Staff Report City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: NIKI CUTLER, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-33-04 APPLICANT: GARY BUTCHER; LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST
OVERVIEW
The subject request is for approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Grading Plan to establish a subdivision including 13 residential lots, two landscape lots, and one Commercial Recreation (C-R) designated lot in the RA-20,000 and C-R Zones, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment.
BACKGROUND
Application Filed: 5/25/05 (application deemed complete) Public Notices Mailed: 10/20/05* Posted: 10/20/05* Published: 10/22/05*
*Dates indicated are for this meeting only.
A public hearing for the project was last held on September 19, 2005. Minutes of that public hearing are provided as Attachment 1 herein. At that meeting, the Planning Commission continued the project to allow time for preparation of the final Response to Comments document and distribution of the document to the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
DISCUSSION
Revised Plans
Pursuant to comments received at the last meeting, the applicant has revised project plans which are included separately. The revised plans indicate less grading than previously indicated for the project. A balanced cut and fill of 41,600 cubic yards is now proposed as opposed to the 43,500 cubic yards previously proposed. Lots 5-11 are now designed to have a lower pad closest to the horse trail easement and an upper pad closest to Casaba Road as shown in Section B. The purpose of this would be to provide for the construction of split level homes, such that the homes would appear as single-story facing Casaba Road and two-stories on the rear. Furthermore, the proposed horse trail has been extended across Lot 13, and the berm north of Palos Verdes Drive North has been extended further to the east.
The City’s environmental consultant, Dr. Susan O’Carroll, has reviewed the revised plan and determined that no changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration are required pursuant to project revisions. The City Engineer also reviewed the revised plan.
Response to Comments
The final Response to Comments document is included as Attachment 2 herein. The document was faxed and mailed to DFG on October 21, 2005. Based on a review of the issues raised in the comments and information contained in the Response to Comments document and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, it has been determined that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact on the environment. Thus, staff believes that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the project. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were previously provided to the Planning Commission, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachment 3 herein.
Staff previously recommended conditions of approval for the project which are as follows:
• That the nine Pepper trees surveyed by the applicant (as previously provided to the Planning Commission) be saved in place or relocated onsite; • That a tree survey of the entire site be conducted to determine if additional existing trees can be saved in place or relocated onsite; • That a white three-rail fence be required along Palos Verdes Drive North and Palos Verdes Drive East subject to review of the Park and Activities Commission during final landscape plan review; and • That any subdivision walls or berms proposed should also be reviewed in conjunction with final landscape plan review.
Staff continues to believe that these conditions should be required for the project.
RECOMMENDATION
The public hearing for this item remains open. Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. Continue to Take Public Testimony
2. Discuss the issues;
3. Close the Public Hearing; and
4. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending to the City Council that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for the subject request and that the proposed project be approved subject to the conditions indicated above.
Exhibits
Attached 1. Minutes of September 19, 2005 Planning Commission Public Hearing 2. Response to Comments 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Separate 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 52214 (date stamped 10/25/05)
P niki Pa33-04 pm3
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTES EXCERPT
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
B. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 33-04; APPLICANT: BUTCHER RANCH SUBDIVISION; LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST; A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND GRADING PLAN TO ESTABLISH A SUBDIVISION INCLUDING 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO LANDSCAPE LOTS, AND ONE COMMERCIAL RECREATION (C-R) DESIGNATED LOT IN THE RA-20,000 AND C-R ZONES.
Senior Planner Cutler gave a brief Staff Report (as per written material) and reported that only the letter received from the state Department of Fish and Game came back from the State Clearinghouse distribution. Also, a letter was received from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and 13 letters were received from members of the Monticello Community regarding the possibility of a small park on the property. Senior Planner Cutler mentioned that the City is preempted by state law from requiring parkland dedication for projects under 50 lots. A letter was also received at the dais from Barbara Sattler of the California Native Plant Society. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the issues and continue the project to the next available Planning Commission meeting to allow for written response from the Department of Fish and Game. Senior Planner Cutler also advised that Kristin Pelletier, Assistant City Attorney, is present this evening, as well as Susan O’Carroll from Willdan, the City’s Environmental Consultant.
COMMISSIONER VANDEN BOS asked Staff why the Commission doesn’t get the Staff input and responses to materials all at the next public hearing. Planning Director Wahba suggested that the Commission get input that wasn’t received at the last meeting regarding the layout and design of the subdivision or any other comments. Senior Planner Cutler added that the item was placed on today’s agenda in the event that comments were not received from Fish and Game, and the Commission could proceed.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY asked Staff about the steep grade on lot 1 at the access to the cul- de-sac and what percentage the grade is. Planning Director Wahba responded that he would check that to see if it meets the maximum allowed grade.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY then asked about the 10' storm drain easement terminating in the cul-de-sac. Planning Director Wahba responded that it is connecting to an existing 24" storm drain and goes under the street to the middle. CHAIRMAN KILLEN clarified that it goes to a catch basin in front of lot 10 and then north with another easement. Planning Director Wahba added that the street easement will double for storm drain purposes, which is common to see.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY asked about the 25' of fill. COMMISSIONER CONWAY then asked what was deducted from the gross area of the lots to come up with net area, and Senior Planner Cutler responded that the private street is deducted.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY continued by asking about the detention basin referred to on the plans. Planning Director Wahba advised that there is no detention basin, and that note should be removed.
COMMISSIONER VANDEN BOS asked whether the width of the street was within Code requirements for a public street and whether the 3/1 slope was within requirements, to which Planning Director Wahba responded affirmatively.
COMMISSIONER VANDEN BOS then asked whether there had been further discussion with the developer about the ending of the horse trail. It was clarified that the discussion was more of someday having a tunnel underneath Palos Verdes Drive North to connect to the trail on the south side of Palos Verdes Drive North. Planning Director Wahba then added that lot 14 is zoned Commercial Recreation, not Residential, and the idea is to do a land swap with the portion that says “not part of this subdivision” with the Kramer Club for parking or other facility expansion. At that point, the bridal trail would bisect what they’re trying to do there. Although the project is in a Horse Overlay Zone, direct trail access is not required.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY asked why the road is private and not public. Planning Director Wahba responded that it was being proposed as a private road and therefore does not get maintained by the City, which is typically what the City would request, and the irrevocable offer of dedication would be available for 25 years.
CHAIRMAN KILLEN asked Staff about lot 13’s 8,800 square foot difference between gross and net, to which Planning Director Wahba answered that it was part of the rezoning of the property, and the City was attempting to avoid a General Plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN KILLEN then asked whether the horizontal lines on the engineer’s drawings were the same. Planning Director Wahba agreed that the lines are misleading how they are drawn using different scales, but the slope complies.
Stanley Lamport came forward on behalf of the applicant and stated that he would wait until the next meeting to make his comments.
Tim Scott (President of the Monticello Homeowners Association) came forward representing the Monticello homeowners and the Neighborhood Coalition. Mr. Scott lamented the loss of the Butcher field, but the project appears to be consistent with the General Plan, and the community is not opposing it. The August 9 comments stand and have been repeated before and will be again. The proposal doesn’t address the Commercial Recreational lot or take into account the adjacent residential lot. If the swap is not completed, the Monticello community will be impacted by the displacement of off-road parking and leave a residential lot at the corner, resulting in additional Neighborhood Compatibly concerns. Mr. Scott strongly urged the developer to come to terms with the Kramer Club for a swap and urged the City not to approve a residential tract where the use of the first lot is wholly unaddressed. Also, the first Commercial Recreational lot is not a legal lot for the Commercial Recreational area and needs to go to the Kramer Club.
