton, CA 90680-0129 Inland Empire 4510 Ruttle Slreet Riverside, CA 92509 (951) 685-1521 [951) 685-4295 FAX ~rt I Banning 600 N. Hathawoy Street Banning, CA 92220 [951) 849-7891 [951) 849-1056 FAX Temecula Valey 26380 Palarnar Road Ramolond, CA 92585 (951) 928-3839 (951) 928-3153 FAX San Diego 3501 Oceanside Blvd. Oceanside, CA 92056 (760) 757· 1780 (760) 757·9854 FAX Coachella / Imperial 35-UO Dillan Road Indio, CA 92201 (760) 347-4000 (760) 775-5629 FAX MailAddreu P.O. Bax 1300 Indio, CA 92202 ORCO Pavinglfones 4545 Ruttle Street Riverside, CA 92509 (95,) 685-8498 (951) 685-5974 FAX www.orco.com Member of: NCMA, CMl\CN, ICPI, All\, ASl.A, BIA, Cl.cA, CBMDA and MITA F-21 LGC May 12, 2015 Ms. Yvonne Benschop Taylor Morrison I 00 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 926 I 8 Project No. 13060-01 Site Address: 5601 Crestridge Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 94597 Subject: Geotechnical Review of the Proposed Retaining Wall Plans by Oreo Wall System, Tract 71878, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Reference: Oreo Wall System, 2015, Retaining Wall Plans, Tract No. 7187, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Sheet S-1, latest revision dated April 9, 2015. In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (LGC Geotechnical) has prepared this geotechnical review of the proposed retaining walls by Oreo Wall System, Sheet S-1 (see attached) for the residential development "Sol y Mar" (Tract 71878) within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Based on our review of the subject plans, which incorporate the correct geotechnical parameters recommended for use by us, it is our opinion the subject retaining wall plans are geotechnically suitable for their intended purpose. Please note that LGC Geotechnical is not a structural engineering firm, therefore, review of the structural calculations is outside of our purview. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully, LGC Geoteclmical, Inc. 1~-- Tim Lawson, CEG 1821, GE 2626 Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist T J LI JTC/km b Attachment: Reduced copy of Oreo Wall System Retaining Wall Plan, Sheet S-1 Distribution: (3) Addressee (wet-signed copies for City submittal) ·~ 131 Calle Iglesia. Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 ~ (949) 369-6141 ~B} www.lgcgeotechnical.com F-22 E-3f4~ ~ ~=--.. ·-= =--=---- • ·' ·-----·-· ;~~~~::;;J, ;~~~~ Nfm:il"IJlt L..UIWZ 1¥t:JnH6L«.QS MOtW-',!Ufnf~MD"a' ...,....,..,..._ j ' i \_:,~.:'.:::::::O.."'::."w -.r- ~~:.:i -:.,"'.:.,-..- :1,$~ _,,,/. _,..a,,.,..~"'"',,,.,,.-. _ _._"""' __ _,, _ _.._c~ -•18CIP..,..l--CJ'}llf -.111ram,.••---c--.---MnoC-m1ll'f"1W. 1~~~~1 7. ----u.-.i...-.--.. , ._,. ____ . _ .. ....s-. .. -u,,. __ _ _,, __ M_llJ_.. _,.._,,_~-~ -~-*<-­ ,~---~-.i.•D'ff ~-:~::::·-:·': M: E--=~ ::~-=~ ~ ---·<AID--#1,..._ALICllU JJ _r._.11_... ___ _ ~·..,.,...,~ "°"".orJ.a--llllH/l:P':rll'JM'-. ---·-m•-.:-•.cuoi. f,ALIJl\lDIS-··--_.IUDIO!lDfr'JDJUlllllCl'•.:.mJT-lllUlllf'--->"• <MIET_,., ___ --.--- &Alj."tl!TOl _ _,,,,,,.._-.i.•rm t:»_S1111".,.,IP#'_lf1F.,.~'-- --~ml'r.·~-,,,. _..,,, ___ ,.~- FOOTING STEP DETAIL s F-23 Weekly Administrative Report (January 28, 2015) F-24 TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF ~ RANCHO i=ALDS VERDES CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY ~NT DIRECTOR JANUARY 28, 2015 SUBJECT: WEEKLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT UPDATE ON LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR FLAG POLES IN THE COASTAL ZONE On November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-7 ing the Visual Corridor Section of the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) to ag poles up to 70- feet in height in the City's Coastal Zone that meet specific ards. Since any proposed amendments to an LCP must also be approved b alifornia Coastal Commission, on December 4, 2014, the Council-approved mendment was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for process in City Staff was informe s week that the City's LCP amendment will be placed on the February 12, 20 oastal Commission Agenda in Pismo Beach. City Staff intends to attend this stal Commission hearing. Additionally, Staff will update the City's website and n · list-serve subscribers of the upcoming February 121h Coastal Commission hearing . MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVAL FOR INTERIOR RETAINING WALLS AT THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDO PROJECT At the last city council meeting, the council asked staff about the recently constructed walls along Crestridge Road that are part of the crestridge senior condo development. Given that the Council expressed some concerns at their last meeting over the staff level minor modification that was approved for the retaining walls along Crestridge Road, we are informing the Council via this weekly report of another minor modification request. The applicant is seeking approval of 15 new interior retaining walls, which will vary in height between 3 and 8.3 feet in height within the interior of the site in and around the various units (see attached list and site plan). The project approved by the City Council included 9 F-25 Community Development Department Weekly Administrative Report January 28, 2015 Page# 2 the approval of 3 6-foot retaining walls at the western-most portion of the project site (which are also proposed to change in height) but did not include any retaining walls within the remaining portion of the site. According to the developer, these walls became necessary as a result of the Building & Safety Plan Check process for the following reasons: 1. As the project has moved from entitlement to construction, it became apparent that additional retaining walls were necessary to satisfy drainage requirements and ADA criteria; 2.ADA accessibility criteria affected a larger area of the site which required retaining walls to create more paths, ramps and flatter areas throughout the site; and, 3. Drainage refinements during final design has required changes to the grades and the need for additional walls or changes to the height of walls to better direct and control on-site drainage. Pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6, "the Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions." Staff intends to approve these necessary retaining walls as a minor modification since the walls will be located in the interior of the development in manner that will blend with the landscaping and would not be visible from Crestridge Drive and have limited visibility from neighboring properties. If any Councilmember disagrees with this request being approved as a Staff level minor modification, please contact the Acting City Manager Director Rojas by the end of the day on Monday February 2nd, so we can agendize this matter for the February 17, 2015 City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP AGENDA Attached is the Follow-Up Agenda from the Planning C 2015. Attached is a tabl a summary of the Applications of Note that were submitted to the een Wednesday, January 21, 2015 and Tuesday, January 27, 2015 . 10 F-26 Community Development Department Weekly Administrative Report January 28, 2015 Page# 3 ATTACHMENTS • Minor Modification information for retaining walls at Crestridge Project • PC Follow-up Agenda • Applications of Note • PC approved minutes for December 9, 2014 and January 13, 2015 (under separate cover) 11 F-27 Retaining wall Height Ret/Garden Wall Comment A 6.3' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW B 8.3' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW c 4.2' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW D 3' Downslope Retaining E 5' Downslope Retaining 4.7' Upslope Retaining p 4' Downslope Retaining Q 4.1' Downslope Retaining R 7' Downslope Retaining T 4' Downslope Retaining u 5.5' Upslope Retaining upslope of parking stall, slopes up to condo x 4.8' downslope Retaining at bocce ball court (SE corner) z 4.1' downslope Retaining at bocce ball court (NE corner) A-A 3.3' downslope Retaining adjacent to walkway B-B 4.6 downslope Retaining downslope of a building and b/w 2 yards of condos E-E 4.5' Downslope Retaining downslope of a building and b/w to yards of condos F-F 3.1' downslope Retaining this wall adj to DW entry, app'd as a 5' freestanding G-G 4.5' downslope Retaining 12 F-28 13 F-29 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: DISCUSSION SOL-Y-MAR (CRESTRIDGE) PROJECT FILE (CASE NO. SUB2012 - 00001 & ZON2012-00067) ~I ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR_/fV\ AUGUST 12, 2016 CITY APPROVED COLORS, TEXTURE, AND GLARE FOR THE FLAT ~::::::F ::~o~::~:~rs FOR BUILDING NOS. 7, 14, 15, 17 Mansard Roof Color. Texture. and Glare On June 14, 2016, as part of Status Report No. 5, Staff reported to the Planning Commission that a number of neighbors have raised concerns regarding Building No. 18 particularly as it pertains to a change from a pitch roof to a mansard roof and the installation of a bright white thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing material. In researching these concerns, City Staff learned that the previous project planner changed the Council-approved pitch roof to a mansard roof for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18. As a result, a TPO roofing material was installed on the flat portion of the mansard roof for Building No . 18. However, the white TPO color was not approved by the City. In light of this, the Developer was given two options to correct the white TPO color: 1) modify the TPO color to closely resemble the roof tiles, similar to a terra cotta color; or 2) seek Council approval to allow the flat roof portion to be white. The developer chose to work with Staff to seek an alternative roof color. During this process, the Developer informed Staff that the TPO color could be changed to a "terra cotta" color to address the concerns with the white TPO, but Staff felt that the "terracotta" TPO did not adequately match the roof tiles because the color was too orange and would stand out from the upslope properties . In response, the Developer identified an alternative material known in the industry as Pli-Dek (commonly used as a decking finish) that is available in a color palate that better resembles the roof tiles for each of the five buildings with the mansard roofs. Furthermore, the Pli- Dek material has a more granular texture that better resembles the roof tile material used on the pitched portion of the mansard roofs . Thus, after reviewing the options presented by the Developer, the Pli-Dek material was selected by the Director as the new approved material to be used on the flat portion of all the buildings with mansard roofs with the "stamford" color for Building Nos. 14, 15 and 17, and the "terra cotta" color for Building Nos. 7 and 18. The Director's approval was reported to the Commission in the June 14, 2016 Staff Report. G-1 As part of the process discussed above, Staff was also meeting with the certain neighbors to address their concerns. As a result of these meetings, on July 1, 2016, the neighbors expressed a dissatisfaction with the Director's color selection of the Pli-Dek material because they felt the selected colors did not adequately match the roof tiles for each of the five buildings and that the texture would produce too much glare. In an effort to address the neighbors' concerns, Staff requested that the Developer change the Director-selected colors of the mansard roofs, as well as identify a texture and finish that would mitigate any potential glare impacts to the upslope properties. The Developer agreed to accommodate Staff's request, as well as to produce a mock-up that would allow Staff and the neighbors to assess the color and texture of the Pli-Dek material in an outdoor setting. During this process, three color from Sherwin Williams were matched to each of the five buildings with the mansard roofs by a color professional (at Sherwin Williams) and provided to one of the concerned neighbors, who then forwarded these color names to the City. The City forwarded these color names to the Developer for consideration as the Director-requested new color selections for the flat portion of the mansard roofs. In response, the Developer's color consultant agreed to the colors suggested by the neighbor. Subsequently, at the Director's request, color mock-ups resembling each of the three colors suggested by the neighbor and a separate texture mock-up were produced by the Developer. On July 29, 2016, the City met with five of the concerned neighbors to view the three color mock-ups and the one texture mock-up against the roof tiles. After viewing the color and texture mock-ups in an outdoor setting, it was agreed that the colors suggested by one of the neighbors, and agreed to by the Developer, adequately matched the roof tiles for all five buildings with the mansard roofs. Thus, based on the agreement and consensus of the five neighbors in attendance at the July 29, 2016 meeting, the Director is hereby approving the following colors for the Pli-Dek roof surface: • Building Nos. 7 & 18: 3605 San Benito Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 2836 (Quartersawn Oak) for the Pli-Dek surface; • Building No. 15: 3636 Piedmont Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 604 7 (Hot Cocoa) for the Pli-Dek surface; and, • Building Nos. 14 & 17: 3813 San Mateo Blend Tile Array with Sherwin Williams 6061 (Tanbark) for the Pli-Dek surface. In regards to texture concerns, based on the consensus at the July 1, 2016 and the July 29, 2016 meetings, the Director is hereby requiring that the texture of the Pli-Dek surface for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 be installed with a fine knock-down texture. As for the finish of the Pli-Dek roof surface, based on a general consensus at the July 29, 2016 meeting, the Director approves a semi- gloss finish because it has been determined that this finish would not result in adverse glare impacts to the neighboring upslope properties. However, upon observing the finished roof surface, should the Director determine that the semi-gloss finish does create an adverse glare impact, the Director reserves the right to require the Developer to install a satin top coat finish to further mitigate any glare impacts to the neighboring upslope properties. The mock-ups for the above colors have been photo documented on July 29, 2016 (see attachment) and the Director's color approvals are memorialized herein. Additionally, Staff has prepared color and texture material boards that are on file in the Community Development Department memorializing the Director-approved colors, texture, and finish for the flat portion of the mansard roofs for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 for future reference. G-2 Maintenance Requirements In order to ensure that the Director-approved colors, texture and finish are maintained in the future, at the request of the City, the Developer has supplied the City with the maintenance requirements for the approved Pli-Dek material that will be installed on Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18. The Developer will be providing the specific maintenance requirements to the official Sol y Mar HOA in its "Homeowners Association Maintenance Guide." Additionally, pursuant to Council-approved Condition No. 8 that requires a one-year compliance review (one year after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the last building), Staff will be recommending that the City Council add the following maintenance language to the Conditions of Approval that will be enforced by the City: The Pli-Dek Waterproof Deck Coating System must be inspected every 3 years by an Approved Applicator. (Contact Pli-Dek for details). Exposed urethane caulking should be inspected annually. These situations will occur at penetrations and flashing seams. If general cleaning is needed, use mild soap and water along with a push broom to remove any dirt. When finished, hose off entire roof removing all soap. Additionally, as discussed in the previous section, in order to formally memorialize the future maintenance of the required colors, texture and glare for Building Nos. 7, 14, 15, 17 and 18 in the project's approved CUP, Staff will also be recommending that the City Council adopt an additional condition of approval that delineates the abovementioned specifications approved herein by the Director. As a condition of approval, the roof color, texture and glare will become a requirement of the project approval, enforceable by the City, and would require City Council approval for any future requests to deviate from the approved colors, texture or glare. ATTACHMENTS • Developer's Agreement to fine knock-down • July 29, 2016 Photographs of color mock-ups and tiles blends G-3 Developer's Agreement to Fine Knock-Down G-4 Leza Mikhail From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Leza: Yvonne Benschop <YBenschop@taylormorrison.com > Monday, July 25, 2016 12:01 PM Leza Mikhail Mike McBride 5601 Crestridge Road -Sol y Mar Plidek Finish Tay lor Morrison will be using the fine gauge knock down finish on the Mansard roofs at So l y Mar. l""."""