Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_09_02_03_Coastal_Specific_Plan_Corridor_ElementsCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, AICP, DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 DEVELOPMENT COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT - ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR IDENTIFYING A VIEWING STATION CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER© Project Manager: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Directo~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt City Council Policy No. XX thereby instituting a policy for identifying the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for purposes of determining the visual impact of development projects from the public right-of-way for projects within the City's designated Coastal District that are not located within a defined visual corridor. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2014, the City Council received a report on the implementation of the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP). The report primarily focused on the Corridors Element relating to the viewing station for development projects within defined and non-defined visual corridors. At that meeting, it was reported that development projects within specific visual corridors (see attached Figure 26) have both a horizontal and vertical dimension. For development projects that are not located in the CSP's specific visual corridors, the CSP states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West I Palos Verdes Drive South and the ocean, no building should project into a 2-degree down arc zone, as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. Staff also reported that this is not a requirement for development projects outside specific view corridors but rather is a recommendation (Coastal Commission Staff concurs with this determination). It was added that for projects located outside the specific view corridors, City Staff makes every effort to protect ocean views on a case-by-case basis depending on the topography, geology, and viewing stations that apply to each 3-1 CC POLICY -CSP CORRIDOR ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 PAGE2 individual project. Given this, during the Council discussion that ensued, questions were raised about the City's practice for establishing the viewing station for projects not located within a defined visual corridor. The City Council felt that the past methods for establishing the viewing station for projects not located in a specific visual corridor have resulted in an inconsistent practice causing structures to be built at varying heights along the City's coastal zone impacting views from the roadway. Therefore, in order to consistently establish the viewing station for purposes of applying the 2-degree down arc called for in the Coastal Specific Plan for projects not located within a specific view corridor, the City Council directed Staff to come back with policy language with the ultimate goal of offering the maximum view protection from the public right-of-way. On April 15, 2014, the City Council reviewed a policy drafted by Staff that institutes criteria for identifying the viewing station for development projects not located within a defined visual corridor. Based on discussions that ensued at the meeting, the Council expressed a desire to have the viewing station established at a point along the street where the best and most important view exists over the project site, rather than at the midpoint (of the lot to be developed) along the fog line. In light of this, the Council continued this matter, to an unspecified time, to allow Staff additional time to revise this policy . The Council is now being asked to adopt a policy drafted by Staff that institutes criteria for identifying the viewing station for development projects not located within a defined visual corridor. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Council directive at the March 4th and April 15th meetings, Staff has drafted a policy that establishes criteria for identifying the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for development projects that are not located within a defined visual corridor (see attached policy). As directed by the City Council, in order to provide maximum view protection, the draft policy proposes that the viewing station be identified at a point along the street where the best and most important view exists at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South. A viewing station at this location would provide maximum views to the greatest number of viewers including vehicle passengers and trail users. Additionally, the draft policy also includes language directed by the City Council ensuring that this policy would not supersede any condition of approval that is more restrictive in preserving views from Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South. FISCAL IMPACTS Adoption of this recommended City Council Policy will not result in fiscal impacts to the City's General Fund since the implementation of establishing the viewing station for development projects will be borne by each developer. 3-2 CC POLICY -CSP CORRIDOR ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 PAGE3 CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council Policy No. XX be adopted in order to set policy on establishing the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for development projects that are not located within a defined visual corridor. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed City Council Policy No . XX • April 15, 2014 City Council Staff Report • April 15, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt • March 4, 2014 City Council Staff Report • March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt 3-3 CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER: XX DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: September 2, 2014 SUBJECT: Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element -Identifying a Viewing Station to Assess Visual Impacts of a Proposed Project Located Outside of a Visual Corridor POLICY: To protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West I Palos Verdes Drive South and the ocean in areas that are not part of an identified visual corridor, as identified in Figure 26 of the Visual Element, the City's Coastal Specific Plan states that no buildings should project into a zone measured 2-degrees down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the "viewing station" and the coastline (Page C-12 of the Coastal Specific Plan). It shall be the policy of the City that for purposes of this requirement, the "viewing station" shall be at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South where the best and most important view exists over the site of the proposed project which may or may not be adjacent to the subject property line . This policy is not intended to supersede any existing condition of approval that is more restrictive in preserving views from Palos Verdes Drive West or Palos Verdes Drive South. DISCUSSION: The State of California's Coastal Act, enacted in 1976, mandates that coastal jurisdictions establish a local coastal plan that regulates local land use decisions within a defined coastal district. It is through the Coastal Act that the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978 thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and South, along the City's 7.5 miles of coastline. The CSP is intended to protect the natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the coastline while controlling the character of development and providing access to the coast. Similar to the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into five elements, one of which is the Corridors Element. The Corridors Element identifies five basic categories of "corridors." As