Mr. Scott addressed the failure to provide a berm between Casaba Road and Monticello Drive in the design and also that the development would result in a little used dead-end trail. The berm is vital for maintaining the scenic corridor nature of the area. The City right-of-way is substantially wider than the existing walking/bike trail, and the community would not object to design consideration being given to using a portion of that property to create a successful berm that would enhance the visual aspects of the development. The bridal trails in the community are part of the rural character and are widely used. Therefore, access is valuable, and trails should be readily accessible to all wherever practical. This would be a significant improvement for the general character of trails in the City. Dead-end trails tend to look like dead-end trails—unused and not maintained.
Mr. Scott stated that the City consultant dismissed any need for a cumulative impacts traffic analysis at this time but would be done at a later date on other projects, ignoring several major projects, including a project on the naval housing site that will generate a fair amount of rush- hour traffic. The community is gravely concerned with having a precedent out there that is a report where a City-paid consultant concludes that future projects don’t matter. Mr. Scott urged the Committee to probe the traffic consultant’s conclusion and assure the community that the process is being properly followed and the right analysis given and disavow the unfounded assumptions of the consultant regarding other projects which are clearly foreseeable and which will impact Monticello Drive. On behalf of the Monticello Homeowners Association, the comments today and the August 9 letter reflect the consensus of the Board, and the Association does not support calls for property forfeiture or dedication of parkland by the developer, which the City is precluded from demanding under the state law.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY asked Mr. Scott whether it was his thought to have the horse trail running behind the commercial lot and then wrap around to connect with Casaba. Mr. Scott responded that wrapping around to Casaba isn’t necessary, but the Commercial Recreation lot will be paved as parking, and a license easement can be provided for access to the beginning of the trail so that one could walk across the parking lot and start the trail.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY then asked if the intent was to extend the existing parking lot into lot 14, to which Mr. Scott answered that a number of things have been looked at, and one of the Kramer Club’s stated desires was to get more parking, and that is clearly their need.
Barbara Sattler (President of South Coast Chapter of California Native Plant Society) came forward. The Society reviewed the biological studies provided by the City, and their concerns remain. The Frank Hovore and Associates analysis of 2003 states that the ravine is an Ecological Overlay Zone, is a remnant of a historical slope and canyon topography and is riparian woodland with a wildlife habitat that it evaluates as moderate. Riparian habitats in Southern California are listed as highest inventory priority communities by the California Department of Fish and Game. The Glenn Lukos 2002 study also characterizes the vegetation as a small arroyo willow forest. However, alarmingly, it stated that habitat alteration had occurred. There was an apparent attempt made to clear the riparian vegetation immediately preceding the survey, which is appalling. Dr. Peter Bowler, from UC Irvine, stated in 1990 that “there is no question that riparian habitat, itself, is endangered in Southern California.” The California Department of Fish and Game is recommending to the Commission that it be protected, and the Society strongly supports Fish and Game’s position on this matter.
COMMISSIONER BAYER commented that when she looks at the renderings, all she sees is garages, and she hopes that the community will not be focused on three-car garages and cars, but more focused on community and homes that are inviting to other people.
COMMISSIONER VANDEN BOS stated that he shares Mr. Scott’s concern about lot 14 and the project proceeding forward without an agreement. It could be a sore thumb and create a problem for the Monticello community and should be addressed as part of this procedure.
CHAIRMAN KILLEN asked whether the access would be internal if lot 14 does turn into a parking lot, so that it isn’t accessing off of Casaba. Planning Director Wahba responded that they could come through their existing parking lot or get an easement from Casaba to gain access from Casaba Road.
CHAIRMAN KILLEN continued by asking if the traffic study takes into consideration that this may become parking. Planning Director Wahba stated that it doesn’t address it because it isn’t part of this project..
CHAIRMAN KILLEN concurred with the view that lot 14 should be addressed and tied to the application instead of wrestling with it later on and asked Staff if the removing of the vegetation should have been cited by the City or an environmental agency. Planning Director Wahba pointed out that the City stopped them when they started. There was a little damage done before the stop-work order was issued.
CHAIRMAN KILLEN indicated that the amount of grading is significant, and 87,000 cubic yards of dirt would be displaced and moved around. Over each acre, the grade is adjusted seven feet. This is not typical of the Rolling Hills community but instead typical of a Corona development. The canyons and ravines should be respected and worked with, and he cannot support a project that has that amount of cut and fill.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY moved, and COMMISSIONER BAYER seconded,
TO CONTINUE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 33-04 TO NOVEMBER 7, 2005 TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
There being no objection, CHAIRMAN KILLEN so ordered.
ATTACHMENT 2
BUTCHER RANCH – TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 52214 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMENTS AND RESPONSES PART 2 - SECOND COMMENT PERIOD
The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Butcher Ranch Subdivision – Tentative Tract No. 52214 project was originally circulated for public review and comment from July 21, 2005 through August 9, 2005. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15072 and 15073, Notice of the Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a 20-day public comment period was provided to all affected properties within 500’ of the project. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of the Intent to Adopt was posted on the City’s website and provided at the public counter for review. Copies of the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice were also provided to the adjacent Peninsula cities and the County of Los Angeles. A copy was also sent to the California Department of Fish and Game at 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA, 92123.
The City did not send the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Clearinghouse because there were no state agencies that would need to act as a responsible agency over natural resources affected by the project. Although there were limited biological resources on the site, California Department of Fish and Game’s jurisdiction had been adjudicated in 1979 and the arbitrated decision (No. V-78-490) made findings which indicate that CDFG lacks Fish and Game Code Section 1602 jurisdiction over the ravine and that “any use of the subject property by Fish and Wildlife and the properties use as a resource for same is minimal.” On February 23, 2005 the California Department of Fish and Game was notified that the City intended to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and, in the absence of objection from Fish and Game, to rely on the 1979 decision indicating that the project site was not subject to Fish and Game jurisdiction. The Department of Fish and Game was asked to notify the City by March 18, 2005 if it objected to the City’s reliance on the determination with respect to Fish and Game’s lack of jurisdiction over the site. No objection was received from Fish and Game. Even though the City did not send the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the Clearinghouse, it did send a copy directly to Fish and Game. No comments from Fish and Game were received during the original public comment period.
Five letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received. Responses to comments on these five letters from members of the public were provided to the Planning Commission prior to a public hearing on the project held August 15, 2005 and both these letters and the responses to the comments contained therein are provided in Part 1 of the Comments and Responses.
On the afternoon of August 15, 2005 the City received a phone call from the California Department of Fish and Game requesting that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be recirculated via the State Clearinghouse and that Fish and Game be provided with an additional opportunity to comment on the document.
At the Public Hearing on August 15, 2005 it was decided that the hearing would be continued to allow recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, via the State Clearinghouse, pursuant to the request by Fish and Game received that afternoon. The document was sent to the State Clearinghouse and circulated for review from August 17 to September 15, 2005. Two letters regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received during the second public comment period. Five letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received during the original public comment period and are addressed in Part 1 of the Comments and Responses:
1. Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, August 8, 2005 2. Palos Verdes South Bay Group of the Sierra Club, August 8, 2005 3. California Native Plant Society, August 9, 2005 4. Rolling Hills Estates Neighborhood Coalition, August 9, 2005 5. Memo from Sunshine, August 9, 2005.
The following two letters on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was received during the second public comment period:
6. California Department of Fish and Game, September 13, 2005. 7. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, September 15, 2005.
Both the comment letter and responses to the comments contained therein are provided in the pages that follow.
In addition, one letter was received at the public hearing on the project on September 19, 2005 from:
8. Barbara Sattler, California Native Plant Society, September 19, 2005.
LETTER 6 California Department of Fish and Game, September 13, 2005
Comment Response
34. Comment noted. No endangered animal species or habitat for endangered species has been identified on the project site. In addition, no rare or endangered plants have been identified on the project site. The project site is not located within a designated ecological reserve, game refuge or other area administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. However, the City appreciates the Department’s comments on the project.