\'fi'1-- " "COLOR: ADOBE 1 G-5 Leza Mikhail From: Se nt: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Leza: Yvonne Benschop <YBenschop@taylormorrison .com > Monday, August 01, 2016 9:45 AM Leza Mikhail; Ara Mihranian Mike McBride; Angela Wilson 5601 Crestr idge -Sol y Mar -PliDek IMG _0141.jpg; IMG_0140.jpg Please see samp le photo with ru le r and photos taken from roof top of building 18. Let me know if you need anything further. Thanks . Yvonne Benschop Land Project Manager 100 Spectrum Center Drive , Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: +19493411210 Emai I: YBenschop@taylormorrison .com www.taylormorrison.com 1 G-6 Photographs of Color Mock-ups and Tile Blends (photos taken July 29, 2016) G-7 G-8 G-9 G-10 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: BACKGROUND SOL Y MAR (CRESTRIDGE) PROJECT FILE (CASE NO. SUB2012- 00001 & ZON2012-00067) ARA MIHRANIAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO ~ AUGUST 23, 2016 CLARIFICATION OF THE PAST-DIRECTOR'S REVISION TO MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 3 (PAD & RIDGELINE ELEVATION CHANGES) - Leza Mikhail, Senior Planne ~ On May 19, 2015, the then-Community Development Director approved three Minor Modifications: Minor Modification No. 2 (on-site retaining walls), Minor Modification No. 3 (pad & ridgeline elevation changes), and Minor Modification No. 4 (caissons exceeding 1 O' in depth). The purpose of these Minor Modifications was to reconcile discrepancies found between different plans (structural building plans, rough grading plans, and the precise grading plans) that were submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check to the Council-approved project plans (architectural and conceptual grading plans). At the time, the known discrepancies were limited to differing pad and ridgeline elevations for certain buildings in the structural building plans, the addition of retaining walls throughout the project site in the precise grading plans, and the addition of caissons for certain buildings in the structural building plans. While reconciling the plans, in order to avoid costly construction delays, the Developer requested that they be permitted to continue with the Plan Check process for the Precise Grading and Retaining Wall Plans, despite not having final Planning approvals forthe discrepancies known by the project planner with the pad and ridgeline elevations in the structural building plans and the new retaining walls in the precise grading plans. The then-Community Development Director allowed the applicant to continue with the Plan Check process and the on-going grading provided that an "at-risk" statement was filed with the City . A more detailed discussion of Minor Modification Nos. 2, 3, and 4 can be found in the attached May 19, 2015 Memorandum . Shortly after the then-Director approved Minor Modification Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Developer noted to the then-Director that the pad and ridgeline elevations shown on the structural building plans that were used to create the City's Matrix (created by the current project planner to reconcile the plans approved by the previous project planner) were not consistent with the Precise Grading Plans that were submitted ("at risk") into the Building and Safety Plan Check. The then-Director required that the Developer provide the City with the final building pad and ridgeline elevations for comparison to the Council-approved plans. In response, the Developer provided the attached handwritten pad and ridgeline elevations call-outs, prepared by their architect and civil engineer, on the City Staff- prepared Matrix. On September 3, 2015, the then-Director accepted the Developer's final H-1 handwritten pad and ridgeline elevations, and instructed Staff to send an email (attached) to the Developer memorializing his decision as a 'Revision to Minor Modification No. 3.' While the May 19, 2015 Minor Modification Memorandum, including the Staff-prepared matrix, was provided to certain members of the public, Staff's matrix with the Developer's handwritten building pad and ridgeline elevation call-outs that was approved by the then-Director as 'Revision to Minor Modification No. 3' was not provided to the public. In April of 2016, a member of the public began to raise questions with the Staff-prepared matrix attached to the May 19, 2015 Minor Modification Memorandum. Staff informed the resident of the September 3, 2015 Revision to Minor Modification No. 3. In an effort to improve the legibility of the Developer's handwritten notations before providing it to the public, Staff updated the matrix by transcribing the handwritten calculations to an electronic format and provided this Matrix to the concerned member of the public. As a result, it was pointed out that the transcribed (updated) matrix with the building pad and ridgeline elevation call-outs were incorrect in some instances. This inadvertent error prompted Staff to re-review the call-outs shown on the matrix. As a result, in July 2016, the now-Director requested that the City's Matrix be formally updated to include the handwritten pad, finished floor, and ridgeline elevation call-outs that were provided to the City and approved by the previous Director on September 3, 2015. The Matrix was reviewed by Staff and the now-Director to ensure consistency with all of the final plans submitted and approved in Building and Safety. The City-reconciled matrix that incorporates the Developer's handwritten building pad and ridgeline elevation call-outs was provided to the Developer to review to ensure its accuracy with the call-out information they previously provided the City. The now-Director also asked the Developer to submit to the City a revised cover sheet for the structural building and precise grading plans that includes the final approved building pad and ridgeline elevation call-outs. The cover sheet is attached to the final set of structural building plans and precise grading plans. Additionally, the 'FINAL Revised Matrix' reconciled by current Director on July 29, 2016 is attached to this memorandum. ATTACHMENTS • May 19, 2015 Memorandum for Director-approved Minor Modification #3 (including original Matrix) • September 3, 2015 Email Confirming Director-approved Revisions to Minor Modification #3 (Including handwritten elevations by Developer on Matrix) • FINAL Revised Matrix -reconciled by the current Director on July 29, 2016 H-2 May 19, 2015 Memorandum (for Director-approved Minor Modification Nos. 2, 3, and 4) H-3 CITY OF Rl-\NCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: BACKGROUND ADDRESS FILE -5601 CRESTRIDGE (APN 7589-013-009) JOEL ROJAS, COMMUN T OPMENT DIRECTOR MAY 19, 2015 MINOR MODIFICATION #2 (ON-SITE RETAINING WALLS), #3 (PAD & RIDGELINE ELEVATION CHANGES) AND# 4 (CAISSONS EXCEEDING 10' IN DEPTH) -(CASE NO. SUB2012-00001 & ZON2012-00067) Lez a M ikhail, Associate Planner ~ On September 4, 2014, the Developer submitted plans to Building and Safety Plan to initiate the Plan Check process for Precise Grading (Case No . BLD2014-00701 ). The grading included 32,000 cubic yards of excavation, 31,000 cubic yards of exportation, and 1,500 cubic yards offill. During the Plan Check process, it came to Staff's attention that there were a number of new retaining walls proposed throughout the interior of the project site. Given the addition of new retaining walls, the Building Division required the applicant to submit a separate Plan Check submittal for only the retaining walls. Therefore, on December 8, 2014, the Developer submitted plans into Building and Safety Plan Check for new retaining walls within the interior of the subject lot (Case No. BLD2014- 00992). The new walls varied in height between 2' and 8'. Additionally, on June 30, 2014 , the Developer submitted plans to Building and Safety to initiate the Plan Check process for the structural review of 21 new buildings (a total of 60 units) throughout the subject property (BLD2014- 00498). In January and February 2015, upon reviewing all of the abovementioned plans that were submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check, Planning Staff discovered that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations for the 60-unit condominium project were not the same as the plans approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. Additionally, Staff found that a number of new, internal retaining walls that were not originally approved by the City Council were added to the plan. Lastly, during the Plan Check process, the Developer altered the foundation system to include a number of caissons. Given the discrepancies found between the pad and ridgeline elevations, and additional retaining walls and foundation caissons, the Plan Check for the Precise Grading (Case No. BLD2014-00701) and Retaining Walls (Case No. BLD2014-00992) was put on hold until the Planning Division could reconcile the variations in pad elevations and new retaining walls, which is the subject this Memorandum and discussed further under the "Discussion" portion below (Minor Modification #2 for the new retaining walls, Minor Modification #3 for the changes to the pad and ridgeline elevations and Minor Modification #4 for the addition of caissons to Building Nos. 1-5). H-4 Notwithstanding the discrepancies described above, the Developer requested that the City allow them to continue with their Plan Check process, despite not having Planning approval for the variation in pad and ridgeline elevations, and new retaining walls. In order to allow the applicant to continue the Plan Check process, the City required that the Developer submit an "At Risk" statement acknowledging that they are requesting the continuance of the Plan Check at their own risk, fully acknowledging that some of the proposed retaining walls and/or precise grading elevations could require further Planning review and approval through additional permits, formal revisions to their approved Planning Entitlements, or Minor Modifications to their approved Planning Entitlements, all of which could potentially result in required changes to the plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check. On February 19, 2015, the Developer submitted the required "At Risk" statement. Shortly thereafter, the Building and Safety Division commenced with the Plan Check process, with the caveat that Building Permits would not be issued until final Planning approval was obtained for the modified pad and ridgeline elevations, and all of the new interior retaining walls. DISCUSSION Pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6 of Resolution No. 2013-31, "the Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with plans and conditions. Otherwise, all other modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission" In reviewing the modified plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check for the Precise Grading, Retaining Walls and Structural Building Plans, the Director determined that three (3) Minor Modifications could be approved for the deviation in the plans from the May 21, 2013 City Council-approved plans. Below is a discussion of the minor modifications for the addition of new interior retaining walls (Minor Modification #2), minor changes to the pad and ridgeline elevations (Minor Modification #3) and the addition of caissons to Building Nos. 1-5 (Minor Modification No. 4). Minor Modification #2 (Interior Retaining Walls) As noted in the Background section, it came to Staff's attention that the Developer added a number of proposed garden walls ("GW"), measuring less than 3' in exposed height, and retaining walls ("RW"), measuring more than 3' in exposed height, throughout the project site. According to the Developer, some of the walls became necessary as a result of the Building and Safety Plan Check process for the following reasons: 1) Additional retaining walls were necessary to satisfy drainage requirements and ADA criteria; 2) ADA accessibility criteria affected a larger area of the site which required retaining walls to create more paths, ramps and flatter areas throughout the site; and, 3) Drainage refinements during final design required changes to the grades and the need for additional walls or changes to the height of walls to better direct and control on-site drainage. Given the past concerns raised by the City Council regarding a previous Director-level Minor Modification for two (2) 'Verdura' walls along Crestridge Dr., on January 28, 2015, Staff informed the City Council in the Weekly Administrative Report (attached) of the Director's intention to approve a Minor Modification to allow the addition of a number of new retaining walls throughout the Crestridge Senior Condominium Housing Project. Given that no City Council members raised a concern at that time with a Director-level Minor Modification for the additional retaining walls throughout the property, the Developer was notified that the additional walls would be approved as a Minor Modification provided the walls are consistent with other applicable conditions and code H-5 requirements. Below is a table illustrating the new garden walls ("GW"), retaining walls ("RW") and combination walls ("CW") that are the subject of this Minor Modification. For clarification purposes, combination walls are considered a garden wall or retaining wall (or any combination thereof) with a guardrail on top that is required for safety purposes by the California Building Code . Table 1: List of New Garden Walls, Retaining Walls and Combination Walls with Heights Wall "C" Wall "D" Wall "E" Wall "H" Wall "I" Wall Type (GW/ RW I CW) RW RW RW cw cw GW cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw cw RW cw cw cw cw cw cw cw 6.3' 7.9' 4.2' 3' 4 .5 ' 1.3' 2.2 ' 1.9' 4.5' 2 .2' 2.2' 2 .2' 2 .5' 1.9' 2.2' 4' 4.1' 4.5' 2.2' 4' 5.5' 1.8' 3.3' 4 .5' 4 .5' 3 .1' 4' 4' Height of Guardrail if re uired n/a n/a n/a 3.5' 3.5' n/a 3 .5 ' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5 ' 3 .5' 3.5' 3.5 ' 3.5' 3 .5' n/a 3.5' 3.5' 3.5' 3 .5' 3.5' 3.5' 3.5 ' *RUA= Restricted Use Area (Buildings not permitted beyond Restricted Use Setback Line) Total Height 6.3' 7.9' 4.2' 6.5' 8' 1.3' 5.7' 5.4' 8' 5.5' 5.5' 5.5' 6' 5.4' 5.7' 7.5' 7.6' 8' 5.7' 7.5' 5.5' 5.3' 6.8' 8' 8' 6.6' 7.5' 7.5' As illustrated in the table above, the majority of the new walls are combination walls and are designed with either a garden wall or retaining wall with a guardrail on top. According to Section 17. 76.030(C)(2)(b)(ii), "when combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side." In reviewing the plans and wall heights, all of the new combination walls will be less than 8' in height, as measured from the low side of the wall, and less than 7' in height, as measured from the high side of the wall. Additionally , the retaining walls that exceed 4.5' in height will not require any guardrails by the California Building Code as they are not located adjacent to a walking H-6 surface. Therefore, these combination walls meet the requirements of the Development Code, and the new retaining walls continue to meet the grading criterion that was originally approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013. Four (4) of the twenty-eight (28) new walls, specifically the combination walls, are proposed to be located beyond a "Restricted Use Area" line which was established through the geologic review of the project, and is recorded on the official Tract Map No. 71878. Specifically, these walls are referenced on the plans as walls "BB," "DD," "EE," and "GG." According to Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 2013-31, "All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited." As part of the historic geologic review of this project site, a Restricted Use Area was established by a previous Developer's (Trumark) Geotechnical Consultant (Geotek, Inc .) and provided on the approved Tract Map. Sometime during the Plan Check process, the current Developer (Taylor Morrison) obtained a new Geotechnical Consultant (LGC Geotechnical, Inc.) who recommended the inclusion of the walls beyond the Restricted Use Area. Ultimately, the Developer's Geologist provided a report that was approved by the City's Geologist stating that the new walls beyond the Restricted Use Area are not integral to the structural stability of the adjacent structures/residences, and all hazards have been eliminated or mitigations have been approved and incorporated into the project specifications. Furthermore , the Developer's Geologist confirmed that the walls would not pose an eminent threat to public health or safety should the walls fail in the future from land movement as they are not tied to the adjacent structures or public walking paths. Additionally, on May 12, 2015, the Developer's new Geotechnical Consultant and Registered Professional Engineer (Timothy S. Mallis) submitted statements that the retaining walls are geotechnically suitable for their intended use and are adequate to resist all lateral and vertical loadings, with the caveat that they may exhibit some slight movement due to large seismic events. Further, they note that such a seismic event will not jeopardize the structural capacity of the walls in any way . Given that the City Geologist noted that the Developer's Geologist eliminated and/or mitigated all hazards to their satisfaction for these specific combination walls, the Applicant has met the requirements of Condition No . 86 . Notwithstanding the fact that the combinations walls are acceptable to be constructed in their proposed locations, the Restricted Use Area designation is not proposed to be eliminated. Staff reviewed the public record of the public hearings and confirmed that previous discussions of the Restricted Use Area noted that walls were never proposed in this area, but did not state that they were prohibited. Furthermore, there was no discussion from the public, Staff, Planning Commission or City Council regarding a strict prohibition of the retaining walls in the Restricted Use Area. Given these facts, coupled with the City Geologist's approval of all of the walls listed in Table 1 above, the Community Development Director is approving Minor Modification #2 to allow the new garden walls, retaining walls and combination walls to be constructed on the subject property. As a result of this Minor Modification, Condition No . 