RPVCCA_SR_2010_05_04_12_InterpretationDate:
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING
May 4,2010
Interpretation of Condition of Approval No.45 of Resolution No.
2010-09,regarding the Structure Sizes of the Residences
Approved under Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074
through ZON2008-00078;Address 32639 Nantasket Drive,a
Vacant Lot located on the West Side of Nantasket Drive between
Beachview Drive and Sea cove 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 Schon born
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:NtA
Applicant:NtA
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Wolowicz
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
W:\AGENDA\Public Hearing Formats\public hearing format Council-Form 25 Nantasket May 4201 O.doc
12-1
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,DIRE R F COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MAY 4,2010
INTERPRETATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO.
45 OF RESOLUTION NO.2010-09,REGARDING THE
STRUCTURE SIZES OF THE RESIDENCES APPROVED
UNDER CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001,AND ZON2008-
00074 THRU ZON2008-00078;ADDRESS:32639
NANTASKET DRIVE,A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN
BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAG~;--"'-
Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plann~
RECOMMENDATION
Clarify that the intent of condition of approval no.45 is to require that the maximum
structure size of each unit in the approved residential development be reduced by 10-
percent,and thus make no changes to condition of approval no.45 of Resolution No.
2010-09,as adopted by the City Council on February 2,2010.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item stems from a February 2,2010 City Council approval of a 4-lot subdivision and
residential development of a 1.42-acre vacant parcel located on Nantasket Drive.Prior to
Council approval of the project,there were discussions regarding a ten percent reduction in
the project,which was ultimately incorporated into the conditions of approval adopted on
February 2nd
.
12-2
Interpretation of condition of approval
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
May 4,2010
At the March 16,2010 City Council meeting,the property owner (Mr.Dana Ireland)raised
this as an issue of concern,since he had interpreted the condition to mean a ten percent
reduction in the overall total square footage of the project.Mr.Ireland requested
clarification from the Council regarding the intent of the condition of approval;and,after
discussing this matter,the Council directed staff to return with an Interpretation Hearing to
clarify this specific condition of approval.In summary,Staff believes that in order for the
condition to reflect and implement the Council's intent,the condition should require each
proposed residence to be reduced by 10-percent.
BACKGROUND
On February 2,2010,the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider a subdivision
and a residential development on a vacant 1.42-acre lot along Nantasket Drive,in the
City's Coastal Zone.After discussing the merits of the project,the Council adopted
Resolution No.2010-08,certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration;and,adopted
Resolution No.2010-09,approving a General Plan Amendment,Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment,Zone Change,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Grading Permit,Height
Variations,and Coastal Permit,thereby facilitating development of four single-family
residences on the vacant Nantasket Drive parcel (located between Seacove and
Beachview Drives).
On March 16,2010,the subject property owner,Dana Ireland,appeared before the City
Council and raised concerns with one of the conditions of approval (specifically,condition
no.45)for the project.Mr.Ireland stated that when this project was before Council there
were discussions regarding a ten percent reduction in the project,which he had interpreted
to mean a ten percent reduction in the overall total square footage of the project,while the
minutes reflected a ten percent reduction of each home size.As a result,Mr.Ireland
requested clarification regarding the intent of the condition of approval.After discussing
this matter,the Council directed staff to return with an Interpretation Hearing to clarify this
specific condition of approval,and clarified that the Interpretation Hearing was being
requested by the City Council.
In accordance with the Interpretation Procedure required by the City's Development Code,
Staff mailed notices to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject
property,including the Sea Bluff HOA,informing them of the Interpretation hearing before
the City Council.The notice was also published in the Peninsula News on March 25,2010,
and posted on the City's website.As of the preparation of this report,Staff has received
several correspondences regarding a real estate advertisement related to this project.
12-3
Interpretation of condition of approval
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
May 4,2010
CODE CONSIDERATION
Municipal Code Section 17.78.050 sets forth an interpretation procedure for approved
applications.Specifically, this Code Section states in part,"In cases of uncertainty or
ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any decision granted in accordance with this title,
or to further define or enumerate the conditions ofapproval of an approved application,an
interpretation procedure shall be followed ..."This Code Section further states that,"The
interpretation review procedure shall be applied,but not be limited to the following
situations ...lnterpretations of conditions of approval."
The Development Code goes on to state that "In cases involving the interpretation of a
decision of the planning commission and/or city council,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the appropriate review body."The Director's report on this
issue is provided in the Discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
The condition of approval that is the subject of this Interpretation is contained in Resolution
No.2010-09 (attached),and reads as follows:
"45.The approved residences shall comply with the following standards:
LOT SIZE 14,402 sf 15,567 sf 14,081 sf 17,704 sf
MAX STRUCTURE SIZE 5,789 sf 5,800 sf 6,069 sf 5,752 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."