35. Comment noted. This description of the project is accurate.
36. The ravine is inhabited by both native and non-native species. Non-native species predominate. As noted in the biological resources report for the Butcher property prepared by Frank Hovore & Associates (FH&A): “combining species lists from the present and previous surveys of the project site totals 44 plant species (not including adjacent golf course or roadway landscaping), of which 37 (84%) are non-native taxa.” The seven native taxa observed within the ravine are:
• arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) • black willow (Salix gooddingii) • ash (Fraxinus sp., prob. velutinum) • cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) • coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) • Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus) • mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia)
See also responses to comments 37 to 39 which explain the nature of biological resources observed on the site.
37. In addition, the following prior biological surveys were conducted on the project site:
• Glenn Lukos Associates, Results of Biological Constrains Analysis Conducted for the Seven-Acre Parcel, in Rolling Hills Estates, Los Angeles County, California, 2002.
• Vegetation Survey, Myra Frank Associates, October 23, 2001.
All of the studies reached similar conclusions about the quality of biological resources on the project site. Specific comments about the information provided in the checklist judgments are addressed in response to comments 38 to 41.
38. Checklist questions VII(e) and VII(i) are as follows:
e) Will the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(i) Will the project have biological resource impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
As explained in the biological assessment and by the report’s author:
The project site lies along the northern frontage of PVD North, extending approximately 700 feet from west to east, and totaling 6.41 acres of undeveloped open space. The northwestern portion of the site lies below street grade, within the ravine remnant, gradually increasing in depth from east to west. The level areas of the site above the ravine are entirely cleared, open dirt fields, lightly revegetating annually with ruderal herbaceous species and non-native grasses. Trees outside the margins of the ravine are entirely non-native, as is the adjacent golf course landscaping, and some of the species present (gum trees, Eucalyptus spp.; Peruvian pepper, Schinus molle; Brazilian pepper, Schinus terebinthifolia) are considered to be invasive noxious taxa by the California Native Plant Society. Peruvian pepper trees in the western portion of the site have attained mature stature, with rank, debris-filled understories. The presence of virtually completely non-native tree, shrub and ground-cover vegetation indicates degraded and/or replaced natural habitat values, and within the open upland portion of the site there are no remaining native habitat formations. The ravine contains a mixture of native and non-native floral elements, many of which typically occur within disturbed riparian habitat formations, but also may occur in a variety of upland situations. Historical site photos show no riparian formation present, and whether the present ravine was not an actual watercourse, or was cleared and altered during prior uses cannot be determined at this time. However, it is clear that the vegetation formation present today is not a remnant of more extensive natural habitat, but rather is an adventitious riparian response to accumulated urban runoff in the ravine. The species composition reflects this, in that the dominant biomass in the less- disturbed western end is largely non-native, ornamental trees, with higher percentages of less mature, faster-growing riparian elements becoming dominant in the more-recently disturbed western end. Dominant tree cover is formed by gum (Eucalyptus sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp., prob. velutinum), Peruvian pepper, (mostly rooted on banks of the ravine), black willow (Salix gooddingii) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), the latter forming densely tangled thickets and the former attaining tree stature. Tall shrub cover is primarily provided by blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), which together form a dense thicket along the upper slopes on the south side of the embankment. The habitat in the ravine is very densely overgrown, senescent, and rank beneath with shaded-out saplings and limbs, with little annual vegetative growth below the canopy. Canopy values vary in a mosaic over the length of the ravine, with taller overstory cover provided primarily by non-native species in the western end, where the ravine is less-disturbed, deeper, and more shaded by surrounding landscaping. Arroyo willow predominates in the central and eastern portions, and there was a thin strand of emergent riparian elements in the sump at the eastern end. Typically, riparian response vegetation occurs wherever surface moisture or periodically wetted soils are sufficient to stimulate seed germination. Because it receives only urban runoff flows, which may or may not be seasonal, and lack typical flow dynamics, the riparian formation in the ravine lacks the normal processes which support and rejuvenate natural watercourses in coastal southern California. Runoff flows apparently are sufficient to support the growth of those few native riparian and non-native facultative riparian species present, but do not provide the nutrient loading, scouring, or over-flooding typical of stream channel or riverine habitats, resulting a rank, debris-heavy understory. And, surface flows apparently do not persist long enough to maintain a vigorous channel formation of riparian shrubs and herbaceous taxa, although the sump area at the terminus of the channel does accumulate a weedy growth of facultative wetland taxa, mostly non-native, but including some sub-mature willows. A small area of landscaped open space runs along the sidewalk for PVD North and onto a level area east of the Re/Max parking lot; this contains only a mixture of non-native trees and low shrubs, none of which form habitat or provide sustaining resources for native wildlife. Trees include gum, pepper, exotic pine (Pinus sp.), cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera)[id. tentative], crimson fountain-grass, pigweed (Amaranthus sp.), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), gazania (Gazania linearis), lawn grasses (Cynodon sp.), and oats (Avena sp.) and bromes (Bromus spp.). The wildlife supporting habitat values of this small area are minimal, suited only to gophers, lizards, and flower-visiting insects. Combining field note species lists and those included within the present and previous surveys of the project site totals 48 plant species (not including adjacent golf course or roadway landscaping), of which 39 (81%) are non-native taxa. Of these, 20 (13 [65%] non-native) were found in the ravine (some of the same taxa also were found in the uplands), with another 28 (26 [93%] non-native) species found only in the uplands. One of the species on the site, black willow, is an obligate wetland species, and arroyo willow is a Facultative wetland species, meaning that it most often occurs in wetland sites. Another 10 species found in the ravine, and eight species found outside of the ravine, are listed as facultative wetland – upland taxa, meaning that they occur within wetted sites, but also may be present in non-wetland upland sites. Six of the 10 (60%) facultative wetland species in the ravine are non-native, and 7 of the 8 (88%) species in the uplands are non-native [determination of wetland status based upon Reed, P.B., Jr., 1988, National list of plant species that occur in wetlands, California Region (O). Biol. Rept. 88, National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 135 pp.].
