Staff ReportPUBLIC HEARING
Date: July 21, 2015
Subject: General Plan Land Use Amendment, Zone Change and Residential
Development on a Property Located at 10 Chaparral Lane (Case No.
ZON2014-00143)
Subject Property: 10 Chaparral Lane
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
2. Declare the Hearing Continued: Mayor Knight — Continued from Sept. 30, 2014
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Kim
4. Public Testimony:
Applicant: Luis de Moraes
Appellant: N/A
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Knight
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
Public Hearing
Cover Page
CITY OF tARANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY V OPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 21, 2015
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10
CHAPARRAL LANE (CASE NO. ZON2014-00143)
REVIEWED: DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGERVAA!
Project Manager: So Kim, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration that
finds that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding
environment with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby approving a General Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential 1-2
du/ac for a portion of 10 Chaparral Lane;
3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-_, thereby approving a Height Variation and Grading
Permit to allow the construction of a new 26' tall, 6,781ft2 two-story residence with
balanced grading on site at 10 Chaparral Lane, including grading for an 8' tall retaining
wall at 8 Chaparral Lane; and,
4) Introduce Ordinance No. 2015-_, thereby amending the Zoning Map for a portion of 10
Chaparral Lane from Open Space Hazard to Single -Family Residential 2 du/ac.
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment Initiation
Request, allowing the property owner to proceed with proposed changes to the General
Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations to adjust the boundary line between the
portions of his property designated as "residential" and "hazard" to accommodate future
development over the only flat area of the subject lot.
On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2012-05 (Page
ATT -166), recommending that the City Council certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration for
1
the relocation of General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map boundary lines to accommodate
the construction of a new residence on the only flat area of the subject property (5-1, with
Commissioner Leon dissenting). During the public hearing, the Commission received
public testimony related to trail connection and geologic stability concerns of the site.
However, through the City Geologist's in -concept approval of the proposed project and the
applicant's voluntary dedication of nearly a third of the property for future trail connections,
the Planning Commission felt that all issues raised by the public were adequately
addressed. Because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is involved, the
Planning Commission's role was solely advisory and their recommendation on the
application was forwarded to the City Council for a decision on the matter.
On April 17, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which time the
application was continued to June 5th, and subsequently to July 17th, then subsequently to
September 18th at the applicant's request. Ultimately, the application was continued to an
unspecified date. The ownership of the property changed twice since 2012.
In 2014, Mr. Kevin Chen (current property owner), represented by his architect Luis de
Moraes, notified Staff that he intended to follow through on the same pending application
except that he would revise the project to reduce the overall scope of work. As such, a
new public hearing notice was provided and the application was placed on the September
2, 2014 City Council agenda. The item was subsequently continued to September 30,
2014. On September 30th, at the applicant's request, the City Council continued the public
hearing to a future unspecified date to allow the applicant to address geologic concerns of
the site that were continued to be raised by some neighbors.
After additional geologic analysis was performed by the applicant and reviewed and
approved by the City Geologist, the application was again ready to be presented to the City
Council. As such, on June 18, 2015, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News
and mailed out to all property owners located within 500' radius of the subject site.
Comments received during the public commenting period are attached and discussed in
detail under `Additional Information' section below.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The subject property currently has two separate General Plan Land Use (Residential 1-2
du/ac & Natural Environment/Hazard) and corresponding Zoning designations (Single -
Family Residential 2 du/ac & Open Space Hazard). The entire 2.03 -acre property consists
of extreme slopes (35% or greater) with one relatively flat area at the terminus of Chaparral
Lane. Interestingly, the only flat area that could be used for a future building pad is located
within the "Hazard" land use and zoning designations. This existing situation would force
the construction of a residential structure on this legal lot over the extreme slope portion of
the property as opposed to the only flat area of the property which is more suitable for
development.
