Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_11_04_01_Local_Coastal_Plan_Amendment PUBLIC HEARING Date: November 4, 2014 Subject: Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Adoption of a Negative Declaration Establishing Regulations for Flag Poles Within the City’s Coastal Zone (Planning Case No. ZON2014-00329) Subject Property: City’s Coastal Zone 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Appellant: N/A 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 1-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY JOEL ROJAS, COMM DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 4, 2014 UNCIL MEMBERS LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR FLAG POLES WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00329) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER@ Project Manager: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Directo~ RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2014-XX, adopting a Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) making certain environmental findings related to adopting a text amendment to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 of the LCP) of the Corridors Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) to allow flag poles up to 70-feet in height that meet specific standards in the City's Coastal Zone. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2014, the California Coastal Commission conducted a meeting to consider a number of items related to Trump National that were previously approved by the City Council but have been awaiting Coastal Commission approval, including the existing 70- foot high flag pole that was approved by the City Council in 2007. After hearing public testimony, including testimony from several Rancho Palos Verdes residents, City Planning Staff, and Councilmembers Brooks and Campbell, the majority of the Coastal 1-2 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGE2 Commission seemed inclined to approve the 70-foot flag pole as it was clear the flag pole was supported by the local community. However, the Coastal Commission also felt that it could not approve the flag pole because the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) does not address flag poles in the Coastal Zone, and thus the City did not have the authority to grant a variance for the flag pole. As a solution, the Coastal Commission suggested that the City make a specific amendment to the City's LCP to address flag poles in the Coastal Zone. In response to this information, the Trump National organization amended their application before the Coastal Commission by removing the flag pole from their application. This allowed the Coastal Commission to approve other aspects of Trump's application at the July 9th meeting. As a result of the actions taken by the Coastal Commission on July 9th, on July 29, 2014, the City Council initiated the process to amend the City's LCP to specifically address the height of f~ag poles in the City's Coastal Zone (see attached Staff Report). As part of the procedural process for amending the City's LCP, on October 14, 2914, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed the proposed text amendment to the LCP and recommended, via minute order, that the City Council approve the proposed text with one minor modification that is described below. The City Council is now being asked to consider the Planning Commission's recommended text amendment to the LCP. DISCUSSION Proposed Text Amendment At the Council's July 29th meeting, as part of the initiation approval, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with amending the LCP to set parameters for allowing flag poles that exceed 16-feet in height within the Coastal Zone. The focus was on allowing flag poles over 16-feet since the Development Code allows flag poles up to 16-feet in height without a variance and it was the Coastal Commission's position that the City did not have the authority to approve variances for flag poles over 16-feet. It was also agreed that the LCP text amendment should be written in such a way to allow the 70-foot flag pole at Trump National to remain as a local landmark, but to prevent the proliferation of similar flag poles from being erected throughout the City's Coastal Zone (see attached Meeting Minutes). Given that the City's LCP applies to the entirety of the City's Coastal Zone, the approach taken by Staff to meet the City Council's objective of allowing the Trump National flag pole to remain as a local landmark and public amenity while not allowing a proliferation of other such flag poles, Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the LCP's Corridors Element be amended by adding the text below to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 of the LCP): 1-3 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGE3 Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet, as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: • One flag pole exceeding 16-feet in height is permitted for any parcel of 120 acres or more, provided that, within the 120-plus-acre legal parcel, the land on which the flag pole is erected is owned by or dedicated to the City so as to allow for public access and to allow only the flag of the United States of America to be flown on said flag pole; • The flag pole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors section of the LCP; • An approved Variance Permit to exceed the City's 16-foot height limit must be obtained from the City; and, • The property where the flagpole is located must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating. It should be noted that the one modification to the language above recommended by the Planning Commission was to replace the text "American flag" with the text "flag of the United States of America" as cited in the first bullet point above. The restriction of only allowing the flag of the United States of America be flown is possible because the flag pole described above can only be erected on City property or on property with a City easement. Additionally, since the Coastal Development Permit for flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height will be conditioned to comply with all of these requirements, if there is any change so these requirements are no longer satisfied, it would immediately invalidate and revoke the coastal permit for the flag pole. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, if the City Council finds the above language, or some version of language thereof, acceptable, the following findings will have to be made and adopted by Resolution for consideration by the Coastal Commission (finding is in bold followed by Staff's analysis): 1. The public and affected agencies have had ample opportunity to participate in the LCP amendment process. Staff believes this finding can be made because as part of the public hearing process, the following public notice circulated, inviting participation and comments, for both the October 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and the November 4, 2014 City Council meeting: 1-4 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGE4 • Mailed to approximately 1,500 residents within the City's entire coastal zone and properties adjacent to the Coastal Zone; • Mailed to interested parties on file with the City; • Mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Trump National Project site; • Published, at a 1/8 page, in the Peninsula News at least 15-days before the scheduled hearings; • Posted on the City's website; • Emailed to list-serve subscribers for both the Trump Project (964 subscribers) and Breaking News (2,049 subscribers); • Emailed to the Coastal Commission's Long Beach office; • Posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk's office and sent to the State Office of Pla.nning and Records pursuant to CEQA; and, • Circulated to list of local, state and federal agencies. In addition to the above, the public notice citing the proposed amended language along with the Negative Declaration (pursuant to CEQA) circulated on September 22, 2014. Thus, more than 6 weeks notice was provided to the public. In response to this notification, Staff received 11 comment letters, which are addressed later in this Staff Report. 2. All policies, objectives, and standards of the LCP amendment conform to the requirements of the Coastal Act. The proposed text amendment to the LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height within the City's Coastal District is drafted in a manner that conforms to the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act because such flag poles are considered a visitor-serving public amenity. This is achieved through the proposed parameters that require such a flag pole to be located on land owned or deeded to the City and that certain amenities be available to accommodate public access, such as free public parking, restrooms, seating areas, and drinking fountains. Moreover, the proposed parameters require that only the flag of the United States of America be flown on such flag poles. These public amenities are intended to ensure access by the public is available and to ensure public amenities are also availab.le for the public's enjoyment while viewing the flag of the United States of America consistent with the intent of the Coastal Act. As such, Staff is of the opinion that this finding can be made. 3. The proposed amendment to LCP is consistent with the provisions of the City's LCP and the City's General Plan, Land Use Plan, and Zoning Map. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed LCP amendment is consistent with the provisions of the LCP because consideration of coastal resources, hazard areas, coastal access and land use was factored in the parameters established under the Visual Corridor Element. For example, a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the City's Coastal Zone will require approval of a Variance, a discretionary planning entitlement, which assesses 1-5 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGES potential impacts, particularly view impacts from the public right-of-way or public trails, as required by the View Corridor Element of the LCP. Moreover, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) also will be required to be processed, and it is through the CDP process that certain findings will need to be made to ensure that the proposal conforms to the City's coastal policies, such as meeting the height requirements set forth in the Visual Corridor Element of the LCP, as well as protecting visual resources from public streets and trails. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment to the LCP would not result in a significant alteration of the City's coastline, nor would it introduce a pattern of development that will adversely impact the City's coastline because according to the City's Zoning Code and Zoning Map, such flag poles can only be erected on property that is 120 acres or more in size that is owned by or subject to an easement in favor of the City. In fact, as currently proposed; flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height can only be permitted in the City on a portion of the Trump National property that is conditioned to be deeded to the City for public access as a Veterans Memorial because all remaining parcels throughout the City's coastal zone are less than 120 acres in area. With the implementation of the proposed parameters, the proposed text amendment to allow such flag poles through the review process of a Variance Permit and Coastal Development Permit, would be consistent with the City's Land Use Plan, Zoning Code (Development Code) and Zoning Map. 4. A procedure has been established to ensure adequate notice of interested persons and agencies of impending development proposed after certification of the LCP amendment. Staff is of the opinion that this finding can be made in that one of the parameters to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone is with the approval of a Variance. A Variance is a discretionary application considered at a public hearing that is duly noticed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and is published in the local newspaper. Additionally, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is also required for such a flag pole and through the noticing process, interested parties, including the Coastal Commission, will receive notification of a pending application for a flag pole proposed to exceed 16- feet. Given these procedures, Staff believes adequate noticing will be provided for future flag pole requests. Based on the aforementioned discussion, Staff believes all of the above findings can be made warranting the City Council's approval of the LCP amendment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP. Based on the Initial Study and the identified potential impacts, the Community Development Director determined that the text amendment to the LCP will not have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comments 1-6 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGES on September 22, 2014 for a period of 23 days (see attachment). To date, no comments from the public have been received on the Negative Declaration. As such, the Council is being asked to adopt the Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings that support the approval of the LCP Amendment. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Coastal Commission Review According to Section 30514.b of the California Coastal Act, any proposed amendments to a certified local coastal plan shall be submitted to, and processed by, the California Coastal Commission. Based on conversations with Coastal Staff, it was conveyed to City Staff that the amendment to the LCP, if solely for flag poles, could be processed somewhat expeditiously by Coastal Staff. Coastal Staff indicated that the processing time for the request could be processed in 90 days, but the processing can be extended for up to one year based on their workload. Trump National Flagpole It is Staff's understanding that once the LCP has been amended, the City may be able to process a Coastal Development Permit for the Trump National flag pole. However, Coastal Staff still needs to confirm this. Public Comments In response to the City Council Public Notice, the City received one comment letter objecting to permitting the flag pole at Trump National to remain at 70-feet, (see attached letter). However, in response to the Planning Commission Public Notice (including the original Public Notice issued on August 21, 2014), the City received ten comments letters. The majority of those letters objected to permitting the flag pole at Trump National to remain at 70-feet, while one letter provided suggested clarification revisions to the proposed text amendment (see letters attached to the October 14, 2014 PC Staff Report) which Staff accepted and included in the proposed text amendment considered by the Commission. Additionally, the City received a letter from the Fire Department responding to the circulation of the proposed Negative Declaration (see attachment). According to the letter, the Fire Department had no comments on the proposed LCP Amendment. In the event Staff receives additional comment letters after the transmittal of this Report, Staff will provide the Council with such letters as late correspondence the night of the meeting. