The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 8 Attachments 2. General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan, Zone Change, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, Coastal Plan, Grading Permit, Height Variation Permit & Environmental Assessment (Case Nos. SUB2008-00001 & ZON2008- 00074): 32639 Nantasket Drive Chairman Lewis began by explaining that he has received a request from the public that he recuse himself from this item based on campaign contributions received during the recent campaign for City Council. He stated that he does not plan on recusing himself from this item, noting that he complied with the Government Code in all respects during the campaign in regards to campaign contributions. Per the Government Code he is not required to recuse himself, but is required to disclose any campaign contributions received. He stated that he received $100 from Mr. Emenheiser and received no monetary contribution from Mr. Ireland. He noted Mr. Ireland hosted a coffee for him that was attended by 10 people, however he paid for all food and refreshments served. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he also received a request to recuse himself for the same reasons. He stated he received no monetary contributions from any interested parties regarding this matter. Commissioner Knight stated that he received a $99 contribution from Mr. Emenheiser, however he also felt that he had no reason to recuse himself. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the request and explained the scope of the new project before the Planning Commission. He described the need for each application and added that staff believes the subject property creates a transitional zone between the various land uses and densities in the neighborhood. In discussing neighborhood compatibility, he explained that staff felt this proposed project constitutes its own neighborhood for the purposes of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He stated this determination is consistent with the City Attorney’s opinion as well as the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines. He discussed the bulk and mass of the homes as well as the height of the homes and potential view impairment issues, and showed drawings for comparison of the previously submitted homes and the current revised project. He noted that the current proposal is now a four lot subdivision which was achieved by a shift in the location of the residences which opened up views that may have been obstructed with the previous proposal. He stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and was recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the project as recommended by staff. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to identify the average lot size and residence size of the surrounding neighborhoods. Senior Planner Schonborn reviewed the average residence and lot size of the houses in the surrounding areas on Channelview Court, Beachview Drive, the area around Via Baron, and the houses on Seacove Drive. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-1 Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland (applicant) explained that he listened carefully to the direction given by the City Council in regards to his previous project, and worked very hard to incorporate those suggestions into this current project and that this proposal is consistent with those suggestions. He noted that the newly proposed four homes represent a 25 percent reduction in building square footage from the previous project. He also compared lot coverage, lot size, ridge heights, grading, and the potential view blockage between the first project and the currently proposed project. Commissioner Knight asked what percentage of the homes was made up of basement area. Mr. Ireland answered that the only true basement is on lot 3, and was only there to provide a variable in the four homes, and consisted of approximately 1,000 square feet. Dan O’Brien (Community Director of the Villa Apartments) stated that on behalf of Pacific Property Company who owns the Villas and FPI Management who manages the Villas, they stand in opposition of the proposed development. He stated that this development will cause a significant decrease in property values due to the impact of the new view obstructions and a decrease in revenue from the apartments with view premiums. He explained that many units will have a view impact from the proposed project and that the proposed homes are not compatible with the neighborhood, as they are very large homes. In addition, construction nuisance will impact all residents for an undetermined period of time. He also explained that many of the residents of The Villas park on Nantasket Drive, as there is not enough available parking to accommodate two spaces for all two and three bedroom apartments. He stated the proposed development will have an impact on the available street parking. Chairman Lewis asked if it is The Villas position that this property should remain vacant, or is there any project The Villas would be supportive of in a residential capacity on this property. Mr. O’Brien stated he could not answer that question at this time. Commissioner Ruttenberg noted that there is a by-right height that the developer can build to, and asked Mr. O’Brien if he had any photographs of view impairment that may impact lower units of the complex. Mr. O’Brien answered that he does have photographs, but he did not have them with him at this time. Commissioner Tetreault stated that there was a view analysis done from three particular units, and asked Mr. O’Brien if he agreed that those are the units that a view analysis should be taken from. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-2 Mr. O’Brien disagreed with the choice of units in which to do the view analysis. He felt that any unit that has view obstruction will be impacted and should have a view analysis conducted. Chairman Lewis asked staff if economic impact to a neighbor is a factor the Planning Commission may consider when making a decision on a proposed project. Director Rojas answered that economic consideration is not part of the findings the Planning Commission is required to make when considering this project. David Emenhiser (Vice President of Seabluff HOA) noted that the danger point around this application is the number of variances and exceptions needed for this project, as well as the view impacts caused by the project. He was also very concerned with the bulk and mass of the project and the incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that his major request was for a view corridor for the four homes in his association that are impacted. He also felt that there is a compromise that involves sliding the No. 1 property down the hill slightly. He noted that a view corridor could be created if the homes were all moved on the property towards the ocean. He added that before the meeting he received a phone call in which he was informed that there may already be a view corridor for this property, and referred to the Coastal Specific Plan page C-10, Figure 26. Stephanie McLachlan stated she currently has a view from her ground floor kitchen area that will be obstructed by this project. She felt these proposed homes are too large for the area and appear to be a mass of wall of one long continuous home. She was also concerned about the marketability of her home should her view be lost. Chairman Lewis asked if Mr. Emenhiser's compromise solution would alleviate any of her concerns. Ms. McLaughlin explained that the first house would not impact her view, but rather the second and third houses that impact her views. Juan Carlos Monnaco stated he stands in opposition to the project as currently presented. He explained the project impacts his ocean views and will therefore impact his property value. He understood that the house on lot No. 1 is at 16 feet and can be built to that height by right, but pointed out that it creates the most blockage of view and natural light. He also objected to the loss of open space that will result from the building of these homes. He agreed with Mr. Emenhiser’s proposal that moving the house on lot No. 1 towards the ocean would help with the view obstructions it causes in its current location. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Monnaco if the proposed houses on the other lots also obstruct his view. Mr. Monnaco answered that the houses on lots 3 and 4 may also block his view. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-3 Mr. Monnaco asked staff if they could clarify the statement in the staff report that the security signs were obstructing more view than the proposed construction on lots 3 and 4. Senior Planner Schonborn clarified on a photograph the object that was being referenced in the staff report. Mabel Monnaco stated she completely objects to this proposed project as it destroys the view from her home. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) stated that he has listened and heard the comments of the neighbors and has worked diligently to come up with a proposal which he feels meets the City codes. He felt that the issues raised by Mr. O’Brien and the Villas address his project as if he has nothing more than the right to have a blade of grass. He stated that the lower units on Nantasket Drive would be blocked by any structure permitted on his property. He added that when the City created this lot in 1983 they created a vested property right to build structures on the site. In regards to the parking, he was not sure that the Villas were entitled to any surplus parking on the public street. Regarding the homes on Beachview Drive, he did not feel these homes have unobstructable views, and clearly this is what they are asking for. He also noted that Ms. McLachlan purchased her home in 2009, at which time his project was a well documented project. Commissioner Knight asked if it would be possible to move the structure on lot 1. Mr. Ireland stated that what he heard Mr. Emenhiser ask for was to shift all four homes seaward. In doing that, he would be defeating what he was directed by the City Council, which was to open up space between the homes. Mr. Ireland noted that he has never been invited into Mr. Monnaco’s home to see the view and to get a better understanding of his concerns. Commissioner Tomblin pointed out that, per a design standpoint only due to the topography of the site, if the house on lot one were to move over even 50 feet that will then create 50 feet of two story structure near the property line that is currently not there. He felt that this would lead to more bulk and mass issues and would create privacy issues to the neighbors. Mr. Emenhiser stated that he was concerned about the neighboring residents’ property rights and home values in regards to this proposed project. He felt that the discussions tonight show why this property should be zoned RS-2 rather than RS-3. Dana Ireland explained that when looking at this project as an RS-2 project the realities of economics factor in very heavily. He noted that even with a three lot development the houses would not necessarily be pushed down to the bottom of the lots and that many of the same issues being discussed tonight would be discussed with a three house development. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-4 Chairman Lewis suggested starting the discussions with the issue of the General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan amendment, and the proposed zone change before discussing issues of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt there are certain factors that have been raised before the Commission that the Commission should not consider. He noted that the Commission has been directed to not take economic consideration into account since it is not an issue that they are to consider. He also did not think the possible inconvenience during construction and whether or not there is enough parking for the residents at the Villas should be taken into consideration when discussing proposed development. In regards to the zoning, he felt that RS-3 was the proper zoning for this project. Commissioner Knight was unsure why this parcel was ever zoned CR, as it did not meet the standards of the City, and this is an opportunity to straighten out the zoning issues with the property. He felt that this is a residential neighborhood and any commercial building would be out of place. He felt that many of the same impacts would be present if the property were zoned RS-2 as opposed to RS-3. He felt that zoning the property RS-3 was an appropriate update to the General Plan. Commissioner Perestam agreed that zoning the property RS-2 would not help in any of the discussions in terms of design, as many of the problems would still occur with an RS-2 zoning. Chairman Lewis agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg’s comments. Commissioner Ruttenberg discussed the view issues, and understood why every homeowner would want to protect their views. The Planning Commission must apply the laws of the City with regards to view impairment. He noted that with respect to Lot No. 1, the proposed structure is within the 16 foot by-right area and therefore there is nothing protectable in the viewing area of the neighbors. With regards to any loss of view due to proposed structures on Lot Nos. 3 and 4, he did not believe these structures created a significant view impairment to the neighbors. He explained that the only issues he has with the proposed homes is their size. He also noted, however, that while these homes seem to large for the area and the lot sizes, many of the homes in the neighborhood are similar. Commissioner Perestam agreed that these are large homes, however the fact that these homes are across the street from an apartment complex negates, in his mind, much of the density discussion. He therefore was generally supportive of the project. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Perestam and added that on the other side of this development is the golf course, and the larger mass of these structures is seen from the golf course side. He noted that because of the grading of the golf course one may not be able to see the two story mass of the homes from the Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-5 golf course. He did not feel the mass of these houses, though they are large in terms of square footage, would be apparent from any of the places that matters. Commissioner Tetreault stated he is generally in agreement with the other Commissioners. He noted that not only has the development been reduced to four houses, but there is quite a bit of space between the buildings. He felt that, before the Commission makes a final decision on this matter, the Commission have the opportunity to visit Mr. Monnaco’s home and the three units at the Villas apartments to look at the views since this project has been redesigned. Commissioner Knight stated that he had been opposed to using the Villas as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis with the previously designed project, and that now the Commission is to look at this project as its own neighborhood. In terms of view impact, he did not feel there was much the Commission could do, as the homes were within the 16 foot by right area. However, he was still undecided on the proposed size, bulk, and mass of the proposed homes. Commissioner Tomblin discussed the density of the neighborhood and the proposed project, and felt that the proposed four homes ties into the surrounding neighborhoods. In terms of the size of the homes, he felt these proposed homes were very close in size to the existing homes in the adjacent neighborhood. He agreed with the Vice Chairman’s comments about the design and impact of the homes, and stated he could support the project as currently designed. Chairman Lewis was in agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to allow the Commissioners the opportunity to observe the view from Mr. Monnaco’s home as well as from the three affected units at the Villas. The motion failed due to the lack of a second. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation in regards to approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the NPDES and LA County MS-4 permits address some of the new water quality issues, such as chemical runoff, that could result from this new proposed development. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the City’s NPDES consultant will verify that runoff that gets to the street is appropriately treated. Commissioner Knight asked that staff be sure that the analysis takes into account the impact to the Terranea water quality plan. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-6 Commissioner Tetreault explained that because he has not been able to do a new view analysis from the Monnaco residence and the three units at the Villas, he will be voting no on the motions. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2009-47 recommending the City Council certify the mitigated Negative Declaration was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation regarding the Coastal Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, proposed zone changed from Commercial to RS-3 seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Approved, (7-0). Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to adopt staff’s recommendation to adopt the vesting map, and approve the associated applications for the four-lot subdivision and residential project, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed the size of the homes, and pointed out that there are currently 50 foot corridors between the houses, which is wider than the lots on the adjacent development. He stated that this is a less dense development than was previously proposed, and while these homes may be large, the square footage is managed very well on the property. Chairman Lewis agreed with the Vice Chairman’s comments. Vice Chairman Gerstner discussed correspondence received regarding the chimneys. He noted that staff had recommended the chimneys be as low as possible, and the rebuttal to that was that the chimneys be articulated in the same manner as Terranea so that they may be taller but the spark arrester is not seen. He stated that he is in favor of not seeing the spark arrester and was pleased that the articulation would be similar to that at Terranea. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that the issue of the spark arrester has been addressed though a recent AQMD regulation which prohibits new wood burning fireplaces. Therefore, the need for a spark arrester should no longer exist. Dana Ireland explained that the new gas burning fireplaces still have a small spark arrester at the top of the chimney. He would like to obscure this metal spark arrester to be aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked how much additional height was being discussed. Mr. Ireland answered that if they are designed like the ones at Terranea it will be 18 to 20 inches, if they are designed similar to the one at his own residence it will be less than 8 inches. Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-7 Chairman Lewis moved to amend his motion to including allowing the chimneys to be allowed as they are shown in the submitted drawings, seconded by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Tetreault felt that when dealing with a project that is intruding into someone’s view, the Planning Commission should be consistent with what has been done in the past and ask that the chimneys be kept at the minimum height. The motion to amend the original motion to allow the chimney heights to be as shown on the submitted drawings failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Tetreault, Knight, Perestam, Ruttenberg, and Chairman Lewis dissenting. The motion to adopt PC Resolution 2009-48 recommending the City Council conditionally approving the applications for a four-lot subdivision and residential project as conditioned by staff was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 4. Encroachment Permit (Case No. ZON2009-00145): 17 Coveview Drive Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the Encroachment Permit. She stated that staff was able to make the necessary findings and the Public Works Department has reviewed the case and found that these structures cause no apparent traffic or pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, staff was recommending approval of the Encroachment Permit application. Commissioner Perestam had a concern with the impervious surface in the front yard of the residence, noting the entire front yard is well in excess of 50 percent impervious surface. Assistant Planner Harwell agreed, noting that the issue is being addressed through the Code Enforcement division. She also noted that in the site plan the applicant has addressed the landscaping and there is a calculation included for 50 percent landscaping. Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing. Marlene Breene stated that she prepared the drawings that were submitted with the application. She stated that the encroaching structures are similar to others in the neighborhood, and once the front yard has been planted she feels the yard will look quite nice. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1-8 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2009 Q 47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMiSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAKiNG CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN ASSOCIATION WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,FOR CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001 AND ZON2008~00074 THRU -00078 FOR A PRPOSED 4~LOT SUBDIVISION TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR NEW SINGLE~FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE FOUR NEW LOTS;LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE,BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (APN 7573 R 014 Q 013). WHEREAS,on September 26,2006,November 14,2006,January 9,2007,March 13,2007,and March 27,2007,the Planning Commission considered Case Nos.ZON2005- 00536 and ZON2006-00180 thru -00182 for a proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a Zone Change from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential),a 5-lot subdivision and development of five single-family residences on a vacant parcel on Nantasket Drive between Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive (APN 7573-014-013);and, WHEREAS,on April 24,2007,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution Nos.2007-29,2007-30 and 2007-31,recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration;approve the Land Use Designation changes to Residential; approve the Zone Change to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential);approve the single-family residences on Lots 1 and 2;and deny the single-family residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 due to these residences not being compatible with the immediate neighborhood with regards to bulk and mass;and, WHEREAS,on May 15,2007,the proposed project,along with the Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration.After hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the project,the City Council denied the applications and remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the project from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning districts than the Planning Commission's recommendation of RS-4;and, WHEREAS,in response to the City Council's May 15,2007 directive,the property owner/applicant submitted new applications on January 31,2008,which are the same application types submitted in 2006 and 2007.However,the current proposal includes a zone change to RS-3 instead of RS-4,which is a lower density;a 4-lot subdivision and residential development instead of a 5-lot subdivision;Height Variation applications for Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit;a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the new residences;and,continues to propose a General Plan Land Use Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a ATTACHMENT 1-9 Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93'instead of the 110'lot depth requirement (hereinafter referred to as Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008- 00074 thru -00078);and, WHEREAS,on February 25,2008,Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008- 00074 thru -00078 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,after submittal of additional information,including construction and certification of the required temporary silhouettes,on September 29,2009 the applications were deemed to be complete for processing;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that,by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Coastal Permit,Grading,and Height Variations,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and, WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared on October 2,2009 and circulated for public review between October 2,2009 and November 10,2009;and, WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and Resolution as Exhibit "A";and, WHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10,2009,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,the public comments upon it,and other evidence before the Commission prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law p.e.Resolution No.200947 Page 2ATTACHMENT 1-10 and that there is no substantial evidence that,with appropriate mitigation measures,the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078 would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment. Section 2:There are no sensitive natural habitat areas on the subject site.Thus, no site disturbance or alteration will result from the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,and therefore,the project will have no individual or cumulative adverse impacts upon resources,as defined in Section 711.2 ofthe State Fish and Game Code. Section 3:That with the appropriate mitigation measures that address impacts upon Aesthetics,Air Quality,Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils,Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise,Public Services,and Transportation and Circulation,the project will not have a significant impact. Section 4:For reasons discussed in the Initial Study,which is incorporated herein by reference,the proposed project will not have any potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals,norwould the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable. Section 5:The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuantto Section 65962.5 of the Government Code,and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Section 6:Based upon the foregoing findings,the adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is in the public interest. Section 7:The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,Exhibit "A",attached hereto,are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project.These measures will reduce potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. Section 8:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report,Environmental Assessment and other components of the legislative record,in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,and in the public comments received by the Commission,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby certifies that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "A") associated with Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,thereby allowing a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u.lac);a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Residential;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);a 4-lot subdivision and residential development;a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93';a Grading Permit for a p.e.Resolution No.2009-47 Page 3ATTACHMENT 1-11 residences;and Height Variation applications for the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the i6-foot height limit. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2009,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Gerstner,Knight,Lewis,Perestam,Ruttenberg,Tomblin Tetreault ABSTENTIONS:None ABSENT:None RECUSALS:None PoC,Resolution No.2009"47 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-12 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2009-47 Page 1 Exhibit A Mitigation Monitoring Program Project: Case Nos. SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078, a General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change; Vesting Parcel Map, Variance, Grading Permit, and Height Variation. Location: Vacant Lot located on the west side of Nantasket Drive, between Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive in the City’s Coastal Zone (APN7573-014-013), Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Applicant: Dana Ireland, 1 Seacove Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Landowner: Same. __________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….2 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………2 Environmental Procedures…………………………………………………………………..2 Mitigation Monitoring Program Requirements……………………………………………..2 II. Management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program……………………………………….3 Roles and Responsibilities…………………………………………………………………...3 Mitigation and Monitoring Program Procedures…………………………………………...3 Mitigation Monitoring Operations…………………………………………………………….3 III. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist……………………………………………………4 IV. Mitigation Monitoring Summary Table……………………………………………………….5 ATTACHMENT 1-13 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2009-47 Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION PURPOSE This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is to allow the following project on a vacant lot located on the west side of Nantasket Drive, between Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive in the City’s Coastal Zone (APN7573-014-013), in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: A General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u./ac); a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment to change the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Residential; a Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential); a Vesting Parcel Map for a 4-lot subdivision; a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93’; a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the four new single-family residences; and Height Variation applications for the new single-family residences on Lots 3 and 4 that exceed the 16-foot height limit. The MMP responds to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, which requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where a Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified significant environmental effects, to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is acting as lead agency for the project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document recommended mitigation measures to mitigate or avoid impacts identified. Consistent with Section 21080 (2)(c) of the Public Resources Code, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures under the jurisdiction of the City are implemented. The City will adopt this MMP when adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This MMP has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This MMP complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for implementation of CEQA. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code states: "When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21081, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed ATTACHMENT 1-14 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2009-47 Page 3 reporting or monitoring program." II. MANAGEMENT OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The MMP for the project will be in place through all phases of the project including final design, pre-grading, construction, and operation. The City will have the primary enforcement role for the mitigation measures. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES The mitigation monitoring procedures for this MMP consists of, filing requirements, and compliance verification. The Mitigation Monitoring Checklist and procedures for its use are outlined below. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist The MMP Checklist provides a comprehensive list of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist includes: the implementing action when the mitigation measure will occur; the method of verification of compliance; the timing of verification; the department or agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures; and compliance verification. Section III provides the MMP Checklist. Mitigation Monitoring Program Files Files shall be established to document and retain the records of this MMP. The files shall be established, organized, and retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Compliance Verification The MMP Checklist shall be signed when compliance of the mitigation measure is met according to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The compliance verification section of the MMP Checklist shall be signed, for mitigation measures requiring ongoing monitoring, and when the monitoring of a mitigation measure is completed. MITIGATION MONITORING OPERATIONS The following steps shall be followed for implementation, monitoring, and verification of each mitigation measure: 1. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall designate a party responsible for monitoring of the mitigation measures. ATTACHMENT 1-15 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2009-47 Page 4 2. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement shall provide to the party responsible for the monitoring of a given mitigation measure, a copy of the MMP Checklist indicating the mitigation measures for which the person is responsible and other pertinent information. 3. The party responsible for monitoring shall then verify compliance and sign the Compliance Verification column of the MMP Checklist for the appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation measures shall be implemented as specified by the MMP Checklist. During any project phase, unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement with advice from Staff or another City department, is responsible for recommending changes to the mitigation measures, if needed. If mitigation measures are refined, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement would document the change and shall notify the appropriate design, construction, or operations personnel about refined requirements. III. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION This section provides the MMP Checklist for the project as approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes on December 11, 2008. Mitigation measures are listed in the order in which they appear in the Initial Study. * Types of measures are project design, construction, operational, or cumulative. * Time of Implementation indicates when the measure is to be implemented. * Responsible Entity indicates who is responsible for implementation. * Compliance Verification provides space for future reference and notation that compliance has been monitored, verified, and is consistent with these mitigation measures. ATTACHMENT 1-16 Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. 2009-47 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-17 Mi t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Re s o l u t i o n N o . 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 Pa g e 6 M I T I G A T I O N ME A S U R E S T Y P E T I M E O F I M P L E M E N T A T I O N R E S P O N S I B L E E N T I T Y COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 1. A E S T H E T I C S A- 1 : E x t e r i o r r e s i d e n t i a l l i g h t i n g s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e wi t h t h e s t a n d a r d s o f S e c t i o n 1 7 . 5 6 . 0 3 0 o f t h e R a n c h o Pa l o s V e r d e s D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e . N o o u t d o o r l i g h t i n g is p e r m i t t e d w h e r e t h e l i g h t s o u r c e i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d or r e s u l t s i n d i r e c t i l l u m i n a t i o n o f a p a r c e l o f p r o p e r t y or p r o p e r t i e s o t h e r t h a n u p o n w h i c h s u c h l i g h t i s ph y s i c a l l y l o c a t e d . Pr o j e c t D e s i g n / O p e r a t i o n a l Pr i o r t o b u i l d i n g p e r m i t f i n a l , an d o n - g o i n g Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 3. A I R Q U A L I T Y AQ - 1 : D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e o w n e r s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t th e u n p a v e d c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e a s a r e w a t e r e d a t l e a s t tw i c e a d a y d u r i n g e x c a v a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n t o re d u c e d u s t e m i s s i o n s a n d m e e t S C A Q M D R u l e 4 0 3 wh i c h p r o h i b i t s d u s t c l o u d s t o b e v i s i b l e b e y o n d t h e pr o j e c t s i t e b o u n d a r i e s . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / Ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AQ - 2 : D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e o w n e r s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t al l c l e a r i n g , g r a d i n g , e a r t h m o v i n g o r d e m o l i t i o n ac t i v i t i e s s h a l l b e d i s c o n t i n u e d d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f h i g h wi n d s ( i . e . , g r e a t e r t h a n 3 0 m p h ) , s o a s t o p r e v e n t ex c e s s i v e a m o u n t s o f d u s t . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / Ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AQ - 3 : D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a n y i m p r o v e m e n t s as s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s u b d i v i s i o n , t h e o w n e r s h a l l e n s u r e th a t G e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l m a i n t a i n a n d o p e r a t e co n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t s o a s t o m i n i m i z e e x h a u s t em i s s i o n s . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / Ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AQ - 4 : A w e a t h e r p r o o f n o t i c e / s i g n s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e na m e o f t h e p e r s o n ( s ) r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n si t e a n d a p h o n e n u m b e r ( s ) t o b e c a l l e d i n t h e e v e n t th a t d u s t i s v i s i b l e f r o m t h e s i t e a s d e s c r i b e d i n mi t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e A Q - 1 a b o v e , s h a l l b e p o s t e d a n d pr o m i n e n t l y d i s p l a y e d o n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n f e n c i n g . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / Ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AT T A C H M E N T 1-18 Mi t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Re s o l u t i o n N o . 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 Pa g e 7 M I T I G A T I O N ME A S U R E S T Y P E T I M E O F I M P L E M E N T A T I O N R E S P O N S I B L E E N T I T Y COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 5. C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S CR - 1 : P r i o r t o t h e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f g r a d i n g , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l r e t a i n a q u a l i f i e d p a l e o n t o l o g i s t a n d ar c h e o l o g i s t t o m o n i t o r g r a d i n g a n d e x c a v a t i o n . I n t h e ev e n t u n d e t e c t e d b u r i e d c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a r e en c o u n t e r e d d u r i n g g r a d i n g a n d e x c a v a t i o n , w o r k s h a l l be h a l t e d o r d i v e r t e d f r o m t h e r e s o u r c e a r e a a n d t h e ar c h e o l o g i s t a n d / o r p a l e o n t o l o g i s t s h a l l e v a l u a t e t h e re m a i n s a n d p r o p o s e a p p r o p r i a t e m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s . Co n s t r u c t i o n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g an d / o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / Ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 6. G E O L O G Y / S O I L S GE O - 1 : T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l e n s u r e t h a t a l l a p p l i c a b l e co n d i t i o n s a s s p e c i f i e d w i t h i n t h e g e o t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t an d a l l m e a s u r e s r e q u i r e d b y t h e C i t y G e o l o g i s t a r e in c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e p r o j e c t . Co n s t r u c t i o n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g an d / o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t . Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. GE O - 2 : P r i o r t o b u i l d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e , t h e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l p r e p a r e a n e r o s i o n c o n t ro l p l a n f o r t h e r e v i e w a n d ap p r o v a l o f t h e B u i l d i n g O f f i c i a l . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l b e re s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n t i n u o u s a n d e f f e c t i v e im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e e r o s i o n c o n t r o l p l a n d u r i n g pr o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n . Co n s t r u c t i o n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g an d / o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t . Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 9. H Y D R O L O G Y / W A T E R Q U A L I T Y HW Q - 1 : S u b j e c t t o r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l o f t h e C i t y Pu b l i c W o r k s a n d B u i l d i n g a n d S a f e t y D e p a r t m e n t s a n d pr i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f g r a d i n g p e r m i t s , t h e p r o j e c t ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a s t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t p l a n wh i c h s h o w s t h e o n - s i t e a n d o f f - s i t e s t o r m w a t e r co n v e y a n c e s y s t e m s t h a t w i l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d b y t h e pr o j e c t p r o p o n e n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s a f e l y c o n v e y i n g st o r m w a t e r o f f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . T h e s e d r a i n a g e st r u c t u r e s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e mo s t c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s a n d c r i t e r i a o f t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r Pr o j e c t D e s i g n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g an d / o r g r a d i n g p e r m i t . Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Public Works Department, and the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AT T A C H M E N T 1-19 Mi t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Re s o l u t i o n N o . 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 Pa g e 8 M I T I G A T I O N ME A S U R E S T Y P E T I M E O F I M P L E M E N T A T I O N R E S P O N S I B L E E N T I T Y COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION an d L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c W o r k s t o en s u r e t h a t a d e q u a t e d r a i n a g e c a p a c i t y i s m a i n t a i n e d . Th e p l a n s h a l l a l s o s h o w w h e t h e r e x i s t i n g s t o r m w a t e r fa c i l i t i e s o f f t h e s i t e a r e a d e q u a t e t o c o n v e y s t o r m f l o w s an d w h a t a d d i t i o n a l i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e s e e x i s t i n g fa c i l i t i e s a r e r e q u i r e d b y t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t t o e n s u r e th e s e f a c i l i t i e s w i l l b e a d e q u a t e t o m e e t t h e n e e d s o f th i s p r o j e c t . P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n y b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s fo r a n y o f t h e p r o p o s e d r e s i d e n c e s , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t sh a l l i n s t a l l / i m p r o v e s u c h f a c i l i t i e s t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f th e D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s a n d t h e C i t y B u i l d i n g Of f i c i a l . HW Q - 2 : T h e p r o j e c t s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e s t a t e w i d e N a t i o n a l P o l l u t a n t D i s c h a r g e El i m i n a t i o n S y s t e m ( N P D E S ) G e n e r a l P e r m i t f o r S t o r m Wa t e r D i s c h a r g e s A s s o c i a t e d w i t h C o n s t r u c t i o n A c t i v i t y to p r e v e n t s t o r m w a t e r p o l l u t i o n f r o m i m p a c t i n g w a t e r s of t h e U . S . i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . Pr o j e c t d e s i g n an d op e r a t i o n a l On - g o i n g Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement HW Q - 3 : I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C l e a n W a t e r A c t , t h e pr o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e R e g i o n a l Wa t e r Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l B o a r d ( R W Q C B ) r e g a r d i n g t h e re q u i r e d N a t i o n a l P o l l u t a n t D i s c h a r g e E l i m i n a t i o n Sy s t e m ( N P D E S ) p e r m i t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . T h e p r o j e c t ap p l i c a n t s h a l l o b t a i n t h i s p e r m i t a n d p r o v i d e t h e C i t y wi t h p r o o f o f t h e p e r m i t b e f o r e a n y s i t e g r a d i n g b e g i n s . Pr o j e c t d e s i g n Pr i o r t o b u i l d i n g a n d / o r gr a d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement HW Q - 4 : A p p r o p r i a t e B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e s (B M P ) , i n c l u d i n g s a n d b a g s s h a l l b e u s e d b y t h e p r o j e c t ap p l i c a n t t o h e l p c o n t r o l r u n o f f f r o m t h e p r o j e c t s i t e du r i n g p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . M e a s u r e s t o b e us e d s h a l l b e a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y E n g i n e e r b e f o r e a Gr a d i n g P e r m i t i s i s s u e d f o r t h e p r o j e c t . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement AT T A C H M E N T 1-20 Mi t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Re s o l u t i o n N o . 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 Pa g e 9 M I T I G A T I O N ME A S U R E S T Y P E T I M E O F I M P L E M E N T A T I O N R E S P O N S I B L E E N T I T Y COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION 12 . N O I S E N- 1 : D e m o l i t i o n , g r a d i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s sh a l l b e l i m i t e d t o t h e h o u r s o f 7 : 0 0 a m a n d 7 : 0 0 p m , Mo n d a y t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y . T h e r e s h a l l b e n o co n s t r u c t i o n o n S u n d a y s o r f ed e r a l l y o b s e r v e d h o l i d a y s . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g . Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. N- 2 : D u r i n g d e m o l i t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d / o r g r a d i n g op e r a t i o n s , t r u c k s s h a l l n o t p a r k , q u e u e a n d / o r i d l e a t th e p r o j e c t s i t e o r i n t h e a d j o i n i n g p u b l i c r i g h t s - o f - w a y be f o r e 7 : 0 0 A M , M o n d a y t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y , i n ac c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p e r m i t t e d h o u r s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n st a t e d a b o v e . Co n s t r u c t i o n On - g o i n g . Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and code Enforcement. 14 . P U B L I C S E R V I C E S PS - 1 : A s t h e r e i s n o p a r k o r r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y de s i g n a t e d i n t h e g e n e r a l p l a n t o b e l o c a t e d i n w h o l e o r in p a r t w i t h i n t h e p r o p o s e d s u b d i v i s i o n t o s e r v e t h e im m e d i a t e a n d f u t u r e n e e d s o f t h e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e su b d i v i s i o n , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l , i n l i e u o f de d i c a t i n g l a n d , p a y a f e e e q u a l t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e l a n d pr e s c r i b e d f o r d e d i c a t i o n i n S e c t i o n 1 6 . 2 0 . 1 0 0 . 0 a n d i n an a m o u n t d e t e r m i n e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e pr o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 1 6 . 2 0 . 1 0 0 . G . Pr o j e c t D e s i g n Pr i o r t o R e c o r d a t i o n o f F i n a l Ma p Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 16 . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N / T R A F F I C T- 1 : P r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a g r a d i n g p e r m i t f o r t h e pr o j e c t , t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l p r e p a r e a h a u l r o u t e pl a n f o r a p p r o v a l b y t h e C i t y ' s P u b l i c W o r k s De p a r t m e n t . T h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a n t s h a l l a l s o b e r e q u i r e d to p o s t a b o n d w i t h t h e C i t y i n a n a m o u n t d e t e r m i n e d b y th e P u b l i c W o r k s D e p a r t m e n t t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e f o r t h e re p a i r o f C i t y s t r e e t s d a m a g e d b y t h e h a u l i n g o f s o i l Co n s t r u c t i o n Pr i o r t o b u i l d i n g a n d / o r gr a d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e Pr o p e r t y O w n e r / ap p l i c a n t . Public Works Department, and the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. AT T A C H M E N T 1-21 Mi t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g P r o g r a m Re s o l u t i o n N o . 2 0 0 9 - 4 7 Pa g e 1 0 M I T I G A T I O N ME A S U R E S T Y P E T I M E O F I M P L E M E N T A T I O N R E S P O N S I B L E E N T I T Y COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION aw a y f r o m t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . AT T A C H M E N T 1-22 P .C.RESOLUTION NO.2009-48 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCil CONDITIONALLY APPROVE CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001 AND ZON2008- 00074 THRU -00078 FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING PARCEL MAP,VARIANCE,COASTAL PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING:GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL (CR)TO SINGLER FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,TWO-TO-FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; ZONE CHANGE FROM CR TO RS-3;LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42-ACRE LOT INTO FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS;A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT DEPTHS OF 93'INSTEAD OF 110';HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 3 AND 4 TO EXCEED THE i6-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITS;AND ALLOW A TOTAL OF 4,028 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMilY RESIDENCES ON FOUR NEW lOTS;ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE,BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (APN 7573-014-013). WHEREAS,on September 26,2006,November 14,2006,January 9,2007,March 13,2007,and March 27,2007,the Planning Commission considered Case Nos.ZON2005- 00536 and ZON2006-00180 thru -00182 for a proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a Zone Change from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential),a 5-lot subdivision and development of five single-family residences on a vacant parcel on Nantasket Drive between Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive (APN 7573-014-013);and, WHEREAS,on April 24,2007,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution Nos.2007-29,2007-30 and 2007-31,recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration;approve the Land Use Designation changes to Residential; approve the Zone Change to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential);approve the single-family residences on Lots 1 and 2;and deny the single-family residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 due to these residences not being compatible with the immediate neighborhood with regards to bulk and mass;and, WHEREAS,on May 15,2007,the proposed project,along with the Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration.After hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the project,the City Council denied the applications and remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the project from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning districts than the Planning Commission's recommendation of RS-4;and, ATTACHMENT 1-23 WHEREAS,in response to the City Council's May 15,2007 directive,the property owner/applicant submitted new applications on January 31,2008,which are the same application types submitted in 2006 and 2007.However,the current proposal includes a zone change to RS-3 instead of RS-4,which is a lower density;a 4-lot subdivision and residential development instead of a 5-lot subdivision;Height Variation applications for Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit;a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the new residences;and,continues to propose a General Plan Land Use Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93'instead of the 110'lot depth requirement (hereinafter referred to as Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008- 00074 thru -00078);and, WHEREAS,on February 25,2008,Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008- 00074 thru -00078 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,after submittal of additional information,including construction and certification of the required temporary silhouettes,on September 29,2009 the applications were deemed to be complete for processing;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that,by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Coastal Permit, Grading,and Height Variations,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and, WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared on October 2,2009 and circulated for public review between October 2,2009 and November 10,2009;and, WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and Resolution as Exhibit "A";and, WHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10,2009,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. P.C.Resolution No.2009~48 Page 2ATTACHMENT 1-24 NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Section 1:The size of the subject site,at 1.42-acres,does not meet the minimum development site area for CR Zoned lots.The Development Code calls for CR Zoned lots to be a minimum of 20-acres in area,and maintain a minimum of 250-feet of lot width and iSO-feet of lot depth.The subject property,as a result of previous subdivisions,maintains an existing lot depth of 93-feet, which does not conform to the current CR Zoning standards. Section 2:The appropriateness of the site lends itself to the need within the community for the proposed residential use,and is compatible with surrounding.uses.A commercial use would create more sensory impacts than a residential use with regards to hours of operation,noise,and traffic circulation.The subject site is an existing in-fill site, accessed from the residential streets of Beachview Drive,Nantasket Drive,and Sea Cove Drive.Although the subject site abuts a commercial development,Le.,the Terranea Resort Hotel,to the immediate north,west,and south,there are also single-family residences to the north and south of the subject site and a multi-family residential development to the east,all within 500'of the subject site.Any development would be required to front along Nantasket Drive,and either type of development is anticipated to impact the adjoining commercial recreational,single-family,and multi-family residences; however,a single-family residential development on the subj~ct site would have less impact on the adjoining residential properties with regards to traffic,light,and noise pollution.As such,the Residential land use is more compatible with the existing residential uses of the adjoining area. Section 3:Changing the land use to Residential brings it into consistency with the "Residential type land uses found on the other properties along Beachview,Seacove and Nantanket Drives,and is thereby internally consistent with the General Plan and is not contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan.The General Plan states,'The predominance of residential use [within the City}is based on several factors:the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress,the geographical location of the community with no major transportation facilities,lack of market potential for any major commercial,and need for support facilities only to meet the community's demand"(General Plan Page No.194).Additionally,the General Plan states,"Commercial uses tend to have environmental impacts unless small in scale and very carefully designed"(General Plan Page No.196).Even though this site is small in scale,it is currently vacant,and any commercial venture would cause impacts to the area that would be considered more intrusive than what could be found from a residential development.More specifically, residential uses tend to generate less vehicle trips,create less noise,and have less light and glare impacts than commercial uses.Thus,the General Plan Amendment to Residential will be in the public's interest,and the General Plan Amendment is appropriate. P.C.Resolution No.2009-48 Page 3ATTACHMENT 1-25 COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Section 4:With respect to commercial recreational development on the subject site,the Coastal Specific Plan states that "access should not be taken from Nantasket Drive (in Subregion 3)since it is designated as a residential street and commercial traffic would in aI/likelihood cause significant problems."Currently,Nantasket Drive is used to access the existing single-family and multi-family residential developments along Beachview Drive and Sea Cove Drive.Additionally,vehicular access from the privately owned Terranea Resort Hotel to the subject site does not exist and it is not likely that a driveway easement would ever be created to facilitate vehicular access to the site so that access to the site is not via Nantasket Drive.Thus,a CR development on the subject site would be inconsistent with this policy direction of the Coastal Specific Plan. Section 5:The Coastal Specific Plan speaks of potentially adverse·impacts resulting from a CR development on the adjoining residential developments in Subregion 3. In general,a single-family residential use on the site would be a less intensive use of the subject site than were it developed with a comparable sized commercial development when examining the potential traffic,noise,and light pollution generated from the site. Further,a residential development would be more compatible with the existing residential uses in the adjoining area.Furthermore,the development of a CR use on the subject site would result in an appearance incompatible with the existing single and multi-family uses in the adjoining areas.For instance,the site being used as a commercial filming site,a recycling facility,a helistop,or a small hotel,etc.,would erode the character of the neighborhood,which is primarily composed of single-family and multi-family residential structures. ZONE CHANGE Section 6:In order to bring the zoning in compliance with the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation,the project warrants the subsequent change of the site's zoning designation from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential, two-to-four dwelling units per acre).By changing the zoning,the land use on the subject site would be consistent with the adjacent residential areas and the General Plan. Section 7:An RS-3 zoning of the property provides a transitional neighborhood between the existing RS-1 zoned properties to the south along the bluff on Sea Cove Drive and the RS-4 zoned properties that exist to the north (Le.,the Sea Bluff community). Further,an RS-3 zoning designation is a suitable zoning designation for the subject property.Although there is no other RS-3 zoning in close proximity to the proposed project site,an RS-3 zoning would provide a transitional zoning district not only between the RS-1 zone to the south and the RS-4 zone to the north,but also between the non-conforming multi-family development to the east and the open space of the Teranea site to the west; therefore the zone change is appropriate. P.C.Resolution No.2009 5 48 Page 4ATTACHMENT 1-26 VESTING PARCEL MAP Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of a Vesting Parcel Map to allow for a division of the subject 1.42-acre lot into four single-family residential lots for the following reasons: Section 8:Since the General Plan Land Use designation changes from Commercial Recreational to Single-Family Residential,and the zoning changes from CR to RS-3,the subject site is located in an area designated as Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-3).Vacant land designated in this density range has low to moderate physical and social constraints,and the density is compatible with the adjacent existing densities,which range from one d.u.lac (along Seacove Drive)to 4-6 d.u.lac (along Beachview Drive).The proposed lot sizes range between 14,081 square feet and 17,704 square feet,which are consistent with the RS-3 zone,which requires a minimum lot size of 13,000 square feet. Section 9:The subject application permits the division of a 1.42-acre lot into four residential lots,which will maintain a minimum lot area of 13,000 square feet and a minimum contiguous lot area of 4,290 square feet,as required by the City's Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the designated RS-3 zoning district. Section 10:The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the development in that the proposed subdivision will result in four residential lots that will each have a gross lot area that exceeds the 13,000 square foot minimum area required by the City's Development Code for the RS-3 zoning district.Further,the proposed lots will exceed the minimum 4,290 square feet of contiguous land requirement.The proposed contiguous lot area of each lot will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the City's Development Code for an RS-3 zoning district,as it pertains to structure size,lot coverage,and setbacks. Section 11:The proposed division of land will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.According to the City's most recent Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP),no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property.Further, the proposed Initial Study determined that the potential impacts to the surrounding environment would not result in a significant effect that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the appropriate mitigation measures. Section 12:The proposed division of land will not cause serious public health problems.The proposed residences will have to be constructed in conformance with the recommendations of the City's Geotechnical Consultant who has reviewed the proposed division of land site plan during the planning stage and identified no significant concerns. Further review and approval of geotechnical reports will be required prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time the lots are developed.Additionally,the applicant will also be required to make certain public improvements to ensure that the residential P.C.Resolution NOg 2009~48 PageSATTACHMENT 1-27 development will not be detrimental to the public's health and safety as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,Exhibit "A",attached to P.C.Resolution No.2009-_,and incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. Section 13:The proposed division of the land will not be in conflict with the easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision.The existing 30'wide access easement to the benefit ofthe City on the northernmost end of the site exists,which was created to provide access to the adjoining property to the west,now Terranea Resort Hotel site.However,since the Terranea Resort Hotel provides its own access,this access point is no longer necessary and can be vacated.Vacation of said easement shall be done prior to Final Parcel Map approval and/or issuance of any grading/building permits. VARIANCE Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval ofthe Variance to allow for a division of the subject 1.42-acre lot into four single-family residential lots with nonconforming lot depths of 93'for the following reasons: Section 14:There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved,or to the intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district to warrant an approval of a variance to allow for nonconforming lot depths of 93',which does not comply with the 110'minimum requirement for RS-3 zoned lots.Specifically,the subject site has had a nonconforming lot depth upon its creation by the City under any zoning district. Section 15:The approval of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.The property right in question is the applicant's ability to develop the subject site,in accordance with the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act;thus a variance is necessary to ensure the applicant's property right to develop single-family residential lots,which is a right that other property owners of Residentially zoned and designated properties maintain.With the exception of the nonconforming lot depth,the proposal satisfies the minimum contiguous lot area,minimum lot size,and minimum lot width requirements. Section 16:Granting the variance for these four lots created with nonconforming lot depths will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the area since a residential development will bring compatibility to the existing residential use in the adjoining area.The lot depth deficiency does not result in a deficient rear yard setback,as the residences will maintain rear yard setbacks that exceed the minimum requirement.This is further augmented with the fact that the rears of the parcels abut the golf course area which provides for additional open area.Thus,there is no impact upon p.e.Resolution No.200948 Page £)ATTACHMENT 1-28 the appearance of the residences,the appearance of the lots or to the location of the residences since they do not have to encroach into any required setback area. Section 17:Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan.The development of single-family residential structures on the four lots is consistent with the underlying Residential Land Use designation since the Development Code allows for subdivision of land,provided that such proposal meet the minimum conditions as warranted by the Subdivision Map Act and City's Development Code.As concluded,the new residential lots will not be detrimental to the public welfare,or injurious to property and improvements in the area,which is consistent with the General Plan's goal to protect the general health,safety,and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan,Page 192-193). Further,the new residential lots are consistent with General Plan Housing Policy No.3 to "[encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." Thus,granting the variance will not be contrary to the City's General Plan. COASTAL PERMIT Section 18:For the reasons specified in the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,and Subdivision sections above,the project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan Section 19:The proposed project,when located between the sea and the first public road,is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.The proposed land use change,the division of land and subsequent development of four single-family residential structures are confined to the property limits and will not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea since the subject property does not abut the coastline.Further,the proposed development of residences on the lots is not anticipated to interfere with the existing unique water-oriented activities,such as the Point Vicente Fishing Point or other recreational uses,which can be engaged in near the shoreline. Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the Grading Permit to allow for the construction of single-family residences on Lots 1 thru 4 for the following reasons: Section 20~The grading proposed does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.The subject properties will be designated and zoned RS-3 (Single-Family Residential),which permits single-family residential development.The grading will facilitate construction of the new residential structures.Terracing the subject P.C.Resolution No.2009 y 48 Page 7ATTACHMENT 1-29 1.42-acre lot by means of grading will accommodate the new construction of four residences on the four lots that are created by the subdivision.In addition,the grading will facilitate a basement for the residence on Lot 3.Although it is to increase the residential square footage on this lot,the grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary uses of the lots since a single-family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS zoning district.Further,the proposed terracing has been designed to follow the existing street grade and the basement will not be evident from the surrounding residences or from the street. Section 21:The proposed grading and/or related construction will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,or the views from the "viewing area"of neighboring parcels.The grading will not affect the maximum ridgeline elevations for the new residences.Lots 1 and 2 are considered sloping lots,and new structures are limited to 16-feet in height as measured from the highest preconstruction grade elevation covered by structure,and 3D-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade elevation covered by structure,to the highest ridgeline elevation.The new residences on Lots 1 and 2 are at ridgeline elevations that are 16-feet or less above the highest preconstruction grade elevation covered by the proposed structures.Further,the overall heights of these residences on Lots 1 and 2 will be 24.1-feet as measured from the highest ridgeline elevations down to the finish pad elevations covered by the structures.Although fill is proposed on Lots 1 and 2,the fill does not result in a higher ridgeline elevation than what is allowed "by-right".Rather,the fill is a function of the sloping lot condition,which results in a split-level design,but does not result in a higher ridgeline elevation than what is allowed "by-right",and does not result in higher structures than what can be built in the same location on the lots if measured from existing grade. Lots 3 and 4 also contain fill;however,similar to the grading for lots 1 and 2,the fill on these lots is provided so that there is no crawl space under the up-slope portion of the new residences.Although Lots 3 and 4 will be constructed with grading that does not artificially raise the grade for the proposed residences,the ridgeline elevations of these residences exceed the 16-foot height limits,and are thus subject to Height Variations,which can be approved for the reasons stated below. Section 22:The nature of proposed grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours so that they will be reasonably natural.The existing contours of the project site are not the original natural contours,partly as the result of past farming on the subject site until the late 1980s.The subject site is a gently sloping lot with steeper slopes around the front edge of the lot.The subject lot is proposed to be re- contoured in a manner to minimize change to the existing contours. Section 23:The grading proposed takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography.The existing "natural"contours of the project site are partly the result of human alteration in the past.Thus,there are no significant natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading. PoCo Resolution No.200948 Page 8ATTACHMENT 1-30 Section 24:The proposed grading is associated with the construction of residences on these lots;therefore,a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis of the proposed residences is warranted.For the purposes of conducting a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis,the current project constitutes its own immediate neighborhood forthe purpose of the neighborhood compatibility analysis,which is consistent with the City Attorney's previous opinion on performing a neighborhood compatibility analysis for the proposed project and is supported by the City Council approved Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.According to the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,"for purposes of Neighborhood Compatibility,the immediate neighborhood is normally considered to be at least the twenty (20)closest residences within the same zoning district."Since the Zone Change allows for RS-3 zoning of the subject property and since there are no other RS-3 zoned properties in the area,this creates its own neighborhood and creates a transition between the existing RS-1 and RS-4 zones that are to the north and south of the subject site. The structure sizes and lot coverages are significantly less than the previous project,and are consistent with the neighborhoods to the north and south of the subject site,which are in different zoning districts than the subject property.Notwithstanding,the residential development will comply with and exceed the minimum setback standards for RS-3 zoned lots.With regards to fagade treatments,the new residences will incorporate smooth stucco finishes,hip-pitched roofs and clay tile roof materials,which is consistent with the materials found in the residential developments in the area.Lastly,with regards to bulk and mass, the applicant has modified the proposed architectural design of the residences to address the concerns that led to the denial of the previous proposal. Section 25:The project conforms to all the City's grading criteria in that the grading will be conducted in a manner that facilitates construction of the residences with a split- level design that slopes with the topography of the site.The grading will not be conducted on extreme slopes,no slopes steeper than 2:1 will be created,and the retaining walls will be under the building footprints to accommodate for the split-level designs. HEIGHT VARIATIONS (LOTS 3 AND 4) Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the Height Variation permits to allow for the construction of single-family residences on lots 3 and 4 that exceed the 16-foot height limit for the following reasons: Section 26:The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by providing addressed,stamped/pre-paid postage envelopes,a copy of the mailing list,reduced copies of the plans,a letterwith a description of the proposed project,along with a $10.00 fee,to the City for mailing.The City mailed the envelopes on August 28,2009,which satisfied this finding. P.C.Resolution No.2009-48 Page 9ATTACHMENT 1-31 Section 27:The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory,which the Development Code defines as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills, bluffs,or highlands,while a promontory is defined as a prominent mass of land,large enough to support development which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides.The subject property and the new single-family residences are proposed to be on a lot which was previously used as farmland and is gently sloping,which is not considered a ridge or promontory. Section 28:The proposed structures comply with all other Code requirements. The proposed residences meet or exceed the minimum Development Code standards with regards to lot coverage and setbacks.The residences will be constructed outside of any required setbacks.Lastly,the resulting lot coverages will be 37%for Lot 3 and 34%for Lot 4,which is less than the 45%maximum permissible by the RS-3 zoning district. Section 29:As indicated above in the Grading Permit Section,the current project constitutes its own immediate neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Section 30:Several view analyses were conducted from residences in the Sea Bluff Community,which identified two residences at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive as containing views.Further,view analyses were conducted from the Villa Apartments; however,consistent with the City's Height Variation Guidelines,one unit in each structure of the apartment complex was identified to be ",...where the best and most important view is taken"(Page 2,Height Variation Guidelines,April 20,2004).The three units were units #334,#45 and #88,which have views in the direction of and over the subject property. Thus,the portions of the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 that are above i6-feet will not significantly impair a view or cause significant cumulative view impairment from the viewing area of another parcel as follows: Beachview Residences: With regards to the previous proposal,the Commission determined that as seen from 6617 Beachview Drive and 6619 Beachview Drive,although the proposed project may cause cumulative view impairment,the impairment would not be significant.Since the current proposal is now a 4-lot subdivision,which eliminated lot 5 (closest to the ocean)the locations of the proposed residences have shifted downslope (i.e.,seaward).The residence on the current Lot 4,now the southernmost lot closest to the ocean,is located 90-feet farther downslope (i.e.,seaward)than the previous Lot 4 residence.The location shift of Lot 4 has resulted in a lower ridgeline elevation of 152.9'compared with the previous proposal's 158.2'ridgeline elevation. Further,the previous lot 3 residence would have been located between the residences currently proposed on lots 2 and 3,with a ridgeline elevation of 164.3',significantly higher than the current 160.3'ridgeline elevation.Thus,the shift in the location of the currently proposed residences has resulted in lower ridgeline elevations along Nantasket Drive. Thus,when compared to the previous view impairment,the current proposal has provided P "C.Resolution No.2009~48 Page 10ATTACHMENT 1-32 additional ocean views over the ridgelines of the proposed residences as seen from the viewing areas at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive. The angle of the view,the topography of the area,and the location of the residences on the proposed lots results in a lot-4-residence that is only partially visible from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive since the proposed residence on Lot 3 will screen most of the proposed residence on Lot 4.In light of the whole view that is obtained from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive,the proposed residences on Lots 3 and 4 will encroach into the lower part of the view frame,obstructing a small amount of ocean view. However,a large portion of the ocean will continue to be unobstructed,and the view of Catalina Island will not be impaired by these structures. Villas Apartments: Three units (one in each structure)was identified as having the best and most important views,which are units #334,#45 and #88.these units have views over the subject property.Staff's view analyses of the previous project concluded that the previous project significantly impaired the view from only Unit #45.Since the proposal has been modified, Staff conducted new view analyses from the same three units on November 4,2009. Based upon the analyses,Staff has concluded that the new project will not cause any view impairment to Unit #334 in structure 1 (closest to Beachview Drive)and Unit #88 in structure 3 (closest to 8eacove Drive).With regards to Unit #45 in structure 2 (located between the aforementioned structures),the proposed residence on Lot 3 will impair the view of the Teranea hotel,which is not a significant impairment.The residence on Lot 4 will impair some ocean view at the bottom of the view frame,but the view of Catalina Island will not be impaired.Although some ocean view will be impaired,the amount of view impairment is minimal,is located at the periphery of the view frame,and Catalina Island is not impaired;thus,the structure on lot 4 will not result in significant view impairment. Section 31:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report,Environmental Assessment and other components of the legislative record,in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,and in the public comments received by the Commission,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council approve Case Nos.SUB2008- 00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078 subject to the conditions in Exhibit B attached hereto,thereby allowing a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u.lac);a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Residential;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);a 4-lot subdivision and residential development;a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93';a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the four new residences;and Height Variation applications for the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit. P.C.Resolution No.2009-48 Page 11ATTACHMENT 1-33 AYES: NOES: Gerstner,Knight,Lewis,Perestam,Ruttenberg,Tomblin Tetreault ABSTENTIONS:None ABSENT:None RECUSALS:None p,e.Resolution No,2009-48 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-34 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE, COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING PARCEL MAP,VARIANCE, COASTAL PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT,AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS (LOTS 3 &4) GENERAL 1.This approval is for a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u.lac);a Coastal Specific Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Residential;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);a 4-lot subdivision and residential development;a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93';a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the four new residences;and Height Variation applications for the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit. 2.Final approval of this project shall be contingent upon approval of the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment by the California Coastal Commission. 3.The property owner/applicant shall submit a trust deposit in an amount deemed to be appropriate by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement for the City to submit the necessary applications for an Amendment to the City's Coastal Specific Plan. 4.Within ninety (90)days of this approval,the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval.Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 5.The developer shall supply the City with one mylar and 12 copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. 6.This approval expires twenty-four (24)months from the date of approval of the vesting parcel map by the City Council,unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code.Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the expiration of the map. 7.With the exception of the lot depth requirement,all lots shall comply with the lot criteria required by the Development Code for the RS-3 Zoning District,including the 13,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 4,290 square foot minimum contiguous lot area. ATTACHMENT 1-35 8.Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are contained in these conditions of approval,the development of the lots shall comply with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code. 9.All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Resolution No.2009-_forthe Mitigated Negative Declaration,shall be incorporated into the implementation of the proposed project and adhered to,and are incorporated herein by reference. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.69928 10.The proposed project approval permits the subdivision of the existing 1.42 acre subject parcel into four separate parcels as shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel approved by the Council.Parcel #1 shall measure 14,402 square feet;Parcel #2 shall measure 15,567 square feet;Parcel #3 shall measure 14,081 square feet;and Parcel #4 shall measure 17,704 square feet. 11.Prior to submitting the Final Map for recording pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code,the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected departments and divisions,including a clearance from the City's Engineer for the following items:mathematical accuracy,survey analysis,correctness of certificates and signatures,etc. 12.The Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Amendment shall be approved by the California Coastal Commission prior to submitting the Final Map for recording pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code. PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS 130 Final Parcel Map shall be recorded for the site. a.A Termination of Offer of Dedication shall be made for any offer of dedication previously rejected and shall be deemed to be terminated upon the approval of the map by the legislative body.The map is required to contain a notation identifying the offer or offers of dedication deemed terminated by Section 66477.2(e)of the SMA. b.The PVPUSD easement(s)shall be abandoned by the Final Parcel Map and the developer shall provide the City confirmation from the easement owner allowing for the easement abandonment. c.ADA accessibility easements shall be provided for public sidewalk as required at the top of all driveways or ramps 14.Per the City Engineer,subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,prior to final certificate of use and occupancy,the following items shall be addressed.The construction of the following items shall be constructed or the construction guaranteed by surety or cash bond prior to recordation of the Final PJ::.Resolution No.200948 Page 14ATTACHMENT 1-36 Parcel Map.An improvement agreement shall also be provided prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map. a.The developer shall remove and replace any damaged or off-grade portions of the existing curb and gutter and replace it,in kind,with A2-200(8)curb and gutter per APWA Standard Plan 120-1 for the entire project frontage length of Nantasket Drive -to match existing.. b.The developer shall remove and replace any damaged or off-grade portions of the existing sidewalk and replace it with four-inch thick,4-foot wide portland cement concrete sidewalk for the entire project frontage length of Nantasket Drive. c.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,the developer shall provide for crack filling and slurry sealing throughout the project frontage along Nantasket Drive from edge of gutter to edge of gutter,both sides of the street. d.The developer shall remove any existing driveways and construct new driveways as applicable.Driveway approach slope and details needs to comply with APWA STD PLAN 110-0 and other applicable drawings. e.The developer shall construct pedestrian curb ramps at the north and south ends of Nantasket Drive that conform the latest requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. f.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,provide new street striping to replace the existing street striping disturbed by the street resurfacing. g.An Engineered (Rough)Grading Plan shall be prepared for the site.Fine Grading may be incorporated into an (overall)Grading Plan if the houses are to be built all at one time.If the houses are to be built individually,at different times,separate Fine Grading Plans may be prepared for those houses in addition to the previously required Rough Grading Plan. h.A final Drainage Report shall be prepared for the site. Post-development storm water run-off quantities shall be mitigated per the NPDES (Stormwater)Review by John L.Hunter.The Final Drainage Report calculations shall be prepared in conformance with Los Angeles County Standards (see on line manual http://ladpw.org/wrd/publication/engineering/2006 Hydrology Manual/2006%2 OHydrology%20Manual-Divided.pdf 15.Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works,the Applicant shall ensure the following: &No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way. 10 Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the ROW. j§Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a complete hydrology and hydraulic study (include off-site areas affecting the development)shall be prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.The report shall include detail drainage conveyance system including applicable swales, channels,street flows,catch basins,and storm drains which will allow P .C.Resolution No.200948 Page 15ATTACHMENT 1-37 building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 1OO-year flood. '*It is the property owners responsibility to maintain landscaping in the right of way and keep it in a safe condition '*ADA access by way of the public sidewalk with appropriate easements as required,shall be provided at the back of the right of way,behind the top of all driveways. '*Catch Basin shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean"painted on them in the ROWand on the property '*Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain inlets along Nantasket Drive from Beachview Drive to Seacove Drive,including the knuckles. @ All plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's)and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) I,ll Plans shall provide Sewer connection information,and shall be approved by LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. 16.N.P.D.E.S.(Stormwater)Conditions Best Management Practices (BMP's)shall be incorporated into the design of this project to accomplish the following goals. a.Minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of Natural Drainage Systems and water bodies in accordance with requirements under CEQA (Cal.Pub.Resources Code §21100),CWC §13369,CWA§319,CWA §402(p),CWA §404,CZARA §6217 (g),ESA §7,and local government ordinances. b.Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of storm water into the ground. c.Minimize the amount of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and to the MS4. d.Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use of appropriate Treatment Control BMP's and good housekeeping practices. e.Properly design and maintain Treatment Control BMP's in a manner that does not promote breeding of vectors. f.Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in stormwater from the development site. g.A SUSMP and SWPPP shall be prepared and approved by the City's NPDES consultant prior to any building or grading permits being issued. h.A vegetative area (slope less than 6%)shall be constructed surrounding each lot (minimum 10 feet wide)except for the paver driveway. MITIGATION MONITORING The development shall comply with ail of the following mitigation measures of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. P.C.Resolution No.2009~48 Page 16ATTACHMENT 1-38 Aesthetics: A-1:Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than upon which such light is physically located. Air Quality: AQ-1:During construction the owner shall ensure that the unpaved construction areas are watered at least twice a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries. AQ-2:During construction the owner shall ensure that all clearing, grading,earth moving or demolition activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (Le.,greater than 30 mph),so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. AQ-3:During construction of any improvements associated with the subdivision,the owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. AQ-4:A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s)responsible for the construction site and a phone number(s)to be called in the event that dust is visible from the site as described in mitigation measure AQ-1 above,shall be posted and prominently displayed on the construction fencing. Cultural Resources: CR-1:Prior to the commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation.In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Geology/Soils: GEO-1:The applicant shall ensure that all applicable conditions as specified within the geotechnical report and all measures required by the City Geologist are incorporated into the project. GEO-2:Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Building Official.The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during project construction. P.C.Resolution No.200948 Page 11ATTACHMENT 1-39 HydrologylWater Quality: HWQ-1:Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Building and Safety Departments and prior to the issuance of grading permits,the project applicant shall submit a storm water management plan which shows the on-site and off-site storm water conveyance systems that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying storm water off the project site.These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained.The plan shall also show whether existing storm water facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows and what additional improvements to these existing facilities are required by the project applicant to ensure these facilities will be adequate to meet the needs of this project.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the proposed residences,the project applicant shall install/improve such facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Building Official. HWQ-2:The project shall comply with the requirements ofthe statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity to prevent storm water pollution from impacting waters of the U.S.in the vicinity of the project site. HWQ-3:In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the project applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for the project.The project applicant shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before any site grading begins. HWQ-4:Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP),including sandbags shall be used by the project applicant to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities.Measures to be used shall be approved by the City Engineer before a Grading Permit is issued for the project. Noise: N-1:Demolition,grading and construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm,Monday through Saturday.There shall be no construction on Sundays or federally observed holidays. N-2:During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. P .C.Resolution No.200948 Page 18ATTACHMENT 1-40 Public Services: PS-1:As there is no park or recreational facility designated in the general plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision,the project applicant shall,in lieu of dedicating land,pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 16.20.100.0 and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.20.100.G. TransportationlTraffic: T-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project,the project applicant shall prepare a haul route plan for approval by the City's Public Works Department.The project applicant shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil away from the project site. PARK DEDICATION "7.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,which is contingent upon California Coastal Commission approval of the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the developer shall pay to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,subject to the City Council's approval,a Parkland Dedication in lieu fee which is to be calculated pursuant to the City's Development Code Section 16.20.100. UTILITIES 18.Prior to submittal of plans into building division plan check,the applicant shall provide evidence of confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide water,wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal,that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed project. 19.All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground,including cable television,telephone,electrical,gas and water.All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation.Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the developer's expense. DRAINAGE 20.All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities,including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement. 21.Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction. P.C,Resolution No,2009 9 48 Page 19ATTACHMENT 1-41 22.Prior to issuance of any permits,the City's NPDES consultant shall review and approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site. SURVEY MONUMENTATION 23.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,a bond,cash deposit,or combination thereof shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 24.Within twenty-four (24)months from the date of filing the Final Map,the developer shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City Engineer. 25.All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. 26.All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. UNIT NUMBERING 27.Any unit numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 28.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading,which is distributed as follows: 1 340 809 5.5m ft.6-ft. 2 793 248 5.1-ft.1.8-ft. 3 431 489 10-ft 3.1 4 393 132 2-ft.4-ft. TOTAL 1,951 2,011 29.Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the project,the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment shall be approved by the California Coastal Commission. 30.A construction plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of grading permits.Said plan shall include but not be limited to:limits of grading,estimated length of time for rough grading and P .C.Resolution Noo 2009 a 48 Page 20ATTACHMENT 1-42 improvements,location of construction trailer,location and type of temporary utilities.The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited. 31.Prior to filing the Final Map,a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Geologist.This grading plan shall include a detailed engineering,geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations submitted by them.It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions, as approved by the City. 32.Grading shall conform to Chapter 29,"Excavations,Foundations,and Retaining Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code". 33.Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall demonstrate to the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for the control of dust. 34.During construction,all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds gusts (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 mph.To assure compliance with this measure,grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff. 35.Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition,including proper engine tuning and exhaust control systems. 36.Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park,queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in Section 17.56.020(B)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. 37.The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels. 38.All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no additional noise,due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated. 39.Haul routes used to transport soil exported from the project site shall be approved by the Director of Public Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 40.The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. P.C.Resolution No.2009-48 Page 21ATTACHMENT 1-43 41.The approved residences shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: III Front:20-feet III Side:i0-feet ~Rear:i5-feet 42.The approved residences shall comply with the following standards: LOT SIZE 14,402 sf 15,567 sf 14,081 sf 17,704 sf STRUCTURE SIZE 6,433 sf 6,444 sf 6,744 sf 6,392 sf LOT COVERAGE 35%32.5%37%34% MAX RIDGELINE ELEVATION 180.1'165.4'160.3' 152.9' STRUCTURE HEIGHT 15.2'/24.1 '16'/24.1' 19.6'/24'19.9'/25.3' Any request to make the size of any residence larger or taller,shall require approval of a revision to the Grading Permit and/or the applicable Height Variation permit by the City Council. 43.Subject to review and approval by the Building Official,a ridge height certification is required for each residence by a licensed land surveyor or engineer prior to installation of roof materials. 44.Subject to review and approval by the Building Official,structure size certification is required for each residence by a licensed surveyor or engineer prior to building permit final of the residences. 45.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the Development Code. 46.Each residence shall maintain a minimum three-car garage,with each space being individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension of 9-feet-wide by 20-feet-deep by 7-feet-vertical clearance. 47.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall not be any higher than the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. 48.Fences,walls,pilasters,hedges,etc.located within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42")in height. 49.With the exception of solar panels,roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not permitted.Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear-and side-yard setback areas,provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in excess of 65 dBA at the property line. P.C.Resolution No.2009 w 48 Page 22ATTACHMENT 1-44 50.Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans originally stamped APPROVED and with the RS-3 district and site development standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. 51.In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in conflict,the stricter standard shall apply. 52.The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may include,but not be limited to:the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth,salvage materials,abandoned or discarded furniture,appliances or other household fixtures. 53.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.There shall be no idling vehicles and equipments related to the approved scope of the project prior to 7:00 a.m.and after 7 p.m. P.C.Resolution No.2009 6 48 Page 23ATTACHMENT 1-45 STAFFOlYOF REPORT PLANNING,BUILDING,&CODE ENFORCEMENT THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822,COORDINATES:H4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: PHONE: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR OF P~I,BUILDING ANDCODEENF ENT NOVEMBER 10,20 CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001,AND ZON2008-00074 THRU ZON2008-00078 (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE, VESTING PARCEL MAP,COASTAL PERMIT,VARIANCE GRADING PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIATION) WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE, BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE & SEACOVE DRIVE (APN:7573-014-013) (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822,H.4) DANA IRELAND 1 SEACOVE DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275 (310462.1300 LANDOWNEn~E STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHONBORN,AICP,SENIOR PLANN~ REQUESTED ACTION:APPROVE CASE NOS.SUB2008·00001 AND ZON200S·00074 THRU ZON200S-00078 FOR THE FOLLOWING: ..,A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE·FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (24 UNITS PER ACRE); ..,A COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING lAND USE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL TO SINGLE·FAMllY RESIDENTIAL; ..,A ZONE CHANGE TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CR (COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL)TO RS-3 (SINGLE FAMilY RESIDENTIAL); ..,A VESTING PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 1.41-ACRE VACANT PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 14,000 SQUARE FEET; 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391 PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310)544-5228/BUILDING (310)265-7800/DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293/E-MAIL PLANNING@RPV.COM ATTACHMENT 1-46 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB:;:m08~00001 &ZON2008~00074 thru Q00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 1O~2009 @ A COASTAL PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE; o A VARIANCE TO AllOW THE FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO MAINTAIN A LOT DEPTH OF 93-FEET,WHICH IS LESS THAN THE 11 O-FOOT REQUIREMENT; o GRADING PERMITS TO CONDUCT A TOTAL OF 4,028 CUBiC YARDS OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR SINGI..E~ FAMiL'If RESiDENCES;AND, o HEIGHT VARIATION PERMITS TO ALLOW TWO OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCES TO EXCEED THE 16-FOOT HEIGHT lll\/IIT. RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C,RESOLUTION NO.2009-_,RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCil CERTIFY THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION;AND ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO.2009-_,RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001 AND ZON2008-00(:.I74 THRU ZON2008-00078 FOR A SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. REFERENCES: ZONiNG:CR (COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAL) LAND USE:VACANT CODE SECTIONS:17.68,17.38.060,17.12,17.22,17.44,17.02,16,16.16,16.20,16.24,16.28,17.12, 17.11,17.40,17.50,17.40.060,17.44,17.64,17.12,17.16.040 GENERAL PLAN:COMMERCIAL-RECREATIONAL TRAilS PLAN:FLOWER FIELD TRAil SPECIFIC PLAN:SPECIFIC PLAN NO.1 (COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN) CEQA STATUS:MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ACTION DEADliNE:NONE PoCo MEMBERS WITHIN 500'RADiUS:NONE In 2005,the property owner submitted the same applications that are being considered in this development project,which was processed as Case Nos.ZON2005-00536 (General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading,and Environmental Assessment) and Case No.ZON2006-00180-182 (Height Variation permits).However,at that time,the request included a more intensive project involving a Zone Change to RS-4 and a 5-lot subdivision.In 2006 and 2007,this 5-lot development project was reviewed by the Planning Commission.The Planning Commission subsequently recommended approval of ATTACHMENT 1-47 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &:ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,lC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 the change to the Land Use Designation,the Zone Change and subdivision,but recommended denial of the applications for 3 of the 5 proposed residences.Ultimately,on May 15,2007,the City Council denied the proposed development applications and remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the property from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3. It is important to understand the processing history and the issues that were raised during the public hearings of the previous proposal,as that history has affected the design of the current proposal,As such,below,Staff has provided a background that summarizes the issues and actions that took place throughout the public hearing process of the previous project: 18 October 13,2005 -Applications submitted for a General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map,Variance, and Environmental Assessment; !:l March 23,2006 -Applications submitted for Grading Permits and Height Variations to construct 5 homes on the new lots; I>:l August 23,2006 -The application package was deemed complete for processing and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project; 3l September 26,2006 -The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission for the first public hearing.Staff's analysis was limited to the land use and subdivision aspects of the project.After hearing testimony from seven individuals,the Commission expressed its inclination to generally support the proposed land use change from Commercial to a single-family residential zoning of RS-4 (4 lots per acre); !'l November 14,2006 -The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission for the second public hearing.Staff's analysis was focused on the potential view impacts and neighborhood compatibility aspects of the Grading and Height Variation Applications for the 5 proposed homes.Staff determined that the proposed structures significantly impaired views from 6617 Beachview Drive and Unit 45 of the Villas Apartment.Staff also identified neighborhood compatibility concerns with the 5 proposed residences.After hearing public testimony from 10 speakers,the Planning Commission instructed Staff to revise the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to include the Villas Apartment (despite the complex being a non-conforming multi-family residential use)and the Sea Cove Drive residences (despite these residences being in a different zoning district -RS-1),since both developments are located close to the subject site; ~January 9,2001 -The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission for its third public hearing.At that time,Staff presented its expanded neighborhood compatibility analysis to the PC,noting that the new neighborhood average home size increased from 2,930 square feet to 11 ,903 square feet since eight (8)apartment buildings ranging in size from 10,500 square feet to 86,000 ATTACHMENT 1-48 P~anning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008m 00001 &.ZON20089 00014 tl1m ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,\fAR,GR,Ii\f &.EA) November J O2 2009 square feet were included in the analysis.After hearing public testimony from seven speakers,the Planning Commission directed Staff to consult with the City Attorney on the appropriateness of the expanded neighborhood compatibility analysis. !ll March 13,2001 -The proposed project was presented to the Planning Commission for its fourth public hearing.Staff reported that based on a view analysis performed from inside the property owner's residence at 6619 Beachview Drive,significant cumulative view impairment would result if all 5 of the applicant's proposed homes are constructed.The Commission determined that as seen from 6617 Beachview Drive,6619 Beachview Drive,and Unit 45 of the Villas Apartment,although the proposed project may cause cumulative view impairment,the impairment is not significant,particularly when you factor in the view impairment that will be caused by the T erranea project to these homes. Pursuant to the Commission's direction,Staff also reported that the City Attorney's opinion was that the Planning Commission has flexibility in identifying the immediate neighborhood for purposes of determining the project's compatibility.The Planning Commission determined that although different in land use and density,the adjoining Villas Apartments and the residences along Sea Cove Drive ought to be included in the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis due to their close proximity to the subject project The Commission also pointed out that the existing neighborhood is eclectic and that the subject property is an in-fill lot surrounded by different land uses (single and multi-family residences and golf course)and density (Sea Cove homes in the RS-1 zoning district,while the Villas Apartments are zoned RS-4).After hearing public testimony from eight speakers,the Planning Commission conceptually approved all components of the project,except for the Grading Permit and Height Variation applications for Lots 3,4 and 5,citing bulk and mass concerns with the residences proposed on those three lots.The Commission instructed Staff to bring back a resolution which reflected the Commission's decision on the proposed project; !ll March 27,2001 and April 10,2007 -Because the video of the March 13,2007 meeting was not made available to Staff,the Planning Commission granted continuances of the discussion of the draft resolution to the April 24,2007 meeting. During this time,the applicant submitted revised plans for the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 which addressed the Planning Commission's concerns with bulk and mass; ill AprU 24,2007 -The Planning Commission formally adopted three resolutions pertaining to the following:the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration;the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment and the Zone Change;and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading Permit (Lots 1 and 2),and deny without prejudice,the Grading Permit (Lots 3,4,and 5)and the Height Variation.Ali findings for the Grading Permit and Height Variation could be ATTACHMENT 1-49 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008~00074 thru g00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) ~ovember 10.2009 made,except for the Neighborhood Compatibility finding.In denying the project,the Planning Commission found that the three proposed residences (on Lots 3,4,and 5)were not compatible with the neighborhood due to the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed residences,which deviated from the character of the immediate neighborhood (which included the expanded analysis); !'.l May 15,2001 -The proposed project,along with the Planning Commission's recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration.Public testimony raised concerns with view impairment,structure size and parking impacts, while the Council expressed concern with the mass of the project and the lack of open space.Thus,after hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the project,the City Council denied the applications and remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the project from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning districts than the Planning Commission recommendation of RS-4. In response to the Council's May 15,2007 directive,the property owner submitted new applications (hereinafter referred to as Case No.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078)on January 3'1,200B.Although the new applications are the same application types submitted in 2005,the current proposal includes a zone change to RS-3 instead of RS-4,which is a lower density zoning classification.Further,the current proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision and residential development,rather than a 5-lot subdivision and development The Project Description section below provides details of the current project proposal.The project was deemed generally complete for processing on September 29, 2009.An updated Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)to assess the modified project's environmental impacts,which was transmitted to the County Recorder on October 2,2009 for a posting and comment period of at least thirty days (as required by CEQA).The document was also circulated to all appropriate public agencies for comment,including the California Coastal Commission,the State's Office of Planning and Research,and the resource agencies.Further,on October 2,2009,the City mailed notices to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,including the Sea Bluff HOA. lastly,the notice was published in the Peninsula News on October 8,2009.As of the preparation of this report,Staff has received four letters/comments in response to the project's notification"Further,Staff attempted to contact the property owners that were identified as having significant view impairment from the previous proposal,but Staff was only able to coordinate with the Villa Apartment owners to conduct view analyses from the three units in the apartment complex that were identified as having the best and most important view. ATTACHMENT 1-50 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008a 00001 &.ZON2008g00074 thru g00078 (PM,OPA,IC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA.) November 10,2009 snE DESCRIPTION SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject property is located within the City's Coastal Zone,and is subject to the City's Coastal Specific Plano Furthermore,the site is located between the coastline and the first public street,thereby placing it in the appealable area of the Coastal Zone.The property is a 1 A2-acre parcel located on the west side of Nantasket Drive between Beachview and Sea Cove Drives.The subject property is vacant,consisting of grass and other non-native vegetation.The parcel is rectangular in shape and generally measures 93'deep by 675' wide,The lot slopes down from Nantasket Drive and also slopes with the street of access (Le.,Nantasket Drive);thus,from north to south (Le.,from Beachview to Sea Cove)the property slopes down,dropping over 40-feet in elevation. SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The subject site's entitlement history is as follows: e The subject site was once part of a larger 17-acre parcel of surplus land owned by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District; e On June 26,1975,the City Council adopted the City's General Plan.In adopting the General Plan,a Land Use Designation of Commercial Recreational was applied to the 17-acre parce!.To ensure consistency between its Land Use Designation and its Zoning Designation,the property was zoned Commercial Recreational (CR). o On December 19,1978,the City Council adopted the Coastal Specific Plan, establishing the Coastal Zone as all properties seaward of Palos Verdes Drive South and Palos Verdes Drive West.In adopting the Coastal Specific Plan,Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial Recreational was applied to the 17-acre property. .,.Recognizing the site's high crop yield,irrigation,and substantial size,on April 3, 1979,the City Council adopted Ordinance No.117,thereby rezoning the subject property to Agriculture (A). t*On July 22,1980,the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 12715,thus subdividing the school site.This subdivision created the current 1.42- acre parcel,and an adjoining 7.35-acre parcel that would later be incorporated into the present·Terranea property.Additionally,with the adoption of CUP No.62,the Planning Commission allowed the subject 1.42-acre to deviate from the 5-acre minimum agriculture lot size and allowed the site to be developed as a parking lot ATTACHMENT 1-51 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.5UB2008-00001 &.ZON2008~00074 thru ..00078 (PM~GPA~ZC,CSP Amendment~CP~VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 forthe Villa (then-Porto Verde)apartments to the east of the subject site.Although the Final Parcel Map was approved and subsequently recorded,the parking lot was never developed. ~On April 20,1982,the City Council adopted Ordinance Noo 149 through General Plan Amendment No.10,Zone Change No.9,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment No.1,thereby rezoning the subject property to Commercial Recreational (CR),which resulted in consistency between the General Plan land Use Designation,the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation,and the Zoning Designation. o As indicated above,the approved parking lot on the subject lot was never developed.The subject property,then under a different ownership,was offered to long Point Development,llC for inclusion into the T erranea Resort development. The development company did not purchase the subject property,and instead was ultimately purchased by the project applicant in 1998. ~The current property owner submitted applications for development of the parcel in 2005.Please refer to the "Background"section above for a more recent historical account. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Other land uses in the vicinity of the project site are as follows: West/South:Terranea (formerly known as long Point)Resort Hotel project North:Terranea (formerly known as Long Point)Resort Hotel project and Single-family residential (Channelview Drive) East MUltiple-family residential,currently zoned Single-Family Residential, RS-4 (Villa Apartments) PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE AND ZONE CHANGE: The project applications include a General Plan Amendment,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment and a Zone Change.The applicant proposes to amend the current General Plan Land Use designation of the subject site from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre.The subject site is situated in Subregion 2 of the City's coastal zone,which is governed by the City's Coastal Specific Plan;thus,the applicant also proposes to amend the Coastal Specific Plan land Use ATTACHMENT 1-52 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008s 00001 &.ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR 3 GR 3 HV &.EA) November 10.2009 designation of the property from commercial recreational,to residential.In conjunction with the above request,the applicant is proposing to change the zoning from CR to RS~3. SUBDIVISION &VARIANCE: The project also includes a Subdivision of Land (i.e.,a subdivision)and Variance applications.The applicant is proposing to subdivide the i .42-acre subject lot into four (4) single-family residential lots,thereby requiring the approval of a Parcel Map.The lot areas of the proposed parcels will range from 14,081 square feet to 17,704 square feet,and contain developable lot areas that range from 7,563 square feet to 9,749 square feet Further,the lot widths will range from 162-feet up to 210-feet The proposed subdivision will comply with the Development Code's minimum requirements for lot area,minimum developable lot area,and lot width. Notwithstanding compliance with the aforementioned requirements,approval of a variance is required for the subdivision due to the lot depths proposed for the new RS-3 Zoned properties.The existing parcel contains a lot depth of 93',which does not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement of 110'for a RS-3 Zoned lot Thus,since the subdivision will result in lot depths that are less than what the RS-3 Zoning District requires,the proposed subdivision necessitates a Variance application. Table No.1 below outlines the proposed subdivision with a comparison to the Development Code requirements. Table No.1 1 14,402 s .ft.7,754 s .ft 2 15,561 sq.ft.8,456 s .ft 3 14,081 s .ft.1,563 s .ft. 4 11,704 sq.ft 9,749 s .ft. CODE REQUIREMENT 13,000 SQ.FT.4,290 SQ.FT.8O'110' GRADING PERMITS,HEIGHT VARIATIONS &COASTAL PERMIT: As part of the proposal,the project also includes development of the four new lots,each with a single-family residential structure.To accommodate the residential development, 1,957 cubic yards of cut and 2,071 cubic yards of fill are proposed,for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading.Table No.2 on the following page illustrates the details of the grading proposed to develop each lot: ATTACHMENT 1-53 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008~00014 thru ~00018 (PM~GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment~CP~VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 Table No.2 1 340 809 5.5-fl:.6-fl:. 2 793 248 5.7-fl:.1.S-fl:. 