In order to develop the property with a single-family residence and avoid constructing over
the extreme slope portion of the property, the applicant is requesting approval to move the
05
"Hazard"/"Residential" boundary line in a northerly direction so that the existing pad area
would be entirely within the "Residential" land use and zoning designation. The extreme
slope area downslope from the existing flat area will remain with the "Hazard" land use and
zoning designation. In conjunction with the proposed land use and zoning designation
change, the applicant is proposing to construct a single-family dwelling with accessory
structures in the flat area.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission's Review and Recommendation
As described in the "Background" section above, the Planning Commission reviewed and
conceptually approved the requested General Plan Land Use Amendment and Zone
Change along with residential development applications to develop a residence on the flat
portion of the lot in February 2012. Since then, the applicant made some design revisions
to the proposed residential development. There are no changes to the General Plan Land
Use Amendment or and Zone Change proposal that was reviewed by the Commission in
2012. The previously approved 2012 proposal and the current proposal are described in
more detail below.
Application Package Before the City Council
The General Plan Land Use Amendment and Zone Change aspect of the proposed
request involves a legislative decision and therefore City Council review and approval is
required. Although the residential development aspect of the proposed request by itself
would not require City Council review unless appealed, pursuant to the City's Development
Code, the Council needs to act on the entire application package. Thus, the Planning
Commission's decision on the application package in 2012 (Page ATT -166) was only
advisory. The City Council is now being asked to take the following actions:
• Certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the proposal would not result in
any significant impacts to the environment that could not be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
• Approve a General Plan Amendment to move the location of the "Hazard" boundary
line on the property so that the level pad area could be developed.
• Approve a Zone Change to move the location of the Open Space Hazard zoning
district boundary line on the property so that the level pad area can be developed.
• Approve a Height Variation and Grading Application to allow the construction of a
new single-family residence on the level pad area of the property.
Geologic Review in Support of Proposed Application Package
The applicant prepared the necessary geologic studies that demonstrate that the General
Plan's "Hazard" boundary line and Open Space Hazard zoning district boundary line can be
moved as proposed. In summary, the studies conclude that the open space hazard limit
3
line may be relocated to allow for construction of the proposed improvements from a
geotechnical perspective. The applicant's geologic studies have been reviewed and
approved by the City Geologist (Page ATT -7). Furthermore, the City Geologist will attend
the July 21 st City Council hearing to answer any questions related to the geologic review.
Proposed Residential Project
The following table compares the residential development proposal that was conceptually
approved by the Planning Commission in 2012 and the current revised proposal.
The most notable difference between the 2012 Commission reviewed project and the
current project is the reduced ridgeline and grading. The current building pad area consists
of un -compacted fill. As a result, the applicant is required to excavate the area to a depth
recommended by the applicant's geologist and approved by the City Geologist and fill it
with re -compacted earth material. While the 2012 project also included 1,000yd3 of
additional imported fill to raise the building pad and driveway area, the current project
proposes to lower the building pad by a few feet to further minimize any visual impacts to
neighboring properties. By lowering the building pad, the proposed project results in
balanced grading on-site, requiring no export or import of earth. This further helps address
the neighbors' previous concern with construction vehicles damaging Chaparral Lane as
vehicle trips will be reduced compared to the 2012 project. Additionally, with a change
from an indirect access garage to a direct access garage, the overall lot coverage has
been reduced from 10% to 8.51% by reducing the amount of driveway hardscape.
Furthermore, the current proposal includes a series of caissons near the edge of the
building pad, allowing for a 3' tall retaining wall to further stabilize the residential
development. There are other minor changes, such as the shape of the building footprint,
with the current proposal involving substantially more articulation, and inclusion of
accessory structures (e.g. pool, spa, patio area, etc) on the site. However, the overall area
of grading/improvement is the same as the 2012 proposal.