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: 1-7 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) CC MEETING -NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PAGE7 • Identify issues or concerns related to the proposed text amendments to the LCP and direct Staff to come back with revised language at the November 18, 2014 meeting; or, • Reject Staff's recommended text amendments to the LCP ATTACHMENTS • Resolution No. 2014-XX (with Exhibit "A") • Public Comment Letter (since October 14, 2014) • October 14, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report o July 4, 2014 City Council Staff Report o July 7, 2014 City Council Letter to the Coastal Commission o July 29, 2014 City Council Staff Report o July 29, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes (excerpt) o Initial Study/Negative Declaration o Public Comment Letters (August 21 through October 14, 2014) 1-8 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-9 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) IN CONNECTION WITH ADOPTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE END OF THE CURRENT VISUAL CORRIDORS SECTION (PAGE C-12 OF THE LCP) OF THE CORRIDOR ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PLAN (COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) TO ALLOW FLAG POLES UP TO 70-FEET IN HEIGHT THAT MEET SPECIFIC STANDARDS IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE. WHEREAS, on July 9, 2014, the California Coastal Commission conducted a meeting to consider a number of items related to Trump National that were previously approved by the City Council but have been awaiting Coastal Commission approval, including the existing 70-foot high flag pole that was approved by the City Council in 2007; and, WHEREAS, at the July 9, 2014 meeting, the Coastal Commission did not approve the flag pole because the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) does not address flag poles in the Coastal Zone, and the Coastal Commission suggested that the City make a specific amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles in the Coastal Zone; and, WHEREAS, on July 29, 2014, the City Council initiated the process to amend the City's LCP to specifically address the height of flag poles in the City's Coastal Zone; and, WHEREAS, on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed the proposed text amendment to the LCP and recommended, via minute order, that the City Council approve the proposed text with one minor modification replacing "American flag" with the text "flag of the United States of America;" and, WHEREAS, on October 16, 2014, pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and mailed to property owners within and adjacent to the City's Coastal Zone, within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to interested parties including list-serve subscribers, inviting public comments on the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles, exceeding 16-feet in height, within the Coastal Zone; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to the LCP; 1-10 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the proposed text amendment to the end of the current Visual Corridors Section (page C-12 of the LCP) of the Corridor Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) to allow flag poles up to 70-feet in height that meet specific parameters in the City's Coastal Zone in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and determined that the proposed text amendment to the LCP will require a Negative Declaration, which determined that the proposed amendment will not create any significant or potential impacts to the surrounding environment because the proposed parameters only allow flag poles to be erected on property of at least 120 acres in size that either is owned by or subject to an easement dedicated to the City that provides public amenities, such as public parking, restrooms, and bench seating. Thus, these parameters will prevent such flag poles from proliferating the City's Coastline and creating adverse impacts to the environment, particularly views from the public roadway and public trails. In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and certifies that the Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto and approves the Negative Declaration. Section 2. Visual Corridors section (page C-12 of the LCP) of the Corridor Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) is hereby amended by adding a new section titled "Flag Poles" to read as follows: Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet, as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: • One flag pole exceeding 16-feet in height is permitted for any parcel of 120 acres or more, provided that, within the 120-plus-acre legal parcel, the land on which the flag pole is erected is owned by or dedicated to the City so as to allow for public access and to allow only the flag of the United States of America to be flown on said flag pole; • The flag pole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors section of the LCP; • An approved Variance Permit to exceed the City's 16-foot height limit must be obtained from the City; and, Resolution No. 2014-XX Page 2 of 5 1-11 • The property where the flagpole is located must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating. Section 3. The City Council finds that the public and affected agencies have had ample opportunity to participate in the LCP amendment process because as part of the public hearing process, the following public notice was circulated, inviting participation and comments, for both the October 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and the November 4, 2014 City Council meeting: • Mailed to approximately 1,500 residents within the City's entire coastal zone and properties adjacent to the Coastal Zone; • Mailed to interested parties on file with the City; • Mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Trump National Project site; • Published, at a 1/8 page, in the Peninsula News at least 15-days before the scheduled hearings; • Posted on the City's website; • Emailed to list-serve subscribers for both the Trump Project (964 subscribers) and Breaking News (2,049 subscribers); • Emailed to the Coastal Commission's Long Beach office; • Posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk's office and sent to the State Office of Planning and Records pursuant to CEQA; and, • Circulated to list of local, state and federal agencies. In addition to the above, the public notice citing the proposed amended language along with the Negative Declaration (pursuant to CEQA) was circulated on September 22, 2014; accordingly, more than 6 weeks notice was provided to the public. Section 4. The City Council finds that the LCP amendment conforms to the requirements of the Coastal Act in that the proposed text amendment to the LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height within the City's Coastal District is drafted in a manner that is consistent to the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act because such flag poles will be considered to be a visitor-serving public amenity. This is achieved through parameters that require such a flag pole to be located on land owned or deeded to the City and that certain amenities will be available to accommodate public access, such as free public parking, restrooms, seating areas, and drinking fountains. Moreover, the parameters require that only the flag of the United States of America will be flown on such flag poles. These public amenities are intended to ensure access by the public is available and that public amenities are also available for the public's enjoyment while viewing the flag of the United States of America consistent with the intent of the Coastal Act. Section 5. The City Council finds that the proposed amendment to the LCP is consistent with the provisions of the City's LCP and the City's General Plan, Land Use Plan, and Zoning Map because consideration of coastal resources, hazard areas, Resolution No. 2014-XX Page 3 of 5 1-12 coastal access and land use was factored in the parameters established under the Visual Corridors Element. For example, a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the City's Coastal Zone will require approval of a Variance, a discretionary planning entitlement, which assesses potential impacts, particularly view impacts from the public right-of-way and public trails, as required by the View Corridors Element of the LCP. Moreover, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) will be required to be processed, and it is through the CDP process that certain findings will need to be made to ensure that the proposal conforms to the City's coastal policies, such as meeting the height requirements set forth in the Visual Corridors Element of the LCP, as well as protecting visual resources from public streets and trails. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment to the LCP would not result in a significant alteration of the City's coastline, nor would it introduce a pattern of development that will adversely impact the City's coastline because according to the City's Zoning Code and Zoning Map, such flag poles can only be erected on property of at least 120 acres in size that either is owned by or subject to an easement dedicated to the City. In fact, as currently proposed, flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height can only be permitted in the City on a portion of the Trump National property that is conditioned to be deeded to the City for public access as a Veterans Memorial because all remaining parcels throughout the City's coastal zone are less than 120 acres in area. Section 6. The City Council finds that a procedure has been established to ensure adequate notice is provided to interested persons and agencies of impending development proposed after certification of the LCP amendment because one of the parameters to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone is with the approval of a Variance. The Variance is a discretionary application considered at a public hearing that is duly noticed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and is published in the local newspaper. Additionally, a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is also required for such a flag pole and through the noticing process, interested parties, including the Coastal Commission, will receive notification of a pending application for a flag pole that is proposed to exceed 16-feet. Section 7. The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought as governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Ci vii Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November 2014. Mayor Resolution No. 2014-XX Page 4 of 5 1-13 Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) · I, Carla Morreale, the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2014-XX was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 4, 2014. City Clerk Resolution No. 2014-XX Page 5 of 5 1-14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Planning Case No. ZON2014-00329) - Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: City's Coastal Zone City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 6. General plan designation: Varies 7. Coastal plan designation: Yes 8. Zoning: Varies 9. Description of project: The proposed project is a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment (CSPA) to add the following underlined text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 or the LCP) of the Corridors Element: Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone 1-15 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet. as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: • One flag pole over 16-feet per property The flagpole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors of the Coastal Specific Plan; • The flagpole must be located on property owned or dedicated to the City that allows for public access to the flagpole; · • The flagpole must be located in an area where there is no significant impairment of a view from a major arterial street in the City or from a single family residence in the City. • · The property underlying and surrounding the flag pole must be a minimum of 120- acres in total area and must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms. drinking fountain, and public bench seating; and • An approved Variance Permit (to exceed the 16-foot height limit) must be obtained from the City . • 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total area of about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastline. Elevations range from sea level to 1,480 feet. The population of the City is over 42, 000 and the character of the community is primarily residential with about 15,000 single-family residences, 40 multi-family properties and 155 commercial/institutional parcels. The City is largely built out, with most development activity in the City's single-family neighborhoods consisting of the expansion and/or redevelopment of existing residences, with the occasional development of new residences on existing vacant lots. There are few large contiguous parcels remaining to be subdivided for single-family residential use. 1 s 1 . d" urroun mg an d uses an d tf se mg: Land Uses Significant Features On-site and adjacent to Existing residential, commercial, insti- the City's tutional and open space land uses in the See description above. Coastal City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zone Northeast, The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles serve East & The .cities of Lomita and Los Angeles as gateways to the Port of Los Angeles and Southeast (Harbor City, Wilmington and San the harbor area. They are developed with a of the City Pedro) mixture of single-and multi-family residential, commercial and industrial uses. South & The Pacific Ocean borders the City of Southwest Pacific Ocean Rancho Palos Verdes for roughly 7.5 miles, of the City and includes tidepools and sandy beaches. There is a State marine reserve at Abalone Page 2 1-16 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Land Uses Northwest The City of Palos Verdes Estates of the City North of the The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and City Rolling Hills Significant Features Cove. The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the oldest city on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. It is primarily developed with single-family residential neighborhoods, with commercial and multi-family development at Lunada Bay and Malaga Cove. The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the 1950s, and both emphasize a semi-rural equestrian lifestyle. The major commercial center on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The City of Rolling Hills is gated and contains no commercial development. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Coastal Commission Page 3 1-17 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Biological Resources D Agricultural Resources D Cultural Resources D Air Quality D Geology/Soils D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Hydrology/Water Quality D Mineral Resources D Public Services D Noise D Recreation D Land Use/Planning D Population/Housing D Transportation/Traffic D Utilities/Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: CKJ I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects, (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the propos · othing further is required. Signature: Date: September 22, 2014 Printed Name: Ara Mihranian, Deputy Director For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 4 1-18 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Significant Sources Sources Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone subject to the parameters cited in the "Project Description" section of this assessment. One of the parameters states that a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the Coastal Zone shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the View Corridor section of the LCP (Figure 26). This is to ensure that a flag pole would not encroach into views of prominent features, such as Catalina Island, Point Fermin, or Point Vicente Light House. Additionally, another parameter requires a flag pole proposed to exceed the 16-foot height limit receive approval of a Variance application by the City which is a discretionary application that is considered at a duly noticed public hearing. It is during this discretionary (Variance) process, that potential impacts associated with the installation of a proposed flag pole that exceeds 16-feet in height would be assessed, including but not limited to, aesthetic and view impacts such as protecting scenic resources and scenic vistas. Therefore, since the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP does not approve "by right" the installation offlag poles up to 70-feet in height, any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of project implementation will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the discretionary permitting process described herein. As such, there will be no significant aesthetic impacts aesthetic resources as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES1. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the x Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board Page 5 1-19 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Ad contract? c) Conflict with existing zonir:ig for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section. 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x x x x Comments: a-e)Although properties in the City's Coastal Zone are not specifically zoned or otherwise officially designated for agricultural use, noncommercial agricultural uses of one-acre or less are permitted by right and through a conditional use permit when greater than one-acre on all property zoned Residential-Single-Family, 1 DU/acre (RS-1 ). Since the LCP amendment involves allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up, to a maximum of 70-feet in height, no substantial effect upon agricultural resources is expected to result from the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to agricultural resource issues. 3. AIR QUALITY2• Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation x of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or x projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal x or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to x substantial pollutant concentrations? 2 Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Page 6 1-20 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact x a -e) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. Although high level of air quality is prevalent irJ Rancho Palos Verdes since the ocean is the primary air recharge area region, allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, in the Coastal Zone will not result in emission discharge. Therefore, there will be no air quality impacts resulting from the LCP Amendment. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, x policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, x or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, x vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with x established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological x resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, x Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, reqional, or Page 7 1-21 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: a-e) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are various types of vegetation communities identified in the City's NCCP and the General Plan. Said vegetation communities include, but are not limited to, Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral and Grassland&. It should be noted that any applicable flag poles will be located on developed properties outside of sensitive biological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact to any species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, biological resources or to any adopted habitat conservation plan as a result of the LCP Amendment. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource x as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological x resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or x unique geologic feature? d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of x formal cemeteries? Comments: a-d) The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, subject to specific parameters to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment. The proposed project would not result in significant physical modifications or alterations of land (aside for the foundation to support a flag pole) that could impact cultural resources. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties ·upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Accordingly, there will be no impacts upon cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State x Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?3 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, in-x 3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Page 8 1-22 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources cludinQ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x x x x x Comments: a-e) The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. In addition, the proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures; thus, there are no impacts to geology and soils conditions. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may x have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of x reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a-b) The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. The project will not result in any emissions of greenhouse gasses since the proposed LCP Amendment is to allow the placement offlag poles on developed properties subject to certain parameters to minimize impacts to the City's Coastal Zone. As such, there will be no greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the Code Amendment. 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: ' a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine x transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public x or the environment through reasonably Page 9 1-23 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materia!s, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x x x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. a-d) All applicable site-specific environmental analysis would be reviewed prior to any construction of a flag pole to identify potential adverse impacts or conditions. If hazardous material is found, appropriate remediation and mitigation methods would be incorporated to prevent creating any hazardous condition for the public and the environment during the discretionary permitting process. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed amendment. e, f) There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed amendment. g-h) Since the project does not involve any development, but rather an amendment to the text of the LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone, the project, as its proposed, will not interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Further, the project will not Page 10 1-24 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact result in the exposure to people or structures to any adverse risks. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed amendment. 9. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or x wastewater discharge requirements? b) Substartially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater x (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a x stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase x the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems x or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water x quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood x Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or x redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death x involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Page 11 1-25 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x Comments: The proposed project is LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations ~f the existing land or structures that will impact hydrology or water quality. As such, there will be no impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. 10. LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established com-x munity? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general x plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com-x munity Conservation Plan? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA as part of the discretionary permitting process. Therefore, there will be no significant land use or planning impacts associated with the LCP Amendment. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be x of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local x general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Comments: According to the Natural Environment Element of the General Plan, areas in Rancho Palos Verdes were quarried for basalt, diatomaceous earth, and Palos Verdes stone between 1948 and 1958. However, the proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up to a maximum of 70-feet in height within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to mineral resources associated with the LCP Amendment. Page 12 1-26 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Potentially Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Impact 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable stan- dards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact x x x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. As such, there will be no significant noise impacts associated with the proposed Code Amendment. 13. POPULATION/HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x x x Page 13 1-27 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Since the proposed project would enact revisions to the City's LCP to allow the installation of flag poles on limited properties within the Coastal Zone, it will not have any impacts to population or housing, and no existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed LCP Amendment will have no impact upon population and housing. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im- pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) Fire protection? x ii) Police protection? x iii) Schools? x iv) Parks? x v) Other public facilities? x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project will not result in the need for added protection services or the need for schools, added parks, or other public facilities. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed LCP Amendment with respect to public services issues. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that x substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, x which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone subject to certain parameters, such as requiring flag poles that exceed 16-feet in height to be located on property owned by the City or dedicated to the City for public access, and that the property accommodate certain facilities (benches, drinking fountains, public parking, etc.). Such flag poles, if allowed per the LCP Amendment, would not significantly increase the use of a park or park facilities because such improvements would likely already be in place or proposed to be installed to accommodate park visitors. Moreover, the location of a flag pole in the Coastal Zone will not result in the physical deterioration of park grounds or facilities. As Page 14 1-28 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact such, the proposed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking . into account all modes of transportation including mass transit x and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other x standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic x levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or x dangerous intersections) or in com- patible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ' e) Result in inadequate emergency ac-x cess? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or x otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures and thus no traffic generation will result from the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, the proposed project would have no impacts related to traffic and transportation. 17. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment require- ments of the applicable Regional Water x Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of x new water or wastewater treatment Page 15 1-29 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone and will not result in requiring added utilities to a site that would accommodate such a flag pole because such a property will already have or proposed to have utilities that can accommodate drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. for park visitors. Thus, there will be no increase in demand for utilities or service systems as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, the proposed project would have no utilities or service systems impacts. Page 16 1-30 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x Comments: As described above, the proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures other than the construction of flagpoles. As such, the amendment to the City's CSP will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed LCP Amendment will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively x considerable?4 Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures, and the approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement to develop. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project objectives will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the permitting process. As such, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial x adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The proposed project LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. As discussed above, all of the potentially environmental effects of the proposed project are expected to have no impacts. As such, the project does not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. 4 "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Page 17 1-31 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Comments: Not applicable. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001. 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993 (as amended). 4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 7 Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE TriQ Generation, 7th Edition. 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS) database and maps 9 State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone MaQs. Sacramento, California, accessed via website, March 2008 10 Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of the State of California and the California Geological Survey 11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e., "Cortese List") 13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element Page 18 1-32 PUBLIC COMMENT LETTER (SINCE OCTOBER 14, 2014) NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-33 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: dorotheaflan@cox.net Friday, October 24, 2014 12:39 PM Planning Re: Trump's flag pole at Trump National Golf Club This is a complaint letter. The flag pole that exists now is TOO HIGH, AS IT IS. I own a condo at Ocean Terrace, 3200 La Rotonda Drive, Unit 615.,Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca 90275 His pole is ridiculously big, and already obstructs the pristine view. I am against him being given any variance, as a matter of fact, you need to get him to make it LOWER. It ruins the coastline, and blocks the clear view of Terranea's peninsula coastline, from way up high even, at my elevation. Please don't let him do this. Thank you. Dorothea and Gerald Flanigan (760) 758 2823 1 1-34 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN A VENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 RECEIVED OCT 0 9 2014 DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT October 7, 2014 Ara Mihranian, AICP City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Ms. Mihranian: NEGATIVE DECLARATION, "CASE NO. ZON2014-00329," A CITY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ADD FLAG POLES IN THE COASTAL ZONE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES (FFER #201400170) The Negative Declaration has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: 1. We have no qpmments at this time. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: 1. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit, has no objection to the Case No. ZON2014-00329 (Local Coastal Plan Amendment & Environmental Assessment). 2. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit Inspector, Nancy Rodeheffer, at (323) 890-4243 or at nrodeheffer@fire.lacounty.gov. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA ARTESIA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES AZUSA CERRITOS EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LAHABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SANTA CLARITA BRADBURY SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTHGATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOOD WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHITTIER 1-35 Ara Mihranian October 7, 2014 Page2 3. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION-OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. 2. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division, has no objection to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Local Coastal Specific Plan amendment. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: 1. The Health Hazardous Materials Division has no objection to the proposed project. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, i-"'~D-iL FRANK VIDALES, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU FV:jl 1-36 OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-37 CITY OF RA.NCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM:. DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISS~N JOEL ROJAS, COMMU T EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OCTOBER 14, 2014 LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT-PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2014-00329 (CITY'S COASTAL ZONE/, Project Manager: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Directo~ RECOMMENDATION Review Staff's proposed text amendment to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 of the LCP) of the Corridors Element of the City's Local Coastal Plan (Coastal Specific Plan) to allow flag poles up to 70-feet in height that meet specific standards in the City's Coastal Zone and forward a recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2014, the California Coastal Commission conducted a meeting to consider a number of items related to Trump National that were previously approved by the City Council but have been awaiting Coastal Commission approval, including the existing 70- foot high flag pole that was approved by the City Council in 2007. In advance of the Coastal Commission meeting, on July 4, 2014, the City Council, at an adjourned meeting, agreed to submit a letter in support of maintaining the existing 70-foot flag pole at its current height and location (see attached letter). After hearing public testimony, including testimony from several Rancho Palos Verdes residents, City Planning Staff, and Councilmembers Brooks and Campbell, the majority of the Coastal Commission seemed inclined to approve the 70-foot flag pole as it was clear the flag pole was supported by the local community. However, the Coastal Commission also felt that it could not approve the flag pole because the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) does not address flag poles in the Coastal Zone, and thus the City did not have the authority to grant a variance for the flag pole. As a solution, the Coastal Commission suggested that the City make a specific 1-38 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) PC MEETING-OCTOBER 14, 2014 PAGE2 amendment to the City's LCP to address flag poles in the Coastal Zone. In response to this information, the Trump National organization amended their application before the Coastal Commission by removing the flag pole from their application. This allowed the Coastal Commission to approve other aspects of Trump's