This condition was originally presented to the City Council with the maximum square
footage of each home as approved by the Planning Commission.During the course of the
City Council's discussion of the project,there was thought given to reducing the size of the
proposed homes to address concerns raised by nearby residents regarding the bulk and
mass ofthe new homes.After much discussion,Mayor Pro Tern Long moved,seconded
by Councilman Stern,to adopt the staff recommendations for approval of the project as
approved by the Planning Commission with certain changes,which included a ten percent
reduction in the square footage of the houses.Specifically,Mayor Pro Tern Long's stated
12-4
Interpretation of condition of approval
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
May 4.2010
motion was (in part),"move adoption of all of the staff recommendations,but with certain
changes...one is going to be conditioning everything upon a further ten percent reduction
in the square footage of the houses in exchange for the variance reduction ..."
After several amendments to the motion regarding other issues and further discussion
about the project,and prior to adoption of the Resolutions,the City Attorney restated the
motion by stating:
"...condition 45,we will change the structure sizes to reduce each ofthem by 10-percent,if
this motion passes ..."
After this clarification and concurrence by the City Council regarding the changes,the
following motion passed on a 4-1 vote,with Council member Campbell dissenting,to adopt
the staff recommendations with the following changes:1)to require the redesign of the
house on Lot No.1 to minimize view impairment;2)a ten percent reduction in the square
footage of each house;and,3)to allow a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City,but not to
Terranea Resort.
Mr.Ireland believes that the 10-percent reduction required by the City Council is to the
cumulative square footage of floor area of the four residences combined.Thus,the
property owner does not believe that each individual residence must be reduced by 10-
percent.Rather,his interpretation of the City Council's directive is that there needs to be a
1O-percent reduction in the cumulative square footage of all four residences,whereby one
residence may be reduced by less than 10-percent provided that another is reduced by
more than 10-percent,so long as the overall amount of square footage reduction averages
10-percent.
Staff is under the impression that the City Council was attempting to address the
neighbors'concerns with all four proposed residences by r~ducing the size of each
individual residence by 10-percent.Although Staff acknowledges that Mr.Ireland's
interpretation may provide him with greater flexibility in redesigning the residences,Staff
has a concern with Mr.Ireland's interpretation.Staff believes that allowing for an average
reduction amongst all the residences could result in no (or minimal)reduction to one or two
residences,and the other residences reduced slightly more than 10-percent in order to
achieve a 10-percent average reduction.Another possibility is that the basement of one
residence could be eliminated,which would yield over half of the required average
reduction,but would not result in any noticeable exterior changes to the residence or its
footprint.
In summary,Staff believes that a 10-percent reduction in the structure size of each
residence is more appropriate and is consistent with the Council's intent in minimizing the
bulk and mass of the approved project.Therefore,Staff recommends that the City Council
12-5
Interpretation of condition of approval
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
May 4.2010
clarify that the intent of condition of approval no.45 is to require that the maximum
structure size of each unit in the approved residential development be reduced by 10-
percent,and thus make no changes to condition of approval no.45 of Resolution No.
2010-09,as adopted by the City Council on February 2,2010.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Status of the LCP Amendment:
As the Council may recall,the approvals of the project included an amendment to the City's
Coastal Specific Plan for a change in the Land Use designation of the subject property
from Agriculture to Residential.However,the approvals are contingent on the Coastal
Commission approving a change in the City's Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation
to a Residential use.As a result,on March 17,2010,City Staff submitted to Coastal
Commission Staff a LCP (Local Coastal Plan)Amendment to change the Coastal Specific
Plan Land Use designation from Agriculture to Residential,and the zoning from
Commercial Limited (CL)to Single-Family Residential (RS-3).Coastal Commission Staff
deemed the application incomplete pending submittal of additional information regarding
the agricultural use of the property.City Staff submitted a response to this request on April
20,2010.According to Coastal Commission Staff,consideration of the LCP Amendment
by the California Coastal Commission may be several months away.
If the California Coastal Commission denies the LCP Amendment to change the Coastal
Specific Plan's Land Use designation from Agriculture to Residential and related zoning to
Residential,then no further action will be taken since the development applications cannot
continue without approval of the Amendment.If the California Coastal Commission
approves the LCP Amendment to change the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation
and zoning of the property,the City Council's February 2nd decision will be final and the
City will issue a Notice of Final City Decision to all interested parties for the coastal permit
on the remaining development applications.At that time,.since the City's decision will be
final,any interested party will have the opportunity to appeal the City Council's decision on
all the development applications to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the
appeal procedures of the California Coastal Commission.
Public Comments:
As indicated above,Staff has received several comments regarding a real estate
advertisement related to this project (comments and advertisement attached).The public
comments question the advertisement,which they believe leads to the conclusion that the
project is approved.City Staff contacted the Realtor,and as specified above,clarified that
the residential development permits are contingent upon approval of the LCP amendment
by the Coastal Commission.
12-6
Interpretation of condition of approval
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
May 4,2010
Lastly,a comment was submitted regarding view impairment from the structures upon the
nearby trail that traverses the adjacent Terranea resort.The Flowerfield Trail is located
along the public sidewalk on the western side of the Nantasket Drive right-of-way adjacent
to the project site,and then onto the Terranea property to the north of the project site.In
reviewing the project applications,Staff found that there is a short segment of this trail that
contains a view of the ocean and Catalina Island over the project site.Although there is a
view,the proposed residence on Lot 1 (located on the northernmost side ofthe project site)
already impairs a minimal amount of ocean and island view from this short segment of the
Flowerfield Trail.Further,since the trail rapidly ascends in elevation away from the subject
site,views of the ocean and Catalina Island are maintained from along the Flowerfield
Trail.As such,Staff determined that the project does not significantly impair a protected
view from the aforementioned trail.
