RPVCCA_SR_2010_02_02_08_Environ_Assess_Nantasket
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: February 2, 2010
Subject: CASE NOS. SUB2008-00001, AND ZON2008-00074 THRU
ZON2008-00078 (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,
ZONE CHANGE, VESTING PARCEL MAP, VARIANCE ,
GRADING PERMIT, HEIGHT VARIATION AND COASTAL
PERMIT); ADDRESS: 32639 NANTASKET DRIVE, A VACANT
LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE
BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE
Subject Property: 32639 Nantasket Drive
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Wolowicz
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Schonborn
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: N/A
Applicant: Dana Ireland
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Wolowicz
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
W:\AGENDA\public hearing format Council-Form 25.doc
Revised: 1/27/10
8A
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
MAYOR &CI COUNCIL MEMBERS
R OF COMMUNITY
HONORAB
JOEL ROJAS
DEVELOPM
FEBRUARY ,2010
CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001,AND ZON2008-00074
THRU ZON2008-00078 (ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE
CHANGE,VESTING PARCEL MAP,VARIANCE,
GRADING PERMIT,HEIGHT VARIATION AND
COASTAL PERMIT);ADDRESS:32639 NANTASKET
DRIVE,A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN BEACHVIEW
DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE ,...n
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plann~REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
1)Adopt City Council Resolution No.2010-_,certifying the Mitigated Negative
Declaration;and,
2)Adopt City Council Resolution No.2010-_,approving:
a.A General Plan Amendment,changing the General Plan Land Use designation of
the subject parcel from Commercial Recreational to Single Family Residential,
two-to-four dwelling units per acre;
b.A Zone Change,changing the Zoning designation of the subject parcel from
Commercial-Recreational to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);
c.A Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,changing the Coastal Specific Plan Land
Use designation of the subject parcel from commercial recreation to single-family
8-1
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
residential;
d.A Subdivision of the existing 1.41-acre parcel into four (4)residential lots with a
minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet each;
e.A Variance application to allow the four lots to have a proposed lot depth of 93-
feet,which is less than the 110-foot lot depth requirement;
f.Approximately 4,028 cubic yards of grading on all 4 lots combined to
accommodate the construction of a single-family residence on each lot,which
includes 1,957 cubic yards of cut and 2,071 cubic yards of fill;
g.Height Variation Permits for the proposed single-family residential structures on
Lots 3 and 4 (the 2 lots closest to Sea Cove Drive),to exceed the 16-foot building
height requirement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant,Mr.Dana Ireland,is seeking City approval to change the land use
designation of a 1.42-acre property from Commercial Recreational,to Residential so that it
can be subdivided into four separate residential lots and each lot developed with its own
single-family residence.The property is located in the City's Coastal Zone,abutting the
eastern border of the Terranea Resort along Nantasket Drive.
This item is before the City Council because the application package includes a General
Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment and a Subdivision,
which all require a pproval by the City Cou ncil.A similar request was considered by the City
Council on May 15,2007,when the applicant proposed a higher density residential
designation (RS-4),a five-lot subdivision and development of 5 single-family residences.
However,the City Council denied the 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.
Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the project as the
Commission was able to make all the necessary findings needed for approval of the project
applications as proposed.Thus,Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the
attached Resolutions to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the
proposed development project.
BACKGROUND
Provided below is a summary of the processing history of the application package that is
now before the City Council for consideration.A more detailed background is provided in
the attached Planning Commission staff report dated November 10,2009.
On May 15,2007,the City Council denied the applicant's request to re-zone the property
from Commercial-Recreational to RS-4 (4 units per acre),subdivision of the subject
8-2
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
property into five separate residential lots,and construction of a single-family residential
structure on each of the five lots.The main reason for the City Council's action was the
proposed zoning of RS-4,which the Council felt was too dense.As a result,the City
Council 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 31,2008.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.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,notifying them of the proposed project and the Planning Commission'hearing of
November 10,2009.The notice was published in the Peninsula Newson October 8,2009.
On November 10,2009,the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the current development proposal.As a result,the Planning Commission
adopted Resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and recommending approval of the proposed development project on a 6-1
vote,with Commissioner Tetreault dissenting.In summary,the Planning Commission
found that all applicable findings associated with the entitlement applications could be
made in a positive manner to recommend approval of the proposed project applications.
Additional explanation of Staff and the Planning Commission's recommendation on each
application type is contained below in this Staff Report.
In preparation for the February 2,2009,City Council meeting,the City mailed notices to all
property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,including the Sea Bluff
HOA,informing them of the proposed project and the City Council hearing.As of the
preparation of this report,Staff has received a correspondence (attached)from the
Terranea Resort,expressing concerns with golf safety upon the residences and residents
of the proposed development,direct access to the golf course from the new residences,
maintenance responsibility of the Flowerfield trail located in the sidewalk along Nantasket
Drive,and impacts to the vegetation planted along the area that abuts the project site.
These issues have been discussed in further detail in the "Additionallnformation"section
below.Staff also received two letters in opposition to the project,one from the neighboring
Sea bluff HOA expressing opposition to the proposed project and one from a resident.
8-3
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
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
designation ofthe 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 Subdivision of Land (Le.,a subdivision)and Variance
applications.The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 1.42-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 21 O-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 on the following page outlines the proposed subdivision with a comparison to
the Development Code requirements.
8-4
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
Table No.1
1 14,402 s .ft.7,754 s .ft
2 15,567 s .ft.8,456 s .ft.
