RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_09_30_01_Gen_Plan_Amdmt_Zone_Change_10_Chaparral_Ln
PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED)
Date: September 30, 2014
Subject: General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Certification of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. ZON2014-00143) for
Property Located at 10 Chaparral Lane
Subject Property: 10 Chaparral Lane
1. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale will announce this Public Hearing
was continued from September 2, 2014
2. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner So Kim
3. Public Testimony:
Applicant: Luis de Moraes
Appellant: N/A
4. Council Questions:
5. Rebuttal:
6. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic will declare the hearing continued.
7. Council Deliberation:
8. Council Action:
W:\FORMS\Public Hearing Formats\public hearing format Council-Continued Public Hearing Form 20140819 Ord Fire Code.doc
1-1
CITY OF Rt\NCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUN~/ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 0 V
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(CASE NO. ZON2014-00143) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10
CHAPARRAL LANE
REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, AC,ING CITY MANAGER@)
Project Manager: So Kim, Senior Planne~ (dz.~.\(...
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing to an unspecified date with the issuance of a new public
hearing notice to allow the applicant sufficient time to address the geotechnical issues
related to the proposed project.
DISCUSSION
At the September 2, 2014 City Council meeting, Staff requested that the Council continue
the public hearing to its September 30, 2014 meeting to allow more time for Staff to
address geology concerns related to the applicant's request to adjust the boundary line
between the Open Space Hazard (OH) and Residential (RS) Land Use and Zoning
Districts. In light of this, and the fact that there is now a new property owner (Mr. Chan)
requesting to develop the subject lot with a redesigned residence, Staff is now
recommending that additional geotechnical studies be conducted prior to the public hearing
to reflect the new owner's proposal and to address Staff's geologic concerns with reducing
the OH zoning designation and expanding the RS zoning designation to accommodate the
proposed residence. As such, Staff is recommending that the applicant's request be
continued to an unspecified date and that a new public notice will be issued when the
public hearing is agendized.
1-2
10 CHAPARRAL-GP AND ZM AMENDMENT (ZON2014-00143)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 CC MEETING
PAGE2
ATTACHMENTS
• Public Comments (since the September 2, 2014 Council Meeting)
1-3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
August 30, 2014
MEMO from SUNSHINE
SunshineRPV@aol.com
Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:50 AM
CC; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian
jduhovic@hotmail.com; jim_knight@juno.com; Susan Brooks <Subrooks08
@gmail.com>; mizie@cox.net; Brian Campbell <b .camp@cox .net>;
susanmswank@gmail.com; pvpasofino@yahoo.com; jeanlongacre@aol.com
Sept. 2, 2014 Agenda Item 1, GP and ZM proposed Amendment.
TO: RPV City Council. Copy to Staff and interested parties.
RE: Sept. 2, 2014 Agenda Item 1, GP and ZM proposed Amendment.
FYI: I have saved this on a computer file called "RPV Plan messes" as opposed to the "Peninsula Wheel Trails
Network/Spoke #2/10 Chaparral". Anyone who thinks that this proposed action will support the Council's Goal
of City Trail Systems Enhancement is just plain mistaken.
This proposed Amendment should correct errors in the existing General Plan Land Use Map and the existing
Zoning Map. These errors extend beyond the specific lot, 10 Chaparral. Staff has proposed several such
corrections as a part of the proposed General Plan "update". Although Staff was aware of the same error here,
they chose not to include it in the "update" public hearings. Their motivation continues to be a mystery. This
Amendment should be Staff initiated and at the City's expense.
Is this area on the NCCP map? If not, if this habitat is so "pristine" then, the NCCP needs amending before this
private property owner gets jerked around any further. That is the point of having a Natural Communities
Conservation Plan. See? RPV has a lot of "Plan messes".
It really annoys me when a private property owner is mislead by Staff because Staff has not bothered to keep "a
clean house" of current records.
f It really offends me to have to ask the Council to deny an Application simply because Staff has screwed up. Or,
i have they? Is there a method behind this madness? If so, what is the objective? There must be more to it than
'to permit some new guy in town (with money) to build another big house under questionable circumstances.
