CC SR 20161004 02 - Border IssuesRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/04/2016
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review the current status of Border Issues, and
provide direction regarding the continuation of the Border Issues Status Report as a
regular agenda item
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues; and,
(2) Provide direction to Staff regarding continuation of the Border Issues Status
Report as a regular agenda item and revise City Council Policy No. 34
accordingly.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analysts`
REVIEWED BY: Gabriella Yap, Deputy City Manager*
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City ManagerJ� 9*0-
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. September 13th and 271h RHE City Council Staff reports for Palos Verdes
Pipeline Project (page A-1)
B. PowerPoint slides for San Pedro Community Plan Update (page B-1)
C. August 1St RHE Planning Commission Staff report for 5883 Crest Road
project (page C-1)
D. August 1St RHE Planning Commission Staff report for The Village/Merrill
Gardens project (page D-1)
E. September 27th RHE City Council Staff report for The Village/Merrill
Gardens project (page E-1)
F. Proposed revisions to City Council Policy No. 34 (page F-1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This month's report includes:
A status update regarding CalWater's Palos Verdes Pipeline project in Rolling
Hills Estates, unincorporated Westfield/Academy Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes;
1
A status report on the San Pedro Community Plan Update in Los Angeles (San
Pedro);
An update on the proposed project at 5883 Crest Road in Rolling Hills Estates;
and,
An update on the proposed The Village/Merrill Gardens retail center and
residential care facility for the elderly at 601 Silver Spur Road/600 Deep Valley
Drive in Rolling Hills Estates.
In addition, given the reduced pace of development in surrounding communities and the
availability of alternative means to provide more timely updates on the few remaining
projects or issues of concern, Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether
to continue the Border Issues Status Report as a regular, recurring agenda item, and
revise City Council Policy No. 34 accordingly.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border
Issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text
of the current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
httD://www.rDvca.00v/781/Border-Issues-Status-ReDort
Current Border Issues
CalWater Palos Verdes Pipeline Project, Rolling Hills Estates/Los Angeles
County/Rancho Palos Verdes
In early 2012, Staff last reported on the California Water Service (CalWater) Palos
Verdes Pipeline Project in the Border Issues Status Report. At that time, the purposes
of the project were to "increase water system reliability, improve fire -fighting capability,
and reduce the risk of property loss or damage on the Palos Verdes Peninsula." The
two-phase project proposed to replace an existing pipeline that traverses multiple
private properties within Rolling Hills Estates with two (2) new pipelines to be located
primarily within street and bridle trail rights-of-way. One of the new pipelines (the so-
called "Crenshaw/Ridge Supply Project") would extend southward along Crenshaw
Boulevard to a new reservoir and pump station to be constructed at the northwest
corner of Crenshaw Boulevard and Silver Spur Road in Rolling Hills Estates. This
pipeline would then continue southward along Crenshaw Boulevard to tie into an
existing pipeline in Crest Road that supplies CalWater's reservoir near Crest and
Highridge roads.
Staff last reported that CalWater was conducting engineering and technical studies for
the project in late 2011. Recently, CalWater advised Staff that the preliminary pipeline
alignment and conceptual project planning are complete, and that the public
environmental review process should begin. After a delay of several years to address
concerns about the pipeline alignment in the Palos Verdes Dr. N. right-of-way, CalWater
2
is now ramping up design and construction of this project. The revised alignment will
take the buried water pipe along bridle trails in Rolling Hills Estates, between (roughly)
the intersection of Palos Verdes Dr. E. and Palos Verdes Dr. N. and the intersection of
Crenshaw Blvd. and Palos Verdes Dr. N. The pipe will then turn south and be installed
under Crenshaw Blvd. from Palos Verdes Dr. N. to Crest Rd., where it will join an
existing water main. CalWater has acquired a small property along Crenshaw Blvd. to
build a small pump booster station, so the previous concept of a storage tank near
Crenshaw Blvd. and Silver Spur Rd. has been abandoned. The project is about 30%
designed and now is being advertised for further development under a design -build
project delivery method, with construction expected to begin in early 2018. CalWater
will be reaching out to Rancho Palos Verdes with more -frequent updates as the project
nears its final design phase.
On September 13, 2016, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council considered a contract
with an environmental consulting firm to prepare the environmental impact analysis for
this project. For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Rolling Hills Estates will be the lead agency, while Rancho Palos Verdes and the
County will be responsible agencies. The Rolling Hills Estates City Council was
expected to approve the contract on September 27, 2016 (Attachment A). Rolling Hills
Estates Planning Staff will be working with the responsible agencies on the CEQA
analysis for this project, and a draft Initial Study may be ready for public review and
comment during the first quarter of 2017.
San Pedro Community Plan Update, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On September 14, 2016, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department made a
presentation on the status of the San Pedro Community Plan Update to a joint meeting
of the Planning and Land Use Committees of the Northwest, Central and Coastal San
Pedro Neighborhood Councils (Attachment B). Planning Staff provided updates about
the plan since it had been last presented to the City Planning Commission (CPC) on
October 2013. Plan updates incorporated since that time include:
Elimination of a previous proposal for taller and higher -density commercial and
mixed-use development in the neighborhood surrounding around 25th Street and
Western Avenue; and,
Incorporation of the recommendations of the Western Avenue Corridor Street
Enhancement Strategy.
The updated plan is expected to return to CPC on October 13, 2016, before being
presented to the City Council Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee
and the full Los Angeles City Council. Adoption of the final plan is expected in 2017.
5883 Crest Road Project, Rolling Hills Estates
On August 1, 2016, the Rolling Hills Estates (RHE) Planning Commission indicated its
support for a 2 -lot parcel map and development of two (2) detached, single-family
9
homes, rather than the 4 -unit, detached condominium project previously proposed
(Attachment C). The revised project will be presented to the RHE Planning Commission
at a future meeting, perhaps in October 2016.
The Village/Merrill Gardens Project, Rolling Hills Estates
On August 1, 2016, the RHE Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the project entitlements and the associated draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for this commercial/residential care facility for the elderly project
(Attachment D). At the conclusion of the public hearing, the RHE Planning Commission
adopted a resolution recommending approval of the project to the RHE City Council,
which must review the project since it involves (among other things) a tentative parcel
map. The RHE City Council was expected to review and approve the project on
September 27, 2016 (Attachment E). It should be noted that Peninsula Seniors expect
to relocate its facility at Point Vicente Park/Civic Center to the commercial potions of this
project by July 2017.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Future of the Border Issues Status Report
In April 2001, the City Council first considered a proposal to monitor so-called "border
issues" in surrounding jurisdictions. The impetus was a request from the Rolling Hills
Riviera homeowners' association for the City to be more proactive about issues related
to development proposals in the adjoining cities of Los Angeles and Lomita.
On September 4, 2001, the City Council adopted City Council Policy No. 34, which set
forth the policy of presenting to the City Council as a regular agenda item a report on
border issues that had "the potential to adversely impact residents of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes." Initially, these reports were prepared in the City Manager's Office,
starting in October 2001. By February 2002, the Border Issues Status Report was re-
assigned to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. The
report appeared on the agenda of the first City Council meeting of nearly every month
until the end of 2009. With the economic slowdown and the reduction in regional
development activity, the reports began to appear bi-monthly beginning in early 2010, a
practice that has continued to this day. In a further response to changing City staffing
levels in the Community Development Department, the report was transferred back to
the City Manager's Office in October 2011.
Currently, there are only five (5) projects on the Border Issues Status Report, and Staff
anticipates that at least two (2) of these will be removed by the end of this year. As
currently written, City Council Policy No. 34 calls for a standing City Council
subcommittee on Border Issues and monthly reporting as a regular agenda item. In
actual practice, however, there was only ever one (1) Border Issues project for which a
El
subcommittee was convened (the former Ponte Vista [now Highpark] project in San
Pedro). Furthermore, as the Peninsula and surrounding communities near build -out,
Staff does not expect there to be many new major Border Issues projects in the
foreseeable future.
Based upon the changing circumstances and pace of new development since the
Border Issues Status Report was initiated, Staff is seeking direction regarding City
Council Policy No. 34 (Attachment F). Currently, Staff would review and comment upon
Border Issues, usually as a part of the CEQA process. CEQA notices are typically
provided to the City at least 20-30 days before comments are due, providing enough
time for Staff to review a proposal and determine it's likely level of impact upon City
residents. Project updates and summaries of Staff comments would then be provided
to the City Council and interested parties through the Weekly Administrative Report.
As proposed, Staff would continue to perform the process above and refer matters to
the City Council for direction in instances where projects could have significant adverse
impacts upon the City's residents. In addition, Staff would send out the project updates
and summaries on the existing Border Issues Status Report e-mail listsery as they are
occurring (currently, Staff provides updates between City Council meetings through the
Weekly Administrative Report, but not on the listsery and only uses the listsery to post
the approved bi-monthly report). These changes would eliminate the need for a bi-
monthly Border Issues Status Report as a standing item on the agenda of the first
meeting of even -numbered months, freeing up City resources to devote to other
matters.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Provide direction to Staff to revise the proposed Border Issues process
and/or the frequency of Border Issue Status Reports.
2. Make no changes to the current Border Issues process or the frequency of
Border Issues Status Report.
5
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
ITEM NO. 9F
.o o Staff Report
City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEANNIE NAUGHTON, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE PALOS VERDES PIPELINE PROJECT
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICES COMPANY (CAL WATER)
LOCATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS CITYWIDE
,�lTLA: 4GiT11a,FIT1
Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the execution of a contract between the City
and ESA PCR for preparation of an Initial Study and the resulting, appropriate environmental
determination (Mitigated Negative Declaration anticipated), for the Palos Verdes Pipeline
Project.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Cal Water owns and operates the Palos Verdes (PV) water system, providing service to the
entire Palos Verdes peninsula—covering approximately 26 square miles, with elevations
ranging from sea level to 1,465 feet at its highest point. The PV water system distributes water
to the peninsula through two distinct water distribution systems, commonly referred to as the D-
500 and the Ridge systems. All of the supply to the PV system is purchased from the West
Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin).
In 2002, Cal Water's consultant team developed a Water System Master Plan for its PV system;
the two projects identified in the plan with the highest priority were the D-500 Distribution and
Crenshaw/Ridge Supply projects. Cal Water is proposing the construction of additional
transmission pipelines in the PV District, in an effort to improve capacity, to provide redundancy
in distribution facilities in the service area, and to improve the overall reliability of the distribution
system. These projects recommend transmission pipelines along a common alignment for the
majority of their length, and have been combined and collectively referred to as the Palos
Verdes Pipeline Project. These improvements are intended to increase the PV peninsula's
supply reliability. The Palos Verdes Pipeline Project proposes the following improvements:
1. A new 27" and 24" pipeline along Palos Verdes Drive North from Palos Verdes Drive
East to Crenshaw Boulevard, where the 24" pipeline will terminate at the existing 20"
main;
2. A new 27" pipeline in Crenshaw Boulevard to Silver Spur Road where it will connect to
a new booster station proposed for a residentially zoned property downhill from Levitt
Park;
3. A new 24" pipeline in Crenshaw Boulevard from the booster station to Crest Road
where it will tie into the existing 27" main.
In 2004, City staff and the City Council reviewed a Preliminary Design Report (PDR), prepared
by AECOM, which analyzed the east -west alignment of the transmission pipelines located in
Palos Verdes Drive North, as recommended in the Master Plan, and had serious concerns with
traffic impacts, construction duration, and landscaping issues related to the alignment in Palos
Verdes Drive North. In response to the City's concerns, AECOM prepared a subsequent PDR in
2010 that explored various alternative alignment options including routing a significant portion of
the east -west alignment along the existing Bridle Trail that runs parallel to and approximately
1000' north of Palos Verdes Drive North. The proposed alignments to be evaluated under the
proposed project, therefore, incorporate the alternate east -west pipeline alignment along the
Bridle Trail as well as the original north -south pipeline alignment along Crenshaw Boulevard, as
recommended in the 2002 Master Plan and the 2004 & 2010 PDRs.
While the Palos Verdes Pipeline Project will include sections within the County of Los Angeles
and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the majority of the alignment will be within the
jurisdictional boundary of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and therefore, the City will act as Lead
Agency in preparation of the appropriate CEQA documents for the project. Expected project
entitlements include a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed booster station for a residentially
zoned property downhill from Levitt Park, and certification of the resulting CEQA determination.
The Professional Services Agreement and the proposal prepared by ESA PCR are provided as
Attachment 1. The City Attorney and ESA PCR have approved the Professional Services
Agreement. The proposed cost to complete the Initial Study and resulting, appropriate
environmental determination is $93,230. This fee would be subject to the City's 21%
administrative overhead fee and would be paid by the applicant, Cal Water.
It should be noted however, that due to the temporary nature of construction activities and
localized nature of construction -related impacts, no project -specific traffic impact analysis (TIA)
is currently included in the scope of work; should it be determined, based on discussions with
Responsible Agencies (County of Los Angeles and City of Rancho Palos Verdes) that such a
TIA is warranted, the City could request that ESA PCR work with a subcontractor to prepare the
project -specific construction TIA to support the analysis in the Initial Study/MND under a
separate scope of work. Alternatively, the City may allow Cal Water to hire a consultant team to
prepare the respective TIA, with peer -review conducted by the City's Traffic Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the contract with ESA PCR in the amount of
$93,230 to prepare the Initial Study and resulting, appropriate environmental determination for
the Palos Verdes Pipeline Project.
FXHIRITS
Attached
1. Professional Services Agreement
2
A-2
�o`y1KG �xlls
v — -- Repor
19 5'1City of RollingHills Estate
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEANNIE NAUGHTON, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
ITEM NO. 10C
SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR THE PALOS VERDES PIPELINE PROJECT
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICES COMPANY (CAL WATER)
LOCATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS CITYWIDE
OVERVIEW
Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize the execution of a contract between the City
and ESA PCR for preparation of an Initial Study and the resulting, appropriate environmental
determination (Mitigated Negative Declaration anticipated), for the Palos Verdes Pipeline
Project.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
This item was reviewed by the City Council at their meeting of September 13, 2016. At that
meeting, the City Council sought information regarding the consultant selection process,
frequency of work conducted with ESA PCR on past projects, and the adequacy of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration as opposed to an Environmental Impact Report for the respective project.
The Council directed staff to ensure the scope of the work included assessments of the impacts
to bridle trails and potential hazards related to the proximity of the alignment and construction to
the South Coast Botanical Garden. The item was continued to the meeting of September 27,
2016.
Cal Water went out to competitive bid to two highly qualified firms which they have had positive
results with, since initially vetted in 2006, including Chambers Group and PCR. The lowest bid
was selected, as both firms were equally qualified. Cal Water has worked with PCR on various
projects since 2006, including the Lucerne Tank, where PCR prepared the Air Quality, Cultural
Resources and Biological Resources sections of the Initial Study. Cal Water found PCR to be
responsive, professional and thorough in their work. PCR has, over the course of more than 40
years in the environmental consulting field, served numerous cities and clients, preparing CEQA
review for complex projects in the South Bay and the greater LA area. ESA, founded in 1969,
has evolved into a broad -service environmental science and planning firm; in 2000, ESA
became 100% employee -owned and is now one of the largest independently -owned
environmental consulting firms, headquartered on the west coast. PCR joined ESA in February
2016. ESA PCR related project experience has been added to the proposal for Council review.
There was discussion at the meeting regarding alternative alignments and the Council was
concerned that the alignment in the travel lanes of Palos Verdes Drive North, previously
discussed and denied, was going to be re-examined. There is only one alignment plan proposed
to be examined in the Initial Study; the previous discussion regarding alignment alternatives had
been provided as background information only, to illustrate to the Council, how the current
proposed alignment plan (Attachment 2) was developed.
The South Coast Botanical Garden is a former Class I Hazardous Landfill; the site is being
remediated under an Operation and Maintenance Agreement regulated by the Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Based on Council direction regarding the proposed alignment
on and adjacent to the South Coast Botanical Garden, the scope of services has been
expanded to include discussion of coordination with DTSC for compliance with the O&M
Agreement and DTSC regulations. Additionally, language has been included in the revised
scope to address the analysis of impacts to the bridle trail system by the proposed work.
The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine, based on expert opinions supported by facts,
technical studies or other substantial evidence to document its findings, whether any aspect of
the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial. If
the Agency determines, based on the resulting analyses of the Initial Study that there is
potential for significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, an EIR must be prepared; however, if
the Initial Study indicates that the project would not have a significant impact on the
environment, with proper mitigation, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared.
While the anticipated preparation at this point is a MND, until the Initial Study is completed, the
appropriate determination cannot be confirmed.
While the Palos Verdes Pipeline Project will include sections within the County of Los Angeles
and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the majority of the alignment will be within the
jurisdictional boundary of the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and therefore, the City will act as Lead
Agency in preparation of the appropriate CEQA documents for the project. Expected project
entitlements include a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed booster station for a residentially
zoned property downhill from Levitt Park, and certification of the resulting CEQA determination.
The Professional Services Agreement and the proposal prepared by ESA PCR are provided as
Attachment 1. The City Attorney and ESA PCR have approved the Professional Services
Agreement. The proposed cost to complete the Initial Study and resulting, appropriate
environmental determination, with the revised scope as outlined above, remains unchanged, at
$93,230. This fee would be subject to the City's 21 % administrative overhead fee and would be
paid by the applicant, Cal Water.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the contract with ESA PCR in the amount of
$93,230 to prepare the Initial Study and resulting, appropriate environmental determination for
the Palos Verdes Pipeline Project.
Attached
1. PVPL Alignment Exhibit
2. Professional Services Agreement
2
A-4
A-5
San Pedro Community Plan
Presentation to the Land Use Committees of the
San Pedro Neighborhood Councils
September 14, 2016
M
San Pedro Community Plan
Presentation Overview
• Community Planning
• Overview of the San Pedro Community Plan
— Timeline and public participation
— Goals and policies
• Implementation of the Plan
— General Plan Designations and Zoning
— CPIO
Latest Work
son pedro
COMMUNITY PLANNING
The General Plan in California
■ State Law: Each city or
county must adopt a
General Plan, address
long-term growth
■ Policy document to guide
future land use decisions
■ Comprehensive
document, consistent
across all elements
Citywide General Plan
Framework Element
Open Space Element
.........I Housing Element
........... Mobility Element
Conservation Element
Land Use Element —� 35 Community Plans
....... �Element
.......... Safety Element
Infrastructure
Public Facilities and Services
Health and Wellness Element
"_1
B-4 Sa�V
p
Los Angeles Community Plans
35 Community Plans -
Land Use Element of City's
General Plan
Each plan is a blueprint to guide
new development
Land Use Distribution
Development Intensity
Figure 1-2
City of Los Angeles
Community Plan Areas
San Pedro Community Plan Area
Tis is f"
A-, A PA. of the C. --Y
...............
El
Wig H, r C,ty
Pori r:l
Natio Scale
son pedro
S -h -,l T,,j uiapn
Ad—, V, — T,
P-1— IaJow Hift
Chatsworth
En,t T -A CA Wnn
j P—Ar RA -1,
1%41� HlIft
Pauor mn C4
,I
,I
,Itfr Hills
,Iz I T..
W— J- N",
C' Purl -en
O.k�, N-1 1,
Wl— _A W -dl-, Hills
W". Hill,
VIIIAD
101
Erl,w.-T .....
A
Sherman CiAk.