utilized within the CSP, the term "corridor" includes a full range of interrelated linear and non-linear elements that provide functional, protection and preservation, definitions and linking capabilities. One of the five corridors identified in the Corridor Element is the category of 3-4 visual corridors . Visual corridors have dimensions for "vistas" and "views." Vistas have a viewing station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate area. Views have a viewing station but do not have a specific focus or object to be seen and have broad focal points which have an unlimited arc and depth. The visual corridors identified in the CSP are considered to have the greatest degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers. As a result, the CSP sets criteria for identifying viewing stations to assess proposed development projects located within identified visual corridors. Furthermore, the CSP establishes specific height zones for projects located within the same identified visual corridors. However, the CSP does not establish criteria for identifying viewing stations to assess the visual impacts of development projects located outside of a CSP visual corridor. This City Council policy establishes the criteria to be used to determine the location of the "viewing station" in areas located outside of a specified view corridor from which the visual impacts of proposed projects shall be assessed in order to maximize the protection of vistas and views within the Coastal District. 3-5 APRIL 15, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3-6 CJTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: . SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, AICP, DIRECTOR APRIL 15, 2014 DEVELOPMENT COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT - ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR IDENTIFYING A VIEWING STATION CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~ Project Manager: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Direct~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt City Council Policy No. XX thereby instituting a policy for identifying the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for development projects within the City's designated Coastal District that are not located within a defined visual corridor. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2014, the City Council received a report on the implementation of the City's Coastal Specific Plan. The report primarily focused on the Corridor Element relating to the viewing station for development projects within defined and non-defined visual corridors. During the Council discussion that ensued, questions were raised on the City's practice for establishing the viewing station for projects not located within a defined visual corridor. Staff reported that in past practice, the City has located the viewing station for these individual properties based on topography, roadway constraints and trail locations. In some instances, the most beneficial view is seen from a seated position in a vehicle, and in others, the most beneficial view is seen from a standing/walking position along a City trail within the public right-of-way. Staff acknowledged that different approaches have been used through the years with no set constant criteria followed. The City Council felt that the past methods for establishing the viewing station for projects not located in a specific visual corridor have resulted in an inconsistent practice causing structures to be built at varying heights along the City's coastal zone impacting views from 3-7 CC POLICY -CSP CORRIDOR ELEMENT APRIL 15, 2014 PAGE2 the roadway. Therefore, in order to consistently establish the viewing station for purposes of applying the 2-degree down arc called for in the Coastal Specific Plan for projects not located within a specific view corridor, the City Council directed Staff to come back with policy language with the ultimate goal of offering the maximum view protection from the public right-of-way . As such, the City Council is now being asked to adopt a policy drafted by Staff that institutes criteria for identifying the viewing station for development projects not located within a defined visual corridor. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Council directive at the March 4th meeting, Staff has drafted a policy that establishe$ criteria for identifying the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for development projects that are not located within a defined visual corridor (see attached policy). In summary, as suggested by members of the public, in order to provide maximum view protection, Staff proposes that the viewing station be identified at the midpoint of a project's property line paralleling the roadway at 3- feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/ bike lane line) of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. A viewing station at this location would provide maximum views to the greatest number of viewers including vehicle passengers and trail users. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION In an effort to engage the public, Staff extended an invitation (via email) to meet with those individuals who submitted public comments at the March 4th meeting to discuss the suggested policy language. Staff was unable to garner interest in meeting, but instead received public comments on suggested policy language which had been incorporated into Staff's recommendation (see attachment). FISCAL IMPACTS Adoption of this recommended City Council Policy will not result in fiscal impacts to the City's General Fund since the implementation of establishing the viewing station for development projects will be borne by the developer. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council Policy No. XX be adopted in order to set policy on establishing the viewing station described in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element for development projects that are not located within a defined visual corridor. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed City Council Policy No. XX • March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt • Public Comments 3-8 CITY COUNCIL POLICY NUMBER: XX DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: April 15, 2014 SUBJECT: Coastal Speciflc Plan Corridors Element -Identifying a Viewing Station to Assess Visual Impacts of a Proposed Project Located Outside of a Visual Corridor POLICY: For development projects within the City's designated Coastal District that are not located within a defined view corridor, the viewing station, for purposes of applying the 2-degree down arc used for the building "height zones," shall be established at the midpoint of the project's property line paralleling the roadway at an elevation that is 3-feet above the "fog line" (painted white line/bike lane line) adjacent to the vehicle travelling lane on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. BACKGROUND: The State of California's Coastal Act, enacted in 1976, mandates that coastal jurisdictions establish a local coastal plan that regulates local land use decisions within a defined coastal district. It is through the Coastal Act that the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978 thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and South, along the City's 7.5 miles of coastline. The CSP is intended to protect the natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the coastline while controlling the character of development and providing access to the coast. Similar to the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into five elements, one of which is the Corridor Element. The Corridor Element identifies five basic categories of "corridors." As utilized within the CSP, the term "corridor'' includes a full range of interrelated linear and non-linear elements