Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
593, Construct Tennis Court, Staff Reports
• • City jleoreng.Aee INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MEMORANDUM TO: FILE FROM: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NAGELHOUT LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE: APRIL 4, 2001 Following a meeting I attended with Mrs. Julie Nagelhout, her landscape contractor Anthony Workman, and Principal Planner Yolanta Schwartz, we re -reviewed the landscape plan submitted by Mrs. Nagelhout for compliance with the Planning Commission Resolution 'of Approval for the tennis court (CUP). Following this meeting, Principal Planner and I also met with Landscape Consultant Julie Heinsheimer on this subject. We approved the plan as submitted due to the existing screening landscaping on Crest Road (which the RHCA has issued a license agreement), the depth (inset) and location of the court, the screening from adjoining properties in Rolling Hills and the type/maturity of the selected plants, and their ability to ultimately screen the court from the relocated equestrian trail. We will evaluate the implementation of this plan in 2 years as required by the Resolution of Approval. CRN:mlk nagelhoutfile.mem cc: Yolanta Schwartz, Principal Planner ®Printed on Recycled Paper • • City O� �O>LLb•Itl}i`[� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 4.E. Mtg. Date: 3/22/99 DATE: MARCH 22,1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 99-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 593. Mr. Robert Nagelhout, 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 99-10 on March 16, 1999 at their regular meeting approving a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a tennis court at an existing single family residence. The following conditions T and U of Section 8 of Resolution No. 99-10 relate to the previously approved Site Plan Review for the property and were included in the resolution: "T. The equestrian trail at the southwest portion of the lot shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line and connected to the trail on Crest Road West. U. The provisions of Resolution No. 91-3, dated March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438 along with this resolution shall remain in full force and effect and any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development on the lot shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission." The vote was 5-0. Representatives of Caballeros supported the relocation of the trail and participated in the public hearing process for this case. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 1 OF 4 ®Printed on Recycled Paper • • 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court that will be inset 4 feet in accordance with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). 3. The Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence, and denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house at the site on March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12,1993. Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2,1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. 4. Grading for the tennis court will require 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and will cover 9,120 square feet (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). 6. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7% (Guideline of 30%) and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage will be 52.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the north off Crest Road West. Access to the tennis court will be from the east side of the driveway. , 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement that has a 19% slope that is not greater than 25%. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: a. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. b. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 2 OF 4 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 99-10. SPORTS COURT:REDUEST -' RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear. 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). i EXISTING No encroachments Residence Garage Swim Pool Service yard TOTAL GRADING, Environmental and Zoning Code N/A DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building 24.35% pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where Impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) 11.4% 24.35% 45.7% TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) STABLE (450 SO.FT. None & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL1 STABLE ACCESS N/A ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 3 OF 4 ;::PROPOSED : No encroachments 7,742 sq.ft. Residence 7,742 sq.ft. 1,600 sq.ft. Garage 1,600 sq.ft. 630 sq.ft. Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft. 4,587 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill 38.6% 19.75% 32.75% 45.7% 66.4% 52.6% 450 sq.ft. stable 550 sq.ft. corral Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 7. "RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall not exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g. Requires balanced cut and fill no to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area flat exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening no interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 4 OF 4 •PROPOSED' Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court will be inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area will be 9,120 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 593. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court at an existing single family residence. Section 2. On March 9, 1991, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence, and denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house at the site in Zoning Case No. 438 by Resolution No. 91- 3, dated March 9, 1991. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12, 1993. Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2, 1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on January 19, 1999 and February 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on February 6, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. The Commission expressed concerns about further development on the lot and retention of the existing horse trail across the southwestern portion of the property which was conditioned by the previous approval of the Planning Commission to be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line. Members of Caballeros were present at the field trip. Section 4. On January 5, 1999, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. The Negative Declaration was prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on January 9, 1999. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 1 OF 6 • • other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Commission finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated herein by reference. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.16.210(A)(7) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows for the construction of an inset tennis court with certain conditions provided a Conditional Use Permit for such use is approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an inset tennis court would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar and appropriately located uses in the community, and the area proposed for the tennis court would be located in an area on the property that is near property used for the La Cresta School and will not have a material impact on that property. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a tennis court will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed tennis court will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties as it will be inset, will be located near a' public school district complex and playing field, and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the tennis court will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the tennis court will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 2.624 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the graded area will not exceed maximum graded areas of 10,000 square feet and does not exceed maximum cubic yardage of 750 cubic yards. The applicants propose a graded area of 9,120 square feet and a balanced cut of 360 cubic yards and 360 cubic yards of fill. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 2 OF 6 • • E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan related to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a future stable structure and corral is proposed for the project. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 593 for a proposed 7,000 square foot tennis court, as shown on the Development Plan dated January 5, 1999 and marked Exhibit A, is subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.42.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated January 5, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 17,518 square feet or 19.75% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,046 square feet or 32.75%. G. All grading required for the construction of the tennis court shall be balanced on site, as regards cutting and filling and shall not exceed 720 cubic yards. RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • H. The area graded for the tennis court shall not exceed 9,120 square feet. I. Arty grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. J. A drainage system approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the overall plan of the tennis court and landscaping. K. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. L. All retaining walls incorporated into the court shall not be greater than four feet in height at any point. Exposed exterior retaining walls shall not be permitted. • . M. Tennis court fencing shall not exceed 4 feet in height above the 4 foot high retaining walls for a total of 8 feet. N. Court lighting shall not be permitted. O. The tennis court shall be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonade berry on all four sides. P. Landscaping shall be designed so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure residential structures and tennis court fencing. Q. The landscape plan shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope . factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. R. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 4 OF 6 • • submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. S. Noise from tennis court use shall not create a nuisance to owners of surrounding properties. T. The equestrian trail at the southwest portion of the lot shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line and connected to the trail on Crest Road West. U. The provisions of Resolution No. 91-3, dated March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438 along with this resolution shall remain in full force and effect and any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development on the lot shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. W. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan described in Condition A. X. Building permits shall be obtained for the retaining walls and tennis court. Y. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Z. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 5 OF 6 • • Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. AA. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective. BB. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1999. . ( ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: r .e . 1�,.. „►,.) MARILYNERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDPITONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TENNIS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 593. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 16, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. .k MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-10 PAGE 6 OF 6 cly • • 0/ Jhlt, NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail cityofrh@taol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rollin4 Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naaelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollin4 Hills, CA 90274., Date: January 5, 1999 By: ... z, Lola Ungar, Planni ►''rector Printed on Recycled Paper. • City 0/ ie0fA y INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail cityotrh@aol.com NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. I. - •.... J N.\ 1 1 • i '��.., �vCN t4944'. N i Or1 .. , J 4,,„J i it a�0 0 / '� " 9'�?7 1 p , 173-e 1' --- • j' �, .i .1 _ • ,2 /lO •t \ — .',eq.., � A/ % .. - 7I,- as to Y. ,/ 175* ►- 7 1I t; 71 114.E / . fi+i:iri� ! 175•A 1 175.6 •DO/ 150 -1 'r 1 , wt.* G • ' /'SA-! / • to., . �tiL1R/SO 0 . !c.,400L DoSTAic>' " co✓.rl✓ O.w O-roN-s • 41. n • a++wfr '•\ • .1 • .1•• • .�� -�_ ._ — �. _i04041 ‘\ I ; 106-D, , :� j Jei► �_ ) \ t .� �ti 106•A -A / r. �a 245•A Il l07 \N. N. 101 l 11 \ /� 50e5 Ate. _- /00 -._1 f— FG� /� ` ��► / 6 j70Ae / dry jai. 1 ` l�� t /09 \ • __ t1 i.— 1 I -- __- _z\\ -'rx ., 1 / %�\` \` ; `-1 7 3 310 Ac �� 7` J _ e R. ,to•AG C !/? 1 ` `1 l • it !/4 • , 1 i cin.st f' t .S.;1l ie ` I _- DR. 150 -D 17G A rest 4r...01 /4 :to le "I' (a ,Jt1YlL ' V.O.2 PO UESE Noe�. acu taus. CAUL40274 1. gas, CASE ND. Zoning Case No. C O3 TITLF Vicinity Map APPLICANT Mr. Robert Nacgelhout ADDRESS 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, CA IZ/ /t." ,?carA ow wove 12 SITE • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E malt cityotrh@aol.com LOCATION OF PROJECT: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. 7569-022-005 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. LOCATION MAP: Attached. ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper • • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (3) ZONING CASE NO. 593 • • (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch* style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being. heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes No N/A X X X X X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report X Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 the 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 it 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 effects (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 upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 593 [Signature] 1-5 • • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses 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 (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. B. Impacts adeauatelv 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. C. Mitiaation 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 for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis," above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): CI I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 ❑ 0 vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 ❑ ❑ impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? CI 0 0 ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant • Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ 0 ❑ population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ 0 ❑ housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ 0 ❑ e) 'Landslides or mudflows? ❑ 0 ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 ❑ CI 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ 0 x0 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 0 Q 0 I) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 0 x0 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 0 0 El ❑ or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 ❑ hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ❑ ❑ 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 0 water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ 0 0 water movements? 