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.As such,the cost of processing the applications and
the cost of processing this Interpretation have 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.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2010-09,approving the Vesting Parcel Map,General Plan
Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Coastal Permit,
Variance,Grading Permits and Height Variations
•Excerpt Minutes of the February 2,2010 City Council meeting
•Public comments and real estate advertisement
12-7
RESOLUTION NO.2010-09
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-fami.lY residences on a vacant parcel
on Nantasket Drive between Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive (APN 7573-014-013);and,
WHEREAS,on April 24,2007,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution Nos.2007-
29,2007-30 and 2007-31,recommending that the City Council certify the Mitigated Negative
Declaration;approve the Land Use Designation changes to Residential;approve the Zone Change
to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential);approve the single-family residences on Lots 1 and 2;and deny
the single-family residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 due to these residences not being compatible with
the immediate neighborhood with regards to bulk and mass;and,
WHEREAS,on May 15,2007,the proposed project,along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration.After hearing public testimony
and discussing the merits of the project,the City Council denied the applications and remanded the
item back to the Planning Commission with instructions that consideration be given to rezone the
project from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning
districts than the Planning Commission's recommendation of RS-4;and,
WHEREAS,in response to the City Council's May 15,2007 directive,the property
owner/applicant submitted new applications on January 31 ,2008,which are the same application
types submitted in 2006 and 2007.However,the current proposal includes a zone change to RS-3
instead of RS-4,which is a lower density;a 4-lot subdivision and residential development instead of
a 5-lot subdivision;Height Variation applications for Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit;a
Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the new
residences;and,continues to propose a General Plan Land Use Designation Change from
Commercial to Residential,a 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
12-8
110'lot depth requirement (hereinafter referred to as Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru -00078);and,
WHEREAS,on February 25,2008,Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru-
00078 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information;and,
WHEREAS,after submittal of additional information,including construction and certification
of the required temporary silhouettes,on September 29,2009 the applications were deemed to be
complete for processing;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act,Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,California Code of
Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government
Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that,by incorporating mitigation measures into the
Negative Declaration,there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-
00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone
Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Coastal Permit,
Grading,and Height Variations,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact was given
in the manner required by law;and,
WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared 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 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,
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 2 of 11
12-9
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;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.
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 community for the
proposed residential use,and is compatible with surrounding uses.A commercial use would
create more sensory impacts than a residential use with regards to hours of operation,
noise,and traffic circulation.The subject site is an existing in-fill site,accessed from the
residential streets of Beachview Drive,Nantasket Drive,and Sea Cove Drive.Although the
subject site abuts a commercial development,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.
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 3 of 11
12-10
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 ofresidential use
[within the City}is based on several factors:the ability of residential activity to produce low
environmental stress,the geographical location of the community with no major
transportation facilities,lack of market potential for any major commercial,and need for
support facilities only to meet the community's demand"(General Plan Page No.194).
Additionally,the General Plan states,"Commercial uses tend to have environmental impacts
unless small in scale and very carefully designed"(General Plan Page No.196).Even
though this site is small in scale,it is currently vacant,and any commercial venture would
cause impacts to the area that would be considered more intrusive than what could be found
from a residential development.More specifically,residential uses tend to generate less
vehicle trips,create less noise,and have less light and glare impacts than commercial uses.
Thus,the General Plan Amendment to Residential will be in the pUblic's interest,and the
General Plan Amendment is appropriate.
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
all 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 intensive use of the subject site
than were it developed with a comparable sized commercial development when
examining the potential traffic,noise,and light pollution generated from the site.Further,
a residential development would be more compatible with the existing residential uses in
the adjoining area.Furthermore,the development of a CR use on the subject site would
result in an appearance incompatible with the existing single-and multi-family uses in
the adjoining areas.For instance,the site being used as a commercial filming site,a
recycling facility,a helistop,or a small hotel,etc.,would erode the character of the
neighborhood,which is primarily composed of single-family and multi-family residential
structures.
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
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 4 of 11
12-11
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.
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 ofthe 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 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
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 5 of 11
12-12
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-
08,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.
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,or to the
intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other property in the same
zoning district to warrant an approval of a variance to allow for nonconforming lot depths
of 93',which does not comply with the 110'minimum requirement for RS-3 zoned lots.
Specifically,the subject site has had a nonconforming lot depth upon its creation by the
City under any zoning district.
