CITY OF MALIBU NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Transcription

1 CITY OF MALIBU NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given that the City of Malibu has completed an Initial Study for the following project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Project Title Lot line adjustment between two lots located at Rambla Vista (Lot 1) and Rambla Vista (Lot 2) Application Nos. Initial Study No , Negative Declaration No , Coastal Development Permit No , and Lot Line Adjustment No Location: Lot Rambla Vista, APN and Lot Rambla Vista, APN Project Applicant: Property Owners: Chris Johnson, Michael Baker International California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (Lot 1), and Lou Adler Family Trust (Lot 2) Project Description: The proposed project consists of an application for a coastal development permit and a lot line adjustment between two adjacent parcels. The project will move the lot line so that drainage infrastructure that is the responsibility of the Lot 1 property owner will be located within Lot l s boundaries. No physical development is proposed. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the size of Lot 1 (21651 Rambla Vista) and decrease the size of Lot 2 (21653 Rambla Vista) by approximately 0.5 acres. The project is located in the Rural Residential One Acre and Rural Residential Two Acre zoning districts. The complete project description is provided in the Initial Study. Public Review: The purpose of this review is to allow public agencies and interested members of the public the opportunity to share expertise, disclose agency analysis, check for accuracy, detect omission, discover public concerns and solicit counter proposals pursuant to CEQA Section (Purposes of Review). The Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be circulated for a 30-day review period. Written comments will be received by the City of Malibu Planning Department until 5:30 p.m. on the ending date of the public review period. Review Period: Begins: March 8, 2018 Ends: April 7, 2018

2 Where to Send Comments and Where Documents are Available for Review: Post: City of Malibu Planning Department Fax: (310) Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA City of Malibu Website: malibucity.orq/index.aspx?nid=701 Public Hearing: A public hearing for the City of Malibu Planning Commission to receive comments on the document and to adopt the Initial Study I Negative Declaration will be scheduled and noticed at a later date. Contact: For more information regarding this notice, please contact the following staff member: Lilly Rudolph, Contract Planner (310) , extension 238 lrudolph@malibucity.org Bonnie Blue, Planning Director Date: March 8, 2018

3 City of Malibu Lot Line Adjustment No & CDP No Rambla Vista and Rambla Vista Initial Study Negative Declaration March 2018

4 City of Malibu Planning Department Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lot Line Adjustment between two parcels located at Rambla Vista and Rambla Vista Table of Contents INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION... 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 CITY OF MALIBU... 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Description of Project:... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. AESTHETICS B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES C. AIR QUALITY D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES E. CULTURAL RESOURCES F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY J. LAND USE AND PLANNING K. MINERAL RESOURCES L. NOISE M. POPULATION AND HOUSING N. PUBLIC SERVICES O. RECREATION P. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES R. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS S. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE REFERENCES... 53

5 City of Malibu Planning Department Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA Table 1 Existing and Proposed Lot Area... 5 Table 2 Adjacent Uses... 12

6 City of Malibu Planning Department Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lot Line Adjustment between two parcels located at Rambla Vista and Rambla Vista (Initial Study No , Negative Declaration , Coastal Development Permit No , and Lot Line Adjustment No ) INTRODUCTION This Initial Study-Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines as revised. Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency (i.e., the City of Malibu) with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; Identifying the effects determined not to be significant; Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant; and Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project s environmental effects. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1

7 CITY OF MALIBU INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Lot line adjustment between two lots located at Rambla Vista and Rambla Vista 2. Project Location: Lot Rambla Vista Assessor s Parcel Number (APN): Lot Rambla Vista APN: Application: Initial Study (IS) No Negative Declaration (ND) No Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) No Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Malibu Planning Department Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Lilly Rudolph, AICP Contract Planner (310) , extension Project Applicant Name and Address: Chris Johnson Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, CA Property Owners: Lot 1 California Joint Powers Insurance Authority 8081 Moody Street, La Palma, CA Lot 2 Lou Adler 3969 Villa Costera Malibu, CA Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Zoning Lot 1: Rural Residential 1 Acre (RR-1) Lot 2: RR-1 and RR-2 9. General Plan Land Use Designation: Lot 1: Rural Residential 1 Acre (RR-1) Lot 2: RR-1 and RR Local Coastal Program (LCP) Zoning: RR-1 (Lot 1); RR-1 and RR-2 (Lot 2) 11. LCP Land Use Designation: RR-1 (Lot1); and RR-1 RR-2 (Lot 2) 2

