PC RES 2010-034 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT(ZON2010-00185)TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 68 THAT WOULD MODIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN
CUP NO. 68 TO ELIMINATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM THE LUNADA POINTE HOA'S LANDSCAPING PLAN
REVIEW PROCESS AND TO NO LONGER REQUIRE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO MAKE LANDSCAPING
DETERMINATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL TREES, AS WELL AS TO
ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO APPROVE INDIVIDUAL
LANDSCAPE PLANS IN THE LUNADA POINTE TRACT
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, several residents located on Laurel Drive in the Lunada
Pointe Tract submitted a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit' application form,
which alleged that the foliage on seven properties located on Marguerite Drive (also in the
Lunada Pointe Tract and addressed as: 63, 67, 75, 69, 83, 87 and 95 Marguerite Drive) were
impairing their views. (VRP2009-00041); and,
WHEREAS, after receiving the Notice of Intent, Staff conducted some research into the
matter and discovered that the properties within the Lunada Pointe Tract were approved
through Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 68, (Planning Commission Resolution No. 81-57,
Exhibit A) on November 10, 1981, and Tentative Tract Map No. 40640, (City Council Resolution
81-87, Exhibit B) on December 7, 1981; and,
WHEREAS, Staff conducted further research and determined that Condition No. 7 of
CUP No. 68 required that properties submit landscaping plans to the Director of planning to
obtain landscape permits, but that only some of the properties had done so; and,
WHEREAS, Staff initially believed that the conditions of these landscape permits could
be enforced through the City's code enforcement process, but then Staff discovered some
discrepancies between the landscape permits, and the CUP conditions, as well as
discrepancies within the CUP conditions themselves; and,
WHEREAS, Staff discussed these findings with the City Attorney, who raised concerns
with these discrepancies and along with the Director, determined that a CUP amendment
should be initiated by the City and processed to eliminate these discrepancies and to modify the
existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be consistent with the provisions of the
City's View Restoration process; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, a public hearing was held at the City Council on July 20, 2010, at which time
the City Council granted Staff's initiation request to authorize Staff to process an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 68 to eliminate the discrepancies within the CUP and that
would modify the existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be consistent with
the provisions of the City's View Restoration process; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 28, 2010,
at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence
regarding said amendment to CUP No. 68 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff report
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 1 of 7
of that date. The Planning Commission provided feedback to staff and continued the public
hearing to November 9, 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 9,
2010, at which time Staff presented a revised proposed amendment for CUP No. 68 that took
into consideration the Planning Commission's comments from the September 28, 2010 meeting,
and all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding
said amendment to CUP No. 68 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff report.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed
amendments to CUP No. 68.
Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments to CUP
No. 68 of the Municipal Code are consistent with Municipal Code Sections 17.60 and 17.78.40.
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that the site is 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 City
does not enforce any requirements within a HOA's CC&Rs, and because any issues regarding
foliage height and or view obstruction may be addressed through the City's View Preservation
and Restoration ordinance.
Section 4: The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to
carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the proposed CUP
amendments do not include any increase in intensity of use or any additional dwelling units
proposed.;
Section 5: In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no
significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because the HOA
may continue to utilize their existing CC&Rs regarding foliage height and view obstruction, and
the residents of the Lunada Pointe tract may continue to utilize the City's View Restoration
Permit process in order to address any reported significant view impairment.
Section 6: The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because the HOA
may continue to utilize their existing CC&Rs regarding foliage height and view obstruction, and
the residents of the Lunada Pointe tract may continue to utilize the City's View Restoration
Permit process in order to address any reported significant view impairment. And when the
City's existing View Restoration and View Preservation Code was approved, it was found to be
consistent with the General Plan. As such, an amendment to CUP No. 68 to modify the City's
involvement regarding landscape plans would be consistent with the General Plan.
Section 7: The site of the proposed amendments is not within any of the overlay
control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title.
Section 8: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph,
which the planning commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been imposed:
a. Setbacks and buffers;
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 2 of 7
b. Fences or walls;
c. Lighting;
d. Vehicular ingress and egress;
e. Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;
f. Landscaping;
g. Maintenance of structures, grounds or signs;
h. Service roads or alleys; and
i. Such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in
an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and
purposes set forth in this title.
Conditions regarding the HOA's landscaping restrictions in the Lunada Pointe Tract have been
left in the CUP and it is only the City's involvement regarding landscaping in the Lunada Pointe
Tract that proposed to be changed.
Section 9: That the Planning Commission does hereby declare that the Addendum
to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 21 has been completed in compliance with State and
local environmental guidelines and that the Commission has reviewed and considered its
contents in reaching its decision. The Planning Commission further finds that the approval of
this Conditional Use Permit will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, since
the proposed CLIP .amendment will not introduce new significant environmental effects or
substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that were previously identified
and analyzed in the original EIR No. 21. This is because the amendments Staff is proposing
still provide for view protection for the residents of the Lunada Pointe Tract, and for any other
neighboring residents, through the City's View Restoration and View Preservation Permit
processes, and because the conditions within the CC&Rs (which were created as a mitigation
measure to address visual impacts) are not proposed to be changed by the City.
Section 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for
appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday,
November 24, 2010. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no
appeal is filed in a timely manner, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM
on November 24, 2010.
Section 11: For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes hereby grants approval of the proposed Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
No. 68, detailed in the attached modified conditions marked Exhibit "A".
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 3 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on the 9th day of November, 2010.