May you create an Alternative #3? Deny the Applicant's request without prejudice and direct Staff to initiate
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Map and NCCP Map as appropriate. The existing
General Plan trails maps and RPV Conceptual Trails Plan are fine just the way they are if Staff would simply
implement them.
1 I 1-4
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello So and Ara
Madeline Ryan <pvpasofino@yahoo.com>
Sunday, August 31, 2014 7:48 PM
Ara Mihranian; So Kim; CC
Re: Proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment -#10 Chaparral
I am a bit concerned about relocating boundary lines and/or redesignating areas on any parcel to
accommodate development when there are questionable boundary lines. Among the numerous
documents submitted to City regarding the instability of this particular parcel by Mr. Damon Swank, owner
#7 Chaparral, are very detailed reports from geologists who offer an opposing position to development on
some areas of this parcel, especially the flat areas.
City Staff supports the land-use amendment to the alternative of building over an extreme slope. Let the
owner build on the area(s) that are designated Residential, go through the proper application process,
applying for variances, as needed, rather than re-zone and/or redesignate areas just to accommodate
development.
In addition to all of the problems associated with this parcel, what does the City plan to do to ensure that
the historically used trail, which now crosses the southeast portion of this parcel to access the City-owned
easement, remains open and protected for the pedestrian/equestrian access to the Rolling Hills Nature
Trail and the Peninsula Trails network, especially those living on Chaparral Lane? Will the City require a
formal dedicated easement as a condition to develop this lot?
In conclusion, I would support Alternative #2, but in reviewing Sunshine's suggestion for an Alternative
#3, I would support her submission.
"May the Trails be with you ... " Madeline
From: So Kim <SoK@rpv .com>
To: "'mookat@schlossbros .com'" <mookat@schlossbros .com>; "Madeline Ryan (pvpasofino@yahoo.com)"
<pvpasofino@ya hoo. com>
Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2014 8:43 AM
Subject: 10 Chaparral -Sept 2nd City Council Mtg .
Morning,
Attached is the public notice for 10 Chaparral, scheduled for the 9/2 City Council meeting. Please
contact me if you would like this mailed to you in hard copy format instead .
Sincerely,
So Kim
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
(310) 544-5228
1 I 1-5
/
SIX CHAPARRAL LANE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275 U.S.A.
PHONE: (310) 544-0001 FAX: (310) 544-7900 EMAIL: THEJOEOLIVERl@GMAIL.COM
05/17/2012
Honorable City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: #10 Chaparral Lane Project
Honorable City Council,
Please see the endosed additional photos# A through #E that depict concerns
relative to the dangerous exposure that Chaparral Lane would have if the street was
deteriorated due to heavy trucks and equipment during a construction term. The
waste management company, (trash pickup) in their experience, take precautions
for Chaparral Lane. Service is provided with small pickup trucks, not heavy
equipment. Access for persons who reside on Chaparral Lane would cause serious
implications as wen as restricting emergency vehicles including fire, ambulance and
paramedic s to the residences.
The obvious evidence of earth movement from # 8 Chaparral Lane onto the street of
Chaparral Lane. (see Photo # C)
This, as well as the certified professional geologists acknowledged fact of land slide
vulnerable history on #8 Chaparral, makes the project at# 10 not buildable unless
retainment oflot #8 is completed. Applicant says that permission is granted by the
owner of lot# 8, however, residents have not seen any approval by the owner for
required retaining wan .There has been no geology report given or approved for the
lot #8 wall. Mr. Lancaster, city Geologist, says that without the retaining wan on lot
# 8 he would not approve the applicants request for construction at lot# 10. Page
15, paragraph 1 of staff report states "The proposed project may cause erosion if
proper mitigation measures are not implemented". No geologic determinations
have been implemented for the construction and approval of the retaining wall on
lot # 8 Chaparral Lane.
I respectfully request that you deny approval of applicant's request, as it is a danger
to fety of the residents.
cc: Law Offices of Jeffrey A. Coleman
cc: Damon Swank
1-6
'' __ ,_ ~ -
1
-
7
co
:it:
CJ) 6 c:: 0
·-L... "O 't-· --
Cl) ~
't-L...