T,,l— take -Ca
BPI Ali
ly C Les Arol.,
tm
8rcntwaodSilt'
L,
Palisades
Echo Par
-an V, 11
ftll W,.,1 I ak
Cn I ogle
ClIY elunG
0-'lrJWi Hill, -
Leimnrt
PalmsMar
V"rsl —hl—
A Vl—
PI.YA Jul RAY
,,A
Intarnnrttvnal
Airport
Figure 1-2
City of Los Angeles
Community Plan Areas
San Pedro Community Plan Area
Tis is f"
A-, A PA. of the C. --Y
...............
El
Wig H, r C,ty
Pori r:l
Natio Scale
son pedro
Who uses the Community Plan?
City Planners
Business Interests/Developers
City Planning Commissions
City Council and Mayor
City Departments
Community Residents and Stakeholders
son pedro
The Community Plan Components
San Pedro
COMMUNITY PLAN
R�geks
d •
i
(.. C�iRPTFRII.Rc�,-
nmri en..<n i�,.n i� COMnnERCiAt OISJRICr
son pedro
THE SAN PEDRO COMMUNITY PLAN
UPDATE
Community Plan Update Program
Why Update?
• Address changing land uses and emerging concerns
• Provide more clarity and guidance for applicants
and community
• Make Community Plans consistent other General
Plan Elements
• Framework Element
• Mobility Plan 2035
son pedro
San Pedro Community Plan: Process
Community Plan Update Process: 3 Phases
• Land Use Survey and community engagement
• Staff research and analysis
• Identify areas that need to be addressed through policy, land use designations, zone changes or other tools
• Community engagement
• Public Hearing
• Harbor Area Planning Commission
• City Planning Comn. 11 r
• City Council (PLUM)
• Full City Council
San Pedro Community Plan: Background
• 1999: Last Plan Update
• 2006: Plan Update begins
• 30+ meetings in the community
• 2007 and 2008: Public workshops to review proposed
changes
• 2008-2012: Neighborhood Council and CAC check -ins
• 2012: Open House and Public Hearing
• 2012: Harbor Area Planning Commission
• 2013: City Planning Commission
ft"_NT
son Pedro
The Community Plan —Contents of the Plan Text
■ Plan text comprised of goals,
policies, and programs
• Goals as an end state or
desired outcome
■ Policies provide important
guidance for findings on
discretionary projects
■ Programs identify next steps
and future work program
items
San Pedro
COMMUNITY PLAN
Draft July, 2413
San Pedro Community Plan: Recommendations
Major Themes:
■ Promote Downtown as San Pedro's
commercial center
■ Strengthen connection to the
Waterfront
■ Improve the local economy
• Enhance distinct neighborhoods and
districts
• Expand and preserve housing
- "- —NI
son pedro
San Pedro Community Plan: Recommendations
Promote Downtown as a Regional Center
Strengthen Connection to the Waterfront
son pedro
San Pedro Community Plan: Recommendations
Improve the local economy:
Industrial Districts
— 10 son pedro
San Pedro Community Plan: Recommendations
Enhance Neighborhood Districts
?ur-��RNER ST0RE" �
1..
"NJ
t5— 10 son pedro
San Pedro Community Plan: Recommendations
Expand and Preserve Housing
I
son pedro
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
Concurrent with the Plan
• General Plan Designations and Zoning
• Community Plan Implementation Overlay (CPIO)
• Modified Street Designations
Long Range
Implementation programs
son pedro
The Community Plan Components
Land Use Map with
Corresponding Zones
• The plan regulates the zoning
• Underlying zoning must be consistent
with the Community Plan
• Hierarchy of zones (R1, R2, R3, etc.)
General Plan Land Use - Corresponding Zones
Single Family Residential
Low II'
-R1
Multiple Family Residential
Lo'w Mori— I'
- R2, RD3, R04
Low Metllum II r
- RD1. 5, RD2
Metllum
-R3
- li Med..
-R4
Commercial
Neighborhood Comirri
-C1, Ci -5, C2 C4, R3, RAS3
_ Community Commercial
- CR, C1.5, C2, C4, R3, RAS3, R4, RAS4
- Regional Commemal
- C2, C4, R4, RAS4, R5
Industrial
Limited Irldustnal
-MI, MR1
- Llgnt lndustnal
-M2, MR2
— Hybnd Induslrlal
- CM
- Heavy IndustrPal
- M2, M3
Public Space; Public Facilities
- Open Space
- OS, Al, SL
- Pttblis Fanlities
-PF
Public Faolilies-Freeways -PF
-
iiarbor City
r
B-1 9 san pedro
=-011111
Implementation: Concurrent
with the Plan
General Plan Designations and
Zoning
San Pedro Community Plan
San Pedro Community Plan
Technical Corrections by Subarea
Proposed Changes by Subarea
390 310
5
330 320
- r
40
340
3B0 s. 1000
360 370 •....
a
;,0'10 422 420
-. 350_ -
400
440 430 3101070:1
wo ---�-
-'450 „=
7t5
11 1I
129 172 m
Ilr" is
450— -.500
SSO
1010 '` 530 " 11
175-
< 135
5
941 9406i11rIr�C-
-
h Cl;wrlt:=140
I+
I.=l_oo
it 1 1 ®IS'9r ---132
10,0
80 ¢ 145
�I 1
1010 600.'-514
�1
IF 142 �� 10
850 082 1000
'I 1...�s30
-650 640
1 �S
�11 15oi�
- X700 680 690
646
200.
-
-
1010
.,
220
220
_210
B90-
790`.x„ ...
Not 1,S,EIz rc G ..xr 740 760
A
No: ToScalsN
....
DRAFT 739
J'.-950
... �._....�,�.,..,,,.. rm..� 760
DRAFT
m.._rv......-._.......�,o_
�
_
=-011111
San Pedro Community Plan: Then and Now
;67m
1980 Proposed
son pedro
Implementation of the Community Plan
Community Plan
Implementation Overlay
(CPIO)
■ Generally addresses:
■ Pedestrian -Orientation
■ Compatibility of Use and Design
■ Landscaping
■ Step backs
■ Parking
■ Signage
■ Utilities and mechanical equipment
■ Facades
f I
I 4
-II
13 j
1i ., IIf
TT I-
jr j, -T -7i
II I IT
77 71
I I
CPIO: Regional Commercial Subarea
■ Unlimited height replaced with a maximum
height limit of 250 feet
■ FAR 6.0:1
■ No additional parking required for change of
use in existing buildings
■ Building scale and massing
■ Pedestrian plazas and open space required
for large projects
CPIO: Central Commercial Subarea
■ Max 75 feet
■ FAR 1.5-4.0
■ Mixed use generally required throughout
■ Automobile uses only allowed in Subarea A
■ Pedestrian plazas and open space required for
large projects
■ Incorporated CDO Design Guidelines
CPIO: Multi -Family Residential Subarea
■ Retaining existing zoning
■ Incorporate CRA Pacific Corridor design
guidelines
■ Added design standards
Articulation, form and facades
■ Pedestrian and residential amenities
0 Multifamily mo Subarea
f 4�'
~ \
ITIT-
u® > Jl
�[] ® �[]H1C�W o
EHI
OF
r E�il PEI ®O1=00 c
Lill
Li DOwntowrf
i:FFF1r � IUf HITL Il — j e
ao - Vinegary=
•
CIU Hill ❑ ,,li,
o F--fl,=]I]
lr_Z] IF--+ LET III 0 r
0. EU j m
—kllr'I�I�I�I�=IllilAlllii�_--'>O®J�
I —
III
T71—
..
1 _
—
a
S
Implementation: Concurrent with the Plan
Streets
• Modified street designations to mirror existing street
dimensions
• Identified "'Priority" streets to address needs for
different users (pedestrians, bikes, cars.....)
• Studied potential for 6th Street
son pedro
Implementation: Concurrent with the Plan
Implementation Programs
• Near- and long-term
programs
• Land use, mobility, public
facilities
• Directly related to Plan
policies
• Identifies responsible or
coordinating agencies
San Pedro Community Plan Chapter 6 Implementation
Implementation Programs
Table 6-I
San Pedro Implementation Program': Land Use and Urban Design
DRAFTY-2(27
RAFT 2(27 a -S
program
Landlist and
Salicyl
nor her
Urban [sestgn program Oeurlpawn
seel3no uaferaace
—rdlslhleor
Caorelnmtmg
Agency
Near Term Programs
aWO4dgnmdDwe1opren1 Staldnrds.. •, mmnolfy Plan lm*wNal+m
LUl 1,34,7.8; tU2.1,2;
I D111,LAW%
na,hylCPrDgestabK , ..-r Sd^7 ,.frammpmemstaodardsfdtpaswk
UR VA WS.2
Wmluntbe D&rlay, fbt In'1—irg are reg laced by Lhe CF10: ]am bu;, m ng
517; LU61,I,3;5;
damlty and grit" t5, mbfed-ust prmledl5, smmccial rArndom, pedtoMly
1.1172.3A 5;
aa.K oiawd fiver mtell,par,h; elk+y acu% setbacka. hibling helght
LU8.1.:!!=': I.
P7:
trarsltiom, slgrsy,ge. and latGusuilg
W.., t.:> -
LU55.1,2;3;
Pses—Wyhbw wa4lC1arx1er.5m;dl Lal Derelapmen L. -:ni 7ehms thdf
LUt. 1. kul.3, LU2.1,
DCP. LADES
P2
.. nasArq,
LU2$LU3 S. LU.39
_, 'abet single
n,2s titin+rhn,l.^.mr.;r,.rnrrelnn•�rr. Ills^.in. rr: relrvcmer!aud slope
IUn I,LW.C, Iu I.:
n; r. r:.ur^.
fltCiiltM. - '
Ps
,n ly
-r�w;
myrU-nix9I�Al'.ot
10 top.�laptry.a.'TeOlnlwl05194ac.
IIIr0l matlan and gulUdm are aniola to
LU17. LU5,1D.
LAp}4P, LADE
roperty"Mmrsaid d"letppersmerKAurageenergy effeere 1eodoryal
1114 b, 1U16S
and larws�w drs�gn SII r�rq ravlvrcts such as Lin, 1htCalfumra
A q Cob, I - aWi:pn la appt;a5k Cd'r Mmpral Cave ILAMQ Oman
ndards and galcd-s.
PS
Rent Yard Character. LAL!C p-ohlbits partnq in f wpard wiNd..
LU? a
LADBi
Preserve Nebghhvrhood [M1aracler. re?Intl PAap dendtcsiands tine^eddp
L112
DO. LAi765
r.;.deliW J_ve py ti, _en•I Md. it pfA.1a! Inse e: tes Lan
u uaathawnl by d2s4-.,lihy dlt P as Lo& 11 Do wily hgdeatlal.
Ndr1lbarhood SUMty. Tm pfd n enewragas skh.omusionsvhImpeofk
U3.1, W33
VP; LADES
4P11m
,_Mi emand a ml% of
Ir.—x will hc'p'.v a!,. Nab!s and sUSTd rNbk rw gtirrhdads
"llbtrhood Sltahnitynrld Housing. Hoasin3 dtreWq-renr pedgmms proyds
LU31, Wi 4.
L AHD, Dt r
fr.:anong for the wroviwr: of — and ft amid iwn. and Rha o hUhNn ct
txlatirg, multipk4am dy f wnc
DRAFTY-2(27
RAFT 2(27 a -S
LATEST WORK
�
z » _ �^ � 2 � •
dwas
Red. �
Western Avenue Street Enhancement Strategy
• Supports Plan Goals: Foster
accessible communities
• Vision for Western Avenue
• Coordination with the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes, Caltrans, Southern California
Association of Governments, and CD -15
• Goals for Streetscape and Private
Development
,i
�
11
B-30
NEXT STEPS
• Return to CPC October 13, 2016
• Next: Consideration by City Council PLUM
committee and full City Council
• Anticipated adoption 2017
son pedro
2
DATE: AUGUST 1, 2016
AGENDA
AUG 12016
ITEM NO.
Staff Report I -A
City of Rolling Hills Estates
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
KELLEY THOM, CBGB, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 20-16
APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAI
LOCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD
OVERVIEW
The following is a request to approve:
1. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to
Medium Density Residential;
2. A Zone Change from Commercial Limited (CL) to Medium Density Residential (RA -10);
3. A Tentative Parcel Map for a two -lot subdivision;
4. A Grading Application;
5. A Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of two single-family homes; and
6. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of June 6th, the Commission 1) opened the public hearing; 2) took public testimony
and discussed the issues; and 3) kept the public hearing open and continued the item to date
uncertain to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare revised plans for two single-family homes.
As proposed, the subject site would be rezoned from Commercial Limited (CL) to Medium Density
Residential (RA -10) for a two -lot subdivision to construct two single-family homes. Since this is a new
project, a new parcel map for a two -lot subdivision would need to be submitted. In addition, the
grading plan and MND would need to be revised to reflect the new project.
The subject site is a corner lot located at Highridge Road and Crest Road. As proposed, the existing
curb cuts along Highridge and Crest would be eliminated and a new curb cut would be installed along
Highridge for a shared driveway. Although the proposed driveway is shown as 12' wide, the City's
traffic engineer recommends a minimum 18' wide shared driveway, based on the width of the garage
openings. In addition, the driveway would be located approximately 95' from the intersection.
Proposed on the 11,250 sq. ft. northerly lot adjacent to Seaview Villas (Lot 1), a 3,000 sq. ft. two-story
home would be constructed with a 586 sq. ft. two -car garage and four bedrooms (House 1). The first
floor would be 2,310 sq. ft. and would include the garage, entrance, living room, dining room, kitchen,
laundry, powder room, guest bedroom/bath, and master bedroom/bath. On the 690 sq. ft. second
floor, there would be two bedrooms with a shared bath. The first floor plate height would be 9'-1" and
the second floor plate height would be 8'-1", with an overall roof height of 21'-8".
Proposed on the 11,066 sq. ft. southerly lot adjacent to Crest Road (Lot 2), a 2,948 sq. ft. two-story
home would be constructed with a 510 sq. ft. two -car garage and four bedrooms (House 2). The first
floor would be 2,180 sq. ft. and would include the garage, entrance, powder room, laundry, dining
room, family room, living room, kitchen, guest bedroom/bath, and master bedroom/bath. On the 768
sq. ft. second floor there would be two bedrooms with a shared bath and a hallway/alcove area. The
first floor plate height would be mostly 9'-1 ", however the elevations appear to show a plate height for
the master bedroom to be 3' higher. On the second floor plate height would be 8'-l", with an overall
roof height of 21'-4".
Both of the homes have been designed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style, similar to what is found in
the surrounding neighborhoods, and would incorporate smooth finish stucco with wood corbels, a low
roof pitch with Spanish tile roofing, recessed windows and doors that are wood -clad, copper gutters
and wrought -iron railings. Please see the preliminary drawings provided separately.
On Lot 1, the proposed front yard area is approximately 3,208 sq. ft. and 3,250 sq. ft. for Lot 2. Both
lots have a 75' wide street frontage at Highridge. Given that the majority of the lot coverage for the
shared driveway is located on Lot 1, staff calculated the front yard coverage as an average of both
lots. As a result, the front yard coverage for each lot would be approximately 1,282 sq. ft. (39.7%).
Since the maximum front yard coverage allowed is 35% for properties with a street frontage width
between 75' and 99.99', the proposal exceeds the maximum allowed. As a result, the additional
paving would need to be eliminated to comply with Code. In addition, the proposed lot coverage for
Lot 1 would be approximately 28% and 29% for Lot 2 (35% maximum permitted), complying with
Code. Please refer to the Project Statistics (attached).
It should be noted that there is a current proposal to build two new single-family homes at a nearby
corner of Crest and Whitley Collins, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Previously, the site was
developed with a gas station which was a typical development pattern back when the neighborhoods
were first developed.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project in 2014 when it included four patio homes and a one -
lot subdivision. Staff is of the opinion that the project revisions do not require the IS/MND to be re-
circulated, as the project revisions are essentially minimal and would not result in any new potential
impacts that would require additional study for mitigation. Ultimately, the document will need to be
revised to reflect the new project description and accompanying numbers, should the Commission
wish to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
Please note that when the project included three to four patio homes, the Commission felt that re -
silhouetting the project was not necessary. However, since the current proposal is a new project and
a significant departure from the previous project, staff recommends that silhouettes be installed to
reflect the current massing of the two homes.
C-2
Therefore, staff recommends that PA -20-16 be continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant
sufficient time to prepare complete architectural drawings, revised grading plan, parcel map, update to
the environmental document, and install silhouettes for each of the proposed homes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Take public testimony and discuss the project;
2. Close the Public Hearing; and
3. Continue PA -20-16 to a date uncertain.
EXHIBITS
Attached
1. Minutes and Staff Reports dated June 6, 2016
2. Project Statistics Sheets
Separate
1. Preliminary drawings, dated July 18, 2016
Pa20-16 pm
C-3
C(}MK8|G0[}N like h2see 8sample 0fthe sign, and he agreedVVith
the comments about th'ejelephone number.
CHAIRMAN SCH/\CH sign was moved
further away from the street, a4it,was way too big. D) 8 said if the phone number
and website were removed that the "Si -an could be made smaflle�.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER ZIGRANG,
THAT THEY CONTINUE THE HEARI TO A DATE UNCERTAIN AND HAVE THE
APPLICANT WORK WITH STA��F TO ME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS TO THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY P4E COMMI%ISSI -N.
ABSENT: 'Conway, Medawar
A. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 25-14; APPLICANT: Ms. Judy Chai; LOCATION: 53
Crest Road. A continued Public Hearing from the Planning Commission meeting of
5/9/16 for the following: A request for a Grading Application, Zone Text Amendment,
Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, and a Neighborhood Compatibility Determination for the construction of four
single-family patio homes on a .51 -acre parcel. Approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has also been prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act
Associate Planner Thom summarized the Staff Report (as per written material).
COMMISSIONER SCOTT mentioned that the entrance to one of the driveways would be about
25'from the corner and asked if the City had standards because it was very tight and seemed
unsafe. Director Wahba answered that this was provided to him at short notice and he didn't
have time togoover itwith the City's Traffic Engineer, but that staff didn't support it and the
applicant needed tOmove the driveway back.
[>iRyctorVV3hbe added that the intent of this night's meeting was to get B sense from the
Commission whether this vvOU|d be something worth pursuing in this fashion and if they were to
pursue this they needed to have a shared driveway and push it far back from the corner.
CHAIRMAN 8CHACHTER asked if there was 3possibility of putting @ driveway OnCrest Road,
to which DireotOrVVehbg replied that it is preferable to place 8 the driveway on @ secondary
arterial rather than on a major arterial.
DRAFT Pk3OOiOg Commission Minutes 5
June 0.2O10
��-�
�� ^�
CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER'S asked if there was an issue with the storm drain if the dhVevv8y
goes into that area, and Director Wahba stated that the architect had mentioned it but it would
involve quite 8 bit of cost, and it would be a lot less expensive to move the driveway north of the
storm drain and come iDthat way. Director VV8hbastated that another design would betO
actually split the lot the other direction and to push the homes back from Crest Road to open up
the corner and have @ more aggressive setback.
CHA|F{K8ANG{|HACHTER asked ifthere was 8minimum requirement for 8shared driveway
width, to which [}i[eCtO[VV@hba replied he was not BVV8[e of nlininnunl width, but S8p8[@te
driveways would bBpreferable tOthe homeowners but given the unique corner and toimprove
the vehicular access itreally should beserved with one driveway.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS asked the Commissioners that before they discuss a detailed
design of the driveway and storm drains, do they conceptually believe going from four units to
two units has any merit 8tall.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT said that two units was 8nimprovement and shared the concern Of
the driveway. Healso said that ifthey had 8small second story 0nHouse #1 i1would open Up
the mass Ofthe building and increase the rear yard setback.
Director Wahba discussed ideas of having two -car garages rather than three -car garages to
help with the massing.