51 of Resolution No. 2014-31 is modified as illustrated below, with eliminated language in strikethrough and new language in bold and underline type. 51. The construction of tAfee new garden walls, retaining walls , and combination walls shall be permitted to be constructed as part of the proposed project, as approved by Minor Modification #1 and #2, and Th ese includ e o ne , 6 foot hig h upslope retaining wall be hin d ea c h of t he th ree structu res on the west si d e of th e eleYelopmen t, as illustrated on the approved plans submitted into Building and Safety. Subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, and prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall provide a landscape plan and/or other plan showing how the retaining walls will be aesthetically screened by use of landscaping and wall materials that are aesthetically pleasing. H-7 Minor Modification #3 Minor Changes to Pad and Ridgeline Elevations As discussed in the Background section of this report, during the Plan Check process it came to Staff's attention that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations of the proposed structures were modified from the City Council-approved plans . In reviewing the history of the public hearings, Staff found that the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a project based on plans that were dated November 2012 . These plans indicated the same pad and ridgeline elevations as the plans dated June 2012 , which were the plans used to construct and certify the silhouette required for the analysis of the project. Additionally, after the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, Staff found that that the City Council reviewed and approved plans dated January 30, 2013. In reviewing the three sets of plans (June 2012, November 2012 and January 2013), Staff confirmed that that pad and ridgeline elevations across all three plans were exactly the same. As such, Staff was able to afirm the final City Council-approved pad and ridgeline elevations . However, the pad and ridgeline elevations of the plans submitted into Building and Safety Plan Check appeared to be based on a plan dated March 30 , 2012, which was before the project silhouette was certified in June 2012. Given concerns relayed throughout the public hearing process related to view impairment from six (6) specific lots (lot nos. 19-22 and 45-46), Staff prepared a matrix title "Pad and Ridgeline Elevation Matrix" (attached), which outlines all of the pad and ridgeline elevations across all plans approved by the City and submitted in to Building and Safety. In comparing the pad and ridgeline elevations of the Plan Check submittal (plans dated March 2012), it became apparent that there were deviations in some of the pad and ridgeline elevations as compared to the City Council-approved plans. While a majority of the pad and ridgeline elevations were lower than those approved by the City Council, twelve (12) of the lots exhibited pads higher than what was approved , and sixteen (16) of the lots exhibited ridgelines higher than what was approved. Furthermore, as required by Condition No. 115 of Resolution No . 2013-31, the final ridgeline elevations of Lot Nos. 19-22 and 45-46 were not lowered by a minimum of 3'. Staff discussed these modifications with the Developer who noted that they were still looking into the final grade elevations and ridgeline elevations as a result of the engineering and precise grading plans that were being prepared for structural review , and noted that the City Council requirements to reduce certain ridgeline heights would be addressed with their final submittal for Building Permits . The Developer noted that some of the pad and ridgeline elevations may slightly change as a result of preparation of the structural and precise grading plans (engineered plans), but that the changes would be nominal and would not affect the structures that were required to be lowered due to view impairment concerns . As a result, the Developer submitted all of their final plans for verification by Planning on May 11 , 2015. As illustrated in the attached Matrix , a majority of the pad and ridgeline elevations on the Final Building and Safety Plans are lower than those approved by the City Council , wtih the exception of a few properties where the ridgeline elevations are slightly taller. However, the units that result in ridgelines that are slightly taller were not the subject of view impairment discussions. In fact, the final ridgelines for the structures that were required to be lowered by 3' (Lot Nos. 19-22 and 45-46) were lowered by more than 3'. As a result, the Community Developer Director is approving Minor Modification No. 3, finding that the Final Building and Safety Plans are in substantial compliance with the City Council-approved plans, with the exception of some nominal changes in the pad and ridgeline elevations of a few structures that were not subject to the view impairment restrictions of Condition No. 115, as summarized in the attached matrix. H-8 Minor Modification #4 (Caisson Foundation System) As noted in the Background section, during the Plan Check process, the Developer decided to include a number of caissons on certain buildings to provide the property structural stability necessary to construct the residences. Specifically, the Developer is proposing the following caissons: • Building No. 1 (Lot s 1-3): Fifteen (15) 15-foot deep caissons, eight (8) 25-foot caissons, and nine (9) 30-foot caissons. • Build ing No. 2 (Lots 4 -6): Thirteen (13) 15-foot deep caissons and nineteen (19) 20-foot deep caissons • Build in g No . 3 (Lots 7-9): One (1) 15-foot caisson, twelve (12) 20-foot caissons, eight (8) 25- foot caissons, three (3) 30-foot caissons and eight (8) 35-foot caissons. • Buil ding No . 4 Clots 10-12): Nine (9) 25-foot caissons, fourteen (14) 30-foot caissons, eight (8) 35-foot caissons and one (1) 40-foot caisson • Building No. 5 (Lot s 13-15): Thirteen (13) 30-foot caissons According to Section 17.76.040(C)(7) (Grading Permit) of the Development Code, "caisson foundations or excavation for a footing or foundation ten feet or more below existing grade shall require the approval of a minor grading permit." While the Developer received approval of a Major Grading permit for a large amount of cut and fill on the property, the original approval did not address the actual engineered foundation system . Given that caisson foundations meet the requirements of the Development Code, and continue to meet the grading criterion that was originally approved by the City Council on May 21, 2013, the Director can approve the addition of the caissons through a Minor Modification. CONCLUSION This memorandum memorializes the rationale for the approval of Minor Modification #2 for the approval of a number of new garden walls, retaining walls and combination walls throughout the, interior of the project site, Minor Modification #3, memorializing minor changes to pad and ridgeline elevations as a result of the Plan Check process, and Minor Modification #4, allowing the addition of a caisson foundation system to Building Nos. 1-5, pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6 of Resolution 2013-31 that authorizes the Director to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results. ATTACHMENTS • Pad and Ridgeline Elevation Matrix -Prepared by City Staff • "At Risk" Letter -From Developer • City Geologist Approval of Retaining Walls • Letters from Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant & Structural Engineer • January 28, 2015 Weekly Administrative Report (excerpt) H-9 Pad & Ridgeline Elevation Matrix H-10 Lot Number Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline (H) Pad 71.5 1188.5 71.5 1188.5 71 1188 (L) Pad 61.5 61.5 61 -0.50 -0.50 71.5 1187.8 61.2 (H) Pad 69.5 1186.5 69.5 1186.5 69 1186 (L) Pad 59.5 59.5 59 -0.50 -0.50 69.5 1185.8 59.2 ---- (H) Pad 68 1185 68 1185 69 1186 (L) Pad 58 58 59 68 1185.8 57.7 . . --------. (H) Pad 65.3 1182.3 65.3 1182.3 64.8 1181.8 (L) Pad 55.3 55.3 54.8 65.3 1181.2 55 -0.50 -0.50 (H) Pad 63.3 1180.3 63.3 1180.3 63.3 1180.3 (L) Pad 53.3 53.3 53.3 63.3 1179.6 53 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 61.8 1178.8 61.8 1178.8 61.8 1178.8 (L) Pad 51.8 51.8 51.8 61.8 1178.1 51.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 59.3 1176.3 59.3 1176.3 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 49.3 49.3 48.4 59.3 1175.2 49 -0.90 -0.90 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 57.8 1174.1 47.5 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 58.4 1175.4 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 57.8 1174.1 47.5 (H) Pad 56.8 1173.8 56.8 1173.8 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 46.8 46.8 45.9 56.8 1172.7 46.5 .... (H) Pad 55.3 1172.3 55.3 1172.3 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 55.3 1171.6 45 (H) Pad 55.3 1172.3 55.3 1172.3 55.9 1172.9 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 55.3 1171.6 45 -. ~ .-~ (H) Pad 54 1171 54 1171 54 1171 (L) Pad 44 44 44 54.1 1170.4 43.8 .... See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information H-11 Lot Number Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 25 Lot 26 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved {Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal {Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations {b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline (H) Pad 55.5 1172.5 55.5 1172.5 55.8 1172.8 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 55.5 1171.8 45.2 - ------- (H) Pad 55.5 1172.5 55.5 1172.5 55.81 1172.8 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 55.5 1171.8 45.2 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57 1174 -0.80 -0.80 57.8 1173.7 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47 47.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 57.8 1173.7 47.5 0.00 0.00 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 57.8 1174.8 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 57.5 1173.7 47.5 One Pad 64.4 1191.4 64.4 1191.4 64 1191 -0.40 -0.40 64.4 1187.8 One Pad 64.4 1191.4 64.4 1191.4 64 1191 -0.40 -0.40 64.4 1187.8 One Pad 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 0.00 0.00 68.4 1191.7 One Pad 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195.4 0.00 0.00 68.4 1191.7 One Pad 71.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 71.7 1197.7 One Pad 71.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 71.7 1197.7 One Pad 75.7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74.9 1201.4 -0.80 -1.30 75.7 1201.1 One Pad 75.7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74.9 1201.4 -0.80 -1.30 75.7 1201.1 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information H-12 PC Approved CC Approved Difference in Pad and FINAL B&S (Plans (Plans Plan Check Submittal Ridgeline Elevations Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same APPROVED PLANS Lot Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) (Plans Dated March 2012) (b/w CC Approved Plans and (City Approved May 2015) Number Differneces Plan Check Submittal) Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Lot 27 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 80 1206 Lot 28 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 80 1206 Lot 29 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 Lot 30 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 Lot 31 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84.9 1211.9 -0.30 -0.30 85.2 1211.2 Lot 32 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84.9 1211.9 -0.30 -0.30 85.2 1211.2 Lot 33 One Pad 89.2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.5 1215.5 -0.70 -0.70 89.2 1215.2 Lot 34 One Pad 89.2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.5 1215.5 -0.70 -0.70 89.2 1215.2 Lot 35 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 0.00 0.00 85.3 1211.3 Lot 36 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 0.00 0.00 85.3 1211.3 Lot 37 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 Lot 38 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 Lot 39 One Pad 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 0.00 0.00 78.5 1204.5 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information H-13 Lot Number Lot40 Lot 41 Lot42 Lot 43 Lot44 Lot45 Lot46 Lot 47 Lot48 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 52 PC Approved (Plans CC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) Differneces Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check Submittal) FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline One Pad 77.5 One Pad 73.5 One Pad 73.5 One Pad 69.6 One Pad 69.6 One Pad 65.6 One Pad 65.6 (H) Pad 66.3 (L) Pad 56.3 (H) Pad 66.3 (L) Pad 56.3 (H) Pad 64.8 (L) Pad 54.8 (H) Pad 69.3 (L) Pad 59.3 (H) Pad 70.8 (L) Pad 60.8 (H) Pad 72.3 (L) Pad 62.3 1204.5 77.5 1204.5 77.5 1200.5 73.5 1200.5 73.4 1200.5 73.5 1200.5 73.4 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 65.7 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 68.7 1181.5 66.3 1181.5 65.9 56.3 56 1181.5 66.3 1181.5 65.9 56.3 56 1180 64.8 1180 64.3 54.8 54.5 1184.5 69.3 1184.5 68.8 59.3 58.8 1186 70.8 1186 70.8 60.8 60.8 1187.5 72.3 1187.5 72.8 62.3 62.8 1204.5 1200.4 1200.4 1195.7 1195.7 1192.7 1192.7 1181.2 1181.2 1179.7 1185.8 1187.8 1189.8 0.00 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.90 -0.90 -0.90 -0.90 - -"°' ·, -. I -' --- ·---- ·:-·,:--: . --- -0.40 -0.30 -0.40 -0.30 -0.50 -0.30 .. .. -----· See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 78.5 1204.5 73.5 1199.5 73.5 1199.5 69.6 1195.6 69.6 1195.6 65.6 1189.2 65.6 1189.2 66.6 1180.9 56.3 66.6 1180.9 56.3 64.8 1179.1 54.5 69.6 1185.5 59.3 71.1 1186.9 60.8 72.6 1188.5 62.3 H-14 PC Approved CC Approved Difference in Pad and FINAL B&S (Plans (Plans Plan Check Submittal Dated November 2012 & Dated January 2013 & same Ridgeline Elevations APPROVED PLANS (Plans Dated March 2012) Lot Grade certified silhouette June 2012) as Nov. 2012 plans) (b/w CC Approved Plans and (City Approved May 2015) Number Differneces Plan Check Submittal) Pad Elev . Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridge line (H) Pad 74.3 1189.5 74.3 1189.5 74.3 1191.3 74.6 1190.4 Lot 53 (L) Pad 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 (H) Pad 76.3 1191.5 76.3 1191.5 75.8 1192.8 76.6 1192.5 Lot 54 (L) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.8 66.3 (H) Pad 79 1194.2 79 1194.2 78.6 1193.8 79.3 1193.6 Lot 55 (L) Pad 69 69 68.6 69 (H) Pad 80.5 1195.7 80.5 1195.7 80.6 1195.8 80.8 1195.1 Lot 56 (L) Pad 70.5 70.5 70.6 70.5 (H) Pad 82 1197.2 82 1197.2 82.1 1197.3 82.3 1196.7 Lot 57 (L) Pad 72 72 72.1 72 (H) Pad 87.47 1202.6 87.47 1202.6 86.6 1201.8 -0.87 -0.80 87.7 1201.7 Lot 58 (L) Pad 77.4 77.4 76.6 77.4 (H) Pad 88.9 1204.1 88.9 1204.1 86.6 1203.8 -2.30 -0.30 87.7 1201.7 Lot 59 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 77.4 Lot 60 (H) Pad 88.9 1204.1 88.9 1204.1 88.6 1203.8 -0.30 -0.30 89.2 1203.2 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 78.9 Note: Lot# 191 201 211 221 45 and 46 were required to be reduced by a total of 3' in order to protect views (Condition No. 115 of Resolution No. 2013-31. The ridgeline elevations shown under the CC Approved column1 show the ridgelines approved by the CC before being reduced by 3'. The ridgeline elevatins shown under the FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS show the final ridgeline elevations that will be constructed1 which comply with the City Council's requirements of Condition No. 1151 to reduce the ridgelines by at least 3'. H-15 "At-Risk11 Letter from Developer H-16 Taylor Morrison February 17, 2015 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attn : Joel Rojas TAYLOR MORRlfiON OF CAl !FORNIA. l LC Southern Ca!ifornia Division 8105 Ir· ino Con I or Di-:1 c~ Suite 14b0 I!' ·in<i, CA 9261B p . (949) 34 i -12('{) f. (849) 34 i -11\00 tay'orr nornson .corn RE: SOL Y MAR CONDO PROJECT AT 5601 CRESTRIDGE RD . RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA. 90275 TRACT 71878 RETAINING WALL PRECISE GRADING WALL PLAN CHECK SUBMITIAL Dear Mr. Rojas, We, Taylor Morrison of California, are requesting to submit precise grading plan with retaining walls into Building and Safety Plan Check prior to formal planning approval is obtained for our tract 71878, 5601 Crestridge Rd . Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca. 90275. We do so at our own risk, fully knowing that some of the proposed retaining walls may require the addition of guard rails which could require additional planning approvals if the combination wall heights exceed the code -allowed heights; and, If the walls exceed the code allowed maximum combination wall heights, the walls may have to be modified to meet code height limitations. Thank you, Taylor Morrison of California, LLC Marta Flores Vice President H-17 City Geologist Approval of Retaining Walls H-18 TD 6253 PN 97082-1620 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ROUGH GRADING CHECKLIST Date Received : Date of Report : Consultant: Sign ed By: Date of PG PR : Date of Response : Date of Report: Date of Precise Plans: Prior Reports by LG C Date of Report: Date of20-scale Plans: Date of Response: Date of Re sponse : Date of Report: February 19. 