Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
   

TO:

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: JUNE 3, 2003

SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NOS. ZON2003-00036 & ZON2003-00113) (Applicant: Dana Ireland; Property Owner: Robert C. Haase, Jr.; Subject Property: 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South)

Staff Coordinator: Dave Blumenthal, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

(1) Adopt Resolution No. 2003-__, certifying the Negative Declaration; (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2003-__, approving the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment; (3) Introduce Ordinance No. ___, approving the Zone Text Amendment; and (4) Introduce Ordinance No. ___, approving the Zone Change.

BACKGROUND

On June 26, 1975, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 75-43, thereby adopting the General Plan of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. With the adoption of the General Plan, a land use designation of Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) was applied to the property located at 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South. Subsequently, the property was zoned Single Family Residential (RS-4). As such, the commercial gas station, which was located on the site prior to the City’s incorporation, became a pre-existing nonconforming use.

On December 19, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 78-81, which adopted the Coastal Specific Plan, thereby setting forth a land use designation of Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) on the subject parcel.

On March 4, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-17, which adopted a Negative Declaration, and approved General Plan Amendment No. 23, and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No. 6, thereby changing the General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property from Residential to Commercial Office. Furthermore, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 321 (second reading was on April 1, 1997), which approved Zone Change No. 25, thereby changing the zoning of the subject parcel from Single Family Residential (RS-4) to Commercial Professional (CP). The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were approved by the City Council, at the applicant’s request, upon making the appropriate findings (please see attached City Council minutes).

On October 15, 2002, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) for the subject property to change the land use from commercial to residential. The purpose of the GPAIR was to allow the applicant an opportunity to elicit feedback from the City Council on a proposed General Plan Amendment. At the meeting, the Council did not provide any pertinent feedback related to the proposed change in land use, but also did not deny the request from going forward (please see attached City Council minutes).

On January 24, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment, a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4). After review of the submittal, staff deemed the application complete on February 21, 2003.

On April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony on the matter. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1, with Vice Chairman Mueller abstaining, to recommend approval of the requested action to the City Council.

On May 15, 2003, notice of the pending public hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site, as well as to the Coastal Commission and coastal permit interested parties. Additionally, the notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 17, 2003.

SITE & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject site is a 16,984 square foot parcel, which is located on the southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Seacove Drive, which is improved with a 1,500 square foot single story building. Furthermore, the subject site is located within the non-appealable area of the coastal zone.

This project consists of two components, each of which have been assigned a separate planning case number. A description of each component is as follows:

Case No. ZON2003-00036 is a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4).

Case No. ZON2003-00113 is a City initiated Zone Text Amendment to Section No. 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) to require development on parcels, where the zoning designation changes, to comply with the parking standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change of use of the property, as defined by the Chapter 17.96 of this Code, occurs.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The Planning Commission reviewed the attached Initial Study and three comments letters, which were received prior to the preparation of the Planning Commission staff report. A staff analysis of these documents can be seen on the attached Planning Commission staff report. Based on this information, the Planning Commission is recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration.

Additionally, the following letters were received after the Planning Commission staff report was prepared:

  • State Clearinghouse: This is a letter states that the public review period concluded with no state agencies responding to the draft Negative Declaration.

Staff Response: This comment does not raise any environmental issues. Staff acknowledges receipt of the letter, but feels no response is necessary.

  • County of Los Angeles, Fire Department: This letter states that Planning Division, Land Development Unit, and the Forestry Division have reviewed the project and have no comments on the proposed project.

Staff Response: This comment does not raise any environmental issues. Staff acknowledges receipt of the letter, but feels no response is necessary.

  • County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works: The Department of Public Works states that the capture of local rainfall on the project site should be maximized, incremental increases in flows to the storm drain system should be eliminated, and the filtering of flows to capture contaminants originating from the project site should be eliminated.

Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with NPDES. Inasmuch as the project site is located in an environmentally sensitive area, any construction on the site may require the preparation of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). However, since this is already a requirement on development, staff feels that this impact is less than significant, thus does not require mitigation.

DISCUSSION

A detailed analysis of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zone Text Amendment is located in the attached Planning Commission staff report.