3 14,081 s .ft.7,563 s .ft.
4 17,704 sq.ft.9,749 s .ft.
CODE
REQUIREMENT 13,000 SQ.FT.4,290 SQ.FT.80'110'
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:
Table No.2
1 340 809 5.5-ft.6-ft.
2 793 248 5.7-ft.1.8-ft.
3 431 489 10-ft 3.1
4 393 132 2-ft.4-ft.
TOTAL 1,957 2,071
Due to the varying topography of the subject property and the proposed subdivision design,
proposed Lots 1,2,and 3 are considered sloping lots according to the City's Development
Code,and subject to a 16'/30'building envelope;while proposed 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,thus,
require approval of both a Grading Permit and a Height Variation.Table No.3 on the
following page illustrates the height of the proposed residences compared to the
Development Code requirements.
8-5
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
Table 3
Gradin
Grading
Grading &Height
3 510 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 by the residential subdivision.
DISCUSSION
Provided below is a brief description of each application followed by a summary of the
Planning Commission's recommendation for each application.A more detailed analysis of
each application is contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
November 10,2009 (attached).
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 the
following:
1.That the proposal is consistent with the other elements of the General
Plan;and
2.That the proposal is in the public's interest.
In reviewing the request,the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment and
found that the 1.42-acre site does not meet the 20-acre minimum development standard
for CR lots which are needed to support by-right and conditional CR uses.Conversely,the
deficient size of the site inhibits proper development of any of the identified uses in the CR
zoning district.Moreover,although the site abuts a commercial development (Terranea),
the site's access and orientation is more akin to the surrounding residential streets and
uses,and the site is more appropriate for a residential use and compatible with the
surrounding residential uses.In addition,the Commission agreed with Staff's position that
a single-family residential use would cause less adverse impacts on nearby residential
8-6
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2.2010
developments with regards to traffic,light and noise pollution than a commercial
recreational use.Thus,the proposed land use change from commercial to residential is
more attuned to maintaining the existing character of the surrounding residential
neighborhood.Therefore,as memorialized in the attached adopted PC Resolution 2009-
48 and the discussion in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,
2009,Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the General Plan
Amendment request.
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 a greater 8.77 -acre parcel located at the eastern end of Subregion 2 of
the City's coastal zone.The Coastal Specific Plan identifies 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 commercial recreation center (present Terranea Resort
Hotel 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.
Due to the agricultural use of the property at the time,the CSP designated the primary land
use of the site to be agricultural,provided the site is not needed for a school.In the event
this site was not used as agriculture,the CSP recommended a secondary use of
commercial recreation (CR).Although the General Plan and Zoning for the property is
currently CR,the Coastal Specific Plan still identifies the primary land use on the site to be
an agriculture (A)zone.As such,the applicant proposes to amend Policy 8 of the Coastal
Specific Plan,Subregion 2,to delete the agricultural land use designation and make it clear
that the primary land use designation of the site is residential.
The Planning Commission noted that the City's Coastal Specific Plan advises against the
utilization of Nantasket Drive for access to a CR use since Nantasket Drive was designed
as a residential street and commercial traffic to the subject site would likely cause a
significant problem for the adjacent residential developments.Therefore,the Planning
Commission agreed with Staff's assessment and found that a residential land use on the
subject site,when compared to any of the permitted uses in CR,minimizes the potential
adverse impacts associated with development.Furthermore,the change in land use will
not have an impact to coastal resources,nor would it hinder public access which currently
exists in the vicinity of the project site,to those coastal resources.As such,the
Commission was of the opinion that the proposed Coastal Specific Plan land use change
from Commercial Recreation to Residential is warranted.As further discussed in the
attached adopted PC Resolution 2009-48 and the discussion in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated November 10,2009,Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment.
8-7
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
ZONE CHANGE
In order to bring the zoning in compliance with the proposed General Plan Land Use
Designation,the project warrants a change of the site's zoning from CR (Commercial
Recreational)to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential).Thus,the City must find the following:
1.That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan.
For the same reasons discussed in the General Plan Amendment section above,the
Planning Commission agreed with Staff's assessment that changing the zoning designation
for the 1.42-acre site from CR to RS-3 is appropriate.Furthermore,it is agreed that the
proposed RS-3 zoning will provide a transitional zoning district not only between the RS-1
zone to the south and the RS-4 zone to the north (the Seabluff community),but also
between the non-conforming multi-family development to the east (the Villas Apartments)
and the open space of the Terranea site to the west.The RS-3 zoning also addresses the
concerns expressed by the City Council in 2007 with regards to density and the lack of
open space related to the previous RS-4 zoning proposal.
SUBDIVISION (VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP)
The proposed subdivision of the 1.42-acre property into four legal residential lots requires
the approval of a Parcel Map.Pursuant to Section 16.04.040.E of the City's Subdivision
Ordinance,no map shall be approved by the City unless it complies with the requirements
set forth in the State's Subdivision Map Act and the City's Municipal Code.In accordance
with the Subdivision Map Act,the City must consider the following required findings prior to
rendering a decision on a tentative parcel map application:
1.That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan;
2.That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent
with the General Plan;
3.That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the
development;
4.That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
5.That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health problems;and,
6.That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements 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.