8 Figure 1 Regional Map 3

9 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project Site Lot 2 Lot 1 City of Malibu GIS

10 12. Description of Project: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that projects be evaluated for any potential affects to the environment. For this reason, an initial study has been prepared to identify any potential environmental impacts for the proposed lot line adjustment in a residential area. As a result of the initial study, it has been determined that no impact to the environment is anticipated. The proposed project consists of an application for a coastal development permit and a lot line adjustment between two adjacent parcels. The project will move the lot line so that drainage infrastructure that is the responsibility of the Lot 1 property owner will be located within Lot 1 s boundaries. No physical development is proposed. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the size of Lot 1 (21651 Rambla Vista) and decrease the size of Lot 2 (21653 Rambla Vista) by approximately 0.5 acres. The existing and proposed lot sizes are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1 Existing and Proposed Lot Area Existing Acreage (Square Feet) Proposed Acreage (Square Feet) Lot (65,515.77) 2.0 (87,125.90) Lot (210,310.75) (188,789) The proposed lot line adjustment would expand Lot 1, a vacant parcel, to the north and to the west to include existing south-facing slopes and an existing previously disturbed pad area. A conceptual 19,433 square foot graded building pad in the location of a previous building pad has been identified on Lot 1. Lot 2 is developed with a single-family residence, an access driveway, spa, and swimming pool. Lot 1 was previously developed with a single-family residence that was approximately 3,000 square feet in size, swimming pool, and spa. In 1998, a landslide occurred on Lot 1 that directly affected Lot 2 and ultimately resulted in the demolition of the single-family residence on Lot 1 in In 2006, the hillside on Lot 2 was stabilized through the installation of a soil nail wall, drainage improvements, access driveway grading, and hydroseeding. In 2009, the City of Malibu approved a coastal development permit to repair and stabilize the slope on Lot 1, repair of the driveway that leads over Lot 1 to Lot 2, and restore the building pad on Lot 1. The work that stabilized the slope took place on both the subject parcels, and the proposed lot line adjustment would increase the size of Lot 1 to locate the drainage improvements on the lot. As a result of the lot line adjustment, the property owner of Lot 1 would be solely responsible for the maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. No new lots would be created, and no physical development is currently proposed as part of the lot line adjustment. The lot line adjustment would not substantially increase or otherwise affect the development potential on either lot. Lot 1 is developable with one single family residence in its current configuration. With the exception of the 19,433 square foot building pad, the lot is highly constrained with steep slopes and drainage infrastructure, and could not reasonably accommodate more than one single-family residence and access driveway. Therefore, while the proposed 2-acre Lot 1 could theoretically be subdivided, a future subdivision would likely be infeasible. The City of Malibu the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) contains provisions that regulate the total development square footage (TDSF) of allowed development on a parcel. Maximum 5

11 allowable TDSF is incrementally greater for larger parcels. As a result of the increased parcel size of lot 1, the maximum allowable TDSF for lot 1 would increase by roughly 430 square feet. This amount is negligible and would be offset by the reduction in size of lot 2 in the event that lot 2 is redeveloped. 6

12 Figure 3 Site Photographs Facing northwest from Rambla Vista (Lot 1).Soil nail walls and landscaping shown. Facing west from Rambla Vista (Lot 1). Existing single-family residence at Rambla Vista shown. 7

13 Facing east from Rambla Vista (Lot 1). Pacific Coast Highway shown. Facing north from Rambla Vista. Roof of single-family residence at Rambla Vista and drainage infrastructure shown. 8