which provide functional, protection and preservation, definitions and linking capabilities. One of the five corridors identified in the Corridor Element is the category of visual corridors. Visual corridors have dimensions for "vistas" and "views." Vistas have a viewing station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate ground. Views have a viewing station but do not have a specific focus or object to be seen and have broad focal points which have an unlimited arc and depth. The visual corridors identified in the CSP are considered to have the greatest degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers. 3-9 As a result, the CSP sets criteria for identifying viewing stations to assess proposed development projects located within identified visual corridors. Furthermore, the CSP establishes specific height zones for projects located within the same identified visual corridors. However, the CSP does not establish criteria for identifying viewing stations to assess the visual impacts of development projects located outside of a CSP visual corridor. The purpose of this policy is to establish said criteria. DISCUSSION: To protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South and the ocean for development projects which are not located within an identified visual corridor as identified in CSP Figure 26, the CSP states that no building should project into a zone measured 2-degree down-arc, as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. For the purpose of implementing this guidance, this City Council policy establishes the criteria to be used to determine the location of the ''viewing station" from which the visual impacts of proposed projects shall be assessed in order to maximize the protection of vistas and views within the Coastal District. 3-10 Senior Planner Schonbom provided a brief report regarding this item. City Attorney Lynch stated that the approval of the Final Vesting Parcel Map was a ministerial act, onoe the developer completes all of the conditions of approval. She added that there were two additional actions for Council's consideration: 1) Subdivisi Improvement Agreement to put in the necessary improvements for the developme , including curb cuts and utilities; and, 2) The vacation of a remnant street ease tat the end of the property that has never been used by the City. Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Mayor Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Campbell, to: 1). OPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY C NCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, VACATING THE UNUSED SEMENT FOR STREET AND PUBLIC ACCESS PURPOSES THAT TRAVERSE PROPERTY; 2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Subdivision lmpr: ement Agreement; and, 3) Approve Final Vesting Parcel Map No. 69928. The motion passed on the following roll call vo . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Knight, Misetlch None None Brooks REGULAR BUSINESS: nnlng Commlulon City Clerk Morrea eported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the a brief report regarding this item, and distributed ballots for Council's After o round of ballots the following four members were appointed to the Planning Co 1ssion, each with a four year term of office to expire on the first regular City C ncll meeting In December of odd years, or until a successor is appointed: Dave enhiser, Gordon Leon, John Cruikshank, and William James. Coastal Specific Plan Implementation City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 5of11 3-11 Community Development Director Rojas provided a staff report regarding the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), which included a historical overview of the CSP and a detailed explanation regarding visual corridors. Edward Stevens, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he had concerns regarding the gradual reduction of the beautiful ocean views along the 7% miles of City coastline. Sharon Yarber, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the Council should ask questions initially so that the public is informed; and stated the Council should consider whether there should be more specific guidelines provided to staff regarding the interpretation and application of the CSP. She added that there was too much ambiguity regarding the location of the viewing station and there should be tighter boundaries on that discretion for purposes of clarity. Lenee Bilski, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the CSP names Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South as view corridors, which are primarily used by passenger vehicles and pedestrians. She provided comments regarding visual corridors, visual focal points, end vistas, and the fog line, which is the white line on the right also known as the bike lane. She opined that the viewing station should be at the height of 3-feet above the fog line, as that is the most consistent place from which to measure. Sam Cellv, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that Community Development Director Rojas's understanding, experience and knowledge of the rules of the Coastal Specific Plan is probably the best in the room and to the fairest amount possible the rule is subject to interpretation, the job is well done. He provided comments regarding public policy and the rights of the property owners. He noted that there must be a balance between the fundamental rights of the property owner to build a home on their property and those who drive by to a protected view of the ocean. Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch. Mayor Pro Tem Knight moved to direct staff to review the CSP to analyze guidelines used as viewing stations and return with language recommendations to support the ultimate goal of protecting coastal views, with the inclusion of all input submitted for consideration. Councilwoman Brooks offered an amendment to include the viewing station as 3-feet above the fog line as suggested, acknowledging that there will be exceptions; and the ramifications of the viewing corridor and vista corridor with clarification, with a date specified to return to Council. Discussion continued among Council Members , staff, and City Attorney Lynch. City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 6of11 3-12 Mayor Pro Tern Knight moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to: Direct staff to review the Coastal Specific Plan to analyze guidelines used for viewing stations and return with policies to support the ultimate goal of protecting coastal views, with the inclusion of all Input submitted for consideration. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Duhovic None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE: Mayor Duhovic called a brief recess from 9:08 P.M. to 9:21 P.M. Council Consideration whether to Appeal the Planning Commiaaion's Dec relatad to a Project located at 3344 Palos Verd• Drive W•t (Case No. ZON201 141) City Clerk Morre meeting and there reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the e 8 requests to speak regarding this item. Associate Planner Mikha rovided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Counc embers, staff, and City Attorney Lynch. Louie Tomaro, AIA, Tomaro Archltectur; rovlded a brief recap of his work with this project over the past two years. He not at there was originally a structure at the site with trees and landscaping which was remo , and once that home and landscaping was removed it resulted in an open vista. He a ed that because of that open vista the Coastal Commission required the applicant to pre re a plan that was reasonable to preserve the view, resulting in a plan to provide a vi of the horizon over the top of the applicant's house. He noted that the Coastal Commie n agreed with the City's findings that further grading on the lot was unfeasible, sin bedrock was located