In reviewing the proposed Vesting Tentative Parcel Map,Staff and the Planning
Commission found that the proposed density of four lots and dwelling units on a 1.42-acre
8-8
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
site is comparable to the density of adjacent residential developments.The proposed four
lots will maintain minimum lot areas that are greater than the 13,000 square foot minimum
and will maintain minimum contiguous developable lot areas that are greater than the
4,290 square foot minimum that are required by the City's development code and
Subdivision Ordinance for lots located in the RS-3 zoning district.Furthermore,the
Commission found that the proposed subdivision is not in conflict with the easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.As easement traversing the property was initially created to provide access
from Beachview Drive and Nantasket Drive,to the adjoining property to the west (now
Terranea Resort Hotel site).However,since the Terranea Resort provides its own access
(via Palos Verdes·Drive South and through an internal network of roadways),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.In summary,the Planning Commission was able make all the
required findings listed above and therefore,as specified in the attached adopted PC
Resolution 2009-48 and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,
2009,Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map.
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.Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.64.050,the
City must adopt the following four findings in order approve the variance:
1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
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;
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;
3.That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the
property is located;and,
4.That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
general plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan.
8-9
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
The Planning Commission agreed with Staff analysis and found that extraordinary
circumstances apply to the subject site to warrant approval of a variance to allow for the
creation of four residential lots containing nonconforming lot depths.Specifically,the
subject site has had a nonconforming lot depth since its creation by the City in 1980 that
would affect any development on the lot.Further,the lot depth deficiency does not result
in a deficient rear yard setback for the new residences since they will maintain rear yard
setbacks that exceed the minimum requirement.This is further augmented with the fact
that the rear of the new parcels abut the golf course area,which provides for additional
open area.Additionally,the reduced lot depth does not impact the appearance of the
residences;to the appearance of the lots;or to the location of the residences,since the
proposed residences do not have to encroach into the setback area.Furthermore,the
applicant has demonstrated that with the exception of the nonconforming lot depth,the
proposed subdivision satisfies all other applicable development standards,such as the
minimum contiguous lot area,minimum lot size,and minimum lot width requirements.
Therefore,as specified in the attached adopted PC Resolution 2009-48 and the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,2009,Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the requested Variance application.
GRADING PERMIT
To accommodate the residential development,a total of 4,028 cubic yards is proposed,
which includes 1,957 cubic yards of cut and 2,071 cubic yards of fill.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.Table No.
2 in the attached Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,2009
illustrates the details of the grading proposed to develop each lot.Pursuant to Section
17.76.040.E of the Development Code,the City shall use the following criteria to evaluate,
review and act on major grading permit applications:
E.1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot.
E.2.The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly
adversely affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from the
"viewing area"of neighboring properties.In cases where grading is
proposed for a 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{B)of
this Title,is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same
location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (eXisting)grade.
E.3.The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural.
8-10
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
E.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.
E.5.For new single-family residences,the grading and/or related construction
is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.
(1)Scale of surrounding residences,including total square footage
and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
(2)Architectural styles,including facade treatments,structure
height,open spa.ce between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or
mass of the structure,number of stories,and building materials.
(3)Front,side,and rear yard setbacks.
E6.In new residential tracts,the grading includes provisions for the
preservation and introduction of plan materials so as to protect slopes
from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading
and construction on hillside areas.
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.
E.8.The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of
the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation.
E.9.The grading conforms to the following standards for:grading on slopes,
height of cut/fill,and retaining walls.
The Planning Commission agreed with Staff and concluded that the grading to
accommodate the four proposed residences complies with all the Grading Permit review
criteria listed above.Further,it is important to note that during the Planning Commission's
discussions on March 13,2007 regarding the previous project and on November 10,2009
regarding this proposed project,there was consensus that the proposed grading quantity is
not an issue,noting that there is a relatively minimal amount of grading required to develop
the 4-lot subdivision.Furthermore,the resulting grading does not impair views and the
grading design follows the topography of the area.
As noted above,grading criteria E.5 requires a determination that the proposed project is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood.In addressing this issue,the Planning
Commission agreed with Staff and determined the proposed 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.This determination is supported by the City Council approved
Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,which state "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
8-11
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
own neighborhood.Nonetheless,the proposed RS-3 zoning would be considered a
transition between the existing RS-1 and RS-4 zones that are to the north and south ofthe
subject site.
As shown in the table below,the current proposal includes four units in an RS-3 zoning
designation that are smaller than the residences previously proposed.Table NO.5 below
provides a comparison between the previous 5-lot development proposal and the current 4-
lot 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
6,771 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
8-12
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
unchanged.Nonetheless,based upon previous Staff and Planning Commission
discussion and decisions,Staff and the Planning Commission believe that this aspect of
neighborhood compatibility can be made.
With regards to fa<;ade 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.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,the layout of the new subdivision 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
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 and the Planning Commission believe 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,as specified in the attached adopted PC Resolution No.2009-48 and the
Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,2009,Staff and the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Grading Permit applications.
HEIGHT VARIATIONS (LOT 3 &4,ONLY)
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.As indicated above,Lots 3 and 4 are subject to a Height Variation since the
residences are proposed to exceed the 16-foot height limit.Based upon the topography
and location of the proposed residence,the 16-foot height limit for Lot 3 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.
For Lot 4,the 16-foot height limit is measured from an elevation of 132.4',resulting in a
maximum ridgeline elevation of 148.4'.The applicant,however,proposes a maximum
8-13
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
ridgeline elevation of 152.3',which is 3.9'higher than the maximum allowed,thereby
requiring review through a Height Variation.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.C.1.e, the City must adopt the following
nine findings in order to approve Height Variations:
1.The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City.