According to Government Code Section No. 65353 & 65453, the Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing on all General Plan and Specific Plan amendments and make a recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, Municipal Code Section No. 17.68.040 requires the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on Zone Changes and Zone Text Amendments. As such, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2003 (see attached Planning Commission minute excerpts). During the public hearing only the applicant spoke in favor of the project, with no one speaking against the proposal.

The Planning Commission raised two issues when considering the proposal, whether there is a potential liability issue due to the site being a former gas station and whether the Fire Department needed the site for expansion of the fire station. In their discussion on the project, the Planning Commission noted that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has environmentally cleared the site, thus any potential contamination issues has been resolved. Regarding the concern for the Fire Department, since the public hearing, as noted above in the Environmental Assessment section of this report, staff received comments on the Negative Declaration from the Fire Department, which states that they have no concerns on the project. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1, with Vice Chairman Mueller abstaining and Commissioners Cote and Tomblin being absent, to recommend approval of the proposal.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Correspondence Received:

During the Planning Commission’s public hearing, a petition in favor of the proposed project, signed by 28 property owners, was distributed to the Planning Commission. Additionally, as noted above, notice of the proposed application was sent out to all property owners within 500 of the subject site on May 17, 2003. As of the date this report was prepared, no correspondence was received as a result of the notice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the written and oral testimony received during the public hearing conducted on April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission is recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment (Case Nos. ZON2003-00036 & ZON2003-00113).

FISCAL IMPACT

None

ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

  1. Certify the Negative Declaration and approve the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment (Case Nos. ZON2003-00036 & ZON2003-00113).
  2. Deny, without prejudice, the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment (Case Nos. ZON2003-00036 & ZON2003-00113).

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, aicp, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:

Les Evans, City Manager

Attachments:

  • Draft Resolution No. 2003-__, for Negative Declaration
  • Draft Resolution No. 2003-__, for General Plan Amendment and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment
  • Draft Ordinance No. ___, for Zone Text Amendment
  • Draft Ordinance No. ___, for Zone Change
  • Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 22, 2003
  • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003-16
  • Planning Commission Minute Excerpts, dated April 22, 2003
  • Environmental Checklist Form (Initial Study), dated March 10, 2003
  • Phase II Subsurface Soil Investigation Report, dated January 26, 2001
  • Letter of Underground Storage Tank Case Closure, from California Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated December 10, 2001
  • Correspondence received from State Clearinghouse, dated March 18, 2003
  • Correspondence received from SCAG, dated March 20, 2003
  • Correspondence received from County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, dated March 25, 2003
  • Correspondence received from State Clearinghouse, dated April 15, 2003
  • Correspondence received from County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, dated May 6, 2003
  • Correspondence received from County of Los Angeles, Fire Department, dated May 13, 2003
  • Petition in favor of proposed project, received April 17, 2003
  • City Council minute excerpts, dated March 4, 1997, for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on property
  • City Council minute excerpts, dated October 15, 2002, for GPAIR

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THOSE FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOW:

Section 1: On January 24, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2003-00036), for property located at 6100 Palos verdes Drive South. After review of the submittal, staff deemed the application complete on February 21, 2003. Said application is a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public and agency comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.

Section 2: In conjunction with the proposed application, the City initiated a Zone Text Amendment (Case No. ZON2003-00113) to Section No. 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) to require development on parcels, where the zoning designation changes, to comply with the parking standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change of use of the property, as defined by the Chapter 17.96 of this Code, occurs.

Section 3: 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 Planning Commission recommended to the City Council certification of the Negative Declaration by the adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2003-16

Section 4: Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section Nos. 65353 and 65453, and the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a duly noticed public hearing on April 22, 2003, at which the Planning Commission recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment by the adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2003-16.

Section 5: A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on June 3, 2003. At the hearing, all persons both in favor of and in opposition to the Project were permitted to be heard. The findings adopted herein are based upon substantial evidence in the record of those hearings.

Section 6: The Negative Declaration for the proposed project is now comprised of the Initial Study, the comments which were received by the City regarding the Negative Declaration, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process.

Section 7: The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Negative Declaration, as defined in Section 6 and upon other substantial evidence, which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the Negative Declaration for the Project are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in the Office of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274. The custodian of said records is the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Section 8: The City Council finds that the public and government agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration.