directly below the immediate grade. Mr. Tomaro noted that re was not one single family residence on the seaward side along Palos Verdes Driv at meets the 2 degree down arc; and concluded that the new residence will not block the 'ew of southbound traffic, although view obstruction does occur from one of the nearby idences, and there was no view obstruction from the northbound lanes. Shamita Khosla, property owner, stated that the process over two years has n a very long one and she and her husband are concerned that they will not be able aise their family in the home due to the long process. She added that the previous home the site obstructed more of the view then the proposed project; noted they are City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 7of11 3-13 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Tuesday, April 08, 2014 4:07 PM To: Ara Mihranian Subject: FW: #2 of 2 to CC re: CSP Viewing Station Hi Ara, Here's the rest of the references about public views viewing stations. Lenee From: paul@agajanianlaw.com To: leneebilski@hotmail.com Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:26:51 -0800 Subject: RE: #2 of2 to CC FW: CC 3/04 Agenda item No. 3 Excellent summary of these projects. I anticipate that the CC will formalize its appeal. Paul Paul L. Tetreault Agajanian, Mcfall, Weiss, Tetreault & Crist LLP 346 North Larchmont Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90004-3012 voice: (323) 993-0198 fax: (323) 993-9509 paul@agajanianlaw.com http://99aian1an1aw.com This message is inteIJ.ded only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidentia~ and exernpt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please take note that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. -----Original Message---- From: Lenee Bilski [mailto:leneebllskl@hotmall.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 10:49 AM To: SunshlneRPV@aol.com; Sharon; Ed Stevens; Dena Frledson; Katie Traeger; Valerle Biltz; Rosemary Campbell; Paul Tetreault; Barbara Gleghorn Subject: #2 of 2 to CC FW: CC 3/04 Agenda Item No. 3 FYI From: leneebilski@hotmail.com To: cc@rpv.com CC: lezam@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com; carolynn@rpv.com Subject: CC 3/04 Agenda item No. 3 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 02:45:39 -0800 1 3-14 March 3, 2013 Re: Council consideration whether to appeal the Planning Commission's decision Case No ZON2012-00141 Dear Mayor Duhovic and City Council members, I support the City Council moving forward with an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision of Feb. 11, 2014 to approve the Site Plan Review and the Grading Permit applications for 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West as there is substantial issue: -the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan (G.P.) and Development Code as it would not preserve, much less enhance, the public's view of Santa Catalina Island, a vista focal point, and of the ocean over the proposed ridgeline ( G.P. Visual Aspects) -no precedent was set by previously approved projects in the Coastal Zone • according to the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), it is strong public policy of the City to protect and preserve existing significant visual aspects, and enhance views and vistas ( G.P. pg. 190- 192) • the G.P. Visual Aspects figure 41 shows an arrow in the vicinity of 3344 pointing to a "vista" - probably Santa Catalina Island • Grading Pennit Finding No. 2 states the grading and/or related construction does not significantly affect the visual relationships with nor views from neighboring properties • there were 5 single-family residences in this vicinity on the adjacent lots predating the City's incorporation, now only 3 remain • previously at 3344 PVDr. West a single story 2866 sq.ft. residence was located farther down the slope - it was demolished in 2000 • in 1998-99 a project was proposed for 3344 that included grading down 16 feet • previously at 3300 PVDr. West there was a single story residence (app. 3900 sq ft.) • in 1993, an application for 3300 received Planning Commission approval to demolish the 3900 sq. ft. residence and replace it with a 2-story (13,736 sq.ft.) residence whose ridgeline is 3 ft. above the app.horizon line as viewed from the northbound PVDrW, (which is at a higher elevation than the southbound lanes) completely blocking the ocean view from both the southbound and northbound lanes on PVDrWest • the CA Coastal Act says the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road to the ocean • in 1993 an agreement was reached between the applicant for 3300 PVDrW and the Lunada Pointe Homeowners' Assn. to remove all the foliage in the common area lot next to 3300 in order to restore views of Catalina Island and the ocean across the lot-which appears to have been a way to allow approval of the project at 3300 • prior to approval it was also agreed in to remove numerous trees on the lot at 3300 • in 2000 the application for a 2-story residence at #6 Marguerite Dr. was noticed as "non-appealable" to the Coastal Commission which was an error that the Coastal Commission did not notice • the residence approved for# 6 Marguerite Dr. was approved even though the ridgeline is above the horizontal plane and the down-arc from the viewing level of 3 ft. higher than Palos Verdes Dr. West • in 2000 the view analysis conducted by Staff was from a seated position in an automobile for the project at# 6 Marguerite Dr. • the 2012 and 2013 the application for 3344 PVDrW was publicly noticed as "non-appealable" to the Coastal Commission which was an error that the Coastal Commission "caught" and corrected with the City 2 3-15 • after Planning Commission approval in Oct. 20 J 3 of this project for 3 344 PVDr W a number of residents filed an appeal to the City Council, but the applicant withdrew the application before the appeal could be heard • the plans for this proposal at 3344 PVDr West include a 10,000+ sq.ft. residence • no direct forward photos were taken by staff of the flagging • The RPV Plaruring Commission took a subjective approach when they looked at a photograph that the property owner had taken of the flagging at 3344, estimated the height of the eye-level camera lens and decided that that photo shouJd be part of the record depicting the view of the "horizon" over the proposed project • Both project Planner Mikhail and Commissioner Tetreault stated at the PC hearing that they each had been to the site and could not see the horizon line above the flagging (much less the ocean) • the Planning Commission did not follow the CSP recommended course to preserve the public's view from the seaward side of Palos Verdes Dr. West • the Planning Commission did not follow the policy of the General Plan to protect the view for the public for several projects in the Coastal Zone • the City has the power to protect public view rights beyond the CA Coastal Commission's minimums • there are 3 more houses in this area that could seek to be demolished and replaced in the future with structures exceeding the 2-degree down arc limitation -houses whose ridgelines currently allow for public view of the ocean over them except for the overgrowth of trees and foliage • the claim that further grading is not feasible at 3344 is questionable as a previous application approved in 1999 for this same site included a 16 ft. cut • a claim that further grading is not feasible because of the reguJations for a driveway is questionable because the 1998-1999 design approved for this site had a driveway and garage • there is no precedent set by previously approved projects that exceed the 2-degree down arc as cited by the applicant because each project was dealt with differently: • in 1993 the view for the project at 3300 was from northbound PVDr.West which is outside the Coastal Zone as defined by the CA Coastal Act • in 