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 City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan,as City-
designated viewing areas.
3.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.
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 shall 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.
7.The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements.
8.The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character.
9.The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of
privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.
The Planning Commission agreed with Staff and was able to make all of the required
findings listed above for approval of the Height Variations for Lots 3 and 4,including the
Neighborhood Compatibility finding as discussed above in the Grading Permit section.
With regards to views and view impairment,the Planning Commission determined that the
proposed development of residential structures on Lots 3 and 4 will not result in significant
view impairment,nor result in significant cumulative view impairment from the viewing area
of another parcel.The view analysis is discussed in more detail in the attached Staff
8-14
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM, GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,2009.Nonetheless,a summary
is provided below.
Views from Beachview Drive Residences:
The current proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision,which by eliminating Lot 5 (the lot closest to
the ocean)resulted in a downslope shift towards the ocean in the locations ofthe proposed
residences.The residence on the current Lot 4,now the southernmost lot closest to the
ocean,is located 90-feet farther downslope (Le.,seaward)than the previous Lot 4
residence.The downslope shift in the location 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 currently proposed 160.3'ridgeline elevation.The proposed residences on Lots 3
and 4 are significantly lower and result in greater views of the ocean,resulting in view
impairment that Staff and the Planning Commission have found to not be significant.
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 only
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.
In summary,the shift in the location of the currently-proposed residences has resulted in
lower ridgeline elevations along Nantasket Drive than the previous proposal.As such,
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.Therefore,Staff and the Planning
Commission determined that there is no "significant"view impairment or cumulative view
impairment from the Beachview Drive residences.
Views from Villa Apartments
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
8-15
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
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 Seacove
Drive)since the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 will not encroach into a protected view
from the units'viewing area.
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 Terranea hotel,which is not a
significant view impairment because the hotel is not a protected view feature.The
residence on Lot 4 will impair some ocean view at the bottom of the view frame,but there
will continue to be a large amount of ocean view that is not impaired and 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.Thus,based upon the view analyses,
Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that the new project will not cause
significant view impairment to the aforementioned units in the Villa Apartments.
Therefore,as specified in the attached adopted PC Resolution No.2009-48 and the
analysis contained in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 10,
2009,Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Height
Variation applications.
COASTAL PERMIT
The coastal permit procedure provides for review of proposed development within the
City's Coastal Zone (Specific Plan District I),to determine conformity with the City's Coastal
Specific Plan and state regulations.A coastal permit is required for the proposed
subdivision since it is located in the "appealable area"of the City's Coastal Specific Plan
District (Coastal Zone).In considering an application for a Coastal Permit for an
appealable area,Section 17.72.090 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires
the City to make the following two findings:
1.The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.
2.The proposed development,when located between the sea and the first
public road,is consistent with applicable public access and recreation
policies of the Coastal Act.
Staff and the Planning Commission determined that the proposed land use/zone change,
subdivision of four single-family residential lots,and the subsequent construction of four
single-family residences will not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea.
Furthermore,the Commission felt that the applicant is not required to provide access
through his property to the shoreline because the subject property does not abut the
8-16
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
coastline and the adjacent Terranea project provides trail access from Nantasket Drive to
the shoreline through the adjacent Terranea Resort Hotel property.In addition,the
proposed development is not anticipated to interfere with the existing unique water-oriented
activity,such as the nearby Point Vicente Fishing Access or other recreational uses that
can be enjoyed near the shoreline.In summary,Staff and the Planning Commission
determined 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.Therefore,as specified in the attached
adopted PC Resolution 2009-48 and the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
November 10,2009,Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
requested Coastal Permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with the provisions ofthe 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 ofthe revised Initial Study,Staff 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.
In preparation for the November 10,2009 Planning Commission hearing,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 News on October 8,
2009.
As discussed in attached adopted PC Resolution 2009-47,the Planning Commission has
independently reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration,and
determined that the project as conditioned and mitigated will not result in a significant
adverse impact on the environment.As such,the Planning Commission recommends City
Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
Notwithstanding,the City Council has the ability to independently review the Initial Study
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration to determine if,in the City Council's view,the
environmental review was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and that
8-17
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
the project,as conditioned and mitigated,will not result in a significant adverse
environmental impact.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence:
During the public notice period,Staff received a letter (attached)from the Terranea Resort
raising concerns with the proposed project.The letter raises three issues concerning golf
safety,habitat planted by Terranea Resort in an area abutting the proposed development
site,and the Flowerfield Trail portion adjacent to the project site.
Golf Safety:With regards to golf safety,as part of the City's review of the proposed
Terranea Resort project,the City utilized the services of a golf course safety consultant
(Kipp Schulties),who reviewed the proposed layout of the golf course on the Terranea site
and its potential safety impacts upon the adjacent properties,public streets and trails.As
part of this review,the consultant raised safety concerns with the location of the Flowerfield
Trail,which at that time was proposed to be located on the eastern side of the Terranea
property along the common property line with the Nantasket property.This resulted in the
Flowerfield Trail being relocated to its current location,which is the public sidewalk on the
western side of the Nantasket Drive right-of-way adjacent to the project site.Due to
potential safety concerns raised by the golf course safety consultant regarding the original
location of the Flowerfield Trail,and due to the proposed residences being located
approximately 20-feet from the original location of the trail,Terranea is requesting that a
condition be added requiring recordation of an indemnity agreement,indemnifying
Terranea from liability for damage or injury to owners or occupants of the Nantasket project
sustained by golf balls.