Section 9: The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) that the Negative Declaration has been independently reviewed and analyzed by the City Council and its Staff, and that said documents represent the independent judgment of the City Council with respect to the Project.

Section 10: The City Council finds that there are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site, and any future development of the site will be required to comply with the City’s Development Code standards. No site disturbance and/or alteration of any kind will result from the approval of General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change and/or Zone Text Amendment. Therefore, the project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State Fish and Game Code.

Section 11: Based upon the information and analysis contained in Negative Declaration, as defined in Section 6, and the record of these proceedings, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

Section 12: 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, Public Resource Code Section 21167, and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2003:

_______________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________
City Clerk

State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2003-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 3, 2003.

_________________________________

City Clerk

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH.

WHEREAS, on January 24, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment, a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4). After review of the submittal, staff deemed the application complete on February 21, 2003; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section Nos. 65353 & 65453, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a duly noticed public hearing on April 22, 2003, at which the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Negative Declaration, and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment by the adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2003-16; 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 Council certified a Negative Declaration by the adoption of Resolution No. 2003-__; and

WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 3, 2003, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The proposed change in the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations are warranted since the proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the General Plan and with the land use designations on properties in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The land use designation for the other properties on Sea Cove Drive is residential; inasmuch as the proposed residential land use is consistent with these properties, the proposed change is consistent with the General Plan.

Section 2: The proposed change in the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations are warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public’s interest because, residential developments have fewer impacts to the surrounding area than commercial land uses, thus a residential use on the subject property would be in the interest of the other properties in the vicinity.

Section 3: 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 and other applicable short periods of limitation.

Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of these proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, thereby amending the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2003:

_______________________

Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________
City Clerk

State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2003-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 3, 2003.

_________________________________

City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE PROPERTIES TO COMPLY WITH PARKING REGULATIONS UPON THE CHANGE IN ZONING.

 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: On January 24, 2003, an application for a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2003-00036), for property located at 6100 Palos verdes Drive South was submitted. After review of the submittal, staff deemed the application complete on February 21, 2003. Said application is a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4).

Section 2: In conjunction with the proposed application, the City initiated a Zone Text Amendment (Case No. ZON2003-00113) to Section No. 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) to require development on parcels, where the zoning designation changes, to comply with the parking standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change of use of the property, as defined by the Chapter 17.96 of this Code, occurs.

Section 3: 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 Council certified a Negative Declaration by the adoption of Resolution No. 2003-__.

Section 4: The City Council finds that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is warranted since it is consistent with the General Plan. The amendment is necessary to ensure sufficient off-street parking is provided on the subject property, thus meeting the community standards of environmental quality for the area.

Section 5: Section 17.84.060 of Chapter 17.84 of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new paragraph F thereto to read as follows:

F. When the underlying zoning designation changes on a parcel, all structures on the property shall be brought into compliance with the parking standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change of use of the property, as defined by the Chapter 17.96 of this Code, occurs.

Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2003.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )

 

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ passed first reading on June 3, 2003, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on June 17, 2003, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________

City Clerk

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6100 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH FROM COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL (CP) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-4)

 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: On January 24, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2003-00036), for property located at 6100 Palos verdes Drive South was submitted. After review of the submittal, staff deemed the application complete on February 21, 2003. Said application is a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4).

Section 2: In conjunction with the proposed application, the City initiated a Zone Text Amendment (Case No. ZON2003-00113) to Section No. 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) to require development on parcels, where the zoning designation changes, to comply with the parking standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change of use of the property, as defined by the Chapter 17.96 of this Code, occurs

Section 3: 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 Council certified a Negative Declaration by the adoption of Resolution No. 2003-__.

Section 4: With adoption of Resolution No. 2003-__, the City Council changed the General Plan Land Use Designation and the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).

Section 5: The City Council finds that the proposed Zone Change is warranted since it is consistent with the General Plan. With the change in the General Plan Land Use Designation from commercial to residential, the change in zoning from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4) is required to keep the zoning consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation.

Section 6: The zoning for property located at 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South is hereby changed to Single Family Residential (RS-4).

Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.

Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of June 2003.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )

 

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. ____ passed first reading on June 3, 2003, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on June 17, 2003, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

 

 

_________________________

City Clerk

 

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

 

 

  1. Project title:

General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone Text Amendment & Environmental Assessment (Case No. ZON2003-00036 & ZON2003-00113).

2. Lead agency name/ address:

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement

30940 Hawthorne Boulevard

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

3. Contact person and phone number:

Dave Blumenthal, Associate Planner

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Phone: (310) 544-5228

Email: daveb@rpv.com

4. Project location:

Southwest corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Seacove Drive, at 6100 Palos Verdes Drive South, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, County of Los Angeles, APN 7573-006-017.

5. Project sponsor's name and address:

Dana Ireland

30 Narcissa Drive

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275

6. General plan designation:

Current: Commercial (office)

Proposed: Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)

7. Coastal plan designation:

Current: Commercial (office)

Proposed: Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)

8. Zoning:

Current: Commercial Professional (CP)

Proposed: Single Family Residential (RS-4)

9. Description of project:

Case No. ZON2003-00036 is a request to amend the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations of the subject property from Commercial (office) to Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and rezone the property from Commercial Professional (CP) to Single Family Residential (RS-4).

Case No. ZON2003-00113 is a City initiated Zone Text Amendment to Section No. 17.84 of the Municipal Code (Nonconformities) to require development on parcels, where the underlying zoning designation changes, to comply with the development standards of the new zoning designation, at such time that a change in the building occupancy, as defined by the Uniform Building Code, is proposed. This requirement shall not apply to existing legal nonconforming building setbacks.

10. Description of project site (as it currently exists):

The subject site is a 16,984 square foot pad lot, which is accessed from a single driveway on Seacove Drive; a six-foot tall block wall currently surrounds the site. Currently, the property is improved with a 1,500 square foot single story building, which was previously used for a commercial service station, but since has been converted to an office building. Additionally, this property is located within a non-appealable portion of the City’s Coastal Specific Plan.

11. Surrounding land uses and setting:

 

Land Uses

Significant Features

On-site

Commercial

This property is a former gas station site.

North

Single Family Residential

The residential property is located across Palos Verdes Drive South, a four lane divided highway.

South

A drainage area immediately adjacent to the site, with Single Family Residential to the south of the drainage area

The residential developments on the seaward side of Seacove Drive are located within the RS-2 zone, while the other properties in the tract are located within the RS-4 zone.

East

Open Space (recreational)

Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (a city owned park)

West

Commercial and Institutional

A commercial office use is adjacent to the subject site, with a County Fire Station to the west of that.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:

Coastal Commission

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages.

 

Land Use and Planning

 

Biological Resources

 

Aesthetics

 
 

Population and Housing

 

Energy/Mineral Resources

 

Cultural Resources

 
 

Geology and Soils

 

Hazards and Hazardous Material

 

Recreation

 
 

Hydrology and Water Quality

 

Noise

 

Agricultural Resources

 

Air Quality

Public Services

Mandatory Findings of Significance

 

Transportation and Circulation

 

Utilities and Service Systems

   

DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

X

I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project

 

Signature:

 

Date:

March 10, 2003

 

Printed Name:

Dave Blumenthal

For:

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

Issues and Supporting Information Sources

Sources

Potentially Significant Issues

Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant Impact

No Impact

1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance?

1,2,3

     

X

b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?

3

     

X

c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?

       

X

d) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

       

X

e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)?

       

X

Comments: The request is to modify the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designations and to re-zone the property, which will allow the site to be used as a single-family residence. Upon adoption of the General Plan (June, 1975) and the Coastal Specific Plan (December, 1978) the subject property was designated for single-family residential uses. However, in 1996 the land use was modified from residential to commercial at the request of the property owner, thereby bringing the existing non-conforming commercial uses into compliance with the General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, and zoning.

The proposal will restore the designation of the property back to the residential use, thus bringing the property into agreement with the original intent of the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. According to the General Plan, residential uses produce a lower environmental stress than commercial uses (page 194). As such, the proposal is not contrary to the General Plan. Given that the site is located within Subregion 4 of the Coastal Specific Plan and it is a policy of the Coastal Specific Plan, that all new housing within this subregion be single family in nature (page S4-14), the proposal is not contrary to the Coastal Specific Plan. Furthermore, the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code will require the building on the subject property be brought into conformance with the development standards for single-family residential zones, with exception to existing non-conforming setbacks.