CHAIRMAN SCHACHTER Said that the submittal was on imp[Ov808nt, and he preferred the
one-story house closer to the street and having the larger house in the back of the lot because
itvvou|d blend in with the trees and not be as close tmthe street frontage.
C{}K8KA|S8|(JNER Z|GRANG said that they are headed in the right direction it just needed to be
reoriented a bit sothat they could have 8 shared driveway on Highhdge. H8felt that they should
leave it to staff to work with the applicant and COnle in with an alternative.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT asked if a second story feature in House #2 was acceptable to the
Commission and they discussed briefly that itwas agood idea.
C{}MK4|SG|{}NEF< YO(} asked DirectQrVV8hb@ if there was 2 restriction on where you can have
a driveway after the corner, to which Director Wahba replied that he will speak with the Traffic
Engineer and discuss the options, seeing 8Sthere is@storm drain there as well.
Gary k8anvve|| (Architect, K8axvve\| &ASGociedee. Huntington Beach) said that they were trying to
preserve the existing driveways and not mess with the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District. He said he understood the concern of the proximity of the driveway to the corner, and
he wanted the orientation of the homes to stay because that's where the view was. Hesaid it
would free them to do a limited second story on House #2 so they could shorten the home and
still keep @ back yard. Hesaid ifthey did have 8shared driveway hewanted tOrotate the
garage 0OHouse #2SOthat itwasn't facing HiQh[idgeRoad. Hesuggested @ two -car garage
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes 6
June O'2U10
plus a small area where they could put bikes and things. He would like to open out the front but
not to the detriment of having a back yard. He said that a sound wall would obstruct views and
he preferred to soften the noise with triple glazed windows, and other materials.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT felt that it shouldn't be a three -car garage, but a two -plus garage.
Doug Maupin (Developer/Broker, 27591 Palos Verdes Drive East, Rancho Palos Verdes), said
the value of two separate lots will help to make a profit on this lot, but he felt that the driveway
issue was overstated because single family homes have only seven trips a day, and that this
particular intersection didn't ever get crowded. He added that the drains are huge, with 24"
wide pipes and felt that those drains handled the entire top of the hili. It would be preferable not
to touch those drain pipes because it will become very expensive. The two-story idea is a good
one and shrinking the footprint would give more open space.
AYES: Zigrang, Yoo, Thomas, Scott, Chairman Schachter
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Conway, Medawar
Director Wahba stated that the public would be renotified prior to the project coming back to the
Commission.
B. PLANNING APR CATION 18-15; APPLICANT'Peninsula Pointe (Scott Darnell, SIRE
DCM PV, LLC); LO TION: 27520 Hawth,9me Blvd. Conversion of an existing office
building into an 89 -unit esidential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) with the following
entitlements: General Pla mend eInt to change the land use designation from
Commercial Office (C -O) to m rcial General (C -G); Zone Change from C -O to C -G;
Conditional Use Permit for RC use within the C -G zone; Precise Plan of Design for
exterior facade work; Varia es fc, ) existing surface parking spaces extending into the
setback; and 2) parking % all dimensi and aisle width.
Senior Planner Naughton summarized the Staff R6ort with a PowerPoint Presentation (as per
written material) and int duced Scott Darnell (Darn Capital Management, Applicant on behalf
of the property owner and Emily Tragish (Architecture earn Project Lead for Douglas
Pancake Architect, Irvine). She asked if the Commissio diad any questions of staff.
.••• -• •. • • • • a •. • ••- • •
DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes 7
dune 6, 2016
C-6
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID WAHBA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
KELLEY THOM, CBGB, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 25-14
APPLICANT: MS. JUDY CHAT
I OCATION: 5883 CREST ROAD
moffa=
C-7
ScheDl8UC site plan, floor D|8DS and elevations 8hOvvnQ how the two hVDleS VVOU|d be oriented on the
Site. The one-story home would be located towards Crest and the two-story home would be towards
the rear of the |0t' with each home having separate driveways along HighhdQe. With this desiQD. Staff
feels that the open space of the corner has been diminished and that the building DlaSS @|OOg Crest
appears more visually prominent. iOaddition, due to the busy roadways Etboth High[idgeand Crest,
staff recommends 8 shared driveway G|OOg Highhdge for the two single-family hODl8S. However, the
applicant believes S8p8[2te driveways vvVu|d be more consistent with single-family development.
Staff suggests that additional studies be dune on shared versus separate drivevvaye, and that a more
creative solution is needed to develop the corner lot with two single family homes. Please see the
preliminary drawings for Option 3(8ttaCh8d).
Therefore, staff recommends that PA -25-14 be continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant
sufficient time to develop 8 p[OpDS8| for two single-family homes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Take public testimony and discuss the project;
2. Close the Public Hearing; and
3. Continue PA -25-14 to a date uncertain.
1011
May 10, 2016
CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
4045 11.,,k1,OS VERDES DRIVE NORTH - ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, CA 90274
TELEPHONE 310.377-1577 - FAX 310.377-4468
m4,xN,.I2olliligHillsl,,st;ites-ca.,gov
Judy Chai
PO Box 2843
Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274
Dear Ms. Chai:
At the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 2016, your application was continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2016. The Commission provided the applicant the
following project guidance, as follows:
1. Eliminate the fourth home at the front corner
2. Include no more than three patio homes
3. Home adjacent to Crest road to be one-story and less than 2,000 sq. ft. in area
4. Total livable area of all three homes no more than 6,000 sq. ft.
5. Provide more open space area on the site closer to 70% as required by Code (exclusive of
driveways and parking)
6. Variance for 10 -acre RPD zone change requirement
1. One single building with three or four units maximum
2. Portion of building adjacent to Crest Rd to be one-story and two -stories towards the rear
with the front corner providing more open space area on the site
3. Total livable area no more than 8,000 sq. ft.
4. Provide more open space area on the site closer to 70% as required by Code (exclusive of
driveways and parking)
5. Variance for 10 -acre RPD zone change requirement
Option 3 (RA -10 Zoning)
1. Two -lot subdivision with one single family home on each lot
2. Hcme size no greater than 3,000 sq. ft, each
3- Maximum lot coverage 35%
4. Horne along Crest Rd to be one-story
5. Both properties to comply with RA -10 zoning for setbacks, etc.
9
"a7
May 10, 2016
5883 Crest Road
Page 2
Please note, in order to make the June 6th meeting, please resubmit all plans no later than
Monday, May 23rd.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kelley Thom
Associate Planner
cc: Gary Maxwell
5.10. i6 results Itr
C-10
PROJECT STATISTICS SHEET PROJECT ADDRESS: i 113 Cllr
EXISTING
PROPOSED
PERMITTED
SETBACKS
Front yard coverage sq.ft:
= RESULT
SQ.FT.
First Story
_.�
.
Front:
' - 1,00
_ et r Pa
Sides:
f
16,
Patios & other decks
< 1' high:
> 1' high: (o v*
and coverage)..
„r
.75
s r. 1.00 71,
Barn:
Total front yard coverage %:
Rear:'
1.00
Utility Sheds > 64 sq.ft.:
Second Story
1.00
Front:
total front yard coverage %)
Sides: : .
Eaves > 4' wide:
-+r
1.00
Walkways > 4' wide:
.75
Turfblock & grasscrete:
Rear:
l
BUILDING HEIGHT:
LIVING SPACE_ SQ.FT.
Total — Lot Size = Lot Coverage Percentaqe
1 floor:
2 nd floor:
Garage:
TOTAL:
Front yard area sq.ft:�
(Refer to code for definition of front yard°
area)f
EXISTING
SQ.FT.
+ PROPOSED
SQ.FT.
= TOTAL
SQ. FT.
Front yard coverage sq.ft:
= RESULT
SQ.FT.
LOT COVE GE.
Lot Size sq.ft;
_.�
(All hardscape and structures' square
F
' - 1,00
Pool:
footage must be included to determine front
.75
Patios & other decks
< 1' high:
> 1' high: (o v*
and coverage)..
„r
.75
s r. 1.00 71,
Barn:
Total front yard coverage %:
1.00
Utility Sheds > 64 sq.ft.:
(total front yard coverage _ front yard area =
1.00
k
total front yard coverage %)
1.00
Eaves > 4' wide:
EXISTING
SQ.FT.
+ PROPOSED
SQ.FT.
= TOTAL
SQ. FT.
X FACTOR
SQ.FT,
= RESULT
SQ.FT.
LOT COVE GE.
Lot Size sq.ft;
Residence + garage:
F
' - 1,00
Pool:
.75
Patios & other decks
< 1' high:
> 1' high: (o v*
„r
.75
s r. 1.00 71,
Barn:
1.00
Utility Sheds > 64 sq.ft.:
1.00
Permanent assessory
structures:
1.00
Eaves > 4' wide:
1.00
Walkways > 4' wide:
.75
Turfblock & grasscrete:
.50
Secondary driveway:
TOTALS:
Lot Coverage %:
75
Total — Lot Size = Lot Coverage Percentaqe
A
PROJECT STATISTICS SHEET PROJECT ADDRESS:
cvv�;+-
10
Front yard area scift
(Refer to code for definition of front yard
area)
EXISTING
PROPOSED
X FACTOR m RESULT
PERMITTED
SETBACKS
SQ.FT. SQ.FT.
4-C
(Al[ hardscape and structures' square
Lot Size sq.ft,
First Story
Residence + garage:
footage must be included to determine front
Front:
�ard coverage)
Pool:
Vol V1
Sides:
.75
4
Patios & other decks
ta vf
I�
Rear:
.75
Second Story
* 1'high: ;�A+,W
Front:
+
Sides:
1.00
Utility Sheds > 64 sq.ft.:
1.00
Rear:
1.00
BUILDING HEIGHT:
structures:
LIVING SPACE SQ.FT.
Eaves > 4' wide:
16'floor:
1.00
Walkways > 4' wide:
2nd floor:
.75
Turfblock & grasscrete:
Garage:
.50
TOTAL:
-75
Front yard area scift
(Refer to code for definition of front yard
area)
+ PROPOSED i TOTAL
X FACTOR m RESULT
Front yard coverage sq.ft:
IEXISTING
SQ.FT.
SQ.FT. SQ.FT.
4-C
(Al[ hardscape and structures' square
Lot Size sq.ft,
t
Residence + garage:
footage must be included to determine front
1.00
�ard coverage)
Pool:
Total front yard coverage %:
.75
Patios & other decks
(total front yard coverage front yard area
total front yard coverage
* 1' high:
1;7
+ PROPOSED i TOTAL
X FACTOR m RESULT
IEXISTING
SQ.FT.
SQ.FT. SQ.FT.
SQ.FT, SQ.FT.
LOT COVERAGE
Lot Size sq.ft,
t
Residence + garage:
1.00
Pool:
.75
Patios & other decks
* 1' high:
.75
* 1'high: ;�A+,W
1.00
Barn:
1.00
Utility Sheds > 64 sq.ft.:
1.00
Permanent assessory
1.00
structures:
Eaves > 4' wide:
1.00
Walkways > 4' wide:
.75
Turfblock & grasscrete:
.50
Secondary driveway:
-75
TOTALS:
Lot Coverage %:
jot I -- Lot Size = Lot Coverage Percentage)
1;7
City of Rolling Hills Estates
19Staff Report
51
DATE: AUGUST 1, 2016
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JEANNIE NAUGHTON, SENIOR PLANNER
AGENDA
AUG 12016
ITEM NO.
8-B
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION 05-16 (VILLAGE/MERRILL GARDENS)
APPLICANT: TONI REINA, ON BEHALF OF CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
LOCATION: 601 SILVER SPUR DRIVE AND 600 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE (APNS
7589-002-010, -011, -012.
OVFRVIFW
The following is a request for approval of a series of entitlements to allow a two -lot subdivision,
for the new construction of a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on one
lot, the new construction of a two-level parking structure on the second lot, and adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a
significant impact on the environment.
BACKGROUND
Application Filed: 12.18.14
Application Deemed Complete: 03.03.16
Public Notices Mailed: 07.01.16
Public Notices Posted: 07.01.16
Public Notices Published: 07.01.16
On September 23, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance 694, to allow a variety of senior -
type housing needs to locate within the Mixed -Use Overlay District of the C -G zone. New
development standards were adopted for independent senior housing, assisted living, memory
care, and skilled nursing; all of which are intended to provide for a complete continuum of care.
The applicable Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code Sections are Chapter 16.16 Minor Land
Subdivisions, Chapter 17.30 (C -G District), Chapter 17.37 (Mixed Use Overlay District), Chapter
17.58 (Precise Plan of Design), Chapter 17.66 (Variances), and Chapter 17.68 (Conditional Use
Permits).
The 3.13 acre subject property is located in Planning Area No. 6, zoned C-G/Mixed Use Overlay
District, has a General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial General (Mixed Use), and is
located in Hazards Management Overlay.
The adjacent properties are located in the City stated and have the following designations:
North: City of Rancho Palos Verdes; Commercial Professional (c -p)
South: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
East: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
West: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
Acting as lead agency, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), an Initial Study was prepared by Michael Baker
International, to identify any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project
and incorporate mitigation measures into the project as necessary, to eliminate the potentially
significant effects of the project or to reduce the effects to a level of insignificance. Based on the
Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), in conformance with Section 15080(b) of the State CEQA guidelines.
Outside Aaencies Consultation and Review
The Development Review Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department conducted
access review and approved the project for this purpose on June 3, 2016. Detailed plan check
will be required by the Engineering Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Staff
also conducted preliminary review with the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Division
and received no conditions of approval for this project, but it will be subject to all Building Code
requirements. In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Section 21080.3.1 of CEQA, the
City of Rolling Hills Estates conducted early consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians — Kizh Nation and agreed upon four mitigation measures to be implemented during
ground disturbance and construction activities. A more detailed discussion may be found in the
Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study, with mitigation measures found in the conditions
of approval as well as in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
DISCUSSION
Project Overview
The 3.13 acre subject property is currently improved with The Village shopping center, which
consists of four multi -tenant buildings on three parcels, bounded by Silver Spur Drive, Dry Bank
Drive, and Deep Valley Drive. The buildings range in size from 4,200 SF to 20,800 SF, with a
total of 46,230 SF of retail and office space.
Building A, located at 601 Silver Spur Road, at the northwest corner of the project site, is a one-
story, 4,200 SF, vacant building, not part of the original Village Shopping center; it resides on a
separate parcel and will be demolished as part of the project.
Building B, located at 627 Silver Spur Road, located in the western portion of the project site, is
a two-story, +/- 11,500 SF building, currently occupied by a variety of commercial and office
uses; +/- 10,000 SF of occupied space contains storefronts facing Deep Valley Drive, while +/-
1,000 SF of space contains storefronts facing Dry Bank Drive, including Yummy Yogurt.
Building B contains parking on the lower level, accessed via Drybank Drive; this building will be
retained as part of the project.
Building C, located at 600 Deep Valley Drive, at the corner of Deep Valley Drive and Drybank
Drive, is a one-story, +/- 9,600 SF building occupied by a commercial real estate brokerage firm
and a dry cleaning business; Building C would be retained as part of the project.
D-2
Building D, located at 626 Silver Spur Road, is a two-story, split-level building located on the
eastern side of the project site, adjacent to the existing library, containing +/- 20,800 SF of
commercial floor space; +/- 10,400 SF of lower level retail faces north, toward the existing
parking lot along Silver Spur Road, while the upper-level retail faces south, toward the existing
parking lot along Deep Valley Drive. Building D would be demolished as part of the project.
The proposed project consists of subdividing the 3.13 acre site into two parcels; Parcel 1 would
result in a 1.48 acre site, to accommodate the new construction of a four-story, +/- 135,852 SF,
114 -unit Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). Parcel 2 would result in a 1.65 acre
site, retention of +/- 21,000 SF of existing commercial development, and the new construction of
a two-level, 169 -space parking structure to serve both the commercial uses, as well as the
adjacent library.
Parcel 1
As defined by the State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social
Services, "Residential Care Facility for the Elderly" means a housing arrangement chosen
voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person;
where 75% of the residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and
supervision are provided, as agreed to at time of admission or as determined necessary at
subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs compatible with other
residents. "Memory care" is a specific type of facility for persons with a mental impairment such
as dementia or Alzheimer's disease. RCFE typically provides both assisted living and memory
care units in each facility.
The property, as well as the RCFE would be owned and operated by Merrill Gardens; a privately
owned, family run company, that owns and operates senior living communities, with a focus on
lifestyle, in six states. Building A would be demolished, to accommodate the new construction of
the +/-135,000 SF facility. A partially subterranean parking structure, the entry of which is
located at grade, off Silver Spur Road, will be located under the building footprint at the
southwesterly portion of the site, and will contain 63 parking spaces, including three accessible
parking spaces (ADA compliant). The main entry to the facility will be off Silver Spur Road, into
the same level of the building as the parking facilities. The parking level will contain the
lobby/reception area, a wellness center, salon, activity room, theater, offices, and a kitchen. The
first level will be divided into two wings—assisted living and memory care. Both wings will
provide dining and living areas, with one kitchen serving both wings. The first level will contain
all 20 Memory Care units (studio) and 12 Assisted Living units, including eight 1 br/1 bth and four
2br/2bth, many of which will have patios. There will be a dedicated Memory Care landscaped
courtyard, as well as a landscaped courtyard for the Assisted Living residents. The second level
will contain 14 studio units, 23 1 br/1 bth units, and 4 2br/2bth units, a majority of which, will have
private or shared decks. Level three will contain 14 studio units, 24 1 br/1 bth units, and three
2br/2bth units, most of which will have private or shared decks.
The site has a significant grade change, descending from the southern portion of the site to the
northern portion, along Silver Spur Road. There is an existing 8' high retaining wall along Silver
Spur Road, adjacent to the existing surface parking lot. The new Merrill Gardens building will
remove this retaining wall, to allow for an at -grade resident loading zone, as well as access to
the parking structure, along Silver Spur Road. The overall perceived height of the building along
Silver Spur Road is 44' (maximum allowed) to the top of the fascia trim, and 32' from the
southern elevation; however, there will be architectural projections that reach 54' in height, as
measured from lowest adjacent grade, along Silver Spur Drive. The projections will
accommodate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure to run above finished ceilings
on levels containing resident amenity spaces.
D-3
Parcel 2
Buildings B and C underwent seismic, cosmetic, and lighting upgrades and renovation during
2013/2014, as well as adoption of a Master Sign Program for the shopping center. Both
buildings will be retained as part of the project, resulting in +/-21,000 SF of leasable commercial
area. The 2 -lot subdivision includes the recordation of airspace rights for condominium
purposes on Parcel 2, as well as the new construction of a new, two-level, 169 -space parking
structure, which will serve the adjacent library as well as the commercial uses on the site. The
Peninsula Seniors have signed a lease to occupy +/-3,800 SF in Building B and will occupy the
suite following completion of the new parking structure. A Master Conditional Use Permit is
being requested to allow medical/dental uses in the remaining +/- 7,750 SF of floor area in
Building B.
The two-level parking structure will have two access points off Deep Valley Drive; the
easternmost driveway will provide access to the upper level of the parking structure, at grade
with the library entrance, while the westernmost driveway will provide access to the lower level
of the parking structure, at grade with Buildings B & C and the surface parking stalls. The
structure will provide 169 parking stalls, Building B contains 26 parking stalls, accessed off Dry
Bank Drive, and the surface lot adjacent to Buildings B & C will provide 26 parking stalls.