14 Figure 4 Site Plan 9

15 Figure 5 Color Coded Slope Analysis 10

16 13. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (Lot 1) Lot 1 is located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), at the western terminus of Rambla Vista (See Exhibit A - Vicinity Map and Exhibit B - Site Map). The surrounding parcels are developed with single-family residential uses and a Los Angeles County fire station. Properties in the immediately surrounding areas are zoned Single-Family Medium (SF-M, one single-family residence per 0.25 acre) to the south and Rural Residential Two Acres (RR-2, one single-family residence per two acres) to the north, east, and west. The 1.5-acre parcel is bounded by Rambla Vista to the north and west; Villa Costera, a private road, and a single-family residence to the east; and Rambla Vista to the south. The property consists of a level building pad and a driveway that accesses Villa Costera to the east. A three-tiered 587-foot long retaining wall system ranging in height from 15 to 18 feet per wall spans the northwest portion of the property. To the south of the building pad, the parcel slopes south towards Rambla Vista. A debris wall runs along the southern property boundary adjacent to the west end of Rambla Vista, approximately 300 feet northeast of PCH (See Exhibit C Site Photographs). Approximately 47% of the site has 2:1 or steeper slopes. The property is not designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as shown on LCP ESHA Overlay Map. Adler (Lot 2) Lot 2 is also located on the inland side of PCH. The surrounding parcels are developed with single-family residential uses and a Los Angeles County fire station. Properties in the immediately surrounding areas are zoned Single-Family Medium (SF-M, one single-family residence per 0.25 acre), RR-2, and Institutional (parcel containing Fire Station No. 70). The site is developed with a single-family residence that is accessed from Villa Costera. Previous landslide remediation work on the property included restoration and realignment of a portion of the asphalt driveway; construction of a garden wall south of the driveway; and construction of a retaining wall along the northwestern side of the existing driveway. Lot 2 contains ESHA (jurisdictional drainage) along the western property boundary with the fire station at the bottom of the hillside as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map. 11

17 Table 2 outlines the properties adjacent to the project site and provides corresponding land uses: Table 2 Adjacent Uses Direction Address Use Lot Size North APN Vacant 77,344 sq. ft. West 3970 Carbon Canyon Rd Los Angeles County Fire Station 41,736 sq. ft. Rambla Vista street easement South Rambla Vista single-family residence 8,070 sq. ft PCH single-family residence 6,767 sq. ft PCH single-family residence 7,195 sq. ft. East 3989 Villa Costera single-family residence 58,693 sq. ft. 14. Project Approvals: The project requires the following City of Malibu approvals: a. Adoption of Initial Study No and Negative Declaration No ; b. Approval of CDP No for Lot Line Adjustment No The project has undergone review for conformance by the agencies listed below. Their recommendations are summarized below. City of Malibu Environmental Review Board The Planning Director determined that ERB review of the project is not required because the project would not result in increased development potential as discussed in the Description of Project. No potentially significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the lot line adjustment. City of Malibu Biologist The City Biologist concluded that the proposed lot line adjustment would not result in a condition where future development would affect biological resources. City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator The City Environmental Health Administrator concluded that the lot line adjustment would not create any parcels without the appropriate conditions for a properly functioning onsite wastewater treatment system. Lot 1 is being enlarged; and Lot 2 has an existing wastewater system with a designated expansion area. City of Malibu Public Works Department The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved a Certificate of Compliance for the two reconfigured subject parcels. Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) The LACFD has no objection to the proposed lot line adjustment. The applicant shall obtain approval from the LACFD to ensure compliance with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water main fire flows, and fire hydrants associated with future development. 12

18 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would 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. Lilly Rudolph, Contract Planner March 8,

19 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No " answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No " 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 " answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would 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 offsite as well as onsite, 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, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially " is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially " entries, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially " to a "Less Than ". 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 "Earlier Analyses," cited in support of conclusions reached in other sections 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 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. s 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; and c. Mitigation Measures: For effects that are " 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., Comprehensive 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. The explanation of each issue should identity: 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 significant. 9. The LCP is a certified CEQA document. Therefore, if all LCP standard conditions designed to minimize impacts to environmental resources are incorporated, and those conditions mitigate potentially significant impacts to a level of less than significant, then no additional mitigation is required by law. For discussion purposes, standard conditions may be listed below the impact discussions but are not actual mitigation measures. 14