al
2012 Project
I Current Proposal
Structure Size
6,838ft2
6,781ft2
Structure Height
26'
26'
Maximum Rid eline
717.5'
710'
Lot Coverage
10%
8.51%
Setbacks
Front (east)
Side (north)
Side (south)
Rear west
59'-3"
180'+
270'+
164"
57'
180'+
270'+
17'-11 "
Garage Access
Indirect
Direct
Grading
1,000yd3 export
Balanced on site
The most notable difference between the 2012 Commission reviewed project and the
current project is the reduced ridgeline and grading. The current building pad area consists
of un -compacted fill. As a result, the applicant is required to excavate the area to a depth
recommended by the applicant's geologist and approved by the City Geologist and fill it
with re -compacted earth material. While the 2012 project also included 1,000yd3 of
additional imported fill to raise the building pad and driveway area, the current project
proposes to lower the building pad by a few feet to further minimize any visual impacts to
neighboring properties. By lowering the building pad, the proposed project results in
balanced grading on-site, requiring no export or import of earth. This further helps address
the neighbors' previous concern with construction vehicles damaging Chaparral Lane as
vehicle trips will be reduced compared to the 2012 project. Additionally, with a change
from an indirect access garage to a direct access garage, the overall lot coverage has
been reduced from 10% to 8.51% by reducing the amount of driveway hardscape.
Furthermore, the current proposal includes a series of caissons near the edge of the
building pad, allowing for a 3' tall retaining wall to further stabilize the residential
development. There are other minor changes, such as the shape of the building footprint,
with the current proposal involving substantially more articulation, and inclusion of
accessory structures (e.g. pool, spa, patio area, etc) on the site. However, the overall area
of grading/improvement is the same as the 2012 proposal.
al
Since the current project is less intensive than what was previously reviewed and
conceptually approved by the Planning Commission in 2012, Staff's environmental analysis
and its mitigation measures (refer to MND) continue to apply and there are no changes to
Staff's analysis in making all of the required findings (referto September 13, 2011 Planning
Commission Staff Report) necessary for the City Council to approve the proposed project.
Issues Raised by Some Neighbors
Geology
The primary reason for the delay in presenting this application to the City Council after the
Planning Commission's review in 2012 is because some neighbors raised geologic
concerns at the February 2012 Planning Commission meeting related to site stability and
the placement of a septic tank on the subject site. Specifically, the neighbors submitted
their own geologic reports that raised concerns with the stability of applicant's lot. Given
these concerns, Staff requested that the applicant conduct additional geologic analysis to
address these concerns. These concerns have been addressed by the applicant's
geologist and reviewed by the City Geologist. As noted earlier, both the applicant's
geologist and the City Geologist will be available at tonight's public hearing to address any
questions raised by the Council or the public.
Trails
The City's Conceptual Trails Plan (CTP) identifies two separate conceptual trails within the
vicinity of the subject site: Bronco Trail and Georgette Canyon Trail. The conceptual
Bronco Trail is described as a point-to-point trail that begins at the north end of Mustang
Road at Bronco Drive that extends northward to meet the Georgette Canyon Trail in Rolling
Hills Estates (RHE). The CTP does not specify which private properties this conceptual
trail would cross, other than that it simply leads from Mustang Road/Bronco Drive to a trail
in RHE. The subject lot is one of 6 properties in the potential route for the conceptual
Bronco Trail in a south -north direction. Given this, the applicant is amenable to dedicating
portions of the subject property along the west property line for the future implementation
of the conceptual Bronco Trail.
The conceptual Georgette Canyon Trail is also described as a point-to-point trail that
crosses the rear yards of properties along Chaparral Lane in an east -west direction. The
CTP specifically states that no viable route has been found for this conceptual trail
although the need for access has been demonstrated. More importantly, the CTP states
that this trail will not traverse Chaparral Lane because at the time Chaparral Lane was
developed as a private street it replaced an access trail and no formal recorded agreement
allowing the public use of Chaparral Lane has been established. The applicant is also
amenable to dedicating the northerly portions of the subject property for the future
implementation of the conceptual Bronco Trail.
