Loading...
644, Grading & repair of an existin, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2003-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT SUBSTANTIAL GRADING FOR SLOPE FAILURE REPAIR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 10 POPPY TRAIL IN ZONING CASE NO. 644, (WANG). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. James Wang, with respect to real property located at 10 Poppy Trail, (Lot 3-PT) Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to previously approved Site Plan Review for grading of 4,100 cubic yards of soil for the purpose of repairing slope failure. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and a pool. Concrete caissons were installed in 2001 along the rear of the residence to prevent slippage of the structure. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on January 21, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating that due to inability by the applicant to find a qualified contractor, the project has not commenced, and therefore, the extension of time is necessary. Section 3. Based . upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 7 of Resolution No. 2002-01, dated January 15, 2002, to read as follows: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 2002-01 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s` DAY OF JANUARY, 2003. ,; EVIE HANKINS, CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-02 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT SUBSTANTIAL GRADING FOR SLOPE FAILURE REPAIR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 10 POPPY TRAIL IN ZONING CASE NO. 644, (WANG). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 21, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Margeta, Witte, Sommer and Chairwoman Hankins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • viz'9 O 174054 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL' CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. Use Only AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 644 SITE PLAN REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT VARIANCE 1 (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 10 POPPY TRAIL ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA. (LOT 3-PT) This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 644 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT .1(We ify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ture-TA A' zs jA/11Le7 cz a (typedpOP,PY rzol L Name typed or printed Address / Address ROLL/N/r H/LL-( 027 City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public, State of Califomia ) County of Los Angeles ) On / —/7-2002 Signature XX XX before me,ToZvi K,/t `-//,477,' AJ,74a/J Pd/3L/c Personally appeared JA 1A)Ank-7 T Recorders personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. DOUR Li.:. K. MC HAflIE . Witness by han j,Qnd Qfficial seal. C:rarrrrw,,lnn t> 1295324 � Notary Pi . c - C: olifomb I// � e> Los ArQ.es :;3unty L� � MyComm. t,..- 2,o25, 2C05 gnature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 1-;:ouorr- " RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO PERMIT SUBSTANTIAL GRADING FOR SLOPE FAILURE REPAIR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 10 POPPY TRAIL IN ZONING CASE NO. 644, (WANG). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. James Wang, with respect to real property located at 10 Poppy Trail, (Lot 3-PT) Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plari Review approval for grading of 4,100 cubic yards of soil for the purpose of repairing slope failure. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence and a pool,. Recently, concrete caissons were installed along the rear of the residence to prevent slippage of the structure. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on December 18, 2001. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearing. Section 3. The Planning staff prepared an initial study for the project on November 29, 2001. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment if certain measures were included in the project. The Negative Declaration was prepared with those mitigation measures and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other governmental agencies. No comments were received regarding this project from any state or local agencies. Section 4. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been added to the project, and are incorporated herein as conditions of approval. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. The Los, Angeles County Department of Public Works Land Development Division and Building and Safety Division reviewed the .subject application for the slope repair. The Los Angeles County staff found that the ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 1 proposed approach and methodology for slope repair is appropriate and the project was recommended for approval with conditions. Section 6. Section 17.46.020(A)(1) requires a Site Plan Review for grading projects requiring a grading permit. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed activity, as modified by the conditions of approval, is compatible with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance require a balanced cut and fill ratio and do not permit import or export of soil, except under special circumstances applicable to a property and with a discretionary permission by the Planning Commission. B. The proposed activity, as modified, by the conditions of approval, preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). Although grading of the existing slope is necessary to correct slope failure and for the installation of drainage devices, only 0.28 acres or 12,197 square feet of the 180,000 square feet of net lot area of the lot will be affected by the grading. C. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading. The natural drainage courses will be preserved and continue drainage to the canyons at the northeastern side of this lot. As a result of this activity drainage on site will be corrected, thus, preventingerosion of the, slopes and the drainage will be directed to, the canyons. D. The development plan will, based upon compliance with the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. Upon completion of the project the graded slopes will be re - vegetated with native trees and shrubs. E. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because no new structures are proposed. F. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions, of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and other residences on Poppy Trail. Grading will be minor and required only to repair the slope failure of the property. G. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is . sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 2 • • • •_circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize - — the ix sting driveway access. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Planning Commission has adopted a Negative Declaration. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 644 for grading and slope repair as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that. time period, as required by Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended the Site Plan pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval,. ,that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated December 12, 2001, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. This Site Plan Review approval is subject to all applicable requirements and conditions of the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Rolling Hills, any other governmental entities having reviewed this project, and the requirements of the Rolling Hills Community Association. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant. G. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, and all requirements of the City of Rolling Hills ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 3 • • ordinances, resolutions, engineering standards and other applicable standards, that are in effect at the time that slope repair improvement permit is issued for the project. H. In accordance with Chapter 1706 of the California State Statutes of 1990, the applicant shall pay any required fee, along with the required processing fee, to the City of Rolling Hills and County Clerk for remittance to the State Department of Fish and Game. This approval shall not be valid and effective unless and until the fee(s) have been paid and the Notice of Determination has been filed. I. The property owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rolling Hills and its officers, employees and agents from and against any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Rolling Hills, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Rolling Hills concerning this Site Plan Review application, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council,, Planning Commission or Planning Director, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the application and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees and agents in the defense of the matter. J. Grading shall not exceed 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site, and shall not affect more than 0.28 acres of the net lot area. K. The disturbed area of the lot, which includes the existing disturbed areas and the proposed slope repair area, shall not exceed 53,837 square feet or 30.0% of the net lot area in conformance with lot disturbance limitations. L. A County of Los Angeles Public Works Department approved geology and/or soils engineering report shall be required prior to approval of grading plans. M. A grading plan shall be . geotechnically approved by the Los Angeles County Geology and Soils Sections prior to commencing any work on subject property. This grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geology report and soils engineering report and show all recommendations submitted by the County staff. Prior to the commencement of the project, the applicant shall deposit the dollar amount of a County approved estimate for a bond for the grading plan. N. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 4 • • O. Intensive geotechnical review, and supervision shall be required throughout the time the project is ongoing. P. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and provide adequate landscaping after grading and repairs to the slope is completed. Further, an "Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan" is required as the project qualifies as a hillside -located single family dwelling. Q. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. In order to minimize impacts to the hillsides and canyon areas on this property, the graded slopes shall be designed and developed in a manner that retains and restores native drought - tolerant plant life and preserves the existing contiguous topography, flora, and natural features of that area to the greatest extent possible. R. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling' Hills Municipal Code. . S. Mitigation areas shall be planted with native plants at the following densities: (1) 1 to 2 gallon containers of low, relatively fast growing shrubs planted at approximately five feet (5') on center, including but notlimited to Venturan coastal sage scrub, Purple sage scrub, California sagebrush scrub; and (2) 2 to 10 gallon containers (depending upon availability and condition of the plants) of slower growing shrubs interspersed in an irregular pattern, including but not limited to Lemonadeberry, Toyon, and Elderberry. (3) If trees are proposed to be planted, they shall be of native type, and which at full maturity shall not exceed 25 feet in height so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties, and shall be approved by the Planning Department staff. Two copies of landscape plan for the graded/repaired area and a cost estimate for material, labor and irrigation to implement the landscaping plan must be submitted for review by the Plannin& Department prior to the issuance of grading permit. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted .prior to issuance of a grading permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 5 • • after landscape installation. After the two-year period, upon the request of the applicant, the retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager or his designee determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. T. To prevent construction equipment from going beyond the limits of the remediation area, contractors shall use fencing or other barriers to the greatest extent possible. Contractors shall be informed that work on the site shall not encroach into the natural vegetation areas of the lot. U. 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. Stockpiles of soil, sand and similar materials shall be stabilized by being enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or with application of non -toxic soil binders. V. During construction, conformance 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. W. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. X. 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. Y. The applicant may be required to utilize mufflers on equipment that generates noise above acceptable levels. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AA. After construction, the property owner shall keep the drainage devices clear at all times of debris, soil, vegetation and any other materials. AB. Should the repair activity be halted for any reason, .(i.e. inclement weather), the property owner shall take appropriate measures, as determined by ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 6 • the Building Official, to minimize the seepage of any water into the area of slope failure. AC. 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. AD. A drainage plan system shall be approved by the County District Engineer, to include any water from the site irrigation systems and natural flow and all drainage from .the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AE. A detailed and final drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AF. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.42.070 the approvals shall not be effective. AG. All conditions of the Site Plan approval, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2002. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN A ITEST: MARILYN K, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO PERMIT SUBSTANTIAL GRADING FOR SLOPE FAILURE REPAIR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 10 POPPY TRAIL IN ZONING CASE NO. 644, (WANG). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 12, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. P- 14-rAA-, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC No. 644 Reso. 2002-01 8 • ILLEGIBLE NOTARY SEAL DECLARATION GOVERNMENT CODE 27361.7 I certify under penalty of perjury that the notary seal on the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: Name of Notary Zl-)- S� %�,��� Date Commission Expires 2 - D d 5 Notary Identification Number / 2 9 6 3 2 4- (For Notaries commissioned after 1-1-1992) Manufacturer/Vendor Identification Number (For Notaries commissioned after 1-1-1992) Place of Execution of this Declaration Date • /- Z7-OZ A/YA/ A/6 R !4, L /- , ;)G1L Signature (Firm name if any) 7// R747 1/92 • This is a true and certified copy of the record if it bears the seal, imprinted in purple ink, of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk IJAN 123 zooz drie REGIStRAMCORDERICOUNiY aERK itOSANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA TO: SUBJECT: LEAD AGENCY: CONTACT PERSON: PROJECT ADDRESS: Interested Parties Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for the Repair of Slope Failure at a single family residential lot. City of Rolling Hills Yolanta Schwartz, Principal Planner 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 10 Poppy Trail (APA 7567-001-010) Rolling Hills, CA 90274 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Zoning Case No. 644, Site Plan Review Request for a site plan review to permit substantial grading and construction of drainage devices to repair slope failure. The applicants propose to conduct substantial grading, approximately 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill, in order to repair slope failure on subject site and restore stability of the residential lot. The site is developed with an existing single family residential dwelling. The area affected by the slope failure is approximately 0.28 acres in size. The net lot area of the subject site is 180,000 square feet, (4.1 acres). The applicant proposes to remove the fill located to the north-east of the existing dwelling, and replace it with engineered soil, (soil -cement). Subterranean drainage system, and an above ground drain swale and energy dissipater will also be constructed. No grading or other disturbance is proposed for the existing building pad. The project site consists of one lot (Lot 3-PT) of 4.5 gross acres in size. An existing single family residential development with a pool is located at the southwestern portion of the lot. The lot is also developed with a deck and walks surrounding the existing house, and below the residential pad by native and non- native grasses and shrubs. The property is pie shaped, ranging from 71 feet in width along the front property line to approximately 400 feet in width along the rear property line. The existing topography of the project site consists of a graded pad on which the house, driveway and a pool are situated and descends in an easterly direction, sloping to a natural canyon along the rear property line. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA), an Initial Environmental Study was prepared for the proposed project. The study identifies environmental factors, which would be potentially affected by the proposed project. Those factors that would be impacted include geology and soils due to extensive grading on sloped areas, hydrology due to altering existing drainage pattern, and noise and traffic generation during construction. Although • . the impacts will be temporary in nature, mitigation measures will be included with the project, which will lessen the impacts to a level of insignificance. FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT: BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Public comments on the Negative Declaration will be received by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department until January 3, 2002. Copies of all relevant materials including the project specifications are on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills. 2 Portuauese Bend Road, Rollina Hills. CA 90274 and any person is welcome to review the proposed project. Please forward any comments to Yolanta Schwartz, at the above address, or call (310) 377-1521. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this item at their regular meeting on December 18, 2001, and on January 15, 2002. Such hearings will be held at 7:30 p.m. in the City of Rolling Hills Council Chambers located at 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA. The Planning Commission on December 18, 2001 will take no action on this application. A field visit may also be scheduled and all interested parties and neighbors will be notified of the date and time of the field trip. If you challenge the approval or denial of the proposed project 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 of Rolling Hills at, or prior to, the public hearings. Date: November 29, 2001 By: Yolnta Schwartz, Principal RIanner •• CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM APPLICATION NO: ZONING CASE NO. 644, REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED PROJECT: Request for a site plan approval to conduct substantial grading, approximately 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill in order to repair slope failure on subject site and restore stability of the residential site. The applicant proposes to remove the fill located to the northeast of the existing structure, and replace it with engineered soil (soil -cement). Subterranean drainage system, and above ground drain swale and energy dissipater will also be constructed. NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: MR. JAMES WANG 10 POPPY TRAIL ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 LOCATION OF PROJECT: 10 POPPY TRAIL, ROLLING HILLS, CA (LOT 3-PT) ASSESSOR'S Book, Page & Parcel No.: 7567 - 001 - 010 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Residential Agricultural -Suburban EXISTING ZONING: RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acre minimum net lot size PROPOSED ZONING: No change. RA-S-1, Residential Agricultural -Suburban 1-Acres LOT SIZE: 4.5 Acres Gross; 4.1 Acres Net LOCATION MAP: Attached. I. APPLICABILITY OF THE INITIAL STUDY A. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section I. of the City's CEQA Guidelines. (If more than one application is filed on the same site, consider them together as one project). x Yes No 1. If the project qualifies for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in 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 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 that would interfere with attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in the approved areawide wastewater management plan. III. PROJECT ASSESSMENT A. Project Description: The applicants propose to conduct substantial grading, approximately 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill, in order to repair slope failure on subject site and restore stability of the residential lot. There is an existing single family residential development on the lot. The area affected by the slope failure is approximately 0.28 acres in size. The net lot area of the subject site is 180,000 square feet, (4.1 acres). The applicant proposes to remove the fill, located to the northeast of the existing dwelling unit, and replace it with engineered soil, (soil -cement) subterranean drainage system, and above ground drain swale and energy dissipater. No grading or other disturbance is proposed for the existing building pad or the remaining of the lot. 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 consists of one lot (Lot 3-PT) of 4.5 gross acres in size. An existing single family residential development with a pool is located at the southwestern portion of the lot The remaining lot area is developed with a deck and walks and below the residential pad by native plants, native and non-native grasses and shrubs. The property is pie shaped, ranging from 71 feet in width along the front property line to approximately 400 feet in width along the rear property line. The existing topography of the project site consists of a graded pad on which the house and pool are situated and descends in a northeasterly direction, sloping to a natural canyon along the northern and eastern property line. The eastern property line forms a boundary line between the City of Rolling Hills and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The lot and surrounding properties have a -pastoral view of the canyons. A partial view of city lights exists from certain parts of the subject lot, but will not be affected by this project. C. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Hesse's Gap, a City owned parcel containing a riding ring and picnic area within the City of Rolling Hills. East: A canyon area located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and beyond the canyon single family dwelling units within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. South: Single family dwelling units on lots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. West: Single family dwelling units on Tots of 1 or more acres within the City of Rolling Hills. 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? x Geology Report X Hydrology Report X Soils Report _ Traffic Study _ Noise Study _ Biological Study _ Native Vegetation Preservation Plan (contained in the Biological Study) _ Solid Waste Generation Report _ Public Services/ Infrastructure Report Yes x x x No N/A x Historical Report Archaeological Report Paleontological Study Line of Sight Exhibits Visual Analysis Slope Map Fiscal Impact Analysis Air Quality Report Hazardous Materials/ Waste x IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (Select one) XX_ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER [Signature] NOVEMBER 29, 2001 VI. 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. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ISSUES: I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ 0 b) .Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 0 0 El not limited to, trees rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a. state scenic highway? • • c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 0 0 xp quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, ❑ 0 0 p 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 0 ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 0 p Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ 0 ❑ 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 might be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ 0 0 ❑x applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 0 IE substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ 0 ❑ px 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? 0 ❑ EJ • Less Than Significant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact a) Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ 0 p 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 0 ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and 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 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? 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 e) Conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting ❑ 0 ❑ 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? 