2015 Date Completed: February 23, 20 J 5 February 11, 20 IS (As-Graded Ph ase 2 -Lots 1-15. 35-36, 47-60) LGCGcotechnical Their Job No.: 13060-01 Tim l.awson , GE, CTG January 13 . 2015 November 25, 2014 November 26. 2014 License/Expiration Date: G E 2626 Exp 6/30/ I 5 C EG 1821 Exp 2 /29/l 6 Prior Reviews: February 11, 2015 December 22, 2014 November 17, 2014 (As-Graded Phase 1 --Lots 16-46) October 27, 2014 December 15, 20 14 November 24, 2014 November 7, 2014 April 2. 2014 (interim cut grading) March 19. 2014 March 4. 2014 Prior Reviews : January 28 , 2014 (Segmental Retaining Wall Letter) February 19, 2014 January 8, 2014 April 11, 2014 March 26. 2014 March 7, 2014 Date of Change Consultant Letter : of January 14,2014 February 28 , 2014 February 5, 2014 January 30. 2014 Prior Consultant: Previous Reports: Prior Consultant: Previous Reports: Prior Consultant: Previous Rep orts : Applicant Name: Site Address: Lot'Tract No.: Curr ent Project: Prior Permitted Project: Proposed Project : GeoTek. Inc. Their .lob No.: .I u ly 26, 2013 Prior Review: October 12, 2012 July 27, 2012 (Update Report and 40 scal e GPR) March 5. 2012 (Set back review) Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc . Their Job No .: August 26, 2008 Prior Reviews : April 25, 2008 December 7, 2006 October 19, 2006 March 23, 2006 February 8, 2006 November 18, 2005 October 7, 2005 Group Delta Consultants, lnc. Their Job No.: April 13 , 2005 Prior Reviews : February 16, 2005 December 23, 2004 March 21. 2003 Taylor Morrison 5601 Crestridge Rancho Palos Verdes, CA Tract 71878 A.P.N.: As-built Phase 2 grading Lots 1-J 5, 35-36, 47-60 Rough grading 0787-CR3 August 13, 2013 October 30. 2012 August 13,2012 March 26 , 2012 102604 September 9 , 2008 May 20, 2008 December 15, 2006 November 2, 2006 April 18, 2006 February 28, 2006 December 14. '.?.005 L-569A April 22, 2005 March 4 , 2005 January 7, 2005 April 7, 2003 60 single-family attached residential homes (two to five unit structures). associated site improvements including paved walkways, concrete flatwork. retaining and free standing walls. gazebos, and associated landscaping. Proposed structures are to consist ofone to lwo- stories with some being split level with intervening retaining walls. Other improvements are to include com1m111ity garden plots (hand watered only) and a storm water detention system. S \shwcrhniniccro.;\I Q97\9708'.2 -.970f.:2-162D 27 11 ; rC\ icw 1ont:!h r'radinf.' nlrnsc:: 2 2-15 rlo1: 560 I Crcstridec H-19 TD 6253 PN 97082-1620 CITY OF RANCllO PALOS VERDES GEOTECBNICAL REVIEW ROUGH GRADING CHECKLIST Recommended Actions: Planning Department: X In Concepl Approval for Planning Purposes --Cut grading X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes -Final Grading (April 11. 2014) X In Concept Approval for Planning Purposes -Precise Grading Building and Safety: __ Report Approved X Conditional Approval (See Below) __ Addi1ional Jnpul Required 11erns requiring response/further evaluation: 1. None Geolechnical Review Comments/Conditions of Approval (no response required): 2. A review of the precise plans subrn itted with the report dated November 25, 2014 and response dated January 13, 2015 indicate numerous areas that are within I 0 feet of building foundations are flatter than the 2 percent required by the 2013 CBC building code Section 1804.3 and the submitted soils report. It is recommended that these areas be redesigned to meet the building code minimums. 3. Certification of rough grading and rough grading reports should be issued and reviewed prior to issuance of permits for retaining walls. precise grading or underground utilities unless covered under rough grading pe1111it or other separnte pem1it -Complctcd for all building areas. Final rough grading report for area north of phase I still to be completed. 4 . Note to City Staff: Staff should confinn that the Consultants (C.E.G. and R.C.E./G.E.) have signed the final dated precise grading plans thereby verifying the plans' geotechnical confonnance with the Consultanl's original report and associated addenda. The GE shall stamp plans and indicate GE Number. 5. Building slabs may not meet minimum code requirements of Section 1808.7.4. Building Official shall determine compliance. 6. The consultant shall be on-site during the excavation of caissons to verify geotechnical conformance with the Consultant's original report and associated addenda. A memo providing location, depth and suitability of caisson excavations shall be provided to the city inspector prior to placement of steel and concrete pour. 7. Note to City Staff: All retaining walls with retained soil over six feel shall be designed with seismic loading per consultants repo1t and any associated addenda. Limitations : Our review is intended to determine if the submitted report(s) comply with City of Rancho Palos Verdes Codes and generally accepted geotechn ical practices with in the local area. The scope ofour services for th is third party review has been I imited to a brief site visit and a review of the above referenced repmt and associated documents, as supplied by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Re-analysis ofrepo1ted data andlor calculations and preparation of amended construction or design rcco111111endations are specifically not included within our scope of services. Our review should not be considered as a certi f1cation, approval or acceptance of the consultant's work, nor is it meant as an acceptance ofliabi lity for final c.Jesign or constru{c1>n re · m,1.ne n !i ns made by the geotechnical consultant of record or the project designers or engineers. _ .,A,.'f It ./ ~· ,.. ..._ BY: BY: ))11 ,~ ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Dante P. omingo, R '.E. 57939 Expires 6/30/16 KLING CONSUL TING GROUP, INC. ~60 I C1 ~stridac H-20 Letter from Applicant's Geotech and Engineer H-21 May 12, 2015 City of Palos Verdes Building and Safety RE: Taylor Morrison Home Tr. No. 71878 Sol Y Mar site and retaining walls located past the Geotechnical Setback Line. The site/retaining walls that are located past the Geotechnical Setback are adequate to resist all lateral and vertical loadings -but might exhibit some slight movement due to large seismic events. This will not jeopardize the structural capacity of the walls in any way. Therefore, after review and consultation with the Geotechnical engineer, the site and any low retaining walls are ok. Over 60 Years of Service ... Thank You! BLOCK CD Family Owned Sinoe 1946 SER'l~CE • LEADERSH!P • C~U.ILWITY Concrvla Masonry Units OBP Blend.d Prvdum ORCO Wal Symim ORCO l'cMngs!Dnes Allan Black Seg11111111ol Reloi.mg Wal• Orange I Los Angeles Heaclquarten 11100 Beach Blvd. Stanlon, CA 90680 (7141527-2239 (714) 895-.4021 FAX Mail Address P.O. 8oxE Stanton, CA 90680-0129 Inland Empire 4510 Ruttle Slreet Riverside, CA 92509 (951) 685-1521 [951) 685-4295 FAX ~rt I Banning 600 N. Hathawoy Street Banning, CA 92220 [951) 849-7891 [951) 849-1056 FAX Temecula Valey 26380 Palarnar Road Ramolond, CA 92585 (951) 928-3839 (951) 928-3153 FAX San Diego 3501 Oceanside Blvd. Oceanside, CA 92056 (760) 757· 1780 (760) 757·9854 FAX Coachella / Imperial 35-UO Dillan Road Indio, CA 92201 (760) 347-4000 (760) 775-5629 FAX MailAddreu P.O. Bax 1300 Indio, CA 92202 ORCO Pavinglfones 4545 Ruttle Street Riverside, CA 92509 (95,) 685-8498 (951) 685-5974 FAX www.orco.com Member of: NCMA, CMl\CN, ICPI, All\, ASl.A, BIA, Cl.cA, CBMDA and MITA H-22 LGC May 12, 2015 Ms. Yvonne Benschop Taylor Morrison I 00 Spectrum Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, CA 926 I 8 Project No. 13060-01 Site Address: 5601 Crestridge Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 94597 Subject: Geotechnical Review of the Proposed Retaining Wall Plans by Oreo Wall System, Tract 71878, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California Reference: Oreo Wall System, 2015, Retaining Wall Plans, Tract No. 7187, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Sheet S-1, latest revision dated April 9, 2015. In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. (LGC Geotechnical) has prepared this geotechnical review of the proposed retaining walls by Oreo Wall System, Sheet S-1 (see attached) for the residential development "Sol y Mar" (Tract 71878) within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. Based on our review of the subject plans, which incorporate the correct geotechnical parameters recommended for use by us, it is our opinion the subject retaining wall plans are geotechnically suitable for their intended purpose. Please note that LGC Geotechnical is not a structural engineering firm, therefore, review of the structural calculations is outside of our purview. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully, LGC Geoteclmical, Inc. 1~-- Tim Lawson, CEG 1821, GE 2626 Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist T J LI JTC/km b Attachment: Reduced copy of Oreo Wall System Retaining Wall Plan, Sheet S-1 Distribution: (3) Addressee (wet-signed copies for City submittal) ·~ 131 Calle Iglesia. Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 ~ (949) 369-6141 ~B} www.lgcgeotechnical.com H-23 E-3f4~ ~ ~=--.. ·-= =--=---- • ·' ·-----·-· ;~~~~::;;J, ;~~~~ Nfm:il"IJlt L..UIWZ 1¥t:JnH6L«.QS MOtW-',!Ufnf~MD"a' ...,....,..,..._ j ' i \_:,~.:'.:::::::O.."'::."w -.r- ~~:.:i -:.,"'.:.,-..- :1,$~ _,,,/. _,..a,,.,..~"'"',,,.,,.-. _ _._"""' __ _,, _ _.._c~ -•18CIP..,..l--CJ'}llf -.111ram,.••---c--.---MnoC-m1ll'f"1W. 1~~~~1 7. ----u.-.i...-.--.. , ._,. ____ . _ .. ....s-. .. -u,,. __ _ _,, __ M_llJ_.. _,.._,,_~-~ -~-*<-­ ,~---~-.i.•D'ff ~-:~::::·-:·': M: E--=~ ::~-=~ ~ ---·<AID--#1,..._ALICllU JJ _r._.11_... ___ _ ~·..,.,...,~ "°"".orJ.a--llllH/l:P':rll'JM'-. ---·-m•-.:-•.cuoi. f,ALIJl\lDIS-··--_.IUDIO!lDfr'JDJUlllllCl'•.:.mJT-lllUlllf'--->"• <MIET_,., ___ --.--- &Alj."tl!TOl _ _,,,,,,.._-.i.•rm t:»_S1111".,.,IP#'_lf1F.,.~'-- --~ml'r.·~-,,,. _..,,, ___ ,.~- FOOTING STEP DETAIL s H-24 Weekly Administrative Report (January 28, 2015) H-25 TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF ~ RANCHO i=ALDS VERDES CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY ~NT DIRECTOR JANUARY 28, 2015 SUBJECT: WEEKLY ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT UPDATE ON LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR FLAG POLES IN THE COASTAL ZONE On November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-7 ing the Visual Corridor Section of the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) to ag poles up to 70- feet in height in the City's Coastal Zone that meet specific ards. Since any proposed amendments to an LCP must also be approved b alifornia Coastal Commission, on December 4, 2014, the Council-approved mendment was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for process in City Staff was informe s week that the City's LCP amendment will be placed on the February 12, 20 oastal Commission Agenda in Pismo Beach. City Staff intends to attend this stal Commission hearing. Additionally, Staff will update the City's website and n · list-serve subscribers of the upcoming February 121h Coastal Commission hearing . MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVAL FOR INTERIOR RETAINING WALLS AT THE CRESTRIDGE SENIOR CONDO PROJECT At the last city council meeting, the council asked staff about the recently constructed walls along Crestridge Road that are part of the crestridge senior condo development. Given that the Council expressed some concerns at their last meeting over the staff level minor modification that was approved for the retaining walls along Crestridge Road, we are informing the Council via this weekly report of another minor modification request. The applicant is seeking approval of 15 new interior retaining walls, which will vary in height between 3 and 8.3 feet in height within the interior of the site in and around the various units (see attached list and site plan). The project approved by the City Council included 9 H-26 Community Development Department Weekly Administrative Report January 28, 2015 Page# 2 the approval of 3 6-foot retaining walls at the western-most portion of the project site (which are also proposed to change in height) but did not include any retaining walls within the remaining portion of the site. According to the developer, these walls became necessary as a result of the Building & Safety Plan Check process for the following reasons: 1. As the project has moved from entitlement to construction, it became apparent that additional retaining walls were necessary to satisfy drainage requirements and ADA criteria; 2.ADA accessibility criteria affected a larger area of the site which required retaining walls to create more paths, ramps and flatter areas throughout the site; and, 3. Drainage refinements during final design has required changes to the grades and the need for additional walls or changes to the height of walls to better direct and control on-site drainage. Pursuant to City Council Condition of Approval No. 6, "the Community Development Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions." Staff intends to approve these necessary retaining walls as a minor modification since the walls will be located in the interior of the development in manner that will blend with the landscaping and would not be visible from Crestridge Drive and have limited visibility from neighboring properties. If any Councilmember disagrees with this request being approved as a Staff level minor modification, please contact the Acting City Manager Director Rojas by the end of the day on Monday February 2nd, so we can agendize this matter for the February 17, 2015 City Council meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP AGENDA Attached is the Follow-Up Agenda from the Planning C 2015. Attached is a tabl a summary of the Applications of Note that were submitted to the een Wednesday, January 21, 2015 and Tuesday, January 27, 2015 . 10 H-27 Community Development Department Weekly Administrative Report January 28, 2015 Page# 3 ATTACHMENTS • Minor Modification information for retaining walls at Crestridge Project • PC Follow-up Agenda • Applications of Note • PC approved minutes for December 9, 2014 and January 13, 2015 (under separate cover) 11 H-28 Retaining wall Height Ret/Garden Wall Comment A 6.3' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW B 8.3' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW c 4.2' Upslope Retaining Approved at 6' as upslope RW D 3' Downslope Retaining E 5' Downslope Retaining 4.7' Upslope Retaining p 4' Downslope Retaining Q 4.1' Downslope Retaining R 7' Downslope Retaining T 4' Downslope Retaining u 5.5' Upslope Retaining upslope of parking stall, slopes up to condo x 4.8' downslope Retaining at bocce ball court (SE corner) z 4.1' downslope Retaining at bocce ball court (NE corner) A-A 3.3' downslope Retaining adjacent to walkway B-B 4.6 downslope Retaining downslope of a building and b/w 2 yards of condos E-E 4.5' Downslope Retaining downslope of a building and b/w to yards of condos F-F 3.1' downslope Retaining this wall adj to DW entry, app'd as a 5' freestanding G-G 4.5' downslope Retaining 12 H-29 13 H-30 September 3, 2015 Email (for Director-approved Revision to Minor Modification No. 3) H-31 From: To: Subject: Date: Leza Mik hail Leza Mik hail FW : Roof elevations buildings 9,1 2 Wedn esday , April 06, 2016 4:30:58 PM -----Orig inal M essage----- From : Leza Mikha il Sent: Thursday, September 0 3 , 2 01 5 5:3 9 PM To : 'Be rnard In es ' <B ln es@ w ith eem a lcolm.com >; Yvonn e Bensch o p <YB en sch o p@ tay lo rm o rri son .com>; Carm o dy , T hom as <TCA RMODY@ mbake rintl.co m>; Mike Mc Bride <MM cBrid e@ t ay lo rm o rri so n.c om >; Dan With ee <d w ith ee@ w it heem a lcolm.com> Cc : Jo e l Rojas <J oe lR@ rp vca .gov>; Paul C hri stm a n <Pa ul C @ rp vca.go v> Subj ect: RE: Roo f e lev ati ons buildings 9 , 12 He llo Every on e, J oel and I have gone ove r th e req uest to revise th e prev io us Min o r Mo difi cat io n th at a ll owed c ha nges to pad and rid ge lin e e levati o n s o n so me of th e lot s . U ltim ate ly , we w ill be a bl e to a pprove th e m ost recent requ est to rev ise th e prev io us min o r m o di fica t io n in o rd er to accomm odate roo fin g m at eri a ls. I w ill ex pa nd o ur in te rn a l c hart he re at C ity H a ll and p rov id e th e fi n a l copy t o Building a nd Safety , as we ll as y ourse lves. Pl ease be s ure that w hil e yo u a re co n stru c ting th e buildin gs yo u d o not go a bove th e m ax imum rid g le lin es app rove d throu g h thi s rev ised Min or Modi fica tion (in c luding a ll roof m ate rial s ). With thi s a pprova l, 1 sh o uld b e a bl e t o acce pt th e building h e ig ht certifi c ation s th at we re recentl y g iven to Andy in th e Buildin g and Safety Di v is io n. A ndy, pl ease scan th e ce rti fica ti ons a nd em a il th e m to m e to docum ent in our record a nd s ig n off on . T hank you a ll , Leza Mikha il Senior Pl a nn e r C it y of Ra ncho Pa los V e rd es C ommunity D eve lo pm e nt De pa rtm e nt 3 0940 Hawthorn e B lv d . Ran cho P a los V e rdes , CA 9 0275 www.rp vca.gov (3 10 ) 544-522 8 -(3 10 ) 544-5293 f leza m @ rp vca.gov H-32 •I FINALB&S APPROVED PIANS !Cit¥~ MIY201Sl Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Rldgelne Pad Elev. RidfleOne Pad elev. Rldgelne (H)Pad 71.S 71.S 1188.S 71 1188 1188.5 lot l (L) Pad 61.S 61.5 61 (H) Pad 69.S 69.S 1186.5 69 1186 lot2 1186.5 59.S 59 (L) Pad 5 9.5 {H) Pad 68 68 69 1186 £F Lot3 1185 (L} Pad 58 58 59 (H)Pad 65.3 65.3 1182.3 64..S 1181.JI 1182.3 Lot4 (L)Pad SS.3 55.3 54.8 (H}Pad 63.3 63.3 1180.3 63.3 1180.3 11803 tots (LI Pad 53.3 53.3 53.3 (H) Pad 61.8 61.8 1178.8 61.8 1178.8 Lot6 1178.8 (L) Pad 51.8 51.8 51.8 (H)Pad 59.3 59.3 1176.3 58.4 1175.4 Lot7 1176.3 48.4 LJPad 49.3 49.3 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 1174.8 511.4 1175.4 1174.8 Lota (L)Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 (HJ Pad 57.8 57.8 1174.8 58.4 1175.4 1174.8 lot9 (L)Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 (H)Pad 56.8 56.8 1173.8 55.9 1172.9 1173.8 Lot10 Ill Pad 46.8 46.B 45.9 (H)Pad SS.3 SS.3 1172.3 SS.9 1172.9 1172.3 lotll (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 (H) Pad 55.3 55.3 1172.3 55.9 1172.9 1172.3 Lot12 (l) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 (H)Pad 54 S4 1171 54 1171 1171 lotl3 (L) Pad 44 44 44 See Next Page for Continued Elevation lnl'ormation ~l"P'°""cl & 1D k 6~-~~ ~ ftp \ ~ Ca. yt-t" rf~?h~-~ 0 tu ~ l<16t.HJ.,,1,Jt) ~ 1}1 1 '~ }v\AY\Cf \Jv)(j. 0 ¥-J ~ 'J'lZ.