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
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 6 of 11
12-13
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 deficiency does not result in a deficient rear yard
setback,as the residences will maintain rear yard setbacks that exceed the minimum
requirement.This is further augmented with the fact that the rears of the parcels abut the
golf course area which provides for additional open area.Thus,there is no impact upon
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 of the Coastal Specific Plan.The development of single-
family residential structures on the four lots is consistent with the underlying Residential
Land Use designation since the Development Code allows for subdivision of land,
provided that such proposal meet the minimum conditions as warranted by the
Subdivision Map Act and City's Development Code.As concluded,the new residential
lots will not be detrimental to the public welfare,or injurious to property and
improvements in the area,which is consistent with the General Plan's goal to protect the
general health,safety,and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan,Page 192-193).
Further,the new residential lots are consistent with General Plan Housing Policy NO.3 to
"[encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential
neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and
design."Thus,granting the variance will not be contrary to the City's General Plan.
COASTAL PERMIT
Section 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.
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 7 of 11
12-14
GRADING PERMIT (LOTS 1 THRU 4)
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.
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 3D-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade elevation covered by
structure,to the highest ridgeline elevation.The new residences on Lots 1 and 2 are at
ridgeline elevations that are 16-feet or less above the highest preconstruction grade
elevation covered by the proposed structures.Further,the overall heights of these
residences on Lots 1 and 2 will be 24.1-feet as measured from the highest ridgeline
elevations down to the finish pad elevations covered by the structures.Although fill is
proposed on Lots 1 and 2,the fill does not result in a higher ridgeline elevation than what
is allowed "by-right".Rather,the fill is a function of the sloping lot condition,which
results in a split-level design,but does not result in a higher ridgeline elevation than what
is allowed "by-right",and does not result in higher structures than what can be built in the
same location on the lots if measured from existing grade.
Lots 3 and 4 also contain fill;however,similar to the grading for lots 1 and 2,the fill on
these lots is provided so that there is no crawl space under the up-slope portion of the
new residences.Although Lots 3 and 4 will be constructed with grading that does not
artificially raise the grade for the proposed residences,the ridgeline elevations of these
residences exceed the 16-foot height limits,and are thus subject to Height Variations,
which can be approved for the reasons stated below.
C.The nature of proposed grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours so that they will be reasonably natural.The existing contours of the
project site are not the original natural contours,partly as the result of past farming on
the subject site until the late 1980s.The subject site is a gently sloping lot with steeper
slopes around the front edge of the lot.The subject lot is proposed to be re-contoured in
a manner to minimize change to the existing contours.
D.The grading proposed takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 8 of 11
12-15
manufactured slope into natural topography.The existing "natural"contours of the
project site are partly the result of human alteration in the past.Thus,there are no
significant natural topographic features that would be disturbed by the proposed grading.
E.The proposed grading is associated with the construction of residences on these lots;
therefore,a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis of the proposed residences is
warranted.For the purposes of conducting a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis,the
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 for the proposed project
and is supported by the City Council approved Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.
According to the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,"for purposes ofNeighborhood
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 ofthe 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 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.
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 VARIA TIONS (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.
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
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 9 of 11
12-16
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.
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.Staff's view analyses of the previous project
concluded that the previous project significantly impaired the view from only
Unit #45.Since the proposal has been modified,Staff conducted new view
analyses from the same three units on November 4,2009.Based upon the
analyses,Staff has concluded that the new project will not cause any view
impairment to Unit #334 in structure 1 (closest to Beachview Drive)and Unit
#88 in structure 3 (closest to 8eacove Drive).With regards to Unit #45 in
structure 2 (located between the aforementioned structures),the proposed
residence on Lot 3 will impair the view of the Teranea hotel,which is not a
significant impairment.The residence on Lot 4 will impair some ocean view
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 10 of 11
12-17
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.
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 2nd day of February 2010.
/s/Stefan Wolowicz
Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Carla Morreale
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.2010-09 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a
regular meeting held on February 2,2010.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2010-09
Page 11 of 11
12-18
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.
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 12
12-19
8.Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are
contained in these conditions of approval,the development of the lots shall comply
with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code.
9.All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program
contained in Resolution No.2010-08 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
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 priorto 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.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 12
12-20
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 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
f.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,provide new
street striping to replace the existing street striping disturbed by the street
resurfacing.
g.An Engineered (Rough)Grading Plan shall be prepared for the site.Fine
Grading may be incorporated into an (overall)Grading Plan if the houses are
to be built all at one time.If the houses are to be built individually,at different
times,separate Fine Grading Plans may be prepared for those houses in
addition to the previously required Rough Grading Plan.
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 12
12-21
h.A final Drainage Report shall be prepared for the site.
Post-development storm water run-off quantities shall be mitigated per the
NPDES (Stormwater)Review by John L.Hunter.The Final Drainage Report
calculations shall be prepared in conformance with Los Angeles County
Standards (see on line manual
http://ladpw.org/wrd/publication/engineering/2006 Hydrology Manual/2006%2
OHydrology%20Manual-Divided.pdf
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 theoreticaI100-yearflood.
•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.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 12
12-22
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.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 12
12-23
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
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 12
12-24
site grading begins.
HWQ-4:Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP),including sandbags shall be used
by the project applicant to help control runoff from the project site during project
construction activities.Measures to be used shall be approved by the City Engineer before
a Grading Permit is issued for the project.