0 CI El 0 p 0 0 x❑ El ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) h) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 f) g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CI 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El El No Impact a El El El 0 0 CI O El x❑ El O El 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 0.1? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 px 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal ❑ 0 ❑x ❑ pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 xO 0 VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 ❑ 0 inefficient manner? 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 o o o o o o o o o O 0 0 O 0 LEI b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 ❑ 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 ❑x El El El CI El El a 0 0 a a a a ID ZONING CASE NO. 593 • • XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact o ❑ ❑ o ❑ o ❑ o ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CI 0 O El O 0 0 El CI ❑ ❑ n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 1 cei 0 CI El El CI 0 El • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 0 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses 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. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a a 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 0 0 0 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are 'Less 0 0 0 0 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 for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15 Cuy opeollin9 wee HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1999 TO: BE INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 593 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RA-S-2, 2.624 ACRES MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 9, 1999 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed the site on Saturday, February 6, 1999. Chairman Roberts asked about conditions imposed as to size limitations for the residence that is being completed. Condition N of Section 11 of Resolution No. 91-3 approving Site Plan Review requires that any modifications to the project requires the filing of a new application for a Site Plan Review Modification to the Planning Commission. At the January 19, 1999 meeting, the Commission requested that conditions of previous approvals related to trails be provided. Condition D of Section 11 of Resolution No. 91-3 states that, "The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line, and connected to the trail on Crest Road West." 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court that will be inset 4 feet in accordance with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). 3. The Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence, and denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house at the site on March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12, 1993. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 1 ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2, 1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. 4. Grading for the tennis court will require 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and will cover 9,120 square feet (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). 6. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7% (Guideline of 30%) and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage will be 52.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the north off Crest Road West. Access to the tennis court will be from the east side of the driveway. 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement that has a 19% slope that is not greater than 25%. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: a. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. b. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 2 • SPORTS COURT REQUEST I EXISTING PROPOSED RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS; No encroachments No encroachments Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURE Residence 7,742 sq.ft. Residence 7,742 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required if size of Garage 1,600 sq.ft. Garage 1,600 sq.ft. structure increases by at least 1,000 Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing Service yard 100 sa.ft.. Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. the size of the structure by more than Service yard 100 sq.ft. 25% in a 36-month period). TOTAL 4,587 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. GRADING 360 cubic yards cut Environmental and Zoning Code N/A 360 cubic yards fill pISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa 24.35% 38.6% area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded arm - where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) 11.4% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) 24.35% 19.75% 32.75% RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) 66.4% 52.6% STABLE (450 SQ.FT. None 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL), 550 sq.ft. corral STABLE ACCESS N/A Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement ROADWAY ACCESS Existing at northern portion of lot off No change Crest Road West VIEWS Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 3 • • • 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall ngLexceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g• Requires balanced cut and fill II4t to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area II91 exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening nQt interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. I PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court will be inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area will be 9,120 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 4 • • City f i2 !!•n9 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rollino Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naaelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuc uese Bend Road. Rollino Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planni aJ►' irector ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Cii, ot /E'J/,y JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aoicom NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. Printed on Recycled Panrr. • • \ 1._ l-/ 1 I/' N$' 4 /50— a' 1'33-A SC¥OOL 134.3rQ/cr - comwrie 11 11. •1 175 A 175-5 I 07brAe • , 4:01e• 245-A• /07 \ I • s oes 4c. '• \ ._ _ - 1 106-D.� //1044 I 104'l 1 \ r6Jr Ar .11 ssat�. / \ ...N.