An existing 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between the
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which allows
reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking rights on/over each owner's property, as well as a
landscape and access easement on Parcel 1, will be dissolved to release Parcel 1 (Merrill
Gardens) and the City of RHE from the agreement, and a new agreement executed between
the Palos Verdes Library District and The Village ownership, to retain reciprocal ingress, egress,
and parking rights on/over Parcel 2 and the library site. As a result of the new agreement, the
Peninsula Center Library and The Village would be served by a total of 386 parking stalls -221
stalls on Parcel 2 and 165 stalls on the library property. The Village and the library would benefit
from excess parking capacity with construction of the proposed parking structure as currently
designed, as both properties would be served by a total of 386 parking stalls.
Overall Proiect Entitlements Applicable to Both Parcels
Because both resulting parcels will operate under separate ownership, and function as two
separate and distinct projects, it is necessary to separate out the specific entitlements that will
apply to each specific parcel, as well as the overall entitlements that apply to both.
Subdivision
The existing 3.13 acre project site consists of three parcels; the proposed Tentative Parcel Map
No. 72398 proposes a two -lot subdivision, resulting in two parcels; a 1.48 acre parcel (Parcel 1)
and a 1.65 acre parcel (Parcel 2) with airspace condominiums for commercial condominium
purposes on Parcel 2. This particular proposal does include as part of the entitlements, several
Variance requests. The resulting lot sizes are in compliance with minimum lot sizes in the
Commercial General/Mixed-Use Overlay District and the action of the subdivision does not
create a situation where development would be impossible without benefit of a Variance. The
City Engineer has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map and found it to be in conformance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the requirements of RHEMC Chapter 16.16 Minor Land Subdivisions.
Staff is able to make the findings for the Minor Subdivision, as stated below:
That the granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare,
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the land is
ME,
located, will not be contrary to or adversely affect the general comprehensive zoning plan
for the city;
This finding has been met because the proposed 2 -Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398
meets all applicable lot size and configuration requirements in the Commercial General/Mixed-
Use Overlay District.
2. That proper and adequate provisions have been made for access to the land to be
divided and also to the portion of the land remaining, or that access to the land is by
means of dedicated streets of a sufficient width and state of improvement to serve
adequately the land described in the application in a safe manner;
This finding has been met because the proposed 2 -Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398
contains land that has access by means of dedicated streets and will continue to provide
access to said land by means of dedicated streets.
3. That proper and adequate provisions have been made for all public utilities and public
services including, but not limited to, sewers, fire flow, etc.;
This finding has been met because adequate provisions have been made for public utilities
and public services; the proposed development will obtain will -serve letters from all public
utilities and pay appropriate connection fees.
4. That such land described in the permit will not be divided or sold off in portions having an
area less than that required by the zone in which it is located or less than the average of
the area of single parcels of land in the surrounding vicinity;
This finding has been met because the proposed 2 -Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 will
subdivide the existing 3.13 -acre site into two parcels— 1.48 -acre (Parcel 1) and 1.65 -acre
(Parcel 2), consistent with the 1 -acre minimum site size in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use
Overlay District.
5. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement
and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriately improved public roads, sanitary
disposal facilities, environmental protection, and other requirements of the Map Act or
laws enacted pursuant thereto;
This finding has been met because the proposed project was reviewed in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), an
Initial Study was prepared by Michael Baker International, to identify any potentially significant
impacts associated with the proposed project and incorporate mitigation measures into the
project as necessary, to eliminate the potentially significant effects of the project or to reduce
the effects to a level of insignificance. Based on the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed
project, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), in conformance with
Section 15080(b) of the State CEQA guidelines.
6. That no variances from existing development standards as specified in the city zoning
ordinance (Title 17 of this code), will be necessary for development of any lot created by
the proposed minor land subdivision;
This finding has been met because the resulting lots will be consistent with lot sizes required
in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use District and no Variances would be required to develop
either of the lots, due to irregular size, shape or topography;.
M,
7. That all lots resulting from a division shall be of a size and configuration sufficient to
permit all uses allowable under the existing zoning. Private streets or easements for
street purposes shall not be included in making such calculation;
This finding has been met because the resulting lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 1 -
acre in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use Overlay District.
8. That the slopes on minimum yard areas required by applicable zoning for each lot shall
not exceed a ratio of four to one (a one foot rise in elevation for every four feet of
corresponding horizontal distance).
This finding has been met because the resulting lot configurations will not contain sloped
areas in minimum yard areas required by the Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
that exceed a ratio of four to one.
Precise Plan of Design
Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) is required under RHEMC Section 17.58.020 prior
to the issuance of a building permit for exterior fagade improvements and the corresponding
exterior improvements. The purpose of the Precise Plan of Design is to ensure that the
proposed site improvements on commercially -zoned properties do not result in any detrimental
impacts to the surrounding community and to protect the public peace, health, safety, and
welfare.
Parcel 1 will be developed with a +/-135,000 SF RCFE, fronting Silver Spur Road, where there
exists a diverse range of architectural styles. The proposed RCFE will utilize a contemporary
style, drawing on residential craftsman detailing; depth and dimension to the fagade are
achieved through the utilization of balconies, patios, varied setbacks, modulated roofline, and a
substantial stone base. High quality, textural materials, such as stacked stone, stucco and fiber
cement shingles, and decorative lighting, add detail and richness to the building, and reduce the
perceived scale of the building. More than 17,000 SF of landscaped courtyards will be provided
at the rear of the project. The dedicated Memory Care courtyard will contain landscaping,
outdoor seating, a water feature, a rain garden and a dog play area. The Main Courtyard will
feature landscaping, raised garden beds, outdoor seating with a fire table, barbeques for
outdoor cooking, dining tables and chairs, rain garden, a water feature, and a private dining
area.
Due to the significant grade changes between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, there will be a series of
retaining walls at the rear of Parcel 1; along the Memory Care Courtyard, the retaining walls will
be approximately 12' high, while along the Main Courtyard, the retaining walls will be
approximately 15' high. Evergreen screening trees and significant landscaping will soften the
appearance of the walls, and help them blend into the landscaped areas. Surrounding the
project site will be additional landscaping along Drybank Drive and Silver Spur Road, including
rain gardens and decorative trees.
Site signage will include building -mounted signs along Silver Spur Road and Dry Bank Drive,
and a monument sign along Silver Spur Road, adjacent to the project entry. The combination of
building -mounted and monument signage along Silver Spur Road will facilitate both a vehicular
as well as a pedestrian scale presence for the project.
Parcel 2 will retain both Buildings B & C; the new two-level, partially subterranean parking
structure will be constructed to serve both the Peninsula Center Library, as well as the
remaining commercial tenant spaces in Buildings B & C. The 169 -space parking structure will
combine cool -colored concrete with brick accents, to blend with the existing commercial
development. As the site contains a descending slope from the eastern to western side, the
relocated access driveway at the easternmost corner of the structure will be at grade with the
main library entrance, on the top deck of the structure. All five ADA -compliant spaces will
located at this level, and serve as the most appropriate level of parking for library visitors
utilizing the structure; 26 spaces will be exclusively dedicated for Library use. The new,
westernmost access to Parcel 2 will provide the most appropriate level of parking for the
commercial uses in Buildings B & C, as the basement level of the structure will be at grade with
these buildings, as well as the additional 26 surface stall parking spaces that will be retained.
Egress from the lower portion of parking structure may be accomplished via Deep Valley Drive
or Dry Bank Drive. There are an additional 26 parking stalls in the basement of Building B.
Staff is concerned about the lack of an elevator between levels of the parking structure; as this
structure is intended to serve both the library, as well as the commercial services, and the +/-
3,800 SF space leased by the Peninsula Seniors. An elevator would provide connectivity
without having to utilize the stairs or leave the site to walk to/from the respective Village and
Library sites. While there is more than sufficient parking to serve all of the intended uses, as
well as adequate ADA -compliant spaces in both the upper level of the parking deck, and the
surface stalls, there are people that will have difficulties negotiating stairs that may not have
ADA placards and thus unable to utilize those spaces. The addition of an elevator to the
structure would be a significant cost for the applicant and there would most likely be several
parking stalls that would be lost; therefore, staff is seeking direction from the Planning
Commission as to whether they view an elevator as being a necessary addition to the structure
or if they view the sites as being adequately served with connectivity between the levels
exclusively via the stairs.
Existing landscaping will be enhanced along Deep Valley Drive, and new landscaping added
adjacent to the parking structure, and Building B, resulting in only 12% landscaping coverage,
where 20% is required. This will be further discussed in the Variance section for Parcel 2.
RHEMC Chapter 17.58 indicates that the purpose of a PPD is to ensure that the following are
designed and/or arranged so that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular safety
and welfare are provided, and no adverse effect on surrounding property will result:
1. Buildings, structures, and improvements;
2. Vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation;
3. Setbacks;
4. Height of buildings;
5. Location of services;
6. Walls and fences;
7. Landscaping;
8. Lighting; and
9. Signing.
The redevelopment of Parcel 1 will balance the complexity and interest of a residential
craftsman project with the programming requirements for assisted living to enhance the
character of the neighborhood and provide much needed housing and services for seniors in
Rolling Hills Estates. The redevelopment of Parcel 2 will provide a solution to the dissolution of
the existing 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and the execution
of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The Village and The Palos Verdes Library
District, in that it will provide more than sufficient parking for both the intended uses in Buildings
B & C, and the adjacent Peninsula Center Library. The project meets all of the above criteria
and therefore, staff is able to support the PPD as proposed.
D-7
Grading
A total of approximately 23,770 cubic yards of grading is proposed to accommodate the
proposed project. The proposed grading activity involves cut and export of earth material,
whereby approximately 15,500 cubic yards of grading would conducted on Parcel 1 to
accommodate the RCFE and approximately 8,220 cubic yards would be conducted on Parcel 2
to accommodate the new parking structure. The grading activities would be governed by
RHEMC Section 17.07.080 and all applicable standards set out in the Building Code.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Fehr & Peers prepared, Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill Gardens at Rolling Hills
Estates, to identify and evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project on the
surrounding street system. Upon coordination with City staff, and direction given by the City
Council, eight study intersections were identified for evaluation during the weekday morning and
afternoon peak hours. The eight study intersections included:
• Hawthorne Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North
• Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North
• Hawthorne Boulevard/Silver Spur Road
• Silver Arrow Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Norris Center Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Beachgate Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Crenshaw Boulevard/Silver Spur Road
All of the study intersections are signal -controlled. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill
Gardens at Rolling Hills Estates states that based on application of the City's threshold criteria
to the "Existing Plus Project Impact Analysis" scenario, it was determined that the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts at any of the eight study intersections. Because
there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for
the study intersections under the "Cumulative plus Project" conditions.
Based on existing trip generation rates for the 46,075 SF of commercial and retail use, and the
trip generation rates for the proposed assisted living use, the proposed project is expected to
result in a net increase of 32 vehicle trips (29 additional inbound trips and three additional
outbound trips) during the AM peak hour, when compared with the existing site use trip
generation, and a net decrease of 24 vehicle trips (12 inbound trips and 12 fewer outbound
trips) during the PM peak hour, when compared to the existing uses. This incremental increase
in the morning peak hour is due to the nature of the existing service commercial uses, which
typically would open for operation later in the morning, e.g. 9-10 AM. The average daily traffic
on Silver Spur Road, based on 2013 counts, over a 24-hour period is +/-15,000 vehicles/day;
the addition of 32 additional vehicle trips in the morning peak hour is not considered to be
significant. Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to result in a net decrease of
740 daily trips.
Staff was concerned about signal timing at the intersection of Silver Spur Road and Dry Bank
Drive, as it is anticipated that residents of the new facility will utilize this crossing to visit the
Promenade shopping center. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill Gardens at Rolling
Hills Estates analyzed existing pedestrian signal timing and compared it with the established
Fa-lorel
pedestrian signal timing in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
which allows a speed of 2.8 feet per second for locations routinely used by older or disabled
pedestrians. Using a walking speed of 2.8 feet per second, Drybank Drive could be crossed in
21.4 seconds and Silver Spur Road could be crossed in 32.1 seconds; the current signal timing
allows pedestrians 19 seconds to cross Drybank Drive and 23 seconds to cross Silver Spur
Road. Based on these calculations, the existing signal timing plans do not provide adequate
time for disabled or elderly persons to cross Drybank Drive or Silver Spur Road. Therefore, staff
has added a condition of approval that the applicant work with the City Engineer to revise signal
timing at this intersection to allow adequate time for crossing both intersections, in accordance
with California MUTCD speed for older or disabled persons.
Entitlements Specific to Parcel 1
Conditional Use Permit
RCFE use is conditionally permitted with the C-G/Mixed-Use Overlay District, with specific
development standards outlined in RHEMC Section 17.37.040. The development standards
include provisions for spacing, open space, parking, and minimum room size requirements.
The proposed project meets the spacing requirements, as there are no RCFE facilities within
1,500 FT of the proposed project site.
The open space requirements are 200 SF per licensed bed, resulting in a total requirement of
25,000 SF for the proposed project, which may be provided as private patios/balconies or
common areas, and where up to 50% of this requirement may be provided as indoor common
recreational and social area (12,500 SF). The proposed project will exceed the minimum
requirements by 13,384 SF; this will be accomplished by providing 17,103 SF of outdoor open
space, 12,500 SF of countable common open space indoors (a total of 18,397 SF is being
provided but only a portion may be counted toward the requirement), and 8,781 SF of private
patios and balconies.
RCFE use requires one parking space per two licensed beds, plus one space per two
employees on the largest shift, resulting in a total parking requirement of 63 parking stalls for
the proposed project. A total of 63 parking stalls will be provided on-site, including 60 standard
parking stalls, and three accessible spaces (ADA -compliant). Based on information from the
applicant, and the experience of other assisted living/memory care operators, the majority of the
residents do not own/operate personal vehicles. It is anticipated that only 10-15% of the
residents are anticipated to own/park vehicles on-site. At the time of adoption of the
development standards for RCFE uses in 2014, staff, in conjunction with consultants and
direction from the City Council, did substantial research to develop the existing standards as
being in line with industry standards. The parking standards that were ultimately adopted into
the RHEMC are conservative, in comparison to surrounding jurisdictions. For example, the City
of Torrance requires one space/three beds, which would result in a parking requirement of 42
parking spaces for this project; the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires one space/four beds,
which would result in a parking requirement of 32 spaces for this project.
Per RHEMC Section 17.37.040.M.4, a parking management plan is required, that demonstrates
how peak period demand (holidays) will be accommodated, as well as a plan for shuttle
transportation to local shopping services. Merrill Gardens provided a summary of transportation
arrangements as part of their operating plan as well as further refinement in their memo dated
January 25, 2016 (Separate Attachment 2). Merrill Gardens will provide a community shuttle
bus, which will be parked on-site, for scheduled transportation to doctor appointments, shopping
trips, banks, post office, and various recreational activities. Alternatively, residents may
coordinate with Merrill Gardens staff to arrange transportation reservations for demand -based
FFa-Wo
services, such as Cityride, Access Paratransit, City Cab Taxi Service, private companion/escort
service and private limousine (town car), as well as emergency transportation services. During
high traffic days such as holiday, Merrill Gardens intends to employ strategies such as
employee carpooling/public transportation, valet parking onsite or off-site, arrangement for
staff/visitor parking with neighboring parking garages, and the arrangement for additional
staff/visitor parking at another off-site location with 5 minutes shuttle time. Staff has added a
condition of approval to expand the parking management plan to be consistent with
recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Council, on a recently approved
assisted living project, which includes provisions for "Visitor Only" stalls; a maximum number of
parking stalls available for resident use and a corresponding procedure for implementation of a
waiting list to be provided, should the maximum number of resident vehicles be reached; and
the periodic review of the parking management plan, to reduce or avoid parking -related impacts
from the project.
State law does not define minimum room size for RCFE use; as a result, jurisdictions have
varying room size limitations, if at all, for assisted living units and memory care units. During the
development of the standards adopted in the RHEMC in 2014, staff focused their research on
the correlation between room size and parking requirements. RHEMC Section 17.37.040.M.2.b
requires a minimum room size of 400 SF per licensed bed for assisted living rooms, and 300 SF
per licensed bed for memory care facilities. The proposed project exceeds the minimum room
size per licensed bed for both assisted living and memory care rooms, with room sizes ranging
between 390 SF -1000 SF.
According to the City of Rolling Hills Estates Housing Element 2013-2021, the City's population
is significantly older than Los Angeles County as a whole, and over the next 40 years the City's
senior population is projected to grow by 174% compared to just 30% for the County's total
population. The provision of the RCFE facility in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, contributes to a
continuum of care, allowing people to age in place, in their home community or near family that
lives in this community, when they are no longer able to age in place in their own home.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of three Variances for 52.56 % lot coverage, where 45% is
allowed, building projections of 54' in height, where 44' is the maximum allowable building
height, and nonconforming aisle width and stall dimension in the parking structure.
The proposed RCFE has a building footprint 52.56%, which has been reduced slightly since the
original submittal, to accommodate Fire Department access requirements. The existing property
is currently developed as The Village shopping center, and therefore encumbered by the
original 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Peninsula Center Library and the City of Rolling Hills Estates; following the
recordation of the Tentative Parcel Map, the site will be released from this agreement and it will
be dissolved. However, the new agreement between The Village and the Palos Verdes Library
District necessitate the construction of a parking structure on the resulting Village parcel to
provide the required parking under the original agreement. Therefore, the proposed parcel
configuration is the only feasible configuration that would support both the assisted living use on
Parcel 1 and the retention of commercial uses and related parking for both the Village and the
Peninsula Library on Parcel 2. Reduction of the building footprint would result in inadequate
parking, reduced outdoor space, or reduced unit count, while increasing the lot area of Parcel 1
would result in reduced commercial square footage and or required parking for the commercial
uses on Parcel 2 and adjacent library use.
The topography of the site has a 27' fall from the south property line to the north along Silver
Spur Road. The removal of the 8' high retaining wall along Silver Spur Road to allow for an at -
D -10
grade resident loading zone to access the building, exposes a portion of the basement level as
four stories and up to 56' in height to the highest architectural projection. There are 12' and 10'
floor to floor heights but approximately 1' must be subtracted from these numbers for the depth
of the structure. Furthermore, a 12' floor to floor height is the minimum necessary to allow for
the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure to run above finished ceilings on levels
containing resident amenity spaces to maintain 9' ceiling heights for the comfort of residents in
central gathering spaces. The unit ceilings are 9' clear, which is a standard ceiling height which
allows smaller units to feel larger. The overall height of the building perceived from the Silver
Spur Road elevation is a conforming 44', meaning finished grade to top of the fascia trim. The
perceived height from the south elevation is only 32' as Parking Level is below grade.
Stall dimensions are required to be 9' by 20', with 25' wide aisles for 90 degree parking
configurations. The RHEMC parking section has not been updated to adjust for current industry
standards, and there are no provisions in the Code for compact stalls. The proposed stall
dimensions are 9' by +/-19'-10", with aisle widths of approximately 23'. The proposed reductions
in the parking stall dimensions and reduced aisle widths are necessary to reduce shade and
massing impacts to the assisted living outdoor courtyard, and address lot coverage issues
related to the resulting lot configuration and necessity to provide a parking structure on Parcel 2
to fulfill the terms of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between the Village and The
Palos Verdes Library District..
Staff is able to make the findings for the Variances, as stated below:
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to is intend use, which do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zoning district and neighborhood.