0 co
Q) a. (.) co c:: .r:.
Q) ()
. 32 0 >~ w §
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
Ara Mihranian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Joe Oliveri <thejoeoliveri@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:14 AM
Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; PC; Susan Brooks; Anthony Misetich; Brian Campbell;
oelr@rpv.com; edwardo@rpv.com; Lisa Garrett
Fwd: Chaparral PPT Geology Study
Chaparral Plot and Geological Analysis.pptx
Please see the attached presentation for your consideration of development of #10
Chaparral lane. Thank you Joe Oliveri # 6 Chaparral
Chaparral Geology Study Power Point Presentation
1 1-13
V) > c: tlO
0 _Q V> ·~ 0 ·v;
ro OJ > ~ <D ro
....J -c c:
+-' Q) <(
.2 ~ ro a.. ·-u
u ·--0 +-' ~ V> ·;::::
L.. V) u ~ <( <(
ro -c ...c c:
U ro
rl
1-14
isjs .. ~he resi~en~~J at #6 Chaparral Ln -. This is
Where:ttf ere~is <langer : of failure to the hillside
2
1
-
1
5
Building On The Scale Proposed
For Lot #10 Puts Neighbors in Jeapardy
3
1
-
1
6
OJ -c ·-V) --·-I
V) ·-..c
1-
tlO c
V)
OJ
E
0
I
tlO c ·-+-'
V) ·-x
UJ
0
+-' ·-N~ ·--·-..c ro
+-'
V)
OJ
0
V) ·-a::
V)
+-' c
OJ
V)
OJ
L.. a..
w co ...J ~ 0 ] ____ ..
u I
c: -I e Ql
al :'Q
c Iii o'-'
-; ~ ... Ql "C
L:. :;
(/) 0
Ql L:. E (/)
0 co .c. .
Ql 0
L:. c ..... ~
1-17
Requirement for a Retaining Wall;
Yet No Geological Report Required?
This home ts on Bronco
South of -slopt ng
# 8 Chaparral ~ ,
Other homes w~t on
Bron co suscep ti ble to
damage due to
land slide
5
1
-
1
8
1-19
Q)
-0 c ·--.....J Vl
-0 -ro c '---ro '---
.....J ro
'+-0..
0 ro
+-' ...c:
c u
Q) Vl
E Vl
0 Q) '---> u
0 <(
~
1-20
1-21
1-22
-0 ro M
L.. # L.. ro ..._. c.. 00
ro #
~ ..._,
" u # '+-
0 ..._,
U)
~ #
QJ tlO ·-c > ·-~ QJ u 0 c ~
ro V>
+-' V> V> ·-+-'
Cl 0
_J
c: ..c:
Q) Q) 0 +-' c: > ro u ·-c: a. ·,p ....J ~ o ..!.. ro a> z-rou+-' u.. '+-ro
0
0
rl
1-23
QJ ro -c
u~
·-V) -~ -c ~ c:
U ro
..., ......J
ro oo
~ c:
0 ·-
0 ~
......J 0
~ ..c:
QJ Vl
V)
0 -u
1-24
CX)
:it:
e> E
c: e
·-'+-
"'C -= co
UJ t::
'+-0 co a.
Q) co 0 L:, I
c: (.) ~o ·--> c: Wo
® I
N
rl
1-25
M
..-I
1-26
Active Landslide has over-run
Chaparral by several feet at lot #8
Th is home is on Bronco
South of sloping
tl 8 Chaparral
Cha,;li'ml l
Active Lariaslide ·· ~-~ < -~..u .. ~
Other homes west on
Bronco susceptible to
damage due to
land slide
14
1
-
2
7
The Landslide ·an Lot #8 Has
Moved 3+ Feet Over Chaparral Ln.
~
#7
Chaparral
-· ..... _
~ t
Cracks in street indicate earth movement below
-E
4.5+ Ft. Deep
By 100' wide
Landslide
Progressively
Covering
Street.
~
15
1
-
2
8
Potential
Exists
That
Retaining
Wall will
Trigger
Landslide
These and other houses on Bronco lane are at the cliffs edge
of #8 Chaparral In.
16
1
-
2
9