application at the July gth meeting. As a result of the actions taken by the Coastal Commission on July gth, on July 29, 2014, the City Council initiated the process to amend the City's LCP to specifically address the height of flag poles in the City's Coastal Zone (see attached Staff Report). As part of the procedural process for amending the City's LCP, the Council was informed that the Planning Commission would first review the proposed amended text at a duly noticed public hearing and would forward a recommendation to the City Council for its consideration. DISCUSSION Proposed Text Amendment At the Council's July 29th meeting, as part of the initiation approval, the City Council directed Staff to proceed with amending the LCP to set parameters for allowing flag poles that exceed 16-feet within the Coastal Zone. The focus was on allowing flag poles over 16-feet since the Development Code allows flag poles up to 16-feet in height without a variance and it was the Coastal Commission's position that the City did not have the authority to approve variances for flag poles over 16-feet. It was also agreed that the LCP text amendment should be written in such a way to allow the 70-foot flag pole at Trump National to remain as local landmark, but to prevent the proliferation of similar flag poles from being erected throughout the City's Coastal Zone (see attached Meeting Minutes). Given that the City's LCP applies to the entirety of the City's Coastal Zone, the approach taken by Staff to meet the City Council's objective of allowing the Trump National flag pole to remain as a local landmark and public amenity while not allowing a proliferation of other such flag poles, Staff is proposing to amend the LCP's Corridors Element by adding the following text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 of the LCP): Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet, as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: 1-39 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) PC MEETING-OCTOBER 14, 2014 PAGE3 • One flag pole exceeding 16-feet is permitted for any parcel of 120 acres or more, provided that, within the 120-plus-acre legal parcel, the land on which the flag pole is erected is owned by or dedicated to the City so as to allow for public access and to allow only the American flag to be flown on said flag pole; • The flag pole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors section of the LCP; • An approved Variance Permit to exceed the City's 16-foot height limit must be obtained from the City; and, • The property accommodating the flagpole must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating. It should be noted that the proposed text to the LCP limits the type of flag that is flown on poles exceeding sixteen feet in height to the American flag; this is because the flag pole described above can only be erected on City property or on property with a City easement. Additionally, since the Coastal Development Permit for flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height will be conditioned to comply with all of these requirements, if there is any change so these requirements are no longer satisfied, it would immediately invalidate and revoke the coastal permit for the flag pole. If the above language, or some version of language thereof, is accepted and recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council, the Council, in its consideration to amend the LCP will have make the following findings: 1. That the public and affected agencies have had ample opportunity to participate in the LCP amendment process. 2. That all policies, objectives, and standards of the LCP amendment conform to the requirements of the Coastal Act, including that the land use plan as amended is in conformance with and adequate to carry out the Chapter Three policies of the Coastal Act. 3. That Coastal Act policies concerning specific coastal resources, hazard areas, coastal access concerns, and land use priorities have been applied to determine the kind locations, and intensity of land and water uses. 4. That the level and pattern of development proposed is reflected in the Land Use Plan, Zoning Code, and Zoning Map. 5. That a procedure has been established to ensure adequate notice of interested persons and agencies of impending development proposed after certification of the LCP amendment. 6. That zoning measures are in place (prior to or concurrent with the LCPA) which are in conformance with and adequate to carry out the coastal policies of the Land Use Plan. Staff believes all of the above findings can be made and thus seeks the Commission's direction on the proposed text language cited above. 1-40 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) PC MEETING -OCTOBER 14, 2014 PAGE4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP. Based on the Initial Study and the identified potential impacts, the Community Development Director determined that the text amendment to the LCP will not have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly, a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comments on September 22, 2014 for a period of 23 days (see attachment). No comments from the public have been received on the Negative Declaration. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Estimated Processing Schedule At the July 29th City Council meeting, Staff reported that the Planning Commission would review the proposed text amendment to the LCP at its September 9, 2014 meeting. However, as the Commission may recall, on September 4, 2014, Staff emailed the Commission indicating that it would recommending continuing the public hearing to the October 14th meeting. This is because after reviewing the Coastal Act provisions for processing Local Coastal Plan Amendments (LCPA) with the City Attorney, Staff believes it would be more appropriate to prepare the CEQA document necessary for the proposed LCPA in advance of the Planning Commission's review of the proposal instead of in advance of the City Council's review as originally intended. Due to the continuance, the following schedule outlines the estimated timeline to process the City Council initiated text amendment to the LCP: 1. City Council initiation of the LCP amendment (July 29, 2014); 2. Planning Commission's review of the proposed text amendment to the LCP (tonight's agenda item); and, 3. City Council review of the Commission recommended text amendment to the LCP. If the Commission adopts a recommendation at tonight's meeting, after factoring in currently agendized items and the time involved for the required public notice, Staff anticipates the earliest the City Council would review the Commission recommended LCP amendment is at its November 4, 2014 meeting. Coastal Commission Review According to Section 30514.b of the California Coastal Act, any proposed amendments to a certified local coastal plan shall be submitted to, and processed by, the California Coastal Commission. Based on recent conversations with Coastal Staff, it was conveyed to City Staff that the amendment to the LCP, if solely for flag poles, could be processed somewhat expeditiously by Coastal Staff. Coastal Staff indicated that the processing time for the request could be processed in 90 days, but the processing can be extended for up to one year based on their workload. 1-41 LCPA FLAG POLES (ZON2014-00329) PC MEETING-OCTOBER 14, 2014 PAGE 5 Trump National Flagpole It is Staff's understanding that once the LCP has been amended, the City may be able to process a Coastal Development Permit for the Trump National flag pole. However, Coastal Staff still needs to confirm this. Public Notice On September 22, 2014, a public notice was published in the Peninsula News and a list- serve message was sent to the subscribers of Breaking News and Trump National announcing tonight's Planning Commission meeting and inviting public comments. Additionally, pursuant to the Coastal Act, a similar public notice was mailed to interested parties and all property owners within the Coastal Zone. The Public Notice included Staff's proposed text amendment to the LCP. Public Comments In response to the Public Notice (including the original Public Notice issued on August 21, 2014), the City received ten comments letters. The majority of the letters object to permitting the flag pole at Trump National to remain at 70-feet, while one letter provides suggested clarification revisions to the proposed text amendment (see attached letters) which Staff has accepted and included in the proposed text amendment. In the event Staff receives additional comment letters after the transmittal of this Report, Staff will provide the Commission with such letters as late correspondence the night of the meeting. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration: • Identify issues or concerns related to the proposed text amendments to the LCP and direct Staff to come back with revised language at the October 28, 2014 meeting; or, • Reject Staff's recommended text amendments to the LCP and forward a recommendation to the City Council to not amend the LCP to allow flag poles in excess of 16-feet up to 70-feet in the City's Coastal Zone. ATTACHMENTS • July 4, 2014 City Council Staff Report • July 7 2014 City Council Letter to the Coastal Commission • July 29, 2014 City Council Staff Report • July 29, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes (excerpt) • Initial Study/Negative Declaration • Public Comment Letters 1-42 JULY 4, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-43 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, ACTING CITY MANAGER@ JULY 4, 2014 SUPPORT LETTER FOR TRUMP NATIONAL GOLF CLUB FLAGPOLE Project Manager: Kit Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analyst@ RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Mayor Pro Tern to sign a letter to the California Coastal Commission, expressing the City Council's support for the Trump National Golf Club flagpole at its current height and location. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION On March 20, 2007, the then"City Council granted after-the-fact approval of the 70-foot- tall flagpole at Trump National Golf Club (Trump). The City Council's decision was appealed timely by the Coastal Commission, and the appeal has remained unresolved since then. Prior to and since 2007, Trump has also pursued a number of additional amendments to its City and Coastal Commission entitlements, including the landslide repair, driving range, New Zealand Christmas tree hedge and other improvements. On July 9, 2014, the Coastal Commission is meeting in Ventura and is scheduled to take action on the twenty-first amendment to the Trump entitlements (Case No. A-5-RPV-93- 005·A21), which includes consideration of the appeal of the flagpole and other· unresolved Coastal Commission issues. As described in the attached "Summary of Staff Recommendation," Coastal Commission Staff is recommending conditional approval of the flagpole, provided that it is reduced to twenty-six feet (26') in height and relocated to within thirty feet (30') of the golf course clubhouse. The complete Coastal Commission Staff report is available for review on-line at: http:/ldocuments.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014flM/12a-7-2014.pdf. Since the current City Council has never been asked to take a formal position regarding the Trump flagpole, Staff has prepared a draft letter of support for the flagpole to remain 1-44 MEMORANDUM: Support Letter for Trump Flagpole July 4, 2014 Page2 at the height and location previously approved by the City Council in 2007. If approved, this letter of support will be transmitted to the Coastal Commission before next Wednesday's hearing. The City's Community Development Director will also be traveling to Ventura to attend the hearing in this matter and testify before the Coastal Commission. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the qity Council's consideration: 1. Revise the draft letter of support, as deemed appropriate by the City Council; or, 2. Do· not send a letter of support. Attachments: • Draft letter of .support • Coastal Commission Staff report ("Summary of Staff Recommendation" only) • City Council Minutes of March 20, 2007 (excerpt) M:\Legislatlve lssues\Coastal Commissfon\Trump Amendment 21\20140704_StaffRpt_CC.docx 1-45 July4, 2014 Steve Kinsey, Chair California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 R FT SUBJECT: Letter of Support for Existing Trump Flagpole Item No. W12a, Meeting of July 9-11, 2014 Case No. A-5~RPV-93..006-A21 Dear Chair Kinsey: On behalf of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to you and your colleagues on the Coastal Commission to express the City's support for allowing the existing 70-foot-tall flagpole at the Trump National Golf Club (Trump) to remain at its current height and location. Effectively, this means rejecting your staff's recommendation to impose Special Condition No. 46 to reduce the height of the flagpole to twenty-six feet (26') and to relocate it to within thirty feet (30') of the Trump clubhouse. In approving the Trump flagpole in 2007, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council carefully reviewed this matter and was able to make the necessary findings to approve a Conditional Use Pennit for the flagpole, including findings that there would be Il.Q significant visual impacts upon adjacent properties due to the expansive public views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island that remain unaffected by the flagpole and the American flag. Conditions imposed by the City Council upon the approval of the flagpole included requirements that no flag other than the American flag may be flown on the pole and for the installation of additional public viewing benches and the dedication of the 25-square-foot plot at the base of the flagpole to the City. Furthennore, the City Council was able to make all of the necessary findings for the approval of a Variance for the height of the flagpole, including findings related to the existence of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property due to its size and location; no material detriment to public health, safety and welfare; and consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is extremely proud of the Trump National Golf Club and the contributions that it has made to the exceptional quality of life for our residents and the positive image of the City and its coastline that are experienced by thousands of visitors each year. My City Council colleagues and I believe that the display of the American flag on the Trump flagpole makes an integral contribution to residents' and visitors' positive experience of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and that it should be allowed to remain at its current height and location, subject to the conditions of approval that were imposed by the City. Sincerely yours, RAFT Jim Knight Mayor Pro Tern M:\Legislatlve lssues\Coastal Commission\Trump Amendment 21 \20140704_Draft Letter of Support.doCJC 1-46 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Sulte 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 W12a Filed: 1801bDay 270thDay: Staff: Staff Report: Hearing Date: 11/27/2013 5/26/2014 8/24/2014 Z.Rebm-LB 6/26/2014 7/9/2014 STAFF REPORT: PERMIT AMENDMENT Application Number: Applicant: Agents: Project Location: Amendment Description: Previously Approved Development: A-5-RPV -93-005-A21 VH Property Corp. Jill Martin and Karen ZoBell, The Trump Organization One Ocean Trails Drive, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County Amend Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 to reduce the number of residential lots from 39 to 23 and add two golf course lots to accommodate a driving range and putting green; Lot Nos. 1-13 to remain unchanged, reconfigure residential Lot Nos. 14-39 into residential Lot Nos. 14-23 and golf course Lot Nos. 24-25; grading of the proposed reconfigured lots; reconfigure underground drain line connections to support proposed reconfigured lots; reconfigure trails around the perimeter of the proposed driving range; install fences/landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed driving range; and erect 70-foot high flagpole atop 12 to 20-foot high mound. The application includes a request for after-the-fact approval of the grading, a portion of the landscaping, and the flagpole. Re-subdivision of 261.4-acre site into two tracts (Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50667 and 50666); and creation of75 graded lots for single-family residences, construction of four lower cost apartment units; installation of utilities and site improvements; 18-hole golf course with clubhouse and public open space, parks, and trails. Includes: A) 1-47 A-5-RPV-93-005-A2 l (VH Pr~perty Corp.) Local Approval: Staff Recommendation: Coastal Access and Public Amenities Plan dated February 5, 1993 providing additional beach access trails; and B) Habitat Enhancement Plan dated February 18, 1993 providing ( 1) restriction of 20 acres in Shoreline Park adjacent to the project to the west to habitat preserve and restoration of ten of those acres; (2) purchase of easement over a 100 acre City-owned parcel adjacent to the project to the north and located outside the coastal zone and restoration of20 of those acres to coastal sage scrub; and (3) maintenance of public access trails