This finding has been met for the Variances because the subject property contains a significant
descending slope toward Silver Spur Road, resulting exposure of a portion of the basement
level as four stories and up to 56' in height to the highest architectural projection. The overall
perceived building height from Silver Spur Road is a Code -complying 44' and 32' from the
southern elevation; the projections are necessary to accommodate mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing infrastructure. The proposed lot is currently configured to maintain existing commercial
space on Parcel 2, while providing required parking for commercial uses and the adjacent
library, per an amended agreement; there is no other location on the resulting site that could
support an expanded parking structure to meet the Code compliant aisle width and stall
dimensions, nor is there opportunity to provide a smaller footprint that would have the ability to
provide the Code -required number of parking spaces for the intended use. This property is
unique in that it must fulfill these requirements on adjacent Parcel 2, in order to be released
from the original 1978 Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The Village, the
Palos Verdes Library District and the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
2. That such Variances are 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 and neighborhood.
This finding has been met for the Variances because the size, shape and topography of the site
present significant challenges in providing the required parking, lot coverage, and building
height, while meeting the conditions of the new agreement between The Village and the
Peninsula Center Library for provision of parking on Parcel 2. Adjacent sites are relatively flat
and are not encumbered by reciprocal easement agreements that require provision of +- 200
parking spaces. If the building footprint were to be expanded to allow for additional dimension in
the parking structure, the nonconformity of lot coverage would be increased, as well as
potentially the building height nonconformity. The granting of the Variances for building height
D-11
projections, lot coverage, and provision of structured parking that contains nonconforming stall
and aisle width dimensions is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right,
possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.
3. That the granting of these Variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
This finding has been met for the Variances because the proposed improvements would meet
PPD criteria, provide the required parking for the intended use, and the proposed improvements
would require all necessary Building and Safety permits to be constructed, thereby not being
detrimental to the public welfare and neighborhood.
4. That the granting of such Variances will not be contrary to the objectives of the General
Plan.
This finding has been met for the Variance because Goal 2 of the Housing Element of the
General Plan states that the City shall promote new housing opportunities to meet the needs of
existing and future residents while preserving the City's rural character. The City's population is
significantly older than Los Angeles County as a whole, and over the next 40 years the City's
senior population is projected to grow by 174% compared to just 30% for the County's total
population. The City has little vacant land for development, and by developing the assisted living
facility, while preserving commercial development and providing parking to the adjacent library,
the project will meet the needs of existing and future residents, the existing rural character will
be further preserved, while providing a significant benefit to the community.
5. That the granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of the property.
This finding has been met because a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly is a conditionally
permitted use in the C -G zoning/Mixed-Use Overlay district and the granting of the Variances
would result in providing the Code -complying number of parking stalls (63) for the intended use,
while fulfilling parking requirements of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
Entitlements Specific to Parcel 2
Subdivision
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 includes airspace rights for commercial
condominium purposes on Parcel 2. The recordation of airspace rights for commercial
condominiums will give the tenants of the commercial spaces the ability to purchase their space,
giving the property owner greater flexibility in attracting long-term business owners.
Master Conditional Use Permit for Medical Office Use
The applicant is requesting a Master Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for medical office use in
Building B, in order to enhance opportunities to respond to the marketplace. Yummy Yogurt
occupies approximately 1,035 SF of retail space at the lower level of Building B, facing Drybank
Drive. The remaining 10,523 SF of commercial space on the upper level of Building B, facing
Deep Valley Drive, will be partially allocated to the Peninsula Seniors, who have executed a
lease, with the intention of eventually purchasing, a 3,813 SF space. The applicants are
requesting a MCUP for medical office for the remaining +/-7,745 SF of Building B.
D-12
The Peninsula Seniors have provided a floor plan for the 3,813 SF space for which they've
signed a lease in Building B (Attachment 1 — Sheet SP -A-1); the functional layout provides for
two exercise rooms, a conference room, offices and small library area. The layout does not fit
into what would traditionally be viewed as assembly use (church, concert hall, etc.), but
functions more closely to an office type use, with the exception of the two exercise rooms. Staff
has determined therefore, that the most appropriate parking ratio to apply in this case would be
the same the ratio that the RHE Code applies for medical office (1/200 SF), which is slightly
more restrictive than commercial office or retail, yet less restrictive than assembly use. When
applying a ratio of 1/200 for Building B and 1/300 for commercial office use in Building C, the
total parking requirement for Parcel 2 results in the provision of 90 spaces. The proposed
redevelopment of Parcel 2 results in the provision of a total of 221 spaces (26 spaces in the
basement level of Building B, 26 surface parking stalls, and 169 spaces in the parking
structure), providing more than sufficient parking for existing and proposed uses.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of four Variances for provision of landscaping at 12%,
where 20% is required; nonconforming parking stall and aisle width dimensions in the parking
structure; existing setback of Building C of 3' and the new parking structure setback of 3.5'
where at least 5' is required; and parking structure lot coverage of 35%, where 25% is maximum
allowed..
The construction of a 169 -stall parking deck would provide continued reciprocal/shared parking
with the Palos Verdes Library District to serve the Peninsula Center Library (via the new
Reciprocal Easement Agreement). The topography of The Village site features a substantial
grade change from the south to the north. The site topography creates challenges for
reparcelization and redevelopment of the property in a manner that meets development
standards. The parcel configuration as proposed is the only configuration that feasibly supports
both the assisted living use and the commercial uses in the two remaining buildings on The
Village parcel (21,075 sf of gross leasable area in Buildings B and C). If more land were to be
allocated to The Village parcel in order to meet the parking structure 25% lot coverage standard,
the area of the assisted living parcel would be reduced, resulting in constraints that would make
the assisted living facility infeasible.
Additional landscaping area will be added adjacent to Building B and adjacent to the parking
structure and the rear lot line of Parcel 1. Enhanced landscaping will also be required along
Deep Valley Drive, adjacent to the parking structure and Building C.
Staff is able to make the findings for the Variances, as stated below:
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to is intend use, which do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zoning district and neighborhood.
This finding has been met for the Variances because the subject property topography creates
challenges for reparcelization and redevelopment of the property in a manner that meets
development standards. The parcel configuration as proposed is the only configuration that
feasibly supports both the assisted living use and the commercial uses in the two remaining
buildings on The Village parcel (21,075 SF of gross leasable area in Buildings B and C). If more
land were to be allocated to The Village parcel in order to meet the parking structure 25% lot
coverage standard, that would reduce the area of the assisted living parcel resulting in
constraints that would make the assisted living facility infeasible.
D-13
2. That such Variances are 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 and neighborhood.
This finding has been met for the Variances because parking structures are an allowable use in
the CG/MU zone. Granting of the variances will allow the applicant to construct a parking
structure on proposed Parcel 2 that will provide satisfactory parking for onsite commercial uses
and also serve parking needs of the Peninsula Center Library via a new Reciprocal Easement
Agreement between The Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
3. That the granting of these Variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
This finding has been met for the Variances because Building C is existing and as no changes
are proposed to this building, it will continue to function cohesively with the redevelopment of
the site. The proposed parking structure is in scale with adjacent development (one above
ground level); the design will be attractive and will incorporate appropriate landscaping. The
parking structure will provide a public benefit because in addition to providing parking for The
Village commercial uses, this parking facility will serve parking needs of the Peninsula Center
Library via a modified reciprocal easement/shared parking arrangement.
4. That the granting of such Variances will not be contrary to the objectives of the General
Plan.
This finding has been met because the proposed uses for the overall project (21,075 SF of
commercial use and a new parking structure) are in accordance with the Master Plan Land Use
Policy for Planning Area 6, the C -G zone and the Mixed -Use Development Overlay.
5. That the granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of the
property.
This finding has been met because the use and activities of the proposed project and the
associated parking structure are provided for in the zoning regulations governing the CG/MU
zone.
CONCLUSION
Staff has worked closely with the applicant to address the requirements of the Municipal Code,
including the Variance requests. Additionally, staff has worked closely with the Palos Verdes
Library District and The Village ownership for more than a year, during the discussions to
dissolve the 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates (which allows
reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking rights on/over each owner's property, as well as a
landscape and access easement on Parcel 1), releasing Parcel 1 (Merrill Gardens) and the City
of RHE from the agreement, and execute a new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
As summarized in the staff report, staff is able to support the series of entitlements required to
allow a two -lot subdivision, for the new construction of a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for
the Elderly (RCFE) on one lot, the new construction of a two-level parking structure on the
second lot, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the project, with
mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment.
D-14
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Open the Public Hearing;
2. Take public testimony;
3. Discuss the issues;
4. Close the Public Hearing; and
5. Adopt Resolution No. PA -05-16, recommending approval to the City Council.
EXHIBITS
Attached
1. Resolution No. PA -18-15
Separate
1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
2. Plans
3. Merrill Gardens Operating and Parking Management Plans
D-15
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. PA -05-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ESTATES, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO.72398—A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON
PARCEL 2, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, VARIANCES,
AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A 114 -
UNIT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE) ON ONE LOT, AND A NEW
2 -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE ON PARCEL 2. APPLICANT: TONI REINA ON BEHALF OF
CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; LOCATION: 601 SILVER SPUR ROAD
AND 600 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE (APNS 7589-002-010, -011, -012)
WHEREAS, Ms. Toni Reina, on behalf of Continental Development Corporation, filed an
application with the Planning Department requesting permission for a Tentative Parcel Map No.
72398—a 2 -lot subdivision, for the purposes of the new construction of a 114 -unit Residential
Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on Parcel 1 and the new construction of a two-level parking
structure on Parcel 2; such an application as required by Chapters 16.16, 17.30, 17.37, 17.58,
17.66, and 17.68 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.30.020(D)(30) of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code requires
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) to
locate within the C -G Zone and for medical office use within the C -G Zone; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared by the City in conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It was found that the project
would not have a significant impact on the environment with proper mitigation. As such, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 65033 of the Government Code, the public,
abutting cities, affected agencies and districts were notified of the availability of the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and were given an opportunity to review and comment; and
WHEREAS, upon giving the required notice the Planning Commission conducted a Public
Hearing on the 1st day of August, 2016. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, as a result of studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission
and on its behalf, including the facts as set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and those discussed during the public hearing, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
That the granting of this application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to property and improvements in the Zoning District and neighborhood in which
D-16
the property is located because the proposed improvements will be regulated via a
Conditional Use Permit (Section 17.30.020.D.30) of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal
Code) and a Precise Plan of Design (Section 17.37.020.C), to mitigate project impacts.
That the granting of this application will not be contrary to the objectives of the General
Plan because the development is consistent with the General Plan's Goals and Policies
and the Mixed -Use overlay zone.
That the granting of this application will not constitute the granting of a use variance within
the meaning of the California State Government Code, Section 65906 because a
Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) project is a use conditionally permitted by
Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code Chapters 17.30 and 17.37.
Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings
Based upon its consideration of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and
all public testimony, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence
that the project as described herein will have a significant effect on the environment
subject to the incorporation of mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Subdivision Findings
WHEREAS, as a result of studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and
on its behalf, hereby finds:
That the granting of the permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare,
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the land is
located, will not be contrary to or adversely affect the general comprehensive zoning plan
for the city because the proposed 2 -Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 meets all
applicable lot size and configuration requirements in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use
Overlay District;
That proper and adequate provisions have been made for access to the land to be
divided and also to the portion of the land remaining, or that access to the land is by
means of dedicated streets of a sufficient width and state of improvement to serve
adequately the land described in the application in a safe manner because the proposed
2 -Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 contains land that has access by means of
dedicated streets and will continue to provide access to said land by means of dedicated
streets;
That proper and adequate provisions have been made for all public utilities and public
services including, but not limited to, sewers, fire flow, etc. because adequate provisions
have been made for public utilities and public services; the proposed development will
obtain will -serve letters from all public utilities and pay appropriate connection fees;
That such land described in the permit will not be divided or sold off in portions having
an area less than that required by the zone in which it is located or less than the average
of the area of single parcels of land in the surrounding vicinity because the proposed 2 -
Lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 will subdivide the existing 3.13 -acre site into two
D-17
parcels— 1.48 -acre (Parcel 1) and 1.65 -acre (Parcel 2), consistent with the 1 -acre
minimum site size in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use Overlay District;
That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement
and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriately improved public roads, sanitary
disposal facilities, environmental protection, and other requirements of the Map Act or
laws enacted pursuant thereto because the proposed project was reviewed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §
21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), an Initial Study was prepared by Michael Baker International, to
identify any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project and
incorporate mitigation measures into the project as necessary, to eliminate the potentially
significant effects of the project or to reduce the effects to a level of insignificance. Based
on the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project, the City has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), in conformance with Section 15080(b) of the State
CEQA guidelines;
That no variances from existing development standards as specified in the city zoning
ordinance (Title 17 of this code), will be necessary for development of any lot created by
the proposed minor land subdivision because the resulting lots will be consistent with lot
sizes required in the Commercial General and no Variances would be required to
develop either of the lots, due to irregular size, shape or topography;
That all lots resulting from a division shall be of a size and configuration sufficient to
permit all uses allowable under the existing zoning. Private streets or easements for
street purposes shall not be included in making such calculation because the resulting
lots will exceed the minimum lot size of 1 -acre in the Commercial General/Mixed-Use
Overlay District;
That the slopes on minimum yard areas required by applicable zoning for each lot shall
not exceed a ratio of four to one (a one foot rise in elevation for every four feet of
corresponding horizontal distance) because the resulting lot configurations will not
contain sloped areas in minimum yard areas required by the Commercial General/Mixed
Use Overlay District that exceed a ratio of four to one.
Variance Findings
Parcel 1
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to its intended use which do not apply generally to other property in
the same zoning district and neighborhood because the subject property contains a
significant descending slope toward Silver Spur Road, resulting exposure of a portion of
the basement level as four stories and up to 56' in height to the highest architectural
projection. The overall perceived building height from Silver Spur Road is a Code -
complying 44' and 32' from the southern elevation; the projections are necessary to
accommodate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure. The proposed lot is
currently configured to maintain existing commercial space on Parcel 2, while providing
required parking for commercial uses and the adjacent library, per an amended
agreement; there is no other location on the resulting site that could support an expanded
parking structure to meet the Code compliant aisle width and stall dimensions, nor is there
opportunity to provide a smaller footprint that would have the ability to provide the Code -
required number of parking spaces for the intended use. This property is unique in that it
must fulfill these requirements on adjacent Parcel 2, in order to be released from the
original 1978 Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The Village, the
Palos Verdes Library District and the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
That such Variance is 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 and neighborhood because the size, shape and
topography of the site present significant challenges in providing the required parking, lot
coverage, and building height, while meeting the conditions of the new agreement
between The Village and the Peninsula Center Library for provision of parking on Parcel
2. Adjacent sites are relatively flat and are not encumbered by reciprocal easement
agreements that require provision of +- 200 parking spaces. If the building footprint were
to be expanded to allow for additional dimension in the parking structure, the
nonconformity of lot coverage would be increased, as well as potentially the building height
nonconformity. The granting of the Variances for building height projections, lot coverage,
and provision of structured parking that contains nonconforming stall and aisle width
dimensions is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right, possessed by
other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.
That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which
the property is located because the proposed improvements would meet PPD criteria,
provide the required parking for the intended use, and the proposed improvements would
require all necessary Building and Safety permits to be constructed, thereby not being
detrimental to the public welfare and neighborhood.
That the granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan
because Goal 2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan states that the City shall
promote new housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future residents
while preserving the City's rural character. The City's population is significantly older than
Los Angeles County as a whole, and over the next 40 years the City's senior population
is projected to grow by 174% compared to just 30% for the County's total population. The
City has little vacant land for development, and by developing the assisted living facility,
while preserving commercial development and providing parking to the adjacent library,
the project will meet the needs of existing and future residents, the existing rural character
will be further preserved, while providing a significant benefit to the community.
That the granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of the property
because a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly is a conditionally permitted use in the
C -G zoning/Mixed-Use Overlay district and the granting of the Variances would result in
providing the Code -complying number of parking stalls (63) for the intended use, while
fulfilling parking requirements of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
Parcel 2
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to its intended use which do not apply generally to other property in
D-19
the same zoning district and neighborhood because the subject property topography
creates challenges for reparcelization and redevelopment of the property in a manner that
meets development standards. The parcel configuration as proposed is the only
configuration that feasibly supports both the assisted living use and the commercial uses
in the two remaining buildings on The Village parcel (21,075 SF of gross leasable area in
Buildings B and C). If more land were to be allocated to The Village parcel in order to meet
the parking structure 25% lot coverage standard, that would reduce the area of the
assisted living parcel resulting in constraints that would make the assisted living facility
infeasible.
That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which
the property is located because parking structures are an allowable use in the CG/MU
zone. Granting of the variances will allow the applicant to construct a parking structure on
proposed Parcel 2 that will provide satisfactory parking for onsite commercial uses and
also serve parking needs of the Peninsula Center Library via a new Reciprocal Easement
Agreement between The Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which
the property is located because Building C is existing and as no changes are proposed to
this building, it will continue to function cohesively with the redevelopment of the site. The
proposed parking structure is in scale with adjacent development (one above ground
level); the design will be attractive and will incorporate appropriate landscaping. The
parking structure will provide a public benefit because in addition to providing parking for
The Village commercial uses, this parking facility will serve parking needs of the Peninsula
Center Library via a modified reciprocal easement/shared parking arrangement.
That the granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan
because the proposed uses for the overall project (21,075 SF of commercial use and a
new parking structure) are in accordance with the Master Plan Land Use Policy for
Planning Area 6, the C -G zone and the Mixed -Use Development Overlay.
That the granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of the property
because the use and activities of the proposed project and the associated parking
structure are provided for in the zoning regulations governing the CG/MU zone.
WHEREAS, final Parcel Maps require approval of the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates does
hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. That the foregoing facts constitute conditions necessary to recommend
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398—a 2 -lot subdivision, for the purposes of the new
construction of a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on Parcel 1 and the
new construction of a two-level parking structure on Parcel 2; such an application as required by
Chapters 16.16, 17.30, 17.37, 17.58, 17.66, and 17.68 of the Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code,
and that said Permits be granted subject to the following conditions which are recommended by
the Planning Commission, which must be met at all times by the applicant, unless otherwise
D-20
stated, in order to enjoy the use of the subject property for any and all uses permitted by the
granting of the subject permits.
General Conditions
That all improvements hereafter constructed or installed on land which is the subject of
this approval shall be located substantially as shown on Exhibit A and constructed of
materials indicated on the materials and color board, and/or as required under the
Municipal Code and/or as required in these conditions.
2. The conditional use permits are being granted for a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for
the Elderly (RCFE) on Parcel 1 and 7,745 SF of medical office use in Building B on Parcel
2. The RCFE project requires 63 parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 employees on
the greatest shift. Any minor changes in the operational characteristics, including e.g., a
change in occupancy configuration that does not increase the total number of licensed
beds, may be approved by the Planning Director, while major modifications will require
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
3. That all applicable requirements of the State, County, City, and other governmental
entities shall be met, and that prior to commencing any work and prior to applying for a
building or grading permit, a zone clearance shall be obtained from the Planning
Department.
4. That any substantial modification including, but not limited to, exterior building elevations,
site plan design, and landscaping, shall receive prior approval of the Planning
Commission; minor modifications may be approved by the Planning Director.
5. That in the event of one or more violations of these conditions, the City Manager shall
have enforcement capability to remedy such violations and/or revoke said approvals.
6. That the applicant shall submit plans for approval by the City Manager for all improvements
required herein.
7. That, unless the use is inaugurated or construction of the project is commenced and being
diligently pursued not later than one year after the date that all required approvals are
granted by the City Council, and subject to extension for any legal challenges to the
approvals initiated by third parties, the approvals will automatically expire on that date.
However, if there have been no changes in the proposed plans or adjacent areas, the
Planning Commission may grant a time extension for use inauguration up to an additional
one year period.
8. The applicant shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify at his own expense the City, its
agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding, to attack, set aside,
void or annul the approval granted in this resolution and shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers and employees for any damages, court costs and attorney's fees incurred
as a result of such action. The City at its sole discretion may participate in the defense of
any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under
this condition.