Staff has discussed this request with the City Attorney,who believes that an indemnity
agreement is not the appropriate document.Rather,the City Attorney suggests that a
condition be imposed requiring a hold harmless agreement be recorded on each of the
new lots which holds the City and Terranea harmless from liability for injury,death,and
damage caused by golf balls from the adjacent golf course.
The Terranea representatives also request that no access be allowed directly from the new
residential lots onto the abutting Terranea Resort property.Due to the City's golf safety
consultant's finding for the original trail location which was on the Terranea property
abutting the subject property,Staff believes that this is an appropriate request and
recommends that a condition be added that prohibits the installation of gates that would
allow for direct access onto the Terranea property.
Terranea Habitat Zone:Pursuant to a condition of approval imposed by the Coastal
Commission,the Terranea Resort was required to establish "Native Habitat Planting
8-18
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2.2010
Zones"on certain portions of the property where only native plant species are allowed.
Restrictions were also established on the type of landscaping that can be planted adjacent
to these Zones.One of these "Native Habitat Planting Zones"(Zone C)exists between the
Terranea golf course and the boundary line of the proposed project site.As a result,
Terranea representatives request that a condition be added on the proposed project that
prohibits non-native or invasive landscaping within 15-feet of the Habitat Zone that abuts
the subject property.
Based upon Staffs review of the Coastal Commission approved landscape plans for the
Terranea Resort,Staff believes that a condition is warranted that limits the landscaping to
include only California native planting and non-invasive species.As such,Staff
recommends that a condition be added that requires only California native planting and
non-invasive species be planted within the 15 foot rear yard setback of the new residential
lots.
Trail Responsibility:Lastly,with regards to the Flowerfield Trail,this portion of the trail is
currently the sidewalk in the Nantasket Drive right-of-way,adjacent to the project site.As
indicated above,the trail was relocated to this existing location after the golf course safety
consultant identified a safety concern with the original location of the trail,which was
located on the Terranea property.Improvement of the trail was required of the Terranea
project as part of the network of public trails required of the project to provide connectivity
to the coast for the public's benefit.As a result,although the trail was relocated off the
Terranea site and within the Nantasket right-of-way,Terranea was responsible for the
construction of the trail and is responsible for the maintenance of the trail.As a result of
this proposed development,Terranea representatives request that maintenance of the
Flowerfield Trail portion in the sidewalk of the Nantasket right-of-way be the responsibility
of the new homeowners of this proposed development.
Staff does not believe that maintenance responsibility of the trail should shift to the new
owners of the proposed project.The Flowerfield Trail meanders through the Terranea site,
along the eastern side ofthe Terranea property,and the trail continues onto the Nantasket
public sidewalk between Beachview Drive on the north and Seacove Drive on the south.
This provides a continuous,uninterrupted connection for the trail that Staff believes should
continue to fall under the responsibility of one entity.Staff believes that transferring
responsibility of this segment of the trail will result in up to 5 individual entities responsible
for the maintenance of the Flowerfield Trail (the four new owners of the proposed
development,and Terranea Resort).Staff believes that the maintenance responsibility for
this portion of trail should remain with Terranea as stated in the Council approved
Maintenance Agreement,since it was the Terranea development that resulted in the
requirement for a trail.
Notwithstanding,since construction activity associated with development of the new
residential structures may result in unintended damage to the improvements within the
8-19
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
Nantasket Drive right-of-way,including the public sidewalk where the Flowerfield Trail is
located,a condition has been added to require the developer of each lot to be responsible
for the repair of any damage to the public sidewalk.
As a result of the public notice,two additional letters were received from the Seabluff HOA
and from Sunshine,a resident residing in the Portuguese Bend community.Both
correspondences state opposition to the proposed project;however,the letter from the
Sea bluff HOA provides a recount of the previous project and the basis for the City
Council's denial of the previous project,which the HOA believes should be the basis to
deny the current 4-lot proposal.
California Coastal Commission Review:
According to Section 30514.b of the California Coastal Act,any proposed amendments to
a certified local specific plan shall be submitted to,and processed by,the California
Coastal Commission.Therefore,if and when the application package is approved by the
City Council,the applicant will need to obtain approval of the Coastal Specific Plan
amendment component by the California Coastal Commission.This component involves
the change in land use designation for the subject site from commercial recreational to
single-family residential.Additionally,according to past conversations with California
Coastal Commission staff,the review of the application package must be bifurcated:the
proposed land use change must be reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission
prior to the review of the development application (Le.,the Coastal Permit)if the Coastal
Permit is appealed.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the original 5-lot development project was before the City Council in 2007,the
Council ultimately denied the current applications and remanded the item back to the
Planning Commission.However,in doing so,the City Council directed that no new fees be
collected for resubmitted applications.Thus,the cost of processing the applications has
been borne by the City's General Fund.Conversely,the costs associated with reviews by
the City's consultants (Le.,City Engineer,City Geologist,and NPDES consultant)have
been paid for through a trust deposit established by the applicant.As such,those reviews
have not been borne by the City.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for
consideration by the City Council:
1.Consider and recommend approval of a zone change to an RS-2 zoning district,as
opposed to the RS-3 zoning district requested by the applicant,and direct the
8-20
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
February 2,2010
applicant to submit revised applications to accommodate a development within the
required development standards of the RS-2 Zoning District;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 City Council meeting with the appropriate
Resolutions;or,
4.Identify any issues of concern with the Planning Commission's decision and remand
the project back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2010-_,certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration
•Resolution No.2010-_,approving the Vesting Parcel Map,General Plan
Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Coastal Permit,
Variance,Grading Permits and Height Variations
•Planning Commission Minutes,excerpt of the November 10,2009 meeting
•PC Resolution No.2009-47,recommendation from the Planning Commission to
certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration
•PC Resolution No.2009-48,recommendation from the Planning Commission is
approve the proposed Vesting Parcel Map,General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,
Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Coastal Permit,Variance,Grading Permits and
Height Variations
•Staff Report to the Planning Commission,dated November 10,2009,with the
following attachments:
o 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.