in the habitat areas. Subsequently amended 20 times, as indicated in Appendix B. The Commission denied one amendment (A14). City Council of the Chy of Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 92-53, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 162 and 163, and subsequent Revisions to the Ocean Trails Project Approval with Conditions SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION This permit amendment seeks approval of Amended Map No. 2 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50666 which reduces the number of residential lots from 39 to 23 and establishes golf course Lot Nos. 24 and 25 to provide a driving range and a putting green at the existing Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Exhibits 1-3). The applicant proposes grading (Exhibit 4) and underground drain line alterations (Exhibits 6-7) to accommodate the reconfigured housing tract layout, as well as the removal of two previously approved cul du sacs (Exhibit 3). The applicant also proposes to eliminate paved streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and connections to other trails associated with the cul du sacs, which were previously approved and conditioned, but never constructed: Additionally, the applicant proposes to moderately alter the design and location of the West Portal Trail, West Portal Bikeway, and Canyon Rim Trail around the perimeter of the proposed driving range and construct fencing and landscaping around the perimeter (Exhibit 4). Unpermitted development has occurred on the property. The applicant has already completed the majority of the grading proposed in this permit amendment and has already erected the 70-foot high flagpole atop a 12 to 20-foot high mound adjacent to the first tee of the golf course (Exhibits 4-5). Additionally, the applicant has already planted some of the proposed landscaping · and constructed a small retaining wall at the western border of the driving range. When the Commission evaluates permits for development that has already taken place, it must evaluate the development as if it had not taken place. The fact that the development is in place does not prejudice the Commission's evaluation. The Commission can approve the application if it finds 2 1-48 A·5·RPV-93--005-A21 (VH Property Corp.) that the development is consistent with the applicable standards of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Coastal Act. If the Commission finds that development is not consistent with the applicable standards of the LCP and the Coastal Act, the Commission can impose special conditions to bring the development into consistency with the LCP and the Coastal Act or the Commission can deny the development. If the Commission denies the unpennitted development or finds that there are other issues arising from its installation without a coastal development pennit, the Commission can refer the matter to enforcement staff for appropriate action. Staff recommends approval of Coastal Development Permit Amendment Application A-5-RPV- 93-005-A21 with conditions to protect and enhance public access and recreation and visual resources. Revised Special Conditions 3 and 23 would reposition three trails to provide public access to and around the perimeter of the proposed driving range. Special Condition 46 would preserve and enhance visual resources by requiring that the proposed flagpole be limited to 26 feet in height as measured from existing grade and would require it to be sited no more than 30 feet from the outer wall of the existing clubhouse structure. Only as conditioned are the proposed development and permit amendment consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Program and the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The motion necessary to carry out the staff recommendation is on page seven of this report. Procedural Note No.1: The original coastal development was approved during a de novo hearing on the project, originally identified as "Ocean Trails," after the City of Ranchos Verdes conditional approval of a local coastal development permit was appealed. All subsequent amendment requests have been heard by the Commission. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP was adopted and certified by the Commission in 1983. The standard of review of a locally issued coastal development pennit on appeal is the certified LCP, and, when the proposed development is located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, the public access and public recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The subject site is located between the first public road and the sea. Procedural Note No • .2: The after-the-fact application for the proposed 70-foot high flagpole atop a 12 to 20-foot high mound was originally proposed as Amendment No. 22 in August 2007. Because both the subject Amendment No. 21 and Amendment No. 22 were incomplete for more than five years, staff agreed to process the amendment requests jointly in order to streamline the pennitting process and allow the applicant to comply with a City condition of approval requiring that an application for the retention of the flagpole be filed with the Commission. Procedural Note No. 3: The Commission's regulations provide for referral of permit amendment requests to the Commission if: 3 1-49 A-5-RPV-93-005-A21 (VH Property Corp.) 1) The Executive Director determines that the proposed amendment is a material change, 2) Objection is made to the Executive Director 1s determination of immateriality, 3) Or, the proposed amendment affects conditions required in order to protect a coastal resource or coastal access. In this proposed amendment to a conditionally approved pennit, the proposed revision is a material change that affects conditions required for the purposes of protecting coastal resources and coastal access and recreation. Therefore, the Executive Director has determined that the change must be reported to the Commission and noticed to the public. The Coastal Act and its regulations limit the applicant's ability to request changes after a pennit has been approved. Section 13166 of the California Code of Regulations requires that an application for amendment shall be rejected if, in the opinion of the Executive Director, the proposed amendment would lessen the intended effect of a partially approved or conditioned permit, unless the applicant presents newly discovered material information, which he or she could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced before the pennit was granted. This regulation applies equally to the original applicant and to any successor in interest. Most of the proposed changes would not lessen the effect of the original permit, including: reconfigure residential Lot Nos. 14-39 into residential Lot Nos. 14-23 and golf course Lot Nos. 24-25; grading of the proposed reconfigured lots; reconfigure underground drain line connections to support proposed reconfigured lots; reconfigure trails around the perimeter of the proposed driving range; and install fences/landscaping around the perimeter of the proposed driving range. The graded driving range and putting green surrounded by fencing and landscaping will have fewer negative effects on coastal resources and public access and public recreation than the two cul du sacs, 16 single family residences, and their associated uses which were previously approved in the same location would have had. Visual resources, water quality, and biological productivity will all be improved under the change of use. Less alteration of the natural land.form for roads, drainage lines, and utilities will be required under the proposed tentative tract map than in the previously .approved version. The Commission cannot consider the proposed 70-foot high flagpole atop a 12 to 20-foot high mound as proposed by the applicant, as the need for this change to the approved permit is not a result of new information or unexpected occurrences and approval as proposed would lessen the effect of the original pennit The record for the original permit and subsequent amendments contains significant analysis of the scenic and visual impacts of the golf course and associated residential development. The project was conditioned to lessen the visual impacts to the maximum degree feasible. The approved 26-foot height of the clubhouse was based on a visual analysis and the standards of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes municipal code, a component of the certified LCP. Approving a 70-foot high flagpole which restricts sweeping, panoramic views of the ocean and coastline from public roadways and public trails would lessen the effect of the original permit. 4 1-50 A-5-RPV-93-005-A21 (VH Property Corp.) Therefore, the Executive Director must reject the current proposal unless the change, when contemplated along with newly imposed special conditions, is consistent with the intent of the Commission's prior action. In order to enable the Commission to consider the proposed change, staff recommends a condition which the Executive Director has determined would allow for a flagpole which would not lessen the effect of the original permit. That recommended condition of approval of this amendment would limit the height of the proposed flagpole to 26 feet as measured from existing grade and would require it to be sited no more than 30 feet from the outer wall of the existing clubhouse structure. 5 1-51 REQUESTED TRACT MAP AMENDMENT AND GRADING PERMIT (CASE NOS. SUB2006-00003 & ZON2005-00597). A roll call vote reflected unanimous approval. Appeal of Revision "88" to Trump National Golf Course - a Request for an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.163 and a Variance to Permit an "After-the-Fact'' 70' Tall Flag Pole Located at the Back Tee of Hole No. (1411) Deputy City Manager/City Clerk Petru reported that this was a continued public hearing and she had one request to speak on the item. Deputy Planning Director Pfost provided a summary of the staff report. The Council discussed the lighting provision for the flag pole and Mayor Long clarified that the wiring for the lighting could be inStalled and the City would control whether the flag would be lit. Mayor Pro Tern Stern stated that the indemnification should include indemnifying the City for any problems or injuries that arrive· from the maintenance of the flag. City Attorney Lynch noted that the indemnification was included In the current agreement and she suggested adding the word maintenance to the agreement to amplify language addressing maintenance of the flag pole and amenities. Councilman Wolwoicz expressed concern that there was nothing in the document stating that the applicant could not change the location of the flag pole or put up another flag pole. Mayor Long indicated that such a condition was not necessary since the flag pole belonged to the City. but inquired if the permit could be conditioned so that the Trump National Organization could not erect another flag pole anywhere else on the site. City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the specific condition of approval specified the location. She expressed concern about prohibiting a flag pole somewhere else on the property as part of the conditions of approval and recommended against the imposition of additional conditions. Councilman Clark proposed a site for the flag pole be in an underutilized area of the park which could accommodate tables and benches. He indicated that many people did not reallze that the flag pole was part of the City park in its present location. City Council Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 13of18 1-52 Deputy Planning Director Pfost noted that the other two areas proposed for the flag pole relocation could accommodate a viewing area with tables and benches. He pointed out ADA issues and concerns with traffic on the bike trail with the location of the flag pole; and he suggested constructing a spur off of the bike trail to address ADA access. Vincent Stellio, Trump National, did not think that the area proposed by Councilman Clark was safe as It was divided by a bike path, there was no existing ADA access, and there was the potential for people to be struck by golf balls from Hole 18. He asserted that the existing picnic tables were rarely utilized and wanted to see more sitting benches added to the park. Councilman Wolowicz received clarification that a bench would be feasible at both sites. Councilman Clark observed that the benches were be1ng utilized but indicated that he would like to see the Trump Organization agree to put in low profile seating benches at two alternate sites as there were many vista points at the Trump Golf Course but very few benches to enjoy the views. Mr. Stellio was amenable If the benches could be removed so the area could be used for tournaments. Mayor Pro Tern Stem indicated that it was important to allow more of a buffer zone from the golf areas and he supported benches because he thought picnic tables negatively affected the visual impact. Councilman Clark moved to approve the permanent location of the flagpole in its existing location with all conditions as enumerated In the staff report and the installation of one bench at each of the alternative locations and one removable bench at each of the vista points at the end of the park. Councilman Gardiner seconded the motion. Councilman Wolowicz expressed opposition to the flagpole at its current location and asked that the motion be split and voted on separately. Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 26 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 36 FOR REVISION "BB." The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Clarkr Gardiner and Mayor Long Stem and Wolowicz City Council Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 14of18 1-53 Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-31, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, APPROVING THE APPEAL AND TH.EREBY APPROVING REVISION "BB", AMENDING CUP NO. 162 AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 70' TALL FLAG POLE. The motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Clark, Gardiner and Mayor Long Stem and Wolowicz Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Councilman Gardiner, to 1) Provide direction to Staff and the Applicant in regards to which of the two proposed aUernatives for a publicly accessible viewing area in Founders Park is the preferred alternative with four benches; 2) Accept a Grant Deed for property where the flag pole is currently located; and 3) Enter into an Indemnity Agreement, as amended, pertaining to the flag pole. A roll call vote reflected unanimous approval. PAUSE TO CONSIDER THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA Mayor Pro Tern Stem moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to suspend the rules regarding the end time for the meeting so that Council could attempt to finish the remaining agenda items. Without objection, Mayor Long so ordered. Councilman Clark moved, seconded by Mayor Long, to move Item 14 forward as Councilman Clark needed to leave after that item. Hearing no objection, Mayor Long so ordered. REGULAR NEW BUSINESS: City Council Succession Appointments (306) Mayor Pro Tern Stern moved, seconded by Mayor Long, to waive the staff report and adopt the nominations in the staff report as well as those to be stated by Councilman Clark and Councilman Wolowicz. Without objection, Mayor Long so ordered. Councilman Clark nominated Jon Cartwright, Paul Tetreault and Lois Karp as his succession appointees in case of an emergency. City Attorney Lynch explained procedures for handling duplicate nominations. City Council Minutes March 20, 2007 Page 15of18 1-54 JULY 7, 2014 CITY COUNCIL LETTER TO COAST AL COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-55 .Jmr<r v. DUHOV!l:, MAYOi~ ,)/M l<.Ni<lH1, Ml\YOR l'RO lrM St IS/\N 8ROOKS, COUNCILWOM.O.N B!MN l ;J\MPl3rt L, COUNCILMAN f\N I HONY M MIS!.: I/CH l :01 JNC/l MAN Steve Kinsey, Chair CITY OF California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St., Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 Agenda Item W12a Case No. A-5-RPV-93-005-A21 Rancho Palos Verdes -OPPOSED Rl\NCHO PALOS VERDES July 7, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL SUBJECT: Letter of Support for Existing Trump Flagpole Item No. W12a, Meeting of July 9-11, 2014 Case No. A-5-RPV-93-005-A21 Dear Chair Kinsey: On behalf of the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, I write to you and your colleagues on the Coastal Commission to express the City's support for allowing the existing 70-foot-tall flagpole at the Trump National Golf Club {Trump) to remain at its current height and location. Effectively, this means rejecting your staffs recommendation to impose Special Condition No. 46 to reduce the height of the flagpole to twenty-six feet (26') and to relocate it to within thirty feet (30') of the Trump clubhouse. In approving the Trump flagpole In 2007, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council carefully reviewed this matter and was able to make the necessary findings to approve a Conditional Use Permit for the flagpole, including findings that there would be !1Q significant visual impacts upon adjacent properties due to the expansive public views of the Pacific Ocean and Santa Catalina Island that remain unaffected by the flagpole and the American flag. Conditions imposed by the City Council upon the approval of the flagpole included requirements that no flag other than the American flag may be flown on the pole and for the installation of additional public viewing benches and the dedication of the 25-square-foot plot at the base of the flagpole to the City. Furthermore, the City Council was able to make all of the necessary findings for the approval of a Variance for the height of the flagpole, including findings related to the existence of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property due to its size and location; no material detriment to public health, safety and welfare; and consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. 