Loading...
none, Plans only - Interior remodel , CEQA Docs(lig 0/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOTICE OF NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 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, December 18, 2001 in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA for the purpose of receiving public input regarding the following: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Consideration of a proposed Site Plan Review application to permit substantial grading for the purpose of repairing slope failure and installation of subterranean drainage system at 10 Poppy Trail, (Lot 3-PT), in the City of Rolling Hills in Zoning Case No. 644. The lot is developed with a single-family residence and accessory uses. Subject property is located in the RAS-1 Zoning District, (Residential Agricultural-Suburban-1 Acre minimum net lot area). The net lot area of subject lot is 180,000 square feet, (4.1 acres). The affected area pursuant to this application will consist of disturbance and grading of 0.28 acres of the lot. Grading quantities of 4,100 cubic yards of cut and 4,100 cubic yards of fill will be balanced on site. The Initial Environmental Study prepared for the proposed project identifies environmental factors, which would be potentially affected. Those factors that would be temporarily 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. However, mitigation measures will be included with the project, which will lessen these impacts to level of insignificance. 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 Planning Department has analyzed the project and determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Based on this finding, the City prepared this NEGATIVE DECLARATION. 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. A period of at least 21 days from the date of publication of this notice of preparation of a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be provided to enable public review of the proposed project, the Initial Study and this document prior to the final adoption of the NEGATIVE DECLARATION by the City. Adoption of this Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission of Rolling Hills is anticipated on January 15, 2002. Comments will be received until January 3, 2002. A copy of all of the relevant materials for the proposed project, Initial Study, and the NEGATIVE DECLARATION are on file in the offices of The City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 and any person is welcome to review the proposed project materials prior to the public hearing. ®Printed on Recycled Pa Pe If you challenge the approval or denial of the proposed ordinance 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 hearing. To receive a copy of the Initial Study or for additional information, please contact the City of Rolling Hills at (310) 377-1521. Date: Nove ber 26, 2001 ev /L1 " - olanta Schwartz, Principal Pla,Sner Publis-ed in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on Thursday, November 29, 2001 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 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling 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: Yol to Schwartz, Principal anner 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 lots 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 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? ❑ ❑ 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 0 0 0 p quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, 0 0 0 ll 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 p 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 might be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 0 0 0 p applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 ❑ ❑ p substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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 0 0 0 l i concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 0 ❑ 0 number of people? 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 tEl 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 ❑ ❑El 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? 0 ❑ 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ 0 ❑ 0 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the •❑ 0 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: O ro ❑ ❑ tz ❑ ❑ a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ 0 0 x1 adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 0 ❑ ❑ p 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? ❑ 0 ❑ El iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ 0 0 p 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, 0 IZJ 0 0 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 ❑ CI 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life and property? 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ II ❑ ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the 0 ❑ ❑ p 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 0 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 E 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 I I 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 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 0 0 0 ❑x 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, 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 O an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 0 0 0 0 loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ,ti VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ i] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 0 0 px 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 ❑ IE ❑ ❑ 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 0 0 ® 0 site or areas including through the alteration of the C, 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 0 0 0 p the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 0 p g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ 0 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 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: 0 0 ❑ 0 El ro El a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ 0 ❑ p 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 0 ❑ 0 0 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 x❑ or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 ❑ 0 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Xl. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ 0 ❑ 0 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 l❑O 0 ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 0 0 levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ p 0 ❑ 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 0 ❑El 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 0 ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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)? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporati on ❑ 0 0 o b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ p necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ 0 xp 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? 0 0 ❑ p Police protection? 0 0 0 [x Schools? 0 ❑ 0 p Parks? 0 0 ❑ p Other public facilities? ❑ 0 ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ 0 0 p 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 0 0 0 p require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact No XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — Would the Mitigation Impact project: Incorporation 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 0 0 p ❑ 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 s (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ 0 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 ❑ 0 p g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 0 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 ❑ p applicable Regional Water Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 ❑ 0 p 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IXJ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ O project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 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 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑x capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ 0 0 ❑x 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 0 0 0 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. Mitigation 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. Mitigation 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 Mitigation 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.