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 ❑ 0 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: 0 El 0 0 • • 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 ❑ ❑ ❑El 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- 0 ❑ 0 p 1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 0 0 El use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 ❑ ❑El environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ 0 0 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 0 0 0 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ 0 ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 Toss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 • Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 0 0 0 p discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 ❑ ❑ p interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table 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 ❑ p ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ IXI 0 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 100-year flood hazard area structures, ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ Toss, 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: ❑ ❑ ❑ IEI ❑ ❑ p a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 ❑ • 1 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the Toss of availability of a known mineral ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important 0 ❑ 0 El 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 ❑ p ❑ ❑ 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 0 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 0 ❑ ❑ 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 ❑ ❑ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporati on XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ p necessitating the construction of replacement • housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? ❑ 0 ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ I] XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ I] 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? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No Mitigation Impact project: Incorporation a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ❑ p ❑ 0 relation to the existing traffic Toad 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 0 0 p 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ p feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 ❑ p f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ 0 ❑ p supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ 0 ❑ applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 0 ❑ IX' 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ 0 ❑ IX! • • e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ p capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ Q regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ p will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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 AND MITIGATION MEASURES Item I. AESTHETICS. a-d NO IMPACT The disruption of the canyon vista from adjacent properties will be temporary and will be restored after the slope repair is completed. There will be no adverse effects on scenic vistas. Item II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a-c NO IMPACT This project does not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. The site and the surrounding properties are within an existing urbanized area zoned for single family residences. • Item III. AIR QUALITY a-e. NO IMPACT The proposed project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan for any construction and will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and will have no impact on the existing environment. A standard condition of approval for all projects in the City requires that during construction the applicant keep the project site moist, so that nearly residents will not be exposed to any fugitive dust. Item IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-f NO IMPACT Approximately 0.28 acres of land will be disturbed. The remaining of the lot will not be disturbed. Adequate areas exist on the subject site and adjacent sites for any sensitive species to continue their habitat. The current plant community on the affected part of the site does not support any wildlife and does not serve as a migration corridor for any birds. The proposed grading quantities of 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill are not considered by the City substantial. The affected area of the lot has fissures and cracks and has been covered with plastic sheeting, therefore, unable to sustain any animal or plant life. Item V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. NO IMPACT No known cultural resources exist on site Item VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-e. Although approval of the grading and fill project will not result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures, portions of the City exhibit unstable earth conditions, including active slope failure and soil creep. Although this property is not within a mapped active landslide area, slippage has occurred on site. The proposed project is necessary to correct this situation. 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 ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The Palos Verdes fault, considered potentially active, is located approximately one mile northeast of the City limits. However, this project does not involve additional development on site. In addition, vibration from grading may shake the existing structure on site. Underpinning of the structure is already in place and should support the structure, Cosmetic repairs may be necessary upon completion of the project. The entire City of Rolling Hills, including this site, is underlain by expansive soil that requires soils and geology reports for any new building structures. This project does not involve any new construction, just repair of an existing condition involving land slippage. • • An ancient landslide area has been found in this location. This landslide area is unsuitable for home sites because of the potential for continued movement. No new construction is proposed for the site. This project is necessary to correct the movement of the slope. Any displacement and re -compaction of the soil is expected to conform to local ordinances and engineering practices requiring balanced cut and fill and could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures 1. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. 2. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed the existing ratios, which in one area of the proposed exceeds the required 2 to 1 slope ratio, and is 11/2 to 1. However, the resulting slope will be the same as existing. 3. Intensive geotechnical review and supervision shall be required throughout the time the project is ongoing. 4. After grading, and before fill and compaction is completed, seepage, if any, from the septic tank shall be evaluated. Mitigation measures shall be then proposed by the applicant and approved by the City and County. 