o Planning Commission Minutes for previous project
o City Council Minutes for previous project
o Initial Study for Environmental Assessment for current project
o Comments in response to notice for current project
•Comments in response to Notice of City Council hearing
•Project Plans
8-21
RESOLUTION NO.2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN ASSOCIATION WITH
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,FOR CASE NOS.SUB2008.Q0001
AND ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078 FOR A PROPOSED 4-LOT
SUBDIVISION TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE FOUR NEW LOTS;LOCATED AT
32639 NANTASKET DRIVE,WHICH IS 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 the subject property,which is a vacant parcel located at
32639 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 April 24,2007 recommendations were presented to the City Council for
consideration.After hearing public testimony and discussing the merits ofthe 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 subject property
from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning
districts than the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone the subject property to
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 January 31,2008
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
8-22
of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the new residences on the
four new lots;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;and,a Coastal Permit for the
development project proposed within the City's Coastal Zone (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 generally 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 and
circulated for public review between October 2,2009 and November 10,2009;and,
WHEREAS,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,informing
them of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the pending development
applications.Further,the notice was published in the Peninsula News on October 8,2009.
WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring
program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and
Resolution as Exhibit "A";and,
WHEREAS,copies of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to
the Planning Commission,and prior to taking action on the proposed development
proposal,the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the
information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the
1202733
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 2
8-23
document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local
guidelines,with respect thereto;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;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on November 10,2009,the Planning
Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2009-47,recommending that the City Council
certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru -00078;and,
WHEREAS,copies ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to the City
Council and prior to taking action on the proposed project associated with Case Nos.
SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,the City Council independently
reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and determined that the document was prepared in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA and local guidelines,with respect thereto;and,
WHEREAS,after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's
Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the City Council of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes held a public hearing on February 2,2010,at which time all interested parties
were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed project is for a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,2-
to-4 dwelling units per acre;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3;Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Residential;
subdivision of the existing 1.42-acre site to four single-family residential lots;development
of a single-family residence on each lot;a Variance to allow the four lots to maintain a lot
depth of 93',which is less than the 110'lot depth requirement for RS-3 zoned lots;a
Grading Permit for approximately 4,028 cubic yards of total grading on all 4 lots to
accommodate the construction of a single-family residence on each lot;and Height
Variation Permits for the single-family residential structures on Lots 3 and 4 (the 2 lots
closest to Sea Cove Drive),to exceed the 16'building height requirement.The City
Council finds that the project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
In making this finding,the City Council considered the project's mitigation measures that
address the issues of Aesthetics,Air Quality,Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils,
Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise,Public Services,and Transportation and Circulation.
Section 2:The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,the public comments upon it,and other evidence
1202733
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 3
8-24
before the Council prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law 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 3: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 4:The Initial Study identified the following issue areas that may result in
a potentially significant environmental impact(s)as a result of the proposed project:
Aesthetics,Air Quality,Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils,Hydrology and Water
Quality,Noise,Public Services,and Transportation and Circulation.However,with the
appropriate mitigation measures in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit
"A"),which address impacts upon the aforementioned issue areas,the project will not have
a significant adverse environmental impact.
Section 5: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 6: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 7:Based upon the foregoing findings,the adoption of the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration is in the public interest.
Section 8: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 9:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 ofthe California
Code of Civil Procedure or other applicable shortened periods of limitation.
Section 10: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
1202733
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 4
8-25
comments received by the Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby certifies that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance
with CEQA,and therefore adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "A")
associated with Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078 (General
Plan Amendment,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Vesting Tentative
Parcel Map,Variance,Grading Permit,Height Variations,and Coastal Permit).
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 2 nd day of February 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the
above Resolution No.2010-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on February 2,2010.
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1202733
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 5
8-26
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,Height Variation,and Coastal Permit.
Location:Vacant Lot located at 32639 Nantasket Drive,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 Sea cove 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
Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-
8-27
I.INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)is to allow the following project on a vacant lot
located at 32639 Nantasket Drive,which is 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.lac);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;Height Variation applications for the new single-
family residences on Lots 3 and 4 that exceed the 16-foot height limit;and,a Coastal
Permit for the development project within the City's Coastal Zone.
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 pursuantto 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
Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-_
8-28
shall,if so requested by the lead or responsible agency,prepare and submit a proposed
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.
Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-
8-29
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.
Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-
8-30
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
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.
Project Design
/Operational
Prior to building permit final,
and on-going
Property Owner /
applicant.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
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.