-~- 71.5 -o.so 61.2 -a.so -0.50 69.S 59.2 1.00 68 57.7 -0.50 65.3 SS 0.00 0.00 63.3 53 0.00 6L8 1178.1 51.5 0.00 -G.90 59.3 1175.2 49 060 57.8 1174.1 47.S CliO 57.a 1174.1 47.S 1160 ~.90 56.8 1172.7 46.5 -0.90 060 o~ 55.3 1171.6 45 .liO 55.3 1171.6 45 0. 0.00 54.1 1170.4 43.8 0.00 I p,, ~ i '' l -· '1 1 3 i "Z · ?..<> IP I .o [,I ,o --"' ; ' ;.0 .2.0 ,,.<> ~~-- (,1 .5 ' i..i:. 7" ~I.,-: .. t,.'-1.C v>. I (,/,"" 'S°"{ l:> 1"). j.D I "'3 I (,1.(.00 h""2 .~ S"l-~~--- (,I .I& (, l . So? ' S-1. 1. ~z zv '5"7 .(1, i I n -'" '"'·) ' '-{f,.u; '!>'·"' . S-t S-0 '-17. 3 <4 ~. 2.<> S'v -i-' S "7 · ~-o ~---- L/v . 3 I '-'7.11 n -.1 ' ~~o ~'i !> I <4 S".t.1 S!>.I I ~.<» ~~ b ".,-.(,,.; ~-3 . ~ I ~-'1..!..".._ I <tJ .) ' '-'"· 1'-1 H-33 PC Approved CC Approved Difference in Pad and RNALB&S (Plans (l'!aM Plan CheckSubmltta l RJclae Rne EleYatlons o.ll!d -ber:IDU& Dll!d ''""""' 21113 a ...... APPROVED PIANS l ot Grade artlll.,hl b-Juoe20U) .. -.2012pbnsj (Pt.M Oolld Mlrdt :zo12j ft>lwCC~Plznsnd (atyAj>pl.....t Mly 2D15} Number Dlffemeces Pla a...k-.illtlll Pa d Elev. Ridgellne Pad Elev. Rldge line Pad Elev. Ridgallne Pad Elev. Rldgeflne Pad Elev. Rldgenne i>l'<b ,£f- Lot 14 (H)Pad 55.S 1172.S 55.S 1172.S SS.8 1172.8 .-a 030 ss .s 1171.8 11 72.t """· "\ )'l,t.o (l) Pad 45.S 45.S 45.B ~ --45.2 "fl .) "1~·7"' Lotl5 (H)Pad 55.S 1172.S 55.S 1172.S 55.81 1172.8 ().31 0.30 55.5 1171.8 11 12.1 p ·.J I {", .. .., ---(L) Pad 4 5 .5 45.S 45.8 --~ 45.2 LJi',o &.t'S".1n ·t Lotl.6 (H) Pad 57.8 1174.8 S7.8 1174.8 57 1174 -0.80 ~ 57.8 1173.7 11 7 </ ~7-.. >t .s~- CL)Pad 47.8 47.8 47 47.S t.I 7 .) Ltt.1 7 (HI Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 (C 7 ~ ,,,,, ! s;i . '" Lot 17 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 0.00 0.00 1173.7 (l ) Pad 4 7.8 4 7.8 47.8 47.5 "1 1 -) t.lf, ,., (H)Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.S 1173.7 U7 V ~7 .... ~"' ,-b Lot18 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 0.00 0.00 475 4<) I <u-,.17 (l ] Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 Lotl9 One Pad 64.4 1191.4 64,4 1191.4 6C 1191 .QA() ..Q.40 64.4 1187.8 ·1 /~r;· l {/·/. 2. : 1,>.1 0 OnePad -OAO 64.4 1187.8 I I ?JB .( I lot20 64,4 1191.4 64A 119l.4 64 1191 -0.40 (,'I l vS• io - Lot21 OnePad 68.4 ll9SA 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195..4 0.00 0.00 6U 1191.7 (( '12 (,/;. -z. (,C,.10 lot22 One Pad 68.4 U95.4 68.4 1195.4 68.4 1195..4 0.00 0.00 68.4 1191.7 ((O! l.... (,.t .·z. I (,'?.10 l ot23 One Pad 7 1.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 71.7 1197.7 II qt7J /•.) -iz '-<o lot24 One Pad 71.7 1198.7 71.7 1198.7 71.4 1 198.4 -0.30 ~o 71.7 1197.7 l(q tf, "1 I . :;'" ! -iz . ..u; i Lot25 One Pad 75 .7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74.9 1201.4 -0.80 -1..30 75.7 1201.1 J 20 (. 4 7>;".~ I "?t,.~0 I 2..0 f . 4 -- Lc t 26 One Pad 75.7 1202.7 75.7 1202.7 74 .9 1201.4 -0.80 -1.30 75.7 1201.l ?<:".) i I ·11,Ao See Next Page for Co ntinued Elevation Info rmatio n H-34 PCApproYed CC Approved Diffel'l!nce In P1d and FINALB&S (Plons (Plans Plan Check Submittal Rtdgellne Elevltlons Dmd-bor20121l Dated .IZ!Hllry :ZCU ll DIM APPROVED PLANS Lot Grade ~ sllhouetteJune 2012) .. Nao.2012Pans) (riansDalied-2012) (bfwCC~Pllnsand (Qty""""'"" !llr'l201S) Numb.er Offfemeces Plr.lelld__, Pad Elev. Rldgellne Pad El@V. Ridge line Pad Elev. Ridgeline Pad Elev. Rtdgelfne Pad Elev. Ridge One f;W J ,..,,, - lot27 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 80 1206 JZO'b -~?&,~) 1 "' (, I e,o _.....,r; lot28 One Pad 79.8 1206.8 79.8 1206.8 79.7 1206.7 -0.10 -0.10 so 12.06 .f2f)b.D0 : (I ZOb:~"'l'i c.. i.~ _.," I l..ot29 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 0 .00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 · 17/)q., .t:00 fl ?rf7/ rl s-a " ! i e.~.i?> l.ot30 One Pad 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1209.8 82.8 1ZC9.8 0.00 0.00 82.8 1208.8 1 206 .JJ~~O f-_l _", Z 3 $"0 l..ot31 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84.9 1211.9 -0.30 .Q.30 85.2 1211.2 1z.11 . .s-1'!s.:; 1 er 'f c · lot32 One Pad 85.2 1212.2 85.2 1212.2 84-9 1211.9 --0.30 --0.30 85.2 1211.2 tz tl.s-ti v I !:->·°!" ' Lot33 One Pad 89.2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.S 1215.S -0.70 --0.70 89-2 1215.2 l Z l ~-S-t:"I v I e<i . "° i l.ot34 One Pad 89_2 1216.2 89.2 1216.2 88.S 1215.S -0.70 -0.70 89.2 1215.2 i 21s-.~ [;'!. (.) i f;'I. 'il' { Z l l.~ - Lot35 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 12U.3 85.3 1212.3 0.00 0.00 85.3 1211.3 ~<;'I J f,(, oO Lot 36 One Pad 85.3 1212.3 85.3 1212.3 85.3 12123 0 .00 0.00 85.3 121.1..3 ( z;[{ -f.'·' j ~tio .0'7 --I .120 ?f D_UJ7.1)<t>\.''-Lot 37 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 ~2..Ki - lot38 One Pad 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 81.4 1208.4 0.00 0.00 81.4 1207.4 ·12127.S" (1 71117}e.\ 1. ; t.z 10 AB lot39 One Pad 77.S 12045 77.S /' , .... 775 1204.S 0.00 0.00 78.S €04? t1 2ot1.~ \ 1204-S ..... -n .~ 7!!. u? See Next Page for Continued 8el3tlon Information -~ H-35 PC Approved CC Approved Difference In l'ld and FI NALB&S {l'll ns (Plans Plan Check Submittal o...d Hollember2012ll Datedllnuoiy 2013 lf<SI""' RldgeUne Elevations APPROVED PLANS Lot Grade eM!fied-JUM2012) .. -· 2012plansJ (PlanrDo!Od-2m2) lblw«~l'llasw (Cly~ MIY201SI Number Diffemeces Pion Clltclos.bmltlllf Pad elev. Rldge Une Pad Elev. Ridge line Pad Elev. Rldgellne Pad Bev. Rldgellne Pad Elev. RldgeUne -\)Ml I fY. ~ ~ AB l.ot40 One Pad 77.5 1204.S n.s l ~.s~, 77.5 1204.5 0.00 0.00 78.S f'1204.S \.: ~ U 20 ~.~) ..,..,_ l j ;~·"'"' Lot41 One Pad 73.S 1200.S 73.S 1200.S 73.4 1200.4 -0.10 -0.10 73.5 1199.S l(qq.i -73 .3 I I .,"t "~ lot42 One Pad 73.S 1200.5 135 1200.S 73.4 UOOA -0.10 -0.10 73.S 1199.5 ll qq , 6 1 1 . J i 1 -..z.o Lot43 One Pad 69.6 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1195.7 -0.90 -0.90 69.6 1195.6 (l q~") {,'1 . 4 IV ~..:' l.ot44 One Pad 69.6 1196.6 69.6 1196.6 68.7 1195.7 --0.90 -0.90 69.6 1195.6 {f q_r _ ~ c,'f ."{ j "l "· 30 ~ It ~ .::z.s-I Lot45 One Pad 65.6 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 65.7 U92.7 0 lO 010 65.6 1189.2 c,s . ..J c:,i. N ! Lot46 One Pad 65.6 1192.6 65.6 1192.6 68.7 1192.7 g 10 <HO 65.6 1189.2 l I Bll .s-r.s -'-1 (,/,.1 0 - Lot47 (H )Pad 66.3 1181.5 66.3 1181.S 6S.9 1181.2 --0.40 -0.30 66.6 1180.9 u PJ (, ~ c,1,.1 (,1.JJ (L} Pad 56.3 56.3 56 56.3 S-{,.f ! c:--,..u o lot48 (HJ Pad 66.3 1181.5 66.3 1181.5 65.9 1181.2 -0.40 -0.30 66.6 -ll ~ (. z (,~.J I (,'7.JJ (L) Pad 56.3 563 56 56.3 ~·t,.. / I S 7 .CO lot49 CH) Pad 64.8 1180 64.8 1180 64.3 1179.7 -0.50 -0.30 64.8 1179.1 !( 70f. 9 (."!./, i "' ..S-1 (l) Pad 54.8 54.8 54.S SU s ~.J ' >S".lP lot SO (H)Pad 69.3 1184.S 69.3 :/1184.5~ 68.8 1185.8 -0.50 ~ l!D 69.6 fll-s~ lri ~.t:B ~ v i .¥ I '1t1 .'?) (l) Pad 59.3 59.3 58.8 59.3 s-'I . r ! t;.o.CO lot 51 {HJ Pad 70.8 1186 70.8 1186 70.8 1187.S o.oo U!O 71.1 1186.9 J J ((<?, 7. 2., I "70 . 'l ''1 1.8J (LJ Pad 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 I /,o. {p &i ;;c Lot52 (H)Pad 72.3 1187,5 72.3 ~tBo/ 72.8 1189.8 (J 50 2.. n .6 ~ ~6f'Ji .<i/. ""11. '( ; -n -:i ~ (L) Pad 62.3 62.3 62.8 ,_ --62.3 c,-z..1 , (.1 c;C -see Next Page for Continued Elewtlon fnfurm;rtion -- H-36 PC App roved CC Approved Difference In Pad and R NAL B&S (Pltos (Plans Plan Checlc Submlttid Rldge One Elevations --berlD12& DmdJa.-.,2023 &-APPROVED PIANS Lot Grade mrtlllod s1111o ..... .111ntlD12) •• -· 2DJ.2pllns) (PllMDaltd Morcll 20l21 111/wtt.....-•-• (Clly~Mop21115J Number Dlfferneces PllnClll!d<SUbmlml) Pad Elev. Ridgeli ne Pad Elev. Rldgellne PadElev. Rldgeline Pa d Bev. Rldgellne Pad Elev. Rldgefme .~ ytrl> F" - lot53 (H} Pad 74.3 1189.5 743 {u89~ 74.3 1191.3 0.00 l JIO 74.6 f19u· ~<qo.7 \ -i '"l .'1 '7S.JJ (L)Pad 64.3 643 64.3 ·-" 64.3 G.<i . I G.$'.o O (H) Pad 76.3 76.3 I 75.8 75.6 e Q t "l'l..·~/ 7i,.~ '"'11 .JJ Lot54 1191.5 '-11917' 1192.8 -0.50 1.30 (L)Pad 66.3 66.3 65.8 ~· -66.3 r.,t,,/ ' (,7 . pO Lot SS (HJ Pad 79 1194.2 79 U94.2 78.6 1193.8 -0.40 -0.40 79.3 1193.6 1(0/.3.°l "7 "1. l f:0 .<10 (L)Pad 69 69 68.6 69 c.11 . & : l.'i. 7&> lot56 (H) Pad 80.S 1195.7 80.S 1195.7 80.6 1195.8 0 10 0 .10 80.8 1195.1 (( e?t~V iu.Go t.1 .t;o (L) Pad 70.S 70.S 70.6 70.S 10 .) ""1l .'l,..0 (H)Pad 82 82 82.1 1197.3 0 .10 G 10 82.3 1196.7 (f q7 Z,-2 . I I !:-l -= lot57 1197.2 1197.2 (L) Pad 72 72 n.1 -72 1!· & (H)Pad 87.47 87.47 86.6 87.7 !2.0 l.-B"1 ·S- .... z . "10 1201.8 -0.87 -0.80 120L7 !'-!:·"<~ Lot 58 1202.6 1202.6 (l.) Pad nA 77.4 76.6 71.4 , "1 I l. i '7$.I U (H) Pad 88.9 88.9 86.6 87.7 l 2-0G ' t>"I S f:,t;~;. __ LOt59 1204.1 1204.1 1203.8 ·2.30 -D.30 77.1. 1201.7 I i (l) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 .,1 ·i.. ".71'-'".._ {H) Pad 88.9 88.9 88.6 89.2 f zos-~ .!'l .o i . ., ~) Lot60 1204.1 1204.1 1203.8 -o.30 -0.30 1203.2 -(L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 78.9 \ "1 E. ., '1 "L v<> Note: Lat ti 19, 20, ~. 22,. 4S and 4 6 were reqlliretlto be mfrJOld bpo mtrrl o/3'111 onlttrtoptd«tlllnls{t:ondlt1aa llo. USof llesollltlattt ~~ No. 2D13·3%. 11re ridge/Jne elewt/onssbown Ultdl!I fire CC A,,,,,_,/ coltlrnn, ~the ~,,,,,,,,,-bpthe «~,,.,,,,, l'lduml by 3~ The rltlgeliM elentlnuhawn UJl*'flle RPM! us APM01l!D PlANSslmwrlreflaol ddgdnu leWltlons thot• beWDStlwtal, whfch eomply with the CityCOUndl's requfreMnfs o/COlldJtlatl No. m to ntlllU tM rfdrldllflS br SJma J ', l2 ~(, C.t-1.-zr,j2-l I q 3'. ~ ... ,., . l lU0.7- H-37 FINAL Revised Matrix (reconciled by Director on July 29, 2016) H-38 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline (H) Pad 71.5 71.5 71 71.5 71.3 72.2 (L) Pad 61.5 61.5 61 61.2 61 61.9 (H) Pad 69.5 69.5 69 69.5 69.3 70.2 (L) Pad 59.5 59.5 59 59.2 59 59.9 (H) Pad 68 68 69 68 67.8 68.7 (L) Pad 58 58 59 57.7 57.5 58.4 (H) Pad 65.3 65.3 64.8 65.3 65.1 66 (L) Pad 55.3 55.3 54.8 55 54.8 55.7 (H) Pad 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.1 64 (L) Pad 53.3 53.3 53.3 53 52.8 53.7 (H) Pad 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.6 62.5 (L) Pad 51.8 51.8 51.8 51.5 51.3 52.2 (H) Pad 59.3 59.3 58.4 59.3 59.1 60 (L) Pad 49.3 49.3 48.4 49 48.8 49.7 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 58.4 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 47.5 47.3 48.2 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 58.4 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 48.4 47.5 47.3 48.2 (H) Pad 56.8 56.8 55.9 56.8 56.6 57.5 (L) Pad 46.8 46.8 45.9 46.5 46.3 47.17 (H) Pad 55.3 55.3 55.9 55.3 55.1 56 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 45 44.8 45.67 (H) Pad 55.3 55.3 55.9 55.3 55.1 56 (L) Pad 45.3 45.3 45.9 45 44.8 45.67 (H) Pad 54 54 54 54.1 53.8 54.8 (L) Pad 44 44 44 43.8 43.5 44.74 Reconciled by Director on July 29, 2016 Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) 1175.2 1174.1 1174.1 1170.40.000.00 1186.5 1186 -0.50 -0.50 1187.8 1185.8 1185.8 1181.2 1179.6 1178.1 1188.5 1188.5 1188 -0.50 -0.50 1180.3 1178.8 0.00 0.00 1180.3 1180.3 0.00 0.00 1182.3 1182.3 1181.8 -0.50 -0.50 1185 1185 1186 1.00 1.00 1186.5 1174.8 1175.4 0.60 0.60 1174.8 1174.8 1175.4 0.60 0.60 1176.3 1176.3 1175.4 -0.90 -0.90 1172.7 1171.6 1172.3 1172.3 1172.9 0.60 0.60 1171.6 1172.3 1172.3 1172.9 0.60 0.60 1173.8 1173.8 1172.9 -0.90 -0.90 1174.8 Lot 13 Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 1178.8 1178.8 PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 12 Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) 117111711171 Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) 1188.1 1186.1 1186.1 1181.5 1179.9 1178.4 1175.5 1174.4 1174.4 1173 1171.9 1171.9 1170.7 H-39 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 55.5 55.5 55.8 55.5 55.3 56.2 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 45.2 45 45.87 (H) Pad 55.5 55.5 55.81 55.5 55.3 56.2 (L) Pad 45.5 45.5 45.8 45.2 45 45.87 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47 47.5 47.3 48.17 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.5 47.3 48.17 (H) Pad 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.5 57.6 58.5 (L) Pad 47.8 47.8 47.8 47.5 47.3 48.17 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 75.7 1201.1 1172.5 1172.5 1172.8 0.31 0.30 1172.5 1172.5 1172.8 0.30 1171.80.30 0.00 0.00 1171.8 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 0.00 0.00 1174.8 1174.8 1174 -0.80 -0.80 1173.7 1173.7 68.4 1191.7 1191 -0.40 -0.4064.4 64 0.00 0.0068.4 68.4 1173.7 64.4 1187.8 1195.4 1195.4 1195.4 0.00 0.0068.4 68.4 1191.4 1191.4 1191 -0.40 -0.4064.4 64 64.4 1187.8 71.7 1197.7 75.7 1198.7 1198.7 1198.4 -0.30 -0.3071.7 71.4 1202.7 1202.7 1201.4 68.4 1191.7 71.7 1197.7 1202.7 1202.7 1201.4 -0.80 -1.3075.7 74.9 1198.7 1198.7 1198.4 -0.30 -0.30 1201.1 Lot 23 Lot 24 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 25 Lot 26 One Pad 64.4 One Pad 64.4 One Pad One Pad Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 1191.4 1191.4 -0.80 -1.3075.7 74.9 68.4 68.4 71.7 71.7 75.7 75.7 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 71.7 71.4 1195.4 1195.4 1195.4 1174.8 1174.8 1174.8 75.5 75.5 71.5 71.5 68.2 68.2 64.2 64.2 65.1 65.1 69.1 69.1 72.4 72.4 76.4 76.4 1172.1 1172.1 1174 1174 1174 1188.1 1188.1 1192 1192 1198 1198 1201.4 1201.4 H-40 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 80 1206 80 1206 82.8 1208.8 1206.8 1206.8 1206.7 -0.10 -0.1079.8 79.7 1206.8 1206.8 1206.7 -0.10 -0.1079.8 79.7 82.8 1208.8 1212.2 1212.2 1211.9 -0.30 -0.3085.2 84.9 1212.2 1212.2 1211.9 -0.30 -0.3085.2 84.9 85.2 1211.2 85.2 1211.2 -0.70 -0.7089.2 88.5 1216.2 1216.2 1215.5 -0.70 -0.7089.2 88.5 89.2 1215.2 89.2 1215.2 81.4 1212.3 1212.3 1212.3 0.00 0.0085.3 85.3 1212.3 1212.3 1212.3 0.00 0.0085.3 85.3 1216.2 1216.2 1215.5 85.3 1211.3 85.3 1211.3 1208.4 1208.4 1208.4 0.00 0.0081.4 81.4 1208.4 1208.4 1208.4 0.00 0.0081.4 81.4 81.4 1207.4 1207.4 1204.5 1204.5 1204.5 0.00 0.0077.5 77.5 78.5 1204.5 Lot 31 Lot 32 Lot 33 Lot 34 Lot 35 Lot 36 Lot 27 Lot 28 Lot 29 Lot 30 Lot 37 Lot 38 Lot 39 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 79.8 79.8 82.8 82.8 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 85.2 1209.8 1209.8 1209.8 0.00 0.0082.8 82.8 1209.8 1209.8 1209.8 0.00 0.00 One Pad One Pad 85.3 85.3 81.4 81.4 77.5 One Pad One Pad One Pad 85.2 89.2 89.2 82.8 82.8 77.3 81.2 81.2 85.1 85.1 89 89 85 85 82.6 82.6 79.6 79.6 80.7 80.7 83.5 83.5 85.9 85.9 89.9 89.9 86 86 82.1 82.1 78.2 1206.6 1206.6 1208.88 1208.88 1211.5 1211.5 1215.5 1215.5 1211.6 1211.6 1207.5 1207.5 1204.8 H-41 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.9 66.6 66.4 67.33 (L) Pad 56.3 56.3 56 56.3 56.1 57 (H) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.9 66.6 66.4 67.33 (L) Pad 56.3 56.3 56 56.3 56.1 57 (H) Pad 64.8 64.8 64.3 64.8 64.6 65.53 (L) Pad 54.8 54.8 54.5 54.5 54.3 55.2 (H) Pad 69.3 69.3 68.8 69.6 69.4 70.33 (L) Pad 59.3 59.3 58.8 59.3 59.1 60 (H) Pad 70.8 70.8 70.8 71.1 70.9 71.83 (L) Pad 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.8 60.6 61.5 (H) Pad 72.3 72.3 72.8 72.6 72.4 73.33 (L) Pad 62.3 62.3 62.8 62.3 62.1 63 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information 1204.5 1204.5 1204.5 0.00 0.0077.5 77.5 78.5 1204.5 73.5 1199.5 1196.6 1196.6 1195.7 -0.90 -0.9069.6 68.7 1196.6 1196.6 1195.7 -0.90 -0.9069.6 68.7 69.6 1195.6 69.6 1200.5 1200.5 1192.6 1192.6 1192.7 3.10 0.1065.6 68.7 1192.6 1192.6 1192.7 0.10 0.1065.6 65.7 65.6 1189.2 65.6 1189.2 1195.6 1180.9 1180.9 -0.50 1.30 1180 1180 1179.7 -0.50 -0.30 1179.1 1185.5 1181.5 1181.5 1181.2 -0.40 -0.30 1181.5 1181.5 1181.2 -0.40 -0.30 1184.5 1184.5 1185.8 0.50 2.30 1186 1186 1187.8 0.00 1.80 1186.9 1188.51187.5 1187.5 1189.8 Lot 43 Lot 44 Lot 45 Lot 46 Lot 47 Lot 48 Lot 40 Lot 41 Lot 42 65.6 One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad One Pad 77.5One Pad 73.5One Pad 73.5 69.6 69.6 73.5 73.4 73.5 1199.5 1200.4 -0.10 -0.1073.5 73.4 1200.5 1200.5 1200.4 -0.10 -0.10 65.4 65.4 69.4 69.4 73.3 73.3 77.3 78.2 74.2 74.2 70.3 70.3 66.3 66.3 1204.8 1199.8 1199.8 1195.9 1195.9 1189.5 1189.5 1181.2 1181.2 1179.4 1185.8 1187.2 1188.8 65.6 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51 Lot 52 H-42 Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.Ridgeline Pad Elev.FF Elev.Ridgeline Difference in Pad and Ridgeline Elevations (b/w CC Approved Plans and Plan Check FINAL B&S APPROVED PLANS (City Approved May 2015) Lot Number Grade Differneces CC Approved (Plans Dated January 2013 & same as Nov. 2012 plans) PC Approved (Plans Dated November 2012 & certified silhouette June 2012) Plan Check Submittal (Plans Dated March 2012) Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 (Director Approved on September 3, 2015) (H) Pad 74.3 74.3 74.3 74.6 74.4 75.33 (L) Pad 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.3 64.1 65 (H) Pad 76.3 76.3 75.8 76.6 76.4 77.33 (L) Pad 66.3 66.3 65.8 66.3 66.1 67 (H) Pad 79 79 78.6 79.3 79.1 80 (L) Pad 69 69 68.6 69 68.8 69.7 (H) Pad 80.5 80.5 80.6 80.8 80.6 81.5 (L) Pad 70.5 70.5 70.6 70.5 70.3 71.2 (H) Pad 82 82 82.1 82.3 82.1 83 (L) Pad 72 72 72.1 72 71.8 72.7 (H) Pad 87.4 87.4 86.6 87.7 87.5 88.43 (L) Pad 77.4 77.4 76.6 77.4 77.2 78.1 (H) Pad 88.9 88.9 88.6 87.7 87.5 88.43 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 77.4 77.2 78.1 (H) Pad 88.9 88.9 88.6 89.2 89 89.93 (L) Pad 78.9 78.9 78.6 78.9 78.7 79.6 See Next Page for Continued Elevation Information -0.50 1.30 1189.5 1189.5 1191.3 0.00 1.80 1190.4 1192.51191.5 1191.5 1192.8 0.10 0.10 1194.2 1194.2 1193.8 -0.40 -0.40 1193.6 1195.11195.7 1195.7 1195.8 -0.80 -0.80 1197.2 1197.2 1197.3 0.10 0.10 1196.7 1201.71202.6 1202.6 1201.8 -0.30 -0.30 1204.1 1204.1 1203.8 -0.30 -0.30 1201.7 1203.21204.1 1204.1 1203.8 Lot 58 Lot 59 Lot 55 Lot 56 Lot 57 Note: Lot # 19, 20, 21, 22, 45 and 46 were required to be reduced by a total of 3' in order to protect views (Condition No. 115 of Resolution No. 2013-31. The ridgeline elevations shown under the CC Approved column, show the ridgelines approved by the CC before being reduced by 3'. The ridgeline elevatins shown under the Revision to Minor Modification No. 3 column show the final ridgeline elevations that will be constructed, which comply with the City Council's requirements of Condition No. 115, to reduce the ridgelines by at least 3'. 