20 A. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4. Create a source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan, Land Use Element; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; Public Resources Code; City of Malibu Trails System Maps; Biological Review Referral Sheet May 7, 2014; and site and aerial photographs. The proposed project includes a lot line adjustment between two adjacent lots that are visible from Pacific Coast Highway, a LCP-designated scenic highway, and the shore, a LCPdesignated scenic area. No physical development is currently proposed as part of the lot line adjustment. Drainage devices built across both properties and a single-family residence on Lot 2 are visible from PCH. The proposed lot line adjustment would enlarge Lot 1 (21651 Rambla Vista) to locate all existing drainage improvements onto the property. No new structures are proposed on Lot 1 (21651 Rambla Vista), however, a conceptual building pad on a level area of the lot, in the same location as the previous residence, has been identified as part of the lot line adjustment. Discussion 1. The project site is located on the inland side of PCH. Both parcels are surrounded by existing one- and two-story single-family residences. Because no development is proposed as part of the lot line adjustment, and because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Subdivision of lot 1 is not reasonably foreseeable subsequent to the lot line adjustment due to site constraints, and the increase in maximum allowable TDSF would be negligible. Thus, no impact to scenic vistas to and from the Pacific Ocean to the south, or views to and from the Santa Monica Mountains to the north would occur. 15

21 2. The project site is not located within the proximity of a state scenic highway, and the site does not contain any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, heritage trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings. PCH is a LCP-designated highway, but because no physical development is currently proposed as part of the lot line adjustment, no impact to scenic resources would occur. 3. The existing visual character of the project area and its surroundings, as viewed from the adjacent public and private roads, PCH, Rambla Vista, and Villa Costera, consists of steep slopes, hillsides, and mature landscaping. The project site is located directly to the north of PCH and along the foothill of a south facing hillside. The surrounding hills are developed with one- and two-story single-family residences with two-acre lots to the north and west of the project site, and relatively higher density residential development on 0.5-acre lots to the east. The south side of PCH, to the south of the project site, comprises beachfront residential development with no front yard setbacks and views of sandy beaches and the ocean beyond. No change to the location of the building pad would occur as a result of the lot line adjustment. As viewed from these surrounding streets, views of the project site would not change. The proposed lot line adjustment would have no impact on the existing visual character of the project site and surrounding properties because no physical changes would occur. 4. The proposed lot line adjustment would have no impact on light or glare because no physical development is proposed. Because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable due to the presence of steep slopes on the majority of the site, and the increase in maximum allowable TDSF would be negligible. Standard Conditions of Approval for Future Development Conditions of approval addressing colors, materials, and lighting for future construction of a residence on Lot 1 would be required, pursuant to the LCP. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required to reduce aesthetic impacts. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. 16

22 B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 4. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program; California Public Resources Code; and California Government Code. Discussion 1-5. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farm or forest land to nonagricultural or forestry uses. There is no land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Malibu. Additionally, there are no lands under a Williamson Act contract, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined 17

23 by Government Code section 51104(g)) located on or near the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts on agriculture and forestry resources. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. C. AIR QUALITY Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; and Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Discussion 1-5 No physical development is proposed as part of the lot line adjustment. Because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable due to the presence of steep slopes on the majority of the site, and the increase in maximum allowable TDSF would be negligible. Therefore, the project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality 18

24 plan nor violate any air quality standards in the City. The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any pollutant. The project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan nor violate any air quality standards in the City. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors. Standard Conditions of Approval for Future Development Conditions of approval addressing construction emissions and dust for future construction of a residence on Lot 1 would be required, pursuant to the LCP. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required regarding air quality. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. 19

25 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4. 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? 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan, Land Use and Conservation Elements; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and Marine Resources Map; City of Malibu Municipal 20