Key plant species identified on the project site are identified in the report narrative. The paucity of natural species diversity recorded on-site in 2003 may have created the impression of an incomplete list; species listed included all native and naturalized taxa identified during the field visit. The following plant species were identified on the project site:
Wetland Agency Plants Native? species? listed? Ravine (some in upland also) (det. Hovore, 2003) arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) Yes FacW No ash (Fraxinus sp., prob. velutinum) Yes Fac No black Mustard (Brassica nigra) No No No black willow (Salix gooddingii) Yes Obl No Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia) No No No bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides) No Fac No castor Bean (Ricinus communia) No No No cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) Yes Fac No coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) Yes No No curly dock (Rumex crispus) No Fac No fan palm (Washingtonia filifera?)(det. tent.) No* Fac No gum tree (Eucalyptus spp.) No No No horseweed (Conyza sp., prob. Canadensis) No Fac No Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicanus) Yes Fac No mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) Yes Fac No Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) No No No prickly wire lettuce (Lactuca serriola) No Fac No smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum) No No No Spanish bayonet (Yucca sp., ornamental) No No No white sweetclover (Melilotus alba) No Fac No
Upland Open Space only (det. Hovore, 2003) Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) No Fac No brome grass (Bromus hordeaceus) No No No cheeseweed (Malva parviflora) No No No cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera)[id. tentative] No No No common plantain (Plantago major) No Fac No fountain-grass (Pennisetum aetaceum) No No No dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) No No No exotic pine (Pinus sp.) No No No fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) No Fac No filaree (Erodium cicutarium) No No No gazania (Gazania linearis) No No No horehound (Marrubium vulgare) No Fac No lawn grasses (Non-native, indet.) No No No milkweed (Asclepias sp.) Yes Fac No oat (Avena barbata) No No No oat (Avena fatua) No No No Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) No No No pigweed (Amaranthus sp.) No No No scarlet pimpernel (Anagallus arvensis) No Fac No soft chess (Bromus tectorum) No Fac No sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) No No No rattlesnake weed (Chamaesyce albomarginata) Yes No No red brome (foxtail) (Bromus madritensis rubens) No No No ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus) No No No Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) No No No tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) No Fac No wild radish (Raphanue sativus) No No No
Taxa added from Lukos Report Common Fig (Ficus carica) No No No
* This palm is native to southern California desert canyons, and is planted as an ornamental in this site
In addition, the following animal species were observed on the project site:
Animals Rare ? Native? Invertebrates Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) No No buckeye (Precis coenia) (host: common plantain) No Yes cutworm moths (Noctuidae) No Yes darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae) No Yes fiery skipper (Hylephila phyleus) (host: lawn grasses) No Yes flies (various Muscidae, Syrphidae, Tipulidae, Culicidae, No Some Tachinidae, Sarcophagidae, common spp.) native gulf fritillary (Agraulis vanillae incarnate), feeding on No No bougainvillea blossoms (larval host: introduced passion vine) Honeybee (Apis mellifera) No No marina blue (Leptotes marina) (host: misc. legumes) No Yes pillbug (Armadillidium vulgare) No No sowbug (Porcellio laevis) No No western checkered skipper (Pyrgus communis No Yes albescens) (host: weedy Malvaceae). yellowjacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica) No Yes
Vertebrates Sensitive Amphibians species? Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) No western toad (Bufo boreas) No woodboring hornet moths (Synanthodon robiniae) No Reptiles side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) No western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis No biseriatus) Birds American kestrel (Falco sparverius) No Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte annae) No house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) No mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) No northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) No western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) No yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) No Mammals Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) No black rat (Rattus rattus) No Botta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) No broad-handed mole (Scapanus latimanus) No California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) No domestic cat No domestic dog No house mouse (Mus musculus) No Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) No
Impacts to the riparian area were considered to be less than significant under CEQA because (a) it is not part of any natural intact drainage; (b) the 1979 adjudication made findings which indicate that CDFG lacks Fish and Game Code Section 1602 jurisdiction over the ravine and held that “any use of the subject property by Fish and Wildlife and the properties use as a resource for same is minimal”; (c) much of the cover and forage is formed by non-native, often invasive and noxious, plant species; (d) no evidence of sensitive plant species was found during surveys, nor are there records for such species within the site; (e) it does not lie within any identified migration corridor or habitat linkage zone for native wildlife; (f) there are no records nor other evidence to suggest that it is regularly or even occasionally utilized as essential habitat by agency-listed wildlife species. For these same reasons, and because of the small size of the area, the regional value of the habitat is also judged to be minimal. Therefore no mitigation for loss of the riparian area was included in the MND. The Department of Fish and Game has not provided any substantial evidence that the project as proposed would or may result in significant unmitigated impacts. No new information has been provided by Fish and Game regarding the quality of the riparian area or the presence of species of concern. 39. As noted in the 2003 biological assessment:
FH&A biologists consulted the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) Torrance quadrangle, to determine potential agency-listed sensitive resources known to occur within the site vicinity. The most recent sensitive taxa lists published or posted on the Internet were obtained from CDFG and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, the “Service”), and supporting data was reviewed from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning proposed redesignation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula open space areas as a Significant Ecological Area. Additionally, the City of Rolling Hills Notice of Preparation (2002), and two recent brief biological letter reports were reviewed, one for the Butcher parcel, prepared by Glen Lukos Associates (2002) and the other a two page summary prepared for the adjacent Re/Max site by M.L. Frank & Associates (2001).
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was not identified in the 2003 NDDB search as nesting on-site or in the immediate project vicinity, nor does it appear on the July 2005 Rarefind quad summary for the project vicinity. The project site is not within critical habitat for this species. A review of the current NDDB similarly does not reveal the presence of least Bells’ vireo nesting in the project vicinity.
As was noted in the biological resources study, several other riparian-obligate songbirds and birds of prey may occur locally or migrate through the area, including southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The riparian formation present is highly degraded by human activity (including transient residence and trash dumping), as is the surrounding upland, and one of the environmental consequences of this activity is the build-up of very high densities of Argentine ants within the riparian formation. Nests are present in the ground around the trunk bases, and within and under fallen debris, with foraging columns swarming over every trunk, branch and stem. These ants are relentless nest predators on bird nests, and their presence in great numbers can render vegetation unsuitable for breeding use by native songbirds such as the least Bell’s vireo. A careful search was made for bird nests, and none were found within the willow – riparian formation, further suggesting that the habitat values for songbird use were relatively low. Given that neither LBV nor any other sensitive riparian songbrid species is recorded from the site vicinity, that this site is not part of any identified former breeding area for these species, and that the habitat values of the riparian area are at best degraded and invaded, the biological assessment considered the area to not be suitable for breeding or other essential use by LBV or other sensitive songbird species.
Based upon these reasons, then, the potential for impacts to least Bell’s vireo were judged to be less than significant. See response to comment 38 regarding the regional value of on-site habitat.
40. No wetlands delineation was performed because of the limited value of the habitat as detailed in Response to Comment s 38 and 39.
41. The biological resource assessments, examination of the site, Response to Comments 38 and 39, and the results of the 1979 adjudication of Fish and Game jurisdiction provide adequate information to determine that the habitat is of little or no value to riparian species. See also response to comment 42. This is why biological resource impacts were determined to be less than significant in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and why no mitigation was required. No new information has been provided regarding the quality of the riparian area or the presence of species of concern by commenting agencies or members of the public which would alter this conclusion.
42. The project does not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts as the on-site habitat is of limited regional value as explained in Response to Comment 41. The wording of the applicable CEQA mandatory findings of significance section is as follows: does the project,
(h)ave the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As noted in the MND: “The proposed project is not anticipated to substantially affect fish or wildlife populations or to reduce the number or range of rare or endangered species.”
Given the degraded character if the riparian habitat on the site, and the limited quantity of habitat to be lost, impacts were considered less than cumulatively considerable.
43. Comment noted. As detailed in Response to Comments 38 and 39, no mitigation for habitat loss was provided because the loss of this small area of habitat of limited value was not found to rise to the level of a significant impact. For this reason, no mitigation for habitat loss was provided.
44. No evidence has been presented that the project as proposed would result in significant impacts to any candidate or special status species, endangered species, wetlands subject to Army Corps or Fish and Game Section 1602 jurisdiction, or wildlife movement. A limited amount of an artificially maintained riparian area of limited habitat value will be lost as a result of the project, but this loss does not rise to the level of a significant impact under CEQA as explained in Response to Comment 38.
45. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided to the Regional Water Quality Control Board by the State Clearinghouse. The Regional Water Quality Control Board did not comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the biological assessment:
The western one-half of the property contains a small ravine which is a remnant of historical slope and canyon topography, but which is no longer connected at either end to any natural drainage course. The upper (W) end of the ravine is intercepted by a ± 40 foot deep area of fill which was deposited across the original ravine terrain to level and elevate residential and parkway development west of the site, and to bring the PVD East alignment to the level of PVD North, which traverses a ridgeline. The lower (E) end of the ravine lies adjacent to the golf course fenceline, and was completely intercepted by grading and filling actions relative to construction of those facilities. Urban runoff, primarily from Dapplegray Park across PVD East, now is the only source of water inflows to the ravine, entering through a pipe from beneath the roadway embankment. There are no surface or buried outflow structures or pipes at the low end of the ravine, and whatever seasonal runoff may accumulate therein may percolate and evaporate, but does not flow off-site.