Throughout the processing of this application, trail users of the area have raised concerns
with the proposed development on the subject property as it will no longer allow public
5
access, albeit not legal, over the property. This is because there is an undeveloped path
that leads from the end of Chaparral Lane to the pad area of the property which then leads
downslope to connect with the George F Canyon trail in Rolling Hills Estates. Preserving
the non -dedicated path over the flat area would preclude development over the most
developable area on the subject lot. Additionally, the CTP is explicit in that no trail access
should be created to or from Chaparral Lane. As a result, while the previous 2012 project
included a dedication of a small trail easement to re-route the existing pathway from
Chaparral Lane to the trail in RHE, the current proposal no longer includes said trail
easement dedication. The applicant does not want to dedicate or create an easement
from Chaparral Lane as this will allow the public to access his driveway and portions of his
private yard area. As the CTP does not call for a trail connection to Chaparral Lane and
there is no legal easement over the subject property for public use, Staff finds the
applicant's approach to be reasonable and intends to work with him to identify and obtain
the necessary easements for the future implementation of the conceptual Bronco and
Georgette Canyon trails. Staff plans to consult with the City's trail consultant for the most
feasible locations of the future implementation of the aforementioned conceptual trails and
work with the applicant to have easements recorded prior to Building Permit issuance.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
Staff received the attached three emails in response to the recently published public notice.
Two emails are in opposition to the proposed project primarily because it would no longer
allow public access across the subject lot to a trail in RHE. As mentioned in the previous
discussion related to trails, the City's CTP document does not call for a trail connection to
Chaparral Lane. Additionally, as there are no recorded/dedicated easements on the
subject lot, the property owner is not obligated to provide public access over his private
property. Additionally, the applicant's geologist addressed all geologic stability concerns
raised by the public and the City, and the applicant's geologist's reports have been
reviewed and approved by the City Geologist. Lastly, Staff is able to make all required
findings with the current proposal as it is less intensive than what was conceptually
approved by the Planning Commission in 2012.
The third email raises concerns of the potential damage to Chaparral Lane as a result of
the construction vehicles traversing to and from the subject property at the time of
construction and suggests making the applicant responsible for restoration. Staff agrees
and added the following language as a conditions of approval:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall document the current
condition of Chaparral Lane with still and video photography of the entire length of
Chaparral Lane. Following construction and prior to Building Permit Final,
Chaparral Lane shall be re-evaluated and any damages to the street surface
incurred as a result of the grading and/or related construction shall be the
responsibility of the applicant to repair to the satisfaction of the Director.
101
CONCLUSION
Based on the past discussion and analysis within the attached Staff Reports, minutes and
P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05, Staff is concluding that all required findings for the proposed
project have been met and thus recommends that the City Council certify a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project (General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Height Variation and Grading Permit).
ATTACHMENTS
■ Resolution No. 2015-_, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Page 8)
o Initial Study (Page 12)
o Exhibit A — Mitigation Monitoring Program (Page 33)
■ Resolution No. 2015-, approving a General Plan Amendment (Page 39)
■ Ordinance No. 2015-_, approving a Zone Change (Page 43)
■ Resolution No. 2015-, approving a Height Variation and Grading Permit (Page 48)
■ Applicant's Geologic Studies (Page 59)
■ Public Correspondence July 13, 2015 and after (Page 280)
■ Public Correspondence received after the Sept. 30, 2015 CC hearing (Page ATT -1)
■ Geotechnical In -Concept Approval (Page ATT -7)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated September 30, 2014 (Page ATT -10)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated September 2, 2014 (Page ATT -39)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated September 18, 2012 (Page ATT -94)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated July 17, 2012 (Page ATT -97)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated June 5, 2012 (Page ATT -100)
■ C.C. Staff Report dated April 17, 2012 (Page ATT -103)
■ P.C. Resolution No. 2012-05 (Page ATT -166)
■ P.C. Minutes dated February 28, 2012 (Page ATT -177)
■ P.C. Staff Report dated February 28, 2012 (Page ATT -185)
■ P.C. Minutes dated September 13, 2011 (Page ATT -206)
■ P.C. Staff Report dated September 13, 2011 (Page ATT -210)
7