Planning
D-21
9. The applicant shall submit a more detailed parking management plan to include, but not
limited to: expanded provisions for off-site parking arrangements, determine appropriate
parking stalls to be designated as "Visitor Only". The parking management plan shall
include a maximum number of parking stalls available for resident use; a corresponding
procedure for implementation of a waiting list shall be provided, should the maximum
number of resident vehicles be reached. The parking management plan shall be subject
to approval by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permit. The Planning
Department will conduct periodic reviews of the parking management plan, and may
require revisions to the plan to reduce or avoid parking -related impacts from the project.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide a final landscape
plan that illustrates compliance with RHEMC Chapter 17.59 Water Efficient Landscapes.
The landscape plan shall be subject to third party review and approval, and an installation
inspection shall be conducted to ensure the landscaping areas have been installed
according to plan, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
11. A maintenance plan for on-site litter control shall be submitted by the applicant and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The litter
control maintenance plan shall include provision for on-going maintenance required by the
project use. The maintenance plan shall include the following standards: the entire
development area shall be maintained in a neat, safe, and healthful condition. The
applicant shall prepare an agreement to implement a weekly litter cleanup plan for all open
areas, planters, and public sidewalks adjacent to site. This plan shall include the
coordination of disposal of waste and recycling in receptacles to be located in common
open space areas. All waste materials generated by the development, such as cardboard,
skids, garbage, litter, etc., must be stored in private receptacles for disposal. No waste
material shall be visible at any time. All common area receptacles shall be kept clean and
free of odors at all times.
12. A detailed site lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director, and shall meet City standards. Site lighting shall be directed downward to protect
adjacent residential neighborhoods from glare, yet provide safety for residents utilizing
common walkways and open space areas.
13. The applicant shall propose a complementary color palette for all site retaining walls,
fences, gates, and trellis structures, that is compatible with the natural topography of the
site, as well as the proposed improvements, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Director.
14. The applicant shall be subject to full compliance with Order No. R4-2012-0175, Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit for Coastal Watershed of Los
Angeles County.
15. That any roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director.
16. Parcel 2 shall be equipped with proper infrastructure to accommodate two (2) Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging stations in the parking structure. Applicant shall work with Planning
Director staff to determine appropriate location.
D-22
17. All deliveries of commercial goods and supplies; trash pick-up (including the use of parking
lot trash sweepers); and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment that emits
noise levels in excess of 65dBA shall only be allowed between the hours of 7:00 AM and
7:00 PM daily.
Public Works
18. ADA compliant ramps and truncated domes will be required at the Drybank and Silver
Spur and Deep Valley Drive intersections.
19. Any damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and/or streets as a result of construction will
need to be repaired or replaced. The brick sidewalk on the Silver Spur/Drybank corner
shall be replaced with concrete and a street overlay to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
20. Landscaping improvements in the Public Right of Way will be required on the perimeter of
the project, subject to review and approval by the Park and Activities Commission.
21. Street overlay will be required for length of project on the south side of Silver Spur Road,
subject to approval by the Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director.
22. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to revise signal timing at the intersection
of Silver Spur Road and Drybank Drive to allow adequate time for crossing both
intersections, in accordance with California MUTCD speed for older or disabled persons.
Fire
23. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
24. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction
to all required fire hydrants. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and
accepted prior to construction.
25. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as "Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone" (formerly Fire Zone 4). A "Fuel Modification Plan" shall be
submitted and approved prior to final map clearance. (Contact the Fuel Modification unit,
Fire Station #32, 605 North Angeleno Avenue, Azusa, CA 91702-2904, Phone (626) 969-
5205, for details)
26. Provide Fire Department or City approved street signs and building access numbers prior
to occupancy.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
27. The applicant shall obtain a Will Serve letter from the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County prior to issuance of building permits.
28. A sewer connection fee will be required prior to issuance of a permit to connect to the
sewer, by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
D-23
Noise
29. During construction activities, a temporary noise barrier (e.g., construction curtain) shall
be installed along the eastern property line to screen the Peninsula Center Library from
construction noise. The project applicant shall demonstrate that the temporary noise
barrier/construction curtain will achieve a noise reduction of at least 10 decibels by
specifying the exact STC (sound transmission class) rating that would achieve this
reduction, as determined by an acoustical engineer.
Cultural Resources
30. A qualified archaeologist approved by the Planning Director of the City of Rolling Hills
Estates shall be present for all initial ground -disturbing activities associated with the
project. The archaeological monitor shall be responsible for the identification of cultural
resources that may be impacted by project activities. The monitor may stop ground -
disturbing activities in order to assess any discoveries in the field. Archaeological
monitoring may be discontinued when the depth of grading and soil conditions no longer
retain the potential to contain cultural deposits or when the qualified project archaeologist
determines that monitoring is no longer warranted. The project archaeologist shall be
responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.
31. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during
construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100
feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the
find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the
significance of the find under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the
archaeologist may exhaust the data potential of the find through the process of field -level
recordation and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA,
additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data
recovery may be warranted.
32. If any paleontological resources are found during future development of the project site,
all work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop and the Rolling Hills Estates
Planning Department shall be immediately notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be
retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate handling and recovery
methods. Construction in the vicinity of the find(s) shall not resume until deemed
appropriate by the qualified site paleontologist.
33. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human
remains are found, the County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. No
further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two
working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of
the human remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed
to be, Native American, he or she shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours.
In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must
immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from
the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours
of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would
D-24
then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human
remains.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
34. The project applicant shall be required to retain an EPA -Certified Asbestos Professional
and EPA Lead -Safe Certified contractor to prepare an Asbestos/Lead Paint Management
Plan that includes lead and asbestos inspection notes and sampling results, as well as a
Respiratory Protection Program, Medical Surveillance Requirements, an Injury and Illness
Program, asbestos -containing building materials disposal requirements, and a Periodic
[Asbestos] Surveillance Schedule. All asbestos -containing building materials and lead
paint identified in the Asbestos/Lead Paint Management Plan shall be removed and
disposed of by an EPA -Certified Asbestos Professional and EPA Lead -Safe Certified
contractor, as appropriate, in accordance with all state and federal regulations.
35. The project applicant shall be required to complete all site remediation actions contained
in the Remedial Action Plan prepared for the project site by Bowyer Environmental
Consulting in March 2014 (see Appendix D of the IS/MND).
36. That all project Mitigation Measures, as identified in the attached Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Exhibit B), shall be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible
Department/agency.
SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
find that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been completed in compliance
with CEQA and the State Guidelines, and recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3. That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of
all project entitlements (Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398—a 2 -lot subdivision, for the purposes of
the new construction of a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on Parcel 1
and the new construction of a two-level parking structure on Parcel 2; Conditional Use Permits, a
Precise Plan of Design, and Variances).
SECTION 4. If any portion of this approval is violated or held to be invalid or if any law,
statute, or ordinance is violated by the issuance of this approval or by any one or more of the
requirements thereof, said use shall be void and privileges herewith shall lapse and such use
shall thereupon cease.
SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall
keep a copy of same to be submitted to the City Council with such other documents and records
of proceedings as may be designated by the Chairman and Planning Commission.
D-25
ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 2016.
ROBERT SCHACHTER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD, CITY CLERK
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. PA -05-16 was adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rolling Hills Estates at a regular meeting held thereof on the 1st day of
August, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DOUGLAS R. PRICHARD, CITY CLERK
D-26
�� E'� �� ! / ; �� � � �� � ]� �� �r �� `� � ' — � ' ' - — — — — — ' -
October 2S.2O15
Mr. David Wahba
Principal Planner
CITY OFROLLING HILLS ESTATES
4O45Palos Verdes Drive North
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
Perwm,request please see the provided letter ofoperation below for Merrill Gardens Rolling Hills which includes staffing levels for
all shifts.
Staffing
Administrator
There will be one administrator (General Manager) for the facility. (On salary)
Business Office Manager
There will be one business office manager (BOM) for the facility. (40 hours per week)
Receptionist
There will beone receptionist for the facility. (40hours per week)
There will also be evening and weekend receptionist coverage. (37 hours per week)
Active Living Director
There will be one active living (activity) director for the facility (40 hours per week) and an Activity Assistant (16 hours) to provide
activities leadership 7days per week.
Personal Pathways Coordinator
There will be one personal pathways (activity) coordinator for the memory care unit (28+ hours per week)
Dining Services Manager
There will be one dining services manager for the facility. (40 hours per week/salaried) The food service manager will prepare
meals, supervise food service staff, and manage food supplies.
Food Service
When full, there will be at least 2 cooks in addition to the food service manager. (gOhours per week when etfull occupancy) The
cooks prepare the meals for the residents.
There will bez0vvait-staff,mostly part time. (38Ohours per week). The wait -staff will take meal orders, serve beverages, deliver
the prepared food, assist the residents with set up, and clean up.
There will be2dishwashers. (77hours per vveek).
Licensed Nurse
There will be one, full time, licensed nurse (Assisted Living Supervisor) for the facility. (salaried plus oncall) The licensed nurse will
oversee the care ofthe residents, evaluate and respond to changes in condition, communicate with physicians and other health core
professionals, and supervise the caregiving staff.
Caregivers
P 20&675.5300 pzn6,6Dz.0OO1 z93&Fairview Ave E, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98102
0)
There will beatleast ltrained caregiver onduty inthe community around the clock during initial opening ofthe community. Ther
will also be another staff member in the building at all times, trained to provide back up for emergencies. There will be a 1:6 ratio of
staff during the day shift, a 1:10 ratio in the evening and a 1:15 ratio at night in the memory care unit. Caregivers are responsible for
the direct day today care ofthe residents. Caregiving hours will be increased according to the number of assisted living residents
and the amount ofservice they require.
Night Monitor
There will beone night monitor per 24-hnurperiod during the night shift. Night monitors are responsible for monitoring the facility
during the night, providing for security, cleaning of common areas and back-up for caregiver in case of emergency.
Housekeeper
There will be 2 housekeeping positions for the facility when fully occupied. (80 hours per week)
Maintenance
There will beone maintenance supervisor position for the facility. (4Ohours per week).
Community Relations Director
There will bemleast 1marketing person for the facility. (40 hours per week)
Initial Staffing Structure:
Shifts
Day Shift
1 General Manager
l Business Office K8anager
1 Receptionist
1 Active Living Director orAsst
1 Dining Service Manager
z Cooks
1 Wait staff
Z Wait staff
(8bm-6pmM-F)
(8am'5pmM'F)
(8am-4:30pm5u-Sa)
(8:30am-5pmSu-Sa)
(1080am'7:00pm9u-Th)
(6am-2pmSu-Sa}
<7am-2pmSu-Sa>
(11am-2pm6u-Sa)
1 Licensed Nurse
(varying day and evening shifts)
1 Caregiver
(7am.3pn\Su-Sa) more caregivers asoccupancy
2 Wait staff
increases
1 Maintenance Supervisor
(8am-4:30pmKx'r)
l Housekeeper
(8am-43OpmSu-Sa) more asoccupancy increases
I Community Relations Director
(9am-6pmTu`Sa)
1 Personal Pathways Coordinator (2pm-6pm [N -F)
1 Memory care activities asst
(2pm-6pmSa-3u)
2 Memory care caregivers
(7am-]pmSa-3u)more ayoocupancyincreases
Evening Shift
1 Cook
(10:38- pmTh-Sa
1 Wait staff
(2pm7:30pm3u-Sa}
2 Wait staff
(4pm-7pm5u-Sa)
1 Dishwasher
(11am-7:3Opm3u'So)position added asoccupancy
increases
l Caregiver
(3pm'11pm3u'Sa)more caregivers asoccupancy _
increases
1 Receptionist
(4:30pm-73Opm5u-Sa) position added as
occupancy increases
2 Memory care caregivers
(3pm-IIpmSe'Su)more asoccupancy increases
Night Shift
1 Night Monitor (11pmfamIu-Sa)
1 Caregiver (11pm-7amSu'Sa)
2 Memory care caregivers (IIpm-7am5a-Su)more osoccupancy increases
Transportation Arrangements:
�
Residents will have the freedom to have their own personal transportation. All residents will have access to the community shuttle
bus. The shuttle bus will provide scheduled transportation to doctor appointments, shopping trips, banks, postoffice and various
recreational activities. There will beone shuttle bus and itwill park onsite, see site plan for location nfparking.iftheasidentis
unable to utilize the scheduled transportation, the community will help arrange for alternate transportation. The community will
work with the resident tpfind one that meets their requirements. This could be a simple call for a cab to take the resident to a local
restaurant, an airport shuttle or limousine to the airport, City Van and/or by Paratransit.
K�—��9 ���
x�
AAMERR IL GARDENS
H 1 0 Y M 0 R E
City of Rolling Hills Estates
Jeannie Naughton, AICP
t' =
As the owner and operator of the planned retirement community, Merrill Gardens at Rolling Hills
I WARFAMIIIII[AMIM WMN&I alai
u7p knolludTso 5PeUd eTtffllb, e1U.1 at
our Community which may exceed the designed parking count.
strategies:
1) Additional carpooling/public transit by employees
2) Valet parking onsite or off-site
3) Arrangement for some staff/visitor parking with neighboring parking garages
4) Arrangement for additional staff/visitor parking at another off-site location within 5 min shuttle
time
tfa
IfflMiUM,
Thank you for your consideration, we are excited to become a part of the Rolling Hills Estat
Community. i
MMSM,
William D. Pettit Jr.
Merrill Gardens
�� 206.676.5300 1938 Fairview Avenue East, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 9810;
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
~~� Staff RepoIrJNO.BB
City of Rolling Hills Estates
DATE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEANNIE NAUGHTON, SENIOR PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION 05-16 (THE VILLAGE/MERRILL GARDENS)
APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LOCATION: 601 SILVER SPUR ROAD AND 600 DEEP VALLEY DRIVE (APNS
7589-002-010, -011, -012.
n\/FR\/IFW
The following is a request for approval of a series of entitlements to allow a two -lot subdivision,
for the new construction of a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on one
lot, the new construction of a two-level parking structure on the second lot, and adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a
significant impact on the environment.
BACKGROUND
Public Notices Published on 09.15.16, Posted and Mailed on 09.17.16.
On September 23, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance 694, to allow a variety of senior -
type housing needs to locate within the Mixed -Use Overlay District of the C -G zone. New
development standards were adopted for independent senior housing, assisted living, memory
care, and skilled nursing; all of which are intended to provide for a complete continuum of care.
The applicable Rolling Hills Estates Municipal Code Sections are Chapter 16.16 Minor Land
Subdivisions, Chapter 17.30 (C -G District), Chapter 17.37 (Mixed Use Overlay District), Chapter
17.58 (Precise Plan of Design), Chapter 17.66 (Variances), and Chapter 17.68 (Conditional Use
Permits).
The 3.13 acre subject property is located in Planning Area No. 6, zoned C-G/Mixed Use Overlay
District, has a General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial General (Mixed Use), and is
located in Hazards Management Overlay.
The adjacent properties are located in the City stated and have the following designations:
North: City of Rancho Palos Verdes; Commercial Professional (c -p)
South: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
East: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
West: City of Rolling Hills Estates; Commercial General/Mixed Use Overlay District
Acting as lead agency, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA"), an Initial Study was prepared by Michael Baker
International, to identify any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project
and incorporate mitigation measures into the project as necessary, to eliminate the potentially
significant effects of the project or to reduce the effects to a level of insignificance. Based on the
Initial Study (IS) prepared for the proposed project, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), in conformance with Section 15080(b) of the State CEQA guidelines.
On August 1, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and recommended
that additional language be added in the findings to emphasize the public benefit of the
additional 169 parking spaces being provided in the parking structure on Parcel 2 through the
new reciprocal parking agreement between the Palos Verdes Library District and Continental
Development Corporation. The Commission also recommended the creation of additional
conditions of approval that would ensure that the development proposed for both Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2 will be completed (Attachment 2). Staff discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and
concluded that there are no conditions of approval that could satisfy the direction given by the
Planning Commission. The City may regulate the approval of entitlements and permits, oversee
that the development is constructed properly, and that all of the conditions of approval are
satisfied, however the City is limited in its ability to ensure that a development proposal will be
completed, as there are factors that are out of the City's control—such as market forces,
funding, and private agreements. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PA -05-16,
recommending approval to the City Council, by unanimous vote of 7-0.
Outside Agencies Consultation and Review
The Development Review Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department conducted
access review and approved the project for this purpose on June 3, 2016. Detailed plan check
will be required by the Engineering Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. Staff
also conducted preliminary review with the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety Division
and received no conditions of approval for this project, but it will be subject to all Building Code
requirements. In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Section 21080.3.1 of CEQA, the
City of Rolling Hills Estates conducted early consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation and agreed upon four mitigation measures to be implemented during
ground disturbance and construction activities. A more detailed discussion may be found in the
Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study, with mitigation measures found in the conditions
of approval as well as in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
DISCUSSION
Proiect Overview
The 3.13 acre subject property is currently improved with The Village Shopping Center, which
consists of four multi -tenant buildings on three parcels, bounded by Silver Spur Drive, Drybank
Drive, and Deep Valley Drive. The buildings range in size from 4,200 SF to 20,800 SF, with a
total of 46,230 SF of retail and office space.
Building A, located at 601 Silver Spur Road, at the northwest corner of the project site, is a one-
story, 4,200 SF, vacant building, not part of the original Village Shopping Center; it resides on a
separate parcel and will be demolished as part of the project.
Building B, located at 627 Silver Spur Road, located in the western portion of the project site, is
a two-story, +/- 11,500 SF building, currently occupied by a variety of commercial and office
uses; +/- 10,000 SF of occupied space contains storefronts facing Deep Valley Drive, while +/-
2
E-2
1,000 SF of space contains storefronts facing Drybank Drive, including Yummy Yogurt. Building
B contains parking on the lower level, accessed via Drybank Drive; this building will be retained
as part of the project.
Building C, located at 600 Deep Valley Drive, at the corner of Deep Valley Drive and Drybank
Drive, is a one-story, +/- 9,600 SF building occupied by a commercial real estate brokerage firm
and a dry cleaning business; Building C would be retained as part of the project.
Building D, located at 626 Silver Spur Road, is a two-story, split-level building located on the
eastern side of the project site, adjacent to the existing library, containing +/- 20,800 SF of
commercial floor space; +/- 10,400 SF of lower level retail faces north, toward the existing
parking lot along Silver Spur Road, while the upper-level retail faces south, toward the existing
parking lot along Deep Valley Drive. Building D would be demolished as part of the project.
The proposed project consists of subdividing the 3.13 acre site into two parcels; Parcel 1 would
result in a 1.48 acre site, to accommodate the new construction of a four-story, +/- 135,852 SF,
114 -unit RCFE. Parcel 2 would result in a 1.65 acre site, retention of +/- 21,000 SF of existing
commercial development, and the new construction of a two-level, 169 -space parking structure
to serve both the commercial uses, as well as the adjacent library.
Parcel 1
As defined by the State of California Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Social
Services, "Residential Care Facility for the Elderly" means a housing arrangement chosen
voluntarily by the resident, the resident's guardian, conservator or other responsible person;
where 75% of the residents are 60 years of age or older and where varying levels of care and
supervision are provided, as agreed to at time of admission or as determined necessary at
subsequent times of reappraisal. Any younger residents must have needs compatible with other
residents. "Memory care" is a specific type of facility for persons with a mental impairment such
as dementia or Alzheimer's disease. RCFE typically provides both assisted living and memory
care units in each facility.