Noise:
N-1:Demolition,grading and construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am
and 7:00pm,Monday through Saturday.There shall be no construction on Sundays or
federally observed holidays.
N-2:During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,
Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated
above.
Public Services:
PS-1:As there is no park or recreational facility designated in the general plan to be
located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and
future needs of the residents of the subdivision,the project applicant shall,in lieu of
dedicating land,pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in
Section 16.20.100.0 and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of
Section 16.20.100.G.
Transportation/Traffic:
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 Amendment,the developer shall
pay to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,subject to the City Council's approval,a
Parkland Dedication in lieu fee which is to be calculated pursuant to the City's
Development Code Section 16.20.100.
UTILITIES
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 12
12-25
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
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
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 12
12-26
31.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading,which is
distributed as follows:
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
grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for
the control of dust.
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.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 12
12-27
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(B)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
MAX STRUCTURE SIZE 5,789 sf 5,800 sf 6,069 sf 5,752 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.Prior to submittal of grading plans and/or building plans for the residence on Lot 1
into plan check with the Building and Safety Division,the applicant shall redesign
the proposed residence on Lot 1 to minimize view impairment from the viewing
areas of properties located at 6619 Beachview Drive,6617 Beachview Drive and
6615 Beachview Drive.Said redesign shall be submitted to the Director of
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 12
12-28
Community Development and shall be reviewed by the City Council.Notice of said
review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500'
radius,to persons requesting notice,to all affected homeowners associations,and
to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code
Section 17.80.090.
47.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.
48.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.
49.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.
50.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.
51.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the
Development Code.
52.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.
53.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall not be any higher than the
minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code.
54.Fences,walls,pilasters,hedges,etc.located within the 20-foot front-yard setback
area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42")in height.
55.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.
56.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.
57.In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in
conflict,the stricter standard shall apply.
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 12
12-29
58.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.
59.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday
through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal
holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code.There shall be no idling vehicles and equipments related to the approved
scope of the project prior to 7:00 a.m.and after 7 p.m.
Resolution No.2010-09
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 12
12-30
Received and filed the December 2009 Monthly Report of Cash Balances for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
Register of Demands
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.2010-07,A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES,ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING FUNDS FROM WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID.
######
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Appointments to the Planning Commission
Mayor Wolowicz introduced the item and noted that there were many well-qualified
applicants for the four positions on the Planning Commission.
City Clerk Morreale distributed ballots.After four rounds of balloting the following four
members were appointed to the Planning Commission,each with a four year term of
office beginning February 11,2010 through February 11,2014:Paul Tetreault,Jeff
Lewis,David Emenhiser,and Gordon Leon.
Councilman Stern moved,seconded by Councilman Campbell,that the terms of office for
the new Planning Commissioners would begin on February 11,2010.
Without objection,Mayor Wolowicz so ordered.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published,no
written protests received,late correspondence was distributed prior to the meeting,and
there were eight requests to speak on the item.
Councilman Stern and Mayor Wolowicz both disclosed that they were not certain if the
parties involved in this application had contributed to their past campaigns,and noted
that they could objectively participate in the decision currently before Council.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing open.
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 4 of 10
12-31
Senior Planner Schon born provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation for the
item.He reported that the project before Council was seeking the 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.He reported that the property was
located in the City's Coastal Zone,and was 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 approval by the City
Council;and noted that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project as the Commission was able to make all the necessary findings for approval of
the project applications as proposed.
Council and staff discussion ensued.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
MayorWolowicz called a brief recess from 9:00 P.M.to 9:10 P.M.
Dana Ireland,applicant,Rancho Palos Verdes,provided a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the redesigned Nantasket project as revised from the recommendations
provided by Council during the May 15,2007 consideration of the project.Mr.Ireland
stated that the redesign addresses the following concerns:the creation of more open
space by providing 50-60 feet of view corridors between the proposed residential
structures;and the shifting of the placement of the homes on the lots in order to lower the
ridge heights of the homes where possible.He reported the following revisions to the
plans:the square footage of the buildable area of the project was reduced by 25%
resulting in the current project consisting of 26,013 square feet;the lot sizes grew due to
the reduction from five to four homes;the ridge heights were reduced on three of the four
homes;the measurable view impairment was less than 1%on Lot 1 with the proposed
home;revisions to the grading plans;and,reduction of the bulk and mass of the homes.
He noted that he had no objective to the Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
David Emenhiser,President,Sea bluff Homeowners Association (HOA),Rancho Palos
Verdes,stated that although some revisions were made to the plans in consideration of
the neighbor's concerns,the major issue for the Seabluff HOA is that Lot 1 has remained
practically unchanged which affects the views of four of the Seabluff homeowners.He
noted that they had concerns regarding street parking;errant golf balls from the Terranea
Resort Golf Course;size and heights of the homes not being compatible with the
neighborhood;and the mansionization of the project.
Bob Nelson,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that not one person other than the applicant
and the Planning Commission Members have spoken in favor of the project;suggested
that the zoning in the General Plan should be amended only if the amendment is in the
interest of the public;stated that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood and
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 5 of 10
12-32
that the variances should not be granted since they should only be granted for minimum
items when they are relative to what exists in the neighborhood.