1999 the "viewing station" for 3344 PVDr West simply was southbound PV Dr.W • in 2000 the "viewing station" for #6 Marguerite Dr. was 3 feet higher than the street elevation of PVDr W. or272.0' • in 2001 the "viewing station" for the Yacht Harbor Dr. project was from a residence across the street on the inland side of Palos Verdes Dr. South -again outside the Coastal Zone • the fencing along the Drive for the Yacht Harbor project is conditioned to prohibit foliage from growing up into the public's view and on the vacant area foliage height is limited to 6 inches to maintain the view of the ocean and Catalina for all • there is not sufficient foliage restrictions/conditions between the fence and the residence at 3344 PVDrWest to protect the public's view • projects applications in the Coastal Zone before the 1993 approval for 3300 PVDr West such as Oceanfront Estates, Sea Bluff. and the TransAmerica project were approved with height limitations not only of structures but also of landscaping and limited foliage to maintain views of the ocean -except for one which was approved before adoption of RPV Development Code Section 17 .02.040 • feasible alternatives would preserve the view above a new residence at 3344 PVDrW for the public now and for future generations and be consistent with City policies Mistakes have been made. Two (or more) wrongs do not make a right. Please uphold the spirit of the City's Founders and the General Plan. Please vote to appeal this project. Thank you for all you do for RPV ! 3 3-16 Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 4 3-17 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: Lenee Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com> Tuesday, April 08, 2014 4:01 PM To: Ara Mihranian Cc: Leza Mikhail Subject: Viewing Station defined FW: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan Hi Ara, I am happy to help with the CSP definition for "viewing station". I am away all this week, but here is the info I provided to the City Council regarding defining "viewing station". THe RPV Coastal Specific Plan refers in the Traffic section to PVDrives as main circulation arterials. Then the streets are also cited in the Corridors element section. (Sorry I'm not home to give the exact reference pages). Since the height from a passenger vehicle is lower that that of a person on the trail, it is logical to use the " 3ft. above the fog line" definition to benefit both those in vehicles and those on foot. I hope this helps . I don't believe a meeting is necessary as Sunshine, Ed Stevens and Commissioner Tetreault all agree on this logical definition. Of course, there may be certain circumstances that will require individual consideration, as with all proposed projects. I will forward one other message to CC regarding just this issue. Write if you have questions as I do have internet access. Thanks for you efforts. Best regards, Lenee From: leneebilski@hotmail.com To: cc@rpv.com CC: lezam@rpv.com; joelr@rpv.com Subject: CC Agenda 3/04: Coastal Specific Plan Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:59:22 -0800 Dear Mayor Duhovic and Councilmembers, We need a policy decision from you regarding the Corridors Element of the RPV Coastal Specific Plan clarifying the specific location of "viewing station" for measurement purposes. • The Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) does not define a specific location of "viewng station" • different criteria have been applied to various coastal zone projects and the Coastal Specific Plan has not been applied consistently since 1993 • each project approved by the City that has projected into the zone above the 2-degree down arc from horizontal has been measured from different heights: one at 5ft., one at 3 ft. and another at 5'7" • the Coastal Act states the Coastal Zone is from the seaward side of the seaward road 1 3-18 • one project proposed in the Coastal Zone was arui.J.yzed as viewed by traffic traveling northbound on Palos Verdes Dr. West which is at a higher elevation than the southbound lanes, and inland, not on the seaward side of the seaward road • Palos Verdes Drives West and South are named as view corridors in the CSP and are primarily used by passenger vehicles • The CSP refers to large quantities of traffic on Palos Verdes Drive generated by the "view" that this arterial provides to the public • the traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South and West is primarily passenger vehicles not pedestrians • the visual corridors Figure 26 is actually depicting "vista corridors" as each one is directed toward a specific focal point ( Santa Catalina Island , Lighthouse, etc.) • the City has been using the term "view corridors" for those "vista corridors" • the General Plan shows vistas and views to be preserved and enhanced (Fig. 41) • three (3) feet above the fog line (white line/bike lane line) is the most consistent place from which to measure the "viewing station" Please do not simply "receive and file" the Coastal Specific Plan Agenda item. Either define specifically the viewing station and amend the CSP or define it and give a directive to staff use that specific definition. The City and the public deserve immediate action on this issue. Thank you for your service to RPV! Sincerely, Lenee Bilski 2 3-19 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Ara, SunshineRPV@aol.com Saturday, March 29, 2014 11:16 AM Ara Mihranian leneebilski@hotmail.com; EZStevens@cox.net; Carolynn Petru Defining a "viewing station" per the RPV Coastal Specific Plan. Moving down-arc -0528 .pdf So sorry you got assigned this task. The solution is quite simple and you should not have to peruse thousands of pages to figure out a recommendation. Lenee Bilski has done the research. It all comes down to the fact that the RPV Coastal Specific Plan does not specifically defme the location of a viewing station. It is clear that this only applies to proposed development on private property in RPV's portion of the California Coastal Zone. It is clear that RPV' s portion of the California Coastal Zone is seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South and PV Drive West. It is clear that the objective is to "preserve and enhance" the public's view of the ocean as seen by passengers in motor vehicles on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and West. Using the attached illustration, it should take you only a few minutes to write a recommendation that a viewing station, as defined by Staff to new applicants, shall be thirty-six inches above the painted fog line all along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West. That will put an end to the confusion about whether or not a proposed structure is intruding above the two degree down-arc. Restrictions on the future growth of foliage is a whole other issue. The height of structures and foliage on City owned property is a much bigger issue. Solve one little problem at a time. . .. S 1 3-20 1 ·2 ·: 3 COASTAL lWO DEGREE DOWN ARC VIEW PRESERVATION CRITERIA . . RANCHO PALOS VERDES COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN. VIEWING STATION NOT FIXED arc-2· ~~orllon!!!._ _____ ~-) 3344 PALOS VERDE$ DRIVE WEST. COASTAL COMMISSION HEIGHT GQNDITION VIEWING STATION 3•,:0 9 ABOVE THE BIKE LANE LINE/ ~ ~v ,o~ ~~<v v~<v · -oo CE>~~o"<v ....,._~<v v~<v ~~\, . <::J~·<y_<v . o~ ~~G,>f ~ <o\~· . ((;~~~<y~ 0 'O~ 0¢-V ~~ '5 ~~o"? 'l,r#J ~ -~ --"·---- '3344 PALOS VERDES ~IVE· WEST. COASTAL COMMISSION HEIGHT CONDITION VIEWING STATION 5'-7" ABOVE THE CENTeR OF THE TRAIL i . _&,~· .. . ~,-\ 0<t:J -~ .... .. O~ -<+<v;... ~\, ~~ ~' ~~ ~~~~o ~+<v ---~~~~ o~ "~ ... -. 119'-0" SECTIONS LOOKING SOUTH <>< ~ Ji>~G~'°~o..o. · <::~Al t1-11s-os~0 . 6'.