The property, as well as the RCFE would be owned and operated by Merrill Gardens; a privately
owned, family run company, that owns and operates senior living communities, with a focus on
lifestyle, in six states. Building A would be demolished, to accommodate the new construction of
the +/-135,000 SF facility. A partially subterranean parking structure, the entry of which is
located at grade, off Silver Spur Road, will be located under the building footprint at the
southwesterly portion of the site, and will contain 63 parking spaces, including three accessible
parking spaces (ADA compliant). The main entry to the facility will be off Silver Spur Road, into
the same level of the building as the parking facilities. The parking level will contain the
lobby/reception area, a wellness center, salon, activity room, theater, offices, and a kitchen. The
first level will be divided into two wings—assisted living and memory care. Both wings will
provide dining and living areas, with one kitchen serving both wings. The first level will contain
all 20 Memory Care units (studio) and 12 Assisted Living units, including eight 1 br/1 bth and four
2br/2bth, many of which will have patios. There will be a dedicated Memory Care landscaped
courtyard, as well as a landscaped courtyard for the Assisted Living residents. The second level
will contain 14 studio units, 23 1 br/1 bth units, and four 2br/2bth units, a majority of which, will
have private or shared decks. Level three will contain 14 studio units, 24 1 br/1 bth units, and
three 2br/2bth units, most of which will have private or shared decks.
The site has a significant grade change, descending from the southern portion of the site to the
northern portion, along Silver Spur Road. There is an existing 8' high retaining wall along Silver
Spur Road, adjacent to the existing surface parking lot. The new Merrill Gardens building will
remove this retaining wall, to allow for an at -grade resident loading zone, as well as access to
E-3
the parking structure, along Silver Spur Road. The overall perceived height of the building along
Silver Spur Road is 44' (maximum allowed) to the top of the fascia trim, and 32' from the
southern elevation; however, due to the descending grade, the building will be four stories at the
northeast portion of the project, and there will be architectural projections that reach 56' in
height, as measured from lowest adjacent grade, along Silver Spur Road. The proposed
building will be well below the height of adjacent buildings—the Peninsula Center Library is 63'-
4" high, while the adjacent Promenade Shopping Center building is 94' high along Silver Spur
Road.
Parcel 2
Buildings B and C underwent seismic, cosmetic, and lighting upgrades and renovation during
2013/2014, as well as adoption of a Master Sign Program for the shopping center. Both
buildings will be retained as part of the project, resulting in +/-21,000 SF of leasable commercial
area. The two -lot subdivision includes the recordation of airspace rights for condominium
purposes on Parcel 2, as well as the new construction of a new, two-level, 169 -space parking
structure, which will serve the adjacent library as well as the commercial uses on the site. The
Peninsula Seniors have signed a lease to occupy +/-3,800 SF in Building B and will occupy the
suite following completion of the new parking structure. A Master Conditional Use Permit is
being requested to allow medical/dental uses in the remaining +/- 7,750 SF of floor area in
Building B.
The two-level parking structure will have two access points off Deep Valley Drive; the
easternmost driveway will provide access to the upper level of the parking structure, at grade
with the library entrance, while the westernmost driveway will provide access to the lower level
of the parking structure, at grade with Buildings B & C and the surface parking stalls. The
structure will provide 169 parking stalls, Building B contains 26 parking stalls, accessed off
Drybank Drive, and the surface lot adjacent to Buildings B & C will provide 26 parking stalls.
An existing 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, which allows
reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking rights on/over each owner's property, as well as a
landscape and access easement on Parcel 1, will be dissolved to release Parcel 1 (Merrill
Gardens) and the City of RHE from the agreement, and a new agreement executed between
the Palos Verdes Library District and The Village ownership, to retain reciprocal ingress, egress,
and parking rights on/over Parcel 2 and the library site. As a result of the new agreement, the
Peninsula Center Library and The Village would be served by a total of 386 parking stalls -221
stalls on Parcel 2 and 165 stalls on the library property. The Village and the library would benefit
from excess parking capacity with construction of the proposed parking structure as currently
designed, as both properties would be served by a total of 386 parking stalls.
Overall Project Entitlements Applicable to Both Parcels
Because both resulting parcels will operate under separate ownership, and function as two
separate and distinct projects, it is necessary to separate out the specific entitlements that will
apply to each specific parcel, as well as the overall entitlements that apply to both.
Subdivision
The existing 3.13 acre project site consists of three parcels; the proposed Tentative Parcel Map
No. 72398 proposes a two -lot subdivision, resulting in two parcels; a 1.48 acre parcel (Parcel 1)
and a 1.65 acre parcel (Parcel 2) with airspace condominiums for commercial condominium
purposes on Parcel 2. This particular proposal does include as part of the entitlements, several
Variance requests. The resulting lot sizes are in compliance with minimum lot sizes in the
4
E-4
Commercial General/Mixed-Use Overlay District and the action of the subdivision does not
create a situation where development would be impossible without benefit of a Variance. The
City Engineer has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map and found it to be in conformance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the requirements of RHEMC Chapter 16.16 Minor Land Subdivisions.
The Planning Commission is able to make the findings for the Minor Subdivision, as stated
below:
1. That the proposed subdivision is consistent with general and applicable specific plans for
the area.
This finding has been met because the subject site is zoned Commercial General/Mixed-Use
Overlay District, with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial General. The
proposed subdivision would result in the continuation of permitted and conditionally permitted
uses consistent with the respective zone and designation.
2. That the approval of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems or
be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements
in the vicinity and zone in which the land is located.
This finding has been met because the improvements related to the subdivision are subject to
Precise Plan of Design criteria, provide the required parking for the intended uses, and will
require all necessary Building and Safety permits, as well as meet other City and State
regulations to be constructed, thereby not being detrimental to the public welfare and
neighborhood.
3. That proper and adequate provisions have been made for access to the land to be divided
and also to the portion of the land remaining, or that access to the land is by means of
dedicated streets of a sufficient width and state of improvement to serve adequately the
land described in the application in a safe manner.
This finding has been met because the Project site is currently developed with the Village
Shopping Center and maintains access from publicly dedicated streets on Silver Spur Road,
Drybank Drive, and Deep Valley Drive. The proposed Project will maintain said access to, and
be adequately served by these dedicated streets.
4. That proper and adequate provisions have been made for all public utilities and public
services including, but not limited to, sewers, fire flow, etc.
This finding has been met because the proposed project consists of Tentative Parcel Map No.
72398—a two lot subdivision, consisting of a 1.48 -acre parcel (Parcel 1) and a 1.65 -acre parcel
(Parcel 2), with commercial condominiums on Parcel 2; Conditional Use Permits, Precise Plan
of Design, Grading, and Variances, for the new construction of a 114 -unit RCFE on Parcel 1,
and a new two-level parking structure on Parcel 2. Based on reviews by the respective public
utilities, there are adequate provisions to serve the Project. The applicant will be required to pay
applicable connection fees and any upgrades as deemed necessary.
5. That the resulting subdivided land will not have an area less than that required by the zone
in which it is located or less than the average of the area of single parcels of land in the
surrounding vicinity.
This finding has been met because minimum lot size in the Commercial General/Mixed Use
Overlay District is one acre. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 consists of
subdividing a 3.13 -acre site into two parcels, consisting of a 1.48 -acre parcel (Parcel 1) and a
E-5
1.65 -acre parcel (Parcel 2). Both resulting parcels exceed the minimum lot size within the
respective zoning designation.
6. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement
and design, floodwater drainage control, appropriately improved public roads, sanitary
disposal facilities, environmental protection, and other requirements of the Map Act or laws
enacted pursuant thereto.
This finding has been met because the proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 results in
two parcels of conforming size and design and will maintain access to appropriately improved
public roads. The proposed physical improvements to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are subject to the
requirements of Order No. R4-2012-0175, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
NPDES Permit for Coastal Watershed of Los Angeles County and all applicable local and State
regulations. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines, an Initial Study ("IS")) was prepared by the City to assess the potential
environmental impacts of the Project. The IS indicated that the proposed Project would not have
a significant impact on the environment with proper mitigation. As such, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("MND") was prepared.
7. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The subject site is
located in a fully urbanized area, on a previously developed site, and is surrounded by
commercial development.
This finding has been met because given the size and shape of the subject property, together
with adjacent land uses, the proposed Project is consistent with development in the vicinity.
8. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.
This finding has been met because under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the State CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study ("IS")) was prepared by the City to assess the
potential environmental impacts of the Project. The IS indicated that the proposed Project would
not have a significant impact on the environment with proper mitigation. As such, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND") was prepared.
Precise Plan of Design
Approval of a Precise Plan of Design (PPD) is required under RHEMC Section 17.58.020 prior
to the issuance of a building permit for exterior fagade improvements and the corresponding
exterior improvements. The purpose of the Precise Plan of Design is to ensure that the
proposed site improvements on commercially -zoned properties do not result in any detrimental
impacts to the surrounding community and to protect the public peace, health, safety, and
welfare.
Parcel 1 will be developed with a +/-135,000 SF RCFE, fronting Silver Spur Road, where there
exists a diverse range of architectural styles. The proposed RCFE will utilize a contemporary
style, drawing on residential Craftsman detailing; depth and dimension to the fagade are
achieved through the utilization of balconies, patios, varied setbacks, modulated roofline, and a
substantial stone base. High quality, textural materials, such as stacked stone, stucco and fiber
cement shingles, and decorative lighting, add detail and richness to the building, and reduce the
perceived scale of the building. More than 17,000 SF of landscaped courtyards will be provided
at the rear of the project. The dedicated Memory Care courtyard will contain landscaping,
outdoor seating, a water feature, a rain garden and a dog play area. The Main Courtyard will
6
E-6
feature landscaping, raised garden beds, outdoor seating with a fire table, barbeques for
outdoor cooking, dining tables and chairs, rain garden, a water feature, and a private dining
area.
Due to the significant grade changes between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, there will be a series of
retaining walls at the rear of Parcel 1; along the Memory Care Courtyard, the retaining walls will
be approximately 12' high, while along the Main Courtyard, the retaining walls will be
approximately 15' high. Evergreen screening trees and significant landscaping will soften the
appearance of the walls, and help them blend into the landscaped areas. Surrounding the
project site will be additional landscaping along Drybank Drive and Silver Spur Road, including
rain gardens and decorative trees.
Site signage will include building -mounted signs along Silver Spur Road and Dry Bank Drive,
and a monument sign along Silver Spur Road, adjacent to the project entry. The combination of
building -mounted and monument signage along Silver Spur Road will facilitate both a vehicular
as well as a pedestrian scale presence for the project.
Parcel 2 will retain both Buildings B & C; the new two-level, partially subterranean parking
structure will be constructed to serve both the Peninsula Center Library, as well as the
remaining commercial tenant spaces in Buildings B & C. The 169 -space parking structure will
combine cool -colored concrete with brick accents, to blend with the existing commercial
development. As the site contains a descending slope from the eastern to western side, the
relocated access driveway at the easternmost corner of the structure will be at grade with the
main library entrance, on the top deck of the structure. All five ADA -compliant spaces will
located at this level, and serve as the most appropriate level of parking for library visitors
utilizing the structure; 26 spaces will be exclusively dedicated for Library use. The new,
westernmost access to Parcel 2 will provide the most appropriate level of parking for the
commercial uses in Buildings B & C, as the basement level of the structure will be at grade with
these buildings, as well as the additional 26 surface stall parking spaces that will be retained.
Egress from the lower portion of parking structure may be accomplished via Deep Valley Drive
or Dry Bank Drive. There are an additional 26 parking stalls in the basement of Building B.
Existing landscaping will be enhanced along Deep Valley Drive, and new landscaping added
adjacent to the parking structure, and Building B, resulting in only 10% landscaping coverage,
where 20% is required. This will be further discussed in the Variance section for Parcel 2.
RHEMC Chapter 17.58 indicates that the purpose of a PPD is to ensure that the following are
designed and/or arranged so that traffic congestion is avoided, pedestrian and vehicular safety
and welfare are provided, and no adverse effect on surrounding property will result:
1. Buildings, structures, and improvements;
2. Vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation;
3. Setbacks;
4. Height of buildings;
5. Location of services;
6. Walls and fences;
7. Landscaping;
8. Lighting; and
9. Signing.
The redevelopment of Parcel 1 will balance the complexity and interest of a residential
Craftsman project with the programming requirements for assisted living to enhance the
character of the neighborhood and provide much needed housing and services for seniors in
Rolling Hills Estates. The redevelopment of Parcel 2 will provide a solution to the dissolution of
7
E-7
the existing 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates, and the execution
of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The Village and The Palos Verdes Library
District, in that it will provide more than sufficient parking for both the intended uses in Buildings
B & C, and the adjacent Peninsula Center Library. The project meets all of the above criteria
and therefore, staff is able to support the PPD as proposed.
Grading
A total of approximately 23,770 cubic yards of grading is proposed to accommodate the
proposed project. The proposed grading activity involves cut and export of earth material,
whereby approximately 15,500 cubic yards of grading would conducted on Parcel 1 to
accommodate the RCFE and approximately 8,220 cubic yards would be conducted on Parcel 2
to accommodate the new parking structure. The grading activities would be governed by
RHEMC Section 17.07.080 and all applicable standards set out in the Building Code.
Traffic Impact Analysis
Fehr & Peers prepared, Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill Gardens at Rolling Hills
Estates, to identify and evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project on the
surrounding street system. Upon coordination with City staff, and direction given by the City
Council, eight study intersections were identified for evaluation during the weekday morning and
afternoon peak hours. The eight study intersections included:
• Hawthorne Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North
• Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North
• Hawthorne Boulevard/Silver Spur Road
• Silver Arrow Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Norris Center Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Drybank Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Beachgate Drive/Silver Spur Road
• Crenshaw Boulevard/Silver Spur Road
All of the study intersections are signal -controlled. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill
Gardens at Rolling Hills Estates states that based on application of the City's threshold criteria
to the "Existing Plus Project Impact Analysis" scenario, it was determined that the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts at any of the eight study intersections. Because
there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for
the study intersections under the "Cumulative Plus Project" conditions.
Based on existing trip generation rates for the 46,075 SF of commercial and retail use, and the
trip generation rates for the proposed assisted living use, the proposed project is expected to
result in a net increase of 32 vehicle trips (29 additional inbound trips and three additional
outbound trips) during the AM peak hour, when compared with the existing site use trip
generation, and a net decrease of 24 vehicle trips (12 inbound trips and 12 fewer outbound
trips) during the PM peak hour, when compared to the existing uses. This incremental increase
in the morning peak hour is due to the nature of the existing service commercial uses, which
typically would open for operation later in the morning, e.g. 9-10 AM. The average daily traffic
on Silver Spur Road, based on 2013 counts, over a 24-hour period is +/-15,000 vehicles/day;
the addition of 32 additional vehicle trips in the morning peak hour is not considered to be
significant. Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to result in a net decrease of
740 daily trips.
W•
Staff was concerned about signal timing at the intersection of Silver Spur Road and Drybank
Drive, as it is anticipated that residents of the new facility will utilize this crossing to visit the
Promenade shopping center. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Village/Merrill Gardens at Rolling
Hills Estates analyzed existing pedestrian signal timing and compared it with the established
pedestrian signal timing in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
which allows a speed of 2.8 feet per second for locations routinely used by older or disabled
pedestrians. Using a walking speed of 2.8 feet per second, Drybank Drive could be crossed in
21.4 seconds and Silver Spur Road could be crossed in 32.1 seconds; the current signal timing
allows pedestrians 19 seconds to cross Drybank Drive and 23 seconds to cross Silver Spur
Road. Based on these calculations, the existing signal timing plans do not provide adequate
time for disabled or elderly persons to cross Drybank Drive or Silver Spur Road. Therefore, staff
has added a condition of approval that the applicant work with the City Engineer to revise signal
timing at this intersection to allow adequate time for crossing both intersections, in accordance
with California MUTCD speed for older or disabled persons.
Entitlements Specific to Parcel 1
Conditional Use Permit
RCFE use is conditionally permitted with the C-G/Mixed-Use Overlay District, with specific
development standards outlined in RHEMC Section 17.37.040. The development standards
include provisions for spacing, open space, parking, and minimum room size requirements.
The proposed project meets the spacing requirements, as there are no RCFE facilities within
1,500 FT of the proposed project site.
The open space requirements are 200 SF per licensed bed, resulting in a total requirement of
25,000 SF for the proposed project, which may be provided as private patios/balconies or
common areas, and where up to 50% of this requirement may be provided as indoor common
recreational and social area (12,500 SF). The proposed project will exceed the minimum
requirements by 13,384 SF; this will be accomplished by providing 17,103 SF of outdoor open
space, 12,500 SF of countable common open space indoors (a total of 18,397 SF is being
provided but only a portion may be counted toward the requirement), and 8,781 SF of private
patios and balconies.
RCFE use requires one parking space per two licensed beds, plus one space per two
employees on the largest shift, resulting in a total parking requirement of 63 parking stalls for
the proposed project. A total of 63 parking stalls will be provided on-site, including 60 standard
parking stalls, and three accessible spaces (ADA -compliant). Based on information from the
applicant, and the experience of other assisted living/memory care operators, the majority of the
residents do not own/operate personal vehicles. It is anticipated that only 10-15% of the
residents are anticipated to own/park vehicles on-site. At the time of adoption of the
development standards for RCFE uses in 2014, staff, in conjunction with consultants and
direction from the City Council, did substantial research to develop the existing standards as
being in line with industry standards. The parking standards that were ultimately adopted into
the RHEMC are conservative, in comparison to surrounding jurisdictions. For example, the City
of Torrance requires one space/three beds, which would result in a parking requirement of 42
parking spaces for this project; the City of Rancho Palos Verdes requires one space/four beds,
which would result in a parking requirement of 32 spaces for this project.
Staff is recommending modified language in the condition of approval related to parking
requirements for the RCFE portion of the project so that the requirement is tied to the specific
Municipal Code section governing RCFE use. This will ensure that should there be any
9
E-9
operational changes in the future, the project will remain in compliance with parking
requirements. The proposed modified condition, found in Resolution No. 2384 is as follows:
The conditional use permit is being granted for a 114 -unit Residential Care Facility for
the Elderly (RCFE). The "�prejestrequiFes 63 narking spaces with a maximUR; ref
20 ernpleyees on the greatest shift. The project shall at all times comply with RHEMC
Chapter 17.37.040(M)(b), including with respect to employee parking spaces. Any minor
changes in the operational characteristics, including e.g., a change in occupancy
configuration that does not increase the total number of licensed beds, may be approved
by the Planning Director, while major modifications will require review and approval by
the Planning Commission.
Per RHEMC Section 17.37.040.M.4, a parking management plan is required, that demonstrates
how peak period demand (holidays) will be accommodated, as well as a plan for shuttle
transportation to local shopping services. Merrill Gardens provided a summary of transportation
arrangements as part of their operating plan as well as further refinement in their memo dated
January 25, 2016 (Separate Attachment 2). Merrill Gardens will provide a community shuttle
bus, which will be parked on-site, for scheduled transportation to doctor appointments, shopping
trips, banks, post office, and various recreational activities. Alternatively, residents may
coordinate with Merrill Gardens staff to arrange transportation reservations for demand -based
services, such as Cityride, Access Paratransit, City Cab Taxi Service, private companion/escort
service and private limousine (town car), as well as emergency transportation services. During
high traffic days such as holiday, Merrill Gardens intends to employ strategies such as
employee carpooling/public transportation, valet parking onsite or off-site, arrangement for
staff/visitor parking with neighboring parking garages, and the arrangement for additional
staff/visitor parking at another off-site location with 5 minutes shuttle time. Staff has added a
condition of approval to expand the parking management plan to be consistent with
recommendations from the Planning Commission and City Council, on a recently approved
assisted living project, which includes provisions for "Visitor Only" stalls; a maximum number of
parking stalls available for resident use and a corresponding procedure for implementation of a
waiting list to be provided, should the maximum number of resident vehicles be reached; and
the periodic review of the parking management plan, to reduce or avoid parking -related impacts
from the project.