1-56 California Coastal Commission July 7, 2014 Page2 The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is extremely proud of the Trump National Golf Club and the contributions that it has made to the exceptional quality of life for our residents and the positive image of the City and its coastline that are experienced by thousands of visitors each year. My City Council colleagues and I believe that the display of the American flag on the Trump flagpole makes an integral contribution to residents' and visitors' positive experience of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and that it should be allowed to remain at its current height and location, subject to the conditions of approval that were imposed by the City. Sincerely yours, ~ ~u.tJ----Jerr~o.fudvic Mayor cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Carolynn Petru, Acting City Manager Joel Rojas, Community Development Director M:\Legislatlve Jssues\Coastal Commisslon\Trump Amendme ., 1\20140707 _ CoastalCommlssion_LetterofSupport.docx . 1-57 JULY 29, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-58 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JULY 29, 2014 LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE~ Project Manager: Ara Mrhranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Directo~ RECOMMENDATION Direct Staff to initiate an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height as a visual corridor landmark on property owned or dedicated to the City in the City's Coastal Zone. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2014, the California Coastal Commission conducted a meeting to consider a number of items related to Trump National that were previously approved by the City Council but have been awaiting Coastal Commission approval, including the existing 70- foot high flag pole that was approved by the City Council in 2007. During its deliberations, the Coastal Commission indicated that the flag pole could not be supported because the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) does not allow for flag poles of its height in the Coastal Zone, and that the City did not have the authority to grant a variance for the flag pole. As a solution, the Coastal Commission suggested that the City make a specific amendment to the City's LCP to address the height of flag poles in the Coastal Zone. In response to this information, the Trump National organization withdrew their request regarding the flag pole at the July glh Commission hearing until the City can address the LCP amendment issue. The City Council is being asked tonight to initiate the process to amend the City's LCP to 1-59 specifically address the height of flag poles in the City's Coastal Zone. DISCUSSION According to Section 30514.b of the California Coastal Act, any proposed amendments to a certified local coastal plan shall be submitted to, and processed by, the California Coastal Commission. Prior to the Coastal Commission's review of the proposed LCP amendment, the City's process involves the following steps: 1. City Council initiation of the LCP amendment (tonight's agenda item); 2. Planning Commission's review of the proposed text amendment to the LCP. If the Council initiates the amendment to the LCP process this evening, after factoring in ·currently agendized items and the time involved for the required public notice, Staff anticipates the earliest the Planning Commission would review the LCP amendment is at its September 9, 2014 meeting, at which time a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council; and, . 3. City Council review of the Commission recommended text amendment to the LCP. Staff anticipates this step to occur at the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting. During the process described above, the specific text language will be vetted as it relates to allowing flag poles exceeding 16-feet in height in the City's Coastal Zone. The Corridor Element of the LCP currently identifies the Point Vicente Light House and the former Marineland Sky Tower as landmark vocal points. At this time, Staff recommends amending the Corridor Element of the LCP, specifically Figure 26 under Visual Corridors, by removing the Marineland Sky Tower (since it was demolished in 1995) and adding the flag pole abutting Founder's Park as a landmark focal point. Additionally, Staff recommends adding text allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height on property owned or dedicated to the City in the City's Coastal Zone. The Council adopted amendment to the LCP will be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for its consideration. City Staff is set to meet with Coastal Staff within the coming week to discuss the details to the proposed amendment to the LCP. In preliminary conversations with Coastal Staff after the July 9th hearing, it was conveyed to City Staff that the amendment to the LCP, if solely for flag poles, could be processed expeditiously by Coastal Staff. Once the LCP has been amended, the City can process a Coastal Development Permit for the Trump National flag pole, and if no appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission, the City's decision would become the final decision. FISCAL IMPACT Processing an amendment to the LCP will have no significant fiscal impact to the General Fund as Staff time involved in this process is expected to be minimal. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City 1-60 Council's consideration: • Deny initiating the amendment to the City's LCP, thereby requiring the Trump National Organization to adhere to the July 9th Coastal Commission Staff Recommendation as it relates to the height and location of the flag pole. Under this alternative, the Trump National Organization would have to re-apply for a Coastal Development Permit by the Coastal Commission. • Identify issues or concerns related to the LCP amendment initiation request and provide Staff with direction. 1-61 JULY 29, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (EXCERPT) NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-62 By acclamation, the Council received the update report on the West Vector Control District. Local Coastal Plan Amendment Initiation Request City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item. Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian provided a brief staff report regarding this item. Jill Martin, Attorney, VH Property Corporation, Rancho Palos Verdes, thanked the Coun~il for addressing the landmark flag pole at the Trump National Golf Club and encouraged the Council to approve the amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan. Mickey Radich, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he was in favor of the amendment to the Local Coastal Plan, noting that he was present at the July 9, 2014 Coastal Commission. He stated he was not in agreement with the Coastal Commission that a flag pole is a structure, while a cell tower and a radio antenna is not a structure. He reported that at the end of the Ventura Pier there is a nearly 70-foot tall flag pole with a large flag, which has received no opposition. He added the flag pole at Trump National should be resolved soon. Sharon Yarber, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that she is not unpatriotic, but is concerned regarding the process, since the flag pole at Trump National Golf Club was constructed without a permit, and after-the-fact the City accepted the dedication of the land where the flag pole is located. She noted concerns with the possibility of other private property owners along the coast to construct tall flag poles, and opined that the Local Coastal Plan Amendment cannot be limited to the Trump National organization. She noted she was. in favor of the California Coastal Commission's opinion that the flag pole should be limited to the height of 16 feet. Discussion ensued among Council Members, staff and City Attorney Lynch. Councilman Campbell arrived at 7:37 p.m. and joined the dais, during the discussion of this item. Councilman Campbell moved, seconded by Councilwoman Brooks, to direct Staff to take this item to the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan to allow the Trump Flag Pole (Veteran's Flag) adjacent to Founder's Park at Trump National Golf Club, and to allow City staff and Coastal Commission staff flexibility to address possible options. Without objection, Mayor Duhovic so ordered. City Council Minutes July 29, 2014 Page 5of9 1-63 INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-64 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Planning Case No. ZON2014-00329) - Local Coastal Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: City's Coastal Zone City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Community Development Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 6. General plan designation: Varies 7. Coastal plan designation: Yes 8. Zoning: Varies 9. Description of project: The proposed project is a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment (CSPA) to add the following underlined text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 or the LC P) of the Corridors Element: Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height. as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone 1-65 1 - 6 6 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014~00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Land Uses Significant Features L-------+-------········--·········--···················· .................. _ ..... _____ ...._c_o_v_e_. ----·- 1 1 The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the I oldest city on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. 1 Northwest It is primarily developed with single-family j of the City The City of Palos Verdes Estates residential neighborhoods, with commercial : · and multi-·family development at Lunada II Bay and Malaga Cove. Ii-· -··-· ,________ ----------··-T·-h···-e-c--iti_e_s_o_f_R_o_lli-ng_H_i_lls_E_s-ta-t-es._a_n_d....;1 II Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the North of the City 1950s, and both emphasize a semi-rural The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and equestrian lifestyle. The major commercial Rolling Hills center on the Palos Verdes Peninsula is located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates. The City of Rolling Hills is gated and ___ _ ___ -··--··· ··"···············--· --~-~-.~ .. ___ -~-· ~m~~-~---~~wnt~'.n~,.,~~~~~,~=::.c~C:: dev_:~~~-~en!:'"""""""""' .I 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Coastal Commission Page 3 1-67 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicted by the checklist on the following pages. [::] Aesthetics [:] Agricultural Resources [--J Cultural Resources [==] Air Quali1y [:J Geology/Soils [=] Biological Resources [=] Greenhouse Gas Emissions ["-] Hazards & Hazardous Materials c::] HydrologyNVater Quality L._ _ _J Land Use/Planning [] Population/Housing r=i Transportationrfraffic D Mineral Resources [::] Public Services [~::] Utilities/Service Systems C] Noise [=] Recreation r--"'] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: D D D l .. J Signature: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the projecl proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on lhe environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. because all potentially significant effects, (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EJR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the propos · , othing further is required. Date: ·-~!ember 22, 2014 "---··"-------- Printed Name: For: _Qi.!i'. of Rancho Palos Ver.sJ._e_s ______ _ Page4 1-68 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Sources Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1------------------.-----,..-------,-·-----.. -·-·---,------.------i a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Subs'lantially damage scenic resources. including, but not limited to. trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment lo allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone subject lo the parameters cited in the "Project Description" section of this assessment. One of the parameters states thal a flag pole exceeding 16-feet in the Coastal Zone shall be consistent with lhe height restrictions identified in the View Corridor section of the LCP (Figure26). This is to ensure that a flag pole would not encroach into views of prominent features, such as Catalina Island, Point Fermin, or Point Vicente Light House. Additionally, another parameter requires a flag pole proposed to exceed lhe 16-foot height limit receive approval of a Variance application by the City which is a discretionary application that is considered al a duly noticed public hearing. It is during this discretionary (Variance) process, that potential impacts associated with the installation of a proposed flag pole that exceeds 16-feet in height would be assessed, including but not limited to. aesthetic and view impacts such as protecting scenic resources and scenic vistas. Therefore, since the proposed text amendment to the City's LCP does not approve "by right" the installation of flag poles up to 70-feet in height, any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of project implementation will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the discretionary permilling process described herein. As such, there will be no significant aesthetic impacts aesthetic resources as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. 2. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES 1• Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resource Agency, lo non-agrrcultural use? x 1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are signiricant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and foresl carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board Page 5 1-69 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ·----·--·--··· Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources .. .. - b) Conflict with ·-··a-xrsting zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code secti0n 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due lo their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ·-Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact -· x x x x Comments: a-e)Although properties in the City's Coastal Zone are not specifically zoned or otherwise officially designated for agricultural use, noncommercial agricultural uses of one-acre or less are permitted by right and through a conditional use permit when greater than one-acre on all property zoned Residential-Single-Family, 1 DU/acre (RS-1). Since the LCP amendment involves allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up, to a maximum of 70-feet in height, no substantial effect upon agricultural resources is expected to result from the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to agricultural resource issues. 3. AIR QUALITY2 • Would the project: a) Confiict with or obstruct implementation x of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or x projected air quality violation? - c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal x or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to x substantial pollutant concentrations? ··---· 2 Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Page 6 1-70 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ~ .. _, ___ . ---... Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ...... -....... __ ,, __ ..... x a -e) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within a five-county region in southern California that is designated as the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Air quality management for the SCAB is administered by the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address federal and state air quality standards. Although high level of air quality is prevalent in Rancho Palos Verdes since the ocean is the primary air recharge area region, allowing flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feel in height, in the Coastal Zone will nol result in emission discharge. Therefore. there will be no air quality impacts resulting from the LCP Amendment. ·-· ... _ 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, x policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, x or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to. marsh, x vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with x established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? --H·-- e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological x resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. x Natural Community Conservation Plan. or other approved local, reaional, or Page 7 1-71 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Potentially Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Impact state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ~~~~.........L~~~~'--~~~~-'-~~~~~-'-~~~~~'--~~.......J Comments: a-e) The City of Rancho Palos Verdes participates in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) which is a state program adopted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service that helps identify and provide for the area-wide protection of natural wildlife while allowing for compatible and appropriate local uses. There are various types of vegetation communities identified in the City's NCCP and the General Plan. Said vegetation communities include, but are not limited to, Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral and Grasslarrds. It should be noted that any applicable flag poles will be located on developed properties outside of sensitive biological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact to any species, riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, wetlands, biological resources or to any adopted habitat conservation plan as a result of the LCP Amendment. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? x x 1--~~---------------~--l------~~-~-----+--------+~~·-·~---1-----1 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? x ·-·ct)Disturbed-any--·11uma·i1 .. _rem-a-in_s_, +----------------·--·----·----if---·--... - including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x Comments: a-d) The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, subject to specific parameters to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment. The proposed project would not result in significant physical modifications or alterations of land (aside for the foundation to support a flag pole) that could impact cultural resources. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Accordingly, there will be no impacts upon cultural resources. 6. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on Lhe most recent Alquisl-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?3 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, in- 3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 x x x Page 8 1-72 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22 1 2014 r------·····----"----·- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources ·-···--··-·-·-·---···· .. -·--·~·-· -cl-udlng"'nguefa_stion? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable. or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil. as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), thus creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? -·--~ Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ·--·-. ·--x _,,_ .. __ ...................... ___ , x x x x Comments: a-e) The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. In addition, the proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures; thus, there are no impacts to geology and soils conditions. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may x have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of x reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a-b) The proposed project is a LCP amendment lo allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. The project will not result in any emissions of greenhouse gasses since the proposed LCP Amendment is to allow the placemen I of flag poles on developed properties subject to certain parameters to minimize impacts to the City's Coastal Zone. As such, there will be no greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the Code Amendment. 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine x transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public x or the environment throuQh reasonably Page 9 1-73 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ---- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into lhe environ- ment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Potentially Significant Impact ~·~~~,. ..... ·-·«-··~· ... ·-··-· .... ·--- ··-· d) Be localed on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to tile public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safely hazard for people residing or working in the project area? t) For a project within .. the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ... h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? --Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact -- x .• x x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feel in height. up lo a maximum of 70-feet in height. within the City's Coastal Zone. a-d) All applicable site-specific environmental analysis would be reviewed prior to any construction of a flag pole to identify potential adverse impacts or conditions. If hazardous material is found, appropriate remediation and mitigation methods would be incorporated to prevent creating any hazardous condition for the public and the environment during the discretionary permitting process. Therefore, there is no impact caused by the proposed amendment. e, ~There are no airports located within or in close proximity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore. there is no impact caused by lhe proposed amendment. g-h) Since the project does not involve any development, but rather an amendment to the text of the LCP to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone, the project, as its proposed, will not interfere with any adopted emergencv response or evacuation plan. Further, the project will not Page 10 1-74 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 -- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact result in the exposure to people or structures to any adverse risks. Therefore, there would be no impact caused by the proposed amendment. ·----·-·-··-··~ - 9. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY. Would the project: -· .. -~···· .. ·--.. ~---¥-·----~-.. -· a) Violate any waler quallty standards or x wastewater discharge requirements? ---___ ...... ..._ ....... _ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater x (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a x stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-sile? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase x the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? -· e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems x or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water x quality? g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area. as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood x Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or x redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death x involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? - Page 11 1-75 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources -· j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact .. ···-··-. Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ... .. .., .. _._ x Comments: The proposed project is LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alteraliorrs of the existing land or structures that will impact hydrology or water quality. As such, there will be no impacts with respect lo hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. 10. LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established com· x munity? . b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over !he project (including, but not limited to the general x plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com-x munity Conservation Plan? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height. up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA as part of the d'1scretionary permitting process. Therefore, there will be no significant land use or planning impacts associated with the LCP Amendment. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be x of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local x general plan. specific plan, or other land use plan? Comments: According to the Natural Environment Element of the General Plan, areas in Rancho Palos Verdes were quarried for basalt, diatomaceous earth, and Palos Verdes stone between 1948 and 1958. However, the proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow nag poles to exceed 16-feet in height up to a maximum of 70-feel in height within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts lo mineral resources associated with the LCP Amendment. Page 12 1-76 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ........ _.._ ... Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources ....... -............ .. .. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: ....... . .. --.... -... a} Exposure of persons lo or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable stan- dards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ·-c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area lo excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact _ .. _ ........ _ --- x x --... x x x x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. As such, there will be no significant noise impacts associated with the proposed Code Amendment. ............ 13. POPULATION/HOUSING. Would the project: -· -·--~--~ a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., x through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? . ·- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the x construction of replacement housing elsewhere? -c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction x of replacement housing elsewhere? ~--.:.-.. --- Page 13 1-77 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 __ , .. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ---·-~ Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed i6-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height. within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon wh.ich the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. Since the proposed project would enact revisions to the City's LCP to allow the installation of flag poles on limited properties within the Coastal Zone, it will not have any impacts to population or housing. and no existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed LCP Amendment will have no impact upon population .and housing. ---- 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental im- pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: i) Fire protection? x ii) Police protection? x iii) Schools? x iv) Parks? x v) Other public facilities? x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow fiag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project will not result in the need for added protection services or the need for schools, added parks, or other public facilities. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed LCP Amendment with respect to public services issues. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such lhal x substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? .. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, x which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of70-feel in height, within the City's Coastal Zone subject to certain parameters, such as requiring flag poles that exceed 16-feet in height lo be localed on property owned by the City or dedicated lo the City for public access, and that the property accommodate certain facilities (benches, drinking fountains, public parking, etc.). Such flag poles, if allowed per the LCP Amendment, would not significantly increase the use of a park or park facilities because such improvements would likely already be in place or proposed to be installed lo accommodate park visitors. Moreover, the location of a flag pole in the _Coastal Zone will not result in the physical deterioration of park grounds or facilities. As Page 14 1-78 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources ··--.. -·---·- ------r-Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ---·-_... ... such~the propos.ed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. -··""'' 16. TRANSPORT ATION/TRAFFl.C. Would the project: ----··---·-·· ... -· .... -.. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of !he circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit x and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets. highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion -- management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other x standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ---C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic x levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or x dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ·--1----·---.. e) Result in inadequate emergency ac· x cess? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or x otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feel in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height. within the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures and thus no traffic generation will result from the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, the proposed project would have no impacts related to traffic and transportation . .. --17. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: _ .. Exceed wastewater treatment require---· a) ments of the applicable Regional Water x Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of x new water or wastewater treatment Page 15 1-79 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ~-------------·------,.------.------...-------.------~-----. Issues and Supporting Information Sources facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Sources Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f---..,-.--:-----'--..,..---------f-----1-•••··••••··--·--···---Jc-------+----·"·-----+----~ c} Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to seNe the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e} Resull in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which seNes or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve 1he project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? x x x ff Be served by a landfill with-suffi.cie_n_t-+------1------+--------if-------+----< permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? x 1-------------------1-~-----t------t~------t------+-----I g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related lo solid waste? x Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone and will not result in requiring added utilities to a site that would accommodate such a flag pole because such a property will already have or proposed to have utilities that can accommodate drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. for park visitors. Thus, there wlll be no increase in demand for utilities or service systems as a result of the proposed LCP Amendment. As such, the proposed project would have no utilities or service systems impacts. Page 16 1-80 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014-00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ---- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources -· - 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does lhe project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact x Comments: As described above, the proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made lo properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures other than the construction of flagpoles. As such, the amendment to the City's CSP will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels: threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community: or reduce the number or restrict lhe range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed LCP Amendment will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively x considerable?4 Comments: The proposed project is a LCP amendment to allow flag poles lo exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. Any physical modifications or alterations will be made to properties in the Coastal Zone that either are owned by the City or on properties upon which the City has an existing easement. These properties already are developed. The proposed project does not include any physical modifications or alterations of the existing land or structures, and the approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement lo develop. Any physical modifications or alterations to existing land and/or structures as a result of the project objectives will be addressed through separate environmental analysis consistent with CEQA during the permitting process. As such, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project fi·ave."e-nvfronmental effects which will cause substantial x adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ---=i Comments: The proposed project L.CP amendment to allow flag poles to exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum of 70-feet in height, within the City's Coastal Zone. As discussed above, all of the potentially environmental effects of the proposed project are expected lo have no impacts. As such, the project does not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. ---·---·--· . 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. 