Stephanie McLachlan,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that she opposes the development
for the following reasons:her view from the second floor and front of her property will be
affected;the development is not compatible with the neighborhood;the bulk and mass of
the homes;and,issues regarding the setbacks and lot depth.
Juan-Carlos Monnaco,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that no individual person other than
the applicant has spoken in favor of the project in the last five years.He reported that he
is in opposition to the project for the following reasons:his home is the closest single
family residence to the project;the impact on his family lifestyle;the proposed 6,000
square foot homes are not compatible with the neighborhood;the ten-foot front yard
setback is too small;the view impacts to the neighboring homes especially due to the
home proposed on Lot 1;and,his opinion that the neighbors'concerns have not been
addressed by the developer.
Todd Majcher,Terranea Resort,stated that Terranea was not opposed to the
development of the property,but stated that due to the proximity of the homes to the
Terranea Golf Course,Terranea requested that they should have an Indemnity
Agreement or a Hold Harmless Agreement from the developer.
Dana Ireland,in rebuttal,stated that the golf safety issues were well beyond the scope of
his project,but noted that the golf consultant who performed the analysis was well aware
that there would be development at the site.He noted that he occasionally finds a golf
ball near the property line,but not where the silhouettes are located.He opined that the
project as a four home residential development was more in the public interest than a bed
and breakfast hotel would have been,because a development of that type would
increase traffic dramatically.He stated that the Terranea structures are in the 8,000 to
10,000 square foot range,the Villa Apartments are in the 30,000 square foot range,and
the Planned Unit Developments at Seabluff are at 6,500 square feet.He stated that he
has 20 foot front yard setbacks,and noted that a variance would be needed for any
development due to the existing lot depth of the property.He stated that although there
are objections regarding the view blockage due to the house on Lot 1,the house is at the
maximum allowable height of 16 feet;and commented on objections to the limited on-
street parking and errant golf balls.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing closed.
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the following issues:property rights and
by right construction;height variations and zone changes;view impairment;the size,
bulk,and mass of the homes;quasi-judicial and discretionary decisions;and
neighborhood compatibility.
Mayor Pro Tem Long moved,seconded by Councilman Stern,to adopt the staff
recommendations with the following changes to:1)condition everything upon a further
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 6 of 10
12-33
ten percent reduction in the square footage of the houses;2)require a condition limiting
the invasive plant species to protect the habitat area;and,3)require a Hold Harmless
Agreement to the City,but not to Terranea Resort.
RECESS AND RECONVENE:
Mayor Wolowicz called a brief recess from 11 :11 P.M.to 11 :17 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tern Long moved,seconded by Councilman Misetich,to reopen the public
hearing to allow the applicant to address the conditions included in the motion on the
floor.
Without objection,Mayor Wolowicz so ordered.
Mayor Wolowicz re-opened the public hearing
Dana Ireland,stated that the lots were not deficient in size or in the building envelope,
and that he was in agreement with the native species requirement and the Hold
Harmless Agreement with the City.In response to Mayor Pro Tern Long's question
regarding a reduction in the height of the homes on Lot Nos.3 and 4,Mr.Ireland
stated that he would like to see the height retained since there were no objections to
the homes on those lots,and he did not want to compromise the design of those
homes.
Mayor Wolowicz declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion,seconded by Councilman
Misetich,to deny the Height Variation Permits on Lot Nos.3 and 4;and to require the
redesign of the home on Lot No.1 to minimize view impairment from the residences in
the Seabluff community to be brought back for Council review.
MayorWolowicz moved,seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Long,to split the vote on the
amendment.
Without objection,MayorWolowicz so ordered.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion,seconded by Councilman
Misetich,to deny the Height Variation Permits on Lot Nos.3 and 4.
The motion on the first half of the amendment,as stated above,failed on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Campbell and Misetich
Long,Stern,and Mayor Wolowicz
None
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 7 of 10
12-34
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion,seconded by Councilman
Misetich,to require the redesign of the proposed residence on Lot NO.1 to minimize
view impairment from the residences in the Seabluff community,subject to further
review and approval by Council.
The motion on the second half of the amendment,as stated above,passed on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Campbell,Misetich,and Mayor Wolowicz
Long and Stern
None
City Clerk Morreale restated the motion,as amended to require the redesign of the
house on Lot No.1,by Mayor Pro Tem Long,which was seconded by Councilman
Stern,to adopt the staff recommendations with the following changes to:
1)condition everything upon a further ten percent reduction in the square footage of
the houses;2)require a condition to limit the invasive species on the property to
protect the habitat area;and,3)to allow a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City,but
not to T erranea Resort.
Councilman Stern moved an amendment to the motion,seconded by Mayor Pro Tem
Long,to remove the ten percent reduction on the square footage of the homes from
the main motion.
The motion on the amendment failed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Long and Stern
Campbell,Misetich,and Mayor Wolowicz
None
Councilman Campbell moved an amendment to the motion,to increase the ten
percent reduction on the square footage of the homes to a fifteen percent reduction
on the square footage.The motion died for a lack of a second.