State law does not define minimum room size for RCFE use; as a result, jurisdictions have
varying room size limitations, if at all, for assisted living units and memory care units. During the
development of the standards adopted in the RHEMC in 2014, staff focused their research on
the correlation between room size and parking requirements. RHEMC Section 17.37.040.M.2.b
requires a minimum room size of 400 SF per licensed bed for assisted living rooms, and 300 SF
per licensed bed for memory care facilities. The proposed project exceeds the minimum room
size per licensed bed for both assisted living and memory care rooms, with room sizes ranging
between 390 SF -1000 SF.
According to the City of Rolling Hills Estates Housing Element 2013-2021, the City's population
is significantly older than Los Angeles County as a whole, and over the next 40 years the City's
senior population is projected to grow by 174% compared to just 30% for the County's total
population. The provision of the RCFE facility in the City of Rolling Hills Estates, contributes to a
continuum of care, allowing people to age in place, in their home community or near family that
lives in this community, when they are no longer able to age in place in their own home.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of three Variances for 52.56 % lot coverage, where 45% is
10
E-10
allowed, building projections of 56' in height, where 44' is the maximum allowable building
height, and nonconforming parking stall dimensions in the parking structure.
The proposed RCFE has a building footprint 52.56%, which has been reduced slightly since the
original submittal, to accommodate Fire Department access requirements. The existing property
is currently developed as The Village shopping center, and therefore encumbered by the
original 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Peninsula Center Library and the City of Rolling Hills Estates; following the
recordation of the Tentative Parcel Map, the site will be released from this agreement and it will
be dissolved. However, the new agreement between The Village and the Palos Verdes Library
District necessitate the construction of a parking structure on the resulting Village parcel to
provide the required parking under the original agreement. Therefore, the proposed parcel
configuration is the only feasible configuration that would support both the assisted living use on
Parcel 1 and the retention of commercial uses and related parking for both the Village and the
Peninsula Library on Parcel 2. Reduction of the building footprint would result in inadequate
parking, reduced outdoor space, or reduced unit count, while increasing the lot area of Parcel 1
would result in reduced commercial square footage and or required parking for the commercial
uses on Parcel 2 and adjacent library use.
The topography of the site has a 27' fall from the south property line to the north along Silver
Spur Road. The removal of the 8' high retaining wall along Silver Spur Road to allow for an at -
grade resident loading zone to access the building, exposes a portion of the basement level as
four stories and up to 56' in height to the highest architectural projection. There are 12' and 10'
floor to floor heights but approximately 1' must be subtracted from these numbers for the depth
of the structure. Furthermore, a 12' floor to floor height is the minimum necessary to allow for
the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure to run above finished ceilings on levels
containing resident amenity spaces to maintain 9' ceiling heights for the comfort of residents in
central gathering spaces. The unit ceilings are 9' clear, which is a standard ceiling height which
allows smaller units to feel larger. The overall height of the building perceived from the Silver
Spur Road elevation is a conforming 44', meaning finished grade to top of the fascia trim. The
perceived height from the south elevation is only 32' as Parking Level is below grade.
Stall dimensions are required to be 9' by 20', with 25' wide aisles for 90 degree parking
configurations. The RHEMC parking section has not been updated to adjust for current industry
standards, and there are no provisions in the Code for compact stalls. The proposed stall
dimensions are 9' by +/-19'-10", with conforming aisle widths of 25'. The proposed reductions in
the parking stall dimensions are necessary to reduce shade and massing impacts to the
assisted living outdoor courtyard, and address lot coverage issues related to the resulting lot
configuration and necessity to provide a parking structure on Parcel 2 to fulfill the terms of the
new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between the Village and The Palos Verdes Library
District..
The Planning Commission is able to make the findings for the Variances, as stated below:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to its intended use which do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zoning district and neighborhood.
This finding has been met because the subject property contains a significant descending slope
toward Silver Spur Road, resulting in exposure of a portion of the basement level as four stories
and up to 56' in height to the highest architectural projection. The overall perceived building
height from Silver Spur Road is a Code -complying 44' and 32' from the southern elevation; the
projections are necessary to accommodate mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure.
The proposed lot is currently configured to maintain existing commercial space on Parcel 2,
while providing required parking for commercial uses and the adjacent library, per an amended
agreement, resulting in lot coverage of 52.56%, where only 45% is permitted. There is no other
location on the resulting site that could support an expanded parking structure to meet the Code
compliant stall dimensions, nor is there opportunity to provide a smaller footprint that would
have the ability to provide the Code -required number of parking spaces for the intended use.
This property is unique in that it must fulfill these requirements on adjacent Parcel 2, in order to
be released from the original 1978 Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between
The Village, the Palos Verdes Library District and the City of Rolling Hills Estates.
2 The Variances are 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 and neighborhood.
This finding has been met because the size, shape and topography of the site present
significant challenges in providing the required parking stall dimension, lot coverage, and
building height, while meeting the conditions of the new agreement between The Village and the
Peninsula Center Library for provision of parking on Parcel 2. Adjacent sites are relatively flat
and are not encumbered by reciprocal easement agreements that require provision of +- 200
parking spaces. If the building footprint were to be expanded to allow for additional dimension in
the parking structure, the nonconformity of lot coverage would be increased, as well as
potentially the building height nonconformity. The granting of the Variances for a four story
structure that exceeds permitted building height, lot coverage, and provision of structured
parking that contains nonconforming stall dimensions is necessary for the enjoyment of a
substantial property right, possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same
zoning district.
3. The granting of the Variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
This finding has been met because the proposed improvements would meet PPD criteria,
provide the required parking for the intended use, and the proposed improvements would
require all necessary Building and Safety permits to be constructed, thereby not being
detrimental to the public welfare and neighborhood.
4. The granting of the Variances will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
This finding has been met because Goal 2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan states
that the City shall promote new housing opportunities to meet the needs of existing and future
residents while preserving the City's rural character. The City's population is significantly older
than Los Angeles County as a whole, and over the next 40 years the City's senior population is
projected to grow by 174% compared to just 30% for the County's total population. The City has
little vacant land for development, and by developing the assisted living facility, while preserving
commercial development and providing parking to the adjacent library, the project will meet the
needs of existing and future residents, the existing rural character will be further preserved,
while providing a significant benefit to the community.
5. The granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the property.
This finding has been met because a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly is a conditionally
permitted use in the C -G zoning/Mixed-Use Overlay district and the granting of the Variances
would result in providing the Code -complying number of parking stalls (63) for the intended use,
12
E-12
while fulfilling parking requirements of the new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
Entitlements Specific to Parcel 2
Subdivision
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398 includes airspace rights for commercial
condominium purposes on Parcel 2. The recordation of airspace rights for commercial
condominiums will give the tenants of the commercial spaces the ability to purchase their space,
giving the property owner greater flexibility in attracting long-term business owners.
Master Conditional Use Permit for Medical Office Use
The applicant is requesting a Master Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for medical office use in
Building B, in order to enhance opportunities to respond to the marketplace. Yummy Yogurt
occupies approximately 1,035 SF of retail space at the lower level of Building B, facing Drybank
Drive. The remaining 10,523 SF of commercial space on the upper level of Building B, facing
Deep Valley Drive, will be partially allocated to the Peninsula Seniors, who have executed a
lease, with the intention of eventually purchasing, a 3,813 SF space. The applicants are
requesting a MCUP for medical office for the remaining +/-7,745 SF of Building B.
The Peninsula Seniors have provided a floor plan for the 3,813 SF space for which they've
signed a lease in Building B (Attachment 1 — Sheet SP -A-1); the functional layout provides for
two exercise rooms, a conference room, offices and small library area. The layout does not fit
into what would traditionally be viewed as assembly use (church, concert hall, etc.), but
functions more closely to an office type use, with the exception of the two exercise rooms. Staff
has determined therefore, that the most appropriate parking ratio to apply in this case would be
the same the ratio that the RHE Code applies for medical office (1/200 SF), which is slightly
more restrictive than commercial office or retail, yet less restrictive than assembly use. When
applying a ratio of 1/200 for Building B and 1/300 for commercial office use in Building C, the
total parking requirement for Parcel 2 results in the provision of 90 spaces. The proposed
redevelopment of Parcel 2 results in the provision of a total of 221 spaces (26 spaces in the
basement level of Building B, 26 surface parking stalls, and 169 spaces in the parking
structure), providing more than sufficient parking for existing and proposed uses.
Variances
The applicant is requesting approval of four Variances for provision of landscaping at 10%,
where 20% is required; nonconforming parking stall and aisle width dimensions in the parking
structure; existing setback of Building C of 3' and the new parking structure setback of 3.5'
where at least 5' is required; and parking structure lot coverage of 35%, where 25% is maximum
allowed.
The construction of a 169 -stall parking deck would provide continued reciprocal/shared parking
with the Palos Verdes Library District to serve the Peninsula Center Library (via the new
Reciprocal Easement Agreement). The topography of The Village site features a substantial
grade change from the south to the north. The site topography creates challenges for
reparcelization and redevelopment of the property in a manner that meets development
standards. The parcel configuration as proposed is the only configuration that feasibly supports
both the assisted living use and the commercial uses in the two remaining buildings on The
Village parcel (21,075 sf of gross leasable area in Buildings B and C). If more land were to be
allocated to The Village parcel in order to meet the parking structure 25% lot coverage standard,
13
E-13
the area of the assisted living parcel would be reduced, resulting in constraints that would make
the assisted living facility infeasible.
Additional landscaping area will be added adjacent to Building B and adjacent to the parking
structure and the rear lot line of Parcel 1. Enhanced landscaping will also be required along
Deep Valley Drive, adjacent to the parking structure and Building C.
The Planning Commission is able to make the findings for the Variances, as stated below:
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to its intended use which do not apply generally to other properties in
the same zoning district and neighborhood.
This finding has been met because the subject property topography creates challenges for
reparcelization and redevelopment of the property in a manner that meets development
standards. The parcel configuration as proposed is the only configuration that feasibly supports
both the assisted living use on Parcel 1 and the retention of commercial uses in the two
remaining buildings on Parcel 2 (21,075 SF of gross leasable area in Buildings B and C),
resulting in the provision of 10% landscaping, where 20% is required, less than required
setbacks for existing Building C and the parking structure, and parking structure lot coverage of
35% where 25% is permitted. If more land were to be allocated to Parcel 2, in order to meet the
required lot coverage standard for parking structures and landscaping minimums, the area of
Parcel 1 would be reduced, resulting in constraints that would make the assisted living facility
infeasible. This property is unique in that it must fulfill the provision of +/-200 parking spaces on
Parcel 2, in order to be released from the original 1978 Operation and Reciprocal Easement
Agreement between The Village, the Palos Verdes Library District and the City of Rolling Hills
Estates.
2. The Variances are 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 and neighborhood.
This finding has been met because the size, shape and topography of the site present
significant challenges in providing the required parking stall and aisle width dimensions,
landscaping, lot coverage for parking structures, and building setbacks, while meeting the
conditions of the new agreement between The Village and the Peninsula Center Library for
provision of +/- 200 parking stalls on Parcel 2. Adjacent sites are relatively flat and are not
encumbered by reciprocal parking/easement agreements that require provision of approximately
200 parking spaces. If the parking structure footprint were to be expanded to allow for additional
dimension in the aisle width, the nonconformity of lot coverage would be further increased. The
granting of the Variances for less than required landscaping, setbacks of the new parking
structure and existing Building C, lot coverage of the parking structure, and provision of
nonconforming stall and aisle width dimensions in the parking structure, are necessary for the
enjoyment of a substantial property right, possessed by other property owners under like
conditions in the same zoning district.
3. The granting of the Variances will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare o
injurious to property and improvements in the zoning district and neighborhood in which the
property is located.
This finding has been met because the proposed improvements would meet PPD criteria,
provide the required parking for the intended use and the adjacent Peninsula Center Library,
and the proposed improvements would require all necessary Building and Safety permits to be
constructed, thereby not being detrimental to the public welfare and neighborhood.
14
E-14
4. The granting of the Variances will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.
This finding has been met because the proposed uses for the overall project (21,075 SF of
commercial use and a new parking structure) are in accordance with the Master Plan Land Use
Policy for Planning Area 6, the C -G zone and the Mixed -Use Development Overlay.
5. The granting of the Variances will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise
expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the property.
This finding has been met because the use and activities of the proposed project and the
associated parking structure are provided for in the zoning regulations governing the CG/MU
zone.
CONCLUSION
Staff has worked closely with the applicant to address the requirements of the Municipal Code,
including the Variance requests. Additionally, staff has worked closely with the Palos Verdes
Library District and The Village ownership for more than a year, during the discussions to
dissolve the 1978 Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village, the Palos Verdes Library District, and the City of Rolling Hills Estates (which allows
reciprocal ingress, egress, and parking rights on/over each owner's property, as well as a
landscape and access easement on Parcel 1), releasing Parcel 1 (Merrill Gardens) and the City
of RHE from the agreement, and execute a new Reciprocal Easement Agreement between The
Village and The Palos Verdes Library District.
As summarized in the staff report, the Planning Commission is able to support the series of
entitlements required to allow a two -lot subdivision, for the new construction of a 114 -unit
Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) on one lot, the new construction of a two-level
parking structure on the second lot, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding
that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact on the environment.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Open the Public Hearing on the Project approvals;
2. Take public testimony;
3. Discuss the issues;
4. Close the Public Hearing on the Project approvals;
5. Adopt Resolution No. 2382, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
6. Adopt Resolution No. 2383, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398—a two -lot
subdivision, consisting of a 1.48 -acre parcel (Parcel 1) and a 1.65 -acre parcel (Parcel 2),
with commercial condominiums on Parcel 2 and Grading Permit for Project -related grading;
7. Adopt Resolution No. 2384, approving Variances, Conditional Use Permit, and a Precise
Plan of Design for the Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398;
8. Adopt Resolution No. 2385, approving Variances, Conditional Use Permit, and a Precise
Plan of Design for the Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 72398;
15
E-15
EXHIBITS
Attached
1. Resolution No. PA -05-16
2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt August 1, 2016
3. Merrill Gardens Operating and Parking Management Plans
Separate
1. Plans
2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting
Program, The Village/Merrill Gardens Project (PA -05-16)
3. Resolution No. 2382
4. Resolution No. 2383
5. Resolution No. 2384
6. Resolution No. 2385
16
E-16
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 34
DATE ADOPTED: 09/04/01 (Amended 10/##/16)
SUBJECT: Border Issues
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that it shall be briefed from time to time
regarding "Border Issues" that have the potential to adversely impact residents of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. "Border Issues" consist of individual projects
that are likely to have direct impacts on City residents on their own, as well as
projects that, together with other projects, could create cumulative impacts to City
residents. The procedure for addressing such issues shall be as follows:
1) When City Staff receives notices or other information regarding proposed
projects that are located outside of the City's borders but with the potential to
impact City residents, City Staff shall report such information to the City Council
as described in Section 3 below. Such proposed projects shall include, but not
be limited to, proposed land use development projects, events, or special uses
in the neighboring cities and communities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates,
Palos Verdes Estates, San Pedro, Lomita and unincorporated Los Angeles
County.
2) Reports to the City Council on any such "Border Issue" proposed project shall
include a description of the proposed project and the current status of the
proposed project.
3) Updates on Border Issues shall be provided to the City Council from time to
time via the City's Weekly Administrative Report. These updates shall also be
provided to the general public and interested parties via the City's Border
Issues Status Report listsery and on the Border Issues Status Report page
(http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report) on the City's website.
4) Upon receipt of notices or other information regarding potential Border Issues,
Staff may take one of the following actions:
A) Determine that no potential impacts would result to City residents and
take no further action regarding the item;
B) Determine that potential impacts may result to City residents and
coordinate with other City departments to identify what these impacts
are, and to provide comments to the public agency, project proponent
F-1
City Council Policy No. 34
Border Issues
Page 2
and/or property owner regarding these impacts and Staff's
recommendations to address them.
C) Determine that significant adverse impacts may result to City residents
and present the Border Issue to the City Council to possibly establish a
City position on the proposed project and give specific direction to Staff.
5) Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, Staff will have the ability to take
one or more of the following actions:
A) Respond to any CEQA notices:
B) Draft a letter to the lead agency stating the City's position on the project;
C) Attend any public hearings, workshops or any other informational
meetings on the proposed project;
D) Meet with representatives of the lead agency proposing the project.
6) Projects shall remain on the status report until the items are deemed closed.
F-2
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 34
DATE ADOPTED: 09/04/01 (Amended 10/##/16)
SUBJECT: Border Issues
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that it shall be briefed from time to time
regarding at least onGe a menth, the City GeunGil agenda shall Gentain an itern to
diSGUSs "Border Issues" that have the potential to adversely impact residents of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes. "Border Issues" consist of individual projects that
are likely to have direct impacts on City residents on their own, as well as projects
that, together with other projects, could create cumulative impacts to City
residents. The procedure for addressing such issues shall be as follows, which
summarized in the atta Ghed flGW Ghart-.
1) When City Staff receives notices or other information regarding proposed
projects that are located outside of the City's borders but with the potential to
impact City residents, City Staff shall report such information to the City Council
as part of the Council's monthly "Bowler issues" agenda •+orr described in
Section 3 below. Such proposed projects shall include, but not be limited to,
proposed land use development projects, events, or special uses in the
neighboring cities and communities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Palos
Verdes Estates, San Pedro, Lomita and unincorporated Los Angeles County.
2) Th, Staff Reports to the City Council on any such "Border Issue" proposed
project shall include a description of the proposed project and the current status
of the proposed project.
911
prejeet:Updates on Border Issues shall be provided to the City Council from
time to time via the City's Weekly Administrative Report. These updates shall
also be provided to the general public and interested parties via the City's
Border Issues Status Report listsery and on the Border Issues Status Report
page (http://www.rpvca.gov/781/Border-Issues-Status-Report) on the City's
website.
4) Upon receipt of the Staff Report notices or other information regarding potential
Border Issues, the Gity rr,U RGil shall GORSideF P bIiG testi .,oRy andStaff
may take one of the following actions:
F-3
City Council Policy No. 34
Border Issues
Page 2
A) Determine that no potential adverse impacts would result to City
residents and direct th++ha+take no further action be +kms^ ^^regarding the
item;
B) Determine that potential adverse impacts may result to City residents
and coordinate with other City departments to identify what these
impacts are, and to provide comments to the public agency, project
proponent and/or property owner regarding these impacts and Staff's
recommendations to address themdirest the Berder hiss uoS
to the City GG .,nil as to what if aRY ., ShinR the City should take .,n the
je
p Gt.
C) Determine that significant adverse impacts w+ll—may result to City
residents and present the Border Issue to the City Council to possibly
establish a City position on the proposed project and give specific
direction to the S, b-^^^Arno++oo and/E). Staff.
5) Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, when nr, eGt is roferFe d to +ho
S fur r n;+ the suit_,.GFRF„++ooStaff will have the ability to
take one or more of the following actions:
A) niror+ Staff +,.Respond to any CEQA notices:
B) Direct Staff to d -Draft a letter to the lead agency stating the City's position
on the project;
C) Attend ^r ,diro,.+ Staff to o++on,d any public hearings, workshops or any
other informational meetings on the proposed project;
D) Meet with representatives of the lead agency proposing the project.
TM Projects shall remain on the monthly status report to the City Council until
the City GGLIRGOI r s the items er-are deems deemedthe item closed.
F-4