Taking this into consideration, in conjunction with the fact that there is no habitat on the property, nor will the proposal divide an established community, the proposal to allow residential uses on the subject property is not considered in conflict with the General Plan, the Coastal Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, or other applicable environmental conservation plan.

 
 

2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:

a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?

8

     

X

b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure)?

       

X

c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?

       

X

d) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

       

X

Comments: The subject site is located within a developed area of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. This site is currently used and developed as a commercial site. According to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element (adopted August 2001), the city has a build out population projection of 50,200 people; whereas the current population is 41,145 (2000 Census Data). The increase of the City’s housing stock by one dwelling unit will not cause the population projections to be exceeded. Additionally, since the proposal is to increase the housing stock, it will not cause the displacement or removal of housing or people.

3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the proposal:

a) Expose people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

 

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

6

X

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

       

X

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

6

     

X

iv) Landslides?

6

     

X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

       

X

c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

       

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, thus creating substantial risks to life or property?

       

X

  1. Have soils incapable or adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
       

X

Comments: The subject site, like all of Southern California is prone to earthquakes and related ground movement. According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Maps, Redondo Beach Quadrangle (released March 25, 1999), the site is not subject to earthquake induced liquefaction or earthquake induced landslides. Furthermore, there are no known faults on the project site. It should be noted, however, that all subsequent construction on the site is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic safety.

4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the proposal:

a) Violate any water quality standard or wastewater discharge requirements?

       

X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater?

       

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

       

X

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site?

     

X

 

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

       

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

       

X

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map?

       

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

       

X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

       

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

       

X

Comments: The proposed amendments to the General Plan. Coastal Specific Plan, and Zoning do not directly alter the surface runoff of the property. However, as an indirect constraint, the property owner will be required to construct a garage to meet the enclosed parking requirements for single family residential, which may increase the overall lot coverage of the property. This increase would be considered minimal, and will not create a substantial alteration in the surface runoff from the property.

Secondary to the onsite modifications, is a drainage area, which is located adjacent to the south side of the project site. However, the change in the land use does not alter the ability of the property to be developed and any construction on the site would create a minimal increase in the surface runoff. As such, the proposed amendments and subsequent developments on the property will not have an impact to this area.

5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:

a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?

5

     

X

b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

       

X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

       

X

d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

       

X

e) Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any applicable air quality plan?

       

X

Comments: The subject site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is an area of non-attainment of federal air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10). However, residential uses tend to generate less vehicle trips than commercial uses. As such, the proposed change in land use should decrease pollutants derived from mobile sources, thus not contribute to the violation in the air quality standards for the basin.

6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal:

a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?

       

X

b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

       

X

c) Result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses?

       

X

d) Result in insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?

     

X

 

e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

       

X

f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

       

X

g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment?

       

X

Comments: The proposed change in land use will not cause an increase in traffic patterns in the area since residential land uses generate less vehicle trips than commercial land uses. However, the property currently does not meet the minimum enclosed parking requirement for residential properties in the city. This is considered an insignificant impact since the proposed code amendment will require the applicant to meet the parking standards for residential lots.

7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

4

     

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

4

     

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc…), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

4

     

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites

4

     

X

e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?

4

     

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

4

     

X

Comments: This commercial site, which was originally developed as a gas station, is primarily landscaped with ornamental plants. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP map and on-site inspection indicates that there is no habitat on the property, thus no impact will occur with the change in land use.

8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?

       

X

b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?

       

X

c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?

1

     

X

d) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan?

1

     

X

Comments: Inasmuch as the site is currently fully improved, the change of land use will not have an impact to mineral resources or energy conservation plans. Furthermore, according to the General Plan (page 18), there are no mineral resources present in the area, which are economically feasible for extraction; as such, the change in land use will not impact mineral resources in the area.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would the proposal involve:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material?

       

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

       

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of and existing or proposed school?