City Attorney Lynch reported that Condition No.46 states that the landscaping within
the fifteen foot rear yard setback shall be limited to California native,so that item
would not be required in the motion;and clarified that Condition No.45 would be
modified to state that each of the structure sizes listed would be reduced ten percent if
the motion passes;and clarified that Condition No.12,which requires the Hold
Harmless Agreement,would be modified so that an Agreement would be required
only for the City and not the Terranea Resort.
Councilman Campbell moved to amend the motion to require a more formal
neighborhood compatibility analysis be included for the project.
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 8 of 10
12-35
Council and staff discussion ensued regarding the process for a neighborhood
compatibility analysis.
Councilman Campbell withdrew the motion to amend.
The main motion on the floor was to adopt the staff recommendations with the
following changes:1)to require the redesign of the house on Lot No.1 to minimize
view impairment;2)a ten percent reduction in the square footage of each house;and,
3)to allow a Hold Harmless Agreement to the City,but not to Terranea Resort.
The main motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Long,Misetich,Stern,and Mayor Wolowicz
Campbell
None
The motion included the following actions to:1)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2010-08,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES,CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION;and,
2)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.2010-09,AS AMENDED,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).Staff noted that the hearing regarding the redesign of the home on
Lot 1 would be re-noticed as a public hearing.
REGULAR NEW BUSINESS:
Management of Rentals at Founders Park
This item was removed from the agenda,to be brought back for Council consideration at
a later date.
City Council Minutes
February 2,2010
Page 9 of 10
12-36
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
c/o Joel Rojas,AICP
Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Eduardo Schonborn,AICP
Senior Planner
April 27,2010
Ireland:Nantasket:CC 5/4/2010
Hand Delivered
to Planning Dept.
RECEIVED
APR 27 2010
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Subject:
City Council May 4,2010,Meeting:Item #tbd:
(Coastal Commission:Ireland:Nantasket)
Subject:An Interpretation of Condition of Approval #45,of Resolution No.2010-09,regarding
the structure sizes of the residences approved under Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru ZON2008-00078 which was approved by the City Council on February 2,2010.
Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor Pro-tern Long,members,
My understanding is the applicant has requested an accommodation to permit him to chose the
amount ofreduction of each home as long as the total reduction is 10%;i.e.,Lot # 1 0%,lot #2 10%,
lot 3 15%,lot #4 10%.
THIS IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS DECIDED FEB.2,2010.I admit Joel
Rojas has indicated I am wrong but what I thought I heard decided was:
1.Dana Ireland to reduce EACH home 10%;
2.Dana to discuss redesign of house on lot #1 with Juan Carlos-Monnaco (6619 Beachview)to
reduce partial view destruction over golf course and Terranea Resort resulting from Dana's lot #1
large home.
3.That the same discussions take place with homeowners at 6617 and 6615 Beachview (Stephanie
McLaughin and Bipin Bajania.
However,since Dana Ireland has already placed lot #1 on the market with 'approved plans for a
beautiful home over 5,500 square feet'and 'large lot at over 17,000 square feet.'(See attached
RElMax ad:agent Tricia Rapaport'published 4/24/2001 in 'The RelMax Collection'in the Daily
Breeze,a local newspaper.I quickly admit this RPV real estate and all that can entail.
So this meeting and any decision may be moot.
For our Coastal Commission (copied)this is our initial correspondence on an item we believe
you will entitle 'Ireland:Nantasket'In Rancho Palos Verdes.
We understand from Tricia Rapaport,his RelMax real estate agent,this item will be before
you in two weeks so,if we are too late,that's our loss.You'll note Tricia calls the lot and plans
'approved.'RPV has told us that is not true but see #4 below.
pg.lof2
12-37
Ireland:Nantasket:CC 5/4/2010
The applicable address is called out by RPV Planning Staff as 'West Side ofNantasket Drive,
between Beachview Drive and SeaCove Drive,'referred to at times by RPV's Planning Director as
an 'orphan lot'.
These 1.2 acres fall within our coastal zone.
The developmentfalls within Rancho Palos Verdes'Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP)-as does all ofRPV -but has a named trail (Flower Field Trail)with panoramic ocean
views (see attached Tricia Rapaport RelMax ad with picture).
This proposal eliminates these views in favor of large homes on small lots.To date Ireland has
overcome:
1.Any Coastal ocean/Catalina Island view obliteration problems (including from a named trail,as
above),lot division problems (so as to maximize parcel density impact and profit,neighborhood
compatibility (staff admitted there is none so,believe it or not,Council declared Ireland's homes a
'neighborhood unto themselves'),etc.,etc.
2.Nantasket's four lots are so small homes could not legally be built.So RPV's Planning
Commission and four Council members eliminated Dana's problem with quick approval of 4 lot size
'variances'creating small lots and resulting large homes with 10'-15'front yards and 10'-15'
backyards (the Hermosa Beach look brought into RPV).