3 431 489 10-ft 3.1 4 393 132 2-fl:.4-ft TOTAL 1,957 2,071 Due to the topography of the subject property and the proposed subdivision design,Lots 1, 2,and 3 are considered sloping lots subject to a 16'/30'building envelope,and Lot 4 is considered a pad lot subject to a 16'/20'bUilding envelope.Thus,on Lots 1,2 and 3,a residential structure is limited to 16-feet in height as measured from the highest pre- construction grade to top of highest ridgeline,and an overall height of 30-feet as measured from lowest finish grade to top of highest ridgeline.Since the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 comply with these height requirements,they are subject to review only through a Grading Permit.Lots 3 and 4 are proposed with residential structures that will exceed the 16-foot height limit and are,thus,subject to review through both a Grading Permit and Height Variations.Table No.3 below illustrates the height of the proposed residences compared to the Development Code requirements. Table 3 Gradin Gradin Grading &.Height :3 Sio in 16'/30'19.6'/24'Variation* Grading <&Height 4 Pad 16'/20'19.9'/25.3'Variation* *A Height Variation allows a residential structure to deviate from the 16'height limit,up to a maximum overall height of 26' Lastly,since the development project is proposed on a property within the City's Coastal Zone,the subdivision and development of the site requires a Coastal Permit.Thus,the Coastal Permit will govern the entire development proposed as part of this project. ATTACHMENT 1-54 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008a 00001 &.ZON2008a 00074 thru a00078 (PM~GPA~ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10,2009 CODe CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),Staff prepared an updated Initial Study of the current project's environmental impacts (see attached Environmental Checklist Form),Although CEQA identifies a number of categorical exemptions that would exempt a proposed project from the preparation of environmental documents,the Initial Study and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)were prepared since the proposed project did not qualify for a CEQA exemption, As a result of the revised Initial Study,Staff has concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment if appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated,resulting in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.The Mitigated Negative Declaration was transmitted to the County Recorder on October 2,2009 for a posting and comment period of 30 days prior to consideration of the MND (as required by CEQA),The document was also circulated to all applicable public agencies, including the California Coastal Commission,Office of Planning and Research,and the resource agencies.A public notice was also mailed to the property owners within a 500- foot radius from the subject property,and a notice was published in the Peninsula Newson October 8,2009,As of the preparation of this report,Staff has received a total of four written correspondences in response to the Notice,two of which are comments about the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As shown in the attached Initial Study,the project wi!!not result in or create any significant impacts,or have less than significant impacts to Agricultural Resources,Biological Resources,Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,Land Use and Planning,Mineral Resources,Population and Housing,Recreation,and Utilities and Service Systems.However,it was identified that the project may create potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics,Air Quality,Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise,Public Services,and Transportation and Circulation, unless mitigated with appropriate measures.These potential impacts and the associated mitigation measures are discussed briefly below. Aesthetics:it was identified the proposed project may result in an aesthetic impact with regards to the creation of new light sources.The potential lighting impact has led Staff to incorporate a mitigation measure that requires shielding of the light source, Air Qualitv;,It was identified that that the project may result in an impact to air quality, specifically during construction of the project.The potential air quality impacts resulting from construction has led Staff to incorporate mitigation measures that reduce dust and exhaust emissions. ATTACHMENT 1-55 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008a00001 &:ZON2008H 00074 thru u00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR I HV &EA) November 10.2009 Cultural Resources:It was identified that the proposed project may result in an impact to cultural resources.The potential cultural resource impact has resulted in a mitigation measure that requires a paleontologist and archeologist to monitor the site during grading and excavation of the site. Geologvand Soils:it was identified that the project may result in an impact with regards to soils because expansive soil is common on the peninsula.Based upon the California State geologic hazards map,the property is not identified as a site with the potential for liquefaction or earthquake induced landsliding.Further,geotechnical reports have been submitted for review by the City Geologist,which has not identified any geotechnical hazards in the location of the proposed project.However,compliance with any and ali recommendations of the geotechnical reports will be required.Thus,Staff does not believe that significant impacts will result In order to minimize the potential impact,Staff has incorporated mitigation measures requiring any recommendations or conditions resulting from the geotechnical and soils reports to be incorporated into the construction design. Hydrology and Water Quality:it was identified that the project may result in a potentially significant impact with regards to altering the existing drainage of the site and quality of the discharged wastewater due to the altered topography of the site.As a means to control storm water runoff and any pollutants that may enter the storm drain system,Staff has incorporated a mitigation measure requiring NPDES approval from the City's consultant prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permit Further,a mitigation measure includes review and approval of drainage plans by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits.Staff believes that incorporation of these mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact. Noiseo'It was identified that the project may result in a potentially significant impact with regards to periodic or temporary increase in ambient noise levels as a result of construction activity.This potential has resulted in mitigation measures that limit the hours of grading and construction activities,including the queuing and idling of construction vehicles.Staff believes that incorporation of these mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact Public Services:It was identified that the project may result in a public services impact with regards to parks.This potential has resulted in a mitigation measure that requires payment of a QUIMBY fee in lieu of dedication of land. Transportation and Circulation:it was identified that the project may result in a transportation and circulation impact with regards to a haul route for the importation of fill. Thus,Staff has incorporated a mitigation measure that requires the approval of a haul route by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.Staff ATTACHMENT 1-56 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008a 00001 &:ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) Novemb~r 10,2009 believes that incorporation of these mitigation measures will result in a less than significant impact. As such,Staff has concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be approved for this project since mitigation measures have been incorporated to result in a project with less than significant impacts. As indicated above,Staff received two comments in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.The comments from the los Angeles County Sanitation District were not substantive to warrant a change to the environmental document The second comment was received jointly from California Department of Fish and Game,and from U.S,Fish and Wildlife Services.Although the proposed project will not have an impact upon biological resources,these resource agencies requested an update to the Biological Resources Section with regards to the City's NCCP and the site's biological condition.To address their concern,Staff has revised this section in the environmental document.Below is the edited section that illustrates the text revisions made to the document The revisions are shown in Jlolg,underline for text that has been added,and in strikethrough for text that has been removed: Although tlhe subject site,along with every other property in the City,is covered by the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).Although the City Council approved the NCCP in 2004,final approval of the NCCP by the wildlife agencies has not Xet occurred and,therefore.coverage of take for specific private proiects has not yet been conveyed to the City.According to the City's NCCP,the subject site is not located in or adjacent to any existing or proposed NCCP preserve property or Habitat Conservation Plan property.In addition,according to the NCCP Natural Vegetation mapping,the site is classified as having "agricultural"vegetation.lastl~, In addition,the property does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the resource agencies.Therefore,the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect and/or endanger the sensitive habitat or vegetation species identified in local,regional,or state agencies. Furthermore,according to tile City's NCCP,the subject site is surrounded by grassland and disturbed sites,and thus,is not situated in the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA).Lastly,no federally protected wetlands have been identified on-site,there are no designated migratory wildlife corridors in the project area. As such,there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to biological resource issues. The modifications identified above do not modify Staff's conclusion that there will be no impacts to biological resources as a result of the proposed project.Subsequently,re- publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not necessary for this minor change. ATTACHMENT 1-57 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 101.2009 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The project includes changing the General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject property from Commercial to Residential,thereby requiring a General Plan Amendment.In order to approve a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change,the City must find that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan and is in the public's interest.Staff believes that the changes should be pursued for the following reasons. @ The size of the subject site,at 1.42-acres,does not meet the minimum development site area for CR Zoned lotso The Development Code calls for CR Zoned lots to be a minimum of 20-acres in area,and maintain a minimum of 250-feet of lot width and iSO-feet of lot depth.The subject property,as a result of previous subdivisions, maintains an existing lot depth of 93-feet,which does not conform to the current CR Zoning standards. ~Staff believes that the appropriateness of the site lends itself to the need within the community for the proposed residential use,and is compatible with surrounding uses.Compatibility takes many forms,but it is most related to the sensory impact of the use on surrounding uses (Leo noise generated,odors,glare,traffic,appearance, crime).Generally speaking,a commercial use creates more sensory impacts than a residential use.Hours of operation can be very lengthy,and patrons can be insensitive toward residents by creating unwanted noise,litter,and congestion. The subject site is an existing in-fill site,accessed from the residential streets of Beachview Drive,Nantasket Drive,and Sea Cove Drive.Although the subject site abuts a commercial development,I.e.,the Terranea Resort Hotel,to the immediate north,west,and south,there are also single-family residences to the north and south of the subject site and a multi-family residential development to the east,all within 500'of the subject site.Any development proposed on the subject site, whether it be commercial recreational or single-family residential,would be required to front along Nantasket Drive,and either type of development is anticipated to impact the adjoining commercial recreational,single-family,and multi-family residences.However,Staff believes that a single-family residential development on the subject site is expected to have less impact on the adjoining residential properties with regards to traffic,light,and noise pollution.Thus,the proposed land use change to single-family residential will be more compatible with the existing residential uses of the adjoining area. o Lastly,changing the land use of the subject property would bring it into consistency with the Residential land Use Designation of the other properties along Beachview, Seacove and Nantanket Drives.Thus,Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.Further,Staff ATTACHMENT 1-58 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &:lON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM 9 GPA,lC,CSP Amendment,CP 9 VAR,GR,DiV &.EA) November 10.2009 u • believes that the residential land use would not be contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan states,'The predominance of residential use [within the City}is based on several factors:the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress,the geographical location of the community with no major transportation facilities,lack of market potential for any major commercial,and need for support facilities only to meet the community's demand"(General Plan Page No, 194).Additionally,the General Plan states,"Commercial uses tend to have environmental impacts unless small in scale and very carefully designed"(General Plan Page No.196).Even though this site is small in scale,it is currently vacant, and any commercial venture will cause impacts to the area that may be considered more intrusive than what could be found from a residential development More specifically,residential uses tend to generate less vehicle trips,create less noise, and have less light and glare than commercial uses.As such,the proposed General Plan Amendment would be in the public's interest,and the General Plan Amendment is appropriate. Therefore,Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan and that the Residential land use would not be contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan,As such,Staff believes that the General Plan Amendment is appropriate. It should be noted,according to Government Code Section No.65358,any mandatory element of the General Plan may be modified a maximum of four times per calendar year. Should the requested General Plan amendment be approved,it would represent this year's first amendment to the mandatory "Land Use Element"of the General Plan. COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT At the time of the adoption of the City's Coastal Specific Plan (CSP)in 1978,the subject site was a part of an 8.77-acre site located at the eastern end of Subregion 2 of the City's coastal zone.Subregion 2 is defined as a 161-acre site which is bordered on the north by "vacant land and on the east by both vacant land and Nantasket Drive".The Coastal Specific Plan calls SUbregion 2 as made up of three public uses (Point Vicente Fishing Access,Point Vicente Beach Site,and a marine acess via Cardiac Hill trail),a large commercia!recreation center (present Terranea Resort Hote!site),and a surplused school site supporting farming activities,The subject site is a 1.42-acre lot,which was subdivided from the 17-acre surplused school site,identified as the Abalone Cove School Site. At the time of the adoption of the esp,the Abalone Cove School Site was an 8.77-acre site under the ownership of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District,which,after enrollment studies were conducted,the district decided that there was not substantive ATTACHMENT 1-59 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008-00001 &.ZON2008n 00074 thru ~00078 (PM~GPA~ZC,CSP Amendment~CP~VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10.2009 need for an additional school in the vicinity and,thus,considered the land to be surplus and expressed its intent to sell the lot.Due to the site's high crop yield,irrigation,and the substantial site size,the CSP designated the primary land use of the site to be agricultural, which took place with the adoption of the CSP,in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No.3 and Zone Change NO.4.The CSP states that the site being maintained as agricultural was contingent on the site not being needed for a schooL In the event this site was not used as agriculture,the CSP recommended a secondary use of commercial recreation. While the CSP mentions a secondary use for the site as CR,and although the General Plan and Zoning for the property has been changed to CR,it should be noted that the City's Coastal Specific Plan has not been updated since its adoption in 1978 to reflect these amendments.Consequently,the Coastal Specific Plan still identifies the primary land use for the site as Agriculture. The applicant proposes to amend Policy 8 of the Coastal Specific Plan,Subregion 2 to read as follows (bold text for new text and strikethrough for text removed): Change the primary hmd use on the Designate as agricultural use 1.42-acre site, which was subdivided from the former 17-acre Abalone Cove School SiteiR-#1e event that the preperty is not required for oonstruotion of a school and if suffloient non oity funds are made available to the City threlJgh the Coastal Conservancy (or other funding)fer purchase of the site.A seoondary use designation shall be oommercial reoreation and encouragoment of a retirement/Bonior citizen/tiNoe incomo facility on a portion of the site.from Agriculture to ResidentiaL Since the applicant is proposing to change the existing Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Single-Family Residential,the City must find that the proposal is internally consistent with the General Plan and is in the public's interest.For the reasons discussed under the Genera!Plan Section above,Staff believes that the change should be pursued. it should be noted that the Coastal Specific Plan raises the following concerns regarding commercia!recreational development on the subject site: 1.With respect to commercial recreational development on the subject site,the Coastal Specific Plan states that "access should not be taken from Nantasket Drive (in Subregion 3)since it is designated as a residential street and commercial traffic would in ali likelihood cause significant problems." Currently Nantasket Drive is used to access the existing single-family and muiti- ATTACHMENT 1-60 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008 A 00014 thm ~00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 family residential developments along Beachview Drive and Sea Cove Drive. Additionally,vehicular access from the privately owned Terranea Resort Hotel to the subject site does not exist and it is not likely that a driveway easement would ever be created to facilitate vehicular access to the site so that access to the site is not via Nantasket Drive.Thus,a CR development on the subject site would be inconsistent with this policy direction of the Coastal Specific Plan. 2.The Coastal Specific Plan speaks of potentially adverse impacts resulting from a CR development on the adjoining residential developments in Subregion 3,Generally speaking,a single-family residential use on the site would be expected to be a less intensive use of the subject site than were it developed with a comparable sized commercial development when examining the potential traffic,noise,and light pollution generated from the site.Further,a residential development would be more compatible with the existing residential uses in the adjoining area.Furthermore,the development of a CR use on the subject site would result in an appearance incompatible with the existing single and multi-family uses in the adjoining areas. For instance,the site being used as a commercial filming site,a recycling facility,a helistop,or a small hotel,etc.,further erodes the character of the neighborhood, which is primarily composed of single-family and multi-family residential structures. Therefore,Staff believes that a residential land use on the subject site,when compared to any of the permitted uses in CR,better addresses the potential adverse impacts associated with development.Furthermore,staff believes that the change in land use will not have an impact to coastal resources,nor would it hinder public access to those coastal resources.As such,Staff believes that the change in the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation is appropriate. ZONE CHANGE In order to bring the zoning in compliance with the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation,the project warrants the subsequent change of the site's zoning from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential). According to Municipal Code Section No.17.02.010,"The purpose of the single-family residential district (RS)is to provide for individual homes on separate lots,each for the occupancy of one family,at various minimum lot sizes,to provide for a range of yard and lot sizes which are based on the General Plan of the City,and to provide forother uses that are associated and compatible with residential uses designated in this title." As indicated in the Background section,in rejecting the Commission's previous recommendation on the project on May 15,2007,the City Council remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with direction that consideration be given to an RS-2 or RS-3 ATTACHMENT 1-61 Planning Commission Staff Report Case Noo SUB2008m 00001 &ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM~GPA,IC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10.2009 zoning district,which would result in a less dense development than the previously proposed RS-4 zoning,The City Council took this action largely due to concerns with density and the lack of open space resulting from the previously proposed project.Given the Council's concerns,Staff believes that an RS-2 or RS-3 zoning of the property would provide a transitional neighborhood between the existing RS-1 zoned properties to the south along the bluff on Sea Cove Drive and the RS-4 zoned properties that exist to the north (Le.,the Sea Bluffcommunity). Consistent with the Council's direction,the applicant has submitted an RS-3 zoning proposal,Staff has reviewed the proposal and for the reasons stated above in the General Plan Amendment section,Staff believes that an RS-3 zoning designation would be a suitable zoning designation for the subject property.Although there is no other RS-3 zoning in close proximity to the proposed project site,Staff believes that an RS-3 zoning would provide a transitional zoning district not only between the RS-1 zone to the south and the RS-4 zone to the north,but also between the non-conforming multi-family development to the east and the open space of the T eranea site to the west The RS-3 zoning also addresses the concerns expressed by the City Council with the density and lack of open space related to the RS-4 zoning.As such,Staff believes that the proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment and therefore believes that the zone change is appropriate. Notwithstanding Staff's recommendation,it should be pointed out that the Council's direction to the PI~nning Commission was to consider either RS-2 or RS-3 zoning for the site,An RS-2 zoning district would serve the same purpose as RS -3 zoning district of providing transitional zoning and development,but at an even lower density than the current RS-3 zoning proposal since development of the site would only yield 3 residential structures.The applicant is not proposing RS-2 zoning and Staff is not advocating RS-2 zoning since Staff can support the RS-3 zoning for the reasons previously explained. Furthermore,an RS-2 zoning could result in larger houses. SUBDIVISION (VeSTING PARCEL MAP) Pursuant to Section 16,04.040.E of the City's Subdivision Ordinance,no map shall be approved by the Planning Commission unless it complies with the requirements set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act,the Development Code,and other applicable sections of the City's Municipal Code.In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act,the Planning Commission must consider the following required findings (shown in bold)prior to rendering a decision on the proposed Parcel Map.It is important to note that the following findings would also apply to a 3-lot subdivision consistent with an RS-2 zoning proposal. 1.That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan, ATTACHMENT 1-62 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008m 00001 &ZON2008 m 00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,YAR,GR,DiY &.EA) November 10.2009 in the event the applicant's proposed General Plan Land Use amendment and Zone Change are approved to change from CR to RS-3,the subject site would then be located in an area designated as Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-3)o Vacant land designated in this density range has low to moderate physical and social constraints,and the proposed density would be compatible with the adjacent existing densities,which range from one d.uJac (along Seacove Drive)to 4-6 d.uJac (along Beachview Drive).All new residential lots within this density must maintain a minimum lot size of 13,000 square feet. As noted earlier in this report,the proposed lots will range between 14,081 square feet and 17,704 square feet,which are consistent with the City's General Plan.Therefore,this finding can be made. 2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. In the event the applicant's proposed General Plan Land Use amendment and Zone Change are approved to change from CR to RS-3,the subject site would then be located in an area designated as Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-3).In order to subdivide within a Residential Land Use designation,the General Plan states that the new lots must comply with the development standards listed in the Development Code under the appropriate zoning district Table NO.4 below identifies the minimum requirements, such as lot area and dimensions,to create a new lot in the RS-3 zoning district as well as RS-2 zoning consideration. Table No.4 13,000 s .ft. 4,290 s .ft 110' 80' 20,000 s .ft 6,600 s .ft. 120' 90' According to the table above,the proposed subdivision,with the exception to the lot depth, complies with the requirements set forth in the Development Code.Staff believes that there is justification to allow for a reduced lot depth for the new RS-3 zoned,residential lots.A further discussion relating to the variance for this non-compliant issue will be covered in the next section of this report.If the Variance is approved,Staff believes this finding can be made. 3.That the $ste §$physicaUy suitable for the proposed type and density of the ATTACHMENT 1-63 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ION2008-00074 thru -00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 1.9,2009 development According to the General Plan,when a parcel is proposed to be subdivided,it should be compatible with the density of the surrounding existing lots and meet the City's zoning designation.Staff believes that the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development in that the proposed subdivision will result in four residential lots that will each have a gross lot area that exceeds the 13,000 square foot minimum area required by the Development Code for RS-3 zoned lots.Furthermore,as illustrated in Table No.1 above,the proposed lots will have a contiguous lot area that far exceeds the 4,290 square foot minimum for RS-3 zoned lots.Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.0 of the Development Code,the contiguous lot area is defined as the gross lot area exclusive of slopes greater than 35%and the required setback area.The contiguous lot area is considered that portion of the property that is the buildable portion of the property.The proposed contiguous lot areas will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the Development Code for an RS-3 zoning district, as it pertains to the structure size,lot coverage and setbacks.Therefore,Staff believes that the size of the proposed lots will be physically suitable for residential development,and this finding can be adopted. 40 That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements win not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. In regards to the surrounding environment,Staff identified potential impacts a subdivision of this limited magnitude may have on the surrounding environment and completed the required Initial Study pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).According to the Initial Study,the proposed project may potentially affect the surrounding environment in terms of aesthetics,air quality,hydrology and water quality, population and housing,public services,recreation,transportation and traffic utilities and service systems,However,the initial Study determined that the potential impacts to the surrounding environment will not result in a significant effect that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the appropriate mitigation measures,as shown in the attached exhibits. According to the City's most recent Natural Communities Conservation Pian (NCCP),no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property,Further,field observations by Staff have also determined that the property does not contain any sensitive natura!habitat.Therefore,Staff believes that this finding can be made in that the proposed project will not cause significant damage to the environment or injure any fish or wildlife that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the appropriate mitigation measures.As such,this finding can be adopted, ATTACHMENT 1-64 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008Q 00001 &ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,liV &EA) November 10.2009 5,That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements win not cause serious public health problems. The proposed project consists of a four lot residential subdivision that will not cause serious public health problems in that any future residential development will have to be constructed in conformance with the City's Development Code and will have to obtain approvals from the Building and Safety Division whom will ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code.Additionally,although the City's Geotechnical Consultant has reviewed the proposed subdivision in the planning stage and identified no significant concerns at this time,further review of geotechnical reports will be required prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time the lots are developed. Additionally,the applicant will also be required to make certain improvements to ensure that the residential development wi!!not be detrimental to the public's health and safety,as stated bellow: A.Public Streets -The City will require the applicant to repair any damage caused to Nantasket Drive and the sidewalk as a result of the proposed residential development. B.Utilities -Section 16.20.040 of the Development Code states that any public or private utility easements required by various utilities or the City shall be shown on the final map and shall be dedicated to the appropriate agency by document prior to recording the final map.The applicant will have to show all the underground utilities and the connections on the final map. C.Drainage -Section 16.20.050 of the Development Code requires that the subdivider mitigate any potential impacts caused by drainage flow from the subject property to any adjacent properties.The new parcels will drain into the public drainage system, which the City Engineer will review and approve such plans to ensure proper drainage flow prior to the submittal of the final tract map. D.Park and Recreation Dedication Fees -Pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the Development Code,the applicant will be required to either dedicate parkland,pay an in lieu fee,or a combination of both at the time and according to the standards and formulas set forth in the Municipal Code. Based on the above discussion,Staff believes that this finding can be made in that the proposed subdivision consists of improvements that will result in lots that can sustain future residential development that will not cause any serious public health problems. 6.That the design of the subdiviSion or the type of improvements wiU not be In ATTACHMENT 1-65 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No,SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008..Q0074 thru w00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10,2009 conflict with the easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision. There were,originally,three access easements on the subject site.Two (2)60'wide easements on the northernmost end and the southernmost end of the 1.42-acre site under the ownership of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District were removed in 2006 during the review stages of the previous project There continues to be,however,a 30' wide access easement to the benefit of the City on the northernmost end of the site.The easement was created to provide access to the adjoining property to the west,now Terranea Resort Hote!site.However,since the Terranea Resort Hotel provides its own access,this access point is no longer necessary and can be vacated.Thus,a condition of approval has been added to remove the easement prior to Final Parcel Map approval and/or issuance of any grading/building permits.As such,Staff believes that the design of the subdivision will not be in conflict,and this finding can be made. VARIANCE The City's Development Code establishes development standards for the creation of single-family residential lots.For lots created in the RS-3 zones,the Development Code requires each lot to contain,at minimum,a lot size of 13,000 square feet,a lot width of 80', and a lot depth of 110'.Inasmuch as the proposal includes the creation of four residential lots in a RS-3 zone on a lot that currently maintains a 93'lot depth,which will result in the new lots with 93'lot depths that are less than the required 110'depth,approval of a Variance is required for this project.It is important to note that with consideration of RS-2 zoning,a Variance would continue to be required since the subject site would not comply with the minimum lot depth requirement for RS-2 zoned lots as illustrated in Table No.4 above. !n considering a Variance application,Section 17.64.050 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make four findings in reference to the subject property and the project under consideration.(Development Code language is boldface,followed by Staff's analysis in normal type): 1>That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appUcable to the property involved j or to the intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district;and, The subject property,at 1.42-acres in area,already fails to comply with the minimum 20- acre size for a CR zoned lot as prescribed by the Development Code.This conflicts with the uses intended on the subject site,since the nonconforming development standards inhibit proper development of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses on the site. Staff believes the discussion contained under the General Plan Amendment Section above ATTACHMENT 1-66 P~anning Commission Staff Report Case No,SUB2008~00001 &ZON2008g 00074 tnI'Ll nOOOl8 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10.2009 demonstrates extraordinary circumstances applicable to the intended use of the property, which do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Further,although the surrounding neighborhood has different zoning designations than what is being proposed,nonconformities exist with other properties in the neighborhood, Although the Sea Bluffcommunity is in an RS-4 Zoning District,and it is a community that was approved by the City as a Planned Unit Development (PUD),the individual parcels do not comply with the current Development Code requirements with regards to lot coverage, lot width and lot area.Notwithstanding,these non-conformities were allowed through the approval as a PUD. Lastly,the subject parcel was created in 1980 through approval of a subdivision application,thereby resulting in a lot that did not,at that time,comply with the minimum lot area standards of the CR Zone,which it still does not today.Thus,Staff believes that a variance for relief from the lot depth requirement is warranted.As SUCh,this finding can be made and adopted. 2.That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district;and, Provided that the Land Use Designations and Zone Change from Commercial Recreational to Residential (RS-3)are approved,then the property right in question is the applicant's ability to develop the four residential lots on the subject site,in accordance with the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act.Staff believes that an approval of a variance is necessary to ensure the applicant's property right to develop single-family residential lots,which is a right that other property owners of Residentially zoned and designated properties maintain.As indicated above in the Subdivision section,Staff believes that with the exception of the nonconforming lot depth,the proposal satisfies the minimum contiguous lot area,minimum lot size,and minimum lot width requirements. Therefore,Staff believes that the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district 3.That granting the variance win not be materially detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located;and, Staff believes that granting the variance for these four lots to be created with nonconforming lot depths will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the area as the residential development will bring compatibility to the existing residential uses in the adjoining area.Further,the lot depth deficiency does ATTACHMENT 1-67 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB:!O08~00001 &ZON2008~00074 thru -00018 (PM,GPA~ZC j CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10.2009 not result in a deficient rear yard setback,as the residences will maintain rear yard setbacks that exceed the minimum requirement.This is further augmented with the fact that the rears of the parcels abut the golf course area which provides for additional open area.Thus,there is no impact upon the appearance of the residences,the appearance of the lots or to the location of the residences since they do not have to encroach into the setback area.Lastly,the City's Geologist has reviewed and approved the geotechnical reports that support development of the subject property.Therefore,the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare,and this finding can be made and adopted. 4.That granting the variance wni not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan land Use designation for the subject site is Single-Family Residential,2-4 DU/acre.The development of single-family residential structures on the four proposed lots is consistent with this underlying land use designation since the Development Code allows for subdivision of land,provided that such proposal meet the minimum conditions as warranted by the Subdivision Map Act and City's Development Code.As concluded in Finding No.3,the new residential lots will not be detrimental to the public welfare,or injurious to property and improvements in the area,which is consistent with the General Plan's goal to protect the general health,safety,and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan,Page 192-193).Further,the new residential lots are consistent with General Plan Housing Policy NO.3 to 11encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design."As such,Staff believes that granting the variance will not be contrary to the City's General Plan.lastly,as discussed above in the Coastal Specific Pian Amendment Section,the proposed development is in compliance with the goals and policies of the Coastal Specific Plan.Therefore,this finding can be made and adopted. Throughout the sections above in this report,it has been demonstrated that the proposed single-family residential lot development does not contradict the goals of the General Plan, the Coastal Specific Plan,and the City's Zoning Code.Further,Staff believes that the subject lot contains extraordinary circumstances that have resulted in an approval of a variance to enjoy the same rights that property owners in the same zoning district already have.The approval of a variance to allow the applicant to deviate from the 11 O-foot lot depth requirement for RS-3 Zoned properties is not anticipated to be injurious to property and improvements in the area where the subject site is located because the reduced lot depth does not impact the minimum rear yard setback requirements,the residences will be constructed with rear yard setbacks that exceed the minimum requirements,and the rears of the parcels back up to a golf course.For such reasons,Staff believes that approval of a variance is warranted and the applicable findings can be made and adopted. ATTACHMENT 1-68 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &ZON2008a 00014 tl1m ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &lEA) November 10,.2009 GRADING PERMIT The purpose of a grading permit is to promote the public health,safety and general welfare while preserving the natural character of an area consistent with reasonable economic development A grading permit is to ensure that development occurs in a manner that is harmonious with adjacent land so as to minimize problems of flooding,drainage,erosion, earth movement and similar hazards,while maintaining the visual continuity of the hills and valleys of the City. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of the Development Code,the City requires a major grading permit for grading activity that will involve the following: ~excavation,fm,or both,in excess of 50 cubic yards in a two year period;or ~cut or fill more than 5'in depth or height;or ),;:>excavation or fill encroaching in or altering a natural drainage course*;or ),;:>excavation or fill on an extreme slope (35%or more)*. *notwithstanding exemptions in Section 17.76.040.C As part of the proposal,the project also includes development of the four new lots,each with a single-family residential structure.To accommodate the residential development, 1,957 cubic yards of cut and 2,071 cubic yards of fill are proposed,for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading.Table No.2 above illustrates the details of the grading proposed to develop each lot Nonetheless,due to the quantity of grading,a major grading permit is required. Due to the topography of the subject property and the proposed subdivision,the lots are considered sloping lots,subject to a 16'/30'building envelope.Thus,a residential structure is limited to 16-feet in height as measured from the highest pre-construction grade to top of highest ridgeline,and an overall height of 30-feet as measured from lowest finish grade to top of highest ridgeline"On each lot,a minimum of 525 cubic yards of grading is proposed; thus,all lots require review through a grading permit.However,since Lots 1 and 2 comply with the Development Code's height requirements,lots 1 and 2 are subject to review only through a Grading Permit Lots 3 and 4 are proposed with residential structures that will exceed the 16~foot height limit and are,thus,subject to review through both a Grading Permit and Height Variations. This Grading Permit Section of the Staff Report provides an analysis of the grading necessary for construction on all four lots"Pursuant to Section 17.76.040.E of the Development Code,the Planning Commission,shall use the following criteria to evaluate, review and act on major grading permit applications.The following Development Code criteria are discussed below (Development Code criteria are indicated in bo~d type, followed by Staff's analysis in norma!type). ATTACHMENT 1-69 Plarming Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB200Sg 00001 &.ZON200Su 00074 Ihm ~00078 (PM,GPA,lC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA.) t!ovember 10.2009 1::.1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Subject to the approval of the Land Use designation amendments and the zone change, the subject properties will be designated and zoned Single-Family Residential,which permits single-family residential development.The proposed grading will facilitate construction of the new residential structures.Terracing the subject 1,42-acre lot is proposed by means of grading to accommodate the new construction of four residences on the four lots that are created by the subdivision.In addition,a basement is proposed on Lot 3.Although the reason for a basement on Lot 3 is to increase the residential square footage on this lot,Staff does not believe that the proposed grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary uses of the lots since a single-family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS zoning district Further,the proposed terracing has been designed to follow the existing street grade and the basement will not be evident from the surrounding residences or from the street.Therefore,Staff finds that the proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot in that the subject site can accommodate single-family residential development;thus,Staff believes the proposed project meets this criterion. E.2.The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from the uviewing area"of neighboring properties.In cases where grading is proposed for is!. new residence or an addition to an existing residence,this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure,as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8)of this Title,is lower than a structure that couid have been bum in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing)grade. At the January 9,2007 PC meeting,Staff presented a revised Neighborhood Compatibility analysis that included the eight (8)Villas Apartment structures and five (5)residences on Seacove Drive.Staff was seeking direction from the PC as to what immediate neighborhood to use for the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,as well as direction on whether to use the residential or commercial "by-right"height restriction for the proposed structures for purposes of assessing significant view impact At the meeting,the Planning Commission agreed to use the residential by-right height standards. In regards to significant impacts to views from neighboring properties,the grading will not affect the maximum ridgeline elevations for the new residences.Specifically,the current proposal includes ridgeline elevations that are lower than what was proposed under the previous proposal.As indicated above,lots 1 and 2 are considered sloping lots,and new ATTACHMENT 1-70 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &:ZON2008 M 00014 thru M00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &:EA) November 102 2009 structures are limited to 16-feet in height as measured from the highest preconstruction grade elevation covered by structure,and 3D-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade elevation covered by structure,to the highest ridgeline elevation.The proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 are at a ridgeline elevation of 180,1'and 165.4',respectively.These ridgeline elevations are 16-feet or less above the highest preconstruction grade elevation covered by the proposed structures,which is 164.9'and 149.4',respectively,Further,the overall heights of these residences will be 24.1-feet as measured from these ridgeline elevations down to the finish pad elevations covered by the structures.Although fill is proposed on Lots 1 and 2,the fil!does not result in a higher ridge line elevation than what is allowed "by-right".Rather,the fill is a function of the sloping lot condition,which results in a split-level design.Thus,so that there is no crawl space under the up-slope portion of the residences,fill will be placed under the residences.However,as indicated above,the fill does not result in a higher ridgeline elevation than what is allowed "by-right". The Sea Bluff HOA has submitted a comment regarding the fill proposed for Lot 1, indicating that "...the lot will be filled in and the home built on top of the fill".This is a correct statement;however,as indicated above,the fill does not result in a residence that is higherthat what would be allowed if built at existing grade.On Lot 1,the existing highest grade elevation covered by structure is 164.9',which allows for a maximum 16-foot high ridgeline elevation of 180.9'.Since the lot is a sloping lot,the maximum overall height of a structure is limited to 30-feet as measured from lowest finish grade to highest ridgeline. The proposed ridgeline for the residence on Lot 1 is 180.9',which would result in an allowable lowest grade elevation of 15009'.The proposed finish grade elevation will be 15600'.As such,although it is acknowledged that there will be fill on Lot 1,it does not result in a structure that would be taller than otherwise allowed without the fill,and thereby complying with this criteria" lots 3 and 4 also contain fill;however,similar to the grading for lots 1 and 2,the fill on these lots is provided so that there is no crawl space under the up-slope portion of the new residences.Although Lots 3 and 4 will be constructed with grading that does not artificially raise the grade for the proposed residences,the ridgeline elevations of these residences exceed the 16-foot height limits,and are thus subject to Height Variations,which are discussed in detail below. Notwithstanding,with regards to the proposed grading,although fill is included as part of the grading activity,it does not artificially raise the grade of the site and does not result in higher structures than what can be built in the same location on the lots if measured from existing grade.As such,Staff believes the proposed project meets this criterion. The na.ture of grading minimizes disturbance to the natura!contours and finished contours are reasonably natura.!. ATTACHMENT 1-71 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008N 00001 &.ZON2008~00014 thru -00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) NOY!lmber 10.2009 As previously mentioned,the proposed grading is to prepare the site for construction of the building.The existing "natural"contours of the project site are partly the result of past farming on the subject site until the late 1980s.The subject site is a gently sloping lot with steeper slopes around the front edges of the lot,and each of the lots will be re-contoured in a manner that will minimize change to the existing contours.As such,there is no concern with disturbance to the natural contours.Therefore,since the grading will not be visible to any property in the immediate neighborhood,Staff believes that this finding can be made and adopted. 1:.4.The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man~made or manufactured slope into natural topography. As indicated,the subject property was graded when the subject site was used for agricultural and farming activity,which voided the site of any natural slopes and contours, and natural topographic features.Thus,there are not significant natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading.Although the proposed grading will prepare the site for construction of single-family residences,the resulting grading and structures will slope in the same direction as the existing topography.Therefore,Staff believes that this finding can be made. 1:.5.For new singleMfamUy residences,the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6 of the Municipal Code,"Neighborhood Character"is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area.The factors to be analyzed per the code language are: (1)Scale of surrounding residences,including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and an ancillary structures. (2)Architectura~styles,including facade treatments,structure height,open space between structures,roof deSign,the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories,and bunding materials. (3)front,side,and rear yard setbacks. Within a 500'radius of the subject site,the adjoining developments are situated in different zones which contain different land uses,i.e.,the Terranea Resort Hotel is in a Commercial- Recreation zoning district;the Villa apartments are a non-conforming use located in a RS-4 (Single-Family Residential)zoning district;and the single-family residences along Sea Cove Drive are in a RS-1 zoning district. ATTACHMENT 1-72 P~anning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008 w 00001 &.ZON200fHl0014 thru ~00018 (PM~GPA~ZC,CSP Amendment~CP,VAR,GR,liV &:EA) November 1O.200~ Should the subject property's Land Use and Zoning Designations change,the property would be located in a RS-3 Zoning District.There are no other RS-3 zoned properties in the immediate area,which creates a peculiarity in conducting a neighborhood compatibility analysis.Similar issues were raised in 2006 and 2007 with the previous proposal, especially with regards to using the Villa Apartments and the single-family residences along Sea Cove Drive,The original November 14,2006 neighborhood compatibility analysis only included the twenty closest residences in the Sea Bluffcommunity (on Channelview and Beachview Drives)since these residences are in the same zoning district that was proposed at that time for the subject property (I.e"RS-4). At the November 14,2006 meeting,the Planning Commission instructed Staff to revise the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to include the Villa Apartments (despite the complex being a non-conforming multi-family residential use)and include the residences along Sea Cove Drive (despite these residences being in a different zoning district -RS-i).The rationale was that both developments are located in close proximity to the subject site, On January 9,2007,Staff presented an expanded neighborhood compatibility analysis to the Planning Commission,noting that the new neighborhood average home size increased from 2,930 square feet to 11,903 square feet since eight (8)apartment buildings ranging in size from 10,500 square feet to 86,000 square feet were included in the analysis.After discussing the neighborhood compatibility issue,the Planning Commission directed Staff to consult with the City Attorney on the appropriateness of the expanded neighborhood compatibility analysis. Staff obtained the City Attorney's opinion on the appropriateness of including the eight (8) multi-family residential structures and five (5)RS-1 residences on Seacove Drive in the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,The City Attorney reviewed the City's Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and the Development Code and noted that the guidelines contained in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook are flexible in their approach.As such,the City Attorney recommended that the Planning Commission pursue the following for determining the Neighborhood Compatibility of the then-proposed project: 1.Adhere to the City Council approved Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook and exclude the Seacove homes (RS-1)from the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,unless the applicant opts to rezone his project from CR to RS-i; 2.Exclude the Villas Apartments from the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis since they are not single-family residential structures,even though they are in the same zoning district as the proposed project;or,include the Villas Apartments in the analysis because they are in the same zone as the project (because the Handbook provides a flexible concept of the term "neighborhood", either option is legally defensible); ATTACHMENT 1-73 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB200S~00001 .&ZON2008"00074 thru "00078 (PM,GPA,lC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 102 2009 3,Consider the single-family residences to the north of the project site (Channelview Drive and Beachview Drive residences)that are within the RS-4 zoning district as being within the immediate neighborhood of the project;and, 4.Consider the option of determining the project site to be a unique transition site among other existing different residential land uses and types of structures,so that it constitutes its own immediate neighborhood for the purpose of the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis. On March 13,2007,pursuant to the Commission's direction,Staff reported that the City Attorney's opinion was that the Planning Commission has flexibility in identifying the immediate neighborhood for purposes of determining the project's compatibility.The Planning Commission determined that although different in land use and density,the adjoining Villas Apartments and the residences along Sea Cove Drive ought to be included in the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis due to their close proximity to the subject project.The Commission also pointed out that the existing neighborhood is eclectic and that the subject property is an in-fill lot surrounded by different land uses (single and multi- family residences and golf course)and density (Sea Cove homes in the RS-1 zoning district,while the Villas Apartments are zoned RS-4).After further discussion on the project,the Planning Commission conceptually approved all components of the previous project,except for the Grading Permit and Height Variation applications for Lots 3,4 and 5, citing bulk and mass concerns with the residences proposed on those three lots. In reviewing the current proposal for neighborhood compatibility,Staff believes that the current project constitutes its own immediate neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood compatibility analysis.This is consistent with the City Attorney's previous opinion on performing a neighborhood compatibility analysis of for the proposed project (Item #4)and is supported by the City Council approved Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.According to the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,"for purposes of Neighborhood Compatibility,the immediate neighborhood is normally considered to be at least the twenty (20)closest residences within the same zoning district."The current proposal is for an RS-3 zoning,and since there are not other RS-3 zoned properties in the area,this creates its own neighborhood.Consideration of the subject property for RS-2 yields the same situation since there are also no other RS-2 zoned properties in the area. Thus,whether the proposal included an RS-2 or RS-3 zoning for the subject property,the project would be its own neighborhood.Nonetheless,as indicated above,either zoning would be considered a transition between the existing RS-1 and RS-4 zones that are to the north and south of the subject siteo The current proposal includes four units in an RS-3 zoning designation that are smaller than the residences previously proposed.Table No.5 on the following page provides a comparison between the previous 5-lot development proposal and the current 4-lot ATTACHMENT 1-74 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &ZON2008e 00014 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10,2009 development proposal with regards to structure size and lot coverage. Table No.5 11,758 sf 12,126 sf 12,115 sf 11,893 sf 13,874 sf 14,402 sf 15,567 sf 14,081 sf 17,704 sf 6,111 sf 6,783 sf 7,086 sf 7,019 sf 6,728 sf 6,433 sf 6,444 sf 6,744 sf 6,392 sf 47%45%47%46%47% 35%32.5%37%34% 180.1'169.8'164.3'158.2'150.9' 180.1'165.4'160.3'152.9' 15.32'/24.1 '17.8'/24.8'20.8'/25.3'21.7'/25.2'20.65'/25.4' As evidenced by the table above,the current proposal includes structure sizes and lot coverages that are significantly less than the previous project,which Staff and the Planning Commission found to be compatible.Further,the residential development will continue to comply with and exceed the minimum setback standards.Since the proposed lot sizes are larger than the previous proposal,this increases the south side yard setbacks and the separation between the proposed residences increases.The remaining setbacks remain unchanged.Nonetheless,based upon previous Staff and Planning Commission discussion and decisions,Staff believes that this aspect of neighborhood compatibility can be made. With regards to faqade treatments,the new residences will incorporate smooth stucco finishes,hip-pitched roofs and clay tile roof materials,which is consistent with the materials found in the residential developments in the area. ATTACHMENT 1-75 P~anning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008~OOOI4 thru ~OOOI8 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 lastly,with regards to bulk and mass,as indicted previously,in denying the previous project,the Planning Commission found that three of the proposed residences (on Lots 3, 4,and 5)were not compatible with the neighborhood due to the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed residences,which deviated from the character of the immediate neighborhood.Planning Commission Resolution Noo 2007-31 states the following: "The Planning Commission identified the following factors as contributing to the apparent bulk and mass of the homes proposed on Lots 3,4,and 5,which therefore, make the construction related to the proposed grading on lots 3,4 and 5 incompatible with the immediate neighborhood: A.The proposed entry tower on Lots 3,4,and 5 exacerbates the appearance of bulk,and,therefore,should be eliminated; B.The proposed roof height on the south half of the residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 is excessive and should be reduced by one (1)foot or 16 inches to mitigate the excessive height; C.The tall height of the chimneys that are proposed contributes to the vertical mass of the structures on Lots 3,4,and 5.The height of the chimneys should be reduced so as to not exceed the minimum height allowed by the Uniform Building Code; D.The proposed columns on either side of the entry in the front of the residence do not seem to blend in with the rest of the design for the residence on Lot 4,and should be eliminated;and, E.The southeast portion of the residence on Lot 5 that contains a gable roof element,i.e.,containing the kitchen area on the lower floor and the master bath and wardrobe area on the upper floor,results in a massive wall as seen from the street of access and should be revised to contain a hip roof instead to mitigate the massive appearance." The applicant has modified the proposed architectural design of the residences to address the concerns that led to the denial of the previous proposal.Entry towers are no longer proposed,which reduces the appearance of bulk;the chimneys will be conditioned such that the height does not exceed the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code, thereby eliminating the need for decorative and ornate covers at the tops of the chimneys; the residence proposed on the previous lot 4 is no longer proposed;and the southeast portion of the residence on Lot 5,which is now on Lot 4 under this proposal,has been modified to eliminate the gable,and provide a hip-pitched roof element over the upper level.lastly,with regards to the heights of the residences,it is important to note that due to the new subdivision,some of the proposed residences have shifted in regards to their iocation on the subject property.This has resulted in ridgelines that are lower than the previous proposal in the middle of the project site.The southern-most lot contains a ridgeline elevation that is 2-feet higher than previously proposed;however,its location has ATTACHMENT 1-76 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No,SUB2008~00001 ZON2008~00074 thru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10,2009 shifted landward.Further,the residence on previous lot 4 is no longer proposed;while the physical height of the residence on lot 3 that contains a basement has been reduced. Thus,Staff believes that the structures have been modified to address the bulk and mass issues that were raised as part of the denial of the previous project.As such,Staff believes that the Neighborhood Compatibility finding can be made and adopted. E6.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plan materials so as to protect slopes from soU erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hiUside areas. According to the applicant's grading plans,the newly created lots will terrace to follow the existing topography and grade along Nantasket Drive.Further,the residential structures will be constructed with split-level designs such that the structures slope with the topography of the site.Further,transitional slopes will separate the lots and will be provided to ensure that the structures slope with the lots.In order to ensure that the transitional slopes are improved with plant material that will protect the slopes from erosion and slippage,Staff recommends that a condition be imposed on the project that requires the submittal of a landscape plan,that specifically identifies the plant type and methods of irrigation for review by the City prior to issuance of grading permits.Furthermore,in order to minimize potential view impacts caused by certain plant materials,Staff recommends an additional condition that limits all plant material and trees to a height of 16'for each lot. Therefore,provided that the appropriate conditions are imposed on the Parcel Map to address the protection of the transition slopes,Staff believes that this criterion can be met. E,7.The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. The proposed grading does not involve street construction or the creation of new streets. However,if the project is approved,any work in the public right-of-way would be conditioned to obtain Public Works Department approval and permits. E.8.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. No wildlife habitats have been identified on the subject property since it is a previously utilized site.As such,this finding can be made, E,9.The grading conforms to the following standards for:grading on slopes, height of cut/fm,and retaining waUs. ATTACHMENT 1-77 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008n 00001 &.ZON2008e 00074 ttlru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 The proposed project conforms to all the City'S grading criteria as specified above.The proposed grading will be conducted in a manner that facilitates the residences being constructed as split level structures that slope with the topography of the site.The grading will not be conducted on extreme slopes,no slopes steeper than 2:1 will be created,and the retaining walls will be under the building footprints to accommodate for the split-level designs.As such,this finding can be made. As noted in the preceding discussion,Staff believes that the proposed grading to accommodate the four proposed residences complies with all Grading Permit criteria. Further,it is important to note that during the Planning Commission's discussion on March 13,2007 regarding the previous project,there was consensus among the Planning Commission that there wasn't any issues with the grading,noting that there is a minimal amount of grading required.As such,it is Staff's opinion that the Grading Permit can be approved for the proposed four-lot residential development. HEIGHT VARIATIONS (lOT :3 &.4) As indicated above,Lots 3 and 4 are subject to a Height Variation since the residences are proposed to exceed the i6-foot height limit.Specifically,Lot 3 is considered a sloping lot subject to a 16'/30'height envelope,whereby the structure is limited to i6-feet as measured from the highest preconstruction grade covered by the structure to the highest ridgeline,and an overall height of 30-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade to the highest ridgeline.Based upon the topography and location of the proposed residence,the i6-foot height limit is measured from an elevation of 139.9',resulting in a maximum ridgeline elevation of 155.9'.The applicant proposes a maximum ridgeline elevation of 159.5',which is 3.6'higher than the maximum allowed,thereby requiring review through a Height Variation.The maximum overall height of the structure is proposed to be 24-feet, which is less than the allowable 30-foot overall height limit. Lot 4 is considered a pad lot,which is subject to a 16'/20'building envelope.The maximum allowable height is sixteen feet,as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest point on the lot covered by the structure to the ridge line of the structure;and twenty feet high,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade.This establishes a 16'/20'building envelope for pad lots.However, pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,a property owner may request approval of a height variation to exceed the sixteen (16')foot height limit,up to a 26-foot maximum overall height.For this lot,the 16-foot height limit is measured from an elevation of 132.4',resulting in a maximum ridgeline elevation of 148.4'. The applicant proposes a maximum ridgeline elevation of 152.3',which is 3.9'higher than the maximum allowed,thereby requiring review through a Height Variation.The maximum ATTACHMENT 1-78 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008~00074 thm w00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 overall height of the structure is proposed to be 25.3',which is less than the 26'maximum height A summary of the proposed heights and the previous proposal's height are contained in Table No.5 above. Below,Staff has first provided an analysis of the proposed projects (lots 3 and 4)potential impacts upon views in relationship to the specific Height Variation findings.Flowing,Staff has provided an anaiysis of the proposed project's compliance with the other Height Variation findings. The Height Variation Permit findings specific to view are as follows: 2.The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares,bikeways,walkways or equestrian trails),which has been identified in the City1s General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan,as City~designatedviewing areas. 4.The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. 