5. The applicant shall implement Best Management Practices of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and provide adequate landscaping after grading and repairs to the slope is completed. Further, an "Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan" is required as the project qualifies as a hillside -located single family dwelling. Item VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a-h. NO IMPACT Grading and compaction activities are carefully regulated by the City's Building & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. No hazardous materials have been identified on site and none will be transported or used in the remediation of this site Item VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a-b NO IMPACT. Grading and compaction activities are carefully regulated by the City's Building & Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Rolling Hills Community Association. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be required and will be implemented and monitored. c-d. The proposed project may alter drainage patterns, increase runoff and reduce water absorption. However, such effect will be temporary in nature. As the area is re -filled, compacted and re -vegetated, drainage patterns will be improved due to the construction of subterranean drainage system, above ground drainage swale and energy dissipater. The project site is not located within or near a stream or river and will not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner , which would result in flooding off -site. • • e-j. NO IMPACT No runoff water will be created and will not create a substantial source of polluted water. There is no structural development associated with this project and all conditions will remain as they exist currently. Mitiaation Measures 1. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed by planning staff. The County Building Officials shall monitor the implementation of the plan. 2. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. 3. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Item IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a-c NO IMPACT The project site is located within an established residential area and will not physically divide the community. The site is zoned for single family residential land use. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation and is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. Item X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b NO IMPACT The project site is not identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Item Xl. NOISE a-f. Construction activities could lead to noise impacts on adjacent residential uses in the absence of mitigation. All such impacts will be temporary and will cease after the slope repair is completed. The goal of the City of Rolling Hills' Noise Element is to preserve and enhance Rolling Hills' quiet rural atmosphere and promotes the use of landscaping to obscure noise production from roadways and adjacent properties. Although approval of the project will result in intermittent loud noise levels during grading operation, the noise will be temporary. Any construction or traffic noise will be required to conform with local ordinances and engineering practices. The City requires that all construction work take place between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only. The project will not result in a permanent increase in ambient levels in the project vicinity. Mitiaation Measures 1. 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. • • 2. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday only, so as not to interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills. 3. The applicant may be required to utilize mufflers on equipment that generates noise above acceptable levels. Item XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c. NO IMPACT The project does not involve the construction of a new single family residence which, would result in additional persons in the City nor will it displace any persons. Item XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a. NO IMPACT The project will not result in the need for increased governmental facilities, schools, recreational facilities or law enforcement personnel. Item XIV. RECREATION a-b. NO IMPACT The goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan that 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 do not conflict with the remediation of a the slope. Item XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Approval of the project will result in increased traffic that will occur during the grading operation only. However, the grading and related operations will be conducted within the approved City work hours. The time frame for this project is approximately 2 months, after which time landscaping vehicle and equipment will traverse the City to access the site to implement the requirements of the landscaping plan. The effect on circulation within the City during construction of the project could be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. b. • This project will not exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency as there are no heavy congestion designated roads or highways within the City of Rolling Hills. c-g. NO IMPACT Miticiation Measures 1. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate truck traffic throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM Monday through Saturday only so as not to interfere with the normal flow of traffic within the City of Rolling Hills. Item XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a-g. NO IMPACT • The proposed project will not consume a significant amount of water. Any water required to keep the project moist will be temporary. Local Water and Wastewater facilities are in place to serve the project site. Item XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. The Initial Study prepared for this project indicate that the proposed remediation and slope repair activity is not expected to have significant adverse impact on the environment, upon implementation of the mitigation measures recommended herein. The following mandatory findings of significance can be made as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, based on the results of the environmental assessment: a. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of wildlife species, cause 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. The project will not have adverse impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, because the project, as proposed, require grading for slope remediation and the amount graded is not considered significant and will be temporary in nature. c. This project will not result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project will be required to comply with all applicable Municipal Code and Building Code requirements.