PC RES 2001-0160 0 `k -k
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 158 -REVISION `D' AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 94 -
REVISION `B' TO ALLOW THE MAIN ROOF RIDGELINES
OF THE RESIDENCE AT 74 VIA DEL CIELO (LOT 33 OF
TRACT MAP NO. 46628 (OCEANFRONT)) TO BE
ORIENTED LESS THAN PERPENDICULAR TO PALOS
VERDES DRIVE WEST
WHEREAS, on March 17, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No 92-27,
approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158 in conjunction with Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No 46628 for a residential planned development of seventy-nine single-family lots and five
open space lots on a 132 -acre vacant site, located seaward of the terminus of Hawthorne
Boulevard at Palos Verdes Drive West, between the Lunada Pointe community on the north
and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center on the south; and,
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted P C
Resolution No. 97-12, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -Revision 'A' for minor
revisions to certain conditions of approval related to the relocation of Lots 78 and 79 of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 46628, as required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
and this action was subsequently upheld by the City Council on March 11, 1997, and,
WHEREAS, April 14, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted P.0 Resolution
No 98-13, approving Conditional Use Permit No 158 -Revision 'B' for miscellaneous
revisions to the development standards for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 46628, but this
action was subsequently overturned on appeal to the City Council on June 16, 1998; and,
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No 2000-41, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -Revision 'C', et al for
three tract entry observation booths on the interior streets of the tract, as well as
modifications to the tract perimeter fencing and the installation of tract identification
signage, which was subsequently upheld on appeal to the City Council with the adoption
of Resolution No 2001-08 on February 8, 2001 but appealed to the California Coastal
Commission on February 26, 2001 and has been held in abeyance, and,
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2001 and May 8, 2001, the applicant, Makallon RPV
Associates Lac, submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -Revision 'D' and
Coastal Permit No. 94 -Revision 'B' to allow a modification to the condition of approval
regarding the ridgeline orientation for the house on Lot 33 of Tract Map No 46648, also
known as 74 Via del Cielo, and,
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2001, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -
Revision 'D' and Coastal Permit No 94 -Revision 'B' were deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq , the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that the denial of Conditional Use Permit No 158 -
Revision 'D' and Coastal Permit No 94 -Revision 'B' would have a significant effect on the
environment because the environmental impacts of the project have been previously
addressed by the mitigation measures adopted pursuant to Final Environmental Impact
Report No 35, and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on July 10, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the applications for Conditional Use Permit No 158 -Revision 'D' and Coastal
Permit No 94 -Revision 'B' to modify the condition of approval regarding the orientation of
the main roof ridgeline of the house on Lot 33 of Tract Map No 46628
A. The site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed residence
because the existing lot would need to be enlarged by 2,797 square feet in order for
the residence and related improvements to meet the required setbacks and lot
coverage for the lot.
B In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be a significant
adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because the
perpendicular orientation of the main ridgeline on this lot was identified in the
environmental impact report for the Oceanfront project as a necessary condition to
mitigate against adverse environmental impacts, and, based upon the photographic
simulations prepared by the applicant, the re -orientation of the main ridgeline does
not appreciably improve public views and has the potential to degrade these views
from Palos Verdes Drive West.
C The proposed use is contrary to the General Plan because the goals and policies
of the General Plan acknowledge "[scenic] views [as] one of the most valuable
natural resources on the Peninsula" (General Plan, p 77), and the condition of
approval regarding the ridgeline orientation on the subject property was originally
imposed upon the Oceanfront project in order to implement the General Plan's goals
and policies.
P C Resolution No 2001-16
Page 2 of 4
9
D The proposed project is not consistent with the performance criteria of the of the
OC -3 (Urban Appearance) overlay control district, which state that development
shall not "[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", but the proposal to re -orient
the house on the subject property has the potential to adversely affect public views
that are identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan
E. The proposed development is inconsistent with the Coastal Specific Plan because
the Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan identifies a visual corridor to the
northwest from Palos Verdes Drive West and Hawthorne Boulevard that includes
the subject property; but, based upon the photographic simulations prepared by the
applicant, the re -orientation of the main ridgeline does not appreciably improve
public views and has the potential to degrade these views from Palos Verdes Drive
West.
Section 2: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council Pursuant to Sections 17.60.060, 17.72.100
and 17.80.070 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed
with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days
following July 10, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission's final action
Section 3: 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
request for Conditional Use Permit No. 158 -Revision 'D' and Coastal Permit No 94 -
Revision 'B' to allow the main roof ridgelines of the residence at 74 Via del Cielo (Lot 33 of
Tract Map No 46628 (Oceanfront)) to be oriented less than perpendicular to Palos Verdes
Drive West.
P.C. Resolution No. 2001-16
Page 3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of July 2001, by the following vote
AYES Chairman Lyon, Commissioners Cartwright, Mueller, Paulson and
Vannorsdall
NOES none
ABSTENTIONS Commissioner Long
ABSENT Vice Chairman Clark
Frank LyorK
Chairman
"'� C'\�
J el Ro as, AICP
Dkect9t of Planni ilding
an ode Enforcement; and Secretary
to the Planning Commission
MAProjects\CUP 158 -Rev 'D'_CP 94 -Rev 'B' (CPH)\20010710_Reso_PC.doc
P C Resolution No 2001-16
Page 4 of 4