£ I. March .4, 2014 l 3-21 APRIL 15, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES {EXCERPT) COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3-22 A YES: Brooks , K~51 , nd Misetich N~;~~T._2!b~l rand Mayor Duhovic A ~ .. one Coastal Specific Plan Corridors Element -Adoption of City Council Policy for Identifying a Viewing Station City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were no requests to speak regarding this item. Councilman Campbell left the meeting at .10:37 P.M. and returned at 10:41 P.M. Community Development Director Rojas provided a brief staff report regarding this item . Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff and City Attorney Lynch . Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich, to direct staff to incorporate the issues raised during Council discussion and return with a revised policy for Council's consideration in the future . Without objection, Mayor Duhovic so ordered . ection of City Manager Recruiting Firm Councilwo Brooks stated that she was able to interview the two remaining firms that the Council inte · wed on April 2, 2014. Robinson provided a brief staff report regarding this item. Discussion ensued among Counc Councilman Campbell moved, seconded b uncilwoman Brooks, to: 1) Select Bob Murray & Associates as the executive recruiting · to conduct the City Manager recruitment; and, 2) Direct staff to develop the profes The motion passed on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich, and Mayor Duhovic None City Council Minutes April 15, 2014 Page 13of14 3-23 MARCH 4, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3-24 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Prepared By: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MARCH 4, 2014 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE ~ Ara Mihranian, Deputy Commun~~~velopment Director Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner{ /1IV RECOMMENDATION Receive and file this informational report on the City's Coastal Specific Plan and the City's practice in applying the Visual Corridor Element to development projects in the City's Coastal District. BACKGROUND At the February 18, 2014 meeting, during the Council's discussion on future agenda items, Mayor Duhovic requested Staff prepare a report on the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP). The City Council agreed that this item should be placed on a future agenda. Based upon recent concerns expressed by the public, Staff believes that the Mayor and the Council are specifically interested in obtaining information on the CSP's Visual Corridors Element and how it relates to the 2-degree downward arc for development projects. DISCUSSION General Background of the Coastal Specific Plan The State of California's Coastal Act, enacted in 1976, mandates that coastal jurisdictions establish a local coastal plan that regulates local land use decisions within a defined coastal district. It is through the Coastal Act that the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) 3-25 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN MARCH 4, 2014 PAGE2 was adopted by the City Council on December 19, 1978 thereby creating a Coastal District located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and South, along the City's 7.5 miles of coastline. The CSP is intended to protect the natural features, such as geology, shoreline character, and biota of the coastline while controlling the character of development and providing access to the coast. Within the CSP, the Coastal District is divided into eight sub-regions that focus on each area's specific development pattern and carrying capacity. Similar to the City's General Plan, the CSP is divided into the following five elements: 1. Natural Environment Element This Element assesses the pertinent characteristics for each physical feature (climate, geology, biota, etc.) that is essential to the planning process. Within this Element, both hazard and preservation features are identified, such as the marine environment, and are classified through a Resource Management Code that corresponds to the General Plan and implemented through the Development Code, through measures such as Overlay Control Districts. 2. Socio/Cultural Element This Element lists the various governmental entities involved in coastal-related issues, along with current actions that have a local impact. This Element is intended to provide a resource base through which the City can monitor and effectively direct communication with these entities, while voicing local concerns over both present and future matters related to the Coastal District. 3. Urban Environment Element This Element is divided into three general sections (Activity Areas, Infrastructure, and Safety) intended to track trends associated with the extent and intensity of development in order to assess build-out and proposed land use activity within the Coastal District. 4. Corridor Element This Element is intended to bring together components of the various physical elements proposed by the CSP through the use, preservation, and enhancement of access, edges, and visual and natural characteristics. The corridors described in the CSP are linear, such as streets, paths, trails, which provide a direct or indirect visual relationship. It is within this Element that the CSP discusses "view corridors" taken from linear paths within the Coastal District which is the primary subject of this report and discussed in greater detail below. 5. Fiscal Element This Element provides a fiscal analysis based on development densities within the coastal region along with fiscal projections to supplement the General Plan's Fiscal Element. 3-26 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN MARCH 4, 2014 PAGE3 Each of the above five Elements establish the City's policy related to future development in each of the eight sub-regions. Section 17.72 (Coastal Permit) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) establishes the City's Coastal Permit process, in which the policies described in the CSP are implemented. Pursuant to Section 17.72, the Coastal District comprises all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West and is separated into three developable zones (see attached Coastal Zone Diagram): the Coastal Zone, the Coastal Structure Setback Zone, and the Coastal Setback Zone. Each of these zones permit specific types of development, some of which require approval of a Coastal Permit and some of which are exempt. The CSP also designates areas where decisions upon a Coastal Permit application are either non-appealable or appealable to the California Coastal Commission. Generally, appealable areas are those areas which are located between the mean high tide line and the first public road; whereas, non-appealable areas are those areas which are located landward of the first public road to Palos Verdes Drive South or Palos Verdes Drive West (see attached map). In processing a Coastal Permit for a development project, the following findings must be made (Section 17.72.090 RPVMC): A. That the proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan; and B. That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to the above findings, one of the many areas analyzed by City Staff in processing a Coastal Permit is a development project's consistency with the Visual Corridor Element of the CSP. The following is a summary of the Visual Corridor Element taken from the CSP and how it applies to both residential and non-residential development projects. Visual Corridor Element Development projects, including residential and non-residential projects, in the City's Coastal District should be designed to minimize impacts to visual corridors established in the Corridor Element of the CSP. According to the Corridor Element of the CSP, visual corridors account for vistas and views. Vistas are defined as having a viewing station, object or objects to be seen and an intermediate group (i.e. Point Vicente Light House). Views have a viewing station but do not have a specific focus or