(Continued) Request for: (1) a Site Plan Review; (2) a Variance (to build on a significant ridgeline); (3) an Oak Tree Permit (to encroach into the protected zone of 25 oak trees and for potential thinning of scrub oak as necessary for fuel modification); and (4) a Scenic Corridor Permit (for development within a designated scenic corridor) to allow for construction of a 7,633 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 661 sq. ft. garage, 1,320 sq. ft. basement, and appurtenant accessory structures on a previously graded pad on an existing legal 5-acre lot located at 3121 Old Topanga Canyon Road (APN 2072-023-013) within the Hillside Mountainous (HM) zoning district and Scenic Corridor (SC) overlay zone.
Background On January 15, 2015, held a public hearing for this project. At the conclusion of this public hearing, the Commission voted to continue the public hearing and asked staff to return with answers to several questions posed by the Commissioners during discussion of the item. This presentation, in conjunction with the staff report, summarizes Staff s responses to questions posed by Commissioners as well as clarifications regarding other concerns voiced during the public hearing. 2
Presentation Outline 1. Hillside & Ridgeline Development Policies and Standards 2. Grading Impacts 3. Habitat Impacts 4. CEQA Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts 5. Landscape Buffer for Alternative #1 6. Variance for Alternative #1 7. Compatibility Analysis 8. Certification of the Graded Building Pad 9. Other Concerns: Trail, Fire Department Approvals, Cumulative Impacts 10. Updated Findings 11. Staff Recommendation 3
Hillside & Ridgeline Development The objective of the Hillside Management section of the Open Space Element is to: Maintain and/or restore significant natural systems and resources associated with hillside environments, including but not limited to, primary ridgelines, sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats, special geologic features, natural drainage swales and canyons, and steep slopes exceeding 20%. [Emphasis added] This over-arching objective statement does not emphasize ridgelines over other important natural features. Accordingly, the policies in the Hillside Management section of the General Plan seek to protect natural hillsides, canyons, knolls, woodlands, and rock outcroppings, as well as ridgelines. 4
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) As evidenced by the following open space preservation policies, the goal of the General Plan is to protect ALL significant topographical features while minimizing the alteration of existing landforms: III-11. Maintain the existing visual character of hillsides, recognizing both the visual importance of hillsides from public view areas and the importance of providing panoramic views from hillsides. III-12. Minimize the alteration of existing landforms and maintain the natural topographic characteristics of hillside areas, allowing only the minimal disruption required to recognize basic property rights. III-14. Preserve all significant ridgelines and other significant topographic features such as canyons, knolls, rock outcroppings, and riparian woodlands. These policies shall be applied objectively to the analysis of each individual project and the proposed project alternatives to determine placement of a proposed structure that best accomplishes most, if not all, of these goals. 5
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) The following provisions of the Development Code protect existing hillsides and directly apply to this project: Section 17.20.150(B)(1), clearly states, Projects within hillside areas shall be designed to protect important natural features and to minimize the amount of grading. Section 17.20.150(B)(1)(d) states that on slopes between 30 and 50 percent (such as the location of Alternative 1), development and limited grading can occur, but only if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety hazards, environmental degradation, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided. Section 17.20.150(B)(3) states, Overall project design and layout shall adapt to the natural hillside topography and maximize view opportunities to and from a development. A development should preserve the hillside rather than alter it to fit the development. Section 17.20.150(B)(6)(c) states, Preserve natural hillside and ridgeline views from the public right-of-way. 6
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) Staff confirmed that the original elevation of this particular segment of the ridge (prior to the graded pad) was at 1627 feet a.m.s.l. County documents associated with the original tract map and project indicate that the ridgeline was graded down approximately 22 feet to its current pad elevation of 1605 feet a.m.s.l., with 16,710 cubic yards of material having been removed. To build on the Alternative #1 site would require an additional 14,800 cubic yards of cut and grading into the natural hillside, resulting in further alteration of the intact, natural portions of the hillside, together with substantially greater environmental degradation and without any improvement to the existing disturbed ridgeline top. With 6 times as much grading (compared to the project itself) and the substantially greater environmental impacts, as documented in the EIR, staff has concluded that Alternate #1 fails to comply with the aforementioned policies and standards. 7