The drainage plan for the project has received review by the City and the City’s consultant as detailed in Section X of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
46. Because the project would result in the elimination of a small area of artificially maintained riparian habitat of limited value, and because the City both sent the Mitigated Negative Declaration to Fish and Game directly during the first public comment period and through the State Clearinghouse during the second public comment period and sought consultation with Fish and Game regarding its intent to rely on the adjudicated decision supporting a lack of Fish and Game Section 1602 jurisdiction, the City did not intend to file a de minimis fee exemption form for this project. Pursuant to Section 753.5 of the Fish and Game Code, which reads as follows, the City will pay the appropriate Fish and Game review fee for a Negative Declaration with the filing of any Notice of Determination for the project:
753.5. Collection of Filing Fees.
(a) Fee Schedule (also see subsection 753.5(g) of these regulations).
(1) Statutorily Exempt Projects: All projects statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act shall incur no fee. (See Sections 15260-15277, Title 14, CCR.)
(2) Categorically Exempt Projects: All projects categorically exempt by regulations of the Secretary for Resources from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act shall incur no fee. (See Sections 15300-15329, Title 14, CCR.)
(3) De Minimis Projects: All projects found by the lead agency to be de minimis in their effect on fish and wildlife shall incur no fee. (See subsection 753.5(c) of these regulations).
(4) Negative Declaration Projects: All projects for which a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 21080(c) of the Public Resources Code shall incur a fee of $1,250.00. (See subsection 753.5(c) of these regulations).
(5) Environmental Impact Report Projects: All projects for which an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code shall incur a fee of $850.00. (See subsection 753.5(c) of these regulations).
LETTER 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, September 15, 2005
Comment Response
47. There will be no import or export of fill. Cut and fill is balanced on-site.
LETTER 8 California Native Plant Society, September 19, 2005
Comment Response
49. To the City’s knowledge, no clearing of vegetation within the debris basin/ravine area has occurred since that reported in the 2002 Glen Lukos study; any subsequent clearing has been in the upland area. On October 6, 2006 Frank Hovore revisited the project site and re-examined the vegetation on site. His findings were consistent with his prior finding for the ravine. As noted in his report, dated October 6, 2005:
The primary changes in the condition of the area since the 2003 visits are that the areas under and around the pepper trees has been opened and cleaned, so transient use is no longer evident; also, the general condition of the trees and shrubs in the ravine is more robust, probably a result of the heavy rainfall of the past winter. Otherwise, conditions have not changed measurably over the site. Understory within the willow formation remains rank and largely unvegetated (see photo 1, compare with #7 in 2003 report), typical of dense willow scrub formations which do not receive scouring flooding. Canopy cover values within the riparian formation in the ravine are provided by non-native species in percentages ranging from 70% down to about 30%, from west to east, but not on an even gradient. The willow overstory is most densely developed in the middle portion of the ravine, where the canopy contributions by gum trees and other non-natives are lower, and the formation has reached mature stature. Where soil moisture values diminish, toward the eastern end, there is a concomitant decrease in vegetation formation stature. This also may in part reflect past disturbances to the ravine from adjacent development, as the eastern slope of the ravine is constrained by the north fenceline.
The ravine overstory is very densely layered with both native and invasive exotic tree species, and the normal native species crown separations have been overgrown by non-native taxa which more readily tolerate canopy crowding, or attain greater heights. The riparian vegetation formation confined within the ravine, as described in 2003 and re-evaluated herein, is southern willow scrub, heavily invaded with non-native tree species and approaching senescence in the western one-half of the formation, but still sub-mature and emergent approaching the eastern end. The gradient of age classes and structure appears to reflect the depth and slope of the ravine sides, which are steeper and deeper at the western end, providing greater shade and moisture retention therein. The low, graded basin at the terminus of the ravine, where it is cut-off by the golf course fenceline, has remained a field of cocklebur, dock and other ruderal species, lacking typical riparian or native wetland vegetation.
. . . (T)he willows in the ravine are heavily infested with longhorned borer (Saperda horni, Xylotrechus insignis) and hornet moth (Synanthodon robiniae) larvae, which weaken lateral limbs and joints, causing the considerable natural breakage observed on both visits (photo 9 in 2003 report).
Riparian areas generally are regarded as an important biological resource because of their high contributions to regional biological diversity, energy production, and sensitive species habitat values. These values are the reason that impacts to riparian areas typically are regulated by federal and state statutes. Within CEQA, then, project effects to riparian areas normally would almost invariably be determined to be significant. The 2003 site evaluation determined, however, that the proposed project impacts to the ravine and its bottomland riparian area would be considered less than significant within the standards of CEQA, based upon the following considerations: (a) the ravine is no longer part of any natural intact drainage, and may have been created by past land uses and grading for surrounding projects and roadways; (b) the 1979 adjudication made findings which indicate that CDFG lacks Fish and Game Code Section 1602 jurisdiction over the ravine and held that “any use of the subject property by Fish and Wildlife and the properties use as a resource for same is minimal”; (c) a high percentage of the ravine formation is comprised of non- native, invasive and noxious plant species; (d) no sensitive plant species have been found anywhere on the site during focused field surveys, nor are there California Natural Heritage diversity database [CNDDB] records (accessed 2003 and 2005) for agency-listed sensitive plant species within the site vicinity; (e) the ravine and surrounding uplands do not lie within any identified wildlife migration corridor or habitat linkage zone, and observations on the site suggest that native species use of the ravine is relatively low, probably due to its isolation from other natural habitat; (f) there are no CNDDB records nor other evidence to suggest that the riparian area is regularly or even occasionally utilized as essential habitat by agency- listed wildlife species.
Further, the upland portions of the site have been consistently maintained against fire by disking and other mechanical clearing, and possess no coastal sage scrub or other natural terrestrial wildlife habitat values; 84% of the entire site flora is non-native. For these reasons, combined with the small size of the area, the relative value of the habitat on the site is determined to be low, in comparison to natural riparian areas elsewhere in the region. Therefore, it would be our opinion that no formal CEQA-based mitigation would be required for the proposed removal of the ravine and its riparian area.
Please also see the responses to comments from the California Department of Fish and Game (Responses 34 to 46). As noted in these responses, although the Department of Fish and Game did ask some very useful clarifying questions, Fish and Game did not provided any substantial evidence that the project as proposed would result in significant unmitigated impacts or that the ravine contained resources or biological values other than those described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project and these response to comments. As defined by CEQA, substantial evidence “shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” No new information or facts were provided by Fish and Game or the Native Plant Society regarding the quality of the riparian area or the presence of species of concern. Mr. Hovore’s recent field work provides additional information supporting the conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as clarified in these responses to comments, that the habitat is of little value to riparian species.
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN PROJECT NAME: Butcher Ranch Subdivision APPROVAL DATE:
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is the intent of this Program to (1) verify satisfaction of the required mitigation measures; (2) provide a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation; (3) provide a record of the Monitoring Program; (4) identify monitoring responsibility; (5) establish administrative procedures for the clearance of mitigation measures; (6) establish the frequency and duration of monitoring; and (7) utilize existing review processes wherever feasible.
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated in to the approval for this project in order to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented.
Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Land Use/ Adverse 11 Fencing of an appropriate height shall be installed along the Review of Planning Prior to Planning impact due to northern property border to protect residential and horse uses plans and Department completion of compatibility from golf ball hazards. The fencing design shall be reviewed field visits horse trail or and approved by the Planning Director and shall be installed issuance of prior to completion of either the horse trail, or occupancy of certificates of the proposed homes, which ever is first. occupancy Aesthetics Adverse 14 Prior to issuance of construction permits, Planning staff shall Review of Planning Prior to impact due to review the design of each proposed home within Tentative plans by Department issuance of design Tract 52214, and a Neighborhood Compatibility Planning building Determination shall be made in conformance with Rolling Commission permits for Hills Estates Municipal Code Section 17.62 (Neighborhood and/or City homes Compatibility). The Planning Commission and/or City Council Council shall review the final design of the homes to ensure neighborhood compatibility requirements are met. Aesthetics Adverse 14 Prior to issuance of construction permits for any homes within Review of Planning Prior to impact due to Tentative Tract 52214, design review will be conducted to plans by Department issuance of design ensure that the design of utility hook-ups are consistent with Planning building the City’s neighborhood compatibility standards and scenic Commission permits for corridor objectives to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, and/or City homes Planning Commission and City Council, if necessary. Council Transporta- Adverse 19 The final design of the intersection configuration and Review of City Traffic Prior to review tion/Traffic impact due to landscape design at the intersection of Montecillo Drive and design and Engineer/Planning and approval traffic design Casaba Road shall be subject to review and approval by the field visits Department of Final Tract City Traffic Engineer to ensure that both landscape features Map and turning movements meet City traffic safety standards. Any changes requested by the City Traffic Engineer shall be made to the Tentative Tract Map prior to final review and approval of the Final Tract Map. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Air Quality Adverse 21-22 The project applicant shall require project contractors to Field SCAQMD/ During impacts due implement the following SCAQMD-approved dust control monitoring Planning grading and to measure during project construction: prior to and Department construction construction a. Apply approved non-toxic chemical during stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all grading, inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive excavation for four days or more). and b. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas construction as quickly as possible. to verify c. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply compliance approved soil binders to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand dirt) according to manufacturers’ specifications. d. Water active grading sites at least twice daily. e. Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. f. Provide temporary wind fencing consisting of three- to five-foot barriers with 50 percent or less porosity along the perimeter of sites that have been cleared or are being graded. g. All trucks hauling direct, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e. minimum vertical distance between top of load and the top of the trailer), in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code. h. Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (recommend water sweepers using reclaimed water if readily available).
Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Air Quality Adverse 21-22 i. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter Field SCAQMD/ During impacts due and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks monitoring Planning grading and to and any equipment leaving the site each trip. prior to and Department construction construction j. Apply water three times daily or chemical soil during stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all grading, unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces. excavation k. Enforce traffic speed limits of 15 mph or and less on all unpaved roads. construction l. Pave construction roads when the specific to verify roadway path would be utilized for 120 days or more. compliance
Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Biological Adverse 25-26 The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to Review of Planning During Resources impacts to disturb or destroy any occupied native bird nest. timing for Department grading and nesting birds Construction activities that result in grading or in the removal grading and construction of shrubs or trees shall be conducted during the nonbreeding construction season for birds (approximately September 1 through by Planning February 15, if feasible). Portions of project area where Department construction is scheduled to take place during the nesting season (February 16 through August 31) shall be grubbed and graded to remove any potential nesting habitat for birds, per the certification of a qualified ornithologist, prior to February 15. This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Alternatively, if grubbing and grading activities cannot avoid the bird breeding season, the applicant shall retain the services of a qualified ornithologist approved by the City to conduct a survey of the construction zone. The ornithological survey may require 2 to 4 days to complete, depending upon the extent of the project area scheduled for grubbing, grading, or other construction activities. The survey shall occur not more than 1 week prior to the initiation of those construction activities to minimize the potential that bird nests are not initiated after the survey and prior to construction. If the ornithologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, the applicant shall notify the City and conspicuously flag off the area(s) supporting bird nests, providing a minimum buffer1 of 100 feet (30 meters) between the nest and limits of construction. The construction crew shall be instructed to avoid any activities in this zone until the bird nest(s) is/are no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified ornithologist
1 The buffer size will depend on the type of species. For example, for raptors, a buffer of 500 feet may be required. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Cultural Adverse 27 Grading and excavation activities on the project site shall be Prior to Planning Prior to Resources effects due to monitored by qualified archeological/paleontological issuance of Department grading the presence monitor(s) approved by the City. The Planning Director shall grading of previously be notified of any finds and the recommendation of the permits undetected monitor within 24-hours. At the conclusion of monitoring, a cultural report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of resources specimens shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning Director to indicate completion of project monitoring. Palentological Monitoring - The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and samples of sediments as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The Monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens or to avoid resources requiring evaluation. Monitoring for paleontological resources shall be reduced or eliminated if it is determined by qualified paleontologic personnel that the site has a low potential to contain fossil resources. Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage. Archeological Monitoring – If buried archeological resources are uncovered during construction, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archeologist can asses the significance of the archaeological resources and recommend to the City the appropriate action. Disposition of recovered prehistoric artifacts shall be made in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. In the event of the accidental discovery of any human remains, the steps and procedures specified in Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code 5097.98 shall be implemented. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 30 The following shall be required as part of project grading and Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to construction: building plans County during grading seismic risk 1. Support the proposed building by foundations embedded and field visits Department of and in the underlying bedrock. Building and construction 2. Support the interior concrete slabs by foundations Safety/Planning embedded in the underlying bedrock. Department 3. Support any wall that is not part of the proposed building by foundations embedded in a new compacted fill blanket of no less than 7 feet thick. The new compacted fill may be placed on the existing fill. 4. Support the exterior concrete slabs and pavements on a new compacted fill blanket of no less than 5 feet thick.
Geology/ Adverse 30-31 The project sponsor shall ensure that: Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to 1. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the site shall be building plans County during grading grading cleared of all vegetation, existing fill, loose topsoil, debris, and field visits Department of and and any other deleterious materials. Building and construction 2. Import soils shall be tested and approved by the Safety/Planning geotechnical engineer prior to import. Department 3. Surfaces receiving fill soils shall be scarified, aerated, or moistened to moisture content acceptable to the soils engineer, then compacted to a compaction of not less than 90% of the maximum density. 4. If the moisture content of the fill soils is below the limits specified by the geotechnical engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required. 5. If the moisture content of the fill soils is above the limits specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill soils shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as required. If drying of soils is not desired, the wet soils shall be mixed with drier materials to achieve an acceptable moisture content. 6. The fill soils shall be placed in lifts of no more than six (6) inches in thickness and compacted until field density tests indicate that a compaction of not less than 90% of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557-98 has been obtained.
Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 7. Field density tests shall be made in accordance with Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to ASTM D 1556-97. Field density tests shall be made every 2- building plans County during grading grading foot interval and not less than one test per 500 cubic yards of and field visits Department of and fill placed. Building and construction 8. Rocks less than 6 inches in greatest dimension may be Safety/Planning placed in the fill, provided: a. They are not placed in Department concentrated pockets; and b. The fine-grained materials surrounding the rocks are sufficiently compacted. ocks larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension shall be removed from the site or placed in accordance with specific recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. 10. No fill soils shall be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the soils engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. 11. Planting and irrigation of cut and fill slopes and installation of erosion control and drainage devices shall comply with the requirements of the Grading Code of controlling agencies Geology/ Adverse 31 The proposed fill slope shall be made no steeper than 2:1 Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to (horizontal to vertical). The toe of the fill slope shall be building plans County during grading fill slope provided with a keyway of no less than 12 feet wide and and field visits Department of and extending at least 5 feet into firm soils. The fill soils shall be Building and construction benched at least 5 feet into firm fill soils as filling progresses. Safety/Planning Fill placement shall be in accordance with the GRADING Department MITIGATION. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 31 The proposed building shall be supported by foundations Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to embedded entirely in bedrock. Caissons shall be at least building plans County during grading Foundation 24 inches in diameter and shall be embedded at least 5 and field visits Department of and Design feet into bedrock. Friction piles shall be at least 18 Building and construction inches in diameter and shall be embedded at least 10 Safety/Planning feet into bedrock. Walls that are not part of the Department proposed building may be supported by foundations embedded in a new compacted fill blanket of no less than 7 feet thick. Spread footings shall be embedded at least 24 inches into the compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade of the compacted fill. The Structural Engineer for the project shall determine the types of foundations. All foundations shall be continuous or tied with grade beams. At a minimum, two #4 bars shall be placed near the top and two #4 bars near the bottom of all continuous footings. Setback - All foundations shall be set back a minimum horizontal distance from the surface of the adjacent descending slope equal to 1/3 of the height of the slope. The minimum setback shall be 10 feet from the slope surface.