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
On-going during construction
On-going during construction
On-going during construction
On-going during construction
Property Owner /
Applicant
Property Owner /
Applicant
Property Owner /
Applicant
Property Owner /
Applicant
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-8-31
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
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.
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.
Construction
Construction
Construction
Prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permit
Prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permit.
Prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permit.
Property Owner /
Applicant
Property Owner /
applicant.
Property Owner /
applicant.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
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 EnQineer
Project Design Prior to issuance of building
and/or grading permit.
Property Owner /
applicant.
Public Works
Department,and
the Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-8-32
MITIGATION MEASURES
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.
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.
TYPE
Project design
and
operational
Project design
Construction
TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
On-going
Prior to building and/or
grading permit issuance
On-going during construction
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
Property Owner /
applicant
Property Owner /
applicant
Property Owner /
applicant
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement
Page?Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-_8-33
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF
IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBLE
ENTITY
COMPLIANCE
VERIFICATION
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.
Construction
Construction
On-going.
On-going.
Property Owner /
applicant.
Property Owner /
applicant
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Department of
Planning,Building and
code Enforcement.
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
rovisions of Section 16.20.100.G.
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 Deoartment that will orovide for the
Project Design
Construction
Prior to Recordation of Final
Map
Prior to building and/or
grading permit issuance
Property Owner /
applicant
Property Owner /
applicant.
Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Public Works
Department,and
the Department of
Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement.
Page 8 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-8-34
MITIGATION MEASURES TYPE TIME OF RESPONSIBLE COMPLIANCE
IMPLEMENTATION ENTITY VERIFICATION
repair of City streets damaged by the hauling of soil
away from the project site.
Page 9 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Resolution No.2010-_8-35
RESOLUTION NO.2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING 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 SINGLE-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 16-
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 32639 NANTASKET DRIVE,WHICH IS 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,
8-36
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 evidencethat 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 and
circulated for public review between October 2,2009 and November 10,2009;and,
WHEREAS,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,informing
them of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the pending development
applications.Further,the notice was published in the Peninsula News on October 8,2009.
WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring
program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and
Resolution as Exhibit "A";and,
Resolution No.2010-_
Page2
8-37
WHEREAS,copies of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to
the Planning Commission,and prior to taking action on the proposed development
proposal,the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the
information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the
document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local
guidelines,with respect thereto;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;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on November 10,2009,the Planning
Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2009-47,recommending that the City Council
certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru -00078;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on November 10,2009,the Planning
Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2009-48,recommending that the City Council
approve the land use amendments,zone change,and development project associated with
Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078;and,
WHEREAS,after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's
Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the City Council ofthe City of Rancho
Palos Verdes held a public hearing on February 2,2010,at which time all interested parties
were given·an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed project is for a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,2-
to-4 dwelling units per acre;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3;Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Residential;
subdivision of the existing 1.42-acre site to four single-family residential lots;development
of a single-family residence on each lot;a Variance to allow the four lots to maintain a lot
depth of 93',which is less than the 110'lot depth requirement for RS-3 zoned lots;a
Grading Permit for approximately 4,028 cubic yards of total grading on all 4 lots to
accommodate the construction of a single-family residence on each lot;Height Variation
Permits for the single-family residential structures on Lots 3 and 4 (the 2 lots closest to Sea
Cove Drive),to exceed the 16'building height requirement;and,a coastal Permit for
development within the City's Coastal Zone.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 3
8-38
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 2:The City Council finds that the request for a General Plan Amendment,
which involves changing the Land Use designation from Commercial Recreational (CR)to
Single-Family Residential,2-to-4 dwelling units per acre is warranted for the following
reasons:
A.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
150-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.
B.The appropriateness of the site lends itself to the need within the communityforthe
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,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 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 subject 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.
C.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 ofthe 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
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 4
8-39
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.
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 3:The City Council finds that the request for a Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment,which involves changing the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation from
Agricultural to Residential,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.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.
B.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 intensiv~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.
C.The current Agricultural Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation is
inconsistent with the current Commercial-Recreational General Plan Land Use
Designation,and changing the land use designation to Residential will be
compatible with the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
designations.Further,the size of the subject property,at 1.42-acres,is too
small to conduct a viable agricultural use on the property.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 5
8-40
ZONE CHANGE
Section 4:The City Council finds that the request for a Zone Change,which
involves changing the underlying Zoning of the subject property from CR to RS-3,is
warranted for the following reasons:
A.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.
B.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.
VESTING PARCEL MAP
Section 5:The City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide the existing 1.42-acre lot into four single-family residential lots for the following
reasons:
A.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.
B.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
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 6
8-41
Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the
designated RS-3 zoning district.
C.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.
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 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 development will not be
detrimental to the public's health and safety as set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program,Exhibit "A",attached to Resolution No.2010-_,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.The existing 30'wide access easement to the benefit of
the 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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 7
8-42
VARIANCE
Section 6:The City Council finds that the request for a Variance to allow the four
lots to maintain a lot depth of 93',which is less than the 110'lot depth requirement for RS-3
zoned lots,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved,orto
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.
B.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.
C.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 defi.ciency 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 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.
D.Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or
the policies and requirements ofthe 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
Resolution No.2010-_
PageS
8-43
"[encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing
residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards ofhousing
quality and design."Thus,granting the variance will not be contrary to the City's
General Plan.
COASTAL PERMIT
Section 7:The City Council finds that the request for a Coastal Permit to allow
the development project within the "appealable area"of the City's Coastal Zone is
warranted for the following reasons:
A.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.