26 Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; Biological Assessment of Rambla Vista (APN: ), City of Malibu, Malibu, CA, August 30, 2006; and Biological Review Sheet, May 7, Discussion 1. Due to previous site disturbance, fuel modification, and the dominance of non-native vegetation and landscaping, special status species are not expected to occur on the project site. Lot 1 is a vacant parcel that has been exposed to recurring disturbances, primarily in the form of grading and landscaping for landslide remediation. Lot 1 has been landscaped with plants native to the Santa Monica Mountains, and contains a building pad in the same location as the original residence. The building pad and access driveway contain no special status plant species. Lot 2 is developed with a residence and accessory structures. Because no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species are expected to occur onsite, and because the lot line adjustment would not facilitate substantial increased development potential than what exists, the project would not directly affect any candidate plants or animal species. No impact would occur. 2-3 According to the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, a stream is located along the western boundary of Lot 2, which is developed with a single-family residence and accessory structures. The map depicts the stream as an ESHA. The map also depicts an ESHA or ESHA buffer immediately adjacent to the stream ESHA. The stream ESHA is also under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). CDFW jurisdiction extends between the top of each bank and to the outer edge of contiguous riparian vegetation. In the absence of wetlands, USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters extends to the ordinary high water mark. The RWQCB regulates water quality. City of Malibu LCP jurisdiction parallels that of the CDFW. The Lot Line Adjustment would reduce the size of Lot 2 by approximately half an acre and would thus decrease future development potential on Lot 2. Future development would likely occur on Lot 1, which is vacant and does not contain ESHA. The ESHA area on Lot 2 is approximately 300 feet from the closest property line of Lot 1. This distance, in addition to required setbacks, is sufficient to allow for the required 200 foot fuel modification distance, while maintaining the required 100 foot riparian ESHA buffer. Therefore, no impacts to ESHA would occur as a result of the Lot Line Adjustment. 4. The project is not expected to substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, as no physical development is proposed, and the site has not been identified as a migratory corridor. No impact would occur. 5. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and would have no impact on protected native trees. 6. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan in place for the proposed property or adjacent areas that could be impacted. As such, no impacts to such plans would occur. 21

27 Standard Conditions of Approval for Future Development Conditions of approval addressing landscaping for future construction of a residence on Lot 1 would be required, pursuant to the LCP. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required regarding biological resources. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. 22

28 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources: Malibu General Plan, Land Use Element; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; City of Malibu Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map. Discussion 1-4. The project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological resources per adopted City of Malibu Cultural Resources Sensitivity Maps, and it has been determined to have a very low probability of containing archeological or paleontological resources. Previous ground disturbance and site restoration occurred in the landslide debris area on both lots. No physical development is proposed as part of the lot line adjustment. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on cultural resources. Standard Conditions of Approval for Future Development Conditions of approval addressing cultural resources for future construction of a residence on Lot 1 would be required, pursuant to the LCP. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required regarding cultural resources. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. 23

29 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. 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 known fault? b. Strong seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Landslides? 2. Result in substantial soil erosion, or the loss of topsoil? 3. 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? 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan, Land Use and Safety & Health Elements; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; Environmental Health Review Sheet, May 27,

30 The following geotechnical analysis was prepared for previously conducted remediation and was reviewed for the proposed project: GeoLabs Westlake Village, Geotechnical Report, April 6, 2006, October 25, 2007, April 21, 2008 and July 21, 2008 Discussion 1. (a, b) The project site was analyzed for geologic hazards. According to the reports referenced above, the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the site. The Malibu Coast Fault is located northeast of the project site. This fault may generate strong ground shaking impacting the Malibu area. The proposed lot line adjustment would not expose people to strong seismic ground shaking because the lot line adjustment would not result in increased development potential. While no development is proposed at this time, future residential development would lessen ground shaking effects through the enforcement of structural and nonstructural seismic design provisions defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). No impact would occur. (c) The site does not exhibit the shallow groundwater or soil conditions which are conducive to liquefaction; therefore, the potential for liquefaction on the site is very low. No impact would occur. (d) A landslide is located across both properties; however, the lot line adjustment would have no effect on the landslide because no physical development is proposed. Previous landslide remediation and slope stabilization consisted of construction of a Full-Height Soldier Pile and a Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall. The walls securely repaired the failed hillside and re-created a buildable pad on Lot 1. These remediation efforts were intended to protect future development on the properties from future landslides. The project would in fact decrease landslide risk by facilitating maintenance of the infrastructure that was added to stabilize the slope by locating this infrastructure on the same lot. Therefore, no seismic hazards were found on the project site which could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment. 2. Previous landslide remediation involved grading for a building pad and driveway on Lot 1. No development is proposed as part of the lot line adjustment, and because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable subsequent to the lot line adjustment due to the presence of steep slopes on the majority of the site, and the increase in maximum allowable TDSF would be negligible. Therefore, no impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would occur as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment. 3. The City of Malibu has established minimum factors of safety for new construction. Site specific slope stability analyses are required prior to approval of any future residential construction and a minimum factor of safety in excess of 1.5 would be required for the future development of a single-family residence on Lot 1. Because no development is currently proposed, and because the lot line adjustment would not result in increased development potential, no impact resulting from on- and off-site landslides, lateral 25