       

X

d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

9

   

X

 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

       

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

       

X

g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

       

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

       

X

Comments: The change in the land use from commercial to residential, including subsequent building additions, will not create a hazardous condition to the project site or other properties in the vicinity of the site. However, since the site was a former gas station, which included underground storage tanks, the site is listed on the California Environmental Protection Agency List of Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites (Regional Water Quality Control Board Case No. R-36348).

The applicant has submitted a letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (dated December 10, 2001), which states that no further action is needed, related to petroleum release on the site. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a Phase II Subsurface Soil Investigation for the site (dated, January 26, 2001). This report concludes that the contaminants that are in the soil are well below established cleanup levels. Furthermore, the report recommends that there is no significant risk to the environment caused by these contaminants, so no further investigation or clean up is recommended at the site.

10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

1

   

X

 

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels?

       

X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

       

X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

1

   

X

 

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

       

X

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

       

X

Comments: Long-term noise increases to the area are not anticipated to be caused by the change in land use. However, inasmuch as the Zone Text Amendment will require the applicant to construct an enclosed garage, short-term noise impacts may occur from construction on the site. This impact is considered insignificant since the Municipal Code regulates the hours of construction and because of the relatively the short-term nature of impact.

11. PUBLIC SERVICES.

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:

 

i) Fire protection?

       

X

ii) Police protection?

       

X

iii) Schools?

       

X

iv) Parks?

       

X

v) Other public facilities?

       

X

Comments: Inasmuch as the property is currently improved with a commercial building, no increase in the demand for public services are anticipated with the change of land use.

12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

       

X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

       

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

       

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

       

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

       

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

       

X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste?

       

X

Comments: Utility service systems for the area are in place and of sufficient capacity to accommodate the existing development on the site. The proposed change in land use will not result in a significant change in the demand for these utility services.

 
 

13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:

a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista?

1

     

X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highways?

       

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

       

X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

       

X

Comments: Whether the property is zoned for commercial or residential uses, development of said property is permitted to occur, up to a maximum building height of 16 feet, without the City being required to make a finding that no significant view impairment is created by the proposal. As such, the proposed change in land use of the property will not impact views or visual relationships of the property or the adjoining area. It should be noted, however, if subsequent development is proposed, that exceeds the height allowance in the Municipal Code, the City will complete a view analysis of the project.

14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?

1

     

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines?

7

   

X

 

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

7

   

X

 

e) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

       

X

Comments: The General Plan list five sites that have historical significance within the city (page 48), however, this list does not include the subject property. With regards to the archaeological and paleontological resources, according to the City’s Archeology map, the subject site is located within an area of probable archeological resources. Nonetheless, this is considered less than significant since the change in land use does not alter the ability to further develop the property and since the site is located within the City’s Socio-cultural overlay control district, which requires that all developments take into consideration the preservation of archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources.

15. RECREATION.

a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

       

X

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

       

X

Comments: Approval of the proposed project will result in increasing the City’s housing stock by one dwelling unit. Furthermore, the City and regional park system is at sufficient capacity to accommodate this minimal increase.

16. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use?

       

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

       

X

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use?

       

X

Comments: The subject site is currently developed with a commercial building and does not serve as agricultural land. The change in the land use will not have an impact to agricultural land in the area.

17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

       

X

Comments: Inasmuch as the property is currently developed for commercial uses, the change in land use to residential use will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

10

     

X

Comments: After review of the City’s cumulative project list, it is not anticipated the converting the project site from a commercial use to a residential use will contribute to a cumulative impact to the area.

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

       

X

Comments: The subject site is currently developed for commercial use, the change in land use to residential will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts, therefore will not have a negative significant impact to human beings.

 

 

18. EARLIER ANALYSES.

Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:

a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.

Comments: No earlier analysis was used

b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

Comments: None

c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project.

Comments: None required

Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.

Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).

 

18. SOURCE REFERENCES

1

City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001.

2

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map

3

City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978

4

City of Rancho Palos Verdes NCCP Phase 1 Map

5

South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993

6

Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology.

7

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map.

8

City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element, adopted August 2001

9

Phase II Subsudrface Soil Investigation, prepared by Aqua Science Engineers, dated January 26, 2001

10

City of Rancho Palos Verdes Cumulative Project List, updated January 9, 2003.