The URL can be used to link to this page

595, Construct sport court, Noticing• • CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the 3 6 I served the within a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: FAXED MAILED DELIVERED Palos Verdes City Attorney City Manager Peninsula News Planning Commission Also posted at City Hall. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the Sae` day of ,.,Q,,^. , 1999 at Rolling Hills, California. MELINDA SCHOEN CLERK C o/ l20lli..y .WA 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Monday, October 11, 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. 595; An appeal of a Planning Commission approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Road South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.54 - Appeals The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 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 permit 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Publish in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Saturday, October 2, 1999. Printed on Recycled Paper. • PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of the Palos Verdes Peninsula News a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published semi -weekly in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of October '15 19 63 Case Number C 824957 ; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: Qc I ,2_ all in the year 1996) . I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Rancho Palos Verdes California. this 2. day of Oii± , 1c c) cfiu Signature This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 2ECEUE.6 OCT 0 7 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Hy Proof of Publication of PVPN# 5'05 P.V.P. News No. 5895 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Monday, October 11, 1999, 1999 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regard- ing the following: • • ZONING CASE NO. 595, An appeal of a Planning Commission approved request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at • an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Road South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. • MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.54 - Appeals. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality. Act (CEQA). Any person is welcome to review the subject applica- tion 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 permit application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised atthe public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspon- dence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the. public hearing. Published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on October 2, 1999.. �► • o C 0 V E .. City /I/ JhIt INCORPO D i�1��9 24, 1957 7 MAY 2 41999 C B. McCO A ' LEAK r HE NOTICE I6HE BPP��yy Y GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills will hold a Public Hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, May 18, 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. 595, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. • cirtN8TV S L ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 tl f 1 N R77-1521 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE FAX: (310) 377-7288 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for sports 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. Arty 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 May 1.,1999. THIS NOTICE WAS POSTED ON MAY 2 4 1999 UNTIL JUN z 3 1999 REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK Printed on Recycled Paper. sa / T" .CT.s., .: / ✓ %Air .y Tte D.R. / dcocAr TITLE APPLICANT ADDRESS 165.5 a... 17 AC • I • • / / 1 -'Y / / 241-A ,spA, • 4/// / / —J Po' 256 �. 254 r. -INS A. 1 � / 144 2t` 254 A • . •Nlo-Y r��/�`' •,.. >'l/ /4 i 1 t• 82-A .[22/ Ae. A \ d3 1 m /� i6'r`,\ / / 6./F6 Ac. / J / ,y -' ''�wnG 'J / %i / ' . lr pC \ - _ �� (fir • r, \ / / n`i ��/ .147 . J,— r._ I \` • •10:Wt } /% I \ 1144 wr SS I L__ ' / / s 1 1 t` / / \ s N ' ti J1 . I t� A / I , . . , . ..: .. I: 411! . 1 t'le,4 / j ....;),. : 0 si,,..a \ 1 \ ---V ' i / / / \ \ 1/v%/K \\ S:F : 5s:, / // .4 \ r 'a° J ".f..t I CITY COT • co Av. / A /I Nut tut. �r J e 253 'L _ 1. S.eS At:. IG9D ; i4 Jaw...` / y.{ 250 / / u �T� 7 106-D r 447.. ewe `; ' ��.r `I /07 \.�. # / City o f ` ,ocCing ?HiOEs Vicinity Map Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 246 1 a i98 A.• � 1 • II • 5- 00 ea • • 1 'r j1 / ``y. ram.. I 96- I i- rSJco /Y� -�9 \\r t 07•-2 As I \1 r— ti 1 as 6077A. 85 tees. 97-/ I elr8Ae. T "• 0 I 1 106-c \ � �\ 1 i lo6 4 3 / • • I06-A J..•t AC r' i Je i 4 1 1%1 �t1 of Sooz A \ • • • i • • • /02• 4/77 -L 242?. . A.. l) II ). •\ • f 2.514 I T ". z{n Ac. hr. I sank. /03-A \\ /03-8 /,/ / s+ctic . 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 SITE • \j i e., APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL. PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: • 0/ APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres • 2.31 acres Attached. 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 If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No x 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. 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) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (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 applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of 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 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded. The same native birds and 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 • S IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR A eL, ut Signature] 1-4 S • i 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. 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. For effects that care "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. C. Mitiaation Measures. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state, where they are available for review. 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 Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 S • Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Sig►iificarit Potentially. Z° WitYt $igr ii+rant ' `Mitigation '< Impaf ; :..Incorporation'`. ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IKI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-7 ignificant, btentially.' Witti'i``. L-ess;Than )Ignificarif= ° Ntitigaticiti S gnifie rit" tmliar t Inc6rpbrsti66 ` b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species ❑ identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community ❑ identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife ❑ species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 ® ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 l7 (83 I] 1-8 • V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 t ess;Y aii Significant Potentially Significant,';' ` Mitigatio Impa t Inc 1p ration o ❑ ❑ El o ❑ ❑ O o ❑ O ❑ o ❑ ® ❑ o 0 ❑ 0 O O ❑ ❑ !xi ❑ ❑ l 0 ® 0 ❑ 1-9 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or • waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ess:fi f,ar ; Significant ;With:;,;: >Less Than 5'igttiificaht Mitigation Significant mpact, : Incorporation ` „ lmpa�t: `;" ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 rxi 0 -10 • • VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ess;;`fhat%\ ig ifi ant Potentially nth l ess Tficantha 1`. $ignd cent Miiigatio ., ,Signi; Impact Incorporation , < Impact,.: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ EK1 ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or • applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Les= Igriifk n gaWjtli; ,Significant Mitition l61pact ;-:In ' pbration O ❑ ❑ ❑ O 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 ripact<: CI LEI 0 1-12 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Less;.! Sigriificani ataatI W�tFt Le;T..nan; ss tnif cant itigation Sigrnficartt pact tncOrpnratian, :. impact ... ;'tmpaai~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ Fire protection? 0 0 0 t] Police protection? 0 0 0 IX! Schools? 0 0 0 El Parks? 0 0 0 IKI Other public facilities? 0 0 0 IEI XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 © 0 1-13 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? �eas:Than:::: ig ,if oast < Potentially. With'..., Less;Than•. Sign f►Gant Mitigation :,; Signifi+cant.'.`- . impact Incorpo a#ion, _: impact Irr p ❑ ❑x 0 CI ❑ 0 0 El c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 0 ❑ 0 p either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 0 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 ❑ ® ❑. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 0 : p supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ IBI O ❑ 0 0 ❑ ® ❑ 1-14 • • • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 1"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.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ O 0 123 0 0 0 ® ❑ ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ at ❑ ❑ cgi 1-15 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. . I-16 • . 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. The sports court proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May 1986, is listed by 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 endangered species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, 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 Rancho 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 Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitiaation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the 'City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • 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 sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. 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 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. •The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports ,court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-j• No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists, No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 Mitiaation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item Xl. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially, significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 Mitiaation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. I-20 • • CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. On the ,3p7:* I served the within day of , 1999 .vim - 2 - 19.1. S7 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: FAXED MAILED DELIVERED Palos Verdes City Attorney City Manager Peninsula News Planning Commission Also posted at City Hall. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the , 4 day of f .Q . , 1999 at Rolling Hills, California. MELINDA SCHOEN CLERK C'ity ./ Rilin} .ff 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, May 18, 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. 595, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: Section 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for sports 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 May 1.,1.999. Printed on Recycled Paper. • PROOF OF PUBLICA•ON (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principle clerk of the printer of the Palos Verdes Peninsula News a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published semi -weekly in the City of County of Los Angeles, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, under the date of Rancho Palos Verdes October 15 ,19 63 Case Number C 824957 : that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: mew, i all in the year 19 11 . I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at A n California, this I . day of ► �/�1 t/j ' V �A I , 19619 Rancho Palos Verdes Signature This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of PVPN# 511 5 5 P.V.P. News No. 5735 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates will hold a public hearing at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, May 18, 1999 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving pub- lic input regarding the following: ZONING CASE NO. 595, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATIONS: SECTION 17.16.210 (A)(7) - Conditional Use Permit required for sports 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 1 measures have been added to the project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Any person is welcome to review the subject applica- tion 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 permit 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. • Published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on May 1, 1999. £'i 1EOIfiflg INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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. 