PC RES 2006-037P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-37
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING REVISION "BB" - A REQUEST FOR
AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 163 AND A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN 'AFTER -THE -FACT° 70' TALL FLAGPOLE
LOCATED AT THE BACK TEE OF HOLE #1 OF THE TRUMP NATIONAL
GOLF COURSE, WHICH IS LOCATED AT ONE OCEAN TRAILS DRIVE
(CASE NO. ZON2006-00328)
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 36
and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55, 92-56 and 92-57, respectively approving
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970
and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Permit No. 103 and
Grading Permit No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development consisting of a total of
eighty-three (83) single family dwelling units, an 18 hole public golf course and public
open space on 261.4 acres in Coastal Subregion Nos. 7 and 8; and,
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1992, after finding that an appeal of the City's
approval of the project raised substantial issue, the California Coastal Commission
denied Coastal Permit No. 103, directed the landowners to redesign the project to
address the concerns raised by the Coastal Commission Staff and remanded the
project back to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for reconsideration; and,
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted Resolution No. 92-115 approving the Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-116, 92-117, 92-118 and 92-119
approving Revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667, Tentative
Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal
Permit No. 103, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to address concerns raised by
the Coastal Commission with regard to adequate provisions for public open space,
public access and habitat preservation; and,
WHEREAS, on April 15, 1993, the California Coastal Commission approved
Coastal Development Permit No. A -5 -RPV -93-5 (i.e. Coastal Permit No. 103), subject to
additional conditions of approval; and,
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted Resolution No. 93-89 approving a second Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 36 and adopted Resolution Nos. 93-90, 93-91, 93-92 and 93-93
respectively re -approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666 and 50667,
Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and
163, and Grading Permit No. 1541 in order to comply with a Court mandate to provide
affordable housing in conjunction with the project, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65590; and,
WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes adopted Resolution No. 94-71 approving a third Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 36 and Adopted Resolution Nos. 94-72, 94-73, 94-74, 94-75, 94-76
and 94-77, respectively, approving Revision "A" to the approved Ocean Trails project,
including, but not limited to, relocation of the golf course clubhouse from the area
southwest of the School District property to an area north of Half Way Point, locating the
golf course maintenance facility and four (4) affordable housing units southeast of the
corner of Palos Verdes Drive South and Paseo Del Mar, reducing the number of single
family residential lots from eighty-three (83) to seventy-five (75) and increasing the
height of the golf course clubhouse from thirty (30) feet to forty-eight (48) feet; and,
WHEREAS, between September 6, 1994 and July 18, 2006, the City Council
approved various other amendments to the Ocean Trails project, which is now known
as the Trump National Golf Club project; and,
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2006, the owner, V.H. Property Corp., submitted an
application requesting approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163
and a Variance to accommodate a new 70' flagpole located at the back tee of Hole #1;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2006, said application was deemed complete for
processing; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(F) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), said application for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 163 and a Variance (Case No. 2006-00328) has been found to be statutorily
exempt (Section 15270 - Projects Which are Disapproved); and,
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Development Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
request (Case No. ZON2006-00328), at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-37
Page 2of5
Section 1. The site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other
features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section to integrate
said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because the
proposed flag pole at 70' tall is too high to be considered "integrated" with the adjacent
land and surrounding neighborhood. More specifically, when the development of the
Trump National Golf Course project (formally known as Ocean Trails) was initially
considered by the City Council in 1992 there was much effort to ensure that the
development of the project would be integrated with uses upon adjacent land and within
the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure that the project would not result in adverse
impacts to the views over the project site. The General Plan, (Page 189, Figure 41)
identifies Vistas and Views over the subject site from Palos Verdes Drive South.