object to be seen and have a broad focal point which have an unlimited arc and depth (i.e. Pacific Ocean). The specific visual corridors (see attached Figure 26) discussed in the CSP are similar to the General Plan and have the greatest degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers. - Specific visual corridors have both a horizontal and vertical dimension. For purposes of calculating the angle used to define the horizontal dimension, the average speed of a vehicle traveling along Palos Verdes Drive West and South was calculated at 45 mph and 3-27 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN MARCH 4, 2014 PAGE4 the cone of vision for a driver and passenger (looking forward) was established at 65 degrees (32.5 degrees on either side). For determining the vertical boundary, a 2-degree down-arc (see attached map) from the bottom edge of the viewing station elevation to the focal point elevation (i.e. Malibu or Catalina Coastline) was used. Based on this, the CSP defined the specific visual corridors which account for both horizontal and vertical boundaries taken from Palos Verdes Drive West and South (see attached map). As shown on Figure 26 (see attachment), within the specific visual corridors, the following height zones have been established for development projects between the bottom of the vertical arc and ground level: • Zone 1: Less than 16-feet • Zone 2: 16-feet to 30-feet • Zone 3: Above 30-feet As an example, the application of the above height zones as it relates to visual corridors was applied to the Terranea Resort project, which has two view corridors that traverse the property looking. towards Point Fermin and Catalina. As a result of applying the view corridors on this proposed development, one of the villa buildings nearest to the entry driveway was limited to one-story at a height not to exceed 16-feet because it fell within Height Zone 1, while the main hotel building was permitted to exceed 30-feet because it fell within Height Zone 3. Improvements located outside the above listed view corridors for the Terranea Resort project were not subjected to the Height Zones but rather the height limits established by the Commercial Recreation (CR) zoning district and the provisions of the project's Conditional Use Permit findings. For development projects that are not located in the CSP's specific visual corridors, the CSP states that in order to protect the visual relationship between the drive and ocean, no building should project into a 2~degree down arc zone, as measured along the shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline. It should be noted that this is not a requirement for development projects outside specific view corridors but rather a recommendation, and the Coastal Commission Staff concurs with this determination. Staff believes this was not made a requirement, unlike the specific visual corridors, because of physical constraints associated with topography that would make many properties unbuildable or costly because of substantial grading and earth alteration to the topography, which is discouraged by the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Environmental Overlay Control Districts, and Development Code. However, an attempt should be made to comply with the 2-degree down-arc policy where reasonably feasible. Although the City has applied specific view corridor requirements to applicable projects that are within the specific view corridor, such as Terranea, Trump National or Oceanfront Estates, the City has generally permitted structures that are not within a specific view corridor and that comply with the "by-right" 16-foot height limit to encroach into the 2- degree down-arc zone. These projects are rare as they tend to be limited to the few single- family residential lots that are located along Palos Verdes Drive West and South. Nonetheless, the City, and on occasion the California Coastal Commission, look at these projects on a case-by-case basis to determine if a project has been designed to minimize ocean view impacts from a viewing station. The City determines where the viewing station 3-28 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN MARCH 4, 2014 PAGE5 is located for these individual properties based on topography, roadway constraints and trail locations. In some instances, the most beneficial view is seen from a seated position in a vehicle, and in others, the most useable view is seen from a standing/walking position along a City trail within the public right-of-way. In an effort to minimize view impacts, the City generally looks to reduce ridgeline elevations to maintain a portion of the ocean view or horizon line depending on whether there is an ocean view to protect, or looks to other ways to provide additional ocean views along the coast. Therefore, as noted throughout the visual corridor discussion above, the City is required to apply height limitations to projects that are located within a specific view corridor, as defined by the CSP. For projects not located within a defined view corridor, the City should make efforts to protect ocean views on a case-by-case basis depending on the topography, geology, and viewing stations that apply to each individual project. CONCLUSION Based on the information contained herein, Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this informational Staff Report on the City's Coastal Specific Plan and the City's practice in applying the Visual Corridor Element to development projects in the City's Coastal District. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the Council may identify other Elements of the CSP that they would like information on and direct Staff to come back to a date specific meeting. ATTACHMENTS • Coastal Zone Diagram • Coastal Appealable and Non-Appealable Map • Figure No. 26 -Visual Corridor Map • 2-degree down-arc exhibit 3-29 Coastal Zone Diagram 3-30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- COASTAL ZONE DIAGRAM " This diagr1111 represents: the loe.dons of the ~ ~k ~. C.0.u.f Slttt8elt im.. C.O.dal Stnx:tute ~~ lJ:>n~ and Coadal stnicture S«baek ~ wthin the CitYs entire CoolStal Zone as they relate b Palos Verdes Drive South and the Pa cite Ocean . f>3\v a ,_5 Verdes. ?~v~ lt\lest and/or South Coastal Structure Setback Line Coastal Structure SetbackZone Coastal Setback Zone (25'-0" setback from Coastal setback Line) (Aree between the Coa~al Structure (Area seaward otthe coastal Setback Line) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..1. • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• • • • •• .:: • ~.~ ~~. :• ~-I S~*k L~l --1-------------- Coastal Setback Line (Estat>lished on Coastal Specific Ptan Map) • PACIFIC OCEAN 3-31 Coastal Appealable and Non-appealable Map 3-32 ~ Q) ca ca " c:: Q) ""C :.J L.. c:: <(~ :::::J .:iii:: ca Q)~ 0 0 ~ -> CD ca .Oa. ~ .a <( ca 'tJ Q) Qi CD -c c:: m ca IV 0 ""C en ::c CD3: N c:: 11 -..!!! ~ -:::::J m ao:: ca "' 0 -ca cam -1i) m "' Q) I .5 "' ~ m c.. c:-c ca ~ "O 0 c.. o-5 0 m 11 c (.) <( zg (.) a. (.) CD ! I DD D al ! CD ..J i 3-33 Figure No. 26 -Visual Corridor Map 3-34 C-10 DEGREES) AND INDIRECT (32.5-90 DEGREES). A 90-DEGREE ANGLE TO THE SIDE WAS DETERMINED TO BE OUT OF THE NORMAL RANGE OF VISION OF DRIVER AND PASSENGER. THE BOU~DARIES OF THE VISTAS IDENTIFIED ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE ARE DEFINED BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND SECTIONS OF THE COASTAL AREA (FIGURES 26, 27, ANO 28). THESE BOUNDARIES WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD: 0 HORIZONTAL BOUNDARIES RIGHT EDGE FROM THE BEGINNING POINT OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING STATION TO THE RIGHT EDGE OF THE ---catalina catalina 0 VIEWING FOCUS. LEFT EDGE -FROM THE ENDING POINT OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING STATION TO THE LEFT EDGE OF THE VIEWING FOCUS. VERTICAL BOUNDARIES BOTTOM EDGE - A VERTICAL ARC WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BOTTOM EDGE FROM THE VIEWING STATION ELEVATION TO THE FOCAL POINT ELEVATION. FOR DISTANT FOCAL POINTS (I.E. CATALINA AND M~LIBU COASTLINE) A MINIMUM 2-DEGREE DOWN-ARC FROM HORIZONTAL WAS USED. e landmark view corridors horizontal boundaries partial direct full & indirect vertical zones ~ ~ zone1 ;-----, view corridor ~ horizontal edges 'ztP1 ~I zone 2 i1iP'1 r ; I zone 3 THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~ lo leool 1600 13200 3-35 2-degree down-arc exhibit 3-36 figure 28 typical sections focal point vista arc-2· ~~o~n!!!