595 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single family residence at 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Application has been filed with the City of Rolling Hills for approval of the project known as ZONING CASE NO. 595 to be at 27 Middleridae Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR), Rollina_ Hills, CA and to be implemented by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slauaht. The request is briefly described as: A proposal to construct a new sports court at 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 Rollina Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road. Rollina Hills. CA 90274. Date: April 28, 1999 By: Lola Ungar, Pla ing Director Pririted on Recycled Paper. of T ACT •' N'. \✓ .4 .545 I69•B 6.,. +7 Ac D. R. /50 - J / 4* .1‘ mil. i / SI♦ I /� 256 /� Y 4. f 255 /(1 , 255 I 250 41‘ T./ �.4 \ 254 \ / / 24l-A , \ ' 574RA.. Atr .44 b / / 2irY LOT 00/ A. S - hy,. / I, 249 A-1 1 , / 4 / '- ` / 2.354 •i / I I N //o/ 0,� r ' e15.19294e. / 40410 • I 24c-c 24915-Y /., �i �,+ /S \ 04' e. r / - 4 / �n 9I \ / 11, i 16//3� / 6./66 Ac. / / / O. % 1 / t4EA-/ / ., �0 3.W de. / t'/ / ` .y `/w :.oc wi/i,i \ \ // so... ram ` • 1 / (r 4~ ,,L:a_ f, �;- / tti'\� / ^'+ ,4► j'� i 1 • ... \ 1 1 \ ieniw� � � I ° es .w. y® I L - _'�_••• /Ik - 5 85 I \\ / o 1 I het-z // 1 1 Z47-I \ \ f RID1 `--1 N '' I I 6 SSAc ""``� _ rock 1 1 / ,� \ \ / \ .9'-e \, t r°/.r •.../(�,,,/ \\\//,�\j�( / / 1 ` 9G%/At \\ \ /(j1•/ I ! 16"` f.i.l 11 S , I'1. 1 1 / / ' Ala- I I� 96-/ t ( / 94 �— u °w./I , ::S . , / I , /� NC.1' <� 93 i IV 5 ., I svd Ate. I ▪ v1 �.\ 1 Ai 1 1 . I . ' �i N. \ . ?�, I / yT\\ 1 \\ 1 /D'Z \. - OR \ 0.408 Ao. 1 1ainA. 6J77 / %r�\ q9�Sr* Z I �✓ • / 2HAC.I '' • \\�.parissj „iv \\ , _��\\\\\ l-'L— —cl ---- �� 106-C \ �„ \ ti /L 1 a i\ \` /r 7 \ ` , s o7r.c-. 'A \ /064B I // \ / e,1 1 F:::o0.,/le. 1 I t _•e S.os9Ae../�/i l /03-A 7154` /06•A 106 A �7 1 1 439.1..... ti 1 S° 24 So4i�c /03-Q i /' soiroc/i/�� I lGROSS tr S 4- � / �// s,e/rc ^< \ i _‘ a IS i \ r f. TT I TAXI*, 1 7 P Z4Z74.. I— AL. \ /00-3 \ / 1 t\ 2a6 9.195 .4c. ✓ • 1 1 I II �/ • /--- / 106-0 \\ 44444c 'N /07 . \. 1 i� City of Rolling 5[ C 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 TITLE Vicinity Map CASE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 595 APPLICANT Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught ADDRESS 27 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SITE ti t\ cay APPLICATION NO: PROPOSED PROJECT: NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANTS: LOCATION OF PROJECT: ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: LOT SIZE:: LOCATION MAP: • opeolii.9. JUL APPENDIX I CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ZONING CASE NO. 595 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 The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a proposed sports court at an existing single-family residence. Mr. and Mrs. Donald Slaught 27 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-B-2-UR) 7569-021-007 Residential Agricultural -Suburban - 2 acre minimum net lot area. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres No change. RA-S-2, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 2-Acres 2.31 acres Attached. 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). K Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Appendix E of the City's CEQA Guidelines, is there a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances? Yes No X 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 I-1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 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) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (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 applicants are proposing the construction of a new 35' x 80' sports court on the lower level of 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 2.31 acre site with a large estate -size single story ranch style residence, garage and swimming pool on the upper building pad and a lower building pad that is not landscaped. The surrounding areas of the homesite consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees, with some areas INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-2 • • 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: North: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. East: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres and vacant land which is currently in the subdivision process to allow at least 3 new single family dwelling units on lots of 2 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. These residential areas also consist of undulating hillsides and knolls covered by grasses and mature shrubs and trees with some areas being heavily wooded. The same native birds and 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 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 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 No N/A Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste 1-3 S • IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. This initial study was prepared by: Date: April 28, 1999 INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNINGDIRECTOR %6t, 1-4 • • 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. 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. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-5 • • EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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). 2) 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. 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 XVII, "Earlier Analyses," above may be cross-referenced). 