Geology/ Adverse 31-32 Allowable Bearing Capacity - For preliminary design Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to purposes, the allowable bearing value for foundations placed building plans County during grading Foundation as recommended may be calculated from the following. The and field visits Department of and Design allowable bearing value shall not exceed 4,000 pounds per Building and construction Bedrock Caissons: q= 900 + 800 d + 200 b Safety/Planning Compacte Spread q= 400 + 400 d + 200 b Department d Footing: Fill square foot fo r the bedrock and 1,500 pounds per square foot for the compacted fill. where: q = allowable soil bearing value, in pounds per square foot, d = depth of foundation into bedrock or compacted fill, in feet, b = smallest width of footing, or diameter of caisson, in feet. The recommended values are for dead load plus frequently applied live load and may be increased by one-third when considering total loads including short durations of wind or seismic forces. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 32 For preliminary design purposes, the allowable load Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to capacities of each pile placed as recommended may be building plans County during grading Skill Frictional assumed as follows: and field visits Department of and Resistance Depth of 18-inch Allowable 30-inch Building and construction Embedmen Diameter Load Diameter Safety/Planning t In Capacity of Department Bedrock each Pile
24-inch Diameter 10 feet 20 kips 26 kips 32 kips
15 feet 32 kips 42 kips 52 kips
20 feet 46 kips 62 kips 78 kips
25 feet 64 kips 86 kips 108 kips
Intermediate values may be interpolated. The point of fixity may be assumed to be 3 feet into bedrock. The above recommended values are for dead load plus frequently applied live load and may be increased by one-third when considering total loads including short duration of wind or seismic forces. Geology/ Adverse 32 Total and differential settlements of the proposed Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to foundations, embedded in bedrock or compacted fill as building plans County during grading settlement recommended, are anticipated to be within tolerable limits. and field visits Department of and Total settlement of each foundation embedded in bedrock Building and construction and subject to no more than the allowable pressure is Safety/Planning expected to be no more than ¼ inch. Total settlement of Department each foundation embedded in compacted fill and subject to no more than the allowable pressure is expected to be no more than ½ inch, accompanied by differential settlement on the order of ¼ inch. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 32-33 Lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressure and Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to friction. building plans County during grading lateral design Allowabl Maximu Coefficient and field visits Department of and e Lateral m Lateral of Friction Building and construction Bearing Bearing Safety/Planning Department Bedrock 400 4,000 psf 0.40 psf/ft. Compacted 200 2,000 psf 0.25 Fill psf/ft.
The allowable bearing values may be used provided there is positive contact between bearing surface and the bedrock or compacted fill. Lateral bearings for foundations placed adjacent to a descending slope shall be neglected above the level where the horizontal setback to the slope surface is less than 5 feet. If the frictional and lateral bearing resistances are combined, the lateral bearing resistance shall be reduced by one-third. The above values may be increased by one- third for short durations of seismic and wind forces.
Geology/ Adverse 33 The near-surface soils are susceptible to downhill creep, Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to which must be presumed and allowed for in the design. building plans County during grading downhill Caissons and friction piles, as well as grade beams and wall and field visits Department of and creep footings parallel to the contours of the adjacent descending Building and construction slope, when placed within 20 feet horizontally of the slope Safety/Planning surface, shall be designed for pressures due to downhill Department creep. The creep force may be assumed as 1,000 pounds per linear foot acting upon each caisson or pile for its portions within 20 feet of the slope surface. Grade beams and wall footings subject to the downhill creep shall be designed for earth pressures presented on Earth Pressure on Retaining Walls. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 33-34 Earth Pressure on Retaining Walls: The earth pressure on Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to cantilevered walls retaining the on-site materials, or grade building plans County during grading retaining beams and wall footings subject to the downhill creep, may and field visits Department of and walls be assumed equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density Building and construction not less than that shown in the following table: Safety/Planning Department Backfill Slope (Horiz. to Equivalent Fluid Vert.) Pressure
Level 45pcf
5 to1 48
4 to1 52
3 to1 58 2 to1 65 Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 33-34 Walls designed for the recommended earth pressure need Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to not be designed for additional creep forces. The building plans County during grading retaining recommended earth pressure shall be increased in the event and field visits Department of and walls of surcharge loads affecting the walls. Building and construction Backdrain and Waterproofing: An adequate backdrain Safety/Planning system shall be incorporated in the design of the retaining Department walls. One of such backdrain systems may consist of 4-inch diameter perforated pipes, placed with perforations facing down and surrounded by crushed rocks. The backdrain shall be wrapped with suitable geofabrics to minimize the potential for clogging. Water collected in the pipes shall be dispersed by gravity flow in a controlled manner. The retaining walls shall be suitably waterproofed to minimize the potential for damages due to moisture intrusion, seepage and leakage. Conventional waterproofing materials, such as asphalt emulsion, have often proved ineffective. Certain precautions can be taken to reduce the possibility of future seepage problems. Superplasticized and water-retardant concrete may be used to make pouring easier and reduce shrinkage and cracking. Wall Backfill: If the retaining walls are not constructed directly against the face of the temporary excavation, the space between the walls and the cut faces shall be backfilled with pea gravels, or equivalent. The pea gravel backfill shall be placed in lifts of no more than 2 feet in thickness and shall be compacted with vibratory equipment. In areas where sloped temporary cuts are made that require placement of larger quantities of backfill, the fill materials shall consist of approved granular soils. The new fill soils shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in accordance with recommendations on grading presented in the section on GRADING MITIGATIONS. Revised specifications may be required after review of the detailed construction drawings. Some settlement of the backfill is anticipated and shall be allowed for in the design and placement of slabs and utilities. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 34 Interior concrete slabs shall be structurally supported by Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to foundations embedded in the bedrock. Exterior concrete building plans County during grading soil slabs and pavements shall be supported by a new and field visits Department of and compacted fill blanket of at least 5 feet thick. Existing loose Building and construction fill soils shall be removed and recompacted. It shall be noted Safety/Planning that slabs not structurally supported in bedrock may be Department subject to some distress and cracking. Some periodic maintenance may be required. Patio slabs and walkways are generally not given the level of treatment that floor slabs are given. Any new fill soils shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction in accordance with GRADING MITIGATIONS. Exterior slabs placed on-grade shall be supported by a minimum of 4 inches of base. These slabs shall be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches, both ways. A moisture barrier, such as 6-mil visqueen, shall be placed beneath the slabs where upward capillary of moisture is undesirable. The visqueen shall be covered with one inch of sand to prevent puncture. Presoaking of 24 inches of subgrade soils is recommended. The subgrade soils shall be further tested for expansion potential during construction to determine if revised slab design would be necessary. Exterior slabs (i.e., patio, walkway, etc.) shall be provided with proper crack control joints. Typical concrete shrinkage can result in cracks and gaps along the crack control joints and where the slab connects to structures. The gaps will require periodic caulking to limit infiltration of moisture. Exterior slabs planned adjacent to the descending slope shall be provided with a thickened edge. The thickened edge shall be a minimum of 12 inches wide, 24 inches deep and reinforced with four #4 bars, two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The thickened edge will not eliminate the possibility of cracking or movement of the slab, but will reduce the risk. Decking which caps a retaining wall shall be provided with a flexible joint to allow for the normal 1 to 2 percent deflection of the retaining wall. Decking which does not cap a retaining wall shall not be tied to the wall. The space between the wall and decking will require periodic caulking to prevent moisture intrusion into the retaining wall backfill. It is important to recognize that patio slabs, walkways, etc., could be subjected to cracking and tilting due to local soil influences, unless they are structurally designed to resist such influences. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 35 The project sponsor shall maintain an adequate debris, Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to erosion and fire control program to protect the property. building plans County during grading slope surface Sloughing and slumping on any slope may occur, especially and field visits Department of and stability during rainy seasons. It shall be noted that excessive Building and construction landscape watering, rodent burrows and uncontrolled Safety/Planning surface runoff may cause instability of the slope surface. The Department following will reduce the potential for future erosion of the slopes: 1 . The slopes shall be planted and maintained with a suitable deep-rooted ground cover as soon as possible. Additional protection may be provided by the use of jute mesh or suitable geofabrics. Sloughing and slumping of the surficial soils may occur. Maintaining proper vegetation on slopes will reduce this risk. It is imperative that landscape watering be kept to the minimum required for normal plant growth. 2. Any paved drainage swale and downdrain on the slopes and drain inlet shall be kept free of soils and debris. 3. Adequate site drainage shall be provided. All roof and surface drainage shall be conducted away from foundation and slope areas via engineered non-erosive devices to existing storm drain facilities on the street. In no case shall water be allowed to pond within the site, drain towards structures or flow in a concentrated and uncontrolled manner down the slope Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 35 Drainage control is imperative for continued site stability. The Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to risk of unusual settlement or stability of structures can be building plans County during grading drainage reduced by proper drainage control and maintenance of and field visits Department of and yards. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the Building and construction drainage facilities and correct any deficiency found during Safety/Planning occupancy of the property. Roof gutters and area drains Department with proper gradient for the surrounding soils shall be provided. Pad and roof drainage shall be positively collected and transferred to the street via non-erosive drainage devices. Water shall not be allowed to pond on the pad, flow towards any foundations or wall, or sheet-flow over any descending slope. Drainage from ascending slopes and off- site properties shall not be permitted to flow onto the site, unless such runoff can be directed to the street via non- erosive drainage devices. Upslope runoff shall be properly directed around the development. Any crack in paved surfaces shall be sealed to limit infiltration of surface water. Slopes and yards shall be provided with low maintenance, erosion control vegetation. Care shall be taken not to over- irrigate the site. Landscape watering shall be kept to the minimum necessary for normal plant growth. Planting around the structures shall be minimized. Planters located adjacent to the structures shall be sealed and properly drained. The feasibility of utilizing contained planters shall be considered. Water and sewer lines within the subject site shall be checked for leakage periodically and repaired if necessary. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 35-36 Where necessary construction space is available, temporary Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to unsurcharged excavations may be considered to the depths building plans County during grading excavation and slope ratios tabulated below: and field visits Department of and Max Depth of cut Max Slope Ratio Building and construction (Feet) (Horizontal to Safety/Planning Vertical) Department
Fill Soils 0- 4 Vertical 4+ 1:1 Bedrock 0- 5 Vertical 5-10 3/4:1 10+ 1:1
Soils exposed in the cuts shall be kept moist but not saturated, to reduce the tendency for raveling and sloughing during construction. The top of the cut slopes shall be barricaded to keep vehicles and heavy storage loads at least five feet away from the top of the slopes. During the rainy season, berms shall be constructed and maintained along the top of the slopes and plastic sheets shall be placed over the slopes to prevent runoff water from eroding the slope faces. The contractor shall determine sequence of construction and method. Where construction space is not available, the cuts shall be shored or made in slots. The shoring system shall be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per square foot per foot. The slots shall be no more than 6 feet wide and shall be made in an A- B-C-A-B-C sequence. Although no significant amount of soil caving was encountered in the exploratory test borings, other excavations may experience caving. Construction methods shall meet the requirements of the California Occupational Safety and Health Association (CAL-OSHA) and other public agencies having jurisdiction. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 36 It is the responsibility of the contractor to maintain a safe Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to construction site. When excavations exist on a site, the area building plans County during grading construction shall be fenced and warning signs posted. All deep and field visits Department of and site excavations must be properly covered and secured. Building and construction maintenance Temporary erosion control measures and protection of Safety/Planning excavation from drainage and erosion during the rainy Department season is required. Earth materials generated from foundation and subgrade excavations shall be either removed from the site or properly compacted. Fill temporarily stockpiled on the site shall be placed in a stable area, away from slopes, excavations and improvements. Earth materials must not be spilled over any descending slope. Workers shall not be allowed to enter any unshored trench excavations over five feet deep. Geology/ Adverse 37 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the project applicant Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to shall re-submit current copies of all applicable geotechnical building plans County during grading geology and reports to the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of the grading and field visits Department of and soils permit for the project, the geotechnical mitigation measures Building and construction shall be reviewed by the City Engineer, who shall have the Safety/Planning discretion to require an updated geotechnical report. Prior to Department issuance of grading and construction permits, project plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant to verify compatibility with the requirements of the geotechnical report. The geotechnical consultant shall report any necessary modifications to the City Engineer or indicate that mitigations in the applicable geotechnical reports remain valid. A meeting between the City Engineer, the applicant, the structural engineer, geologist, geotechnical engineer, and the contractor shall be scheduled to discuss the project and to ensure that Mitigation Measures for geotechnical conditions continue to accurately reflect the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations for the project. Based on the City Engineer’s review of the mitigation measures and geotechnical reports for the project and consultation with the geotechnical consultant for the project, the City Engineer has the discretion to update and substitute mitigation measures to achieve required levels of geotechnical safety. A complete list of final geotechnical mitigation measures shall be attached to the grading permit and the geotechnical consultant shall certify concurrence with the list of geotechnical mitigation measures attached to the grading permit. Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Geology/ Adverse 37 Each phase of construction shall be properly inspected and Review of Los Angeles Prior to and Soils impact due to approved by the building official, the structural engineer, building plans County during grading geology and geologist and geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical and field visits Department of and soils engineer shall observe: Building and construction 1. Temporary excavations and shoring. Safety/Planning 2. Removal of unsuitable soils in areas of proposed slabs. Department 3. Bottom of excavation prior to placement of compacted fill. 4. Backfill placement and compaction. 5. Surface and subsurface drainage systems. 6. Foundation excavations
Env. Issue Potential Page No. Mitigation Measure Method of Responsible Monitoring Verification Significant Reference Review Agency Milestone of Effect Verification Compliance Utilities and Adverse 47 Prior to approval of the grading permit for the project, the Review of Cal Water/City Prior to Service impact due to project applicant shall meet with Cal Water’s engineering grading plans Engineer issuance of Systems wastewater department to ensure that the project grading plan is grading permit acceptable to Cal Water and does not result in any impacts to Cal Water facilities. Any measures requested by Cal Water to protect facilities during construction will be transmitted to the City Engineer and incorporated into the mitigation plan. Should Cal Water request modifications to the grading plan, those modifications will be reviewed by the City Engineer to determine whether requested modifications are minor, or of sufficient magnitude to trigger additional environmental review. No permit for grading for the project will be issued unless both Cal Water and the City Engineer deem the grading plan acceptable. Wastewater from the project will be discharged directly to the County Sanitation Districts’ (Districts) Narbonne Avenue Trunk Sewer, Section 3, located in Palos Verdes Drive East at Palos Verdes Drive North. This 10-inch diameter truck sewer has a design capacity of 2.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 0.09 mgd when last measured in 2003. Wastewater generated by the project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a design capacity of 385 mgd and currently processes and average flow of 319.6 mgd. The project is not anticipated to result in a need for new or substantial alternations to the existing sewer system due to the limited amount of additional sewage (estimated at 3,380 gallons per day) generated by the addition of 13 single family homes. The District’s have not indicated any problem in serving the project. The project applicant will be required to pay a connection fee before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. The purpose of the fee is to fund improvements identified to serve future regional growth in the area. Impacts are, thus, anticipated to be less than significant.
Mmrp2.doc