1193.9 1195.4 1197 1202 1202 1203.5 1190.7 1192.8 Lot 60 Lot 53 Lot 54 H-43 1 Amy Seeraty From:Raquel <raquelbrown614@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 08, 2018 4:22 PM To:Jennifer Norton; Amy Seeraty; customercare@taylormorrison.com; spalmer@taylormorrison.com; dsherman@taylormorrison.com; dcone@taylormorrison.com; ghughes@taylormorrison.com Cc:Bruce Edelson Subject:Sol Y Mar Exterior Lighting Attachments:To- TM From- Sol Y Mar Exterior Lighting.pdf; ATT00001.htm Greetings, Below and attached is correspondence about the need for TM to provide additional exterior lighting before they are no longer responsible as the builder/developer. While this has been brought to TM’s attention previously, it is imperative that we work together to ensure TM accepts responsibility for installing/funding additional lighting. As a Plan F resident, I can assure you that the porch is completely dark as the light is mounted, outside the porch cavity, on the wall pointing down into the landscape. I look forward to an affirmative reply from TM. Keep well, Mr. & Mrs. Brown 1010 EDM ( Plan F) J-1 1 Amy Seeraty From:Bruce Edelson <bruceedelson@cox.net> Sent:Monday, August 06, 2018 2:35 PM To:jennifer@ch-pm.com Cc:customercare@taylormorrison.com; Amy Seeraty Subject:EXTERIOR LIGHTING - SOL Y MAR Attachments:Sol Y Mar Exterior Lighting.pdf A hard copy of the attached letter is being mailed to each of you tomorrow. Copies of the letter have been sent to residents of Sol Y Mar asking that if they have any input it be directed to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me Bruce H. Edelson, P. E.  bruceedelson@cox.net  1024 Estrella Del Mar, RPV  310‐544‐7007  J-2 1 Amy Seeraty Subject:FW: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs From:   Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:22 PM  To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Re: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs  Hi Amy,  I forgot an important comment.  I do not support any changes to our guest parking rules and hope usage of  our guest parking can remain at the resident's discretion.  We do not have parking abuses in our community as  we are never fully occupied in our guest spaces, and we are not open to parking abuses by the outside  community because we have an entry gate.    Can the City remove the stated discretion of the HOA being able to add parking enforcement rules to our  community?  Adding such rules will allow the HOA to hire nighttime patrols authorized to tow our guests  vehicles if not registered with the HOA in a relatively short amount of time.  I find this rule intrusive.  It also  removes 1/3 of our guest spaces to be available only to residents who have agreed to pay for the extended  use of a space, thus subtracting the open usage of our 31 guest parking spaces.  The proposed patrols are not  solving any parking violations, and will disturb our community late at night.  I fear they will not honor the 15  MPH speed limit, will disturb and alert our pets and with only add to the dangerous situation for pedestrians  we have in our community that lacks sidewalks and has blind corners.      J-3 1 Amy Seeraty Subject:FW: Parking changed in Sol Y Mar From:   Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:22 AM  To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Fwd: Parking changed in Sol Y Mar  Begin forwarded message: From: Date: September 17, 2019 at 9:17:26 AM PDT To: amys@rpvca.com Subject: Parking changed in Sol Y Mar City of RPV I wholly object to any changes to our open use of our guest parking in Sol Y Mar. Along with the changes requested at the City level our Board will require we register our guest vehicles and even propose to have a parking patrol enter our gated community every night with the intention of towing unregistered vehicles. We do not have any parking violation issues in our community and do not require any changes. We object to any parking rules changes. J-4 1 Amy Seeraty Subject:FW: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231 From:   Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:06 PM  To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Re: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs  Hi Amy,    I have reviewed the attachments re our upcoming City Council meeting and am forwarding my opinions and  concerns directly to you as we discussed.    1. We have safety issues on our streets because we have no sidewalks.  Often our residents are not able  to swiftly get out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, both residents and commercial, driving faster  than the posted 15mph.  We have blind corners and often do not even hear the approaching vehicle.  I  have had to jump out of the way several times while walking my pet at night to avoid being hit.  For  seniors who are often hard of hearing or physically disabled, this is a danger.   2. I live alone and yet must leave parking for two vehicles in my personal garage space?  This makes no  sense to me. I should be able to utilize my garage space beyond parking two cars at my discretion as  long as it can house my vehicle.  3. We lack privacy between many of our units.  The CC&Rs discuss 'Party Walls' but these are poorly  defined.  Are we, with the coordination and  permission of our adjoining neighbors, allowed to  construct a privacy barrier?  My unit adjoins with my neighbors at our bedrooms and we are less than  12' feet away from each other with zero privacy because the dividing wall is 42".  4. We have public abuse of our pathways and private seating areas.  I often find outside  community visitors using our lawns for picnics and often non residents are sitting on our benches.  I  understand that the City dictates that we allow trail access, but these uninvited strangers often leave  pet waste and trash, attempt to look into our units and walk in and out of our community off the  pathways with Trail signage.  Are we allowing strangers to enter without restrictions to allow us our  privacy and safety?  5. Lighting is a huge issue for our pet owners, and other members of this community, especially in the  winter months when it can be dark here before 5p.  We have no adequate lighting on our lawns, our  stairs and our pathways that will allow senior residents to safely walk on our grounds.  We have been  told to utilize flashlights but that is not safe or practical when we have a leashed pet and need to bend  to pick up waste, many of us do not have the flexibility or balance to safely do so juggling a flashlight.  J-5 2 6. We have no sidewalks and to enter the street to walk we have a challenging gutter height, sometimes  with no lighting.  7. Our streets are already poorly maintained with the slurry failure very noticeable   8. The utility boxes throughout the grounds are very unsightly and even soiled from construction,  oftentimes right at our front doors.  9. The house numbers are identical on both our streets.  This has caused great confusion when having  deliveries.  Many times my groceries have ended up at another home because the street numbers are  identical on both streets.  I then need to bother my neighbor and load my groceries into my car to take  to my home.  This presents a challenge because I am having groceries delivered to help with a disability  that makes it hard to shop for myself.  10. Does it make sense to have an evacuation plan?  In the event of an emergency we will have 60  plus vehicles attempting to exit the gate at once.  11. Our mailboxes are placed in direct sunlight making it impossible to receive some packages such as  mailed medications.  The medications are not protected from heat since the mailboxes have no  weather protection.  Additionally the areas are not lit, thus in the winter we have to collect our mail  before 5p. There is no rain protection either. Many of our front door areas also lack weather protection  so delivering medication to our front doors does not resolve the mailbox exposure issue.  Would the  Planning Dept. approve some residents adding awnings at their front doors to give us weather  protection?  12. Is our 55 plus age restricted community deemed be 100% age qualified or 80% age qualified and 20%  above 45 or a caregiver or disabled family member?    13. Many of the units here have neighbors windows looking directly into our living spaces. Can we state  that we are allowed to utilize acceptable plantings to address our lack or privacy?      Thank you for your time in reviewing my concerns.  I understand that many of my comments might not be  resolved at the City level, but appreciate your review so you can incorporate into your report any solutions  you might be able to offer.         J-6 1 Amy Seeraty Subject:FW: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs From:   Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 10:12 AM  To: Amy Seeraty <AmyS@rpvca.gov>  Subject: Re: Conditions of Approval & CC&Rs  Thank you for considering my comments. Sol Y Mar as a community for active seniors is very much needed and appreciated in Rancho Palos Verdes, and I am grateful the City worked so hard to make our community a reality! With some fine tuning to address these issues, our community will be a wonderful place to reside. J-7 1 Amy Seeraty From:Margarita Garza <margaritagarza13@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 10:35 AM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Sol y Mar Parking Changes - I TOTALLY OPPOSE > Hi Amy, > I am a property owner at Sol y Mar and totally oppose to rent out parking spaces for a fee, and/or to hire a service to patrol our community’s parking for the purpose of insuring parking is not being used by property owners- We are a 60 units community where parking, in my opinion, is at less than 50% capacity. > I have communicated this to our HOA Board in multiple occasions- both verbally and in writing. > > I also wanted to share that from the comments I’ve heard throughout the community, majority is against this change. > > Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. > > Margarita Garza > 1008 Estrella Del Mar > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 > 310-567-8170 > > :) J-8 1 Amy Seeraty From:Margarita Garza <margaritagarza13@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 07, 2018 12:21 PM To:Amy Seeraty; Taylor Morrison Customer Care; HOA - Sol Y Mar (Jennifer Norton)x206 Subject:Safety Concerns at Sol y Mar Attachments:attachment 1.pdf Hello, for safety reasons, I hereby completely agree with the attached letter from Bruce H. Edelson, requesting additional exterior lighting for our community at Sol y Mar. Please note that this request for adequate lighting is well within the City’s “Dark Skies” standard requirement. Also, due to safety concerns, I ask that this request is addressed, approved and corrected expeditiously. Thank you! Margarita Garza 1008 Estrella Del Mar Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 :) J-9 1 Amy Seeraty From:Margarita Garza <margaritagarza13@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 07, 2018 12:41 PM To:Amy Seeraty; Taylor Morrison Customer Care; HOA - Sol Y Mar (Jennifer Norton)x206 Subject:Re: Safety Concerns at Sol y Mar Attachments:attachment 1.pdf Hello, for safety reasons, I hereby completely support the attached request sent by Bruce Edelson for additional exterior lighting for our community at Sol y Mar. > > Please note that the request for adequate lighting is well within the City’s “Dark Skies” standard requirements. > > Due to the safety concerns around this, I ask this request is addressed, approved and corrected expeditiously. > > Thank you, > > > Margarita Garza > 1008 Estrella Del Mar > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 J-10 Sent as an Email Attachment on 9-18-19 To:Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner, RPV Date:September 18, 2019 Subject:Sol y Mar - Landscaping Annual Review on 10-1-19 Please include this document in your staff analysis for the City Council's meeting on 10-1-19. Comments From my perspective, this project looks like a mass of buildings with very sparse foliage throughout its interior to soften the unpleasant harsh effects of the stark walls, etc. It's definitely not the look I expected for this upscale town home project, especially given the more rural nature of our Peninsula. Requests To resolve this, please consider: Adding some plants inside the complex that would grow larger/taller and be strategically-placed to shield the buildings' walls, etc. from the view of upslope properties. And to break-up this massive block of buildings. To partially resolve this issue from my street (Oceanridge Drive - referenced in the project's view protection Conditions) please add such plants at Estrella Court to shield the large side walls of: building 18 (unit 58) and building 12 nearest the parking lot. (Plus at other locations to achieve the above mentioned desired results.) Please Note: I appreciate the tremendous efforts that resulted in Conditions of Approval which protect the valuable distant views seen from upslope residential properties (overlooking Sol y Mar). In particular that the project's landscaping is not allowed to exceed a maximum height "line" as stipulated in the Conditions. And I am not suggesting that any changes be made to such Conditions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, April Steiger 29146 Oceanridge Drive, RPV 90275 J-11 From:Joseph Lorenzen To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Lighting Situation At Sol Y Mar Date:Sunday, August 12, 2018 11:21:05 AM Hello Amy Seeraty: This is a copy of my letter to Bruce Edelson regarding the lighting situation at the Sol Y Mar development. Thank you, Joe Lorenzen Sol Y Mar 1016 Calle Stellare Hello Bruce: I certainly appreciate your letter and the effort you have taken to address the poor lighting situation we have here at Sol Y Mar. I have brought this issue up at numerous meetings and covered it in great detail in a survey I received from Taylor Morrison. I have been thinking of going to the City of Ranch Palos Verdes to discuss the lighting situation. I'm glad to see that you have already been there. I agree with you 100% in all that you covered in your letter and will gladly support you in this effort. One additional item that I put in the Taylor Morrison survey is additional street lighting (at the corner of Calle Stellare and Estrella Court and then at the curve from Calle Stellare and Estrella Del Mar). These corners are very dark (especially when there's no moon out) while walking across the corner and a car comes around the corner at a good rate. I came close to getting hit while walking my dogs one night at the corner of Calle Stellare and Estrella Court. A car came around the corner fast while I was at the edge of the street and it just brushed by us. I'm sure the driver never saw us. I was a little shook up from it; my dogs looked and acted the same. So because of the inadequate lighting, these corners can be very dangerous if you can't move very fast. Also lighting on the walkways around the lawn and dog park would make things safer. Twice I have come across coyotes by the dog park and walking area in the evening. I've had to chase them away by using a strong light and a fog horn. I would be willing to work with you to make the situation safer. Joe Lorenzen lorenzenjd@gmail.com 1016 Calle Stellare J-12 1 Amy Seeraty From:Brian Macey <bmacey916@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:37 AM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Fwd: Sol y Mar Amy, I met with you yesterday morning concerning the proposed changes to the parking requirement at Sol y Mar. I am opposed to changing the current requirements; the only parking problem we have is imagined by a very few people in the community. Also, any clarification you can add with regard to replacing the unsightly "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs would be appreciated. Specifically, might we be able to replace them with a more aesthetically pleasing sign and fewer of them?