B.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.
GRADmGPERWT~O~1mRU~
Section 8:The City Council finds that the request for a Grading Permit to conduct
4,028 cubic yards of total grading on all 4 lots to accommodate the construction of a single-
family residence on each lot,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.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 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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 9
8-44
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.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 30-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.
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 mannerto 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
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 10
8-45
Compatibility Analysis,the current project constitutes its own immediate
neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood compatibility analysis,which
is consistent with the City Attorney's previous opinion on performing a
neighborhood compatibility analysis forthe 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.
F.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)
Section 9:The City Council finds that the request for Height Variation permits to
allow for the construction of single-family residences on Lots 3 and 4 that exceed the 16-
foot height limit,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.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 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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 11
8-46
B.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.
C.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.
D.As indicated above in the Grading Permit Section,the current project constitutes
its own immediate neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood
compatibility analysis.
E.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 16-feet will not significantly impair a
view or cause significant cumulative view impairment from the viewing area of
another parcel as follows:
Beachview Residences:
i.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 only 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;thus,the proposed structures will not result in
significant view impairment.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 12
8-47
Villas Apartments:
ii.Three units (one in each structure)were identified as having the best
and most important views,which are units #334,#45 and #88.These
units have views over the subject property.Statrs 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 10:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable shortened period of limitations.
Section 11: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 City Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes hereby approves 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;Height
Variation applications for the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height
limit;and,a Coastal Permit to allow the development within the appealable area of the
City's Coastal Zone.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 13
8-48
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 2nd day of February 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the
above Resolution No.2010-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on February 2,2010.
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 14
8-49
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 forthe RS-3 Zoning District,including the
13,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 4,290 square foot minimum
contiguous lot area.
8-50
8.Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are
contained in these conditions of approval,the development ofthe 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.2010-_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.An agreement shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney prior to recordation of Final Map,and shall be made part of the recordation
of the Final Map.Said agreement shall hold the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
the Terranea Resort property harmless from death,damage and injury resulting
from golf balls going onto the four lots approved by Tentative Parcel Map No.
69928.
13.Installation of gates that allow for direct access from any lot of Parcel Map No.
69928 onto the Terranea property shall be prohibited.
14.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.
15.The thirty-foot wide access easement across the property in favor of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes shall be abandoned by the City prior to the recordation of the
Final Parcel Map.The developer shall pay all applicable costs relating to the
abandonment of the easement and the process relating thereto.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 16
8-51
PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS
16.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 prior to recordation of the Final
Parcel Map,and the developer shall provide the City with confirmation that the
easement has been formally abandoned prior to the recordation of the final
parcel map.
c.ADA accessibility easements shall be provided for public sidewalk as required
at the top of all driveways or ramps
17.Per the City Engineer,subject to review and approval by the Director of Public
Works,the following items shall be constructed,or the construction shall be
guaranteed by surety or cash bond accompanied by a subdivision improvement
agreement,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 ofthe 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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 17
8-52
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 Manua1/2006%2
OHyd rology%20Manual-Divided.pdf
18.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.
•Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the ROW.
•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
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)
•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.
19.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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 18
8-53
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 all of the following mitigation measures of the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 19
8-54
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.
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 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.
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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 20
8-55
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.
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 16.20.1 OO.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
20.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,which is contingent upon California Coastal
Commission approval of the Coastal Specific Plan Amend ment,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
21.Prior to submittal of plans into building division plan check,the applicant shall
provide evidence of confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 21
8-56
water,wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal,that current water supplies
are adequate to serve the proposed project.
22.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
23.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.
24.Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report
shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.
25.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
26.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.
27.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.
28.All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the City's Municipal Code.
29.All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act.
UNIT NUMBERING
30.Any unit numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer.
GRADING
31.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading,which is
distributed as follows:
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 228-57
1 340 809 5.5-ft.6-ft.
2 793 248 5.7-ft.1.8-ft.
3 431 489 10-ft 3.1
4 393 132 2-ft.4-ft.
TOTAL 1,957 2,071
32.Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the project,the Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment shall be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
33.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
improvements,location of construction trailer,location and type of temporary
utilities.The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
34.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.
35.Grading shall conform to Chapter 29,"Excavations,Foundations,and Retaining
Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code".
36.Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall demonstrate to the
Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by
grad ing 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.
37.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.
38.Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition,including proper
engine tuning and exhaust control systems.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 23
8-58
39.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(8)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
40.The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise
insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels.
41.All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no
additional noise,due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated.
42.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
43.The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown
on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map,as approved by the City Council on
February 2,2010.
44.The approved residences shall maintain the following minimum setbacks:
•Front:20-feet
•Side:10-feet
'.Rear:15-feet
45.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.
46.Landscaping within the 15-foot rear yard setback of each lot shall be limited to
California native species and/or non-invasive plant species only.Notation of this
requirement shall be noted on the approved site plan.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 24
8-59
47.Landscaping for the project shall be designed,implemented and maintained to
comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the
Landscape Regulations.
48.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.
49.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.
50.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the
Development Code.
51.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.
52.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall not be any higher than the
minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code.
53.Fences,walls,pilasters,hedges,etc.located within the 20-foot front-yard setback
area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42")in height.
54.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.
55.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.
56.In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in
conflict,the stricter standard shall apply.
57.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.
58.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 oron the legal
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 25
8-60
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.
Resolution No.2010-_
Page 26
8-61