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) CMC Section 17.20.150(C) is the portion of the hillside and ridgeline protection ordinance that includes provisions for placement/location of proposed structures. Aims to have structures placed on the most accessible, least visually prominent, and most geologically stable portions of the site. CMC Section 17.20.150(C)(2) provides that the highest point of any structure that requires a permit shall be located at least 50 vertical ft and 50 horizontal ft from a significant ridgeline, excluding chimneys, rooftop antennas, and amateur radio antennas. This means that any structure requiring a permit (this includes new homes, room additions, retaining walls and perimeter walls, swimming pools, patio covers, etc.) proposed on or within 50-ft of a ridgeline must conform to the standard. 8
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) CMC Section 17.20.150(C)(3) provides that a variance from the ridgeline setback requirements may be obtained, if the findings can be made. The City Council built the requirement to obtain a variance from the ridgeline provision into this section of the Code because there are so many developed properties, and a handful of undeveloped properties, for which development off the ridgeline is either impossible or would be more harmful than not. The option to obtain a variance is included specifically to prevent situations where grading and construction outside of the 50-ft ridgeline protection setback would cause more harm than good, with a particular focus on physical infeasibility and substantial habitat damage of the non-ridgeline alternative sites, as is the case with the proposed project. 9
Hillside & Ridgeline Development (cont d) More than 80% of this site was, and still is, made up of slopes greater than 25% (shown in green and yellow). Original PM called for the pad to be located in the triangular area outlined in black with significant grading all the way up to the ridgeline. This image reflects the grading of the pad and construction of the driveway. The result was a significant increase in an area characterized by lesser slope (e.g., relatively flat areas), affecting much less of the escarpment. 10
Grading Grading is quantified in terms of cubic yards of material. One cubic yard equals 3,240 pounds (on average) of soil/earth. A standard dump truck (see photo) carries 10 cubic yards of material per load. 11
Grading The proposed project requires 2,480 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the house and accessory structures (mostly for pool & basement areas). Grading of the Alternative #1 building site would require the movement of approximately 14,800 cubic yards of material to create the first level building pad and to terrace the home into the hill via a retaining walls system with 5 tiers of retaining walls. 12
Grading - How many trucks? Project Alternate #1 (248 truck loads) (1,480 truck loads) 13
Habitat Impacts Proposed project (shown in orange): Located on the graded, barren pad and would be accessed using the existing driveway to minimize landform alteration. The dark black outline signifies the portion of required fuel mod. that overlaps the existing, disturbed fuel modification area for the homes in Calabasas Highlands. The net result is that only 79,236 s.f. of habitat would be impacted anew. Alt #1 (shown in purple): Located on previously undisturbed land and would not benefit from overlap of any currently disturbed fuel modification areas. Would impact 128,153 s.f. of habitat. 14
Habitat Impacts (Resulting from Grading & Fuel Mod) The proposed project will impact 79,236 s.f. of undisturbed habitat area. Alternative #1 will impact 128,153 s.f. of undisturbed habitat area. Habitat impacts for Alternative #1 are 62% greater (substantially worse) than the project. 15
CEQA Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts In Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water minerals, flora, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Any project that implements a physical change will result in some change in the visual environment, so determination of whether that change is substantially adverse is based on consideration of whether it might: (1) obstruct a view; (2) contrast with the surroundings; (3) dominate the view; or (4) be inconsistent with the character of the existing view. 16
Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 1. Does the project obstruct public views? No public views would be obstructed or blocked by placement of the proposed structure on the ridgetop, due to factors such as the elevation of Old Topanga Canyon Road, general topography of the area, and the distance of the building pad from Old Topanga Canyon Road. 2. Does the project contrast with the surroundings? No, because the architect utilized various design strategies to blend the structure into the natural environment to the maximum extent feasible. 17
Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 3. Does the project dominate views? No. The viewshed from the scenic corridor is, and would continue to be, dominated by the area ridgelines, because the project represents a very minor percentage of the total extent of significant ridgelines visible within the viewshed. Of 7,000 linear feet of visible significant ridgeline, the 135-foot long home represents approximately 1.9 percent, leaving more than 98% of the significant ridgelines unaffected. 135 ft. or 1.9% 7,000 ft. 18
Thresholds for Aesthetic Impacts (cont d) 4. Is the project inconsistent with the character of the view? No, because the existing visual character of the general area along Old Topanga Canyon Road is rural and mountainous and includes other singlefamily homes, individual and clustered, with similar fuel modification areas and landscaping. 19
Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 20
Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 Viewpoint 1(near summit) Proposed Project Alt. #1 21
Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 Viewpoint 2 (lower bend) Proposed Project Alt. #1 22
Landscape Buffer for Alt. #1 23
Variance for Alt. #1 24
Compatibility Analysis Project FAR: 0.041 RR Zone Areas (8 properties) Avg FAR = 0.067 RC / CH Zone (184 properties) Avg FAR = 0.35 RS Zone Areas (78 properties) Avg FAR = 0.101 HM Zone Areas (24 properties) Avg FAR = 0.068 RC / OT Zone (38 properties) Avg FAR = 0.151 OS Zone Areas (7 properties) Avg FAR = 0.037
Potential Building Envelope 5-Acre HM Zoned Lot Start with 5 acre site (217,800 s.f.), and subtract for: Yard Setbacks (50 front & rear, and 25 sides), totaling 87,950 s.f. 14% Impervious Surface Area Limit (only the pervious area above & beyond total of the yard setbacks), which is 99,358 s.f. Existing concrete driveway (impervious area) at 4,312 s.f. 217,800-87,950-99,358-4,312 26,150 26
The Certified Building Pad Grading on the subject site was accomplished legally, with all permits issued by the County of LA, and in accordance with the approved Amended Parcel Map 11026. The grading work was accomplished as part of an overall grading effort which yielded the subject pad, two other pads on adjoining lots, and the shared driveway, along with attendant V -ditch drains and re-contoured slopes. The Rough Grade Certification stamped by the civil engineer on April 5, 1990 and approved by the County on May 9, 1990. Associated bonds for the completed grading work were exonerated via letters dated March 7, 1991 and May 4, 1998, further evidencing the fact that the pads were certified and accomplished according to approved plans and standards. 27
Approved Amended Parcel Map 11026 28
The Approved Pad (Amended PM 11026) N 29
USGS 15-Min. Map from 1967 1625 elev. 1600 elev. 30
Current USGS Map 1600 elev. 31
1990 1994 32
Other Concerns Raised - Trail The City is not aware of any court-ordered prescriptive right of the public to any trail on the property. Without proof of any public trail, whether by a court order establishing a prescriptive right, a recorded dedication, or otherwise, the City cannot base a land-use decision on this claim or suggestion. Furthermore, and in good faith, the applicant recognizes that the project will impact an existing, albeit unauthorized, trail and has agreed to offer an easement for new trails at the north end of the property to mitigate for the loss. 33
Other Concerns Raised Fire Department Approvals The City s Land Use and Development Code does not require Fire Department approvals prior to action. Section 503.2.7 of the California Fire Code states: The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be within limits established by the fire code official based on the fire department s apparatus. The City relies on the Fire Department to confirm acceptability of project plans. LA County Fire Department has reviewed and approved the current set of plans for the proposed project. In the event that upon further review the Fire Department determines that minor portions of the driveway do not meet the grade requirements, the project engineer has confirmed that simple modifications can be made to the existing driveway to remedy such an issue. 34
Other Concerns Raised- Cumulative Impacts The DEIR discusses cumulative impacts on the following pages: 3-31; 3-32; 4.1-19; 4.2-27; and 4.3-12. There are currently no project proposals for the development of the remaining three, legal lots in the subject subdivision. Nor has City staff received any recent inquiries regarding potential application submittals for these properties. Nonetheless, the development of all 4 legal lots within this subdivision was anticipated as part of the City s overall growth and was analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. 35
Updated Findings Site Plan Review Finding No. 4 (2 nd paragraph) Site Plan Review Finding No. 6 (1 st paragraph) Scenic Corridor Permit Finding No. 4 (2 nd paragraph) Variance Finding No. 1 (3 rd paragraph) Variance Finding No. 2 (1 st and 2 nd paragraphs) Variance Finding No. 3 (1 st paragraph) 17.20.150(C)(3) Ridgeline Variance Finding No. 1 (1 st and 2 nd paragraphs) 36
Corrections to Resolution Staff made the following 3 minor corrections to the resolution being considered by the Commission tonight: 1. Page 3, Section 3 Section 3. In view of all of the evidence presented and based on the following findings and conclusions, the hereby certifies the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in accordance with CEQA guidelines, Sections 15090 and 15091. 2. Page 5, Finding 1, second paragraph, second sentence The project is also required to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 17.20.150 (Hillside and Ridgeline Development) of the CMC. The Project does not meet the established 50-foot ridgeline setback standard set out in Section 17.20.150.C.2 of the Code because the previously graded and certified building pad was constructed directly on the natural ridgeline. 3. Page 9, Finding 6, second paragraph, first sentence The addition of a building to this currently graded site would change the existing visual character of the site. 37
Recommended Action That the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2015-576, certifying adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report and approving all requested entitlement permits for File No. 130000718 associated with the proposed project located at 3121 Old Topanga 38