\ „').el- I-7rc \ \ �$ 106•A /4 1 4 `l \ ji006, c ••'' .:,,•"... / � 1 rre i % al l / /\ /. / / 6.70Ao —T / F'' /�`/' /09 \ / l��- c•s:r `-- 11 //.3 3 3•13A- 55•C 55.5 J•/Jt ; 1 \ ri 1�\ 33/0Ae. I 1- _---_ r- Q19Ar- 111 //dr \ •\ I • //P 1/nsr. 1 IL- - //Q - - Jx•.YIS.k r� '� //•8 Ain,: A, HO. 2 POKTUG*JAS& I[TD b. ICILIIMO HILLS. CAS. 0274 TITLF Vicinity Map CASE NO. Zoning Case No. 993 • APPLICANT Mr. Robert Nadelhout ADDRESS 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, CA 12 SITE • /43 acar. 1 • • 4-a APPLICATION NO: • • elly 0/ Roiling _All, APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 LOCATION OF PROJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377.7288 E-matt cltyotrh@aol.com 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: 7569-022-005 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: LOCATION MAP: Same. Single family residential. Attached. 2 acre minimum ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO.593 1-2 (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. Ill. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO.593 • I-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes X X No N/A X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 the 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 it 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 effects (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 upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses 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 (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. 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. C. Mitiaation 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 for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action Involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a 'Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis,' above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be 'cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project 0 0 0 0 0 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 0 0 vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. ❑ 0 0 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? a a a ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 0 0 0 ❑x established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 0 0 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth In an area either 0 0 0 directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 0 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 Ex 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 0 © 0 h) Expansive soils? 0 0 © 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ 0 © 0 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ❑ ❑ CI 0 or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration ❑ 0 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any 0 0 ❑ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 0 0 water movements? o CI a El 0 0 tEl p CI El El a ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No !Mad Incorporated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 ❑ ❑ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? o o o o ❑ ❑ o o ❑ V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to 0 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 0 0 cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? 0 0 VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 ❑ 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 ❑ ❑ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? 0 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? 9) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 0 0 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ 0 trees)? E1 0 0 El 0 x❑ 0 a 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 0 Ex 0 oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 © 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 ❑ ® ❑ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 0 inefficient manner? 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ . 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 ❑ ❑ Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 El ❑x 0 p 0 El ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-10 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 b) Communica#ions systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 '' f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 0 c) Create light or glare? 0 ❑ Cx XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 ❑ El b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 ❑ 0 c) Affect historical resources? 0 ❑ 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O a El El 0 0 CI 0 tEl 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-11 Potentially Sig ific ant Potentially nless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 ❑ 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses 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. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 0 ❑ 0 ❑ and state where they are available for review. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 0 0 0 0 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less 0 0 0 0 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 for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact' is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target, species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 R • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15 • 1► Cuy a/ RJ& JJ•�? HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1999 TO: 3D INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 593 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RA-S-2, 2.624 ACRES MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 9, 1999 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission will view the site on Saturday, February 6, 1999 at 7:30 AM following a visit to 28 Portuguese Bend Road, 10 Eastfield Drive, and 3 Crest Road West. At the January 19, 1999 meeting, the Commission requested that conditions of previous approvals related to trails be provided. Condition D of Section 11 of Resolution No. 91-3 states that, "The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the interior of the south and westerly property line, and connected to the trail on Crest Road West." 2. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court that will be inset 4 feet in accordance with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). 3. The Planning Commission approved a Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence, and denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house at the site on March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12, 1993. Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 1 ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2,1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. 4. Grading for the tennis court will require 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and will cover 9,120 square feet (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). 6. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7% (Guideline of 30%) and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage will be 52.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the north off Crest Road West. Access to the tennis court will be from the east side of the driveway. 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement that has a 19% slope that is not greater than 25%. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Mitigation measures are: a. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. b. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 2 • I RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. SPORTS COURT REQUEST EXISTING PROPOSED RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: No encroachments No encroachments Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES, Residence 7,742 sq.ft. Residence 7,742 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required if size of Garage 1,600 sq.ft. Garage 1,600 sq.ft. structure increases by at least 1,000 Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing Service yard 100 sa.ft. Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. the size of the structure by more than Service yard 100 sq.ft. 25% in a 36-month period). TOTAL 4,587 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. GRADING 360 cubic yards cut Environmental and Zoning Code N/A 360 cubic yards fill DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa 24.35% 38.6% area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) 11.4% 24.35% 19.75% 32.75% RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) 66.4% 52.6% STABLE (450 SQ.FT. None 450 sq.ft. stable ft 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) 550 sq.ft. corral STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 3 N/A Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement Existing at northern portion of lot off No change Crest Road West Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall 0.2t_exceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses 9• Requires balanced cut and fill n.QI to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area E4t exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening tut interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court will be inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area will be 9,120 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 4 • • city Rollin JUL NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E mai: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with .the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MSI. Rollina Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Naaelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planni !rector Printed on Recycled Paper. • • City fill y./dlf INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityo}rh@aol.com NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. Printed on Recycled Paper. • .—•_ - 1 • 4 /50 - no -A r 2 I. SCAVOL D,jrvicr . CO.rvsr III Oar 0• rone- r s. I 1• 4141 )• •74 48 115 A , 17S-5 Avatar iv/ • • C1/4.4 I,., JAIL TITLF Vicinity Map CASE N0. Zonina Case No. 591 . APPLICANT Mr. Robert Nacjelhout ADDRESS 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, CA ,P; 245-A 1 • fi �\ \\ I /07 \ - • 55-A ' ' i.,r.i. (... i ear , O. /SC ) AG • / s rotes *11 "%. • _• • / / 55:C • \i `y \ • / / `./ / • I al\ / / K44 1 106-D. lief,. so`� / :.e„ A< \ -� N N '\ /1 F14 '/c \\tt 106/ 11 s.es;AAr / / i L Gf I TI /08 %1 •/ — / 1 • saes.M N 55•e res1.4,....1 1 /13 3 .lIO ore I /09 c •at. ------r-J r���>or- //1 •r S/ At eH.• OS At Net 0 1f' 11° //5 -/ P SI As Inn tie .e w. wv. / • A.!t .fCOJ.ft' NO. 2 PORTUGUESE ODD RD. ROILING MILLS. CALIF. 1/0274 //P c/n sr. /r/ .sau/. /l3 .o'car rl "worn 12 Its SITE ti • • C1iy 0/ /Qofz4ni Jd.•FF, APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-malt cltyofrh@aol.com LOCATION OF PROJECT: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. 7569-022-005 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. LOCATION MAP: Attached. ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • e I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-2 • • (4) A proposed hoteVmotel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan E. Have any of the following studies Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report Yes No N/A X X been submitted? X Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 the 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 it 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 effects (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 upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses 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 (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. 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. 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 for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact" to a 'Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis,' above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): O LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or 0 polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ 0 0 vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 0 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 • • Potentially Sign' cant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0 ❑ 0 population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either 0 0 0 directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 0 housing? Ill. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 0 d) • Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 0 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ 0 ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? 0 ❑ h) Expansive soils? 0 0 i) Unique geologic or physical features? 0 ❑ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ❑ ❑ or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related 0 ❑ hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration 0 ❑ 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ 0 ❑ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 0 0 0 water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 a rffl El 0 a El 0 0 0 0 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-8 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 0 0 ❑ through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 0 0 ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ 0 ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ❑ Cl 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or ❑ ❑ ❑ cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 ❑ 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ❑ 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 9) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their ❑ ❑ habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 ❑ trees)? x❑ 0 El El 0 p ' 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 • • c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ p ❑ 0 Ei El VI II. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ ❑ 0 plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 ❑ 0 inefficient manner? 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? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o o o o o o o o o ❑ ❑ El b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 c) Schools? 0 0 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 ❑ 0 e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 0 CI El 0 El 0 El El JD ❑x 0 p ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-10 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 0 Ox b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ` 0 0 c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ O XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 ❑ px c) Affect historical resources? 0 0 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 0 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 ❑ 0 the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 0 0 regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ 0 0 ❑x El p El 0 0 0 0 El El ZONING CASE NO. 593 Potentially Si cant Potentially nless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ 0 ❑ x0 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses 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. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses 0 ❑ 0 ❑ and state where they are available for review. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. 