Additionally, the City's Coastal Specific Plan (Page C-10, Figure 26) and the Coastal
Development and Design Guidelines for Subregions 1 and 7 (Page 38, Figure 7) identify
View Corridors and development "Height Zones" that traverse the property. The intent
of these View Corridors and "Height Zones" are to keep structures at a relatively low
height to preserve the view over the project site. When this project was initially
approved, development on the property was restricted to specific height requirements
that are consistent with the aforementioned documents. The "Height Zone" established
in the Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for Subregion 7 of the City's Coastal
Specific Plan indicates that the proposed flagpole is located in a "Height Zone" that
would permit a 30' high structure. The proposed 70' high flagpole at its current location
is over twice the size of what was envisioned for development to be successfully
integrated into the site.
Section 2. The proposed project will have a significant adverse effect on
adjacent property because the proposed project impairs views. More specifically, the
project will fall within the existing views of the ocean, Catalina Island, and the coastline
and points west of the project site. Additionally, the 70' height of the flag pole is
inconsistent with the design of the project's low lying structures and golf course as
originally envisioned through the Coastal Development and Design Guidelines for
Subregion 7.
Section 3. The proposed use is contrary to the general plan because the
General Plan (Page 189 - Figure 41) has identified views and vistas that overlook the
project site and a Goal of the General Plan (Page 176) states,
"Palos Verdes Peninsula is graced with views and vistas of the surrounding Los Angeles basin
and coastal region. Because of its unique geographic form and coastal resources, these views
and vistas are a significant resource to residents and to many visitors, as they provide a rare
means of experiencing the beauty of the peninsula and the Los Angeles region. It is the
responsibility of the City to preserve these views and vistas for the public benefit and, where
appropriate, the City should strive to enhance and restore these resources, the visual character of
the City, and provide and maintain access for the benefit and enjoyment of the public.
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-37
Page 3 of 5
A flagpole at a height of 70' at the proposed location is inconsistent with this Goal,
especially when taken in the context of the pole's inconsistency with the Coastal
Development and Guidelines for Subregion 7.
Section 4. The proposed project is not consistent with the purpose of the
Urban Appearance Overlay Control District, as the project does not:
"...2. Preserve, protect and maintain significant views and vistas from major public view corridors
and public lands and waters within the city which characterize the city's appearance as defined in
the visual aspects portion of the general plan and the corridors element of the coastal specific
plan..."
and does not
"3. Ensure that site planning, grading and landscape techniques, as well as improvement
planning, design and construction will preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the
city's predominant land forms, urban form, vegetation and other distinctive features, as identified
in the general plan and the coastal specific plan; and..."
Specifically, the proposed project is not consistent with this purpose because in
reviewing the criteria of the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District, the proposed
project will:
and;
"1. Result in the change in elevation of the land or construction of any improvement which would
block, alter or impair major views, vistas or viewsheds in existence from designated view
corridors, view sites or view points at the dates of adoption of the general plan and the coastal
specific plan in such a way as to materially and irrevocably alter the quality of the view as to arc
(horizontal and vertical), primary orientation or other characteristics;...
"8. Result in changes in topography or the construction of improvements which would block, alter
or otherwise materially change significant views, vistas and viewshed areas available from major
private residential areas of the community which characterize the visual appearance, urban form
and economic value of these areas."
Section 5. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that would warrant approval of the
Variance for the proposed 70' high flagpole at the proposed location, because the
proposed flagpole is too high given the low-lying golf course, and not integrated with
other structures or the topography of the site wherein that would help reduce the overall
appearance and view impacts.
Section 6. The proposed Variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant, which right is possessed by
other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district because a 70'
high flagpole is something that would not typically be permitted at other non-residential
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-37
Page 4 of 5
establishments in the City as the 70' height would be significantly higher than the
structure.
Section 7: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this
decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1.j of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing stating
the grounds for the appeal, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen
(15) days following the date of the Planning Commission's adoption of this resolution.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies without
prejudice the Revision "BB" - an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 163 and a
Variance (Case No. 2006-00328) for a proposed 70' high flagpole located adjacent to
the back tee of Hole #1.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of July 2006, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Karp, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Perestam, Tetreault, and Vice Chairman
Gerstner
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Chairman Knight
J el jas, Al
D or of PI n g, Building
and Code Enforcement; and,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
/ii12-u-rat"
i— C. 44 c.411 --
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-37
Page 5 of 5