5.if view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant,the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner'as to reasonably minimize impairment of a view. 6.There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.Cumulative view impairment shan be determined by:(a)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height;and (b)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures that exceed sixteen feet in height. A view analysis was conducted of the previous 5-lot subdivision and residential development,and was presented to the Planning Commission on November 14,2006, January 9,2007 and again on March 13,2007,Staff conducted several view analyses from residences in the Sea Bluff Community and identified two residences at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive as containing views that were significantly impaired.Further,view analyses were conducted from the Villa Apartments;however,consistent with the City's Height Variation Guidelines,one unit in each structure of the apartment complex was identified to be ",..where the best and most important view is taken"(Page 2,Height ATTACHMENT 1-79 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008m 00074 thru ~00078 (PM~GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &;EA) November 10.2009 Variation Guidelines,April 20,2004).The three units were units #334,#45 and #88,which have views in the direction of and over the subject property. Beachview Residences: With regards to the previous proposal,Staff determined that significant cumulative view impairment would result from the viewing areas at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive if all 5 of the proposed homes were constructed.The Commission determined that as seen from 6617 Beachview Drive and 6619 Beachview Drive,although the proposed project may cause cumulative view impairment,the impairment would not be significant. Since the current proposal is now a 4-lot subdivision,which eliminated lot 5 (closest to the ocean)the locations of the proposed residences have shifted downslope (i.e.,seaward). The residence on the current Lot 4,now the southernmost lot closest to the ocean,is located 90-feet farther downslope (Leo,seaward)than the previous Lot 4 residence.The location shift of Lot 4 has resulted in a lower ridgeline elevation of 152.9'compared with the previous proposal's 158.2'ridgeline elevation. Further,the previous lot 3 residence would have been located between the residences currently proposed on lots 2 and 3,with a ridgeline elevation of 164.3',significantly higher than the current 160.3'ridgeline elevation.Thus,the shift in the location of the currently- proposed residences has resulted in lower ridgeline elevations along Nantasket Drive. Thus,when compared to the previous view impairment,the current proposal has provided additional ocean views over the ridgelines of the proposed residences as seen from the viewing areas at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive. The angle of the view,the topography of the area,and the location of the residences on the proposed lots results in a lot-4-residence that is only partially visible from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive since the proposed residence on Lot 3 will screen most of the proposed residence on Lot 4.In light of the whole view that is obtained from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive,the proposed residences on Lots 3 and 4 will encroach into the lower part of the view frame,obstructing a small amount of ocean view. However,a large portion of the ocean will continue to be unobstructed,and the view of Catalina Island will not be impaired by these structures.lastly,it is important to note that the property at 6619 Beachview Drive currently contains a palm tree and security system signage in the front yard that creates significantly more view obstruction than the proposed residences on lots 3 and 4. Villa Apartments ATTACHMENT 1-80 P~anning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &:ZON2008~00074 thru A00078 (PM j GPA,ze,CSP Amendmentj CP j VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10,2009 With regards to view impairment from the Villa Apartments complex,there are three units (one in each structure)identified as having the best and most important views,The three units are units #334,#45 and #88,which have views over the subject property.Staff's view analyses of the previous project concluded that the previous project significantly impaired the view from only Unit #45.Since the proposal has been modified,Staff conducted new view analyses from the same three units on November 4,2009.Based upon the analyses, Staff has concluded that the new project will not cause any view impairment to Unit #334 in structure 1 (closest to Beachview Drive)and Unit #88 in structure 3 (closest to 8eacove Drive). With regards to Unit #45 in structure 2 (located between the aforementioned structures), the proposed residence on Lot 3 will impair the view of the T eranea hotel,which is not a significant impairment.The residence on Lot 4 will impair some ocean view at the bottom of the view frame,but the view of Catalina Island will not be impaired.Although some ocean view will be impaired,Staff believes that the amount of view impairment is minimal, is located at the periphery of the view frame,and Catalina Island is not impaired.As such, 8taff believes that the proposed structure on lot 4 will not result in significant view impairment. The discussion above has resulted in the Height Variation findings that are specific to views and view impairment being made to warrant approval of the Height Variation requests for lots 3 and 4 of the proposed project. The remaining Height Variation findings that are non-view related findings are listed below in bold,with Staff's analysis in regular text. 1.The applicant has compUed with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City. The Development Code requires owner signatures from at least 25%of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and the signatures of at least 70% of the property owners within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.The City's Height Variation Guidelines (as adopted by the City Council on April 20,2004)specifies that the acceptable efforts for obtaining the necessary signatures for satisfying the lI early neighbor consultation ll requirements shall be through door-to-door contact or by holding an 1I0 pen House ll to inform landowners of the proposed plans,with previous written or oral invitations to the potentially affected property owners. The applicant was not successful in obtaining the necessary number of signatures through the door-to-door contact method,nor through the open house method.According to the applicant,these methods were tried on March 24 and March 29,2009,and again on April 3,April 5,and April 12,2009.After trying these methods onS different occasions,the ATTACHMENT 1-81 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &::ZON2008~00014 thru ~00018 (PM~GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment~CP,\JAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10.2009 applicant met with the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement to determine an alternate option provided by the Height Variation Guidelines.The Guidelines state the following: "Only as a last resort,if the previous two methods have not been proven satisfactory,proof of notification may consist of a notice and reduced copies of the depiction of the project (no larger than 8 1/2"x 14")sent by the applicant by registered mail to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property,or by providing addressed,stamped/pre-paid postage envelopes, a copy of the mailing list,reduced copies of the plans,and a letter with a description of the proposed project,along with a $10.00 fee,to the City for mailing.Using this method must be approved by the Director of Planning,BUilding,and Code Enforcement." The Director approved the method of providing addressed,stamped/pre-paid postage envelopes,a copy of the mailing list,reduced copies of the plans,a letter with a description of the proposed project,along with a $10.00 fee,to the City for mailing.The City mailed the envelopes on August 28,2009,which satisfied this finding.It is important to note that this mailing was not used as a substitute for the City's official Notice of this public hearing. 3.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. According to the Development Code,a ridge is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills,bluffs,or highlands,while a promontory is defined as a prominent mass of land,large enough to support development which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides.The subject residences are proposed to be on a lot which was previously used as a farmland and is gently sloping.The subject site is not considered a ridge or promontory.Therefore,Staff believes the proposed project meets this finding. 1.The proposed structure complies with aU other Code requirements. The proposed residences meet or exceed the minimum Development Code standards with regards to lot coverage and setbacks.The residences will be constructed outside of any required setbacks.Lastly,the resulting lot coverage will range from 45%(Lots 2 and 3)to 46%(Lots 1,4,and 5),which is less than the 50%maximum permissible by the RS-4 zoning district.Therefore,since the proposal complies with or exceeds the standards of the City's Development Code,Staff believes that the proposal complies with all other Development Code standards and this finding can be made. 8.The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. As indicated above in the Grading Permit section regarding neighborhood compatibility, Staff believes that the proposed residential structures are compatible with the immediate ATTACHMENT 1-82 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008~00014 thru M00018 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) November 10,2009 neighborhood.As such,this finding can be made. 90 The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The subject site is situated to the west of the Terranea golf course,north and south of existing single-family residences,and east of apartment structures.With the exception of the golf course,there are no viewing abilities into abutting single and multi-family residences from the proposed structures.As such,this finding can be made. Therefore,Staff believes that all findings associated with the Height Variations can be made to warrant approval of the requested Height Variations for Lots 3 and 4. COASTAL PERMiT The coastal permit procedure provides for review of proposed development within Specific Plan District I,to determine conformity with the City's Coastal Specific Plan and state regulations.In considering an application for a Coastal Permit for an appealable development,Section 17.72.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the Hearings Officer to make two findings regarding the project under consideration (the Code language is in boldface,followed by staff's analysis in normal type): 10 The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. As discussed in the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,and Subdivision sections above in this report,Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.As such,this finding can be met. 2.The proposed development,when located between the sea and the first public road,consistent with applicable public access and recreation poUcies of the Coastal Act. The applicant's proposed land/zone use change,subdivision of four single-family residential lots,and the subsequent construction of four split-Ieve!single-family residences are confined to the property limits and will not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea"Further,the subject property does not abut the coastline.In conjunction with the applications being processed,the applicant is not required to provide access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast because there are trails in the area to the north,south and east that were dedicated as part of the Terranea Resort Hotel development. In addition to access,the proposed development is not anticipated to intertere with the ATTACHMENT 1-83 Planning Commission Staff Report Case Noo SUB2008oo00001 &ZON2008 a00074 thru a00078 (PM 7 GPA7 ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA) Novemb~r 10,2009 existing unique water-oriented activity,such as the Point Vicente Fishing Point or other recreational use that can be had near the shoreline.Therefore,Staff believes that the proposed use of the subject site is consistent with the intent of the Coastal Specific Plan and the proposed development is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.As such,the findings can be made to warrant approval of said Coastal Permit. ADDITIONAlINFORMAT~ON Public Correspondence: As indicated above,Staff mailed notice of the public hearing to all property owners within a SOO-foot radius,and subsequently published the notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News.Further,the Notice was placed on the City's website under the News and Information link.A total of four comments were provided,two were specific to the Mitigated Negative Declaration,one was a comment in opposition,and the last was a comment provided by the Sea Bluff HOA raising concerns with grading,views,and lot coverage, which Staff believes are addressed within the Staff Report. Lot 1 Residence: The HOA also raises a concern regarding the location of the residence on Lot 1,indicating that the structure should be shifted farther downslope to open the view corridor from residences in the Sea Bluff community along Beachview Drive.The proposed residence will maintain a 1O-foot setback from the northern property line,in compliance with the RS-3 development standards.It is important to note that under the current CR development standards,structures must comply with a 20-foot side yard setback.Thus,if the subject property were to be developed with a commercial structure under the CR zoning district,a structure constructed at that location under the "by-right"building height would impair the existing views.Notwithstanding,as indicated above,any view impact caused by the proposed structure on Lot 1 is allowed because the view impact falls within the allowable building height envelope. Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions have not been included with this Staff Report.Please note that Staff will provide the Planning Commission and the public with copies of the Reso!utions on the day of the meeting. CONClUS~ON ATTACHMENT 1-84 Planning Commission Staff Report Case No.SUB2008~00001 &.ZON2008m 00074 ttlru ~00078 (PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &.EA) November 10,2009 Based on the analysis above,past analyses and discussion by the Planning Commission and City Council,Staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made for all applications associated with this project.Therefore,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,and conditional approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078)for a land Use Designation change from Commercial to Residential,a Zone Change from CR to RS-3,and associated applications for a four-lot subdivision and residential project Ai..TERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1.Consider and recommend approval of a zone change to an RS-2 zoning district,as apposed to the RS-3 zoning district requested by the applicant;or, 2.Identify additional issues of concern with the proposed project,provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project,and continue the public hearing to a date certain;or, 3.Deny Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078 and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning Commission meeting with the appropriate Resolutions, Please note that this project includes a General Plan Amendment,which is not subject to the time limits established by the Permit Streamlining Act. AITACHMENTS @ P.C.Resolution Nos,2007-29,2007-30 and 2007-31,recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the previous project «l Planning Commission Minutes e City Council Minutes @ Initial Study for Environmental Assessment ~Comments in response to notice e Project Plans ATTACHMENT 1-85 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2001 M29 A RESOLUT~ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS ~N ASSOCIATION WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAllY APPROVE CASE NO.ZON2005M00536,OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT I VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.61532,COASTAL PERMIT,VARIANCE,AND GRADING PERMiT TO AllOW THE FOLLOWING:LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREAT~ONAL (CR)TO SINGLE~FAMn..y RESIDENTiAL,TWOgTO~ FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE;ZONE CHANGE FROM CR TO RSM 4;LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42gACRE lOT INTO FIVE SINGLE~FAMlly RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NONCONFORMING lOT DEPTHS RANGING FROM 91'TO 93';ALLOW GRADING PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCES ON lOTS 1 AND 2;,ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE,BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS,on July 11,2005,Dana Ireland,the Applicant,submitted a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request application,also known as Case No.ZON2005-00359, proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation to change the zoning on the subject site from the existing Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-4);and, WHEREAS,on August 10,2005,the subject GPAIR application,Case No. ZON2005-00359,was deemed complete by Staff upon submittal of the required information;and, WHEREAS,on October 4,2005,the subject GPAIR application was presented to the City Council,at which time,the City Council opined that changing the subject site's General Plan's Land Use Designation from CR to RS-4 may be conducive to making the use ofthe subject site more consistent with the adjoining Single and Multi-Family residential areas in keeping within the vision of the City's founders.The City Council moved to allow the applicant to proceed with the General Plan Amendment process by a vote of 4-0 (Councilman Clark recused himself);and, WHEREAS,on October 13,2005,the Applicant submitted applications for General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and Environmental Assessment to change the land use from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-4),to change the zoning on the subject site from CR to RS-4, ATTACHMENT 1-86 and divide the site into five single~family residential lots,henceforth known as Case No. ZON2005~00536;and, WHEREAS,on November 11,2005,November 30,2005,and March 21,2006,the applications submitted for Case No.ZON2005-00536 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,on March 23,2006,the Applicant expressed his intent to submit plans for five single-family residences on the five proposed lot division of the subject site,to be processed in conjunction with Case No.ZON2005-00536.The applications submitted are a Grading Permit application to be a part of Case No.ZON2005-00536,and Height Variation applications Case Nos.ZON2005~00178-182 for each of the five proposed lots;and, WHEREAS,on April 3,2006 and May 3,2006,the applications submitted for ZON2005-00536 and ZON2005-00178-182 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,on August 23,2006,after the submittal of all required material and the verification of silhouette construction and certification for the five proposed residences,the applications were deemed to be complete for processing;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case No.ZON2005-00536,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading,and ZON2006-00178-182,otherwise known as Height Variation applications for the five single-family residences proposed on Lots 1 through 5,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and, WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared on August 23,2006 and circulated for public review between August 23,2006 and September 25,2006;and, WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and Resolution as Exhibit "A";and, \NHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26,2006,at which time the Planning P"C.Resolution No.2007 ~29 Page:2 of 7' ATTACHMENT 1-87 Commission approved Staff's request to:review and provide comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and the Environmental Assessment;continue the public hearing meeting to November 14,2006 to review the Grading and Height Variation applications for the proposed five residences,since Staff was not able to conduct view analyses of the proposed project,which is a required component of Grading and Height Variation applications;receive any public testimony and prepare responses to comments received after the date the September 26,2006 staff report was prepared;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a pUblic hearing on November 14,2006, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.At said meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to:refine the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis by including the adjacent multi-family residential development,which was rezoned after the city incorporation to RS-4 (the Villas Apartments),and five single-family residences along Sea Cove Drive in the RS-1 zoning district (one dwelling unit per acre);provide information on the applicable "by-right"height on the subject site,be it Commercial Recreational "by-right"height or a Single-Family Residential "by-right"height;and,confirm whether any of the proposed lots are "sloping"or "pad"lots.The Planning Commission directed the Applicant to mark on each silhouette pole where the 16'~high by-right height mark is,and continued the public hearing to January 9,2007 to allow Staff and the applicant to present these findings;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9,2007 meeting,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.At that time the Applicant provided certified slope analysis performed by the Applicant's engineer,Bolton Engineering Corporation,to demonstrate that the buildable area on Lots 1,2,and 3 contain a slope greater 5%,but less than 35%,thereby establishing these lots as sloping lots entitled to 16'/30'building height envelope in the event the proposed land use change from CR to RS-4 is approved.Consequently,since the heights proposed for residences on Lots 1 and 2 are within the 16'/30'building height envelope,approval of a Height Variation application for the residences proposed on Lots 1 and 2 is no longer necessary.Therefore,Case No.ZON2006-00178 and 179 (Height Variation applications)have been omitted from the application packet (consisting of Case No.ZON2005-00536 and Case Nos.ZON2005-00178-182),and the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 were included to be a part of Case No.ZON2005-00536 as Site Plan Review applications.At the same meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to solicit the City Attorney's determination on the appropriateness of revising the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to include the eight Villas Apartment structures in the RS-4 zoning district and five single-family residences along Sea cove Drive in a RS-1 zoning district.Further,the Planning Commission instructed the Applicant to reconstruct the collapsed silhouettes of the proposed residences on lots 3,4,and 5 to ensure Staff may conduct adequate view analyses from the viewing area of 6619 Beachview Drive.The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 13,2007 to allow Staff and the Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's instructions;and, P .C.ResohJtion Noo 2001 ~29 Page:3 ofl ATTACHMENT 1-88 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a dUly noticed public hearing on March 13,2007 at w~ich time all interested parties were given opportunities to be heard and present evidence;and NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: ENWRONMENTALASSESSMENT Section 1:The sUbject applications would permit the land use change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,2-to-4 dwelling units per acre (RS-4),and zone change from CR to RS-4,the division of the existing 1.42-acre site to five single-family residential lots,and the construction offive two-story single-family residences. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the City's Coastal Specific Plan,and would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.In making this finding,the Planning Commission considered the project's mitigation measures that address the issues of Aesthetics,Air Quality,Cultural Resources,Hydrology and Water Quality,Public Services,Transportation/Traffic,and Utilities and Service Systems. Section 2:That the land use change,the creation of five single-family residential lots,and the construction of five two-story single-family residences is consistent with the type of land use and density identified in the City's General Plan,Single-Family Residential, 2-to-4 dwelling units per acre;and,as conditioned,is consistent with the City's Development Code for projects within the RS-4 zoning district,and will not significantly impact the required land use. Section...;!:,The proposed project will result in land use change from CR to RS-4, the division of five single-family residential lots,and the construction of five two-story single- family residences,when permitted and developed,will not alter the location,distribution, density,or growth rate of the human population in the area above what is forecast in adopted City plans and policies,nor will the proposed project affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing beyond what is proposed.The project will not create a significant additional demand for fire or police protection,or other governmental services. Section 4:The land use change,the division of five single-family residential lots, and the construction of five two-story residences will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract;and that the dedications required by local ordinance are shown on the Tentative Tract Map and/or are set forth in the attached conditions of approval. §.~ction 5:That the discharge of sewage from this land use change,the division of land to five single-family residential lots,and the construction of five single-family residences into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Quality Control Board. P.C.Resoh..ltion No.2007~29 Page 4,of1 ATTACHMENT 1-89 Section 6,:,The project requires 4,007 cubic yards of associated grading to prepare the site for residential development.As such,the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse effects to topography;destruction, covering,or modification of unique geologic or physical features;impacts to archeological or paleontological resources;or expose persons to seismic ground failure,landslides,or other known hazards;affect any plant or animal species or result in the removal of any sensitive Plant Life or Animal Life;or create a wasteful or inefficient use of the energy already being consumed on the site.Although on-site grading is proposed,a Geotechnical Report addressing the scope of the project grading has been conceptually approved by the City's Geotechnical Engineer in the Planning Stage,further reports will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City's Building Official and the City's Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of grading or bUilding permits.Furthermore,the Geotechnical Report shall provide the developer with applicable conditions for which the project shall be constructed,along with other conditions that the City's Building Official and the City's Geotechnical Consultant find necessary to ensure the project is constructed in a manner that does not jeopardize the pUblic's health,safety,and welfare.As such,the mitigation measures will ensure that the proposed project will not cause any significant geological impacts or other significant adverse impacts to the environment. Section i:The proposed project will not change the current,the course or the direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters,since the project site is not located in such a setting.A proposed drainage plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval pertaining to the implementation of mitigation measures that address potential impacts to water patterns.Furthermore,in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act,an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,as it pertains to implementation strategies that reduce stormwater runoff.As such,the Planning Commission finds that such conditions will ensure that water patterns will not significantly impact the surrounding environment. Section 8:That the proposed land division into five lots will not generate traffic volumes that create substantial impacts to circulation patterns,parking capacity,or traffic congestion,as discussed in the Initial Study. §ection J!~Although the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to generate noise levels uncommon to the surrounding environment,such noise will be temporary in nature and that the City has imposed conditions,in accordance with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,that limits construction between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM,Mondays through Saturdays,with no construction permitted on Sundays and legal holidays (as identified in the Municipal Code).Furthermore,mitigation measures require that all construction equipment engines be equipped with standard noise insulating features and are tuned to the manufacturers'recommendations.As such,the Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures imposed will ensure that noise levels do not adversely impact surrounding properties. p ,C,ResoButioi1 No,2001 ~29 Page,5 ofi ATTACHMENT 1-90 Section 10:In regards to aesthetics,the City's Development Code requires new residential construction to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood,as it pertains to size,mass and bulk,architectural style and front yard setbacks,in order to preserve the character of established neighborhoods.As such, mitigation measures require that the design of the residences be reviewed under the City's "Neighborhood Compatibility"analysis.As proposed,the project will not affect a scenic highway in that the proposed heights of the residences conform to the height restriction set forth in the Coastal Specific Plan or cause any other significant adverse impact to the environment Section 11:Grading of the site may cause some impacts to air quality as a result of air-borne dust particles.However,to ensure that there will be no significant impacts, mitigation measures have been added that require the applicant to take specific actions to control air-borne dust particles. Section 12:For reasons discussed in the Initial Study,which is incorporated herein by reference,the proposed project will not have any potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals,nor would the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable. Section 13~The applicant has consulted the lists prepared pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and has submitted a signed statement indicating whether the project and any alternatives are located on a site which is included on any such list, and has specified any such list The Lead Agency has consulted the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code,and has certified that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not included in these lists of known Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites as compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Section 1~:The mitigation measures setforth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit "A",attached hereto,are incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. These measures will reduce potential significant impacts identified in the Initial Study to a less than significant level. Section 15:For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study,Staff Reports, Minutes,and records of the proceedings,the Planning Commission has independently reviewed the initial stUdy and negative declaration and determined that they were prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and has determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration making certain environmental findings in association with Environment Assessment to allow the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan land use change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre,zone change from CR to RS-4,the division of the existing 1.42-acre site to five (5)single-family residential lots at a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet within the RS-4 zoning district in p ,C,ResollJt~on No,2007 ~29 Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1-91 the Coastal Zone,a variance to allow for nonconforming lot depths ranging from 91'to 93', which do not meet the minimum 100'depth requirement,and grading to accommodate the construction of the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2,and deny without prejudice the gradling proposed for the residences on lots 3,4,and 5,and the Height Variation appl cation to construct two-story single-family residences on lots 3,4,and 5,subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Exhibit "A"and the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "8"attached hereto and made a part hereof,which are necessary to protect the public health,safety,and welfare. Section 16:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision Of by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council.Pursuant to Section 17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,any such appeal must be filed with the City,in writing stating the grounds of the appeal and with the appropriate appeal fee,no later than 5:30 P.M.on May 9th ,2007. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2007 ,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Knight"l.ewis$Ruttenberg"'retreault$Vice Chair Perestam" Chair Gerstner NOES:None ABSTENTIONS:None ABSENT:Commissioner Karp Bill Gerstner Planning Commission Chairman F.Co ResohJtion No.2001 m29 Page '1 of '1 ATTACHMENT 1-92 EXHIBIT !'A'~-MITiGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENViRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT~GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO,67532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2005-0(536) Envimnmental Measure Mitigation Measures Time Frame for Responsibility Oversight for Issue Number Implementation for implementation Implementation Aesthetics Measures Aesthetics A-1 During Project City Department of Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the construction.Proponent Planning Building standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes and Code Development Code.No outdoor lighting is permitted where Enforcement (City the light source is directed toward or results in direct PBCE) illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than upon which such IiQht is physicallv located. Agriculture Resouces --No mitigation is required ------ Air Quality Measures Air Quality AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the project applicant Prior to issuance Project Director of City shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of of grading Proponent PBCE Planning,Building and Code Enforcement that dust permits. generated by grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City's Municipal Code Requirements which require watering for the control of dust. Air Quality AQ-2 During construction,all grading activities shall cease during During Project CityPBCE periods of high winds,Le.,greater than 30 mph.to assure construction.Proponent compliance with this measure,grading activities are subject to periodic inspection by City Staff. Air Quality AQ-3 The project applicant shall provide the Director of PBCE with During all site Project Director of City weekly certification that all construction equipment are fitted preparation,Proponent P8CE with emission control devices and kept in proper tune.grading and construction. Biological Resources Measures --No mitigation is required ------ Resolution No.2007 m29 Page 1 of6ATTACHMENT 1-93 EXHIBIT IIAU -MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.67532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2005a 00536) Environmsi"!tal Measure Mitigation Measures Time Frame for Responsibility Oversight for Issue Number Implementation for implementation ImDlemei"!tatlon Cultural Resources Measures Cultural CR-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall Prior to issuance Project City PBCE Resources retain a qualified paleontologist and/or archaeologist to of grading Proponent conduct and submit proof of survey of archaeological permits. records of the subject site.In the event buried cultural resources are identified and encountered during grading, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitioation measures. Geoloav &Soils --No mitioation is required ------ Hazards &Hazardous Materials --No mitiaation is reauired.------ land Use Planning No mitiaation is reauired. Mineral Resources --No mitiaation is required.------ Noise --No mitiqation is required.------ Population &Housing No mitiaation is required. Recreation --No mitiaation is required.------ Public Services Measures Public Services PS-1 As there is no park or recreational facility designated in the Prior to Final Project County of Los general plan to be located in whole or in part within the Map.Proponent Angeles Fire proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future Department needs of the residents of the subdivision,the project applicant shall,in lieu of dedicating land,pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 16.20.100.0 and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.20.100.G. Resolution No.2007 ~29 Page 2 ciSATTACHMENT 1-94 EXHIBIT !lA'j -MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.67532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.2:0N2005000(536) Environmenta!Measure Mitigation Measures Time Frame for Responsibility Oversight for issue Number implementation for Implementation implementation Transportation/Circulation Measures Transportation/T-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project,the Prior to the Project City Public Works Circulation project applicant shall prepare a haul route plan for approval issuance of a Proponent Department by the City's Public Works Department.The project grading permit. applicant shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil away from the proiect site. Utilities and Service Svstems Measures Utilities and U &US1 Prior to approval of the Final Map by the City,and SUbject to Prior to project Project CityPBCE Service the review and approval of the Director of Planning,Building approval.Proponent Systems and Code Enforcement,the project applicant shall provide evidence that they have received confirmation from the California Water Service Company that current water supplies are adequate to serve the proposed proiect. Utilities and U&US2 The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans Prior to Project City PBCE Service and specifications for all proposed homes shall include the construction.Proponent Systems following interior water conservation measures for the following plumbing devices and appliances: 1.Reduce water pressure to 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. 2.Install water-conserving clothes washer. 3.Install water-conserving dishwashers and/or spray emitters that are retrofitted to reduce flow. 4.Install one-and one-half gallon,ultra-low flush toilets. Resolution No.2007 ~29 Page 3 of6ATTACHMENT 1-95 EXHIBIT uAn -MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT~GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT~ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO"61532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2005~O(536) Envimnml:mtal IMeasure issue Number Utilities and I U &US3 Service Systems Mitigation Measures I Time Frame for implementation Landscaping and irrigation plans for the public and private Prior to the open space shall be submitted by the project applicant and issuance of approved by the Director of PBCE,prior to the issuance of building permits. building permits.Said plans shall incorporate,at a minimum,the following water conservation measures: 1.Extensive use of native plant materials. 2.Low water-demand plants. 3.Minimum use of lawn or,when used,installation of warm season grasses. 4.Grouped plants of similar water demand to reduce over-irrigation of low water demand plants. 5.Extensive use of mulch in all landscaped areas to improve the soil's water-holding capacity. 6.Drip irrigation,soil moisture sensors,and automatic irrigation systems. 7.Use of reclaimed wastewater,stored rainwater or grey water for irrigation. Responsibility for Implementation Project Proponent Oversight for Implementation City PBCE Resolution No.2007 ~29 Page 4.af6ATTACHMENT 1-96 EXHIBIT IIA"-MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.67532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2005u 0(536) Environmental I Measure I Mitigation Measures I Time Frame for issue Number Implementation Water Resources Measures Water I H &WQ1 I Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Prior to the Resources Building and Safety Departments and prior to the issuance issuance of of grading permits,the project applicant shall submit a grading permits. stormwater management plan which shows the on-site and off-site stormwater conveyance systems that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying stormwater off the project site.These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County department of Public Works to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained.The plan shall also show whether existing stormwater facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows and what additional improvements to these existing facilities are required by the project applicant to ensure these facilities will be adequate to meet the needs of this project.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the proposed residences,the project applicant shall install/improve such facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Building Official. Water I H &WQ2 I Further,the project shall be required with regard to I Prior to site Resources compliance requirements with the statewide National grading. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity which would prevent storm water pollution from impacting waters of the U.S.in the vicinity of the proiect site. Water I H &WQ3 lin accordance with the Clean Water Act,the project Prior to the Resources applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality issuance of Control Board (RWQCB)regarding the required National grading permits Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for and during the project.The project applicant shall obtain this permit construction. and provide the City with proof of the permit before any site grading begins. Responsibility for tation Project Proponent Project Proponent Project Proponent Oversight for implementation City Public Works and BUilding and Safety Departments RWQCB City Engineer Resolution No.2007 ~29 Page 5 of6ATTACHMENT 1-97 EXHIBIT "A"-MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.67532,AND COASTAL PERMIT (CASE NO.ZON2005~0(536) Environmental Measure Mitigation Measures Time Frame for Responsibility -oversight-ror issue Number Implementation for Implementation implementation Water H&WQ4 Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP),including Prior to site Project RWQCB Resources sandbags shall be used by the project applicant to help grading.Proponent control runoff from the project site during project construction activities.Measures to be used shall be approved by the City Engineer before a Grading Permit is issued for the project. Resolution No.2007 n29 Page 6 of6ATTACHMENT 1-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNC~L CONDITIONAllY APPROVE CASE NO.ZON2005a005367 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT7 ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE fOLLOWING:LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL RECREAT~ONAL(CR)TO SINGLE~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,TWOaTOaFOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; ZONE CHANGE FROM CR TO RSa4,ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE,BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS,on July 11,2005,Dana Ireland,the Applicant,submitted a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request application,Case No.ZON2005-00359,proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Coastal Specific Plan land Use Designation to change the zoning for the subject site from the existing Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-4);and, WHEREAS,on August 10,2005,the subject GPAIR application for Case No. ZON2005-00359 was deemed complete by Staff upon submittal of the required information; and, WHEREAS,on October 4,2005,the subject GPAIR application was presented to the City Council,at which time,the City Council opined that changing the subject site's General Plan's Land Use Designation from CR to RS-4 may be conducive to making the use of the subject site more consistent with the adjoining Single and Multi-Family residential areas in keeping within the vision of the City's founders.The City Council moved to allow the applicant to proceed with the General Plan Amendment process by a vote of 4-0 (Councilman Clark recused himself);and, WHEREAS,on October 13,2005,the Applicant submitted applications for General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and Environmental Assessment to change the land use from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-4),to change the zoning on the subject site from CR to RS-4, and divide the site into five single-family residential lots,henceforth known as Case No. ZON2005-00536;and, WHEREAS,on November 11,2005,November 30,2005,and March 21,2006,the applications submitted for Case No.ZON2005-00536 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,on March 23,2006,the Applicant expressed his intent to submit plans for five single~family residences on the five proposed lot division of the subject site,to be processed in conjunction with Case No.ZON2005-00536.As such,the Applicant submitted a Grading Permit application to be a part of Case No.ZON2005-00536 and Height Variation applications Case Nos.ZON2005-00178-182;and, ATTACHMENT 1-99 WHEREAS,on April 3,2006 and May 3,2006,the applications submitted for ZON2005-00536 and ZON2005-00178....182 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, WHEREAS,on August 23,2006,after the submittal of all required material and the verification of silhouette construction and certification for the five proposed residences,the . applications were deemed to be complete for processing;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et-seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case No.ZON2005-00536,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading,and ZON2006-00178-182,otherwise known as Height Variation applications for the five single-family residences proposed on lots 1 through 5,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and, WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared on August 23,2006 and circulated for public review between August 23,2006 and September 25,2006;and, WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and Resolution as Exhibit "A";and, WHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26,2006,at which time the Planning Commission approved Staff's request to:review and provide comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and the Environmental Assessment;continue the public hearing meeting to November 14,2006 to review the Grading and Height Variation applications for the proposed five residences,since Staff was not able to conduct view analyses of the proposed project,which is a required component of Grading and Height Variation applications;receive any public testimony and prepare responses to comments received after the date the September 26,2006 staff report was prepared;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14,2006, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present poe,Resolution No,2007~30 Page:2 of 5ATTACHMENT 1-100 eVid,nce,At said meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to:refine the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis by including the adjacent multi-family residential development,which was rezoned after the city incorporation to RS-4 (the Villas Aparftments),and five single-family residences along Sea Cove Drive in the RS-'\zoning district (one dwelling unit per acre);provide information on the applicable "by-right"height on the subject site,be it Commercial Recreational "by-right"height or a Single-Family Residential "by-right"height;and,confirm whether any of the proposed lots are "sloping"or "pad"lots.The Planning Commission directed the Applicant to mark on each silhouette pole where the 16'-high by-right height mark is,and continued the pUblic hearing to January 9,2007 to allow Staff and the applicant to present these findings;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9,2007 meeting,at which time ail interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.At that time the Applicant provided certified slope analysis performed by the Applicant's engineer,Bolton Engineering Corporation,to demonstrate that the buildable area on Lots 1,2,and 3 contain a slope greater 5%,but less than 35%,thereby establishing these lots as sloping lots entitled to 16'/30'building height envelope in the event the proposed land use change from CR to RS-4 is approved.Consequently,since the heights proposed for residences on Lots 1 and 2 are within the 16'/30'building height envelope,approval of a Height Variation application for the residences proposed on Lots 1 and 2 is no longer necessary.Therefore,Case No.ZON2006-00178 and 179 (Height Variation applications)have been omitted from the application packet (consisting of Case No,ZON2005-00536 and Case Nos.ZON2005-00178-182),and the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 were included to be a part of Case Noo ZON2005-00536 as Site Plan Review applications,At the same meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to solicit the City Attorney's determination on the appropriateness of revising the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to include the eight Villas Apartment structures in the RS-4 zoning district and five single-family residences along Seacove Drive in a RS-1 zoning district Further,the Planning Commission instructed the Applicant to reconstruct the collapsed silhouettes of the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 to ensure Staff may conduct adequate view analyses from the viewing area of 6619 Beachview Drive"The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 13,2007 to allow Staff and the Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's instructions;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 13,2007 at which time all interested parties were given opportunities to be heard and present evidence;and NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FiND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Section 1:The existing 1.42-acre site as a CR lot does not meet the minimum development standards to support by-right uses and uses permitted with a Conditional Use Permit Examples of by-right uses include,but are not limited to,recycling centers and p.e,Reso~ution No.2007~30 Page:3 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1-101 commercial filming or photography and examples permitted with a CUP include,bed and breakfast inns,churches,golf courses,etc.The subject lot abuts a golf course to the west and single and multi-family residences to the far north,far south,and direct east.Changing the land use of the site to single-family residential is conducive to keeping the site more consistent with the adjoining residential area,and thus is consistent with the General Plan and is in the public's interest.Furthermore,pursuant to the Development Code,a CR lot must be at least 20-acres in size,with a minimum width of 250'and a minimum depth of 400'.The subject lot contains a depth ranging from 91'to 93'and an average width of 655'. The deficient size inhibits proper development of any identified CR uses and is more appropriate for a residential zoning district instead. Section 2:The subject lot requires access from the adjoining residential streets (Beachview Drive and Sea Cove Drive).A single-family residential use on-site is anticipated to have less impact on the adjacent residential properties in terms of traffic, light,and noise pollution than a commercial recreational use.Hence,a single-family residential use is more compatible with the existing residential neighborhood and is in the public's interest,thereby maintaining consistency with the General Plan. ZONE CHANGE Section 3:In order to bring the zoning in compliance with the proposed General Plan Land Use Designation,the project warrants the subsequent change of the site's zoning designation from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-4 (Single~Family Residential, two~to-four dwelling units per acre).By changing the zoning,the land use on the subject site would be consistent with the adjacent residential areas and the General Plan. CO.ASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Section 4:With respect to CR development on the subject site,the City's Coastal Specific Plan advises against the utilization of Nantasket Drive for access since the road was designed as a residential street and commercial traffic would,in all likelihood,cause significant problems for the adjacent residential development.It is not likely that access to the subject site would be provided through the adjoining Terranea Resort Hotel property. ~ection 5:The City's Coastal Specific Plan warns of potentially adverse impacts resulting from a CR development on the adjacent residential developments in Subregion 3. A single-family residential use on the subject site is a generally less intensive use of the subject site than were it developed a commercial recreational lot,when considering traffic, noise,and light pollution generated from on-site.Further,residential development on-site would be aesthetically compatible with the existing residential uses in the adjacent area. The site being developed as a commercial filming site,a recycling facility,a helistop,or a small hotel,for instance,would further erode the character of the neighborhood,which is surrounded by single and multi-family residences. §$ection 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study,Staff Reports, P J;,Resoiutkm No,2007 M30 Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1-102 Minutes,and records of the proceedings,the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan land use change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to- four dwelling units per acre,and zone change from CR to RS-4,subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained in Exhibit "A"and the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "8"attached hereto and made a part hereof,which are necessary to protect the public health,safety,and welfare. PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2007 ,by the following vote: AYES:Commissioners Knight~Lens"Ru.ttenberg"Tetreau.lt"Vice Chair Perestam Chair Gerstner NOES:None ABSTENTIONS:None ABSENT:Commissioner Karp Bill erstner Planning Commission Chairman p .c.Reso~utlon No.2001 ~30 Page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT 1-103 P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2001~31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 61532,COASTAL PERMIT,VARIANCE,AND GRADING PERMIT TO ALLOW THE FOLLOWING:A LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42~ACRE LOT INTO FIVE (5)SINGLE~FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NONCONFORMING LOT DEPTHS RANGING FROM 91'TO 93';ALLOW GRADING PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCES ON LOTS 1 AND 2;AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE,GRADING PROPOSED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENCES PROPOSED ON lOTS 3,4,AND 5;AND DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE,CASE NOS.ZON2006~00180-182, ALSO KNOWN AS HEIGHT VARIATION APPLICATIONS FOR THE RESIDENCES PROPOSED ON LOTS 3,4,AND 5,ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE, BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS,on July 11,2005,Dana Ireland,the Applicant,submitted a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request application,Case No.ZON2005-00359,proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation and Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation to change the zoning for the subject site from the existing Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,2-to-4 dwelling units per acre (RS-4);and, WHEREAS,on August 10,2005,the subject GPAIR application for Case No. ZON2005-00359 was deemed complete by Staff upon submittal of the required information; and, WHEREAS,on October 4,2005,the subject GPAIR application was presented to the City Council,at which time,the City Council opined that changing the subject site's General Plan's Land Use Designation from CR to RS-4 may be conducive to making the use of the subject site more consistent with the adjoining Single and Multi-Family residential areas in keeping within the vision of the City's founders.The City Council moved to allow the applicant to proceed with the General Plan Amendment process by a vote of 4-0 (Councilman Clark recused himself,citing his friendship with the Applicant);and, WHEREAS,on October 13,2005,the Applicant submitted applications for General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and Environmental Assessment to change the land use from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre (RS-4),to change the zoning on the subject site from CR to RS-4, and divide the site into five single-family residential lots,henceforth known as Case No. ZON2005-00536;and, WHEREAS,on November 11,2005,November 30,2005,and March 21,2006,the applications submitted for Case No.ZON2005-00536 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and, ATTACHMENT 1-104 WHEREAS,on March 23,2006,the Applicant submitted Grading Permit and Height Variation applications referred to as Case Nos.ZON2005-00178 through ZON2005-00182, expressing his intent to submit plans for five single-family residences on the five proposed lot division of the subject site,to be processed in conjunction with Case No.ZON2005- 00536;and, WHEREAS,on April 3,2006 and May 3,2006,the applications submitted for ZON2005-00536 and ZON2005-00178-182 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information and the construction of required project silhouettes;and, WHEREAS,on August 23,2006,after the submittal of all required material and the verification of silhouette construction and certification for the five proposed residences,the applications were deemed to be complete for processing;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement},the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case No.ZON2005-00536,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading,and ZON2006-00178-182,otherwise known as Height Variation applications for the five single-family residences proposed on Lots 1 through 5,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given in the manner required by law;and, WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared on August 23,2006 and circulated for public review between August 23,2006 and September 25,2006;and, WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and Resolution as Exhibit "A";and, WHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 26,2006,at which time the Planning Commission approved Staff's request to:review and provide comment on the proposed General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532,Coastal Permit,Variance,and the Environmental Assessment;continue the public hearing meeting to November 14,2006,to review the Grading and Height Variation applications for the proposed five residences,since Staff was not able to conduct view analyses of the proposed project,which is a required component P.c.Reso~utlon No.2007 w 31 Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-105 of Grading and Height Variation applications;receive any public testimony and prepare responses to comments received after the date the September 26,2006 staff report was prepared;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 14,2006, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.At said meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to:refine the Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis by including the adjacent multi-family residential development,which was rezoned after the City's incorporation to RS-4 (the Villas Apartments),and five single-family residences along Sea Cove Drive in the RS-1 zoning district (one dwelling unit per acre);provide information on the applicable "by-right"height on the subject site,be it Commercial Recreational "by-right"height or a Single-Family Residential "by-right"height;and,confirm whether any of the proposed lots are "sloping"or "PGld"lots.The Planning Commission directed the Applicant to mark on each silhouette pole where the 16'-high by-right height mark is,and continued the public hearing to January 9,2007,to allow Staff and the applicant to present these findings;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 9,2007 meeting,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.At that time the Applicant provided certified slope analysis performed by the Applicant's engineer,Bolton Engineering Corporation,to demonstrate that the buildable area on Lots 1,2,and 3 contain a slope greater 5%,but less than 35%,thereby establishing these lots as sloping lots entitled to 16'/30'building height envelope in the event the proposed land use change from CR to RS-4 is approved.Consequently,since the heights proposed for residences on Lots 1 and 2 are within the 16'/30'building height envelope,approval of a Height Variation application for the residences proposed on Lots 1 and 2 is no longer necessary.Therefore,Case No.ZON2006-00178 and 179 (Height Variation applications)have been omitted from the application packet (consisting of Case No.ZON2005-00536 and Case Nos.ZON2005-00178-182).At the same meeting,the Planning Commission directed Staff to solicit the City Attorney's determination on the appropriateness of revising the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to include the eight Villas Apartment structures in the RS-4 zoning district and five single-family residences along Seacove Drive in a RS-1 zoning district as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis for this application.Further,the Planning Commission instructed the Applicant to reconstruct the collapsed silhouettes of the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 to ensure Staff may conduct adequate view analyses from the viewing area of 6619 Beachview Drive.The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to March 13, 2007,to allow Staff and the Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission's instructions;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 13,2007,at which time all interested parties were given opportunities to be heard and present evidence.At the meeting,the Planning Commission made a determination that the subject site is an in-fill site surrounded by different land uses,such as the Terranea Resort Hotel,the nonconforming multi-family residential Villas Apartment,single-family residences in an RS-1 and RS-4 zoning districts,and,therefore,is a neighborhood unto itself;and F\Co Resolution No,2007~31 Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-106 NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALFS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.67532.Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67532 to allow for a division of the subject 1.42-acre lot into five (5)single-family residential lots for the following reasons: A.In the event the proposed General Plan Land Use change from Commercial Recreational to Single-Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre and zone change from CR to RS-4 is approved by the City Council,the subject site shall be located in an RS-4 zoning district.The existing vacant land designated in this density range has low to moderate physical and social constraints,and the proposed density is compatible with the adjacent existing densities. 8.The subject application would permit the division of a 1.42-acre lot into five (5)residential lots.The proposed lots will maintain a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum contiguous lot area of 3,300 square feet,as required by the City's Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the designated RS-4 zoning district. C.The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed project and density of development in that the proposed subdivision will result in five residential lots that will each have a gross lot area that exceeds the 10,000 square foot minimum area required by the City's Development Code for the RS-4 zoning district.Further,the proposed lots will exceed the minimum 3,300 square feet of contiguous land requirement.The proposed contiguous lot area of each lot will be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards set forth in the City's Development Code for an RS-4 zoning district,as it pertains to structure size,lot coverage,and setbacks. D.The proposed division of land will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. According to the City's most recent Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP),no Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the subject property.Further,the proposed Initial Study determined that the potential impacts to the surrounding environment would not result in a significant effect that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the appropriate mitigation measures. E.The proposed division of land will not cause serious public health problems.The proposed residences will have to be constructed in p.e,Resolution No.2001~31 Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-107 conformance with the recommendations of the City's Geotechnical Consultant who has reviewed the proposed division of land site plan during the planning stage and identified no significant concerns at this time.Further review of geotechnical reports will be required prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time the lots are developed. Additionally,the applicant will also be required to make certain public improvements to ensure that the residential development will not be detrimental to the public's health and safety as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,Exhibit "A",attached hereto,and incorporated into the scope of the proposed project. F.The proposed division of the land will not be in conflict with the easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.Inasmuch as the applicant was successful in eliminating two (2)60'-wide access easements on the northernmost end and the southernmost end of the subject site under the ownership of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District with a quitclaim deed,and the applicant's request for the City's 30'wide access easement on the northernmost end of the lot (overlapping said PVPUSD easement)to be quitclaimed must be approved by the City Council prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Section 2:Coastal Permit.Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Coastal Permit to allow for a division of the subject 1.42-acre lot into five (5)single-family residential lots and the construction of a single-family residence on each of the lots to be created for the following reason: A.The proposed project,when located between the sea and the first public road,is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.The proposed land use change and the division of land to five single-family residential lots are confined to the property limits and will not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea.This notwithstanding,the applicant is not required to provide access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast because there exists a trail,proposed to traverse the subject site,from north to south, that will be constructed and maintained by the Terranea Hotel Resort property.Further,the proposed development of residences on the lots is not anticipated to interfere with the existing unique water-oriented activities,such as the Point Vicente Fishing Point or other recreational uses,which can be engaged in near the shoreline. Section 3:Variance.Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Variance to allow for a division of the SUbject 1.42-acre lot into P.C,Resolution No,2007~31 Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-108 five (5)single-family residential lots with nonconforming lot depths ranging from 91'to 93' for the following reasons: A.There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved,or to the intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district to warrant an approval of a variance to allow for nonconforming lot depths ranging from 91'to 93',which do not meet the 100' minimum requirement for RS-4 lots.The subject site has had a nonconforming lot depth upon its creation by the City.Further,the reduced lot depth of up to 10' will cause little if no impact than what the preexisting CR zone would have caused due to its nonconformity. B.Granting the variance for these five lots to be created with nonconforming lot depths will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the area since a residential development will bring compatibility to the existing residential use in the adjoining area and will allow the lots to take access directly from the existing residential street,as do other lots in the neighborhood.Moreover,the City's Geologist has reviewed and approved the geotechnical reports that support development of the subject property. C.The approval of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.The approval of a variance is required for the division of five single-family residential lots with nonconforming lot depths ranging from 91'to 93',which do not comply with the minimum 100'depth requirement,to occur,so that these lots can take access directly from Nantasket Drive like other lots in the vicinity of the subject property. The applicant has demonstrated that with the exception of the nonconforming lot depth,the proposed division of land satisfies the minimum contiguous lot area, minimum lot size,and minimum lot width requirements. D.Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan.The division of the existing 1.42-acre site to five single-family residential lots is consistent with the proposed residential land use designation,since the City's Development Code allows for division of land,provided that such proposal meets the minimum conditions as warranted by the Subdivision Ordinance and the City's Development Code.Further,the division of five single-family residential lots is consistent with General Plan Housing Policy No.3 to "[encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all eXisting residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." Section 4:Grading Permit -Lots 1 and 2.Subject to approval of the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,and Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission hereby recommends the approval of the Grading Permit to allow for construction of the two-story residences on Lots 1 and 2 for the following reasons: P,C,Resolution No.2007~31 Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-109 A.The grading proposed does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.The subject lots are proposed to be terraced to accommodate the construction of the proposed residences.The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the proposed permitted primary residential uses of these lots,since a single-family residence is classified as a permitted primary use in the RS-4 zoning district. B.The proposed grading and/or related construction will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,or the views from the "viewing area"of neighboring parcels.Although the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 will be placed on filled portions of respective lots,the heights of the resulting residences will not exceed the by-right height building height envelope,Le.,the proposed residences will be constructed entirely within the 16'/30'building height envelope on sloping lots.Therefore,no portion of the residences on Lots 1 and 2 warrant view analysis to be conducted. C.The nature of proposed grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours so that they will be reasonably natural.The existing contours of the project site are not the original natural contours,partly as the result of past farming on the subject site until the late 1980s.The subject site is a gently sloping lot with steeper slopes around the front edge of the lot.The subject lot is proposed to be re-contoured in a manner to minimize change to the existing contours. D.The grading proposed takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man- made or manufactured slope into natural topography.The existing "natural" contours of the project site are partly the result of human alteration in the past. Thus,there are no significant natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading. E.The proposed grading is associated with the construction of residences on these lots;therefore,a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis of the proposed residences is warranted.For the purposes of conducting a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis,the Planning Commission recognized that the subject site is an in-fill parcel which is surrounded by eclectic land uses,such as single- family residences developed as a planned unit development (PUD),multi-family residential apartment (MR)which was later rezoned as single-family residential, the Terranea Hotel Resort site,and the single-family residences in another zoning district (RS-1).The Planning Commission opined that the proposed five residences neither match nor do they substantially deviate from the eclectic composition of the area adjacent to the subject site.Hence,the Planning Commission determined that the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2,which measure in size 6,734 square feet and 6,762 square feet,respectively,are compatible with the immediate neighborhood,regardless of whether said P.C.Resolution No,2007~31 Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-110 neighborhood is the mix of all the eclectic land uses described above or whether the proposed five-lot subdivision is considered as its own neighborhood. The proposed lot coverage ranges from 45%to 46%,which includes the building footprint (including the garage)and driveway,which is less than the Development Code's limitation of 50%. From the street of access (Nantasket Drive),the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2 appear to be one-story,except at the southern end of each lot,where the proposed lower floor is visible.From the rear of these proposed lots,a full two- story is visible;as such,bulk and mass have been mitigated for the residences proposed on Lots 1 and 2. F.The proposed grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because the subject site contains little vegetation,no natural landscape,and no wildlife habitat,based on the City's most recent Natural Communities Conservation Plan. G.As proposed,the grading proposed on Lots 1 and 2 exceed the applicable standards pertaining to height of cut and fill,which,except for the excavation of basement or cellar,limits the height of cut and fill to 5':the proposed 5.8'high cut on Lot 1 and the 6.1'high fill on Lots 1 and 2 are not proposed for the excavation of a basement or cellar.However,the Planning Commission may grant an approval of a Grading Permit for development in excess of that permissible in the development code provided that a departure from the standards will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity.The Planning Commission determined that grading the pad to construct residences on Lots 1 and 2 so that only the substantial portion of the upper floor is visible from the street of access is similar to the manner in which the residences on Channelview Drive have been constructed,and,therefore,found the proposed grading on Lots 1 and 2 to be comparable to the manner in which other single-family residences in the immediate neighborhood,specifically Channelview Drive residences on the seaward side,have been constructed. Section 5:Grading Permit -Lots 3,4,and 5.The Planning Commission hereby denies without prejudice the Grading Permit to allow for the construction of single-family residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 on the subject site.Of the nine (9)required findings of the Grading Permit,the Planning Commission finds that the proposed residences on Lots 3,4, and 5 satisfy all findings detailed in Section 2 of this resolution,except for one (1)finding- the Neighborhood Compatibility finding (Finding No.5).The Planning Commission identified the following factors as contributing to the apparent bulk and mass of the homes proposed on Lots 3,4,and 5,which therefore,make the construction related to the proposed grading on lots 3,4 and 5 incompatible with the immediate neighborhood: p.e.Resolution No.2(U)7~31 Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-111 A.The proposed entry tower on Lots 3,4,and 5 exacerbates the appearance of bulk,and,therefore,should be eliminated; B.The proposed roof height on the south half of the residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 is excessive and should be reduced by one (1)foot or 16 inches to mitigate the excessive height; C.The tall height of the chimneys that are proposed contributes to the vertical mass of the structures on Lots 3,4,and 5.The height of the chimneys should be reduced so as to not exceed the minimum height allowed by the Uniform Building Code; D.The proposed columns on either side of the entry in the front of the residence do not seem to blend in with the rest of the design for the residence on Lot 4,and should be eliminated;and, E.The southeast portion of the residence on Lot 5 that contains a gable roof element,Le.,containing the kitchen area on the lower floor and the master bath and wardrobe area on the upper floor,results in a massive wall as seen from the street of access and should be revised to contain a hip roof instead to mitigate the massive appearance. Section 6:Height Variation -Lots 3,4,and 5.The Planning Commission hereby denies without prejudice the Height Variation application for the single-family residences proposed on Lots 3,4,and 5.The Planning Commission finds that the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 satisfy eight (8)of the nine (9)required findings of the Height Variation application,except for the Neighborhood Compatibility finding (Finding No. 8),because the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 do not satisfy the Neighborhood Compatibility finding (Finding No.8),as discussed in Section 5 above,since the proposed residences were found to contain bulk and mass,thereby deviating from the character of the immediate neighborhood. Section 7:For the foregoing reasons and based on its independent review and evaluation of the information and findings contained in the Initial Study,Staff Reports, Minutes,and records of the proceedings,the Planning Commission has determined that the project,as conditioned and mitigated,will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow for the division of the existing 1.42-acre site to five (5)single-family residential lots at a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet within the RS-4 zoning district in the Coastal Zone,a Variance to allow for nonconforming lot depths ranging from 91'to 93',which do not meet the minimum 100'depth requirement,and a Grading Permit to accommodate the construction of the proposed residences on Lots 1 and 2,subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit "A"attached hereto and made a part hereof,which are necessary to protect the public health,safety,and welfare. Further,the Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Grading Permit and Height Variation applications for the proposed residences on Lots 3,4,and 5. P,C,Resolution No,2007~31 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-112 PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 24th day of April 2007 ,by the following votej AYES:Commissioners L.ight~Lewis •.Ruttenberg.Tetreault.Vice Chair Perestam. Chair Gerstner NOES:None ABSTENTIONS:Harle ABSENT:Commi.sslioner Karp Bill Gerstner Planning Commission Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement;and,Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C.Reso~ution No.2007~31 Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-113 Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that he would like to know exactly what wall is built on the property and the height of that wall from the footing up, and by doing so staff will be able to determine exactly how much fill was placed around that wall. Vice Chairman Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to November 28, 2006 to allow staff to respond to the questions raised by the Planning Commission regarding the walls built on the property, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). RECESS AND RECONVENE At 10:00 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 10:10 p.m. at which time they reconvened. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) Commissioner Karp noted that this item will most likely go well after 11:00 and questioned if the Planning Commission should vote now on whether or not to hear new business after 11:00, as per the Planning Commission rules. He noted that there are audience members waiting regarding Agenda Item No. 5. The Planning Commission discussed whether or not to suspend the rules, and the applicant for Agenda Item No. 5 expressed the opinion that they would rather continue the item to a future meeting rather than wait until well after 11:00 for their item to be heard. Commissioner Karp moved to not take any new business after 11:00 p.m., as per the Planning Commission rules, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Variance, Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 and ZON2005- 00178): Nantasket Drive Commissioner Perestam noted that he knows the proposed builder for this project, however he does not feel that will be a problem in his decision regarding the project. Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project and the need for the various applications. She reviewed the Initial Study and the subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared, noting that staff felt the potential impacts were either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificant provided that the appropriate mitigation measures are imposed on the project. She described the unimproved site and gave a history of the site. She stated that staff determined the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the residential land use would not be contrary to the goals and policies of the Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-114 General Plan. She also stated that staff determined the proposed rezoning of the site would be consistent with the existing surrounding uses, and therefore staff determined the rezoning would be appropriate. Regarding the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, she discussed the various concerns in the Coastal Specific Plan and stated that staff was able to support the proposed amendment. She also noted that staff determined all necessary findings could be made with regards to the Tentative Tract Map, as well as the Variance. She explained that staff is omitting any discussion on the Height Variation and Grading Permit, as staff was not able to conduct any view analysis in the last month. She stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission review and provide comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Variance and continue the meeting to November 14th to review the proposed Height Variation and Grading Permit. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned, on page 15 of the staff report, why staff chose to use the CR zoning when analyzing the Variance, rather than the proposed residential zoning. Associate Planner Sohn explained that staff was trying to show that, as existing, the property is in contradiction to the General Plan. Commissioner Ruttenberg felt that the analysis for the Variance should be consistent with the other analysis done throughout the staff report, which was based on a residential zoning. Director Rojas agreed, noting that staff will come back with a new analysis for the Variance. Commissioner Tetreault stated that, per the staff report, the lot is sub-standard for residential as it does not have the 100 foot lot depth for an RS4 zoning, and asked if it is a buildable lot. Associate Planner Sohn answered that it is a buildable lot, as each of the lots proposed contain the minimum contiguous lot area and meet the minimum size and width requirements. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland 1 Sea Cove Drive (applicant) distributed information regarding bulk and mass to the Planning Commission that he felt may help them during his discussion of the project. He discussed the Coastal Specific Plan and the subregions found within the Plan and the designated uses, stressing the amount of public access and trails throughout the different subregions. He explained that in order for the Planning Commission to grant a zone change, three findings must be made. He stated that the first finding is that there is a change in street access, and displayed a photograph that depicted the parcel and access to that parcel through residential neighborhoods. He Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1-115 stated that the second finding is that the new zoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning, and showed how the surrounding neighborhoods are zoned RS4 and RS1. He stated that the final finding is timing of development, explaining that the intent of the finding was to not change the zoning until it was known what would be developed in the surrounding areas. He stated that it is well known what is being proposed at the former Marineland site. He therefore felt he meets all three findings necessary in the Code to grant a zone change. He displayed a drawing showing the five lots and how the proposed houses would fit on each lot. He stated that a lot of time has gone into designing the project in a way that will fit into the existing neighborhoods without presenting a lot of bulk and mass from the street. Juan-Carols Monnaco 6619 Beachview Drive stated he was opposed to the project, as it will cause a complete obstruction of the view that he currently enjoys. He stated it will also greatly affect the value of his property Commissioner Tetreault stated that when he was visiting the site he recognized that there would be a view impact to this residence, and noted that he would very much like to visit the property to see what that view impact will be. Mr. Monnaco stated that he will be available for any of the Planning Commissioners to view the proposed project from his property. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Monnaco if realized that if this land is rezoned and the houses are kept at a height of 16 feet, that s a permitted by right use of the land, and asked Mr. Monnaco if he was suggesting the City not rezone the property. Mr. Monnaco answered that he was aware of the 16 foot by right height, and he was opposing this project based on land use and height. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Monnaco, if the zoning isn’t changed on the property, what would he reasonably expect to be put on that land. Mr. Monnaco answered that he would like to see something that is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He stated that he would rather the land remain zoned CR and wait until a new proposal for the land use is made and address his concerns at that time. Commissioner Ruttenberg explained to Mr. Monnaco that the City is very protective of views and there are ordinances in place to protect views, however there are some views that are not protected, and that is why it is very important for the Planning Commissioners to visit his property. Mr. Monnaco agreed, noting that his concern is his view and his opposition to the change of the land use. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1-116 Michael Woodward 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, stated that he is an attorney representing the property company. He asked to distribute photographs taken from various homes in the community illustrating the view impacts of the proposed homes. He began by stating the agenda description of houses 25.4 feet high, which does not conform to the application materials or the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which says 26 feet high. He questioned the staff report which states the application is “generally complete”, asking what “generally complete” means. Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration, he felt there are certain categories covered by CEQA that should be addressed in connection even with the General Plan Amendment. He stated that these include policies related to view that are in the General Plan and in the Coastal Specific Plan, noting that his specific questions are included in the letter that is in the staff report. He hoped that when the Planning Commission discusses the General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan amendment, and zone change, they also consider the bulk and mass and view impacts in connection with that discussion. He felt that trying to separate the physical aspects of the project from the land use and zoning aspects is a bit disconnected and it should all be considered together. He stated that he hasn’t done much of a view analysis yet, however he has identified approximately 33 units on Nantasket Drive whose views will be affected by this proposed development. He noted that the Code says if the property is being graded, there is no 16-foot by right height limit on the property, and that on a commercially zoned property any development over 16 feet in height must apply for a Variance. He felt the proposed houses are way out of scale, more like mansions at nearly 7,000 square feet, than simple single-family residences. Commissioner Tetreault referred to the photographs taken from the different properties in regards to views, and stated that it would be helpful to specify over which lot or lots these apartment look out over. Chairman Knight asked staff how the Code addresses protecting views from apartments. Director Rojas explained that the finding is whether the project impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel. He stated that staff will have to consult with the City Attorney on what that means in regards to apartments. Matt Novobilski, Pacific Property Company, Irvine explained they are the new owners of the Villas Apartments, and that his comments and concerns are from a financial standpoint. He stated that the views from many of the apartments on Nantasket Drive will be seriously impacted or eliminated due to this project and that the financial impact to the complex will be significant. He stated that this property gets premium pricing because of the views, and if the views are taken away the property will not get premium pricing. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Novobilski if a financial analysis has been done taking into account the building of a commercial type use on the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 15 ATTACHMENT 1-117 Mr. Novobilski answered that he has not done one for a commercial use on the property. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court stated he was speaking on behalf of his Homeowners Association and not as an individual. He asked that the Seabluff HOA comments be included in the attachments at the end of the staff report so that it will be a part of the administrative record. He also asked that the Planning Commission remove an April letter, which was not a letter from the HOA and does not represent the HOA. He read comments from the October 5, 2005 City Council minutes from members of the public who felt the General Plan should not be revised or changed. He also read from the minutes that Director Rojas suggested the only thing that could go there that would compliment the Long Point project would be some sort of small bed and breakfast or a restaurant. Mr. Nelson discussed the Variance, noting that the property is zoned CR and is surrounded on three sides by CR zoned property. Therefore, he did not feel the necessary findings could be made to approve the Variance, as the owner enjoyed the same rights on his CR zoned properties as others in the City who are on CR zoned property. He challenged the Planning Commission to make the finding that granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area where the property is located. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the zone change and let the applicant come back to the City with a proposal for a CR use. Chairman Knight asked staff if it was possible to remove the April letter from the record as requested by Mr. Nelson. Director Rojas answered that it was not possible to remove the April letter from the record, however it will be noted that the letter is not from or endorsed by the Homeowners Association. David Emenhiser 6620 Channelview Court extended an invitation to the Planning Commission to meet with the residence in the area who are most affected by this project. He stated that he did not feel the General Plan should be changed, as placing these two-story homes on such a small piece of property may set a precedence in the area. He was disappointed to learn from staff that the parking issue had not been addressed, as he felt these homes would impact street parking. He discussed golf safety, referring to a City golf safety report for Teranea which states that no development should be allowed within 150 feet of the golf course. He stated that these houses will be 20 feet away. He was concerned with the financial impact to some of the homeowners because of the loss of their view due to this development. He stated that Mr. Ireland has many friends at City Hall, and asked that the Planning Commission look at this application objectively. Commissioner Karp asked if the houses were proposed at 16 feet in height or less, would he still have the same opinion of the development. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 16 ATTACHMENT 1-118 Mr. Emenhiser stated that he is confused about the grading and where the 16 feet would be measured from. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Emenhiser if he would be opposed to whatever is built on that property. Mr. Emenhiser stated that he was opposed to the zone change request when it was heard by the City Council and is still opposed to the zone change. Commissioner Karp noted that there are permitted commercial uses for the property and asked Mr. Emenhiser if he would be opposed to that type of construction. Mr. Emenhiser answered that he did not believe it was a commercially viable piece of property for that type of construction and that either the City Council or the Coastal Commission would not allow that type of use on the property. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Emenhiser if he would therefore be opposed to any development on this piece of property. Mr. Emenhiser answered that he would be opposed to any development on this property. Regarding the parking, Commissioner Karp felt that the apartment complexes do not provide enough parking for their tenants, and asked Mr. Emenhiser where it says in any City Ordinance that the City must provide parking for a complex that is under parked. Mr. Emenhiser noted that these apartments were approved and built prior to the City incorporation, and did not know if there was any Ordinance regarding parking. Commissioner Karp stated that in his letter and also during his public testimony, Mr. Emenhiser had made a reference that Mr. Ireland may receive special preference at City Hall. He asked Mr. Emenhiser if he still felt that way, and if so, what is he basing this on. Mr. Emenhiser answered that he does feel Mr. Ireland gets preferential treatment, noting that City Councilman Clark recused himself from the City Council hearing as he is a friend of Mr. Ireland. Brian Bajania 6615 Beachview Drive stated he moved to this area for the view and location. He stated that if the proposed homes are built he will lose his view and it will seem as if he is living in a box. He was also concerned about the property value. Danka Neimar 6605 Beachview Drive expressed her opposition to the project, as she will lose a portion of her view, it will cause increased traffic in the neighborhood, and the size of the proposed home in relation to the lot size. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 17 ATTACHMENT 1-119 Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) pointed out that there will be a 68-foot tall structure built at the Teranea site that will most likely be blocking views well above anything at his project. He stated that he is very willing to work with everyone to minimize the impact of his property. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Chairman Knight asked staff if, when doing the view analysis for Mr. Ireland’s property will there be any consideration of the potential project that will be in back of his, specifically the Teranea project. Director Rojas answered that will be taken into account when doing the analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg discussed the General Plan amendment, explaining he feels it is important to amend documents at the appropriate time for the appropriate reason. He understood why the property may have originally be zoned CR, however over the years the property has become accessible only through residential zones, which shows why this particular parcel is more appropriate to be zoned as residential rather than CR. Commissioner Lewis agreed that the appropriate zoning for this property is residential. Commissioner Karp felt this property is currently mis-zoned and not compatible with the neighborhood, and took exception to those who wanted to keep the CR zoning so that nothing will be built at the site. He felt the best and most compatible zoning for this property is residential. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that over the years the property has been zoned for projects that never happened. He felt that now that Teranea has started construction there is a much more definitive use for area, and allows Mr. Ireland’s property to now be adjusted so that it conforms with the neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault felt that as wise as the City’s founders were and those who came later and developed the General Plan, he felt it was a stretch to say it is a perfect plan for all times. He felt that if something can be done to improve upon the General Plan, he felt it should be done. He felt that the property is much more suitable and compatible as a residential lot, and that the opportunity to changing the zoning is really an effort to prevent any development on the property. He felt the property owner has a right to develop the property, and didn’t think the City can deny any reasonable request to develop the property. Commissioner Perestam stated he was very supportive of the zoning change and looked at it as an opportunity to clear up an area that is mis-zoned for today’s uses. Chairman Knight asked staff to go back to the 1982 City Council Resolution, regarding the creation of the CR zone on the lot, and see if there is something staff or the Planning Commission is missing on why the City Council created the CR zoning. Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 18 ATTACHMENT 1-120 Regarding the zone change, Commissioner Lewis was comfortable making the changes suggested by staff, and was anxious to receive more information at the next meeting. Commissioner Ruttenberg was also is agreement with staff’s recommendations that were before the Planning Commission, noting however that he has formed no opinion on the proposed Height Variation or Variance that will be before the Commission at a future meeting. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Ruttenberg’s comments. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he is in favor of adopting a recommendation to the City Council for a zone change to residential, however he was not sure he agreed that it should be RS4. He stated that he would be interested in hearing more information on what type of residential zoning could be designated for this area before he could make the recommendation that it be zoned RS4. Commissioner Perestam supported the zone change to RS4. Chairman Knight stated that zoning usually follows the General Plan, and as he is agreement with the General Plan amendment the zoning follows suit. Commissioners Lewis, Ruttenberg, and Vice Chairman Gerstner all stated that they were in favor of both the Coastal Specific Plan amendment and the vesting tentative tract map. Commissioner Tetreault also was in favor, however he was cautious about leaving some room for options, given there is more information coming at the next meeting. Commissioner Perestam was in favor of the proposed Coastal Specific Plan amendment. Chairman Knight referred to page S2-7 of the Coastal Specific Plan regarding buffer areas and outdoor light shielding, and asked staff to address those issues. He stated that there is a critical view corridor that transverses the site that he asked be carefully reviewed and analyzed. He also questioned the Coastal Commission’s involvement with the project and asked staff to include that in their next staff report. Associate Planner Sohn explained that because the applicant is proposing to change the land use specified in the Coastal Specific Plan, the ultimate approval lies with the Coastal Commission. Chairman Knight discussed drainage with regards to the Tentative Tract Map and wanted to make sure that whatever happens is coordinated with the Teranea project, as this street drains into a riparian corridor and into the Teranea project. He noted that the drainage at the Teranea project is currently under review in the City as well as the Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 19 ATTACHMENT 1-121 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2006 Page 20 Coastal Commission and there needs to be some type of coordination. He stated that the same goes with the trails and the trail connections. Director Rojas stated that the discussion of this project will be continued to November 14, 2006. 5. Maintenance review for View Restoration Permit No. 161: Continued to October 10, 2006 CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 2. Discussion of possible re-zoning of Elkmont Canyon from RS-4 to OH Continued to October 10, 2006. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of August 22, 2006 Continued to October 10, 2006 ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-Agenda for the meeting of October 10, 2006 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 a.m. ATTACHMENT 1-122 At 8:45 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short break to 8:55 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (cont) 2. General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Permit, Variance, Environmental Assessment, Grading Permit and Height Variation (Case No. ZON2005- 00536 and SUB2005-00536 et al): Nantasket Drive Director Rojas began by explaining the Planning Commission has previously had a discussion on the proposed land use applications for this application, and this discussion will now center on the Height Variation and Grading Permit, and proposed construction on the subject site. He explained that both of those applications require a neighborhood compatibility review and a view analysis, however in this instance, view analysis was also taken from non single-family residential units. He explained that there were a series of discussions between staff and the City Attorney regarding the view analysis and staff relied on the City Attorney to review the current Code, Guidelines, and finding language to make an interpretation and then use that interpretation to conduct the view analysis. He explained that the City Attorney’s interpretation came down to the Height Variation findings dealing with view protection, which says that the project does not significantly impair a view from another parcel. The City Attorney determined that staff should go into each structure and identify which unit has the best and most important view within each structure. He noted that staff’s decisions are always based on what is observed out in the field and not what is depicted in a photograph. He also noted that staff assesses the view based on what is there today. He explained that if a view is taken over a vacant property, and any future buildings on that property are not factored into the view analysis. Commissioner Karp asked how many parcels comprise the Villa apartment complex. Associate Planner Sohn stated that the Villa apartments consist of five parcels. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the Planning Commission was bound to follow the City Attorney’s recommendation regarding how to determine views from the apartments. Director Rojas answered that if the Planning Commission has questions regarding the City Attorney’s advice they can refer their questions to the City Attorney. Commissioner Tetreault asked if there could be more than one structure on a parcel from which a view can be taken. Director Rojas answered that there may be views from different structures on one parcel, however the City Attorney recommended staff identify one best and most important view from each structure. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-123 Commissioner Tetreault stated that he spent quite a bit of time reading 17.02.040, and in looking at the City Attorney’s position any parcel and any structure in the City, regardless of its zoning, is afforded view protection. He stated that would include commercial, institutional, and cemetery. He stated the only time the Code speaks of residential is when discussing a structure that has had a Height Variation granted to it or was built before incorporation. He asked if that is the City Attorney’s position. Director Rojas did not believe that was the City Attorney’s position because there is wording in the Ordinance about “residence”. Commissioner Tetreault stated that, as far as he could see, the word “residence” appears in the Ordinance seven times and the word “structure” appears many more times than that. He also noted that “structure” is defined in the Ordinance while “residence” is not. He noted that the Ordinance says that any structure on a parcel can have its view protected as long as it has not been granted a Height Variation and the view is not in the area above 16 feet. He felt that if the City Attorney is talking about strictly interpreting the plain language of the Ordinance, then the City is talking about gas stations having view protection rights. He was sure that was not the intent of the legislation as passed by the residents. He felt that in interpreting the Ordinance in this way for this project, it would raise questions in the future on future projects. Director Rojas did not think the City Attorney was referring to all structures, but rather all residential structures. Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, briefly explaining the scope of the project. She explained that the proposed houses range from 6,738 square feet to 6,887 square feet and will be greater than the neighborhood average by over 3,800 square feet. Regarding bulk and mass, Associate Planner Sohn explained that staff felt that the houses on lots 1 and 2 have been designed in a manner to mitigate the potential concerns for bulk and mass. However, staff does not believe that the residences on lots 3, 4, and 5 were designed in a manner to mitigate the bulk and mass. She explained that the horizontal mass proposed for these three houses along with the two-story entry tower and the fully exposed upper and lower level floors make the proposed size and bulk and mass more apparent. She then discussed the Height Variation application, explaining staff conducted a series of view analyses from three different sites, the first being homes along Channelview Court. She stated that staff determined that the homes on Channelview Court are situated above the grade of the proposed homes and a view of the ocean and Catalina Island will exist over he proposed homes. She then discussed the view analysis done from the Villas apartments. She explained that staff identified unit 334 in structure one as having the best view, and from that unit the view of the ocean looks over the proposed project. Therefore, staff did not feel there would be a significant view impairment caused by the proposed project. She discussed structure 2, noting that staff determined unit 45 as having the best view of the ocean. She displayed a photograph of the view taken from unit 45, noting that the view of the horizon is well above the 16 foot mark of the house on lot 3 of the proposed project. She noted that from lots 4 and 5 the horizon is well above the 16-foot mark, however Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1-124 portions above the 16-foot mark would cause significant view impairment from unit 45. She stated that in structure 3 staff determined that unit 88 contained the best view. She explained that staff determined the horizon line for lot 5 is located above the 16-foot mark and the proposed structure above the 16-foot mark will not cause significant view impairment from this unit. She stated that a view analysis was conducted from the three homes along Beachview Drive and determined that the view of the ocean from 6617 Beachview Drive will be significantly impaired by the proposed structure above the 16- foot mark on lot 2. She stated that staff has made numerous attempts to reach the owner of 6619 Beachview Drive and was not able to make contact with the owners or do a view analysis from inside the home. Therefore, staff conducted view analysis from a location approximately 10 feet towards the proposed project, and as seen from that location staff determined that that portions of the view above 16 feet on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 will significantly impair the view as seen from 6619 Beachview Drive. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if structure 2 has a third floor. Associate Planner Sohn answered that structure 2 contains one-story units on the first floor and two story units on the second and third floors, with the living area of the two- story units situated on the lower floor. Commissioner Ruttenberg questioned staff on the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He understood the fact that the analysis is done only with homes in the same zoning district, however he felt it was a very surprising conclusion for staff to find that these five single family residences are too large for this area when they are dwarfed by the apartment buildings right across the street. He stated that staff is saying these homes are too big because the homes located on Channelview Court, which is much farther away, are smaller and he did not think this comparison made much sense in this situation. Director Rojas explained that staff’s comparison is subjective and if the Planning Commission wants to include the multi-family apartment units in the twenty closest for comparison, it can do that. Commissioner Ruttenberg didn’t understand why, when talking about view protection, the apartment buildings are included yet when discussing neighborhood compatibility the apartment buildings are excluded. He felt this was inconsistent. Director Rojas agreed that it seems inconsistent, however he explained that staff is trying to give the Planning Commission a determination based on all available City Council adopted guidelines and Codes. He stated that while there is no guidance relative to assessing view impacts, there is a specific Guideline for compatibility purposes that directs staff not to compare structures within different zoning districts. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked what the current status is of Terranea and when they are to begin their construction. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1-125 Director Rojas stated that Terranea wants to begin construction in January, however they have not yet satisfied their applicable conditions of approval to be issued a grading permit. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if the Planning Commission were still discussing the current issue after Terranea begins construction, if staff’s view on whether or not the Planning Commission can consider the impact of Terranea on view analysis would change. Director Rojas answered if grading or construction were to start on the hotel he would have to consult the City Attorney before making a determination. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland 1 Sea Cove Drive (applicant) explained that the Villa apartments is considered a conjoined parcel under one tax identification number and one APN number, and that one of these parcels could not be split off and sold. He stated that the best and most important view therefore should be determined for the entire parcel, not for the three individual parcels. He stated that the management company for the Villa apartments controlled what units staff could enter during their site visit, however he felt that per the City Attorney’s direction to find the best and most important view, all units should have been made available to staff. He briefly discussed the scope of the project, noting the grading that will have to be done on each lot. He showed a series of photographs of the neighborhood and the different houses in the neighborhood to show that the proposed houses are compatible with the entire neighborhood. He noted several properties which contain duplexes and explained that in terms of bulk and mass he considered them one house, as they are conjoined and appear to be one house. He showed several renderings of the proposed houses to show how they will appear in terms of bulk and mass and how he felt they were completely compatible with the neighborhood and their attempts to minimize the view impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that he was proposing the modify the ridge on lot 2 to a by-right height, and noted that both lots 1 and 2, by definition, slope more than 5 percent so they become a sloping lot and have a 16 foot high ridge and bottom out at a 30 foot height. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff if they felt the house proposed on lot 1 is at a by- right height. Associate Planner Sohn explained that staff considers lot 1 a pad lot and the proposed height of the structure on that lot exceeds the 16 / 20 by right height limit for residential structures, which is why the applicant has applied for a height variation application for lot 1. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Ireland why he doesn’t build all the homes at the by- right height. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1-126 Mr. Ireland answered that this is an opportunity to have a panoramic view and if they were to build these as a single story home they buyer would immediately come to the City with an application to build a second story, because the views from the second story are spectacular. Dan Bolton (Bolton Engineering) 707 Silver Spur Road, Rolling Hills Estates stated that the existing grade is sloped approximately 10 percent and lot 2 is sloped approximately 8 percent, and therefore he considers them sloping lots. Greg Delgado 11 Lariat Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, stated that he is the builder for the project and available to answer any questions. Michael Woodward 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles stated he is an attorney representing the Villa apartments. He stated that there is a definition in the Code for “residence” which he quoted from the Code. He also defined “parcel” as defined in the Code. He agreed with the City Attorney that the apartments are entitled to view protection. He stated that he understands the 16-feet by right and is not disputing that, however he was concerned about anything over 16 feet and also the building up of the existing grade that would cause portions of the structure to exceed 16 feet. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Woodward if he had any knowledge regarding the parcels and if they were indeed conjoined and considered one parcel. Mr. Woodward answered that he did not have any knowledge of that, and he felt that they are separate and distinct parcels, as they each have their own parcel number Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Woodward if he agreed with the City Attorney’s interpretation that there is a single unit per structure of the Villas apartments that has the best and most important view which can be protected, or did he feel that every residence within the structure is afforded view protection. Mr. Woodward answered that he has read the language carefully and he understands where the City Attorney came up with her interpretation, however he feels there are other units in the structure that also have best and most important views. Commissioner Tetreault asked Mr. Woodward if he agreed that there can be only a single from a single view structure on a single parcel. Mr. Woodward answered that he felt there can be multiple structures on a parcel with the view taken from the primary living area with each residence. Chairman Knight referred to the packet Mr. Woodward submitted to the Planning Commission and the comments made about the loss of parking. He asked Mr. Woodward if the applicant’s parcel was available at one time for the owners of the apartment complex to buy for parking purposes. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-127 Mr. Woodward answered that issue was before his time, as the current owner of the apartment complex bought the property this year. Michael Lamonte, Pacific Property Company, 2600 Michaelson Drive, Irvine stated that staff came out to the property to take pictures for the view analysis, however some of the units were not available to go into to take pictures as they were not allowed access by the residents. He explained the pictures were taken through a four-foot window from the confines of the living room, and felt there are approximately eleven units that will be impacted by the proposed project. He felt that the City Attorney should consider looking at the views from each individual unit from within each structure, as there are many other significant views from many other apartments that will be impacted by this project. He stated there are eight different apartment buildings with five different addresses on the properties. Bob Kennis, Pacific Property Company, stated that he has no objection to a residential development at the proposed site, his objection is to the need for the height variation and the mass and scale of the homes. He felt that looking out from the apartment one will see a wall going down Nantasket Drive that create a significant view barrier to the residents of the Villas apartments. He felt the developer could modify the project to lessen these view impairments by reducing the height of the houses to 16 feet. He noted that a representative from Pacific Property Company was not part of the meeting between the City Attorney and the Developer when discussing the view issues from the Villas apartments. Chairman Knight asked Mr. Kennis if he agreed or disagreed with the City Attorney’s interpretation of the apartments and the view impact. Mr. Kennis answered that he has not analyzed the interpretation and cannot answer the question. Dave Emenheiser 6620 Channelview Court stated he is the president of the Seabluff HOA. He stated that he felt this proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. He stated that there is a golf safety issue that comes into play as well as a parking impact. He explained that there are, at any given time, 95 to 105 cars on the street and this development will cause more cars to be dumped into his neighborhood. He was very concerned about the early neighborhood consultation process and the necessary signatures. He asked that the staff produce the document and certify the signatures or at the very least table this discussion until this issue can be resolved, as this strikes at the credibility of the proposal. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Emenheiser to clarify his concerns regarding the signatures required in the early neighborhood consultation process. Mr. Emenheiser explained that there are 3 homes on Seacove in the 100-foot radius and 3 homes on Beachview within 100-foot radius. He stated that there are 2 owners on Seacove and 2 owners on Beachview in the audience who said they did not sign the Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1-128 early neighborhood consultation letter. Therefore, he felt the Planning Commission should be concerned about the accuracy of how many people actually signed the letter. Commissioner Karp referred to the minutes of the September 26th meeting where he asked Mr. Emenheiser if he would be opposed to any development at the property and he answered that he would be opposed to any development on the property. Commissioner Karp asked Mr. Emenheiser if that is still his position. Mr. Emenheiser answered that he is still opposed to any development on the applicant’s property. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Emenheiser if he felt the apartments should be included or excluded in assessing neighborhood compatibility and views. Mr. Emenheiser answered that there are many factors to consider along with neighborhood compatibility, such as density. He was not able to answer if the apartments should be excluded or included in terms of neighborhood compatibility and view analysis. Suzanne Wright 6430 Seacove Drive stated she is also representing her mother who lives at 6580 Seacove Drive. She stated that she wanted to look at the bigger picture and not just focus on the minute details. She stated that Rancho Palos Verdes formed a city to preserve the rural environment and not become a high-density city. She stated that the Villas are a legal non-conforming use that pre-existed incorporation of the City. However, she stated there are real people living at the Villas who should have their views preserved. She did not think it was correct to say the Villas is like one big house and one unit has the best and most important view. She felt that any unit with a view has a best and most important view. She did not think the Villas should be considered when discussing neighborhood compatibility, as the Villas are a legal non-conforming use. She felt that the proposed development is much too dense for the neighborhood, pointing out the amount of open space and recreational space available in the neighborhood. She did not think the proposal presented by the developer has anything to do with the General Plan and the overall vision of Rancho Palos Verdes to be a beautiful, pristine, and rural area to live. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Wright if she realized that the current proposal is actually down sizing what could possibly be constructed on this property, which is zoned commercial. Ms. Wright stated that she is aware of the zoning on the property, however she feels that historically this zoning was a mistake, as it is a little piece of property left over when everything else was developed. She stated that if someone came in with a commercial development, she would oppose it based on the history of what this property was originally supposed to be. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1-129 Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Ms. Wright if she was opposed to anything being built on the property. Ms. Wright stated she has no problem making this property residential, but what she is opposed to would be a residential wall of homes that needs four different variances to be built. Commissioner Karp asked Ms. Wright what she would like to see built on the property. Ms. Wright answered that she would like to see some beautiful homes built on the property with some space in between them. She envisioned single story homes at a lesser density on the property. Bipin Bajania 6615 Beachview Drive stated that pictures were taken from his kitchen area, however he has a beautiful library area on the second floor where the family spends most of its time and that is where he felt the pictures should have been taken from. He stated that when these houses are built he will have a view of a giant wall rather than the ocean. He did not think it was right that the developer make money at his expense. Juan Carlos Monaco 6619 Beachview Drive stated he is distressed to hear any Planning Commissioner express that it is not in the interest of the Planning Commission to protect the economic impact of any property when that is affected by any variation to the surrounding areas. He noted that Mr. Ireland has stated he wants to make the houses a certain size and height in order to have an ocean view to increase their value. He asked for an explanation from the Commission. Chairman Knight explained there is nothing in the Code that attaches a monetary value to a view, however in the Code there is a protection of the views for the general welfare of the community. Mr. Monaco stated that his position with respect to his opposition to the development is not only the economic impact to the value of his property but the development also impairs his view that he currently has. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) displayed a computer model showing the view from apartment 45 with his house on lot 3 and the Terranea resort and casitas behind that. He stated that clearly the ridgeline of his homes are below that of the Terranea resort and casitas. He explained that Terranea has a by right height of 153 feet and possibly tower heights of 168 feet, and showed a slide of lot 4 explaining that all of the water seen will be blocked by Terranea. He asked when does that right transfer to Terranea and when does that right leave the Villas, even though he did not think the Villas have that right. He acknowledged that the flagging at the site is confusing and noted that the area will be re-flagged and each house will be flagged in it’s own distinctive color. He stated that for neighborhood compatibility the 20 closest homes is the absolute minimum, not the Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 15 ATTACHMENT 1-130 maximum, and when in a heterogeneous neighborhood such as this the analysis should go much further and broader than the 20 closest homes. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Ireland if he had any part in the signature gathering process for his project. Mr. Ireland answered that he had helped in gathering the needed signatures, meeting early and often to get these signatures. He noted that there are some residents, such as Mr. Emenheiser and Mr. Nelson, whom he has met with often but will not sign the early neighborhood consultation document. He stated that if additional work needs to be done, he will do it. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ireland to make sure he modifies the silhouette for lot 2, since he has indicated it will be changing. Vice Chairman Gerstner suggested painting the elevation of what will be the finished grade at the base of the poles for clarification of the grading. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp stated that he has a map from the Villas apartments with red lines marked on them. He asked staff to verify the height those lines are marked at so he can better understand their presentation. He also agreed with the suggestions to re- silhouette lot 2 and paint the bottom of the poles to clarify the grading. Chairman Knight asked staff to clarify the question as to whether the Villas property is one parcel or three parcels. Director Rojas clarified that there was a meeting between the City Attorney and Mr. Ireland, at the request of Mr. Ireland, as he wanted to understand the City Attorney’s determination. He stressed that it was not a meeting with Mr. Ireland to come up with a determination, but rather to explain the determination after it had been made. He stated that at that meeting Mr. Ireland raised the issue that he felt these parcels have been tied, however neither staff nor the City Attorney has seen any evidence from Mr. Ireland to suggest that this has been done. He stated that based on the recorded tract map, it shows individual parcels, and that is how staff is looking at the property. He stated that staff will attempt to clarify this question. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if there was anything in the Code that directs them to analyze the 20 closest homes during their neighborhood compatibility analysis, or if they can analyze more or less than 20 homes. Director Rojas explained that staff is sensitive to consistency when doing their analyses of different projects and even though the neighborhood compatibility handbook states that the analysis is to include a minimum of 20 homes in the same zoning district, staff Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 16 ATTACHMENT 1-131 only analyzes the minimum of 20 closest homes in the same zoning district for consistency from project to project. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he would be interested in expanding the analysis to the five or six homes on Seacove Drive, west of the park, as they are large homes close to the proposed project. He acknowledged that the homes are not in the same zoning district, however the neighborhood is a very disparate neighborhood and it is not realistic not to include the homes on Seacove Drive in the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed, however he did not think it was necessary for staff to do the work, as the outcome is already known. He stated that one of the speakers who lives in that neighborhood has already said the homes are 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Tetreault agreed, however he noted that these are very big homes on very large lots with different lot coverage and he would be interested in knowing about these homes. Commissioner Karp agreed that these homes need to be included, but he agreed with Commissioner Tetreault that staff should do the analysis so they will be included in the record. Commissioner Perestam felt that if the homes on Seacove are going to be included then the apartment buildings should also be included in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, as they are closer and in the same zoning district. Chairman Knight disagreed, as he did not think comparing apartment buildings to single-family homes was practical and did not understand what purpose such an analysis would serve and what the value would be. Director Rojas asked the Commission to clarify if they wanted to know the square footage of the units or the buildings. Commissioner Perestam felt that it would be helpful to know the square footage of each of the four buildings that front Nantasket Drive. Chairman Knight asked staff, at the next meeting, to address the drainage in terms of how it affects and impacts the riparian corridor at Terranea. Commissioner Tetreault stated that he has misread a section of the Code earlier in the evening in regards to the definition of a structure, noting that the Code does say that when looking at view impairment it is from structures utilizes for living purposes. Therefore, he wanted to retract his statements that views can be taken from any structure, even a gas station. Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 17 ATTACHMENT 1-132 Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 2006 Page 18 Commissioner Tetreault moved to continue the public hearing to allow staff to address the questions and concerns raised by the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Approved, (7-0). Director Rojas stated that this item will be heard again on January 9, 2007. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Minutes of October 10, 2006 It being after 11:00, per the Planning Commission rules, the minutes were automatically continued to the November 28, 2006 meeting. 6. Minutes of October 24, 2006 The minutes were automatically continued to November 28, 2006. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 7. Pre-agenda for the meeting of November 28, 2006. Director Rojas stated that he spoke with the City Attorney during the recess and the person making the presentation on the AB 1234 training will not be available on December 12th. Therefore, it would be best to keep the training scheduled for November 28th and the two Commissioners who cannot make the training discuss with staff when they will be able to make that training up. The Planning Commission agreed to have the training on November 28th with Commissioner Perestam and Chairman Knight agreeing to make arrangements to have the training at another time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. ATTACHMENT 1-133 1. Variance and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2003-00611): 30042 Avenida Tranquila The Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution 2007-01 as presented thereby approving the requested after-the-fact Variance and Grading Permit, (7-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Conditional Use Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00159): 28041 Hawthorne Blvd. The Planning Commission unanimously accepted the withdrawal of the application. CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map, coastal Permit, Variance, Environmental Assessment, Grading Permit and Height Variation Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 and SUB2005-00536 et al): Nantasket Drive Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and explaining that staff continues to believe the proposed development is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood. She also explained that staff has reevaluated the slopes for lots 1 and 2 and have determined they no longer need Height Variation applications. She stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to discuss the additional information requested and make a determination as to whether or not to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Director Rojas added that staff has always analyzed this project as a residential project. He stated that there were some legitimate questions at the last meeting as to what is the by-right height and what is the impact above that line. He stated that in trying to answer that question staff realized this is a still a commercial recreational property and the lots technically do not have the residential by-right height standard. He explained that there is a difference in the way 16 feet is measured for commercial recreational and residential buildings, and therefore there would be different impacts to the neighborhood. He explained that because the applicant is proposing a residential development, staff is reviewing the proposed project under residential standards. He noted, however, that staff cannot ignore the fact that the applicant is requesting a zone change from commercial to residential and staff is seeking direction on whether the Planning Commission wishes to assess the impacts of the project using the commercial “by right” height limit. Vice Chairman Gerstner asked staff if it would then be more logical for the Planning Commission to first decide whether or not the zoning on the property should be changed from commercial recreational to residential. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page2 ATTACHMENT 1-134 Director Rojas answered that once a decision is made on the land use there will be no doubt that this will be a residential project. He noted, however, that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will ultimately make the decision. Commissioner Tetreault asked which project would result in a lesser view impact to the surrounding residents, a residential project or a commercial recreational project. Director Rojas explained that because of the way height is measured in residential and commercial recreational applications, a commercial recreational application would most likely result in a lower building than what is currently being proposed. Commissioner Tetreault questioned staff regarding the lot size of the lots used in the staff report for Channelview Court, and asked if these lot sizes were accurate. Associate Planner Sohn answered that the numbers used were taken from the tract map, but she would verify those numbers. Chairman Knight asked if the apartments are on one parcel or three parcels. Associate Planner Sohn answered that the apartments are placed over five parcels. Director Rojas added that there is a recorded map which shows multiple parcels. He explained that the applicant feels it is one parcel, however staff feels it is a moot point as pursuant to the City Attorney’s direction that since the view is defined from a structure the view is analyzed from the three structures, regardless of how many parcels the three structures are on. Chairman Knight opened the public hearing. Dan Bolton, Bolton Engineering 707 Silver Spur Road, stated he has measured the heights from the high point of the existing structure. He stated that he has submitted a letter, which is included in the Planning Commission packets, which provides substantiation for some of the material provided by Mr. Ireland. Chairman Knight asked if the chimneys were used in the analysis. Mr. Bolton answered that he used just the silhouette to conduct the analysis. Commissioner Karp noted that the green on the photograph represents height by right, and asked if that was from the existing grade or proposed grade. Mr. Bolton answered that was the height by right as defined by the Code, and was measured from existing grade. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page3 ATTACHMENT 1-135 Dana Ireland, 1 Seacove Drive, (applicant) discussed the outstanding issues before the Planning Commission. He stated that based on the revised neighborhood compatibility analysis, staff has taken a total of 33 residential structures that are near the subject site, and the average size is now 11,903 feet. He performed his own analysis, using the twenty closest RS-4 structures surrounding the property, noting that the average size is now 16,500 square feet. He felt his proposed homes were more than compatible with the size of the 20 nearest RS-4 homes. He discussed the fill needed and the height of the proposed homes. He stated that he can demonstrate and has demonstrated that the grading of the lot is not impacting the height of the homes. He discussed the Height Variation and showed slides of the view impacts taken from the street. He discussed The Villas and showed a slide demonstrating that they are on one lot with a single APN. He showed several slides where a silhouette of the future hotel and casitas at the Terranea property will be and how the views will be obstructed by those structures. Commissioner Karp asked, given the money the applicant will have to pay to the City to meet his low cost housing requirement, it would be better to build four houses rather than five. Mr. Ireland answered that he still plans to build five and explained that he has spoken to the developers for the Crestridge project and they have agreed with him contributing money to their project to provide affordable housing. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court reminded the Planning Commission that the apartments are zone single-family residential. He felt that the Planning Commission is accommodating a developer by amending the General Plan, approving a zone change, approving a Variance, approving a Height Variation, and the many other applications necessary to approve this project. Michael Woodward 1999 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles (attorney representing The Villas Apartments), presented a letter asking the Planning Commission to consider a continuance since the silhouette poles had blown down and contained a discussion on slope and grading. He also noted that he did not have the agenda or staff report available until Monday. He asked that a further compatibility analysis be done to include bulk and mass, lot coverage, open space between structures, roof design, and setbacks. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Woodward if he had any response to Mr. Bolton’s presentation in regards to the heights and grading. Mr. Woodward answered that he did not think the material presented by Mr. Bolton was applicable under the City regulations. Michael Lamonte, Pacific Property Company 2600 Michaelson Avenue, Irvine, stated that while the photographs shown by Mr. Ireland were taken from the property, they were not taken from inside the actual units. He agreed that before any decisions are made the poles that are currently down should be put back up. He did not think that the Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page4 ATTACHMENT 1-136 sizes of the houses should be compared with the sizes of the apartments when considering neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Perestam asked Mr. Lamonte if he felt the Terranea development would obstruct the views from the Villa Apartments with or without the proposed five homes being built. Mr. Lamonte did not think the Terranea development would block views, as it is at a greater distance from the apartment complex. Suzanne Wright 6430 Seacove Drive did not think The Villas should be included in considering neighborhood compatibility, noting The Villas do not conform and were grandfathered in when the City incorporated. She noted that the homes on Seacove Drive have not been considered in neighborhood compatibility even though they are as close as the homes on Seabluff Drive. She stated that by the very fact that the poles had to be painted to differentiate between the lot shows that the houses are too close together and there is not enough open space between the homes. She felt that the slope and grade analysis was flawed, noting that five lots do not exist. She requested that the letter she emailed be included in the record. Elsa Ettaker 6504 Via Baron objected to the proposed development stating that it is too much and too big. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) stated that he has asked to be able to take pictures from inside the apartments and has been denied access by the apartment management. He stated that his proposed houses meet the City setback requirements. He stated that the silhouettes have been up since July and did not think it was necessary for a continuance because the poles have been down for about a week. Chairman Knight closed the public hearing. RECESS AND RECONVENE At 8:50 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 9:00 p.m. at which time they reconvened. CONTINUED BUSINESS (con’t) Chairman Knight asked staff if there was any percentage of view blockage that staff looked at before considering the blockage as significant. Director Rojas explained that there is no set quantitative formula for determining significant view impairment. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page5 ATTACHMENT 1-137 Commissioner Perestam discussed the neighborhood compatibility analysis, stating that the apartments are there and are part of the community and therefore an important part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Commissioner Tetreault stated that the Code says that when looking at neighborhood compatibility it should be done with homes in the same zoning district. He stated that while the apartments may be in the same zoning but they are not built to match their zoning. He questioned if it was reasonable to compare these proposed homes to the apartments in terms of neighborhood compatibility. He explained that when looking at neighborhood compatibility he looks at what the public will see when in the neighborhood. He did not think anyone would equate a large apartment complex on one side of the street with single-family homes on the other side of the street. He discussed the homes on Seacove Drive which are zoned RS-1 and are large homes on large lots, while this project is large homes on smaller lots. He did not think that the average citizen, however, would note that the Seacove homes are zoned RS-1 and therefore not considered in neighborhood compatibility. He felt that the appropriate areas to consider in neighborhood compatibility would be the homes in the Channelview Court/ Beachview Drive area and the homes in the Seacove area and exclude The Villas Apartments. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed with Commissioner Tetreault, however he noted that home size is only one factor when considering neighborhood compatibility. He therefore felt that the new analysis done by staff should be used in considering neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Karp could not ignore The Villas Apartments, as they are there and impact what is going on in the neighborhood and should be included in the analysis. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Perestam. Commissioner Lewis agreed with comments made by Commissioner Tetreault. He did not think the current numbers presented by staff help resolve the issues and did not think the prior numbers help resolve the issues. He felt that the issues will be resolved by the Planning Commissioners individual experiences and points of view, which are subjective. He felt that the apartments be excluded from the analysis. Chairman Knight agreed that the apartments should be excluded from the analysis, as he did not think they are an appropriate comparison to a single-family home, and was not the intent of neighborhood compatibility to compare single-family homes to apartment buildings. He also did not think it was appropriate to include the Seacove homes, as they are in a different zone. He felt the appropriate analysis would be the September 14th staff analysis. He stated that he would like the City Attorney’s opinion on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page6 ATTACHMENT 1-138 Commissioner Perestam discussed whether to apply the CR or RS-4 zoning when discussing the 16-foot by-right height. He stated that a prior meeting the Planning Commission had voted to support the zoning change, and because of that he has always viewed this as an RS-4 project. Commissioner Tetreault also recalled that the Planning Commission had voted to accept the proposed zone change and therefore, if the project is going to be zoned as an RS-4, it should be treated as an RS-4. Vice Chairman Gerstner agreed, adding that if the project is going to be zone RS-4 it has to be analyzed as an RS-4 project. He stated that the zoning should follow the analysis and the analysis should follow the zoning. Commissioners Karp, Ruttenberg, Lewis, and Chairman Knight all agreed. Commissioner Tetreault stated that there are many questions that are still outstanding in his mind regarding this project that need to be clarified by staff. He asked if it would be more efficient to continue the item at this time and ask for clarification rather than carrying on the discussion at this meeting for several hours and coming to the conclusion that the item needs to be continued. Commissioner Lewis agreed with Commissioner Tetreault’s idea that a straw poll should be taken to determine whether or not to continue the item, however he felt he had enough information at this time to make a decision. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that there were members of the audience that have pointed out that the staff report was posted late and they may have not had adequate time to address it and the silhouette has been down. He therefore did not think it was fair to some of the people who appeared before the Planning Commission to make a decision at this meeting. Commissioner Karp was in favor of following the staff recommendation of denying the proposed Grading Permit and Height Variation and approving the other applications. Vice Chairman Gerstner noted that the silhouette has been up for quite some time and he was comfortable in voting on this project at this meeting. He felt the Commission should make a decision on the zone change and General Plan Amendment, however he would like to have clarification on the Height Variation and Grading Permit. Commissioner Tetreault discussed the findings as to whether lots 1 through 3 are sloping lots or pad lots, and noted that Bolton Engineering as made a determination however another engineering firm may have a different opinion. He felt that as much investigating and fact finding that the Planning Commission can do will be a benefit to the City Council when they look at this application. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page7 ATTACHMENT 1-139 Commissioner Perestam stated he would like to know when the permits for Terranea will be issued and the City Attorney’s opinion on the slope for lots 1 through 3 and the neighborhood compatibility issue. Therefore, he would like to have that information before making a decision. Chairman Knight also had questions on whether or not to include the apartments in the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He would like to see the item continued to have all of the questions answered to get a clearer picture. Commissioner Perestam moved to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007 to get clarification, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Commissioner Lewis stated that he is very disappointed that the owner at 6619 Beachview Drive has not allowed staff into his unit for view analysis, and if this has not happened by the March 13th meeting he will take a very negative inference from that. Director Rojas felt it would be helpful to staff and the public to have a second motion or to amend the current motion to give a position on the issues of the neighborhood compatibility analysis and view issues. Commissioner Perestam withdrew his previous motion. Commissioner Tetreault made a substitute motion that, assuming the public hearing is continued, that between now and two weeks from that date the silhouettes be re-erected on the property to their previous condition and that the RS-4 standards will be used for the Height Variation, seconded by Vice Chairman Gerstner. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved that, assuming that the public hearing is continued, the neighborhood compatibility analysis will include the homes on Channelview Court, Via Baron, Beachview Court, and Seacove Drive, but not The Villas Apartments, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Commissioner Karp stated that the apartments exist and must be taken into account. Commissioner Perestam was not sure this needed to be included in the motion, as input from the City Attorney has been requested on this subject. He also did not think that whatever was decided would be reflective of what the Commissioners’ opinion would be for the overall project. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with Commissioner Perestam, noting this area is very familiar to the Planning Commissioners and he did not think this motion was necessary one way or the other. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page8 ATTACHMENT 1-140 Chairman Knight agreed the apartment buildings should not be included, but did not agree that the Seacove Drive homes should be included as they are in a different zoning district. Vice Chairman Gerstner stated that neighborhood compatibility is looked at for more than a square footage analysis, as there are many more characteristics that come into play. He also stated that the Planning Commissioners have to make subjective judgments about how important or unimportant that particular piece of property is to the one being evaluated. Therefore, if he were not sure, he would want inclusion and not exclusion of some piece of information in the analysis. Therefore, he could not support the motion. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Karp, Perestam, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Gerstner, and Chairman Knight dissenting. Commissioner Ruttenberg moved to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007, seconded by Commissioner Karp. Commissioner Tetreault offered a substitution motion to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2007 and to direct staff to consult with the City Attorney on the issue of including the Seacove homes and The Villas Apartments in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, seconded by Chairman Knight. Commissioner Ruttenberg withdrew his motion. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont) 3. Appeal of Site Plan Review Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00370): 58 Avenida Corona Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report giving a history of the project and the reasons for the appeal. She stated that staff did not feel the appeal was warranted and was recommending denial of the appeal and uphold the Director’s decision to approve the Site Plan Review. Commissioner Lewis asked staff to clarify their recommendation for the two trees. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was recommending the removal of the two ficus trees in the front yard, as they significantly impair the view from 4 La Vista Verde. She stated that removal was recommended because trimming and/or lacing the trees would not be effective. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2007 Page9 ATTACHMENT 1-141 Commissioner Knight felt that the project should be re-silhouetted to accurately determine the impact of the project. Chairman Gerstner suggested requesting the project be re-silhouetted but not make it a requirement. Commissioner Tetreault moved to amend the motion to continue the public hearing to April 10, 2007 and suggest the project be re-silhouetted, seconded by Vice Chairman Perestam. Approved, (5-2) with Commissioner Karp and Chairman Gerstner dissenting. 4. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Variance, Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 & SUB2005-00006): Nantasket Drive Associate Planner Sohn presented the staff report, reviewing the history of the project before the Planning Commission. She explained that staff was still not able to make all of the necessary findings to approve the proposed Height Variation and Grading application. She stated that staff was requesting the Planning Commission review the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the appropriate neighborhood compatibility analysis, identify the proposed project’s immediate neighborhood and if the project is compatible with that neighborhood; determine whether the proposed residences on lots 3, 4, and 5 create significant view impact to surrounding property; and lastly, if all outstanding issues are addressed to the Planning Commission’s satisfaction, forward a recommendation to the proposed land use and construction to the City Council. Commissioner Lewis asked staff if the only reason they were not recommending approval of the Grading Permit was because of neighborhood compatibility and view issues. Associate Planner Sohn answered that was correct. Commissioner Karp asked, if the Villa Apartments are not part of neighborhood compatibility, then how can apartment 45 be used as a point to analyze a view. Director Rojas explained that the City Attorney determined that because of the height variation finding that views are to be protected from adjoining structures, the apartment building is a structure and therefore the unit with the best and most important view should be protected. He stated there is also a separate issue regarding compatibility, and the City Attorney felt that since the apartments are multi-family but zoned single family, the Commission can agree to include them or not. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked if the units on the first floor of the apartment building will have their views impaired by this proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-142 Associate Planner Sohn answered that the units on the first floor will have their views impaired by the portion of the structures under 16 feet in height. Commissioner Knight stated that he had received an email from a resident containing the assessor’s map for the Channelview and Beachview Court areas, which seems to be slightly different than the tract map. He asked staff which map should be used in this situation. Associate Planner Sohn answered that there are cases where the assessors map and tract map are slightly different, and that the tract map is the one that should be used. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland 1 Seacove Drive (applicant) discussed neighborhood compatibility, noting the City Attorney has determined that the twenty nearest neighborhood structures to the project trump the zoning requirements of the area. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the flexibility to look at the twenty closest residential structures, and noted that the average size structure for those twenty closest structures is approximately 18,000 square feet. He also showed several slides of homes in the neighborhood to demonstrate neighborhood compatibility and bulk and mass issues. Bob Nelson 6612 Channelview Court reminded the Planning Commission that there has not been one public speaker in the many meetings that has spoken in favor of this proposed project. He noted that staff has continually pointed out problems with this project. He felt this project would be creating a row of mansions in a neighborhood where there currently are no mansions. Bob Kennis 2600 Michelson Drive, Irvine, representing Pacific Properties which owns the Villa Apartments. He stated that his interest in this project is economic, and that these economic interests are significantly impacted by this project. He stated that there is more than one unit that will be impacted by this proposed project, rather there are many units that will have a view impact. He concluded by stating that common sense will tell you that these houses are not compatible with the neighborhood, as they are very large homes on very small, shallow lots. Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Kennis if he agreed with staff’s assessment that unit 45 presents the best view in the apartment structure. Mr. Kennis answered that he did not know what unit has the best view. He did feel staff has done a good job with their analysis, and have consistently said that this project will cause a view impact. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Kennis, if the homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 were designed in such a manner that they were within the envelope to not require a height variation, would he be before the Planning Commission in support of the project. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-143 Mr. Kennis answered that he would have to look at the design before answering, but he did not think he would be as adamant about the project as he currently is. Michael Lamonte 26600 Michelson Drive, Irvine did not think the Villa Apartments should be included in the neighborhood compatibility study, as he felt it was improper to compare apartment buildings with large homes. He felt that all of the units should be included in the view analysis, as many residents have views that should not be ignored and deserve consideration. Regarding the view impairment of Terranea, he felt that the hotel is so far away that the view impairment will be minimal, and has been exaggerated by Mr. Ireland. Suzanne Wright 6430 Seacove Drive discussed the comment made that if the Villa Apartments are not used in the neighborhood compatibility analysis, how can a view be considered from the apartments. She stated that the views from the apartments have a right to be protected, just as any other structure in the City. However, in terms of figuring out zoning compliance and neighborhood compatibility, grandfathered non- conforming uses should not be looked at. She stated that, in terms of analyzing what homes should be analogized to in terms of neighborhood conformity, the City should be looking at the buildings that came after the zoning ordinances. She questioned the approval of the Variance, and noted that in the public hearing just conducted for the addition at 13 Seacove Drive, where the Planning Commission was reluctant to approve a large home on a smaller lot. She questioned how this project differed. She stated that when the developer bought this property he was well aware of the zoning and did not feel he was being deprived of the privilege of a homeowner or the owner of property. Further, she felt that if the project is approved, the owner will have been granted extraordinary privileges solely for economic benefit, which clearly violates California law. She noted that if the Villa Apartments are homes, and if they were condominiums rather than apartments, the City would most likely consider the views from all of the units, and she felt that the renters of these apartments were being discriminated against. Finally, she objected to what she felt was a distorted presentation by the developer of Terranea, and was an obvious attempt to mislead the public and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tetreault noted that this property is very unique and will require some type of Variance in order to be developed. He asked Ms. Wright if it was her position that, because of the uniqueness of the property and the Variances involved, if the applicant should not be allowed to develop this property. Ms. Wright answered that was not her position at all. She stated that the developer is trying to obtain the privileges of an RS1 zoned property on the smaller lot RS4 lot size. Commissioner Tetreault noted that the Variances being requested are for the required depth of the lots and to build higher than 16 feet. He asked Ms. Wright if it was her position that, because of the requested variances to the Code, if the developer should not be allowed to build any type of residential structure on this lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-144 Ms. Wright answered that the only houses in the area that came after the General Plan and zoning ordinances are zoned RS1, then the correct question is should the City allow this developer to rezone to RS4 rather than RS1 where a large home can be built on the lot that is approximately one acre in size, such as those on Seacove Drive. She felt the big issue is that this area, which is already over developed in terms of the General Plan, but was grandfathered in during incorporation, and increasing the problem by allowing the developer to zone this property RS4. David Emenhiser 6620 Channelview Court stated he is the president of the Seabluff HOA, expressed the HOA’s concerns about the size of the proposed homes, the number of proposed homes, the parking issues, the golf safety issues, the developer’s lack of approach in negotiating with the neighborhood HOA, and in particular his interaction with the elderly neighbors. He explained that the overriding concern was the height of the homes and the negative impact on the views from homes in the HOA. Bipin Bajani 6615 Beachview Drive stated his concern was the view from his residence. He stated that the proposed project will block a major portion of the view from his living area. Juan Carlos Monnaco 6619 Beachview Drive was upset that the pictures presented to the Planning Commission that were taken from his home were taken from areas that he and his family do not use very often, and not from the areas where they spend the majority of their time. He wanted someone to explain to him how anyone has the right to request the zoning on a property be changed and then be allowed to build a house that will block his view. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Monnaco where he thought the pictures should have been taken from to accurately represent his view. Mr. Monnaco felt that pictures should have been taken from inside the property in the center of the livable area, which represents the center of the family room and the counter area in the kitchen. Chairman Gerstner asked Mr. Monnaco if the proposed homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 were within the “by right” heights and did not need a height variation, would he in support of those structures. Mr. Monnaco could not speculate on something that is hypothetical, but at a given time when that is presented in such a fashion, he may be able to speak at that time. Dana Ireland (in rebuttal) stated that he did not think this was a popularity contest and has not asked any residents to come to these meetings to support his project. He addressed the concerns raised by Ms. Wright, and explained that many of the homes in the area were built after incorporation, not just those identified by Ms. Wright. He stated that RS4 is a well established use in the neighborhood, and that is why he applied for RS4 development. He also noted that Mr. Monnaco has never invited him into his home Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 9 ATTACHMENT 1-145 so that he could understand what this proposal will do to his view. He felt that this project has been designed in a very sensitive way and asked that he Planning Commission support the project and forward it to the City Council. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked Mr. Ireland to respond to Ms. Wright’s comment that he is attempting to build RS1 sized homes on an RS4 size lot. Mr. Ireland answered he is meeting every condition for RS4 development. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Karp asked staff what would prevent the developer from digging deeper on the lot and lowering the height of the houses. Director Rojas answered that it would mean more grading and export, and possible drainage problems with the houses being below the street grade. Commissioner Ruttenberg asked staff to respond to the comments made by Mr. Monnaco about the pictures taken from his property. Associate Planner Sohn stated that all pictures presented were taken from inside Mr. Monnaco’s residence. She said these photographs were ones that staff felt best reflect the view impact on Mr. Monnaco’s property. She noted that staff took pictures from all of the locations suggested by Mr. Monnaco, and that once staff started stepping away from the window towards the kitchen area, the project becomes smaller and smaller, and for that reason staff chose not to use that picture. Chairman Gerstner felt it was important to determine if the Planning Commission could approve changing the land use as it relates to the General Plan, and if the land use is changed, is it RS4, or some other land use. He suggested beginning the discussion with that part of the issue, to see if there is some consensus. Chairman Gerstner asked the Commissioners if they were prepared to take a straw vote regarding the land use issues only for this project, which are the first seven items on page 6 of the staff report. All of the Planning Commissioners felt they were able to make the findings for the first seven items on page 6 of the staff report. Chairman Gerstner asked the Planning Commission to next discuss the issue of view impairment. Commissioner Lewis stated that he went to Unit 45 and saw view impairment, however he did not think it was significant. He also did not take into consideration where the Terranea structures would be located. He also felt there was a view impairment from 6619 Beachview Court, but again he did not think it was significant. He felt it was ironic Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1-146 that the Villa Apartments, which is such a domineering presence in the neighborhood, would be objecting to these homes. Commissioner Knight also did not factor in the Terranea development when doing his view analysis. He felt that the views from the Villa Apartments should be looked at, as the view ordinance specifically protects, enhances, and perpetuates views available to property owners. He also felt that, while there is a view impairment from unit 45, he did not think it was significant. Regarding 6619 Beachview Court, he stated that once the homes on lots 1 and 2 take away the ocean view, as they are being built to the by right height limit, there is a very narrow view corridor left. He agreed with the staff comments that the cumulative view impact is significant. Commissioner Tetreault stated that in the past he has questioned whether it is appropriate to take views from the Villa Apartments, however in interpreting the Ordinance he agreed that it talks about protecting property owner’s views. He stated that in looking at the views, he is taking into consideration the Terranea development. He recognized that a different set of criteria was used when looking at views from the Villa Apartments when approving the Terranea project, however he noted that it has already been determined by the City that the view is not protected. He therefore found it difficult, with that decision already having been made, to then deny somebody else the right to build a structure that would actually impact that view even less than the Terranea development. Regarding the view from 6619 Beachview Court, he felt that was a different situation, as there is a protectable view. He felt that the structures on lots 3, 4, and 5 will impair his view from the viewing area in his home, but the amount of view blocked by the portion of the structures over 16 feet in height is difficult to discern. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that, while his reasons are different, he comes to the same conclusions as Commissioner Lewis had. Commissioner Karp stated he had nothing more to add. Vice Chairman Perestam felt that the view issues came down to what was being blocked from 6619 Beachview Court. He also felt there is definitely an impact to the view, but he did not think the amount of impact due to the structure above 16 feet in height on lots 3, 4, and 5 was significant. Chairman Gerstner stated that he could make the findings to support the zone change and that RS4 is an appropriate zoning for the land. He also felt that the requested depth of the lot is acceptable to accommodate the homes. He did not feel he was making this decision based on any undo enrichment to a developer. He also did not think the view will be significantly impaired from the Villa Apartments or the home on Beachview Court, and noted that he did not take Terranea into consideration when making that decision. He then asked the Commissioners to discuss their views on neighborhood compatibility. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1-147 Commissioner Tetreault felt that neighborhood compatibility is very difficult to assess in this area, as there is the Villa Apartments as well as a wide range of RS4 and RS1 zoned lots. He questioned how these proposed homes would look to someone walking in the neighborhood, and if they would look totally out of place. He felt comfortable with the proposed homes on lots 1 and 2, however the homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 are a little more vertical and loom a little large from the street. He noted, however, that this is already an over developed neighborhood, as mentioned by one of the speakers, and questioned why then this proposed development would be offensive. Commissioner Lewis stated that the City Attorney gave the Planning Commission four options to consider in terms of neighborhood compatibility, and he preferred option 4, which is consider the project site to be unique and constitutes its own immediate neighborhood for the purposes of neighborhood compatibility analysis. He stated that, given the transition status of this property, he can make the finding of neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Karp stated that the apartments exist in the neighborhood and he cannot ignore the fact that they are there and that they impact the size of the dwelling units. He agreed that these houses are larger, however he felt that houses in general are becoming larger. He stated that Terranea, while a larger project, will also have a vast open area of green, which will have visibility through it. He also noted that there are several large trees in boxes on the Terranea property, and he wondered where the trees will be planted and if they will be blocking any views. Commissioner Knight stated that the apartments are a non-conforming use, and would not be allowed under the current zoning. Therefore, they are only being included in the analysis because they happen to be in the RS4 zoning. He felt that neighborhood compatibility is about compatibility from home to home, and the large size of the apartment buildings throws all of the calculations out of kilter. He therefore would not use the apartments as part of the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He did not think that homes in the RS1 zoning should be included, and he did not agree that the proposed homes should not be considered their own neighborhood, as there are not enough units to be considered its own neighborhood. Therefore, his conclusion was to compare these homes with the homes in the RS4 neighborhood on Beachview and Channelview Court. He stated that he has difficulties with mass and bulk on lots 3, 4, and 5. He felt that the homes on lots 1 and 2 were the most compatible and that the houses on 3, 4, and 5 should be modeled more after these. Commissioner Ruttenberg agreed with the option that this proposed development can, and should, be treated as its own neighborhood. He was influenced by the comment by one of the speakers that these are RS1 homes being placed on RS4 lots, however he was also influenced by the applicant’s comment that because of the design the homes do not appear as large from the street as they really are. He was still unsure, therefore, that these particular homes are the ones that should be built on these particular lots. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-148 Vice Chairman Perestam agreed with the option that these lots make up their own neighborhood, and therefore he was able to make the necessary findings regarding neighborhood compatibility. Chairman Gerstner felt that in this neighborhood there is an eclectic mix of homes. He also felt that the proposed homes on lots 3, 4, and 5 are rather large and massive and the two story entrances are accentuating some of that mass. He stated that was able to make the finding that these proposed RS4 residences are compatible with the other RS4 residences in the neighborhood. He explained that he could agree that this is a transitional neighborhood and supports the fact that it is its own unique neighborhood, although he did not think it was necessary to look at it that way given the eclectic mix of homes in the area. He stated that in regards to the apartment buildings, they are there and can’t be ignored. He then asked the Commissioners for their input on the grading application. Commissioners Tetreault, Karp, Lewis, and Perestam all agreed that they didn’t have any issues with the grading, noting that there is a minimal amount of grading required. Commissioner Knight stated that he would like to see the possibility of reducing some of the fill to meet what he felt was driving some of the neighborhood compatibility issues he had with the elevations. He stated that he would like to give the applicant an opportunity to consider redesign or alternatives. Chairman Gerstner re-opened the public hearing to allow the applicant the opportunity to speak to the issues of neighborhood compatibility and the ability to redesign some of the proposed homes based on comments made by the Planning Commission. Dana Ireland heard and understood the comments of the Commissioners. He asked that the Commission vote to send this to the Council, but also asked for additional specific directions and comments from the Commissioners for the specific architectural aspects of the project that they would like to see. Chairman Gerstner closed the public hearing. Chairman Gerstner stated that, as much as he would like to pass this on to City Council, he wanted to make sure that what was given to the City Council was a complete package, and not with a vague comment that some of the residences should be designed a little differently. Commissioner Lewis felt that it would be a disservice to everyone involved to try to fine tune every detail of this project before sending it to the City Council. He felt that the developer has been very responsive to the suggestions and directions given by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission should vote on this project tonight and send it to the City Council with recommendations and suggested direction on the aspects of the project they currently could not support. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1-149 Commissioner Tetreault began by stating he felt reasonably comfortable in terms of neighborhood compatibility for the houses on lots 1 and 2. He felt that the large entry tower on the house on lot 4 was a feature that the Commission has discouraged in the past, and has a tendency to increase the appearance of bulk and mass from the street. He felt that reducing the tower feature would also reduce the appearance of bulk and mass. He felt that whatever could be done on lots 3, 4, and 5 to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass would be helpful, including reducing the actual size of the houses. Commissioner Knight agreed that the towers are one element that increases the appearance of bulk and mass. He also noted on lot 5 there is a vertical wall and gable roof, rather than hip roof, that create quite a bit of mass in this house. Chairman Gerstner stated that on lots 3, 4, and 5 the entry element accentuates the mass of the house and is not necessary and suggested removing it. He felt the chimneys could be lowered to the minimum allowed by Code. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve the houses on lots 1 and 2 as presented, and to forward the recommendation of approval for lots 1 and 2 to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Approved, (7-0). Commissioner Tetreault moved to deny the application for the houses on lots 3, 4, and 5, as the Planning Commission was not able to make the findings for neighborhood compatibility and grading, and to forward this recommendation to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Lewis. Vice Chairman Perestam asked if the motion was implying that the findings were able to be made for the height variation. Commissioner Tetreault answered that his motion was stating that findings could be made to support the height variation and all other applications and necessary findings, except for neighborhood compatibility and grading. Commissioner Knight stated that he would have to vote no on the motion, as he felt there is a small view impact, which he felt is significant. The motion was approved, (6-1) with Commissioner Knight dissenting. Director Rojas explained that the appropriate Resolutions would be prepared and presented on the Consent Calendar at the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance Permit (Case No. ZON2006-00510): 6521 Via Lorenzo Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1-150 5. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Coastal Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Variance, Height Variation & Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2005-00536 & Sub2005-00006 etal): Nantasket Director Rojas presented the staff report, giving a very brief history of the project and that staff is presenting for review and approval the three separate Resolutions memorializing the decisions made by the Planning Commission. Chairman Gerstner felt it best to begin with the Resolution regarding the CEQA review. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-29 thereby approving the CEQA review as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Ruttenberg. Approved, (6-0). Chairman Gerstner then asked for discussion regarding the Resolution dealing with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Coastal Specific Plan amendment. Vice Chairman Perestam moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-30 thereby approving the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Coastal Specific Plan amendment as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). Regarding the Resolution approving the Tentative Tract Map and the various development applications, Commissioner Knight questioned if the Planning Commission had made the determination, in terms of neighborhood compatibility, that this development was considered its own neighborhood. Director Rojas explained that staff reviewed the tape of the previous meeting several times, and interpreted from the conversation of the Planning Commission that the Commission was considering this development its own neighborhood when discussing neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Lewis’ recollection was that there were four Commissioners who felt this development constituted its own neighborhood, but did not recall that being memorialized in a motion or a vote. Director Rojas agreed that there was no motion or vote taken on this issue. He noted that the City Council may want to understand how the Planning Commission decided the development was compatible with the neighborhood, and what constituted the neighborhood. Commissioner Ruttenberg stated that ultimately the Planning Commission agreed that this development would be compatible with its neighborhood, however he felt that how the individual Commissioners reached this decision may have been different. Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2007 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-151 Director Rojas understood and explained that that City Attorney had stated that there is quite a bit of flexibility when determining a neighborhood. He therefore suggested language to be included that states that the Planning Commission felt it was compatible, whether it is considered its own neighborhood, or taking the surrounding neighborhood into consideration. Commissioner Tetreault suggested wording that a majority of the Commissioners did not think these proposed homes were incompatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Perestam agreed that such language would be appropriate, adding that additional language could state that the basis for the Commissioners findings were not identical. The Planning Commission agreed. Dana Ireland thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work in coming to a decision on this proposed development. He stated that he and his architect listened very carefully to the concerns regarding the homes on lots 3, 4, and 5, and these houses have been redesigned to mimic homes he felt the Planning Commission would have been more understanding of. Commissioner Tetreault moved to adopt P.C. Resolution 2007-31 thereby approving the Tentative Tract Map and approving the Height Variation and Grading applications for residences on Lots 1 and 2 an denying the Height Variation and Grading applications for the residences on Lots 3, 4, and 5, as modified to include language regarding how the Planning Commission determined what is considered a neighborhood, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved, (6-0). 2. Revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 155 (Case No. ZON2003-0086): 27501 Western Avenue Vice Chairman Perestam stated that since he has three plots at Green Hills he will recuse himself from the discussion of this item. He added that, while he does not think this creates a conflict, he would recuse himself for the purpose of appearances. Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of the project and the scope of work requested with this revision to the Conditional Use Permit. He briefly explained the changes made to the Conditions of Approval, and stated that staff was recommending approval of the project as conditioned. Chairman Gerstner opened the public hearing. Barry Boudreaux (architect representing Green Hills) stated that he still has an issue with Condition 1(H) which calls for no garden walls to be allowed between the north perimeter roadway and the landscape buffer along the north property line in Area 4. He Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2007 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-152 Public Hearings. Councilman Clark left the meeting at 9:01 P.M. Channel 33 Equipment Purchase and Service Contract with TelVue Virtual Television Networks (TVTN) (305) Gabriella Holt, introduced Dave Moody from the Princeton Server Group. Councilman Wolowicz moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to approve the Princeton Server Group quotation in the amount of $26,131.34 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the service and support agreement with TelVue Virtual Television Networks (TVTN) with the City Attorney’s revisions, in the amount of $4,200 in order to implement digital operations and broadcasts support for Channel 33. City Attorney Lynch reported that there were still negotiations ongoing with TVTN regarding the agreement, and if the concerns were not resolved, the item would be brought back to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case No. ZON2005-00536 (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67532, Coastal Permit, Variance, Grading, and Environmental Assessment) and Case No. ZON2006- 00180-182 (Height Variation for Lots 3 through 5); Property Owner: Dana Ireland; Site Address: 32639 Nantasket Drive, a Vacant Lot between Beachview Drive and Sea Cove Drive (701 X 1203) City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and written protests were included in the late correspondence distributed prior to the meeting. She indicated there were eight requests to speak. Planning Director Rojas introduced the item noting that the project was a request to build five homes which required a land use decision from Council. Associate Planner Sohn provided a summary of the material of record. Councilman Wolowicz received clarification that the Planning Commission had not seen the revised plans for the project. Planning Chair William Gerstner explained that a series of decisions were made by the Planning Commission, each dependent on the previous decision with the focus on whether the recommendation for a zone change was appropriate; and the Planning Commission reached the point where they were not able to prove the compatibility of three of the homes. He indicated that if the Council approved the zone change, the City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 8 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-153 Planning Commission could then consider the last three homes and make the final decisions without Council involvement. Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired if other alternatives had been considered by the Planning Commission, noting that the RS-4 homes in the area average about 3000 square feet; the RS-1 areas have larger homes on large lots; and, that adding the 80,000 square foot apartment building into the calculations skewed the numbers, so none of it matched. He acknowledged that the project was complicated and that the Planning Commission did a good job addressing the issues. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Planning Chair Gerstner reported that several alternatives were discussed but since the neighborhood was predominantly RS-4 and the property was large enough to support four houses, the Planning Commission decided that RS-4 seemed appropriate. Planning Chair Gerstner reported that the Commission came to their conclusions after analysis of the information, extensive discussion of the nature of the neighborhood, and extensive examination of the square footage of the proposed homes with the numbers analyzed relative to the homes presently in the neighborhood. Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Planning Chair Gerstner reported that the Commission had not concluded that the project consisting of five houses created its own neighborhood. Councilman Gardiner inquired if preexisting non-conforming buildings could or could not be used in the analysis, as cited in the Hamilton vs. Board of Supervisors Case. City Attorney Lynch explained that the issue in the Hamilton Case was about perpetuating a zoning variance by approving an addition. She indicated that there were different issues involved with this project including the legislative issue of what zone the homes should be placed into and if the Council wished to grant a variance, noting that those decisions were up to the discretion of Council. Councilman Gardiner received clarification that the Council had the discretion to maintain the current zoning or to change the zoning to RS-2 which would go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mayor Long commented on the uniqueness of the lot and expressed dissatisfaction with the neighborhood compatibility process. He reported that a number of cites have a formula whereby there are limitations to the allowable square footage of houses based upon the square footage of the lots. City Attorney Lynch and Mayor Long discussed Prop M and its implications. Mayor Long asserted that the ordinance was a violation of the intent of the voters and City Attorney Lynch observed that the majority of the Council disagreed with him on that point. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 9 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-154 Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired if staff had a particular view as to what an appropriate residential zoning for the area would be. Planning Director Rojas explained that staff did not think RS-4 was inappropriate since the majority of the actual zoning and densities in the area were RS-4. He indicated that there was some discussion of comparing the project to RS-1 homes, which are also nearby but not in the same zoning district, which the guidelines do not allow. Mayor Pro Tem Stern noted that legal non-conforming was not what Council wanted to see propagated and the City zoning was changed because they did not want to see more and more high-density apartments. He questioned why staff would want to approve something the City conceptually rejected as the way to evolve. Planning Director Rojas clarified that, in making its recommendation, staff had separated the two distinct issues of land use and structures. He stated that in assessing the appropriate land use or zoning, staff relied on the existing land use in the area. Staff noted that the founding fathers, in creating the City’s first Zoning Map, had zoned the area including the apartment buildings as RS-4 which staff deemed appropriate for the applicant’s property as it would match the adjacent zoning and residential developments at that density. However, in terms of assessing how large of houses should go on the RS-4 zoned lots, staff did not believe it was right to factor in the size of the apartment buildings. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern about the affordable housing issue, Planning Director Rojas explained that staff had made it clear to the developer that the provision of one affordable unit was required per the ordinance, and that at some point in the future the developer would like to demonstrate that it is not feasible to provide the unit, but until that action is taken, staff is conditioning the project such that the unit be built on site. City Attorney Lynch clarified that what is before them is a condition that says the developer shall provide an affordable housing unit. Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Planning Director Rojas explained that staff’s position was that five lots were appropriate, but the homes were too large. Planning Chair Gerstner explained that the decision was based on predominant land use in the area and clarified that when considering land use, zoning is the issue, not the structure on the land. Councilman Wolowicz inquired if there were any variances regarding setbacks on lot coverage. Planning Chair Gerstner clarified that there were no variances regarding setbacks or lot coverage. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 10 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-155 Mayor Long opened the public hearing. Dana Ireland, applicant, provided a project booklet with additional information, a copy of the site plan, a copy of the unanimous vote of the Council for a zone change of the site, and copies of comments which he took as direction to define a detailed project. He acknowledged that an error had been made with a deficient lot line in the rear and he noted that they were trying to look at property rights to move forward on the project. With the aid of slides, Mr. Ireland discussed sizes of the proposed homes and other homes in the area noting that given the context of the 80,000 square foot apartment building across the street, the proposed homes would appear in context. He asserted that neighborhood compatibility should include the consideration of the appearance of the structures and not just the total square footage. He indicated that they were asking for four units per acre while there were 40 units per acre across the street. He presented slides of views and view impacts noting that the negative votes were about neighborhood compatibility, not about height. He reported reviewing the tape of the meeting, taking all suggestions into consideration, and making changes to the project accordingly. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Mr. Ireland explained that they looked at the appropriate width and depth of the lots and concluded that five lots was the optimum number for the site. He added that they had also taken the appropriateness of the side yard setback into consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Stern expressed surprise that there was no request for a variance for a front-yard setback and opined that the flags were right on top of him when he viewed the development site. Mr. Ireland asserted that was the nature of the silhouette and flags and that it was not an accurate representation of how the project would look upon completion. Responding to Councilman Wolowicz, Mr. Ireland explained that Lots 1 and 2 would be filled to create a level yard and clarified that all the calculations were made from the existing grade, rather than from finished grade. Mayor Long received clarification that staff had reviewed the elevations, and the profiles accurately represent how the Terranea development would affect the views. Mr. Ireland reminded that the Terranea project has a 65-foot tall five-story hotel. Michael Finnegan, asset manager for Pacific Property Company, the owner of the Villa Apartments, asked for denial of the project due to the mass and bulk. Responding to Mayor Pro Tem Stern, Mr. Finnegan indicated that it was his understanding that the Pacific Property Company did not object to having the property rezoned from commercial to residential. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 11 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-156 Bob Nelson, Rancho Palos Verdes, reported that the Seabluff Homeowners Association voted unanimously against the project. He indicated that he had attended all of the meetings and had heard no one but the developer speak in favor of the project. He quoted the Planning Commission minutes where speakers expressed strong opposition to violating the provisions of the General Plan by amendment or otherwise, noting that every time the General Plan is changed the City loses. He asserted that neighborhood compatibility guidelines did not exist when one could declare five houses a neighborhood unto itself and asked that the matter be sent back to the Planning Commission with the applicant redirected to meet with the neighbors to formulate a satisfactory plan. Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that the property was presently zoned commercial recreation and he questioned whether the preference was to leave it that way with a conforming utilization of that property or to change it to residential which would require a General Plan amendment. Mr. Nelson indicated that he personally would like to see four one-story homes at the site and noted that if Lot 1 were eliminated, Seabluff views would be preserved. He agreed with excluding the Villa Apartments from the neighborhood compatibility analysis and indicated that he did not have a problem with the closeness of the homes to each other, but had a problem with bulk, mass and view impairment. Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that the by-right area of 16 feet in height was excluded from the view analysis and inquired if Mr. Nelson believed that there was a significant view impairment of the area in excess of the by-right. Mr. Nelson stated that while he did not have a problem with a by-right height of 16 feet, he explained that he has a 6 foot pad on Lots 1 and 2 and it was his understanding that he plans to build on top of that pad. He opined that the view as presented was erroneous and while he agreed that something should be developed on the site, he did not want to see total view destruction. Lisa Brant, an attorney representing clients on Sea Cove Drive, noted they objected to the current proposal of five very large homes on a single lot requiring eight applications, an amendment to the General Plan, an amendment to the Coastal Specific plan, rezoning, and variances to existing zoning, all indicating that the project is inconsistent with community standards. She commented that the Planning Commission appeared to be bending over backwards to maximize profits over the good of the community and reported that her clients intended to fight the approval of the project to the full extent of the law, including going to court. She pointed out that pursuant to the Government Code, the General Plan can only be amended if the amendment is in the public interest and no argument has been made to that effect. She asserted that the proposal was injurious to surrounding neighborhoods and greatly diminished views. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 12 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-157 Ms. Brant reported that the Planning Commission had indicated that the project was consistent because of the Villa Apartments but non-conforming uses cannot be considered under the law. She felt that declaring it a neighborhood unto itself illustrated a type of mental gymnastics and pointed out the high standard under California law as to when variances are allowed to be granted. She asserted that no variances were needed for Mr. Ireland to develop his property and he had submitted alternate proposals to develop the property that would not require variances. She asserted that just because the property would be more valuable to Mr. Ireland was not enough of a reason to grant variances and maximizing his profits above the interests of the community would be inconsistent with the laws of California, and the planning and zoning that the community worked so hard to put in place. Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired what zoning the residents of Sea Cove believed to be the appropriate zoning. Ms. Brant felt the zoning should stay commercial as that would be in the better public interest but if it was changed to residential it should be RS-1. Councilman Wolowicz expressed concern that if were to be turned into a public place there would be parking and traffic issues, as the owner could build a 150-unit Bed and Breakfast structure on the site. Ms. Brandt pointed out that what would be allowed for commercial recreational would be rather small and noted it was proper to consider residential zoning as RS-1 not RS-4, while including open space issues in the analysis. Responding to Councilman Gardiner, Ms. Brant indicated that her clients would prefer RS-2 over RS-4. Councilman Gardiner noted that their intent was to balance concerns. Paul Wright, Rancho Palos Verdes, indicated that their view would not be impacted but he opposed the project as it would create a densely populated neighborhood. He noted that he supported the rezoning of the site to RS-2. David Emenhiser, Seabluff Homeowners Association President, Rancho Palos Verdes, observed opposition on three sides of the project and he expressed concern with blocked views, negatively affected home values in the area, overflow parking into their neighborhood and a project that differed greatly from what Mr. Ireland discussed with the Association one year ago. He wanted to see the Council send the project back to the Planning Commission or to have the opposition sit down with Mr. Ireland and work out a compromise. Councilman Wolowicz commented on suggested parking ordinances and Mr. Emenhiser provided statistics about the number of cars in the area noting that the Association had not discussed the possibility of a commercial venture. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 13 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-158 Mayor Pro Tem Stern pointed out that under the present proposal, staff believed that Lots 1 and 2 were within the by-right area and did not require a variance, or under the ordinance, cause a view blockage. Councilman Gardiner suggested that if more houses were built, the more views would be blocked. Mayor Pro Tem Stern indicated that was not the issue and the view impairment depended on the size of the homes. Mr. Emenhiser explained that neighbors were told that the by right construction could be to 16 feet, but the silhouette flags on the site were at the height of 30 feet and they were worried their views would be blocked. Juan-Carlos Monnaco, Rancho Palos Verdes, opposed the project due to substantial view blockage and the resulting negative economic impact. He asserted that photos were taken from angles which reduced the appearance of the actual view obstruction and disagreed with the way grading was allowed to affect the view so that a 16-foot structure becomes a 30-foot structure. He opined that the houses should have been required to have height variation permits. Ranjan Bajaria, Rancho Palos Verdes, expressed opposition to the project due to concerns with view blockage, traffic and parking. Mayor Long stated that views from second stories were not protected under the view ordinance; and Ms. Bajaria acknowledged that her first story view was not affected and they used a bedroom on the second story for their living area as it received more light. Councilman Wolowicz noted that Ms. Bajaria’s home was located across the street from the apartment building and it was not easy to see Lot 2 from her driveway. Councilman Gardiner received clarification that if the Council approved the changes and allowed RS-4, the developer could by-right block the view. He inquired if the Planning Commission could ask the developer to move the house to the right or left to preserve view corridors. City Attorney Lynch clarified that only public view corridors would be protected. Dana Ireland believed the public interest was being served by taking the conflict of commercial and residential traffic off of the same streets; noted that there would be a requirement for a variance for the development of the Commercial Recreational (CR) zone since the minimum lot depth is 250 feet and they were asking for less than that; noted that his project would be woven into a very comprehensive and complex public use facility with Terrenea as the next door neighbor and the Vanderlip trail that goes along the bluff top. He indicated that he has observed that people from the apartments City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 14 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-159 park on the street because it is more convenient, not because the lot is full and that is a use issue as opposed to a zoning issue. He acknowledged that Mr. Monnaco had the most impacted view, and they had tried to address the project so that it minimizes that impact and he disputed the accuracy of the unanimous vote cited by Mr. Nelson. RECESS: Mayor Long called for a brief recess from 11:23 P.M. to 11:29 P.M. The Council agreed upon the order in which to consider the issues, discussing the legislative items first including the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Coastal Plan Amendment; received clarification that they had the discretion to determine the zoning on the property, with the understanding that the decision could not be arbitrary or unreasonable; decided that the issue would be required to be returned to the Planning Commission in order for them to discuss the less dense residential standards for consideration; and decided they would not proceed with the other components of the project, as they would be moot. City Attorney Lynch explained that the City Council could either decide to rezone the property or leave more of the decision to the property owner by allowing him to decide to leave the property at Commercial Recreational or change it to a lesser density Residential zoning designation. Councilman Gardiner stated that he appreciated all the work the owner had put into the development of the property and would like to allow the owner the maximum flexibility for the property, but believed the homes were too large for the size of the lots. Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to deny the current application and send the matter back to the Planning Commission with instructions that the zoning be changed from CR to RS-2 zoning, which would allow for three homes on the site. Councilman Wolowicz commented that the parcel was of an awkward configuration and that Mr. Ireland had followed everything by the book. He believed it would be difficult to approve any kind of commercial recreational business at the site, since it is in a residential area, but he did not think any apartment buildings had been approved since the incorporation of the City. He acknowledged other neighborhoods with apartment buildings next to homes and opined there was a need to change the General Plan although he was not sure whether he supported RS-2, RS-3 or RS-4 at this particular site. Mayor Long stated that he did not support the motion, because he believed the decision of zoning was a legislative decision and the Council’s to make. He opined that residential zoning was the most appropriate designation, but did not favor RS-4; was not persuaded that view issues were significant because of the Terranea development; believed Council’s mandate was not to place large houses on small lots and stated this was a classic example of why the City needed square footage limitations specific to lots. City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 15 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-160 Councilman Gardiner indicated that he would not be opposed to changing the zoning to RS-2 residential, but he believed the applicant was not playing by the rules, since he wanted to change eight of them. Mayor Pro Tem Stern stated he believed the property was mis-zoned and no one was trying to change the rules, but he wanted to know if Mr. Ireland wanted the latitude suggested by Councilman Gardiner. Mayor Long reopened the public hearing. Mr. Ireland indicated that he took property rights seriously and had made an application based upon meetings with staff of what was deemed to be appropriate. He inquired if the RS-4 zoning was the real issue or if the issue was the size of the homes. He reported taking due diligence by speaking to operators of boutique hotels and there was some interest in that idea, but they had not pursued that idea because they went forward with the staff recommendation. He indicated that he wanted to understand Council’s concerns and would attempt to address those concerns within reasons. Council Members indicated that the mass of the project was the main issue. Planning Director Rojas commented that neighborhood compatibility was at play and the City could limit the homes to 1,000 square feet. Mayor Long disagreed and he stated that the precedent being set would be to use the 80,000 square feet structure to inflate the numbers. Mr. Ireland pointed out that the Code limited the amount of lot coverage available and if Council wanted the lot coverage to be decreased he could do that. He stated that if the zoning was changed to RS-2 he would be limited to three houses which would be an undesirable project from a builder’s or owner’s perspective. He indicated that RS-3 was more manageable and would provide the open space Council and the residents were looking for and noted he would have to reexamine the CR possibilities. City Attorney Lynch pointed out that the one aspect of the project that Council could not consider was the issue of economic viability. Councilman Wolowicz stated he realized Council could not consider the economic viability, but he expressed concern that at some point the developer might decide to put up a hotel. He indicated that he preferred an RS-3 designation. Councilman Gardiner observed that most of the time there was not much the City could do to prevent mansionization, but this was a case where a zone change is being requested and the Council has the opportunity to help preserve some open space. He indicated that RS-2 would accomplish that goal while RS-3 would not, but if Council City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 16 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-161 changed the zoning to RS-3 he believed the owner should also have the option to reevaluate the desirability of retaining the CR zoning. Mr. Ireland clarified that they were proposing 4 homes of 6000 square feet on 12,000 to 14,000 square foot lots. Mayor Long closed the public hearing. Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to deny the current applications and remand the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the project from CR to RS-2 or RS-3. A roll call vote reflected the following: AYES: Gardiner, Stern, Wolowicz, and Mayor Long NOES: None ABSENT: Clark ABSTAIN: None Councilman Gardiner moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern, to suspend the rules and conduct business after 11:00 P.M. Without objection, Mayor Long so ordered. Tract Map Amendment (Case No. SUB2006-00020): Amendment No. 3 to Tract Map No. 31617 to Permit a Wider Range of Minor Accessory Structures Outside the Building/Grading Restriction (BGR) Line on Lots 42 through 46, Inclusive (Ocean Terrace Drive and Pacifica Drive) (1411 X 1203) City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published and no written protests were received. She indicated there was one request to speak. Without objection, Mayor Long waived the staff report. Mayor Long opened the public hearing. Linda Muckel, applicant, stated that she concurred with staff’s recommendation. Mayor Long closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz, to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2007-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE REQUESTED TRACT MAP AMENDMENT (CASE NO. SUB2006-00020). A roll call vote reflected the following: City Council Minutes May 15, 2007 Page 17 of 21 ATTACHMENT 1-162 City of Rancho Palos Verdes ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Nantasket Villas (Planning Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078): General Plan Amendment, Coastal Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (No. 69928), Coastal Permit, Variance, Grading Permit, Height Variation Permit, and Environmental Assessment 2. Lead agency name/ address: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 3. Contact person and phone number: Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes (310) 544-5228 4. Project location: West side of Nantasket Drive (no address assigned) Assessors Parcel Number: 7573-014-013 (as illustrated in Figure 1) City of Rancho Palos Verdes County of Los Angeles 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Mr. Dana Ireland 1 Sea Cove Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 6. General plan designation: Existing: Commercial Recreational (CR) Proposed: Single Family Residential, two-to-four dwelling units per acre (2-4 d.u./ac) 7. Coastal plan designation: Subregion 2 8. Zoning: Existing: CR - Commercial Recreational. Proposed: RS-3 (Single Family Residential). 9. Description of project: The proposed project includes the following: • Change the General Plan Land Use designation from Commercial Recreational to Single Family Residential, two-to-four dwelling units per acre; • Change the Zoning designation from CR to RS-3; ATTACHMENT 1-163 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 • Change the Coastal Specific Plan's primary land use designation from commercial recreation to single-family residential; • Subdivide the existing 1.41-acre parcel into four (4) residential lots with a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet each; • Conduct approximately 4,028 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of 4 single-family residences, which includes 1,957 cubic yards of cut and 2,071 cubic yards of fill. • Height Variation Permits to exceed the 16' building height requirement for the 2 lots closest to Sea Cove Drive. • Variance to allow the four lots to have a lot depth of 93', which is less than the 110' lot depth requirement. 10. Description of project site (as it currently exists): The subject property measures 61,754 square feet (1.41-acre) and is accessed via Beachview Drive to the northeast and Sea Cove Drive to the southeast. The current site is not improved with any structures. The vacant parcel, located in the City's coastal zone, slopes downward in a southerly direction. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Land Uses Significant Features On-site Vacant See description above. North Commercial Recreation Land Use / CR The existing Terranea Resort Hotel, which was recently completed and opened in June 2009 South Commercial Recreation Land Use / CR The existing Terranea Resort Hotel, which was recently completed and opened in June 2009 East Single-Family Residential Land Use / RS-4* An existing three-story multi-family apartment complex, the Villa Apartments contains 216 rental units across Nantasket Drive. West Commercial Recreation Land Use / CR The existing Terranea Resort Hotel, which was recently completed and opened in June 2009. 'Originally zoned for Multi-Family Residential development, the site was re-zoned to Single-Family Residential in 1979 with General Plan Amendment No. 3 and the adoption of the Coastal Specific Plan. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Coastal Commission. Figure 1: Regional Map Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-164 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Figure 2: Vicinity Map Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-165 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Figure 3: Aerial photograph of existing site Sea Cove Dr North Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-166 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Figure 4: Proposed Subdivision and Site Plans Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1-167 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 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 Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: October 2, 2009 Printed Name: Eduardo Schonborn, Senior Planner For: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1-168 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? 1, 2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings, within a state scenic highway? 9 X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 11 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11 X Comments: The proposed project includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single- Family Residential) of the project site, which will not have an impact on aesthetics. However, the proposed project also involves the construction of four new single-family residences, which can have an impact on the aesthetics of the project site. The visual corridors identified in the City's Coastal Specific Plan are considered to contain the greatest degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers. Specific to the site, there is a Catalina view corridor from Palos Verdes Drive South over the project site looking towards the Pacific Ocean. Palos Verdes Drive South serves as the primary visual corridor accessible to the greatest number of viewers, with views of irreplaceable natural character, and recognized regional significance. The vista corridors described in the Coastal Specific Plan are divided into three categories and each category contains corresponding structural height limitations based upon the focal point's angle from the direction of movement along Palos Verdes Drive and visibility of the focal point. They are: A. Zone 1/Direct/Full Visibility - The focal point is entirely visible within a 0-32.5 degree angle from the direction of movement. Height restriction - Less than 16'; B. Zone 2/Direct/Partial Visibility - The focal point is partially obstructed or obscured within a 0- 32.5 degree angle from the direction of movement. Height restriction - 16' to 30'; C. Zone 3/Indirect Visibility - The focal point is within a 32.5-90 degree angle from the direction of movement, or a secondary area of vision. Height restriction - above 30' The view corridor that exists over the project site is in a Zone 3 view corridor, in which building height restriction may exceed 30'. The overall heights of the proposed structures will be less than 30’. As such, there will be no impact on a scenic vista as a result of the proposed project. There are no designated state scenic highways in the vicinity, including Palos Verdes Drive South, Nantasket, Beachview and Sea Cove Drives. Further, the subject property is undeveloped and there are no historical buildings or other structures that could be damaged as a result of the approval of the proposed project, although it is possible that some mature shrubs and trees might be removed as a result of future development. As such, there will be no impacts to any scenic resources as a result of the proposed project. Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1-169 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact The existing site is vacant. Surrounding uses which may be affected by changes to the subject property include single-family residences to the north and south, multi-family residences to the east, and patrons of the new Terranea (Long Point) Resort Hotel to the immediate north, west, and south. While the proposed development will have an effect on the existing visual character or quality of the site due to the site being vacant, the site is an infill site, surrounded with urban development. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding developments since the project includes residences with an architectural theme that is consistent with the vicinity. As such, there will be less than a significant impact on the existing visual character and quality of the site. The vicinity of the project site is developed and there are several street lights along Nantasket and Beachview Drives, so there currently is nighttime illumination of the area. Four new single-family residences will increase the amount of nighttime lighting in the neighborhood since the proposed project would include exterior lighting around the four new residences (security lighting, walkways) and lighting for the building interiors, which is common to single-family residential homes. However, to ensure that on-site exterior lighting does not spillover onto surrounding uses, the following mitigation measure will reduce any potential impact of the proposed project related to light or glare to less than significant: A-1: Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than upon which such light is physically located. As such, as mitigated, there will be no significant aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed project. 2. AGRICULTURE 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, to non-agricultural use? 9 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 9 X c) 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? 9 X 1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Californian Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as a optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Page 8 ATTACHMENT 1-170 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Comments: Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for the California Resources Agency, the subject site is not identified as an agricultural resource and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. Although the City's Coastal Specific Plan identified agriculture as a primary use, it suggests that to implement such use on the site is contingent on the site not being needed for a school, and sufficient funding from other agencies being available for purchase of the site. The Coastal Specific Plan further states that if these conditions are not met, then a secondary use of commercial recreation as designated by the General Plan be implemented. At present, the site is vacant and has not been identified as sustaining agricultural use. The conditions required for maintaining the agricultural use of the site are not being met, and as such, a secondary use of commercial recreational, as designated by the City's General Plan may be implemented. The proposed conversion of the commercial recreational land use to single-family residential would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use since the subject property is not within an Agricultural District and does not meet the 5-acre minimum for such district. The proposed conversion would also not conflict with a Williamson Act Contract because according to the Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, the proposed agricultural preserve must consist of no less than 100 acres. Lastly, Los Angeles County does not offer Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact upon agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY2 . Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 4 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 4 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3, 11 X Comments: 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 9 ATTACHMENT 1-171 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact The proposed project includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single- Family Residential) of the project site, which will not have an impact on air quality. However, the proposed project also involves the construction of four new single-family residences, which can impact air quality. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), an area monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). There are no existing air quality violations at or in the vicinity of the project site. Air quality in the project area is expected to be substantially better than in most parts of the SCAB region due to the more dominant influence of the land and sea breeze pattern that provides more frequent and substantial mixing and dilution of air pollutants. Furthermore, development patterns throughout the Palos Verdes Peninsula and in the vicinity of the project site are much less dense and traffic volumes and congestion levels are also much lower than the SCAB region. Thus, the good local air quality is not expected to worsen as a result of the project. Due to its scope and nature, the proposed project is considered incapable of influencing the subregional jobs/housing balance, and is thus consistent with the indicators of consistency with the AQMP. Further, according to Table 6-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Screening Table for Operation – Daily Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality, a potentially significant operational air quality impact and potential exceedance of air quality would occur with a threshold development of 166 single-family units. The proposed project will result in four new single-family units, which is significantly below the threshold established by the aforementioned Screening Table. While development and operation of the Nantasket Residential Development project may result in some pollutant emissions from short-term construction activities, construction related emissions would be temporary in nature and would not be considered to be potentially significant due to the limited size of the project (four new residences and 4,028 cubic yards of grading). Nonetheless, the sensitive receptors located in the vicinity include the single and multi-family residences, and the Terranea Resort Hotel adjacent to the subject site. These properties could be impacted by dust and emission from construction vehicles generated during construction of the proposed project. As such, the following mitigation measures will reduce the impact of the proposed project related to air quality during construction to below a level of significance. AQ-1: During construction the owner shall ensure that the unpaved construction areas are watered at least twice a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project site boundaries. AQ-2: During construction the owner shall ensure that all clearing, grading, earth moving or demolition activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 30 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. AQ-3: During construction of any improvements associated with the subdivision, the owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. AQ-4: A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s) responsible for the construction site and a phone number(s) to be called in the event that dust is visible from the site as described in mitigation measure AQ-1 above, shall be posted and prominently displayed on the construction fencing. Therefore, as mitigated, there will be less than significant impacts with respect to air quality issues as a result of Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1-172 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact the proposed project. 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, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7, 9 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7, 9 X 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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 7, 9 X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 7, 9 X e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? 11 X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 7 X Comments: Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1-173 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact The subject site, along with every other property in the City, is covered by the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Although the City Council approved the NCCP in 2004, final approval of the NCCP by the wildlife agencies has not yet occurred and, therefore, coverage of take for specific private projects has not yet been conveyed to the City. According to the City’s NCCP, the subject site is not located in or adjacent to any existing or proposed NCCP preserve property or Habitat Conservation Plan property. In addition, according to the NCCP Natural Vegetation mapping, the site is classified as having “agricultural” vegetation. Lastly, the property does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the resource agencies. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect and/or endanger the sensitive habitat or vegetation species identified in local, regional, or state agencies. Furthermore, according to the City’s NCCP, the subject site is surrounded by grassland and disturbed sites, and thus, is not situated in the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Lastly, no federally protected wetlands have been identified on-site, there are no designated migratory wildlife corridors in the project area. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to biological resource issues. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? 9 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 6 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 6 X d) Disturbed any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6 X Comments: No paleontological resources are known to occur on the project site. Although the City’s Archaeology Map does not illustrate the subject site as being within a possible area of archaeological resources, the project site is an undeveloped property that has never been constructed upon. As such, it is possible that subsurface cultural resources may exist on the subject property. Therefore, the following mitigation measure will reduce the impact of the proposed project related to cultural resources to less-than-significant: CR-1: Prior to the commencement of grading, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, as mitigated, there will be less than significant impacts with respect to cultural resources issues as a Page 12 ATTACHMENT 1-174 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact result of the proposed project. 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 Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?3 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, in- cluding liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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? X 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? X 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? X Comments: The potential exists for people and property to be exposed to the hazards of seismic activity in most of California. This project will not increase the potential occurrence of earthquakes since the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo special studies zone. Further, according to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department of Conservation, the subject property is not located within an easrthquake- induced landslide zone or a liquefaction zone. Notwithstanding, however, numerous controls would be imposed on 3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1-175 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact the proposed project through the permitting process. In general, the City regulates development (and reduces geologic impacts) through the requirements of the California Building Code, the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, local land use policies and zoning, and project-specific mitigation measures, the project would be subject to compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, including by not limited to Section 15.04.010, [California] Building Code and Section 15.04.040, Building Code Amended – Seismic Safety Requirements. In addition, much of the Palos Verdes Peninsula is underlain by soils characterized as expansive; thus, appropriate construction plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building Official for consistency with current building codes and erosion control standards, as well as for consistency with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. According to the geology report submitted by Western Laboratories, the majority of the soils encountered consists of artificial fill and terrace deposit, underlain by very dense and dense bedrock. The report concluded that the existing artificial soils are not suitable in their present condition for pavement or structural support. Appropriate construction plans would be reviewed by the City's Building Official for consistency with current building codes pertaining to expansive soils. Thus, due to the expansive soils common on the peninsula and the site’s geology, prior to the construction of and grading for the proposed project, and to ensure that there will be no risk from expansive soil or from liquefaction, the following mitigation measures have been added: GEO-1: The applicant shall ensure that all applicable conditions as specified within the geotechnical report and all measures required by the City Geologist are incorporated into the project. During grading and construction operations for any new residences, top soil will be exposed and removed from individual properties. It is the City’s standard practice to require the preparation and implementation of an erosion control plan for wind- and waterborne soil for construction projects. The approval of the proposed project will not grant any entitlement to develop these lots. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the erosion impacts of the proposed project to less-than-significant levels, the following mitigation measures are recommended: GEO-2: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan for the review and approval of the Building Official. The applicant shall be responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during project construction. Therefore, as mitigated, there will be less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils issues as a result of the proposed project. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance? X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X Comments: The approval of the proposed project includes the development of four new single-family residences on the vacant Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1-176 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact parcel. Based upon data obtained from CoolCalifornia.org, the average California household generates thirty-eight (38) tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually. For the proposed project, this could result in increased CO2 output of at least 152 tons per year at build-out of the new residences. Currently, there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the new residences would be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the current Building Code (i.e., Title 24). Further, the development of the four residences would tend to counteract the negative effects of sprawl by “in-filling” in an established developed area, rather than converting raw land to urban use. For these reasons, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006), a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB) regulation to reduce passenger-car GHG emissions. These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a reduction of approximately 30 percent) and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Currently, there are no adopted plans, policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of new, single-family residences. However, as such plans, policies and regulations are adopted in the future, and potentially codified in the Building Code, the construction of the residences would be subject to any such requirements that may be codified when plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review. For this reason, the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. 8. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 9 X 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? 12 X 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 9 X Page 15 ATTACHMENT 1-177 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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? 9 X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 13 X 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? 10 X Comments: The proposed project consists of rezoning and ultimate construction of four new single-family residences on the project site. The project will not result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Further, the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s map of Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones does not identify any portion of the site as a wildland urban interface (WUI) area. There are no public or private airstrips located within two miles of the project site; the nearest school in the vicinity is the Portuguese Bend Nursery School at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, which is over one-mile from the nursery school; and the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Lastly, in 2004, the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan (JNHMP). The purpose of the JNHMP is “to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens, critical facilities, infrastructure, private property, and the environment from natural hazards.” The approval of the proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to hazard and hazardous materials issues. 9. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements? X 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 (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned X Page 16 ATTACHMENT 1-178 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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 stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X 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 the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate map or other flood hazard delineation map? 9 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 9 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 9 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 9 X Comments: Impacts related to water quality would range over three different period: 1) during the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation and sedimentation would be the greatest; 2) following construction, prior to, the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high; and 3) following completion of the project, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated Page 17 ATTACHMENT 1-179 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact with urban runoff would increase. Construction of the proposed project would result in soil disturbance on all of the proposed lots, totaling 1.38 acres. During a storm event, particulate matter would run off the site. Urban runoff is expected to increase as a result of developing the proposed project site due to there being impervious surface areas. The concentration of chemical constituents dissolved or suspended in runoff waters leaving the site would vary with the distribution pattern of rainfall events. Similarly, the characteristics of rain events affect the concentration of pollutants. Figure 25 of the General Plan Safety Element, Potential Flood and Inundation Hazards, illustrates the locations of the drainage tributaries existing in the Rancho Palos Verdes area. According to the general plan, there are no tributaries located on the subject property. Project implementation would negligibly increase the amount of impervious surfaces onsite and lead to a negligible decrease in ground absorption. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has jurisdiction over the storm drain structures on and adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would increase the area of impervious surfaces with construction of buildings and sidewalks. The project site would lose much of its natural storage capacity and a greater volume of rainfall would be converted directly to runoff and directed into the drainage system. This increase in impervious surface area would reduce absorption rates, and would increase the velocity and volume of surface water runoff, which could have affects upon downstream bluff erosion. Construction of drainage improvements necessary to safely accommodate increased surface water runoff would alter current drainage patterns on the project site. Although there are no major natural or man-made drainage channels serving the project site, the rainfall that falls on the project site is primarily absorbed, but the water that runs off the site generally drains downhill to the south and ultimately flows into the ocean. However, upon construction, runoff would be diverted towards the drainage system in the area. Therefore, the proposed project could potentially result in a significant adverse impact related to drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. The following mitigation measure will reduce the impact of the proposed project related to drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff to below a level of significance. HWQ-1: Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Building and Safety Departments and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit a storm water management plan which shows the on-site and off-site storm water conveyance systems that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of safely conveying storm water off the project site. These drainage structures shall be designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that adequate drainage capacity is maintained. The plan shall also show whether existing storm water facilities off the site are adequate to convey storm flows and what additional improvements to these existing facilities are required by the project applicant to ensure these facilities will be adequate to meet the needs of this project. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the proposed residences, the project applicant shall install/improve such facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Building Official. HWQ-2: The project shall comply with the requirements of the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity to prevent storm water pollution from impacting waters of the U.S. in the vicinity of the project site. The historic drainage patterns for the site follow the natural topography with the majority of the drainage flowing south towards the bluffs and down into the ocean. The project watershed includes some off-site drainage which Page 18 ATTACHMENT 1-180 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact passes through the project site; while some on-site drainage discharges onto other properties. The proposed project is a residential development and does not include any discharges to surface water other than pollutants from the residential area that would be transported in storm water runoff. Developed residential areas typically generate motor oils, pesticides, animal wastes, detergents and a variety of other household and landscaping related wastes that are carried in stormflows along the ground and street surfaces and in drainages. These pollutants could result in significant adverse impacts related to water quality. The following mitigation measures will reduce the impact of the proposed project related to the water quality of stormwater runoff to below a level of significance. HWQ-3: In accordance with the Clean Water Act, the project applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the project. The project applicant shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before any site grading begins. HWQ-4: Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP), including sandbags shall be used by the project applicant to help control runoff from the project site during project construction activities. Measures to be used shall be approved by the City Engineer before a Grading Permit is issued for the project. Therefore, as mitigated, there will be less than significant impacts with respect to geology and soils issues as a result of the proposed project. 10. LAND USE/PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established com- munity? 9, 3 X 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 plan, specific plan, local coastal plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 3 X c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Com- munity Conservation Plan? 7 X Comments: The proposed project includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single Family Residential) of the project site. In addition, the proposed project involves subdividing the parcel and construction of four single-family residential structures. Although the project site is vacant, the parcel is located in a developed area of the City. Project development would develop a relatively small parcel, will continue to maintain the urban characteristics currently present in the adjoining area, and would not substantially alter circulation patterns or otherwise divide an established community. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial Recreational, which the applicant is proposing to re-zone to Single Family Residential, two-to-four dwelling units per acre. To ensure consistency with Page 19 ATTACHMENT 1-181 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact the General Plan, the zoning designation for the project site is proposed to be changed from CR to RS-3. The proposed project will be a four lot residential subdivision that is consistent with the proposed changes to the General Plan and zoning. The proposed project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to conflicts with the City’s General Plan or zoning. In regards to the change in land use designation, the proposed change will not conflict with any goal/policy of the General Plan or zoning ordinance that was adopted for the purpose of or mitigating an environmental effect. As indicated above, although the City’s Coastal Specific Plan identified agriculture as a primary use, it suggests that to implement such use on the site is contingent on the site not being needed for a school, and sufficient funding from other agencies being available for purchase of the site. The Coastal Specific Plan further states that if these conditions are not met, then a secondary use of commercial recreation as designated by the General Plan be implemented. At present, the site is vacant and has not been identified as sustaining agricultural use, and the site will not be used for any commercial recreational uses since the adjacent Terranea Resort site has been built- out. Thus, In regards to the change in land use designation, the proposed change will not conflict with any goal/policy of the General Plan or zoning ordinance that was adopted for the purpose of or mitigating an environmental effect. Lastly, the project site is not included in the City’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) preserve, and is not located in any existing or proposed Significant Ecological Areas (SEA). As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to land use and planning issues. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 1 X 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 1959. However, these quarries are not situated on the project area. The Element further notes that there are no mineral resources present within the community that would be economically feasible for extraction. Further, no known mineral resource exists on the project site and project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Lastly, the site has not been delineated as an important mineral resource recovery site within the City’s General Plan. As such, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to mineral resource issues. 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 1 X Page 20 ATTACHMENT 1-182 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X 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? 9 X 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? 9 X Comments: The proposed project includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single- Family Residential) of the project site, which will not have an impact on noise. However, the proposed project also involves the construction of four new single-family residences, which will generate short term construction noise. Construction noise levels at and near the project site will fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Nonetheless, project construction will generate short- term intermittent noise associated with construction equipment and activities that will be subject to comply with the hours established by the City’s Municipal Code. Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally would occur in the daytime hours only since the Municipal Code exempts construction noise if construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (construction is prohibited on Sunday and legal holidays). Since the project will generate construction related noise during grading and construction of the building, the following mitigation measures have been added: N-1: Demolition, grading and construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday. There shall be no construction on Sundays or federally observed holidays. N-2: During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday Page 21 ATTACHMENT 1-183 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures, the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to noise will be less than significant. 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)? 14 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 9 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 9 X Comments: The proposed project will result in the construction of four new dwelling units in the City. Based upon the 2009 estimates from the State Department of Finance (DOF) of 2.747 persons per household in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, these new residences would be expected to accommodate eleven residents. The DOF estimates the 2009 population of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as 42,800 persons, so the proposed project would result in an increase of less than 0.03%. Furthermore, the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allotment for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is sixty (60) additional housing units during the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2014. The proposed project could increase the number of housing units in the City, but would not exceed the total units allocated to the City by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the current reporting period. Further, since the project results in the creation of less than 5 dwelling units, the project applicant is not obligated to provide affordable housing nor provide a payment in-lieu of providing affordable housing. Lastly, the subject property is currently vacant; thus, there will be no displacement of people that would necessitate construction of replacement housing. Therefore, the population and housing impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Page 22 ATTACHMENT 1-184 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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 impacts, 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 includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single- Family Residential) of the project site. In addition, the proposed project involves the construction of four new single-family residences. The estimated population of the four new residences that could result from the proposed project is 11 persons, which amounts to less than a 0.03% increase in the City’s 2009 estimated population of 42,800. This small increase in population is not expected to place significant additional demands upon public safety services (i.e., fire and police) or other public services (i.e., libraries, etc.). The structures will incorporate any interior fire suppression devices required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and will be constructed in accordance with applicable fire codes. Further, as standard requirements of the construction of new residences, applicants will be required to pay fees to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). The proposed project will result in an increase of park uses by the new residents of the four homes. To mitigate a less than significant impact resulting from the minor increase in the number of residents, the following mitigation measure is included as a condition of approval of a Parcel Map: PS-1: As there is no park or recreational facility designated in the general plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the project applicant shall, in lieu of dedicating land, pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in Section 16.20.100.0 and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.20.100.G. Lastly, the proposed project would result in a minor increase in the demand for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the County of Los Angeles to maintain public facilities such as roads, sidewalks, and the drainage system. This increase in the demand for maintenance of public facilities is so minor that it is not anticipated to result In a need for new or altered government services and is not considered to be a significant adverse impact of the project. Therefore, as mitigated, there well be less than significant impacts upon public services. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of 16 X Page 23 ATTACHMENT 1-185 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 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, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16 X Comments: The proposed project is expected to potentially increase the City’s population by 11 persons. Although this amounts to less than a 0.03% population increase (based upon 2009 estimates), additional residents will place some additional demands on the City’s recreational facilities. The project will result in an increase of park uses and facilitate the use of the existing Marineland Segment, Long Point, Flower Field, and Vanderlip Park trails. However, the mitigation measure identified in the comment portion of the “Public Serves” section above will be used to bring the potential impact to a less than significant level. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 8 X b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 8 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency ac- cess? 13 X Page 24 ATTACHMENT 1-186 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 11 X g) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X Comments: Based upon the current 7th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 210, Single-Family Detached Housing, pp. 268-304), the development of 11 new single-family residences is expected to result in 39 additional average daily trips, 3 additional AM peak-hour trips and 5 additional PM peak-hour trips. The City’s project thresholds for potentially significant traffic impacts are projects expected to generate more than five hundred (500) average daily trips and/or more than fifty (50) peak-hour trips; thus, the proposed project is substantially less than these thresholds. The nearest streets to the project site are Palos Verdes Drive South, Beachview and Nantasket Drives. A number of construction vehicles would access the project site using area roads. These construction vehicle trips would be temporary and end when all project construction activities have been completed. To ensure that soil exportation activities do not interfere with roadway traffic or damage the streets used to haul the soil to the site, a mitigation measure has been added to the project that will require that the City's Public Works Department review and approve a haul route plan and that the applicant posts a bond with the City to ensure that any street damage caused by soil hauling is repaired. Thus, the following mitigation measure is included: T-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the project applicant shall prepare a haul route plan for approval by the City's Public Works Department. The project applicant shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil away from the project site. The proposed project does not include any modifications to existing public or private rights-of-way or changes in current land-use patterns that would create or increase hazardous conditions or hamper emergency access to the area. Further, the proposed project will have no impact on any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation projects; the project will have adequate emergency access from the existing Beachview and Nantasket Drives; and the existing roads are not anticipated to create a hazard to safety from design features since the roads have been designed to City standards. Lastly, pursuant to Section 17.02.030.E of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, new single-family residences are required to provide enclosed, off-street parking for two (2) vehicles for residences with less than five thousand square feet (<5,000 SF) of living area, and for three (3) vehicles for residences with five thousand square feet or more (>5,000 SF) of living area. Each of the four proposed residences complies with these requirements. Therefore, as mitigated, there will be no environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project with respect to transportation/traffic issues. 17. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 15 X Page 25 ATTACHMENT 1-187 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 15 X 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? 15 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X 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? 15 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statures and regulations related to solid waste? X Comments: The proposed project includes a General Plan land use redesignation to Residential and rezoning to RS-3 (Single- Family Residential) of the project site, which will not have an impact on utilities and service systems. However, the proposed project also involves the construction of four new single-family residences. The proposed project will result in a negligible increase in the demand for utilities and service systems. California Water Service Company (Cal Water) provides the City’s water service. Given that the proposed project could potentially increase the number of households and persons in the City by less than 0.03%, the increase in demand for water attributable to this project is expected to be negligible compared to the amount of water used in the Cal Water service area. The project applicant is responsible for connecting to the existing water-distribution facilities in the area, including the costs of making such connections. As such, the water supply impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less-than-significant. The applicant will be required to provide satisfactory site drainage to the existing storm drainage system through Page 26 ATTACHMENT 1-188 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact street outlets or underground drains, and comply with NPDES standards and requirements as stipulated in mitigation measures HWQ-1 through HWQ-4 above. Lastly, any uses resulting from the zone change is required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As such, there will be less than significant impacts with respect to utilities and service systems issues. 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? X Comments: As described in the above analysis, the proposed project will not 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, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history. No endangered, threatened, or sensitive biological resources, historic structures, or known cultural resources are located within the project site. Thus, no adverse impact will result. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?4 X Comments: The proposed project will result in the development of four new, single family residences on an existing vacant lot within a developed area of the City. The proposed project is a relatively small in-fill project compared to existing development in the vicinity of the project site, notably the Terranea Resort Hotel project. The proposed project may have impacts that are individually limited, but these impacts will not be cumulatively considerable in the context of the existing site, the immediate area or the region. Furthermore, with the imposition of the recommended mitigation measures, these potential cumulative impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant levels. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 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 27 ATTACHMENT 1-189 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Comments: As discussed above, all potentially-significant environmental effects of the proposed project can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. 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: Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Long Point Resort Project (General Plan Amendment No. 28, Coastal Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 215 & 216, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073, Grading Permit Nos. 2229 & 223) was utilized in the analysis of this project because the subject site was formerly a part of the Terranea (formerly of Long Point) Resort Hotel project parcel. Reference was made to a previous Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previous project on the subject property, which was for a 5-lot subdivision and residential development. This previous Initial Study was not certified since the project was denied. Nonetheless, said documents are available at the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department at City Hall. 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: Similar issues were raised in the past Mitigated Negative Declaration as have been identified in this Initial Study. However, since this project is smaller in scale, this initial study has focused on the impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated to result in less than significant impacts associated with the proposed development. 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: Since the proposed project involves a smaller development with regards to density and build-out, there are mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from this earlier document despite the fact that the document was not certified. The mitigation measures identified for the 5-lot subdivision and development have been modified to address a smaller development and build-out. These mitigation measures address Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, and Transportation and Traffic. 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. Page 28 ATTACHMENT 1-190 Environmental Checklist Case Nos. SUB2008-00001, and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 October 2, 2009 Page 29 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Coastal Specific Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California: December 1978. 3 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA AIR Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, California: November 1993 (as amended). 5 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology 6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map. 7 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California as adopted August 2004 8 Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition. 9 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS) database and maps 10 State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Sacramento, California, accessed via website, March 2008 12 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code 13 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (i.e., “Cortese List”) 14 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 15 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element 16 Abalone Cove Sewer System Supplement Environmental Impact Report 17 City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Conceptual Trails Plan. Rancho Palos Verdes, California: September, 1993 ATTACHMENT 1-191 1955 Workman Mill Road,Whittier,CA 90601-1400 /lflailing Address:P.O.Box 4998,WhiNier,CA 90607-4998 Telephone:(562)699-741 1,FAX:(562)699-5422 www.lacsd.org OF LOS AI'.!Gi::LFS COUr'JT"'( STEPHEN R.MAGUIN Chief Engineer and General Manager Mr.Joel Rojas,AICP,Director Planning,Building and Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Mr.Rojas: October 7,2009 File No:05-00.04-00 RECEIVEr) OCT 08 2009 PlANNING.BUILDING AND CODe ENFORCEMENT Planning Case Nos,SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 throngh ZON2008-00078,Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No.069928 The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts)received a Public Notice and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project on October 5,2009.The proposed development is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No.5.We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1.The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts,for conveyance to the Districts'Long Point Pumping Plant Influent Sewer,located in a right of way approximately 450 feet south of the intersection of Nantasket Drive and Seacove Drive.This IS-inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of 2.1 million gallons per day (mgd)and conveyed a peak flow of 0.2 mgd when last measured in 2006. 2.The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson,which has a design capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 286.2 mgd. 3.The expected average wastewater flow from the project site is 1,040 gallons per day.For a copy of the Districts'average wastewater generation factors,go to www.1acsd.org,Information Center, Will Serve Program,Obtain Will Serve Letter,and click on the appropriate link on page 2. 4.The Districts are authorized by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly)to the Districts'Sewerage System or increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected.This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project.Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued.For a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet,go to www.1acsd.org,Information Center,Will Serve Program,Obtain Will Serve Letter,and click on the appropriate link on Doc #:1377732.1 Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT 1-192 Mr.Joel Rojas -2-October 7,2009 page 2.For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees,please contact the Connection Fee Counter at extension 2727. 5.In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA),the design capacities of the Districts'wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans,which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CAA.All expansions of Districts'facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles,Orange,San Bernardino,Riverside,Ventura,and Imperial.The available capacity of the Districts'treatment facilities will,therefore,be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG.As such,this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service,but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts'facilities. If you have any questions,please contact the undersigned at (562)908-4288,extension 2717. Very truly yours, Stephen R.Maguin ~cl,j..M-t~ Ruth I.Frazen Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department RIF:rf Doc #:1377732.I ATTACHMENT 1-193 Page 1 of 1 EduardoS from:SunshineRPV@aol.com Sent:Sunday,October 11,20096:22 PM To:pc@rpv.com;EduardoS@rpv.com Subject:Nantasket affair TO:RPV Planning Commission RE:Nantasket Drive proposal.SUB2008-00001,and ZON2008-00074 thru 00078. I am appalled that Staff hasn't figured out a way convince the applicant that this proposal is unreasonable.The California Coastal Zone shouldn't have any more development of any kind. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes needs more recreation and commercial development.Not more residences. Residential development with intrusive variances is just plain inconsiderate.The applicant has already gotten one commercial facility changed into a McMansion.(I miss that handy gas station.) It shouldn't be a matter of who is willing to pay the most fees. Our General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan may be "old as dirt".But,they are our defense against literal and figurative erosion of our special place. Please say NO to every part of this proposal. Sunshine 10/12/2009 ATTACHMENT 1-194 EduardoS From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Joel Rojas [joelr@rpv.com] Friday,October 30,2009 11:44 AM 'EduardoS' FW:Nantasket Villas Nantasket Villas (RPV).pdf;Nantasket Villas_NCCP (RPV).pdf Nantasket Villas Nantasket (RPV).pdf (14...lIas_NCCP (RPV).pd -----Original Message----- From:Randy Rodriguez [mailto:RFRODRIGUEZ@dfg.ca.gov] Sent:Monday,October 19,2009 12:46 PM To:Kelly Schmoker Cc:David Mayer;Eric Porter@fws.gov;'Joel Rojas' Subject:Re:Nantasket Villas Hi Kelly: I am looking at this project and have already talked with Dave about it. Based on our discussion,I was going to contact Joel (RPV)and ask the City to:1)please update the biology discussion on page 12 to accurately reflect the current status of the NCCP-HCP (i.e.,in-progress and no coverage has been conveyed yet);and,2) to verify the habitat (or lack thereof)on-site (NNG,agriculture or disturbed?)the MND notes that "grassland and disturbed areas",surround the site,but does conclude anything about the site per se. This site is located near the old Marineland,in an area that appears to have been previously graded The site is located outside of the proposed NCCP-HCP preserve and no sensitive species have been observed in the immediate area (See attached). Thanks, Randy »>Kelly Schmoker 10/19/2009 12:01 PM »> Hi, I just wanted to confirm that Randy was reviewing this project as I just got the CEQA doc too. Thanks, Kelly 1 ATTACHMENT 1-195 SEA BLUFF HOA:RPV PLANNING COMMISSION LETTER #1 RE:NANTASKET PROPOSAL Sea Bluff Homeowners Association Board of Directors Sandie Nelson,President Dave Emenhiser,Vice President Dick Jones,Member Jolaine Merrill,Member Joe Raiti,Member Becky Poe-Anderson,Member Bob Nelson,SecretarylTreasurer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission c/o Eduardo Schonbom,AIC? Senior Planner 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5391 November 2,2009 Single Family Homes on RP'V's Coastline RE EI 0 NOV 02 2009 pLANNING.BUILDING AND COOE ENFORCEMENT Dana ireland's Nantasket 4.Home Proposal ~ FoUowaon to his 2004~2001's 5 Home Proposal Denied and Remanded with instructions by City CouncU Planning Commissioners and Senior Planner Eduardo Schonborn, We are sUbmitting this too early to be able to include our comments on Eduardo Schonbom's upcoming Staff Report.OUf objective was to have this as part of the initial packet you receive.Therefore,we'll reserve Staff Report comments for a later document. The purpose of this letter is to voice our HOA's opposition to Dana's second proposal for 'big boxes on small lots,'four large single family homes crowded together on our coastline.Rather,we favor Council's CR or RS-2 instruction plan as below. For the record:His first proposal required three resolutions,all approved 6-0 by you on April 24,2007,and numerous applications all which were denied and remanded back to you by our City Council 3 weeks later on May 15,2007.From those Council Minutes: uCouncilman Gardiner moved,seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stern,to deny the current applications and remand the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that conSideration be given to rezone the project from CR to RS-2 or RS-3}' AYES:Gardiner,Stern,Woiowicz,and Mayor long NOES:None ABSENT:Clark ABSTAIN:None" pg.1 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1-196 SEA BLUFF HOA:RPV PLANNING COMMISSION LETTER #1 RE:NANTASKET PROPOSAL All of us should probably reread those minutes in entirety so we won't get sidetracked with whether the item being discussed is wheat (Council material as requested above)or chaff. As this item advances to our Council and Coastal Commission,Sea Bluff HOA will probably,for the record,include those Minutes and selected portions from the five (5) Planning Commission hearings to be sure we accurately state the history and various votes on this project. As we see it,using the same homes and drawings as in 2007 (4 homes were adjusted to 4 lots and so plans have a printed 'Revised Design 8/10/07 with a handwritten '6/1/09'at the bottom of each drawing and no stated plan differences).This 2nd proposal reduces 'big boxes on small lots'from 5 to 4,(We believe this is the RS-3 Council option and not the RS-2 and CR Council 'considerations.'Note:as the Minutes reflect,RS-4 is not part of the Council's direction.) For us the major irritant,as sUhouetted,contInues to be ~ot #1.:3 prob~ems: 1.We know the lot win be fined In and the home buUt on top of that fUt Given the fm nne (usuaUy on site a ribbon tied on each pole),it appears some areas of the home (for ex:northern garage wan)wm be no more than 8~9'to roofUne.Previously we've had this argument over actual eventuai height 'IS,silhouetted height -and lost but It remains an interesting debate as to whether developers have to show actual height on top of fin or height using existing grade,no fin.Not being professionals,we are in favor of ~what you see is what you geV 2.Of course,without a view corridor and using 'by~right'Dana can and does elimInate our homeowners views of ocean and golf course open space.We note Dana's current plans show significant space between homes and southern lot lines.OUf solution would be to have Dana agree to move the home location on these lots toward the ocean,opening up the planned 10'distance on lot #1 from the garage to northern lot line sufficiently to prOVide a compromise on Sea Bluff views.It appears the impact to the other lots would be viable,particularly if you remember the distance between homes found in Dana's original 5 single family residence plan.Then the homes were so close,the silhouettes used different colored flags to visualize what actually were 5 different homes. Despite our urging,Dana wui not entertain any change in lot #1.Apparently a city engineer refuses to change this lot's driveway entrance onto Nantasket.To solve this we have suggested driveway entrance could be unchanged by have the driveway 'l' shaped,leaving the entrance where this engineer insists it be placed and then turning to enter a relocated garage. We favor Councilman Larry Clark's vIew obstruction solution technique:direct Dana and our 4.homeowners meet and agree on a solution,otherwise,as larry says ~Neither of you win Uke what we'll propose.'Works most of the time!No prob~em in doing this from Sea Bluff HOA. 3,In 2006/2007,Sea Bluff,as a Planned Unit Development (PUD),was represented to have severe lot coverage,even more than Dana's Nantasket proposal! pg.'2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1-197 SEA BLUFF HOA:RPV PLANNiNG COMMiSSION LETTER #1 RE:NANTASKET PROPOSAL For the record,and to compare oranges to oranges:based on lot coverage,Sea Bluff vs. Nantasket,it becomes clear why RS-2 was the 1st thought of our Council. Sea Bluff lot coverage,including open space:18% Nantasket lot #1 coverage,including open space:35% To equate to our coverage Dana would have to reduce his proposed 5,050 sq.ft lot #1 coverage to 2,592 sq.ft. My cales: Sea Bluff MOA: Sea Bluff iot coverage,including open space:18%:= (1800 sq ft foundation /10000 sq.ft.which =lot +share of common,open space) 1.Assessors lot:usually 4,300 sq.ft.(43'wide x 100'deep)(some 43'x60') 2.Foundation:I measured mine at 1,800 sq.ft.+2,500 sq.ft.yard :=4,300 sq.ft.total lot. Ql;!en 3 common area in Sea Bluff:t700 sg.ft.ger lot.So:including pro-rata of common,open spaces:lot size:10,000 sq.ft.,that is,real estate folks use this '10,000 sq.ft ~ot when semng homes.. Nantasket: Using his 2008 plan,i cah:ldate lot #1 (6 bedrooms)coverage at 35%. (Plans:lot =:14,402 sq.ft.with 5,050 sq.ft.coverage)For the record:we readily admit developers and towns have several different ways to calculate lot coverage. However,our oranges to oranges:to have the same lot #1 coverage as Sea Bluff's 60 homes have,Dana's home would have to have our 18%lot coverage and using Dana's 14,402 sq.ft.lot #1,his coverage would be not his proposed 5,050 sq.ft.but 2,592 sq.ft.Then he would equate to Sea Bluff HOA coverage.That's 51 %of what he'll build and would equate his open space to ours.Otherwise,Nantasket has significant more lot coverage than the neighbor. Attached are pictures of our silhouetted coastline and what it will look like!Note the view of our hills through these silhouettes,a view that it seems will soon disappear into RPV's very own 'Georgetown'wall of homes and 10'deep front yards. We believe preventing this type pf development was one reason we were founded.Based on your previous 6-0 vote,maybe we are wrong.We do hope our Coastal Commission will agree we don't need single-family homes at this coastline site. Thank you for your attention.RPV has enough challenges.let's not make this one! Bob Nelson SeclTreas Sea Bluff HOA 310-544-4632 pg.3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1-198 11/1 0/2009:RPV PC -Nantasket 2nd Plan ATTACHMENT 1-199 - RE:DANA !RELANDiS 11/10/2009:RPV PC -Nantasket 2nd Pian ATTACHMENT 1-200 11/10/2009:RPV PC -Nantasket 2nd Plan VIEW:UPHilL FROM NANTASKET &SEA COVE CORNER ATTACHMENT 1-201 NANTASKET PROPOSAL AND NATURALIST TRA~L TRAil GOES BACK ONTO TERRANEA RESORT (BEACHVIEW &. NANTASKET) TRAil ALONGSIDE NANTASKET AS MAiNTAiNED TODAY 10/31/09 TRAiL EXITS TERRANEA RESORT AT SEA COVE AND NAN~KET RUNS NORTH ON SIDEWALK PAST NANTASKET PROPOSAL ATTACHMENT 1-202 c.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••111"0/2009 RPC PC :Nantasket #2 Plan ~ ATTACHMENT 1-203 Page 1 of 1 EduardoS From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 10:27 AM To:eduardos@rpv.com Cc:'Joel Rojas' Subject:FW:Nanlaskel From:sunshinerpv@aol.com [maillo:sunshinerpv@aol.com] Sent:Friday,January 22,2010 10:30 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Nantasket MEMO from Sunshine TO:RPV City Council Eduardo Schon born,AICP,RPV Senior Planner RE:SUB2008-00001,and ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078. Dear Gentlemen; In case you didn't know,I am opposed to any more construction in our Coastal Zone other than minor,visitor serving facilities like rest rooms at trailheads.I concede that the owner of this last bit of private acreage has the right to improve his property. I object to granting any zoning change and any variances.A casual breakfast and lunch cafe with equestrian access would provide what Terranea is missing.Such a thing would comply with the existing zoning and produce income for the City.I don't care if our Mr.Ireland has lots of money and has pulled this sort of thing off,before.Tall,high density residential units are just not appropriate in this location. 1/25/20 I0 ATTACHMENT 1-204 LO:'-i(l POINT [)EVlLOP\IE~·1 January 25,2010 Eduardo Schon born Senior Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re:Nantasket Drive -Proposed Single Family Homes Adjacent to Terranea Dear Eduardo, This letter is written regarding the proposed single family residential project to be located on Natasket drive,adjacent to Terranea Resort.Upon review of the information contained in the Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV)Planning Commission Staff report dated November 10,2009,Long Point Development (LPD)has the following comments and concerns. First,the Staff report indicates that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit a development with shallower lot depths than are required by City Code for RS-3 zoned properties.According to the Staff Report,the existing parcel has a lot depth of 93'which does not comply with the required minimum lot depth of 110'.While we understand that applicant still adheres to the minimum setback requirements specified for an RS-3 zoned lot,we are concerned that proposed plan has not considered the potential implications the shallower depth will have on the lots,houses on the lots,and the persons residing in those houses,related to golf safety.Shallower lots will cause the houses to be closer to the Links at Terranea,and leave the applicant with no room to provide potential golf safety mitigation. We respectfully request that the City require the applicant to undertake the appropriate golf safety review and to include any necessary mitigation in his development. In addition,we ask the City to require that a declaration be recorded against the Ireland property which sets forth as to all future owners the following: I.A perpetual,nonexclusive easement for golf ball overflight. 2.An acknowledgement and agreement which includes the following:"that the Ireland property is located adjacent to the Links at Terranea Golf Course and is subject to risk of damage or injury due to person or property,including,without limitation,damage to the improvements constructed on the property and damages for personal injury or death due to errant golf balls. Each owner,for itself and for future owners,hereby assumes the risk of any and all damage or injury to persons or property,including,without limitation,damage to improvements on each lot or other property thereon,and damages for personal injury or death due to errant golf balls,and hereby releases Long Point Development,LLC and its successors and assigns as owner of the [00 Terranea Wa).Rancho Palos V ~rd~s California.9027.5 -r 310 8002 7-1.00 -F .3 10 802 7"~50ATTACHMENT 1-205 • Tcrranea Resort and/or tile Links at Terranea Golf Course and any operator of tile Resort or Links Golf Course and each of their officers,directors,employees and agents from any and all liability for damage or injury caused by errant golf balls." 3.A similar acknowledgement and agreement regarding the resmt itself,the conditions of approval for the Resort,and the fact that the Resort is a 2417 operation,with cars coming and going all night and outdoor as well as indoor lighting and usage of facilities. 4.An acknowledgement and agreement tilat there is and can be no access from the Ireland property to the Resort and no entry into the resort property and the Habitat area. Second,pursuant to Section 16.04.040.E of the RPV Subdivision Ordinance,as well as California Environmental Quality Act requirements,the findings contained in the Staff Report indicate that the applicants'project will not have a detrimental effect on "wildlife or its habitat".While we cannot provide comment on the merits of this analysis,we are coneerned that the applicant has not adequately studied the impacts of the proposed development on the Terranea Habitat Zone that directly abuts the proposed development.This Habitat Area,referred to by the California Coastal Commission (CCC)as Zone C,is a requirement of Terranea's Coastal Development Permit.Please see attached Exhibit A (LP-I Nantasket Habitat).As Staff is aware,LPD has invested significant resources in assuring the integrity of its habitat areas and the non invasive ornamental zones that abut them.We respectfully request that the City consider the impacts of the proposed development on adjacent native habitat areas,that the City require that no nonnative or invasive species be permitted within fifteen feet of the Habitat Zone and that nonnative and invasive species be required to be removed by the property owners as needed from such area,and appropriate additional mitigation measures to preserve the integrity of the restored Habitat.We ask that Staff revise its finding accordingly. Third,regarding the applicant's conformance with the Coastal Specific Plan,we are concerned that the applicant's proposed development is not being held to offsite improvement or coastal access precedents imposed on other developers (including Long Point Development)within Rancho Palos Verdes.For example,while the Staff report notes that "the ...residences are confined to property limits and will not interfere with the public's right to access the sea,"other developers,including Long Point Development, were required to improve off-site trails,including the Flowerfield Trail which directly abuts the applicant's property.We respectfully request that the City require the applicant to improve and maintain the portion of the Flowerfield Trail adjacent to his property. We appreciate your attention to our comments and concerns regarding this development application. Should you have any questions or require any additional materials or explanation,please contact me at your earliest convcn:ence so that we m~y respoild as needed. Regards, ~c:hajCher V ice President Long Point Development 100 l'crran-:a "Vay -Rancho Palos Verdes California.90275 ~T 310 X002 7...\.00"I:310 gO:?7~50ATTACHMENT 1-206 •c•-II.-GI~ ..c o •:z:E•..> ..0o~ ..II.~GI E j111:- ••~GI II.HI:~••j~"'0 B,..c j GI •Ii...... ~_Afdl_sc.•• JUSC"',A_u.-...Nt>""'J07J lsa ""'104 burton ....R_ ~CCC Sutlrnibl 14AuI061~DD 09 Oct 06 CCC Relubmiu.l Native Habitat Planting Zone Per GGG. "'--Undisturbed Eastern Bluff Face Area ATTACHMENT 1-207 OlllIW.Can!llIoIIlAVIl.5U!LItOO ~C111.~mlllOO2OO VQlW :110.2iG.lIM4 FlIll,CImUo31021l1-C/lM ...RuI/,d~roledInn.!XlfQ Wllballv:6I1YiroIqdro.oam, ENV'IROTECHNOI ~AACHrTEt;lUne +Itffl:RIOADESlGN OWNER/APPLICANT :DANA AND PAIGE IRELAND 1 SEACOVE DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275 PROJECT ADDRES5 32639 NANT ASKET DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131,P83-84 OF MAPS IN THE COUNTY RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,CA NO.OF LOTSt1 Nantasket Vesting Tentative Tii'a~t !i'!!o.6i'53! Ram::ho Paio$Verlllles,CA AllSgQl!ilt 2007 iI""'....__.,~~.'"...'"'.~''"?Itw;~~~~~'m....~"~llII:w~'~,=_l<'ol"m~"~.~lU...'~, ---~'"----_-_-..%=.,....1I.;p:;..~l\\1 ~ 1\ 1\ 1\ 1\ ARCHrrEClUAALSTAMfI: 01 6 ~ cho Z (!;l (j) W Cl Cl W (/) :>w Cl: 01.Q13 06-10--07 AS OTi!D LM ct<P:CKEfJ'BY' SHEEr-NO; J NO: 34% 100% 364 so.FT 5,481 SQ.FT. 6~~~~%Pi. 5,117 SQ.FT. 4,547 SQ.FT. L./l;'I:5 so FT 6,392 SQ.FT. 4,547 SQ.FT. 40 SQ.FT. 530 so.FT. 5,117 SQ.FT. 3,931 so.FT. Wl.15 SQ FT 5,776 SQ.FT. 3,931 so.FT. 616 SQ FT 17,704 so.FT. 9,749 so.FT. ZON2008~0007 4-00078 DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE LOT 4 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'O.) LI'vlNG AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LI'vlNG AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR L1'vlNG AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREAl GARAGE PORCH BALCONY : TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/lIVING ROOM 37% 100% 4,624 SQ.FT. ~ 5,248 so.FT. 385 so FT. 4,160 so.FT. 1528 SQ fT 8,744 so.FT. 4,239 SQ.FT. 319 so.FT. 66 SQ.FT 4,160 SQ.FT. 33 SQ.FT. 4q W FT 4.239 SQ.FT. 1,056 SQ.FT. 3,549 SQ.FT. 611 SO FT 14,081 SQ.FT. 7,563 so.FT. 1,056 so.FT. 3,549 so.FT. 1528 SQ EI 6.055 so.FT. LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'D.) LlVlJ'JG AREA BASjOMENT LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL U'vlNG AREA STRUCTURE AREA BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR U'vlNG AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL smUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT U'vlNG AREAl GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/U'vlNG ROOM UGHTWELL 3 DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 32.5% 100% 2,525 SQ.FT. 4,229 so.FT. 260 SO FT 4,489 SQ.FT. ~ 5,069 SQ.FT. 3,919 so.FT. 30 so.FT 280 so FT 4,229 so.FT. 3S)9SQ FT 6,444 SO.FT. 15,567 so.FT. 8,456 so.FT. 2,525 so.FT. 3310 so fT 5,835 so.FT. TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT lIVlNG AREAl GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY ILI'vlNG ROOM DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE LOT 2 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'D.) LI'vlNG AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL L1VINC AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR UPRER FLOOR L1'vlNC AREA GARAGE .35% 100% ll21_,''iQ.-il. 6.433 SQ.FT. 3,924 SO.FT. 28 SO.FT. 2~8 so.FT 4,210 so.n. 2,509 SO.FT. ....2Jill...:lQJ.L 4,470 SQ.FT. 580 so FT. 5,050 SQ.FT 4,210 SQ.FT 3,315 SQ.FT. ~ 14,402 SO.FT. 7,754 SQ.FT. 2,509 SQ.FT. ~.ll......E1. 5,824 SQ.FT. TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT L1'vlNG AREAl GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LI'vlNG ROOM LQT 1 ORIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE LOT AREA PAD AREAO,333 MIN.REO'O.) LIVING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL L1'vlNG AREA smucTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR LI'vlNG AREA GARAGE 1\ 1\ I I I I "1'1 I ATTACHMENT 1-208 %-~~~~~~=i=AMPARCHITECTURALST. ASNOTEO ~-'-l};\ __01_ r DRAWNBV: CHECKED BY: SHEETNQ: 9 \2 rho z (!) iiiwo ow (j):>w 0: JoaNO: DATE: SCALE: ! ~ ------ I I I I I-J GARAGE 28,00 S,F,. PORCH 399.00 S.F, LOGGIA 258,00 S.F. I -.J SQ.FT-'---.jfFLOORAREA609.00 S.F." '1 I 1 --'k BDRM#3 ~ 9'..{j"CLG. 0'·91/2'-------------'-=~-t--, BDRM#4 ~ g'-O·CLG LOW LINEN ~(0)WW [ErR)IF ~(0)(0)rR)[f»~~[N] ~--:-J4''"1 -0 I L __;, ;" 6'-o";o:6'-I!' TMPDHN 74·.:!_1l~" 6'.(J"~6'-I!" TMPO.VNLst,oR RUMPUS ROOM 2G'.()"'X16'-o' 9'.uCLG BDRM#6 ~ g'·O·CLG 6'-0'1<.6'-6" WO.SLOR f1'·O"1<.6'-t!" WD,SLOR 9'.83.14 " ATTACHMENT 1-209 ENVIROTECHNO INTEfIACTIVEPIlCHllEClU1'le +INrERlOf\oOESIGN lltOIW.C&lItllt:llo.l\lHJ.SUXtlltxl Cutva'CIty.CDllfomIl1.llOZ3O Vol<;831llJ!l0.DM4FCfdmi!091O.2111.00&4 q.mall:dQllg"@ctMfOIOChno.oorn I'/lIbIiI~Qn(rOIoc:/Ino.<:'Jm I.M_0_' ....o ~ eOo z (!) 1i5wo Cl W (f) :>wa: 07.()13 06-1O..Q7 AS NOTED 3-GAR GARAGE 20'-Q'X3/J'...()' 618'TYPE 'X'GVP.BO.ON ALL WAJ..lS &CEIUNG ADJ,TO LIVING SPACE (l-HR RATED I MSTRBDRM lS'-(l'X27'-6' 9'-()"CLG ~I ~~_....jJ J sa'--j'~~~- 3'-o'X 0'·8" ·,03/4' SCALE:.Y'4 -I ~O 74'·11/4' FAMllYRM l(\'.O"X21'-O' !)'.Q"ClG 29'·51/2' .------~-._------ j,I,1 ---"'-''" \\!..-~~~ ____'_03_'.~.~~2· 6-o-X4'·0' VNL.SL.WDO. l··;-l··;·~r··.. i rr- :1 I0'-0')(6'-8'0'·0')(6',6'6'-0')(0',0'~t-_r_;::"'=PD=.VN;;L=S=LD=R::r,_~;;TM;;PO;;.;;VN;:L=.'L;:;;OR::::;Iir.si_;;;;T=M;:PD=V:iNC;:;;'::'-:;D";;-i.bm~~~~~~-lill1j~---+---:'I<---T'--4~"::W (2J2-6'X4'-IT VNLFLX.woo W/AACHABV UVINGRM 16'-6')(28''<;' 9'.(I·CLG DINING RM 14'..(J';.(15'.(I' g'·O·ClG FIRE PLACE OY eFM MAJESTIC INC ICBOI'ER·56n INSTAlL PER MANUFACTURER SPECS ATTACHMENT 1-210 ENVIROTECHNO IN'rnRACTIIIE AilCHITECTUAE..,.INJeUOA DesIGN ARCHITECTURAl STAMP; Gl0\W.CllnUm14Avo.Suil.l00 C\lIYw~.CQI~~ Voica310.2I!5.004<4FD$dmViJ311121M8&1 <MMl1:d~lIn"'lOIlJClmQ.ca!T1wdl$Jtt;.rtIIlrollltfml).com 4t-.. ------~~--RIDOI'IIEIGliT "100.1 - t"- O ;2roo z (!) ii5 UJa a UJ (f);;: UJcc JOBNa' DATE; 01-013 08-10-07 SCAle DRAWN BY: Ct:lECKEO BY' ASfiOTED eM 01 ATTACHMENT 1-211 ~CHfTEcruRAL STAMP: /1101 W.CtnII/ldllM.$u1ID 100 e.-rClty.CI2IilI:mI~90230 Voiclll310.l116.lllU4FMdrnlla310.2U100S4 lHT'&lI;dCQilIn~l'OU!d1oo.oon W\Ib;Ilo:omh!l(11;hoo.a;ltIl SHEET ~ETAl CHIF,!NEY TERMINUS (TYP.) STUCCO CHIMNEY STUCCO OfFONl TRIM (TYP.1 SAND FINISH STUCCO {TYP·1 ~~(D)rMli !E[L!E\Yl ffilll~(D)rM ~4 =1·0 156.0 LOll'EST FINISH GRADE C'OVERED BY STRUCTURE ":---l 2 5"-- ~~~--._~-=-:-. o 00 .f I -F.1$fi,6 ~~-F.f.156.5 "f.G 156.0 f'-o ;2 eOo z CJ (j) wa aw (f) :>wa: 07·013 0&10.07 i\Sf'!OTED tJ;1 JOB NO: _DATE: SOAI.E: DRAWN BY: 156.(.l LOWE.ST FINISH GAADE C9VEREU BY STRUCTURE _. $HFET IJETAL CHntNEV TERtlINlJS (TYP.J GLASS RAILING,~,'L .•1: =~==,,~Lf.G.166.0 CLAY PIPE FALSE VENT ~!Effil~!E[L!E\Yl ffil m(D)rM SCALE:~"- I -0 CONC.TILE ROOF (TYP.) STUCCO Q/FOAIJ TRIM (TYP. ) SAND FINISH STUCCO (TYP.) BAnO-SAWN RAFTER T,UlS 12 /~@ 32"O,C.(TYP.)·_-"\2.fi.,JE 1L..-,2.5 ~~ IF.~.HHl.6 164 ._~().---i' f1.HillgS!nlSTrm GlIAVE COVERED BY STRUCTURE CHEct<EO BV: StiEETNO; DI ATTACHMENT 1-212 ENVI !'lClTEC to!N C 1NT£RACnvE AFlCHItECrURE +ItnERlOA OESJGN r).o SI-lEETNQ; ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: b s2 ~ z Cl iii LLI Cl Cl LLI (f) :> LLIa: JOBNO~'~====;~97~.()1~3~O"TE:06-10-07 SqAU;,AS ilOTto OMWN6'i:LM CHEC!<EOBY 01 ~i ~I~IQ w~i~M~~....~~a: "~I~~ ~ en s <r ~ --.J !5 --.J ~(j >~fff f---~;UJ Y ~~en«%0; I--I~z ~<r~z~ 0101 W.ContIllW.Aw.&ta 100 Cl/lvQrQy.C'lIIlfcrnblllCJ2Jlll Vglorl310.l!16.004ol Fa!lClm/)D31OJ!l(l,oos. efl1a1l:dCIIlg~.Q;JmW~:CInI,Jt'tlll,ldlrJQ:Cllrrl ---------------- NAITASKET ..lOT 1 lBl _"'~'=:'.~'! "jL '22.5r-- SCALE:>'4 -1 -0 SCALE:5'4 -i -0 \56.0 LOWEST FINISH GRADE -co\iEffEfi8Y~- ATTACHMENT 1-213 Vesting Teil'lltetive Tract Nc.67532 ~ei!'l1ch@ Paioe Verdee,CA 2001 6t01W.OllnllIlGlaAlm.SullIJ'lW CUMlrQI1.C-1:llIomIa9lJalO VQiCllGI0-21a.08«F8~lealo.2I(1.OO5d ltmaltdcl'!lln@llI'I\IIfUIlIChrlcl,ccm I<1lbslln:DlWlroloChn<",com IE NVI ROT'E;C H N 0 IfllTSlACT1\/E ARCHI'JECTUAE +INll;fllOR DESIGN z-.---- ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: ---] OWNER/APPLICANT ,DANA AND PAIGE IRELAND 1 SEACOVE DRI VE RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275 PROJECT ADDRESS ,32639 NANTASKET DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275 LEGAL OESCRIPTlQN ,LQT 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131,P83-a< OF MAPS IN THE COUNTY RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.CA NO.OF LOTS 4t tU LU( >-----_._---- --, I 0 "'I <D I,n Q "-I8:«) 49'W 35.87' f1:FE 133.0 -......._-"--- filOGE 1523 FF 138.5 FF 127.5 (/2G.3LFJ LOTAREA=-;7~-~.-..............-..-. LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 lOT 4 I'-o (2 00o Z (') Ci5 UJo o UJ Cf) fEa: 07-013 SHEE'fNO: DAAWNBY: CHEC!<EOBY' DATE: SCALS: JOBNa: 34% 100% 364 SO E1 5.481 SQ.FT. 580 SQ FI. 6.06\SQ.FT. 5.117 SQ.FT. 4.547 SO.FT. 184p SO FT 6.392 SQ.FT. 4.547 SQ.FT 4.0 SQ.FT. 530 SQ FT 5.117 SQ.FT. 3.931 SQ.FT. 1 845 SQ FT 5.776 SQ.FT. 3.931 SQ.FT. 616 SQ.FT 17.704 SQ.FT. 9.749 SQ.FT. LOT AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN.REQ·D.) LIVING AREA LOI'IER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TQTAL LIViNG AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOI'IER FLOOR LIViNG AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR mTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FQQTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE: PORCH BALCONY . TOTAL STRUCTURE:FOOTPRINT LOT COVlERAGE STRUCTURE: COURTS ENTRY/LIVING RQOM DRIVEWAY WTAL LOT COVERAGE 37% 100% 4.239 SQ.FT. 4.160 SQ.FT. ~ 6.744 SQ.FT. 385 30 FT 4.624 SQ.FT. ~ 5.248 SQ.FT 1.056 SQ. 319 SQ.FT ..2B.5.Q....ll. 4.160 SQ.FT. 33 SQ.FT. ~ 4,239 SQ.FT 14.081 SO.FT. 7.563 SQ.FT. 1.056 SQ.FT. 3.549 SQ.FT. ~ 6.056 SQ.FT ORIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE Lor AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN.REQ·O.) LIVING AREA BASEMENT LOWER ELOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA SrnUCTURE AREA BASEMENT LOI'IER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FQOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY . TOTAL SrnUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE SrnUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LIVING ROOM L1GHTWELL32.5% 100% 4.229 SQ.FT 26D sq.FT 4.489 SQ.FT. ~~l. 5.069 SQ.FT .3919 SO E1 6.444 SQ.FT. 2.525 SQ.FT. 3.919 SQ.FT. 3D SQ.FT. ~'i9....£L. 4,229 SQ.FT. 3.310 SQ.FT. ~.Q,.£L 15.567 SQ.FT. 8.456 SQ.FT. 2.525 SQ.FT. ~ 5.835 SQ.FT. LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO·O.) LIVING AREA LOI'IER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIViNG AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOI'IER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY jLlVING ROOM DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 100% 1Jl?..LS.Q,.£L 6.433 SQ.FT 4.210 SQ.FT. 2.509 SQ.FT 3.924 SO.FT. 28 SQ.FT ~Q-,-'.L 4.210 SQ FT. 3,315 SQ.FT. ~~ 14,402 SQ.FT. 7,754 SQ.FT 2,509 SQ.FT. 3315 SQ FT 5,824 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COV[RAG[ La r AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN REQ'D) LIVING AREA LOI'IER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOI'IER FLOOR UPPER FLQOR LIVING AREA GARAGE TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA "iTRUCTURE FOOTPRINT liVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINI COVERAGE srnUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/UVH~G ROO~1 ATTACHMENT 1-214 9 $2 00o Z C!l Ciiw Cl Clw (f) '>wa: ...JWz [ij:5 ...Je. 0:0:1.1.103:00..1 -ILl. [;;, ARCHITECTURAl STAMP; 61t\IW.QInlIoola,IW<:.$ft:lll1O c.nm-ClI)',Clllllo<rilt!ll23l VOl"Cl310,2111.ll6«F.ucklI!IIl-311l2Il\l1S5'1 _1:da&IQn@oll'lltt,ll>dV""';:Qm WIll$l/:lll1V\IIlIIlFf\OO.CQln ENVIROTECHNO tNlERACTNE AfICHr1'SOT\Jfle '+-INTERIOROE&\3N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 -J 8'..q"x4'.o" VNL..SLWDO. 2951/2'",,,;-~r -i __________..J BDRM #3 14'.(1'1118'-0' !J'..()"CLG. LINE O/Z UP'PER FLOOR BDRM#4 ~ 9'.(I·CLG. --~--,- FLOOR AREA ~~~~~-I-I__......:..,L __.... '''''-''-1.--".'~-"?""~J'__2\.;112"_ ----- !LlQJWfE!R1 f!LlQJlQJ!R1 fi2J!L~fr!] SCALE:P4 '"1 -0 ;1 1 ~RUMPUS ROOM 21j'.jJ"lt16'..J' '""9'-(l"CLG ) lS··~,/4'_.._._-~- BDRM#6 ~ 9'.(I"CLe. 1:1 !lS14' 13',61/2'5'·23/4'__~•..~_5..'.·.'..Il.'.I.'.'.---~-_..~~------r-------~_.--lINE OF~ER~Fi.OO'~~~------!t-- "_..J!:~11:.-__~0 ilIielll!i!!E=~V>I;;;;L,S~L~WDO;;;;,;;:;;l!lf'.m~,··-·I·L.OGGIA~-~III1/,'""II 8'..(),'!dl'·S"",8'''()·/(6'~· TMPD.VNLISLDR.TMF!D.L$L.DR. 1- J--_. JOB NO: DATE: .SCAlE: Q7..Q13 08-1Q.Q7 AS NOTED IAN1ASKET.,LOT 2 DRAWN BV: CHECKED BY: SHEET NO: eM DI ATTACHMENT 1-215 ARCHITECTURAL STAMp· t; s2roo z C) 1i5w Cl Cl W (/):;: W 0: JOB NO:ONllS DATE:08-10.07 ENVIROTE:CHNCI IN'1"E'flAC1'I AflCHfTECTURE +lNTEF110f10ESlGN 6101 W,(an\lbl:lll.lAw:LSu'Il'J 100 CWol1C1tV,Cl1l~OO2OO Vall>ll310.21li.o&MF&edmlIo31l1.21d1XJSol o-troU:d~g~lol:hro.cQlnfll/boltlr.Qrm~.eom. SCAU;:AS NOlHliDRA~~"I'~OY~-C==-::':='-=---LM-_CHECt<EOBY _.-01 SHEET NO: V4".oo1'..()" ~! -1 j 3-CAR GARAGE 20';.(}"X3O'.{J' 516"i'f'f'e 'X:GVP.SO.ON ALL Vl,IAlLS 6 CEIUNGADJ,TO LIVING ~ACE (l-HR,RATED I MSTRBDRM 1s'..a"Xi7'-6' O'-O"CLG 2-o"X3'.()' I VNLS_HWO~O_ ---'-":'-"'"--.----J',--"'''- ____',,".1 1/2 :. -_._-----_..-=====~---- 103·$1/2'...-.-.._--. 4'..(j"X3'-6" VNl.SLWDO. ~lPJ lPJlE!Ri [HJlJ)(Q)!Ri lPJ [,~[r!] SCALE:i'"1 -0 6'-o'X6'-a'6'..(j"X6'·8' TMPD.VNLSLDR TMPOVNL.SL.OR ---~.:..:.!-~-'--.~-. FAMILYRM 16'.Q"X27'.()' 9'.Q'CLG 6-O"Xi!'..()' VNL.SL.WOO WlARCH ABV 6'..(l"X6'-6' TMPO.VNLSL,OR.. 44'·73/4"------- UVINGRM ~ 9'..()"CtG 6-0">:4'-0' VNL.SL.WDD WtARCH/lBV 6'·O"X6'-8' TMPO.VNL.SL.DR. DININGRM ~ S'..(J"CLG "-.-- ATTACHMENT 1-216 ---------------....., ENVl ROTECH N 0 INl'ERACTlVEAR!:HITEC'IlJRE +INTERIOR OSSIGN 610IWClt!IIrvllmAvll.SUlIO'OO CUml,Clly,caJlf<Xnla.1llJZ<Ill Valcfl 31l1.l!l6.ll6«Fo!l.ctmIllI31Q.211l.OM4 <>mll!l:dl\l;lgl1l9llf1oll'll1<ldlnll,1:QI1\W\ltl:slIu;~INlrnt;I(hJO_COJn ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: l\ 4 RIDGE =165.40 ...--------l-- 1 1 AIDaE =165.40 r--~.------- I ,,-----------'I t3 ~ @ z Cl Ci5wo ow (J) :>wa: JOaNO DATE: 9,,-ot3 O'Hl>G7 2 !lCAIE DRAWN BY CHECKEOBY: SHEET NO: ASNOTEO LM 01 1/4'"1'..q ! t ~'!,~""""=".•""""""",w,@=""""m_,m,,~,,m,,,,,_,",,~"m"""m"w,m""'''"",@m"w"""~",,",,,m,,_,,_mm,_~m_m"m~w".m=$_,v'_""'~'='""~,m,"_'_'"'_'_====__@,m m,_,~_,,_w_"_,,=,w@_=_"__~'_~,m =========_==..,;;;;6_-;e/_-<?..,;..1'""""'"ATTACHMENT 1-217 --------~---_._-_..._._--,-- 4 ARCHITECTURAl STAMP: ENVIROTECHNO tNTBlAC11VE ARCHrTEcnJRE +INTERIOR OES1(3N Ql01W.CoPllnIittIAw,dlullOlllO CuJiarOy,C&lIomlI.W2!IO ValDa 31Q..%\Q.olI4oI FMdmiIll:llD.2l/l..ll8!M Q-mall:dOlI;l~IDIge/lno.QOmwoblite:a~f\O.-com I~~ L ~ :ili T .~ -L__!~~~O -~-:-14~-30-- 141.30 LOWEST FINISH GRADE COVEReD BY mue URe GLASS RAILING (TVP.) ~,STUCCO 0/FOA!.!TAlIA (TYP.) '49.''10 HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE COVER 0 BY smuc AE ROU-UP METAL GARAGE DOORS •._SHEET METAL CIiIMNEY ,TEmnNUS (TYP.) STUCCO CHHfNEY I'If FOAll TRIM 12 ---'2.5 -,:,7.,'SHEET"ETACVtft..t-----"!'~II)II"-'15~-"~,~ o[e~--Tt _.e,".e~..Jj "151 ~6~G.151.80 . "HIGHEST FINIsn GRADE i~._CQ'/lO!li1Q<rLJ;till&f]JBL-_~ SHEET METAL CHIMNEY TERMINUS (TYP.) SAND FINISH STUCCO (TYP.) STU<:CO OtFOMA TRIM (TYP.) CONC.TILE ROOF (TYP.) PRE-CAST CONCRETE COLUMNS (TVP.I SANC!FINISH STUCCO (TVP,) -~--------- 12 2.5'- 141.30 LOWEST FINISH GRADE COVfREO BY smUCTURE PI,A,TI: FJ. 'i..---- ..\.;.__.fJ· F.G. ATTACHMENT 1-218 ENVIROTECHNO lNTEIlACl1VE ARCHlTEC1TJflE +INTERIOR DESIGN 01- "-o ;2 ~ Z C9 ii5 illo o ill (f) :> illa: ASNQTED LM 07~t3 -----06-1Q.<l7 r~o SHEET NO: CHECKED BY: DATE;SCALE:--. DRAWN BY: A ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: 1l101W.centlmllklo,SUl\oI60 C\Jher~.CalbmI.OO2OO VQ1oo310.21ll.l1W1 F8llCltnDo310.216.0Il54 .-..maitd~~!Ilthno.CllrOwebsltC:tlrMmtocl!no,,,,,", V4'\o;f..(J" '?, _==-_~_'~'l'l_L F.G.141.30 ---------._---. SCALE:74 =1 ~O SCALE:74 :::1 -0 ----I ""~i~~Sf FINISH GRADE COVEREO BY STRUCTURE 141.30 / LOWEST FINISH aRADE / COVERED BY STRUCTURE-- .i~~~I'IIIII'III~I'I~!~'!I!!lllllr~~:l~I!!I~~-~-IR;r~~~T1e5.~-------------------~-------------------->j;-------------=t:::r::- PLATE---------------r ~-----------_..._. .=.:-::::""-::-:::-:::.--.:==.:.==:=L--._-t:-D.~- ATTACHMENT 1-219 VEistling Tenta'Uve Tract Nc.6'1532 Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 2007 L t OWNER/APPLICANT DANA AND PAIGE IRELAND 1 SEACOVE DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275 PROJECT ADDRESS 32639 NANTASKET DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131.P83-84 OF MAPS IN THE COUNTY RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.CA NO.OF LOTS ENVIROTECHNO INlIiRAcTlVE ARCHI1"ECTURS +IN'tERIOR beS1GN ll1Dl W.CMlIttOll.'AWL Sul19 '00 C\dwtClty.Cll!iIcrnlaOO23G Vclcu:l1l).2IU,OOWFclclmu..SIIJ.2'6.CIEIS1 G-mWl'dIIlt'{ln@M'o'Iroltxttrlo.oom wilbslfll:OIWIrcl«hno.oom ARCHITecnJRAL STAMP: SHEET NO; ,.",o ~ 00o Z (!J 1ii UJ Cl Cl UJ CI);; UJa: JOB NO'07-013 ~ C ~ Z ~::5 ~W llt -c::lie <i!-oCt ujl~c::II:~.~ lI.loC~~ 0 ~:I:~~ll: en :$z<:(II: -.---J f2 -.---J ~~:>lI:ufow I-liili! Lt..J ~~ ~18UJ;;! <:(0- I-~ g z ~<:( ~Z DATE:OB-1Q-01 """';C"':""'WN"'·"'ByC-,----_~~NO~_ CHECKED ev:01 34% lJ.J > 100% 364 SO FT 5.481 sa.FT. 580 sa FI. 6.061 sa.FT 5.117 SQ.FT. 4.547 SQ.FT. J 645 so FT. 6.392 SQ.FT. 4.547 SQ.FT. 40 SQ.FT. 530 SQ.FT. 5.117 SQ.FT 3.931 SQ,fT. 616 So...a.. 17,704 SQ.FT. 9.749 SQ,FT. 3.931 SO.FT. 1845 Sa ET 5.776 SO.fT. FF 1330 LOT 4 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN.REO·D.) LIVING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR 1'OTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRIN T LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LIVING ROOM DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 37% 100% 319 SQ.FT. .A9~ 4.239 SQ.FT. 4.160 SO.FT. 33 SQ.FT. ~ 4.239 SQ.FT. 1.056 SQ.FT. 4.160 SQ.FT. k'i2.ll.....SQJL 6.744 SQ.FT. ,3B5 SQ.FT. 4.624 SQ.FT. 624 SQ....u... 5.248 SQ.FT 3.549 SO.FT. ..§JLSll...£L. 14.081 SQ,FT. 7.563 SO.fT. 1.056 SQ,FT. 3.549 SQ.FT. ~ 6.056 sa.fT. L DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/UVING ROOM UGHT\Ii£LL LOl'3 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN.REO·D.) LIVING AREA BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE 32.5% Q. "- 142.6 LP,) 2.525 SO.FT. 3919SQ FT 6.444 SQ.FT. 3.919 SQ.FT. 30 SQ.FT. --'Ji~ 4,229 SQ.FT. ---22lLS.QJl 4,489 SQ.FT. 560 SQ.FT. 5.069 SQ.FT. 4,229 SQ.FT. 3.310 SQ.FT. 609 SO FI 15.567 SO.FT. 8.456 SO.FT. 2.525 SO.FT. 3310 SO FT. 5.835 sa.FT. 2 FP 14U I-----------_.J AREA =15,5G7 TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LIVING ROOM ORIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE LOT 2 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3.333 MIN.REO·D.) LIVING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR 1'OTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE 35% I Q.I,.I <0 (J) I Z I 4-:GB'7-------J=.::::r~~~~49"W --====~~~--=---::Ji--~~-=35.B7'N •5'49'LOT AREA ~17,704/ 153.92'/ ~!5 18052' 100% ~ISB.92· ill 4,210 SO.FT 2.509 so.FT 260 SQ.FT. 4.470 SQ.FT ~'>£LU~ 5,050 SQ.FT li~ 6,433 SQ.FT. 3,924 SQ.FT. 28 SQ.FT. -~ 4.210 SQ.FT. 3.315 SQ.FT. 609 SQ FT 14.402 SQ.FT. 7.754 SQ.FT. 2.509 SO.FT. 0315 SQ FT 5,824 SQ.FT. LOT 1 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REQ'D) LIVING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA LO\li£R FLOOR UPPER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STHUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT 1J)r COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LIVING ROOM DRIVEWM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE ATTACHMENT 1-220 "-o 12 eOo zo (jj LUo o LU (J) :>LUa: 07-013 OB·10.Q7 AS NOTED D!lA'MIlB's'; CHEC!<EDBY JOB NO: DAlE: SOALE: 0101'W.c..~JaA-.:LSu!~11J) Q.l/Vtlrcav,Call/orrIIIllaZlO VOicl;ll'lIO,2:IIl.Gl»4Fancimllo31ll.216.C1ll&l lHmIl:doolgn@orMlOlIlI;hno.llOIII \IoIeb$llQ:_~ad1no.com i--- AFlcHrrecruRAI.STAMP: IENVIROTEOHNO 1NTERAC11VS"AflCHITECTURE t MmOR DE~IGN 33.00 S.F. 46.00 S.F, 93.00 S.F. 47.00 S.F. 611.009.F, 1,056,00 $.F, 3,549.00 S,F, ~F. 6,056.00 S.F. DINING ROOM 15'~')(16'·O' CARPET,11'·0'CI.G -I PORCH BALCUNY STAIR·It STAIR·I FI.OOR AREA BASEMENT LOfIER FLOOR UPPER Fl.ooR TOTAL LIVABLE r -~.:.!~-------- LIVING ROOM 17'-6....25'..q' CARPET,11'.(l"CLG FAMILY ROOM 17'·6'")(31'..(1" CARPET.11'-0'ClG, 16'-6'1--------- I _______lQ.'.·tl· _1~3'·7' ------1 f I I BEDROOM 114 l1'.o"X1S'..()" CARPET,9'.{j·CLO [UQ)\WJ!ElR1 [F~(Q)(Q)lR1 [p~~~ ---st""ALE:}4 -1 "0' o ~---BALCONY-ABOve --.----- I I I 45',7' 29'0' 3-<:AR GARAGE 2O'..o"x30'..()" BEDROOM #2 14'.{I'~15'-6· CARPET,9'..()·ClG 3'10· j ~- ATTACHMENT 1-221 ENVIROTE:CHNO ~AflCHI1ECTUfE+I~RDE$GN (lIOIW.ClnU/ldafwo.!lI1hI1OO CulwrClty,caH/OmlallO:m "*,,,31lUle.0044~1s,3102l6.0054 lhflUIIld~.QlItI1Mlbao:..nviWlllCt1m"':Om I'-o ~ COo Z C!l iii ill Cl Cl illen:> illa: ONI13 00,10-07 AS OTa) LM 01 Af¥;HITECTUflAl STAMP: ------------- SCALE:14 =1 -0 -0' 56'·6' -..!£~~2·-J ATTACHMENT 1-222 ~-~--~---------!~~~ [R1(D)(Q)!F [Pl~fM SCAtE.liB -I ~O A._~;l.L \f1iI'i'Ctf ~ ~ ~~ ENVIROTECHNO INTERACTIVE ARCHITECTVRE +INTERIOR DESIGN 8101 w.ClInt1m1Ll1Ave.SUIalfD CYMIrClry,cel!fQm/aflOa) Vol"'"Blo.etat»«flQC;lmII~31D.216.0004 o-O'Illlt dl!llllgn@('ll'oi/uI(JcMo.oom WlIb:llIo:etMrolooMa.oom 6 AACHllECTURAl STAMP: Q ~ Z ::s:5 ~WW ....p:i!:~_~O "!j!g{(I)0 Q a:~ffi:::E tI)~ ~-~ •Q. t1C 0 ~~:l:0 ~~ " :$z~ it~i> U1 i l3 <C(;i ~ ~!£~ "iii(~I z JoBNa: DATE: b ~ 00o z Cl iiiwo ow UJ:;;wa:: 07-013 Q8.1().Q7 SCALE: DRAWN BY: CHi5C1<;EOBY: SHEET NO· ASNOTEO..,. 01 ATTACHMENT 1-223 CONe.TILE ROOF (TYP.) ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: 61D'W.Ce<IIlIl9l4AVlI.~11lO Cu&l/ofCl!y.ClllllomioflDZ!O ,"cIo:l51fi.Z16.08Ufll9dmllo:Jlll.21lLOOSO o-maD:dlr;<\1n@>mvilO\lldlno.CO<rI.wcl:!!llIlI:aIViroIrdIno.CCln ENVIROTECHNC INTeRAC11VE AACH1TECTUaE ...INlERlOA OESIGN (J) Z ..... 00~~00 0 UJ Z..l UJ QJ 1i.i0::UJ 0 Cla:Cl ~UJ UJ ~U)~:;:~UJ UJa: JOB NO:OJ.(l;13 DATE:08-1G-07 SCALE:ASNClTEQ DRAWN BY:LM CHECKED BY:01 SHEET NO; r '" 1/r...t-Q" __~lATE __ ~' LOWEST FINISH BRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE 135.50 139.9D· HIGHEST EXl;STING GRADE COVEflED BY STRUCTIJRE --~.,----F1IGHEST FINISH G£tADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE MAXIMUIJ RIDGE HEIGHT 159.50 SHEET METAL CHIMNEY TERMINUS ---'2----12------ar---13 "--,' SAND FINISH STUCCO {TYJ>.) RECESSED STUeco FINISH ENTRY /FOAIJ mIM PLATE~.,..,J; ------'--------------------------,--,----'==,=iIt_~:-~1 i=,~=:_'~~=---':'-'"",\--',-----, \\-.._STUCCO Q/FOMJ TRIM (TYP.) SCALE:Y4 =1 -0 12 \12__~c-_~--------::::E...---- CLAY SEWER TIU: VENTS (TYP.) STUCCO O/FOAM EAVE (TYP.) SHEET METAL -QHIMNEY TERUINIIS /~3 /'(TYP.l /----------------------------------------~~----------- //STUG;CO CHalNEY --;r'---- \ \ m [[j BASEMENT F.F.126.00 12 [Rl~£8:1[Rl ~[L~W£8:11r~(Q1~ ~4-I*O \"',,... --------":--,.~-_......~------------ "- CONe.TILE ROOF (TYP.) STUCCO O/FOAJ.l EAVE (TYP.) .1~I BASEMENT F.F.126.00__,,__\1,_ CLAY SEWER TILE VENTS (TYP.) m ROLL -UP GARAGE DOORS 12--,3 "''-F-~-------------~--- -----,~/ ---'1;:--------_../- STUCCO O/f'OAA TRIM {TYP.l SAND F!NISH STIJCCO {TVP·I "''- 135.50 lOWEsfTfmSHGRAOE - COVEflEO BY SrnUC1URE HE!GHl 1::'9.50 139.90 HIGHEST EXIST'G G!~E_,,' CQVfflEO B¥STRUCTURE ATTACHMENT 1-224 b b AACHtTECTUFW.STAMP: IE:NVI~CTECHNO ll1rfllRA(:1l'V'AFlCHlTECTUflS:~INTE~R DESIGN OlllIW.OrilnII~"Ave.!¥JllnlOO CUMKClIy,caflbn'\l!ll/(XlJ(l ~1:d~~:::~~~~=JhIO.oom ~TE 123,- -~~"'~.-'.------ 3~ ~r.: ______~~I~~~_H~H~~.:~_-------- t3 s2 rho Z <!:l 1i5w Cl Cl W (f) :> IIIa: Q7-o13 oa.10.Q7 ASNOTEO eM 01 OR.o\WN BV' CHECl<ED.BY: SHEET NO: JOBNQ DA,TE: SCALE: NANTASKET..LOT 3 PLATE -~~J! .~.._-~.~J f.F.139.60 ....__.__-,-c:=:r:.::.:-=_~-SJ=_="-=-=-=-=__. "--]3 HIGHEST EXISTltlG GIlAOE COVERED B"{STRUCTURE "3,- F.F,:-,120.0(l .-------\-:...._~.=.~:-::--.~.=-~=-. 139.9G BASEMENT \~~'1!~G;c.:;I~~~T~FI~NI~SN~G=RAD-E COVEREO BY STROOTI,JllE -t~~"FI"NfSti"GRAbe COVEAED BY STflUC1l.mE F.F.139.60 "/ ATTACHMENT 1-225 N~ntasket Vinas Ye$,tm~{IJ Teni$llUife "fra©t N@.is'll'$::la Ratn©h@ I'fi'am@$ell.AM~ll.alSlt 200'1 Lot I ~~([))~rE~1J ~.~1E(Ql~...~~I~(QllM OWNER/APPLICANT :DANA AND PAIGE IRELAND 1 SEACOVE DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275 PROJECT AODRESS 32639 NANTASKET DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 131,P83-84 OF MAPS IN THE COUNTY RECORDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,CA NO.OF LOTS .."'1 ENVIR.OTECHNO INT19'lACl1VS ARCHITECTURE +I~OR OBNC,lN G10l'f'J.ContIn~Aw.S\lIIo.OO CIJM)rOlly,ClI!IIllrnlol/OZ3O VDi~310.2l8.0S44 FasdmIIQ310,216.0fl5.I e.m1lll:d~n:jjl;:rMrolod1no.com \Wl:llIIIlI'onWoIcdvl<>.oom .c:.~_t--------- ""ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: f'-o \2 eOo z CJ 05w Cl Clw (/):; ill 0: 07-<113 0'''''''ASNOTEO lM 01 JOBNe; DATE: SHEEfNO' SCAlj;' ,DRAWN BY: CHECl<ED;BY 34% lLJ > 100% oL o 364 SO.FT. 5,481 so.FT. 58G SQ U 6,061 SQ.FT. 5,117 SQ.FT. 4,547 SQ.FT. 1845 SQ.U 6,392 SO.FT. 4,547 so.FT. 40 so.FT. 530 so FT. 5,117 so.FT. 3,931 SQ.FT. ...lilll....:m. 17,704 so.FT. 9,749 SQ.FT. 3,931 SQ.FT. 1...~ 5,776 so.FT. lOT ~l LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'D.) LIVING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVING AREA STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR LIVING AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LIVING AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/LIVING ROOM DRIVEWAY TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 37% "'1 100%I 4,239 SQ.FT. 319 SQ.FT. ...§!LSO....£L. 4,160 SQ.FT. 33 SO.FT. 4§SQ.fT. 4,239 SO.FT. 385 :m.u 4,624 SQ.FT. 624 SO.FT.. 5,248 SO.FT. 1,056 so.FT. 4,160 SQ.FT. 1 528 so FT. 6,744 SQ.FT. 3,549 so.FT. 611 so.FT. 14,081 SO.FT. 7,563 so.FT. 1,056 SQ,FT. 3,549 so.FT. 1..Q.2lL:;Q,.£L 6,056 SQ.FT. DRIVEWAY TOTAL LO [COVERAGE lOT 3 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'D.) LIVING AREA BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL L1V1NG AREA STRUCTURE AREA BASEMENT LOWER FLOOR L1V1NG AREA GARAGE UPPER FLOOR TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT lIV1NG AREA/GARAGE PORCH 8ALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOl COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/L1V1NG ROOM L1GHTWIlL32.5% 100% iCAUtz 1"""20' 2,525 so.FT. 391950 FT 6,444 so.FT. 4,229 SO FT 260 SO.FT 4,489 so.FT. _.2!l.Q...5O•.Jl 5,069 so.FT 3,919 SQ.FT. 30 SO.FT. .-2.lliL.SOJ.L. 4,229 so.FT. 3,310 so.FT. ..M.L>9....ll. 15,567 SO.FT. 8,456 SQ.FT. 2,525 SO.FT ULQ...5QJL 5,835 SO.FT. lOT 2 LOT AREA PAD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'D.) UV1NG AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL UV1NG AREA STRuCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR UV1NG AREA GARAGE TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT UV1NG AREA/GARAGE PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT LOT COVERAGE STRUCTURE COURTS ENTRY/UV1NG ROOM DRIVEWAY TOT AI.LOT COVERAGE 100% 4,210 SQ.Fi 2.509 SQ FT 260 SO FT 4,470 so.FT. .....:illQ..5.Q.LL 5,050 SO FT 1924 so.FT 6,433 so.FT 3,315 SO.FT. -.illJ.Ul.CLfl,. 3,924 SO.FI 28 SO.FT. 42~~~}1~ 14,4D2 SO.FT. 7.754 sO.FT. 2,509 SO.FT. 3..m~..£Ic 5,824 so.FT un'l DRIVEWAY TOTAL L01 CO\J'ERACE TOTAL STRUCTURE AREA STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT lIV1NG AREA/GARAGF PORCH BALCONY TOTAL STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT lJH COVERAGE STRUClURL COURTS ENTRY/UVING ROOM LOT AREA ['AD AREA(3,333 MIN.REO'O) U\IING AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL L1V1NG ARl.A STRUCTURE AREA LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR L1V1NG AREA GARAGE ATTACHMENT 1-226 ENVIROTECHNO I~ARCH~.j.INtERtoRDESlGN e101W.Cllnlil1claAYll.Sllllol00 CUlvGrCll)'.CaJltomllllnao VolooSlll.216.0!J44F~310J116Jl65.\ ~1fUJi~d",,~n~llOD.:Jm ~~.(:<Im A1JCH!TECTURAl STAMP: BEDROOMt14 3-GAR GARAGE 2O'-00JQl)'-00 BEDROOMft.3 ARCliABOVE LIVING ROOM 16'-6"x24'.Q" DINING ROOM 17'-6"1l18··6~ FAMILY ROOM 16'06",;32'·0' J~I 5'51/16"15'·8110"7'·7 3/16' 117'·11/16" SCALE:f'"-1 -0 FLGOn ~nEA GARAGE LOGGIA BALCONV POACH FOYER/STAIR LOWER FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL LIVABLE 616.00 S.F. 516.00S.F. 530.00 S.F. 40.00 S.F. 335.00 g,F. 3,931.00S.F. ~. 5,776.00 $,F. t; ~roo z ~ (ii LU Cl Cl LU CI):;: W 0:: JOB NO; DATE; 07-613 Q8.1(}Q7 SOALE: OFlAWNBV' CHECKEOBY A51'\10TED eM 01 SHEET NO: .(5-/-ATTACHMENT 1-227 !l -•.. ENVIROTECHNO INlllRAcnVli ARCHrfECTlJRE +1N'iERIQR DESIGN (I1Q1 w.Com!""'llfwt!.EU'!o l'ED CutnwCily,Clllllor,,"'$C230 1(lI\OIl Slll,l!'lIl.OO44 1'ucirnikl310.216.C654 f1-mr.td~Ign@cnW<rtodlroo,a:m l'l'IlbI>'I&,a""~.",,,m t----.--------- ARCHITECTURAl STAMP: I'- 0 $2 c:b 0 ..I Z ZWjC)~o.ii5 UJ ~8 Cl Cl "i UJ (f)~0...1 '>~:;:)!!,.UJcr: .,lOBNQ 07-013 DATE:Oa-1O-07 SCAlE!;AS NOTED OAAWNBY:lM ~------··--··'---D-, SHEET NO: ROOF I I I I I I-r I I OPEN 26 -11 11/16"---_._-_._- 3'·9516" 17'-6 7/8" (UJ lP [?[E [ffi [F [l((](Q)[ffi lP IL~IM SCALE:}'4 '"1 ·0 LIBRARY ~ 15'·23/6" BEDROOM 112 12'...(j."x14'-<l' o 4ECH O--Jb;;;;;~D~O~OK~S~H~EL~VES~;;;;;;;;;;mARCH ROOF 1,1'-611/16" 31'-97HI" MASTER BEDROOM 15'-6"K27'.a' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~I I~~I I~~I .1 I.wi I.-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WARDROBE ruaw! SHOWER SHOWER ~ I i ! 1; u ~> !~i i ;::;1 t i ! f f "!., ": Qip.. E ! I i Ii t i, f, I ! i, ~, ff \ 1 i ~! I l ~ i i i ~ fi, ~ ATTACHMENT 1-228 b Q 00o Z "(ij UJ Cl Cl UJ (/) '>UJa: 07·013 AACHrrECTURAL STAMP: JOB NO: 6IQlW.C<;ntIhdUA.vo.SJIlI;IHII CulvarClly,C&lIomIaSlQ23O VOlOO Sl0.21l3.llll4>I fGlldmllll310.216M54 ...mol~dllSlgn@~.<XllII 1'I1SbJII<I:_K~_(;<lm III l;; lil I Ill'"~~ •III ar «:f,)>III00a:~ffi~alg ~~..l if 0 ~:c 0 ~~ en :sz-<C cc ____J ~ --I ~~~=-;;..a::arow f----~~LLJ:x:i~v) -<C ~-~ ~:z I-<C~z= 'ENVIROTECHNO IN'fERAC11VE AACHna::mJRE ...INTt:;RlOR OESIG~r<:""+-----_-_-_-_-_-_-..-.-__--jH--'",-, A "~~11#&i "-, DATE:OM0-07 SCALE: DRAWN BY- CHeCKEOBY SHEETNC: AS NOTED lM 01 6 -/-oj'ATTACHMENT 1-229 ENVIROTECHNO fNTeFlACTlVE AACHITECTlJRe +INfERIOR 0ES1GN ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: el01W.CwIlMlaAva.6u/I$1Cf! CuMnClly.CailklmbOO23O Volco 31ll.216.08«FNCIlrrO\ll310216.01;l!l11 &m~&d""lgn@<mv1tcleChno.ccm 'MIb8t1r.-ft/1VlroInChn'l_COm 1'2----,3 148.40 \132.00 HIGHEST FUllSH GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE SHEET UETAl CHINNEY TERMINUS (TYP.) MAXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT 152.3________________________________..sL _ STUCCO CHIMNEY WI FOAfA TRIM --PRECAST CONe. I -~----- STUCCO /FOAlJ TRIM SAND FINISH STuCCO (TYP.) SCALE:Y4 -1 -0 WROUGHT IRON GRILLE ' STUCCO OJFOAIJ EAVE \\ !!'32"OC(TYP)(TYP.)----...,\ CONC.TILE AooF (TYP.) -~.._, -HFfG WROUG}lT IflON GRILLE t 127.00 LOoiiEST frtUSH GRJ>.OE COVERED BY $TAUCTliRf 127.0 AS NOTED lM _.01_ SCAlE: ORAWNB't;- l»"-:z 0 0 Q~.x, iii 0 Z -l <':JI.IJ iii ~w Cl if Cl ~W~(f) i ;; w wa: _CHECKED 8~. SHlEETNO: F.f.127.50_.5L _ 127.00 LOWEST FINISH GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE PLATE GlASS RAIlING .-1-- -CONC CAP ~ m ~ Ii F,j 136 5 ~ 126.80 LOWEST NATURAL GRADE COVERED 8Y STflUCTURE SHEET METAL CHHdNE'Y TERMINUS STUCCO CHIMNEY WI r-FOMt !RIIA IMXIMUM RIDGE HEIGHT 152.3 ~~-----------------,-----~--5l--~-- 12-,3 [ !R1lE~fPU lE[LlEW ~'1J'~(o)1M --SC-1II:F:1'4~ o Ju CONC.TILE ROOF (TY?) BAND-SAWN RAFTER TAILS @ 32'D.C. 10 0 (TYP.1 -'1-,~-f-~---~::-~-,-~~~~:':-~""-----=-~---- SlUCCQ O/FDA\l TRW (TV?) SMO fINrSH srucco (TYI".) 6-/-ojlATTACHMENT 1-230 ARCHITECTURAL STAMP: 6t01W.CoaIlnclo.A....SuIIilIUlO Q.I~,Clly.Cdlamia.llD:23O V<lk:O 510.!111.C1l44 FaelrnaJ510.21110ll&i &mlI1I:dll!lgn@<l~n<UIOlIlw&b:lIe,erM'lllcdloo_com ENVII:aOTECH NO 1NTt!AACnVi:AACHfTECJ\JtlE ...IH11ffil'OR DeSIGN' CD r--Z 0 0 ~~cb ::-0 w Z -I CJUJC;; ~UJa a :!i IX:UJUJCf)tz ~:>Ii;UJ~UJ 0:: JOB NO:---Q7·013 DAlE:OB-1Q-07 SCAL.6:AsNQTEo ORAWN6Y I.M CHECKED BY O. SHEET NO; r'J. [) --~--_.--- F.F.127.50_SL .._ ]-,~,~.-- ---------------::iSZ:=-:- 12 ---" IAAXIMU1~RlllGl.:HEIGHT 152.3 ~;;;;;;;~~---------------------------'1<\l--------- SCALE.}7"-I -0 132.010 12 ''- HIGHEST EXISTING GIWlE CO¥ERED BY STRUCTURE 127.0 LOWEST FIN-Istl eAADE COVERED BY STRUCTIJRE MAXIr,ruM RIDGE HEIGHT 1$2.3_________-SL _ ------------------------ F.F.133.00___V _ t i, j !t ~ 1, ! J'j ATTACHMENT 1-231 Nantasket Residential Project City Council Letter 1/26/2010 Sea Bluff Homeowners Association Board of Directors Sandie Nelson,President Dave Emenhlser,Vice President Dick Jones,Member Jolalne Merrill,Member Joe Raltl,Member Becky Poe-Anderson,Member Bob Nelson,Secretary/Treasurer City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes January 26,2010 RECEIVED JAN 26 2010 PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Cases no.SUB2008-00001;ZON2008-00074 thru ZON2008-00078 Specifically: 1.Recommend to Coastal Commission: Amend Coastal Specific Plan (zone change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-family RS-3) 2.Approve Amendment to RPV's 35-year-old General Plan: (zone change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to RS-3) 3.Vest Tentative Parcel Map #69928 (make 4 lots out of 1) 4.Coastal Permit (purpose undefined -Council staff report nfa at this time) 5.Height Variation Permits:to allow homes to exceed 16 feet 6.Lot depth variances:Permit all lot depths to be narrower than allowed 7.Grading Permits:Permit 6 feet of fill on some lots 8.Environmental Assessment:every objection mitigated Mayor Wolowicz and Council Members, Initially,we request this document and attachments be part of the administrative record of this application.It is our intent to have it and the attachments available for forwarding. Tonight we understand you will only consider items 1 and 2 above,your Planning Commission having approved items 3 thru 8 on Nov.10,2010,in a short meeting. Our neighborhood last met with you on this application May 15,2007,when,after 4 long Planning Commission meetings over two years and their 13 separate approval votes,you found changing our 35-year-old General Plan was not merited.Our then City Council denied (4-0,Clark recusing self)this developer's 5 house project,remanding it back.The remand initially discussed was CR or RS-2 (3 homes).However Mayor Wolowicz intervened and RS- 3 (4 homes)was added to CR and RS-2.Mayor Wolowicz cited "Council could not consider the economic viability (developer builds 4 homes vs.3 homes)but ...indicated he preferred a RS-3 (4 homes)designation." Tonight,of course,the applicant comes forward with similar Planning Commission approvals for 4 homes (RS-3),four homes completely out of scale with the neighborhood. (see attachment #6)As found in that,any realistic 'this is what we see'home size Neighborhood Compatibility was,we feel,ignored (for second time)by your Planning Commission! Pg.1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1-232 Nantasket Residential Project:City Council Letter 1126/2010 Rather than include the Minutes of our many meetings,with our citations (which we have prepared for our Coastal Commission)we ask you take a minute or two to review one meeting,that of May 15,2007,where you denied the application. FOR SEA BLUFF HOA,COMPARING THAT AND THIS MEETING,NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Yes,5 homes became 4.Change to Sea Bluff HOA views:zip -zero.Lot #1,that blocks our views,is absolutely unchanged.It's the same house as in 2007,even the plans say that! So what were the salient points of May 15.2007,Council Meeting Minutes? 1.We had legal representation that explained to you the California law that precluded you approving changing our General Plan to accommodate this developer. 2.With the exception of Mayor Wolowicz,you all agreed 'big boxes on small lots'was not the reason RPV was founded and should not happen here.You should know all candidates for our Council in last fall's election stood up before Sea Bluff HOA on Sept.2 and said they were against McMansions.Firmly against.One even featured his opposition on his website. As the campaign wore on he voters learned better.In fact,one week after their defeat,3 candidates voted unanimously for the applicants 'big boxes on small lots'and changing the General Plan to accommodate this developer who hosted an election party for 2 of them. Let us be clear,our City Attorney opined these 3 Planning Commissioners did not have to recuse themselves from Nantasket deliberationslvoting,as did former Councilman and Coastal Commissioner Larry Clark throughout 2005-2007,citing his friendship with this developer. 3.5/15107 Minutes:Mayor pro-tem Stern 'opined the flags were right on top of him when he viewed the development site.'No change in 2010,10'front yards with 26'high facades. 4.5115107 Minutes:'Mr.Ireland asserted ...the silhouette and flags ...was not an accurate representation of how the project would look on completion.'No change in 2010.For example from 2007 Minutes:'Mr.Ireland explained that lots 1 and 2 would be filled to create a level yard and that all calculations were made from existing grade,not finished grade,'So in 2010 lot one is not actually the silhouetted 16'but 6'feet of fill plus 16'feet -that's 22' with,of course,no height variation required.Makes no sense to neighborhood but fine for your Planning Commissionl FOR THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD,AN ATTORNEY EXPLAINED AMENDING OUR GENERAL PLAN AND LEGAL ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED. 5.5115/07 Minutes:Lisa Brant,attorney comments: "Lisa Brant,an attorney representing clients on Sea Cove Drive,noted they objected to the current proposal of five very large homes on a single lot requiring eight applications, an amendment to the General Plan,an amendment to the Coastal Specific plan, rezoning,and variances to existing zoning,all indicating that the project is inconsistent with community standards.She commented that the Planning Commission appeared to be bending over backwards to maximize profits over the good of the community and reported that her clients intended to fight the approval of the project to the full extent of the law,including going to court.She pointed out that pursuant to the Government Code,the General Plan can only be amended if the amendment is in the pUblic interest and no argument has been made to that effect.She asserted that the proposal was injurious to surrounding neighborhoods and greatly diminished views. Ms.Brant reported that the Planning Commission had indicated that the project was consistent because of the Villa Apartments but non-conforming uses cannot be considered under the law.She felt that declaring it a neighborhood unto itself illustrated a type of mental gymnastics and pointed out the high standard under California law as to when variances are allowed to be granted.She asserted that no variances were needed for Mr. Pg.2 of4 ATTACHMENT 1-233 Nantasket Residential Project:City Council Letter 112612010 Ireland to develop his property and he had submitted alternate proposals to develop the property that would not require variances.She asserted that just because the property would be more valuable to Mr.Ireland was not enough of a reason to grant variances and maximizing his profits above the interests of the community would be inconsistent with the laws of California.and the planning and zoning that the communitv worked so hard to put in place. Mayor Pro Tem Stern inquired what zoning the residents of Sea Cove believed to be the appropriate zoning. Ms.Brant felt the zoning should stay commercial as that would be in the better public interest but if it was changed to residential it should be RS-1. Councilman Wolowicz expressed concern that if were to be turned into a public place there would be parking and traffic issues,as the owner could build a 150-unit Bed and Breakfast structure on the site. Ms.Brandt pointed out that what would be allowed for commercial recreational would be rather small and noted it was proper to consider residential zoning as RS-1 not RS-4, while including open space issues in the analysis. Responding to Councilman Gardiner,Ms.Brant indicated that her clients would prefer RS-2 over RS-4. Councilman Gardiner noted that their intent was to balance concerns." That sets some of the legal stage for tonight's thoughts.We're not attorneys and should not fall into your debate on which codes your Planning Commissioners violated,etc ..If you seek that,don't ask us,you already know we can't tell you. The Coastal Commission should be aware we raised a question,unanswered,in Planning's Nov.10,2009,meeting.Specifically,there may be a view corridor over this property.We have received an outside phone call referring us to Coastal Specific Plan page C-10,figure 26.Additionally,I was told the Coastal Specific Plan states no views from trails can be blocked by developments such as the proposed and,for Coastal information,the trail commencing at the corner of BeachviewlNantasket that continues north over Terranea Resort,certainly has it's beginning ocean views blocked by lot #1. Further,Commissioner Knight raised unanswered questions on Nantasket drainage and it's future impact on Terranea Resort's water quality programs.However,based on your Planning Commission's positive attitude on this project and recommendations to change our Coastal Specific and General Plan to accommodate applicant,regardless of opinions offered tonight,these questions are probably best left to our Coastal Commission and their staff to decide. Re golf safety.I believe RPV's golf consultant commented he wanted nothing within 150'of Terranea's course and we have 10'-20'max distance here.Now that your Planning Commission has approved the project,with this closeness to the course,I assume any golf ball hitting homes liability shifted from the applicant to our city. Please remember,to date (2005,2006,2007,2009)except your Planning Commissioners and the applicant,not one member of the public you represent has come forward to support this McMansion project. Pg.3 014 ATTACHMENT 1-234 Nantasket Residential Project:City Council Letter 1/26/2010 Summary:we believe Nantasket Residential Project,as presented tonight,changes nothing from applicant's prior plan for our HOA,which you wisely denied. It is applicant's responsibility,not yours,not ours,to present a plan discussed with and satisfactory to the neighborhood.This is not the case here.For example,our Planning Deparlment had to by pass the neighborhood signature requirement because applicant did not,could not,obtain these!Enough said. Probably a fair position is to deny this application and remand it back to Planning Commission with directive applicant meet with neighborhood and obtain consensus on a successful project.To do otherwise is just developer,Planning Commission,City Council,to quote Lisa Brand,'mental gymnastics'vs.our neighborhood. Sincerely, Bob Nelson SecretarylTreasurer,Sea Bluff HOA 6612 Channelview Court Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Tel:310-544-4632 Date Attachments: 1.Assessor's map:Terranea,Nantasket and neighborhood 2.Assessor's map:close-up of Nantasket and surrounding parcels 3.Assessor information #1:AIN:7573-014-013 (Nantasket) 4.Assessor Information #2:AIN:7573-014-013 (Property Tax Payment Status Inquiry) 5.Assessor map:500'and recent sales:home sizes v.+6,000 sq.ft.Nantasket homes 6.Sea Bluff HOA Nantasket Fact Sheet:Neighborhood Compatibility -HOME SIZE - Assessor list of recent sales wlin Y,mile and home sizes (73%are under 3,000 sq.ft. vs.Nantasket's 'Neighborhood Compatible'+6,000 sq.ft.homes!! 7.Pictures to give you a flavor of project's Neighborhood Compatibility in RPV. cc:SBHOA Board Pg,4 014 ATTACHMENT 1-235 ASSESSOR'S MAP OF TERRANEA RESORT, NANTASKET AND NEIGHBORHOOD 1/25/2010 1'''' OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COPYRIGHT 0 2002 '& ~ f FOR COMPLETE DIMENSIONS OF LOTS 1 TO 4[ SEERECOROEDPM 361-53-1'0 1.""""-1.021"DRW'f -O.5Q:;"OS ~ RESTRICTED USE AR£A, 2000011310001004-26 2009021006003001-26 2009021006003002·26 I I I I I I I / / / / / / / / / ~--Of-S!PALO~.'1,ER ---'"C••-~ ;:.;~CE.~,':>~ll644.74~,.•<.""") ,~,..' REVISED 830911~3-a4 2009011310001002·28 I I I> \ \/---_......../ P.A.ITRA7573-2 7090 7581-23&26 7097 fIIlIl /rMPPlNG AND GIS """""SCALE 1'·3Oll' 2009 7573 PACIFIC OCEAN ATTACHMENT 1-236 ASSESSOR'S MAP JAN.25,2010:CLOSEUP OF NANTASKET AREA < \m~VILLAS Z-APTS«Z o @ 10.09:J:AC -0.42±"'DR\NY ·9.67±"RU -~ .~ I J "RESTRICTED USE _../AREA "\ ,'-.-7097 )60 ~ ,~','TERRANEA RESORT.94.$5 f:>M .131 :83-& .."\('\'\\.,'.,~~/.\ "...~'\»;'•I ~~',...',\ ,,.',t -~""~'_..~..\0G\.••....o'"VI!ti'----r.: ,I /....•~,,..;.r ''\ ..Y ..""",tu \16'•...,,~i ./~w .. ,~I ~~38.11.," \ \"......,-'..-SAEEf 4 -=--.'\-!->o.2S w ~I ,!'COUNTY SA~ "."r-;:T.,?>?>"'-0",.nJ~M< ATTACHMENT 1-237 Assesaor"s Home Page Seuch Menu Feed),ack HelplFAQs Property Asse"ment Information System LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PARCEL RECORDED DATE (8/1912005) VALUE ($1,538,751) ACCESS DATE:JAN.25,2010 lI:l:~f"{I.t)l:t •I',. Search for Recent Sales Click Here to View Index MapJ .":" ··~I~(. .ll:: ::.,;:: Records for this property are kept at the South District OffIce (How frequently is the information updated on this s~e?) Latest Sale Date Indicated Sale Price 11"'"""":"---:'""';"==' Kecorolng uate 06/19/2005 Land $1,536,751 Improvements $0 Personal Property $0 Fixtures :$0 Homeowners'Exemption $0 Real Estate Exemption $0 Personal Property Exemption $0 Fixture Exemption $0 •---E O/ck Here for 2009 Annual Taxf!$ (I have a question rcoarding my property tax payment) i_..._, ~(, ~---~~ ..... WERDESRANCHOF:, ,.--'"\ ~~g(;).~" Gopy,ght -LA /\sse=' \\ "TR=PARCEL MAP AS PER BK 131 P 63-84 OF PM LOT 2 r-'I'I~rI"'P"l":"P!""""1"l""",non •:ttl::t. No bUilding Information is available for this parcel.ATTACHMENT 1-238 ISSUlE:NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBtLlTY:SQUARE FOOTAGE,BULK,MASS (SEA BILUFF RECENTSALiES) search Menu F<lelI>ad<Property A.,.e,..mentlnformatlon System dfAl.•."£S.t4 ,.....~.,;1Il\!'_~u a:.db.i,_[±±!ElI...2iS all SCAM ALERT:NO FEE NECESSARY FOR VALUE REDUCTION (click here) \(rill Listing of Recent Sales .(Why doesn't a property I know sold recently show up here?) ~I~(..;:).vV ,.,.'"I v ~IITO view a sale's property Information,click Its Assessor ID below. ~(r\~IITO view the property Information for surrounding propertles,click the r\\\\'l..J..\,~I'ShoW Property Informatlon'lcon 0 and left click on the parcels on .\,.\1J~U-l-IT the locator map. 408.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.All indicated sale prices are Uunverified.Please consutt a third party source,such as a real estate broker, prior to making valuation or business decisions . / • ~~ Gopyrght-LAkssesso,'\..,:hf..-....u '-Ar"6 308ft '-.U ~~./.~ \\~,r'" !MI.~QQj~oo(2) ...... 6617 BEACHVIEW:SALE:3/19109:$969,009;2,825 SQUARE FEET IMPROVED SIZE (NOT +6,000 SQUARE FOOT NANTASKETS) 6603 BEACHVIEW:SALE:7/31/09:$950,009;2,825 SQUARE FEET IMPROVED SIZE (NOT +6,000 SQUARE FOOT NANTASKETS) THESE AND 18 OTHER SEA BLUFF HOA HOMES ARE WITHIN 500 FEET OF FOUR +6,000 SQUARE FOOT NANTASKET HOMES AND YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION DEEMED BOTH HOME SIZES (2,825 &-+'6,000)TO BE A 'COMPATIBLE NEIGHBORHOOD'"I! ATTACHMENT 1-239 NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILTY:NANTASKET SEA BLUff HOA FACT SHEET Source:LA County Assessor (1/25/2010) To vlewe sale~property Informa'on,dlcl<Its Ass<lssor 10 below.UNDER 3,000:32 HOMES (32/44 =73%) Within 1/2 mile of Nantasket 44 homes are listed by Assessor as recently sold and that data includes home size.98%are below 4,000 square feet,73%below 3,000.However, your Planning Commission approved introducing into this neighborhood homes more than twice the size of the 73%'recently sold.'And into our 'Coastal Zone'!! further,with no real debate or listening,recommended Council change our 35 year old General Plan zoning and Coastal Specific Plan to accomodate their friend and developer (for the 2nd time).We know Neighborhood Compatibility. All you have to do is look.Do they fit?Do +6,000 sq.ft.two story McMansions,fit where 73%of homes are less than 4,000 sq.ft?Coastal Commission:We think not. Not in your J our Coastal Zone.Not where Coastal Trail views will be blocked I But this is RPV and our Council appointed Planning Commission sees no problem!! RECENT SALES:HOME SIZE, +6,000:4 NANTASKET HOMES ON 1.4 ACRES UstingofRecentSoIes +5,000:1 HOME ON ASSESSOR'S LIST 1~~(~Wh:¥Y~d~o~esn~'e~p~ro~Piiie~rty~'~kn~O~W~so~'d1ire;ice~n'~y~sh~OW~u~p~he~re;;:?~):;=i.4,000 -5,000:ZERO (0)HOMES SCAM ALERT:NO FEE NECESSARY FOR VALUE REDUCTION 3,000 _4,000:11 HOMES (43/44 =98%)(click here) o view the property Information for surrounding properties,Click the 'Show Property Infonnatlon'lcon 0 and le1l:click on the parcels on the locator map. DiscJamor:The Information Provkled hef81!1 i1 compIance WIh SGctbn <W8.1 of tho RovenUG and Taxation Code.Alkldicated sale ~1lS are unverVied.Please consult a tIU'd party source,such as 8 real estate broker, 10 mak vabatlon Of busnoss decisions. I Sorell bcllua:I 1(2 Mile kij iii I I As=:~~.II Mhaa I~~I:~ I,.".".."II''''''''''''''''''''''I0""~~F.mty RaI6ence RhlCHO PAlOS VROS C\80215 $1,200,012 3/2 .li63119S$ ATTACHMENT 1-240 Nantasket residential project THEN-MAYOR STERN'S =20 FOOT 'WALL'FACADES ( ! ,,I I I ~, ATTACHMENT 1-241 NANTASKET DRIVE AND 'THE WALL,'10 FEET AWAY ATTACHMENT 1-242