AYES: Commissioners Emenhiser, Knight, Leon, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Tomblin
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Chairman Gerstner
RECUSALS: None
Bill Gerstner,
Chairman
Joe of s, AIC
Co mu ty De el pment Director and
Se rets of the lanning Commission
P.C. Resolution 2010- 34
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68 IS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFIED CONDITIONS:
1. No more than twenty-five (25) single family dwelling units shall be permitted.
2. Prior to the approval of the final map, a bond or other acceptable security shall be posted to
ensure completion of all off-site and on-site improvements as identified in this permit or required
by the tentative map approval.
3. A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be approved by the City Attorney and
Director of Planning prior to final approval. Said CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to the
following conditions.
A. Identify the presence of the Coastal Setback Zone with a map (not less than 40 scale) of
each lot and provide that no permanent structures shall be permitted closer than twenty-
five (25)feet to said zone unless approval is granted in writing by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Furthermore, no grading (cut or fill)
shall be permitted within the Coastal Setback Zone except as shown on the Tentative
Tract Map. No development other than landscaping and the common fence as required
by condition 10 shall be permitted seaward of the Coastal Setback line, except safety
fencing up to six(6)feet in height which allows for ninety(90) percent light and air, with
written approval by the Director of Planning.
B. Limit the height of all structures to not exceed the maximum ridge height that is noted on
the approved Tentative Tract Map No. 40640. The approved Tentative Tract Map No.
40640 shall be used to reference existing topography.
C. All landscaping (including parkway trees) shall be maintained so that no tree or group of
trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties. Furthermore, no tree shall be
planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the
maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot, as established by this permit.-Mass
w...Men approval is granted by the PlaRRORQ COM
D. Identify all factors that control structure appearance and use restrictions.
E. All structures, accessory structures, and other improvements shall conform to applicable
district zoning standards and general development standards as established in the City's
Development Code, unless approval is granted in writing by the City or unless
superceded by this permit. All future structures, improvements and landscaping shall be
subject to review by the Director of Planning. Sideyard setbacks shall conform to the
City's development standards except on lots 2-9. On lots 3-9 the sidevard setbacks shall
conform to the City's development standards if the building height is sixteen (16) feet or
less: but if the height exceeds sixteen (16) feet the combined setback shall increase by
six(6) inches for every one (1) foot of building height above sixteen (16)feet. On lot 2 the
southern sidevard setback shall be ten (10) feet and the northern sidevard setback shall
be fifteen (15) feet if the building height is sixteen (16) feet or less, but if the height
exceeds sixteen (16) feet the northernly setback shall increase by one (1) foot for
everyone (1) foot of building height above sixteen (16) feet. The front and rear yard
setbacks shall conform to the approved Tentative Tract Map. Walls shall be limited to
forty-two (42) inches in the sidevard setbacks.
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 5 of 7
F. Ne r0hanges to the anteRt of the abeve previsieRs shall be Fnade without written appm
from the Gity of RanGho Pales VeFdec—.
F G-. Residences contiguous to the site will be permitted and encouraged to join the
Homeowners Association.
4. Following recordation of the CC&R's,the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the document to
the Director of Planning.
5. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 40640
by the City Council without substantial changes or modifications hereto(including offers of
dedication of land and easements).
6. Final improvement plans for each lot and structure shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for
review. Said plans shall include but not be limited to plot plan, elevation drawings, grading and
landscaping.The plot plan shall clearly show existing and proposed topography, all structures, and
all easements and setbacks. All dwelling units shall be designed and constructed so that the
plumbing and circulating system will allow utilization of solar energy as part of the hybrid system for
providing hot water. Solar panels shall not exceed the ridgeline of the structure upon which they are
placed, without written approval from the City.
7. Landscaping and irrigation plans on common area in the tract shall be governed by the approved
landscape plan on file at the Citv.
ef PlanniRg. Said plaRs shall ORGIUde, bLIt RGt be limited to pmpesed plant mateFials, walls/4enGes, and
exterieF lighting.The fiRal IaRGIGGape plan shall be desigRed pursuant to the approved GG&Rs,,and iR a
manneF so that views fmm adjaGent pmpeFties will Rot be signifiGaRtly affeGted so that 691ar aGGes6 to all
ensepraged.
8. The use of native plant materials shall be incorporated in the landscape plan.
9. The grading and landscaping plan shall include provisions to provide temporary landscaping on the
individual lots after rough grading is completed to prevent excessive soil erosion and adverse
drainage situations.
10. Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider shall post a cash deposit, bond, combination
thereof or other acceptable security to cover the cost of constructing common fences approved by
the Director of Planning. One fence shall be constructed adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West and
the other fence shall be constructed no closer than twenty-five (25)feet inland of the bluff top on
lots 1-17.The fences must allow a minimum of ninety(90) percent light and air to allow for
maximum view through the fence.The fences must be gated for each lot in order to provide access
for maintenance of the bluff top. Stub fencing must be constructed on lots 3 and 17 to provide for
safety. Chain link fencing shall not be permitted.
11. Tennis court lighting is not permitted unless approval is granted in writing from the Planning
Commission.
12. Prior to recording the final map a landscape master plan shall be submitted by the applicant for
review and approval by the Planning Commission.The landscaping in the sideyard setbacks of the
bluff lots 2-17 will be reviewed with consideration for maintaining the view corridors from Marguerite
Drive.The approved landscape plan shall be included in the approved CC&Rs.
13. Within thirty(30) days of the approval of the tentative tract map,the developer shall submit, in
writing, a statement that he has read and understands the above conditions.
14. On lots 1-25 the roof of the main structure must have a pitch of at least 2 in 12 except where it is
necessary to have small areas with less pitch in order to comply with Building Code criteria. On lots
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 6 of 7
3-17 the ridge of the main structure must be setback at least twenty(20)feet from the rear setback
line unless the ridge is approximately perpendicular to the bluff.
P.C. Resolution 2010-34
Page 7 of 7