__ _____ -J station 3-37 MARCH 4, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (EXCERPT) COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN CORRIDORS ELEMENT SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3-38 Senior Planner Schonborn provided a brief report regarding this item . City Attorney Lynch stated that the approval of the Final Vesting Parcel ministerial act, once the developer completes all of the conditions of roval. She added that there were two additional actions for Council's conside r o n: 1) Subdivision Improvement Agreement to put in the necessary improvements f the development, including curb cuts and utilities; and, 2) The vacation of a rem nt street easement at the end of the property that has never been used by the Cit Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff. Mayor Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman C pbell, to: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-12, A RESOLUTION 0 HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, VACATING T E UNUSED EASEMENT FOR STREET AND PUBLIC ACCESS PURPOSES THAT 1: AVER SE THE PROPERTY; 2) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Sub is ion Improvement Agreement; and, 3) Approve Final Vesting Parcel Map No 992 8. The motion passed on the following , I call vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Campbell, Knight, None None Brooks e Planning Commission City Clerk Morr: ale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting, pro ed a brief report regarding this item, and distributed ballots for Council's use. After o round of ballots the following four members were appointed to the Planning Com 1ssi on, each with a four year term of office to expire on the first regular City C cil meeting in December of odd years, or until a successor is appointed: Dave en hiser, Gordon Leon, John Cruikshank, and William James . Coastal Specific Plan Implementation City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 5of11 3-39 Community Development Director Rojas provided a staff report regarding the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), which included a historical overview of the CSP and a detailed explanation regarding visual corridors. Edward Stevens, Rancho Palos Verdes , stated that he had concerns regarding the gradual reduction of the beautiful ocean views along the 7~ miles of City coastline. Sharon Yarber, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the Council should ask questions initially so that the public is informed ; and stated the Council should consider whether there should be more specific guidelines provided to staff regarding the interpretation and application of the CSP. She added that there was too much ambiguity regarding the location of the viewing station and there should be tighter boundaries on that discretion for purposes of clarity. Lenee Bilski , Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that the CSP names Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South as view corridors , which are primarily used by passenger vehicles and pedestrians . She provided comments regarding visual corridors, visual focal points, and vistas, and the fog line, which is the white line on the right also known as the bike lane. She opined that the viewing station should be at the height of 3-feet above the fog line, as that is the most consistent place from which to measure. Sam Celly, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that Community Development Director Rojas's understanding, experience and knowledge of the rules of the Coastal Specific Plan is probably the best in the room and to the fairest amount possible the rule is subject to interpretation, the job is well done . He provided comments regarding public policy and the rights of the property owners . He noted that there must be a balance between the fundamental rights of the property owner to build a home on their property and those who drive by to a protected view of the ocean . Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch . Mayor Pro Tern Knight moved to direct staff to review the CSP to analyze guidelines used as viewing stations and return with language recommendations to support the ultimate goal of protecting coastal views , with the inclusion of all input submitted for consideration. Councilwoman Brooks offered an amendment to include the viewing station as 3-feet above the fog line as suggested, acknowledging that there will be exceptions; and the ramifications of the viewing corridor and vista corridor with clarification , with a date specified to return to Council. Discussion continued among Council Members , staff, and City Attorney Lynch . City Council Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 6of11 3-40 Mayor Pro Tern Knight moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to: Direct staff to review the Coastal Specific Plan to analyze guidelines used for viewing stations and return with policies to support the ultimate goal of protecting coastal views, with the inclusion of all input submitted for consideration . The motion passed on the following roll call vote : AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brooks, Campbell, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Duhovic None None ECESS AND RECONVENE: Duhovic called a brief recess from 9:08 P.M. to 9:21 P.M . City Cou ii Consideration whether to Appeal the Planning Commission's Decision r ted to a Project located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West (Case No. ZON2012-00 1) City Clerk Morreal eported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there w 8 requests to speak regarding this item . Associate Planner Mikha1 rovided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation regarding this item. Discuss ion ensued among Coun · Members, staff, and City Attorney Lynch . Louie Tomaro, AIA, Tomaro Architec e, provided a brief recap of his work with this project over the past two years. He no , that there was originally a structure at the site with trees and landscaping which was re · ved, and once that home and landscaping was removed it resulted in an open vista . dded that because of that open vista the Coastal Commission required the applicant to epare a plan that was reasonable to preserve the view, resulting in a plan to provide iew of the horizon over the top of the applicant's house . He noted that the Coastal Com ·ssi on agreed with the City's findings that further grading on the lot was unfeasible , ·nee bedrock was located directly below the immediate grade. Mr. Tomaro noted t there was not one single family residence on the seaward side along Palos Verdes ·ve that meets the 2 degree down arc; and concluded that the new residence will not bloc e view of southbound traffic, although view obstruction does occur from one of the ne y residences, and there was no view obstruction from the northbound lanes. Shamita Khosla, property owner, stated that the process over two year as been a very long one and she and her husband are concerned that they will not ti able to raise their family in the home due to the long process. She added that the previo home at the site obstructed more of the view then the proposed project; noted they are City Council Mi es March 4, 20 ti Page 7of11 3-41