-- Best Regards, Brian R. Macey 1021 Calle Stellare Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 bmacey916@gmail.com 303.400.1900 -- Best Regards, Brian R. Macey 1021 Calle Stellare Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 bmacey916@gmail.com 303.400.1900 J-13 1 Amy Seeraty From:Marie Macey <mvmacey54@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 9:40 AM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Parking changes in Sol y Mar I do not support any proposed parking changes & all it entails such as parking patrol in the Sol y Mar community.    Marie Macey  1021 Calle Stellare  RPV,CA 90275    Sent from my iPhone  J-14 1 Amy Seeraty From:Doug Mew <dougmew@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 06, 2018 4:48 PM To:jennifer@ch-pm.com; customercare@taylormorrison.com; Amy Seeraty Cc:Bruce Edelson Subject:Sol y Mar Exterior Lighting Attachments:Sol Y Mar Exterior Lighting.pdf; ATT00001.htm Addressees: We concur with the attached letter dated August 6, 2018 prepared by Bruce Edelson regarding inadequate lighting at Sol y Mar Villas. It is of paramount importance that a meeting be setup as outlined in the letter to review in person all the lighting issues. Other areas of concerned not documented with pictures though addressed in writing include but are not limited to the Walk way to Community Garden Area, Dog Park, and an entry way on Estrella Court. All of these issues need to be addressed prior to Taylor Morrison closing the constructions books on Sol y Mar Villas. J-15 1 Amy Seeraty From:Jennifer Norton <jennifer@ch-pm.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 07, 2018 1:21 PM To:Margarita Garza; Amy Seeraty; Taylor Morrison Customer Care Subject:RE: Safety Concerns at Sol y Mar Thank you. I have forwarded your concerns to Taylor Morrison for review. Jennifer Norton, CCAM, CMCA Director of Community Management Crummack Huseby Inc. 25531 Commercentre Drive, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 P 949-367-9430 ext 206 E jennifer@ch- pm.com W ch-pm.com We value your feedback. Take this brief survey to let us know how we're doing. -----Original Message----- From: Margarita Garza <margaritagarza13@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 12:41 PM To: Amy Seeraty <amys@rpvca.gov>; Taylor Morrison Customer Care <customercare@taylormorrison.com>; Jennifer Norton <jennifer@ch-pm.com> Subject: Re: Safety Concerns at Sol y Mar Hello, for safety reasons, I hereby completely support the attached request sent by Bruce Edelson for additional exterior lighting for our community at Sol y Mar. > > Please note that the request for adequate lighting is well within the City’s “Dark Skies” standard requirements. > > Due to the safety concerns around this, I ask this request is addressed, approved and corrected expeditiously. > > Thank you, > > > Margarita Garza > 1008 Estrella Del Mar > Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 J-16 From:Milliken, Anne M. To:"jennifer@ch-pm.com"; "customercare@taylormorrison.com"; Amy Seeraty Cc:"bruceedelson@cox.net" Subject:RE: SOL Y MAR EXTERIOR LIGHTING Date:Tuesday, August 14, 2018 2:00:17 PM Anne Milliken, RN BSN OCN GI Nurse Navigator - Cancer Resource Center HUNT CANCER INSTITUTE - Torrance Memorial Medical Center 3330 Lomita Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 517-1115 / Fax: (310) 784-6949 anne.milliken@tmmc.com From: Milliken, Anne M. Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:27 PM To: 'jennifer@ch-pm.com'; 'customercare@taylormorrison.com'; 'amy@rpvca.gov' Cc: 'bruceedelson@cox.net' Subject: SOL Y MAR EXTERIOR LIGHTING Good afternoon Taylor Morrison, Jennifer, and Amy, I live at 1014 Calle Stellare (Unit 42) and as a resident of Sol y Mar for almost one year, I would like to start off by saying that I am impressed by the quality and attention to detail you have invested in designing and building the Villa-Townhomes. However, the attention to detail in the Landscape and Lighting plan was not carried out to the same level of excellence as the homes were. The Common area where the Bocce Ball courts, the Fire Pit, and the hillside pathway is dangerous for anyone standing or walking in that vicinity beginning from dusk to nighttime darkness. There should have been some solar-type lights or sensor-type lights installed in that area for the safety and security of the residents. Not only will the soft outdoor lights protect our assets at Sol y Mar from potential vandalism or property damage; but, the lights will also serve as a safety measure to gently light up the Common area at the Bocce ball Courts, Fire Pit, and hillside pathway (the Trail does not need to be lit up. For example, I have literally almost walked off the edge of the hillside several times when it was dusk as I could not clearly see where the flat terrain ended and the hillside slope began. I am surprised that gentle lighting was not required as part of your outdoor lighting development plan for that particular area as specified by the City of RPV Building and Safety permitting process. Why was this Common Area not addressed properly for lighting by the City of RPV when the development was reviewed and signed-off by City of RPV officials? What can we do as residents to ensure that our safety is ensured with proper soft lighting in the Common areas of our community? Thank you, Anne Milliken, RN BSN OCN GI Oncology Nurse Navigator – HUNT CANCER INSTITUTE Torrance Memorial Medical Center Direct: (310) 517-1115 / Fax: (310) 784-6949 anne.milliken@tmmc.com J-17 1 Amy Seeraty From:Chandra Sivapuram <sivapuramsolutions@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 2:47 PM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Parking patrol and changes to parking CC&Rs : Sol Y Mar Dear County officials: I do not support any proposed changes. Thanks and Regards Chandra Sivapuram 1000 Estrella Del Mar Rancho Palos Verdes CA-90275 Phone: 4094445365 Sent from my iPhone J-18 From:Nancy Roy To:Sol y Mar-HOA; customercare@taylormorrison.com; Amy Seeraty Subject:Sol y Mar Community Lighting Date:Thursday, August 9, 2018 5:32:44 AM I am the owner of 1022 Estrella Del Mar, a plan F condominium at Sol y Mar and have lived at this address since May, 2018. I am in total support of upgrading the lighting in different areas of our community. The negative impact of limited lighting imposed on this community by the “Dark Skies” requirement seems dangerous to those of us living here. Specific to my unit, I am writing to inform you of the safety and security problems derived from poor lighting. Because there is no lighting directly over my front door, I am unable to discern the identity of anyone through my peephole in the evening/early morning. Also, I am unable to easily locate my keyhole in the darkness in order to insert my key into the front door. I have to “hunt and peck” at the keyhole area to open my door causing a delay in entering my home. I am concerned that a possible assailant/intruder could use this delay to forcibly enter my home. As a single, seventy year-old woman living alone, I find my inability to identify guests or possible unknown individuals in front of my home to be incredibly disturbing and a cause for significant anxiety. Additionally, the lack of light in front of my doorway obscures a step into the vestibule area and to my front door. This causes a significant concern that guests coming to my home in the evening or early morning hours may trip and fall upon entering or exiting my home. I would be happy to elaborate on the darkness safety and security issues at my unit in Sol y Mar and can be reached at 310-480-6466. Regards, Nancy Roy J-19 BRUCE H EDELSON, P. E. 1024 Estrella Del Mar Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-7007 bruceedelson@cox.net August 6, 2018 Ms. Jennifer Norton Crummack Huseby Suite 100 25531 Commercentre Drive Lake Forest, CA 92630 RE:SOL Y MAR LIGHTING Dear Ms. Norton As many of us have discussed with you and the Board, there is a lack of proper lighting in many areas of the development. The existing lighting is excellent, but there are locations where this lighting does not extend to cover entrances and walkways. We believe this is a significant safety and legal liability issue that must be addressed before the developer leaves the site and the premises are fully turned over to the Homeowners’ Association. We understand the desire to maintain Rancho Palos Verdes as a “Dark Skies City” and to reduce upward and spillover lighting. We understand Taylor Morrison has stated they have approached the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to discuss this matter and the City has rejected any program to improve the lighting. Residents of our community have discussed this with the City Planning and Building & Safety personnel and these City personnel have indicated they have no objection to improving the lighting, provided they are provided with a comprehensive plan. We believe the lighting needs to be improved in specific areas and that the employment of the same luminaire that is currently installed will be suitable to provide the additional necessary lighting. Lack of lighting at the vestibule entrances of the “F” Plan residences. Most of these front doors are in complete darkness and the homeowner cannot see to insert their key into the door lock. General lack of lighting at numerous sections of the development walkways, especially where these walkways terminate at the rolled curbs. The rolled curbs present a specific walking hazard. Total lack of lighting to the Fire Pit. This location is down a flight of unlit steps. Inadequate lighting on walkways to the dog park and community garden area. J-20 This is a “55 and Over” Community. Senior citizens have a much broader range of health problems, especially eye sight and balance than a cross section of all citizens. It is especially important that these issues be considered in the planning, design, and construction of communities planned for senior citizens. As stated previously, there is not only a health and safety issue with the lack of proper lighting, but there could be a significant financial liability if a resident or guest is injured or worse because of inadequate lighting. This is a Developer issue and should not be a liability on the HOA, the Property Manager, and the residents. I have attached pictures that indicate the areas of concern. Upon receipt of the existing exterior lighting plan from Taylor Morrison, a marked-up plan will be provided to show the specific lighting requirements. I appreciate your assistance on this matter and am more than willing to provide additional information if you need it. An evening walk through the development, with representatives from your office, Taylor Morrison, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department, and homeowners would be an excellent way to evaluate the deficiencies and develop a Plan of Action to correct them. I am willing to arrange this. Cordially Bruce H Edelson, P. E. 1024 Estrella Del Mar Cc: Amy Seeraty, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Yvonne Benschop, Project Mgr. Sol Y Mar Taylor Morrison of California, LLC Sol Y Mar Residents (by email) J-21 1 SOL Y MAR ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING NEEDS (in order of perceived priority) Floor Plan F Front Door – The “porch” light for Floor Plan “F” residences was not located at the front door. This door is actually located in a small (~4 ft X 4’ vestibule) while the “porch” light is located on the exterior wall about 10 ft. from the front door. The actual light is blocked by a building protuberance that throws the front door in a shadow. The front door is raised about 6” above the vestibule walk, that presents a tripping hazard even if adequate light is provided. Because of the shadowing, it is extremely difficult to even find the keyhole to open the door much less avoid tripping over the threshold. Additionally, there is insufficient light to see a “visitor” through the front door vision hole. This situation presents both a safety and a security hazard. This There are two potential solutions to this matter: (1)Install an additional walkway light near the front door. The light could be powered from a nearby walkway light. This effort would include procuring the additional light fixture, running underground cable, construction of the concrete pedestal, and installing and wiring the fixture. This additional light would be required for all “F” floor plans except one unit that already has an additional walkway light near the front entrance (2)Install an additional exterior wall sconce in the entry vestibule. The light could be powered from the existing porch light sconce, about 10 ft. away. This would require fishing the electrical service either through the ceiling space to a new electrical box in the vestibule or fishing the electrical service in the wall from the existing light to the new electrical box in the vestibule. Private Walkways to Various Residences - About five units have unusually long (> 30 ft.) walkways from the street to the entrance door. Unfortunately, in each case they are serviced by only a single walkway light which has an effective (>0.5 f.c.) lateral range of only 25 feet. Providing an additional walkway light to service each of these long walkways will provide adequate safety and security lighting. The best example of this problem is at 1001 Calle Stelliare (the former model home). Fire Pit Access – The Fire Pit located at the north east corner of the property is down a steep flight of steps from the Bocce Ball Court. There is no lighting on the walkway from the parking area at the intersection of Calle Stelliare and Estrella Del Mar to the Fire Pit. It is likely that the times of major use of the Fire Pit will be between sunset and late in the evening it is essential that safety lighting be provided for this walkway. The walkway, including the 16 steps, was measured at approximately 175 feet. The effective lateral range of lighting for the current exterior walkway lights is about 24 ft. Approximately 7 to 8 additional walkway lights need to be installed to provide the necessary safe passage from the street to the Fire Pit. These luminaires should be installed so that in addition to a photo electrical control they are also on motion detectors, so they would only be activated when required. This will reduce light pollution and energy costs. J-22 2 Public Walkway – The public walkway passes north of all the residences on the City side of the Development. While the walkway is intended to be only open to the public during sunrise to sunset, there is no current means by which the walkway can be restricted to use at those times. As a matter of safety to the public and the residents and to avoid potential litigation, walkway lighting should be provided along the entire length of the public walkway. No measurement has been made to determine the number of lights required. These lights should also be on motion detectors. J-23 SOL Y MAR – EXTERIOR LIGHTING 1 PLAN “F” EXTERIOR FRONT DOOR LIGHTING J-24 SOL Y MAR – EXTERIOR LIGHTING 2 PRIVATE WALKWAYS TO HOME J-25 SOL Y MAR – EXTERIOR LIGHTING 3 WALKWAY AND STAIRS TO FIRE PIT J-26 SOL Y MAR – EXTERIOR LIGHTING 4 PUBLIC WALKWAY WITHOUT WALKWAY LIGHTING J-27 BRUCE H EDELSON, P. E. SOL Y MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 1024 Estrella Del Mar Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 310-544-7007 bruceedelson@cox.net July 4, 2019 Mr. Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE:SOL Y MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION – 5601 CRESTRIDGE DR. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW Dear Ara In working with Ms. Amy Seeraty of your office, I was informed that there will be a one-year review of the Conditions of Approval established when the developer, Taylor Morrison was given the approval to initiate construction and development of this community. Ms. Seeraty advised that this review would occur at the regularly scheduled City Council meeting the evening of August 20, 2019 and requested that our Association be present at the meeting and to provide any comments on the Conditions of Approval. She further requested that we should provide any comments in a written format in late June so they could be reviewed by the Community Development staff prior to the Council meeting. Our Board of Directors have undertaken a detailed review of the current Conditions of Approval and would like to comment and propose changes to three items: Parking Public Trail Exterior Safety and Security Lighting. On the first two items, we are asking for specific changes to the Conditions of Approval that I believe you will find reasonable. On the issues of Exterior Safety and Security Lighting we are not asking for any changes to the Conditions, but simply for the City’s assistance in ensuring the Developer meets the minimum and necessary standard for exterior safety and security lighting for the Development. Please see the attached document for a detailed explanation of these three issues. If it is your desire, members of our Board would be pleased to meet with you in advance to discuss these proposals. Cordially Bruce H. Edelson, P. E. President, Sol Y Mar Community Association Cc:Ms. Amy Seeraty – City of Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Rob Quinn - The Management Trust J-28 1 REVIEW OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – SOL Y MAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION - RESOLUTION NO. 2013-31 GUEST PARKING Thefollowingparagraphsinthe Conditionsof Approval arerelatedtoresidentand guestParking. Conditions of Approval – Section 3 A. 2. Parking throughout the site will be provided to residents of the facility within dedicated 2-car garages for each unit, and visitor parking will be available throughout the site. Conditions of Approval Exhibit A 1.I. A total of 31 guest parking spaces distributed throughout the site to supplement the two-car garages available for each condominium unit. 68. No parking shall be allowed on the internal private street. 