5) 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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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 Measures 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 1-6 Issues: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Less Than Significant „Potentially With 4Less Than: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1-7 'Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impect b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 0 0 0 0 identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ o ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 b) Have substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 0 0 0 0 identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of 0 0 0 0 the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife 0 ❑ ❑ 0 species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 O 0 0 0 1-8 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Less Than Significant Potentially „ With .. Less.Than Significant,..Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ 0 El 0 ❑ ❑ ® 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ 0 0 II 0 ❑ KI ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 !XI 0 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ 1-9 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area/ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? g) INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ,Less Than ,Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 0 0 ❑ I] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI p p 0 Ixi I] 1-10 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater able level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant• Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I� ❑ ❑ ❑ I • • Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ 0 0 p policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o IXI ❑ ❑ o ❑ 0 ❑ o ❑ © ❑ o ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑tyi 1-12 • • XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation,v Significant No . Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IXI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ I] ❑ ❑ ❑ I] ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ I-13 • XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 Lass Than :Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 o o o 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ® 0 ❑ 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 O 0 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ I-14 • • Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 0 p ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? INITIAL STUDY ZONING CASE NO. 595 ❑ ❑ I2 ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI ❑ o o o o ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ ❑ ixi I-15 • • 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 I. AESTHETICS. a-c. Although approval of the project will result in future construction of a porous sports court that is required to be screened and landscaped on all four sides, the affect on scenic vistas to neighboring homeowners is subject to approval by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission and the Architectural and Landscape Committees of the Rolling Hills Community Association. d. Sports court, lighting is prohibited and screening of the court is required. Therefore, light and glare impacts are expected to be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures A. The applicants shall prepare and submit to the City fifteen (15) preliminary grading plans showing the existing structures and the proposed sports court, drainage and erosion control facilities, a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral for the lot, areas of stormwater overflow or geological hazard, and blue line streams, at least 30 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project application. (Staff suggests that the applicants prepare and submit 1 preliminary topographic grading plan prior to making copies). B. The project shall be reviewed by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The proposed project will not impact agricultural resources as the lot is being used for and zoned for single-family residential uses. Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. While increased development of a sports court will generate slight increases in dust and objectionable odors during construction, the resultant impact on air quality will be less than significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures C. The property owners shall be required to conform with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices during construction by using dust control measures to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities. The project may be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated for the project. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-b,d. 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 size and nature of the project proposed and the porous surface of the sports court, this impact would 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. I-16 • i 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. The sports court proposed for this project provides the opportunity to retain substantial amounts of existing habitat. The Palos Verdes Blue, a butterfly which had not been seen in the Rolling Hills area since May 1986, is listed by 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 endangered species and on the Concerned list of the State, and in a recent census, 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 Rancho 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 Horned Lizard. The impact of the proposed 2,800 square foot sports court on 2.31 acres will be less than significant. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. While prior tilling and dry farming may have disrupted potential remains, minimum grading prior to construction may uncover a cultural resource although there has not been a major find reported of a cultural resource in recent history from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Mitigation Measures D. 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. Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the sports court project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, it should be noted that portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active landslides and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, it has been noted in geological studies by the California Division of Mines and Geology that certain portions at the rear of the lot indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes a Landslide Hazard Overlay to carefully regulate development in unstable areas. Grading, excessive irrigation, and/or increased septic tank discharge in unstable areas may trigger additional slope failure. Because the City is located in seismically active southern California, additional development will be exposed to potential groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this sports court project, is underlain b y expansive soil that require soils and geology reports for any new building structures. 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 I-17 • • 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 sports court, related erosion impacts will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures E. 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 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. Development construction activiities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court and screening, is expected to be less than significant. Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a. Development construction activities and building materials are carefully regulated by the City's Buildings & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. The effect of the construction of a sports court, therefore, is expected to be less than significant. c-e. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption by the placement of the sports court, the introduction of pervious and impervious surface materials and irrigation systems. However, due to the nominal increase in development proposed and permitted by the General Plan, the impacts are not expected to be substantial. f. Future development of a 2,800 square foot porous sports court on a 2.31 acre parcel will not alter fresh or marine water currents. g-i. No major floodplains exist in the City, and development is not permitted in the canyon areas most likely to be affected by flooding. No open bodies of water occur within the City; thus no such hazard exists. i. No water bodies are located in the project area. Future development in the project area is not expected to result in change in the amount of any water bodies located in the vicinity. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain and the Building & Construction and Zoning Ordinances require a balanced cut and fill ratio. The proposed sports court will not require grading. The project is subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project will not physically divide an established community, will not conflict with the local zoning ordinance, or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The effect on land use and planning related to this project is expected to be less than significant. I-18 • Mitigation Measures F. The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b There are no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or land use plan for the project site. The effect on mineral resources related to this project is expected to be less than significant. Item XI. NOISE a During the duration of future construction, there will be noise related to the construction of a sports court. Impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporation of scheduling and regulation of construction and related traffic noise throughout project development. d. After construction, intermittent recreational noise of sports court use with appropriate screening is not expected to be a significant environmental impact. Mitiaation Measures G. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. H. The sports court shall be screened with fencing on all four sides. I. The sports court shall also be screened with native drought -resistant vegetation such as Toyon and Lemonadeberry on all four sides. Item XIV. RECREATION b. Goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan include continuing the City's program of acquisition and development of strategically located recreation centers, encouraging the maintenance and improvement of the system of hiking and equestrian trails in Rolling Hills through the Community Association, encouraging the continued upkeep of all City -owned recreation facilities within Rolling Hills, and providing expanded recreational opportunities for children. The impact of the proposed sports court on a lower level of the existing lot will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measure H above. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the development construction of the proposed sports court. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. f. During and following development construction, the parking capacity on the 2.31 acre site can accommodate all construction and private parking on the site and will be less than significant in accordance with Mitigation Measures G and I. I-19 s • Mitiaation Measures J. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. b-e. The proposed sports court will not require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or stormwater drainage facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts. The sports court will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project as well as adequate wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project. f-g. The impact on landfill capacity available for the future development of a sports court will be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures K. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks unless it is feasible to connect to the nearby County sanitary sewer system. L. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. M. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a-c. The sports court project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, nor does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. w, I-20