4 "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with !he effects or the pas! projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Page 17 1-81 Environmental Checklist Case No. ZON2014M00329 (LCP Amendment) September 22, 2014 ·-•¥ Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact ·-· Earlier analysis may be used where. pursuant to the tiering. program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Jn this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify and state where they are available for review. -Comments: Not applicable b) Impacts adequately address~ci: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Comments: Nol applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Comments: Not applicable. Authority: Public Resources Code s·e-Ctions 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofffv. Monterey Board of Supervisors. 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, and associated Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as amended through August 2001. 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook_ Diamond Bar, California: November 1993 (as amended). 4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the Stale of California, Division of Mines and Geoloqv 5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 7 Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE Tri12 Generation, 7th Edition. 8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS) database and maps 9 State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Y~ryJ:!i9b. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Sacramento, California, accessed via website, March 2008 10 Official Mapsof 'fsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of the State of California and the California Geological Survey 11 City of Rancho Palos Vmdes Municipal Code 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e., "Cortese List") 13 Cities of Rancho Palos.Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element - Page 18 1-82 PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS (AUGUST 21 -OCTOBER 14, 2014) NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CC MEETING LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ZON2014-00329 1-83 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: lindorfer <lindorferl@cox.net> Tuesday, September 23, 2014 11:07 PM Ara Mihranian Subject: RE: LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Thanks, Mayb¢the sJ~e;shou1~'be no more than the current Trump flag, which looks it.o;~e abQ,i..it1~X 20? And <my flag should be evaluated for view imp·c:t.irrn~mt ~rlf it is out of proportion to the flagpole heigltt? ···troe -------Orig f 1,, al A~¢~sci,'Se~--.7""~­ Fro111: Ani Aihf~Iliah D; C)·;;-,::·;;.01·4·:;ri;2····e,i'2? i;ll.A · ate: .1~_k .... "t: tt: ~ tiv.t . To: lindorl.h . · .. ·. /. ·· , • . . ·. . .. . . . Sub}ed: RE: LO(ZY&L COf\STAL SPEClFfl!:' PLAN AMENDMENT· OCTOBER 14~ 2014 HANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Lindorfer, At this tirne, the City is not proposing to regulate the size of a flag, but proposes to assess potential view imr;>acts related to the flagpole. However, you raise a good;·pointthat will be addressed in the upcomin':'.J Staff Report, and perhaps can be folded intd the review process. Thank you for sharing your comments! Ara 1 ' / J J 1-84 ()TYO ... , R\NCHO H~LOS VERDES ~r'ilrri1~r:; 't. co6'.1)0 · £ • • i ... ":·:.·'';{:~·.. ~~~i~<~::(,,k''·:'· ·"'"·~::··< WW\Vipal·~sverde~'.Gomlrpvi> · From: lh <er [mailto:lindorfer:l'{$iqox.nen "S~nt; Tuf :1y, September 23, 20ft:i.4:14 ~M Tc: Ara rv. rnnian Subject: l :f\L COAST/\; SPEClFJQPLAN AMEN[)NfEl\IT ~ OCTQBER14, 2014 PLANN!N( :oMMISSIOi'l MEET!NG 2 1-85 HeJfo, I notice that the propoS,ed . attiendmet:rf·rt'¢Ver tntntiJ:!(lstW~ ii!ze o~::th z ~IC!g:,. o~Jy tfi~ flagpole .. Are ther•~ any restriqtjQnS on the size<of flags (),~i\tj C)i{;J r!'ffpai rJl~nts? One coulc vi~ubfize a 40 fc ot high by sixty foor· w1de flag 1n·a 70 foot flagp '."J1e·causing some vi.ew impo; rtnent. That~ '<s, Joe Undorfer 3 1-86 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Ara, dcoriae@aol.com Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:35 PM Ara Mihranian; PC Local Coastal Specific Plan Amendment I'd like to say that, much as I love seeing the American flag flying on our shoreline, I do not believe that it is appropriate to amend our Local Coastal Specific Plan to facilitate after-the-fact approval of a flagrant violation of our laws. That said, if those in authority are of a mind to amend the Plan, the language of this proposed amendment n~eds some tightening up, I believe, in order to achieve what l understand to be the goal- -to enable a particular pn;)perty owner to fly a particular flag in the particular location that it now flies. 1) In the amendment language as indicated on the listserv announcement, I see no requirement that the flag flown on the flagpole be the American flag, or even the California flag. Is it the intent to permit the Trump National flag, or the flag of some other commercial enterprise, jurisdiction, or country to be flown on that flagpole? I see that on the Public Notice there is a requirement that only the American flag may be flown on the flagpole. 2) In the amendment language, I see no requirement that the flagpole be located well below the road grade, which position I believe makes the current flagpole location less objectionable than it might otherwise be. Were the flag to be flown at or near road grade, it wouldn't have to be 70' tall to make an impact 3) The amendment language on the listserv announcement uses the term "property" loosely, thereby risking confusion. The first bullet (on the listserv announcement--the Public Notice differs somewhat) refers to the applicable 11 property"--one flag pole exceeding 16 feet is permitted per "property". The second bullet stipulates that the flag pole must be on "property" owned or dedicated to the City. The fourth bullet requires that the "property" underlying and surrounding the flag pole must be a minimum of 120 acres. I believe that the references to "property" in the first and fourth bullets refer to the Trump property, while the reference to "property" in the second bullet refers to the carved out bit of land within the Trump property that was dedicated to the City for the purpose of getting the flagpole approved. I believe the amendment should more clearly indicate that one flag pole in excess of 16 feet is permitted per 120-plus-acre parcel, provided that, within that 120-acre-plus parcel, the land on which the flagpole is erected is owned or dedicated to the City. Using defined terms may be helpful. Sincerely, Eva Cicoria 1 1-87 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Ara: Gary Randall <grapecon@cox.net> . Sunday, September 28, 2014 5:58 PM Ara Mihranian Case No ZON2014-00329 (LCPA) I recently received the public notice for Case No. ZON2014-00329. I do not have any comments at this time. However, I do request that I be included in the distribution of the Notice of Decision after the public hearing. Thank you Gary Randall 3512 Heroic Drive 1 1-88 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: September 30, 2014 SunshineRPV@aol.com Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:13 PM PC; Ara Mihranian Re: LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COM MISS ... MEMO from SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 TO: RPV Planning Commission, Staff and interested parties RE: PC Meeting October 14, 2014 about flag poles. This has got to be the most absurd RPV Staff Recommendation I have ever seen. And, I hear that the Coastal Commission's Staff doesn't like it either. RPV does not have the "person power" to keep our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan and Trails Network Plan up to date with Council approved actions which should be documented as Amendments and the Planning Commission is being asked to use their volunteer time on this mockery. Gentlemen. Please vote NO. While you have Staff's attention, please ask if anyone has seen any photogi"aphs of the rebar etc, which is supporting Trump's flag pole. I would like to think that Mr. Trnmp's contractor did a quality job. Get my drift? In a message dated 9/23/2014 4:49:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rpvlistserver@rpv.com writes: LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT-OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider Planning Case No. ZON2014-00329 (Local Coastal Plan Amendment & Environmental Assessment) a City initiated amendment to the City's Local Coastal Specific Plan (LCP) to add the following text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 or the LCP) of the Corridors Element: Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12-feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet, as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: •One flag pole over 16-feet per property. The flagpole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors of the Coastal Specific Plan; • The flagpole must be located on property owned or dedicated to the City that allows for public access to the flagpole; • The flagpole must be located in an area where there is no significant impairment of a view from a major arterial street in the City or from a single family residence in the City. 1 1-89 •The property underlying and surrounding the flag pole must be a minimum of 120-acres in total area and must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating; and •An approved Variance Permit (to exceed the 16-foot height limit) must be obtained from the City. Click here to view the October 14th Planning Commission Public Notice Click here to view the Negative Declaration Inquiries and/or public comments should be directed to Ara Mihranian, Deputy Community Development Director, at 310-544-5228 or via email at aram@mv.com BREAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non-emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at. http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakingnews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Listserv message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: comments@palosverdes.com This Listserv program is one of many services created, hosted, __ and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET. a non profit 501c3 community service organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to the City, educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training to adults. free classes for seniors. and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at information@palosverdes.com 2 1-90 Ara Mihranian From: SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent: To: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 1:20 PM CC; PC; Carolynn Petru; Ara Mihranian Subject: Re: LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -OCTOBER 14, 2014 PC October 1, 2014 MEMO from SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 TO: RPV Planning Commission, Staff and interested parties RE: PC Meeting October 14, 2014 about flag poles. Sorry I had to click the SEND button prematurely. "My drift" is that flying the American Flag high in the RPV Coastal Zone is not an offensive view obstruction. What is offending me is Staffs convoluted thinking about how to let Trump's flag pole to "legally" remain in place. The construction was not permitted. The foundation was not inspected. "After the fact" permits are fairly common. They usually just include a very punitive fee. If Staff has evidence that the health, safety and welfare of the public is not at risk, I suggest that, We The People, just let Mr. Trump pay some outrageous fee to apply for an after the fact permit and a view obstruction variance. Other than the lack of a definition of a "viewing station" and a lack of foliage removal, the RPV Coastal Specific Plan has served us rather well. If this proposed Amendment is approved, I don't think that there is any other place in our Coastal Zone which could comply with it. Give the land and the liability back to Mr. Trump. There really is no problem until the flag pole falls on somebody. Please move and vote NO, unless Staff changes their recommendation before October I 4, 2014. In a message dated 9/30/2014 7:12:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, SunshineRPV@aol.com writes: September 30, 2014 MEMO from SUNSHINE 310-377-8761 TO: RPV Planning Commission, Staff m1d interested parties RE: PC Meeting October 14, 2014 about flag poles. This has got to be the most absurd RPV Staff Recommendation I have ever seen. And, I hear that the Coastal Commission's Staff doesn't like it either. RPV does not have the "person power" to keep our General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Parks Master Plan and Trails Network Plan up to date with Council approved actions which should be documented as Amendments and the Planning Commission is being asked to use their volunteer time on this mockery. Gentlemen. Please vote NO. While you have Staffs attention, please ask if anyone has seen any photographs of the rebar etc, which is supporting Trump's flag pole. I would like to think that Mr. Trump's contractor did a quality job. Get my drift? In a message dated 9/23/2014 4:49:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rpvlistserver@rpv.com writes: LOCAL COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT -OCTOBER 14, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 1-91 The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 14, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. at Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes to consider Planning Case No. ZON2014-00329 (local Coastal Plan Amendment & Environmental Assessment) a City initiated amendment to the City's Local Coastal Specific Plan (LCP) to add the following text to the end of the current Visual Corridor section (page C-12 or the LCP) of the Corridors Element: Flag Poles Flag poles in the Coastal Zone are permitted up to 12-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with no discretionary review, or up to 16-feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade, with a Site Plan Review application to ensure there is no significant view impairment caused by the flag pole above 12- feet in height. Flag poles in the Coastal Zone may exceed 16-feet in height, up to a maximum height of 70-feet, as measured from adjacent grade provided the following parameters are met: •One flag pole over 16-feet per property. The flagpole shall be consistent with the height restrictions identified in the visual corridors of the Coastal Specific Plan; • The flagpole must be located on property owned or dedicated to the City that allows for public access to the flagpole; · • The flagpole must be located in an area where there is no significant impairment of a view from a major arterial street in the City or from a single family residence in the City. ·The property underlying and surrounding the flag pole must be a minimum of 120-acres in total area and must provide a minimum of 20 free public parking spaces, public restrooms, drinking fountain, and public bench seating; and •An approved Variance Permit (to exceed the 16-foot height limit) must be obtained from the City. Click here to view the October 14th Planning Commission Public Notice Cilek here to view the Negative Declaration Inquiries and/or public comments should be directed to Ara Mihranian, Deputy Community Development Director, at 310-544-5228 or via email at aram@rpv.com BREAKING NEWS City staff occasionally posts other important non-emergency information on the Breaking News page of the City's website located at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/breakinqnews Be sure to go to the List Server page and subscribe to receive email messages whenever a Breaking News article is posted to the City's website. You can join at: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/listserver Please do not reply directly to this message. The correct contact for each Ustserv message topic is included in the message. We welcome your comments and suggestions, please send them to: comments@palosverdes.com This Listserv program is one of many services created, hosted, and provided by Palos Verdes on the NET, a non profit 501c3 community service organization serving our communities by providing computer technology support to the City, educational internships and animation training to kids, workforce training 2 1-92 to adults, free classes for seniors, and free web pages to non-profit organizations since 1995. Click here for information about free classes to residents. Contact us by email at information@palosverdes.com 3 1-93 Ara Mihranian From: Sent: To: Subject: bahhoff@cox.net Thursday, October 02, 2014 12:18 PM Planning Case No. Zon2014-00329. Trump Flag pole. Why don't just say that this zoning variation is specifically for Trump. No one else could possibly meet these parameters. I strongly disagree with the City Council giving into TRUMP! I guess if you are a big enough BULLY you can get your own way. It just goes to show that it pays off to ignore the City rules, erect the flagpole in violation and then pay off the members. Since I live right ne~t to Trump, it is highly suspicious that I never received this notice of a public hearing (I received it from a friend who lives several miles away). ls the City Council so worried by a negative response to the proposal that they do not even give notice to those most effected? Bruce Hoffman 101 Spindrift, dr., RPV 1-94