70. A minimum of 31 guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained throughout the development. 118.Theprivatedrivewayandparkingareas shallmeetFireDepartment standards,includingany painting or stenciling of curbs denoting its existence as a Fire Lane and turn-arounds. 123. The approved project shall provide and maintain a 2-car enclosed garage for each unit. Further, a minimum of 31 off-street guest parking spaces shall be provided and maintained. Proposal The Condominium Association recognizes and concurs with the Conditions of Approval as stated above; however, desires some flexibility in enforcement of these requirements. Specifically, we desire the Association Board of Directors be allowed to issue up to 10 resident homeownersapermitthatallowsaresidenthomeownertoparkanauthorizedvehicleinaGuest Parking space overnight, PROVIDED, that there are adequate parking spaces available for any guest. Such permit will be revocable on a temporary or permanent basis at any time by the action of a majority of the Board of Directors. A temporary revocation would be during periods of heavy guest use, such as a holiday period or when a resident may be having a party, or an Association party at the Community Center. This would be closely monitored by our nighttime security patrol or other means. Residents would be able to advise when overnight guests are parking, so they would be on an authorized list. Residents would also be able to notify management if they were having a party and expected to need parking spaces during the evening. J-29 2 Permanent revocation of a resident’s parking permit would be undertaken if a resident continuously violates parking rules or other rules of the Association. Authorized vehicles would be those authorized by the Association Covents, Conditions and Regulations. J-30 3 PUBLIC TRAIL The following paragraphs in the Conditions of Approval are related to the Public Trail/Path. Section 2 D. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.Therearenoknownpublicaccesseasementsacrossthesubjectpropertythatshould be preserved as a part of this project. However, since the City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) calls for a trail to connect Crestridge Road to Indian Peak Road below, the project will provide and record a public pedestrian trail easement through the development, consistent with the City's CTP to connect Crestridge Road with the trails in the City's Preserve property to the north adjacent to Indian Peak Road. Exhibit A 1.C. A private and public trail system in open space areas on the north, and a public trail through the development connecting Crestridge Road with the public trail system in open space areas on the north. 62. An improved public pedestrian access trail shall be provided through the community and maintainedbythedeveloperandsubsequentHOA.Specifically,thetrailsystemshallbeprovided for the general public that connects Crestridge Road to the Vista del Norte Trail and the Indian Peak Loop Trail located on the City's Reserve property to the north. 63. The pedestrian access point at the entry tower shall not contain a gate or other similar enclosure that would prevent the general public from entering, or discouraged from entering, the site to access the trailheads at the rear of the property or the trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. Further, public access shall not be impeded by any gate, fence, or improvement along the entire length of the public trail easement. 64. The public trail shall be limited to pedestrian use only; and shall facilitate and ensure public access through the community to the trails in the Vista del Norte Reserve to the north. 65. The trail portions at the north of the development that connect to the city trails shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director and maintained by the developer and subsequent HOA. 66. Directional signage shall be posted along the entire length of the public trail to guide the general public through the development and to the two trials identified above. The location and signage design shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to installation J-31 4 82. A pedestrian trail easement shall be dedicated to the City and recorded on the Final Tract Map to connect Crestridge Road with the existing trails located on the City's Reserve property to the north. The trail portions at the north of the development that are not associated with the trail network for project residents shall be constructed using decomposed granite or other material approved by the Community Development Director. 83. The community services building, internal roadway and public trail shall all be constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, prior to the building permit final for the first condominium building Current Situation The Community Association concurs with the provision for a Public Trail to the north of the Development. The current Public Trail is located generally, along a concrete sidewalk close by and adjacent to the homes on the north side of the Development. This poses a conflict between homeowners and the public using the trail. There are substantial security concerns of our homeowners andthere have been a significant number of incidentswherethe publichasleftthe trail and walked up existing sidewalks to peer into homes. This has caused numerouscomplaints by homeowners and, in some cases, sharp wordsbetween residents and users of the public trail. Further,theAssociationbelievesthetrailisnotproperlylocatedforthepublictoobtainthemost enjoyment of the Trail. The Trail, being generallyadjacent to the homes isnot within reasonable proximity to the northern edge of the slope down toward the shopping area and the current location greatly limits the vista for people using the Trail. Proposal The Association proposes relocating the trail along the northern edge of the City easement on the property, along the slope edge (but not close enough to present a safety hazard). The trail would be approximately four feet wide, constructed of decomposed granite (DG) and constrainedonthebordersbyheaderboards. Thenewtrailwouldconnectwithexistingportions of the current trail at the east and west end and connect with the current trail back to Crestridge Road. The new Trail alignment would eliminate the steps on the current trail and would be significantly reduced in slope throughout its length. Signage would be relocated, improved and suitable trash cansand pet waste eliminator stations would be provided. The Association would maintain the new Trail and its facilities. The estimated cost of the new portion of the trail is $40,000±20%, including signage, trash containers and pet waste containers. The Association proposes that the initial cost would be shared between the Association, the Conservancy, and the City and the work would be completed within three years, as funds are made available. Please see the attachments (furnished later) for the approximate route of the proposed Public Trail. J-32 5 SAFETY AND SECURITY LIGHTING The following paragraphs in the Conditions of Approval are related to Safety & Security Lighting Exhibit A 8 . . . As part of the one-year review, the Planning Commission may consider and review compliancewithalltheconditionsofapproval,assessanylightingandnoiseimpacts,andaddress any other concerns raised by Staff, the Commission and/or interested parties. If necessary, the Planning Commission may impose more restrictive standards and conditions to mitigate any impacts resulting from the review. 71. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 72.Priorto BuildingPermit issuance,theapplicant shall submit afinal sitelightingplan,prepared by a lighting consultant, for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The lighting plan shall include the location, height, number of lights, foot candles by area and, estimates of maximum illumination on site with no spill/glare at the property line. The lighting colortemperatureshallbelimitedtoarangebetween2,700to3,700Kelvinforlights.Thelighting plan shall also demonstrate that all lighting fixtures on the buildings and throughout the entire project site are designed and installed so as to contain light on the subject property and not spill over or be directed toward adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. The light source on each fixture shall be shielded such that the light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. 73. Exterior lighting fixtures in the landscape area shall be low, downcast, bollard type fixtures, not to exceed forty-two 42" inches in height and shall employ downcast and shielded lumieres. 74.Noonelightfixtureshallexceed1,200watts,andthelightsourceshallnotbedirectedtoward or result in direct illumination of an adjacent parcel Of property or properties other than upon which such light source' is physically located. All exterior lighting shall be arranged and shielded so asto prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and to prevent distraction of drivers of vehicles on public rights-of-way. 75. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building is more than 7-feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building, with the exception of ceiling lights in the ceilings above exterior covered balconies. 76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, the applicant shall request that the Director or hisdesignee conduct an inspection of the site to ensure that there is no spill- over of light onto adjacent propertiesor causeanegative impact to adjacent propertiesorpublic rights-of-way and that the light sources on each fixture are appropriately shielded such that the J-33 6 light source is not visible from the public rights-of-way or adjacent properties. Upon determination by the Director that any installed lighting creates an impact, the property owner shall modify said lighting to the satisfaction of the Director. 77. All exterior lighting fixtures on the grounds, pathways and common areas, including any streetlights, shall not exceed 5 feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade. 78. No internally illuminated signage may be used on the project site. 79. All proposed lighting shall be shielded so that it is down-cast and does not create any direct illumination impacts to off-site properties. Current Situation While the Applicant, Taylor Morrison, complied with the requirements established by the Conditions of Approval, Applicant did not provide adequate safety and security lighting for the Development. Applicant did not provide adequate lighting in several locations to provide pedestrian access from the street and/or guest parking to a resident’s front door. Lighting levels on these areasof sidewalk are less than the minimum standard for residential areas and must be brought up to these standards. The attached drawing (to be provided later) shows the areas with the residential area that do not have adequate lighting. Applicant provided certain community features but did not provide the adequate safety and security lighting for residents and their guests to utilize these features in the evening during periods of time where the use of these features is highly desirable. (Drawings will be provided later) OnthenorthwestsideoftheDevelopmentthereisadogparkwhereresidentsaretowalk their dogsand where they (the dogs) are to relieve themselves. There is no lightingfrom the residential area to this dogpark. The park isup a rather steep path and lighting along the path and at the entrance to the park is required to provide guidance for residents. On the northeast side of the Development, there is a fire pit surrounded by benches for residents to use and enjoy a view of the immediate surrounding area and of the eastern skyline. The use of this fire pit would be highly desirable in the evening and immediately following sunset. 9ne of the access routes to this amenity is down a long set of stairs; HOWEVER, there is no lighting on the access route to the stairs or on the stairs. This is a hazardous situation and can easily be corrected by the provision of lighting on the access paths and the stairs. On the northeast side of the Development, immediately above the fire pit location is a picnic and gathering area, adjacent to a bocce ball court. There is no lighting to permit use of thepicnic/gatheringareaintheevening. While it isnotdesiredthat thebocce ball court be used after dark, its proximity to this picnic/gathering area and the layout of the pathways surrounding this area are a tripping hazard and minimum lighting to ensure residents and their guests are able to maneuver this area in a safe manner. The J-34 7 immediate picnic area should be provided with adequate lighting to enable its use after dark. On the existing concrete pathway that interconnects the residences on the north side of the property, there are two areas of multiple stairs. This is currently the route of the public trail; however, if the relocation of the public trail, as discussed previously, is approved it will simply become a means by which residents can walk safely between homes. While this pathway is currently not illuminated (and there is no desire to illuminate most of the pathway), the stairs must be lit to ensure safety of the residents who use the pathway in the evening. Proposal To provide the necessary illumination for these walkways and amenities, lighting like that used throughout the rest of the development is proposed. Lighting will not spill off the property, will all be downlight, properly shielded, and in strict compliance with the City of RPV requirements. Further, it is proposed that this lighting shall be equipped with a timer to ensure they only work from early evening until 10 PM. It is requested that Applicant, Taylor Morrison, be directed to provide this required safety and security lighting J-35 1 Amy Seeraty From:Dr.Lou Turchi <ljtdds@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 10:09 AM To:Amy Seeraty Hello Amy, I am Dr. Lewis Turchi, property owner at Sol Y Mar. I received your letter yesterday about the parking issue here. I will not be able to attend the meeting as I still work...but need to have some input. When we purchased our properties there were guidelines for parking spaces. However there are 2 or 3 owners who continue to ignore what we agreed to on parking. The rest of the community abides by the rules. For the Board to request to be able to "sell/rent" already limited visitor parking is unacceptable! The owners by a vast majority have not wanted a parking patrol which has a cost attached to it. I am guessing the Board wanting to have income from the renting/selling spaces will offset the cost of the patrol, that no one wants then they are derelict in their duties. IF the Board would enforce the existing rules none of this would be needed. I would urge the city to deny any requests that the Board is making and have them again, enforce the rules in place. It is outrageous that a few who continue to violate the parking rules have caused so much discourse. Did any ever remember that the majority rules????? Thanks. J-36 1 Amy Seeraty From:jomacwoods@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, September 19, 2019 1:39 PM To:Amy Seeraty Subject:Re: Sol y Mar documents Hi Amy, Here are our brief comments and concerns: No changes to the parking rules that are currently in  place:No to the lighting of the public trail. A) It will not prevent the use of flashlights, head torches, spot lights  etc. B) It will promote public trail use after closing hours. C) Lighting of the public trail, will obstruct city views  and have a negative effect on property values...............sincerely, Jo & John Woods  From: Amy Seeraty Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 2:22 PM To: 'jomacwoods@gmail.com' Subject: RE: Sol y Mar documents        Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231   From: Amy Seeraty   Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 2:18 PM  To: 'jomacwood@gmail.com' <jomacwood@gmail.com>  Subject: Sol y Mar documents     Hi John-   Please see the links below for the documents:   CC&Rs (may not be most updated version, if they have been changed since 2015): https://rpv4.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/EcVsxVC4RBxGss8WmG4WI5ABzV1cw5e1XIJsJi9u6BIEsg   Entitlement Applications-CC Resolution 2013-31: https://rpv4.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/EYBKem9GpVFPpOMxSmEMOa8Byu0G0QTJHxxf4wcm47FdQA   EIR-CC Resolution 2013-30: https://rpv4.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/ETZ4UwhYwJNBn1OAcVijTTUBV0yrTmSTWNHjNPJDvY6eCQ     Amy Seeraty Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department J-37 2 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.rpvca.gov amys@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5231    J-38