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 for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact' is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be less than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Government. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of California Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitigation Measures . 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-15 i City o/leollinp JhN HEARING DATE: JANUARY 19, 1999 TO: FROM: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 593 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RA-S-2, 2.624 ACRES MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 9, 1999 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a 7,000 square foot tennis court that will be inset 4 feet in accordance with Section 17.16.120(A)(7) of the Zoning Code (Requirements attached). 3. The Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence at the site on March 9, 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438. Building permits were issued to Mr. Hussain Shaikh for the new residence on February 12, 1993. Since that time, construction at the site has been sporadic. Most recently, the Nagelhouts bought the property and acquired building permits on July 2, 1998 to complete the 7,742 square foot residence. 4. Grading for the tennis court will require 360 cubic yards of cut soil and 360 cubic yards of fill soil and will cover 9,120 square feet (10,000 sq.ft. maximum). 5. The disturbed area of the lot will be 34,229 square feet or 38.6% (40% maximum). ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 1 ®Printed on Recycled Paper. . • • 6. The 10,422 square foot residential building pad coverage is 45.7%(Guideline of 30%) and the 10,547 square foot tennis court pad coverage is 66.4%. Total building pad coverage will be 52.6%. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 17,518 square feet or 19.75% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 29,046 square feet or 32.75% (35% permitted). 8. Access to the proposed residence will remain the same at the north off Crest Road West. Access to the tennis court will be from the east side of the driveway. 9. A 450 square foot future stable and greater than 550 square foot corral is proposed for the project southeast of the building pad. Access to the stable is available from Crest Road West along the eastern side yard easement that has a 19% slope that is not greater than 25%. 10. After reviewing the initial study for the project, staff has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 2 • • ISPORTS COURT REQUEST EXISTING PROPOSED RAS-2 ZONE SETBACKS: No encroachments No encroachments Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES, (Site Plan Review required if size of Residence 7,742 sq.ft. Residence 7,742 sq.ft. structure increases by at least 1,000 Garage 1,600 sq.ft. Garage 1,600 sq.ft. sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. Swim Pool 630 sq.ft. the size of the structure by more than Service yard 100 sa.ft., Tennis Court 7,000 sq.ft. 25% in a 36-month period). Service yard 100 sq.ft. TOTAL 4,587 sq.ft. Stable 450 sa.ft. TOTAL 17,518 sq.ft. GRADING 360 cubic yards cut Environmental and Zoning Code N/A 360 cubic yards fill DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pa 24.35% 38.6% area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded areE where impervious surfaces exist) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) 11.4% 24.35% 19.75% 32.75% RESIDENTIAL BUILDING P82 COVERAGE 45.7% 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) TENNIS COURT PAD COVERAGE N/A TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 45.7% (Guideline maximum of 30%) 66.4% 52.6% STABLE (450 SO.FT. None 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL\ 550 sq.ft. corral STABLE ACCESS N/A Existing at northern portion of lot off Crest Road West at eastern easement ROADWAY ACCESS Existing at northern portion of lot off No change Crest Road West VIEWS Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS Planning Commission review ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 3 I I7. RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS a. Requires minimum 450 square foot stable and minimum 550 square foot corral area b. Prohibited in front yard c. Prohibited within 50 feet of any paved road or street easements d. Retaining walls shall naexceed 4 feet nor be exposed to the exterior e. Conform to lot coverage limitations (maximum 20% structural lot coverage and maximum 35% total lot coverage) f. Prohibited on slopes exceeding 2:1 and on the sides or bottoms of canyons or natural drainage courses g• Requires balanced cut and fill 1>9t to exceed 750 cubic yards. h. Requires that graded area I143 exceed 10,000 square feet. i. Requires retention of existing topography, flora and natural features to the greatest extent possible j. Requires City/County approved drainage system k. Requires screening on all four sides I. Requires that landscape screening 114I interfere with viewscape of surrounding properties or easements m. Prohibits court lighting n. Allows the imposition of conditions when necessary to ensure that noise does not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties. Il PROPOSED Proposed 450 sq.ft. stable and 550 sq.ft. corral Not in front yard Not within 50 feet from any paved road or street easement The court will be inset 4 feet below grade. Conforms with lot coverage limitations Planning Commission will review. Proposed on a gently sloped area of the lot. 360 cubic yards cut 360 cubic yards fill Graded area will be 9,120 sq.ft. Planning Commission will review Required condition Required condition Planning Commission will review Required condition Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 593 PAGE 4 • • City 0/ S Feu NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com PROJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 593 The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 593 to be at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS). Rollins Hills. CA and to be implemented by Mr. Robert Nagelhout. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines of the City of Rolling Hills, the Lead Agency has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the Lead Agency prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE ATTACHED INITIAL STUDY, AND CONDITION(S) (IF APPLICABLE), IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. A period of at least 20 days from the date of publication of the notice of this NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the project specifications, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the Lead Agency. A copy of the project specifications is on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rollins Hills. CA 90274. Date: January 5, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Planni irector ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • (34 °Mo elin9 ui/h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E mail cityofrh@aol.com NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 19, 1999, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 593, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence at 16 Crest Road West (Lot 74-A-MS), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for tennis court. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, staff has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject application and plans prior to the public hearing at the City Hall Administration Building located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. If you challenge the approval or denial of this subdivision application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 9, 1999. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • City leollinf APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 593 NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Mr. Robert Nagelhout 1521 Nelson Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com LOCATION OF PROJECT: 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS), ROLLING HILLS PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed tennis court that requires grading at an existing single family residence. BOOK, PAGE & PARCEL NO. 7569-022-005 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2 acre minimum net lot area. PROPOSED ZONING: Same. PRESENT LAND USE: Single family residential. LOCATION MAP: Attached. ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • • I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). X Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Section I.C. of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes X No N/A II. INITIAL STUDY REVIEW A. Does the project require a 30-day State Clearinghouse review for any of the following reasons? Yes X No 1. The lead agency is a state agency. 2. There is a State "responsible agency" (any public agency which has discretionary approval over the project). 3. There is a State "trustee agency" (California Department of Fish and Game, State Department of Parks and Recreation, University of California, and State Lands Commission). 4. The project is of Statewide or areawide significance including the following: (A) A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared. (B) A project which would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of State or national air quality standards including: (1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (3) Commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-2 • • (4) A proposed hotel/motel development of more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (C) A project which would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but not limited to riparian for rare and endangered species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. (D) A project which would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide waste water management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new tennis court that requires grading at a lot where there is an existing single family residence. B. Description of the Project Site: (Describe the project site as it exists at the present time, including information on topography, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and use of the structures.) The project site is a 2.624 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool that is under construction. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas being heavily wooded. Native birds and animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. C. Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding properties consist of single family residential building sites as well as a continuation high school, administrative offices, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and a district maintenance yard all under the auspices of the Palos Verdes Unified School District at the west side of the property. These residential and school district areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded.. The school district property also provides expansive parking areas for its various uses. The same native birds and ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-3 animals frequent the area such as sparrows, crows, raccoons, possum, skunks, gophers, and an occasional fox. D. Is the proposed project consistent with: City of Rolling Hills General Plan Applicable Specific Plan City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Congestion Management Plan Regional Comprehensive Plan Yes No N/A X X X X X E. Have any of the following studies been submitted? Geology Report Hydrology Report Soils Report Traffic Study Noise Study Biological Study Native Vegetation Preservation Plan Solid Waste Generation Report Public Services/ Infrastructure Report X Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/Waste ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-4 • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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 the 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 it 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 effects (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 upon the proposed project. This initial study was prepared by: Date: January 5, 1999 LOLA UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR [Signature] ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-5 • V. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses 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 (Mitigated) Negative Declaration. In this case a discussion should identify the following: A. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. NONE. 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. 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 for the project. ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-6 • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: VI. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A 'No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). VII. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. VIII. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IX. 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section V, "Earlier Analysis," above may be cross-referenced). X. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section V, above. XI. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): 0 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project Potentially W�:' ".lr'.. >5 .,. Siggnificant ::" Potentiallii;, ., : • ' Unless : :` _: ; Less "Significant - >',' Mitigation. ,,;;,,:',Significant Impact< ;;Incotpotated,, impact',- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the 0 ❑ ❑ vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. 0 0 0 impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? p ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-7 e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? I I. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) d) e) f) 9) h) I) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 El 0 El El 0 0 b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration 0 of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ water movements? 0 ❑ CI El El El El 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 El 0 0 0 El 0 El El p 0 0 No Impact 0 El p 0 0 0 0 0 El ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-8 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ 0 0 ❑x through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ 0 0 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ❑ 0 0 an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create any objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El VI. , TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the • proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 0 0 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., 0 0 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? 0 0 0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 0 0 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 9) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their 0 0 habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 ❑ trees)? O El p ❑x El El CI p ❑x El El 0 0 ❑x 0 0 ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., 0 ❑ x❑ ❑ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal 0 0 x0 0 pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ❑ VI II. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 ❑ 0 ❑x plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 0 0 ❑ ❑x inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 ❑ Ex mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 0 ❑ Ox hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ 0 Ox response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ . 0 0 px health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 0 potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 0 Ox brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 Ex Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 ❑ 0 Ox b) Police protection? 0 0 0 0 c) Schools? ❑ 0 0 Ex d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 ❑x e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 px ZONING CASE NO. 593 I-10 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 l f) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 0 0 . 0 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 0 ❑ 0 c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ . Ex XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 0 ❑ 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? 0 ❑ px c) Affect historical resources? 0 ❑ 0 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 0 0 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 0 0 ❑ the potential impact area? XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or 0 ❑ 0 regional parks or other recreations facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0 p El p 0 CI 0 0 0 El CI ZONING CASE NO. 593 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 ❑ 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? XVI. 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 example of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier Analyses 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. See Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-12 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which 0 0 0 0 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. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less 0 ❑ 0 0 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 for the project. The following analysis is a description of the findings contained in the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues Checklist Form which preceded this page. A detailed discussion of all potential environmental impacts checked "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" is provided, along with appropriate mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Item III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. f-i. Although approval of the project will result in future disruptions, displacements, compaction, or overcrowding of the soil, during future construction these will occur in order to preserve the integrity of the property. Any displacement and recompaction of the soil will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices and should not cause a significant environmental impact. Also, during future construction, there will be removal of natural vegetative cover, potentially causing an increase in soil erosion by wind action or storm water runoff. This reduction of vegetative cover and the increased runoff associated with the movement of soil may cause a slight increase in the soil deposition, siltation, or erosion in or near the ocean. As the movement of soil is limited to a tennis court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures 1. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City 15 sets of a preliminary grading plan showing proposed drainage facilities, structures, driveways, building pad(s), stable, corral, and blue line streams, for the lot at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. 2. The property owner shall be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item IV. WATER a. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the tennis court, the introduction of impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-13 • • proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. b. No major floodplains exist in the City. Flood waters generally flow through the canyon areas. The General Plan does not permit development in the canyons, and so changes in the course or flow of floodwaters is not anticipated. Item V. AIR QUALITY d. While increased development of a tennis court will generate slight increases in objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant. Item VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a-e. Any additional development within the City will reduce the amount of native vegetation which will be replaced, in some instances, by non-native species. But, due to the limited growth proposed, this impact will be Tess than significant. In addition, the General Plan and Zoning Code set forth policies which encourage the retention and use of native drought tolerant vegetation in landscaping. No known rare and endangered species of plants exist in the City. As further development occurs in Rolling Hills, the natural habitat of the area will be slightly reduced. But, the impact of the current proposal is expected to be less than significant. Large lot, estate density development proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May, 1986, is listed b y the Federal Government as endangered. In 1994, the Palos Verdes Blue was seen at the nearby San Pedro Fuel Depot Station and is currently being studied by the State Department of Fish and Game. The local California gnatcatcher is on the Federal list of threatened species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, a number of pairs were located in the adjacent City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Several other animals do occur, however, that are considered as candidates for protection by either the Federal Government or the State Govemment. Target species for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Area that are also being studied by the State of Califomia Department of Fish and Game are the Cactus Wren and the Coast Homed Lizard. The impact of the proposed future development of a tennis court will be less than significant. Item X. NOISE a. During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a tennis court. But after construction, intermittent recreational noise is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Item XIII AESTHETICS c. Tennis court lighting is not permitted. Light and glare impacts therefore are expected to be less than significant. Item XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-b. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource. Mitiaation Measures 3. In the event that subsurface material of an archaeological, paleontological or other cultural resource is encountered during project grading or development, all grading and construction shall cease in the immediate ZONING CASE NO. 593 1-14 , • • area, and the find shall be left untouched until a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist, whichever is appropriate, is contacted and called in to evaluate the find and makes recommendations as to disposition, mitigation or salvage. The developer shall incur the cost of such professional investigation. The developer shall comply with the mitigation measures recommended and approved by the City for the disposition, mitigation or salvage of such material. ZONING CASE NO.593 1-15