31 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would occur as a result of the proposed project. 4. The geology reports completed for Rambla Vista do not identify the presence of expansive soils on the subject parcels. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on expansive soils. 5. No development is currently proposed, and because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable due to the presence of steep slopes on the majority of the site, and the increase in maximum allowable TDSF would be negligible. Future residential construction on Lot 1 would require the installation of an alternative onsite wastewater treatment system (AOWTS) and would be reviewed by the City s geotechnical staff and Environmental Health Administrator. Lot 1 can accommodate an AOWTS appropriate for the scale of development allowed on the lot without having a significant effect on the environment. The lot line adjustment would not create new parcels without the appropriate conditions for a properly functioning onsite wastewater treatment system. Properly designed private sewage disposal systems would not adversely affect the site or adjacent stability. No would occur. Standard Conditions of Approval for Future Development Conditions of approval addressing earthmoving and slope stabilization for future construction of a residence on Lot 1 would be required, pursuant to the LCP. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required to reduce geology and soils impacts. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. Residual impacts would remain less than significant. 26

32 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan; Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and California Code of Regulations. Discussion 1. The earth s atmosphere is a collection of atmospheric gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs) that trap a sufficient amount of solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range. These gases, mainly water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), ozone (O 3 ) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) all act as effective global insulators, reflecting back to earth visible light and infrared radiation. Human activities such as producing electricity and driving vehicles have contributed to the elevated concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is causing the earth's temperature to rise. A warmer earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, much smaller polar ice caps, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. No physical development would occur as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment, nor would the lot line adjustment result in increased development potential, as subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable due to site constraints, that would generate vehicle trips or energy use. Therefore, the project would not contribute to an increase in GHG emissions. 2. California passed Assembly Bill No. 32 (a.k.a., California Global Warming Solution Act), which required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement GHG emission limits and other related regulations. CARB is developing a threshold of significance of GHG emissions and mitigations as a result of individual project which can collectively be responsible for substantial GHG emissions. CEQA guidelines provide that thresholds of significance be qualitative, quantitative, or in the form of performance standards. Performance standards are to address five major emission sub-sources: energy use, transportation, water use, waste, and construction. For the energy use performance standard, CARB has recommended reliance on the California Energy Commission s Tier II Energy Efficiency standards for solar energy incentive programs. These standards are consistent with what is needed to meet the state s goal of zero net energy buildings and are continuously updated to reflect energy 27

33 efficiency best practices. Thresholds of significance for the remaining sub-sources (water, waste, etc.) are being developed and would possibly make use of existing programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), GreenPoint Rated and the California Green Building Code. Because the proposed lot line adjustment would not result in increased energy use, transportation, water use, waste or construction, no impact is expected to individually or cumulatively occur. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Residual s No mitigation measures are required. No residual impact would occur. 28

34 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6. 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? 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or 29

35 emergency evacuation plan? 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources: City of Malibu General Plan, Safety & Health Element; City of Malibu Municipal Code; City of Malibu Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan; Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District; County of Los Angeles Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, Incorporated City of Malibu; LACFD Review Sheet; April 17, 2014, and California Code of Regulations. Discussion 1-2. Lot 1 is currently vacant, and Lot 2 is developed with a single-family residence, access driveway, swimming pool, and spa. The properties are zoned for residential use. No development is proposed. Because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, and the approximate 430 square feet increase in allowable TDSF is negligible, the lot line adjustment would not result in substantial increased development potential. Further subdivision of the parcel is not foreseeable subsequent to the lot line adjustment due to the presence of steep slopes on the majority of the site. No hazardous materials would be transported, used, disposed of, or released into the environment as a result of the lot line adjustment. No impact would occur. 3. The project site is not located within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is The Sycamore School, which is located approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast of the project site. Therefore, no impact to schools would occur as a result of the project. 4. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Cortese List 1 ). Therefore, no impacts concerning hazardous waste transport, disposal, release, or emissions would occur as a result of the project The project site is not located within two miles of a public airport, and is not included within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is the Santa Monica Airport, which is located approximately 12 miles to the east of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to airport safety hazards would occur as a result of the project. 7. The proposed project would not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No development is currently proposed, and because Lot 1 is developable with one single-family residence in its current configuration, the lot line adjustment would not result in increased development 1 The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies and developers to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. 30