3.In 5 years of testimony,not one resident spoke in favor of Dana's 'Nantasket Residential
Project.'Yet every political body quickly approved it with numerous accommodations required to
subdivide this orphan lot into smaller than legal lots (the 'variance')and build large homes on these.
4.I understand this will NOT be presented to our Coastal Commission as A SINGLE
PROJECT.As good developer strategy,initially you will never see it in its entirety.First,the
Coastal Specific Plan,subdividing this orphan parcel into 4 lots,will be presented (in two weeks?)
and then,later,(2-3 months)the large homes that will go on these small lots.I believe it should be
presented as a single package so the total impacts to RPV's neighborhood can immediately be
seen.Splitting this project into two Coastal presentations allows the developer to camouflage his
impacts,recognized at least by his neighbors,until it's too late to change ...smart strategy on
Ireland's part but it is our coast and our views.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Bob Nelson
Attached:'The Re/Max Collection'ad 4/24/2010 for 10t#1 in Daily Breeze
Site pictures
cc:California Coastal Commission
South Coast District Office
Jack Ainsworth Director
200 Oceangate,10th Floor
Long Beach,CA 90802-4416
pg.20f2
12-38
REF:South Coast District Office:IRELAND:NANTASKET:Rancho Palos Verdes
SOURCE:DAILY BREEZE:'THE REIMAX COLLECTION'INSERT 412412010
City Council:From:Bob Nelson,6612 Channelview Court,RPV
It is April 24,2010.On May 4,2010,you have agendized this project to further interprete just exactly what
you approved on Feb.2,2010.Dana Ireland's ad below shows a buyer can rely on 'approved plans'for a
home 'over 5,500 square feet'on a 'large lol'True?We know from the variances you gave Dana 'large lot'
is not true but 'approved plans'-when did you,when did Coastal Commission?Personally,I don't think either
party has given 'final'approvals to his 4 McMansions in our neighborhood ---his ad says I'm wrong again.
_",~~..",~u•••••••••••••
};,c1 tfl/:l:"l..lt/l?N r!f!/1LNl~IRlgl/~~1 Mll,,[fJ;
.'.
Buy OR Sal.WITH THE HEl.P OF THE ClO-TO REALTOR
COASTAL HOME SITE
FOR SALE
COASTAL COMMISSION &CITY COUNCIL
CURRENT SEA BLUFF HOA VIEW:TO BE LOTI1 VIEW
adj~to'tM New TettQMO.'Resort O'A tM
'B~-PoJ.o.s Verdes -Pert.iMtdA
~leW -PalM Verdes utUstde
Golf OO'W'Se
(310)378~J 163
,,;utye lot at o~'er 17.(){)()squa.re fcct
Approved plant.for a beautiful home of over 5.J()().'>quare fcct
Call for more details . . .Priced at $1.999.950
;.
www.TheGoToRe.com:
12-39
COASTAL COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCil 4/27/2010
IRElAND:NANTASKET SILHOUETTES
,
L..~
\',
i
,j B I I ~
"Ji,'.'b I'p "
COASTAL COMMISSION:SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
IRELAND:NANTASKET SllHOUElTES
m:~;;:1li:'Ej~lc~~LCM!¥Ii@i~4L ~"'*"';~;'~'"~~
12-40
EduardoS
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
April 27,2010
L.Bilski [ldb91 O@intergate.com]
Tuesday,April 27,2010 3:56 PM
CC@rpv.com;eduardos@rpv.com
Nantasket Review:Case Nos.SUB2008-00001,and ZON2008-00074 thruZON2008-00078
Re:Nantasket Project Reduction
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
From the Public Trail that is located between Palos Verdes Dr.South and the bluff
adjacent to this property,the public's view of Catalina Island is significantly impaired
if not totally blocked by the proposed structures.Isn't a Public Trail within the Coastal
Zone considered a viewing station?
Kindly review and explain the location of this property in relation
corridors as defined and illustrated in the Coastal Specific Plan.
mass,kindly consider view impairment and the public's rights when
reductions of structures on this site.
to the City's visual
Aside from bulk and
discussing the
The Coastal Specific Plan states "no buildings should project into a zone measured 2
degrees down-arc from horizontal as measured along the shortest distance between the
viewing station and the coastline."LCP pg.C-12
will reducing the structure(s)by 10%open up the views for the public?
After all,limiting development in the coastal zone in particular so views could be
preserved was the reason our city was founded.This is something I would like you to take
into consideration on this proposed project in the coastal zone.
Kindly review the View Analysis from the public trail before voting on this.
Do not allow another development to obstruct the public's precious views.
Thank you for all you do for RPVl
This message was sent using IMP,the Internet Messaging Program.
1
12-41
Page 1 of3
EduardoS
From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,April 26,20108:11 AM
To:eduardos@rpv.com
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Nantasket Now Advertised as 'Approved':Your May 4 Mtng Agenda
From:Jolaine Merrill [mailto:jolaine@jolainemerrill.com]
sent:Saturday,April 24,2010 5:39 PM
To:BPoeanderson;Nelsongang@aol.com;cc@rpv.com
Cc:becky@poeandpoe.com
Subject:Re:Nantasket Now Advertised as 'Approved':Your May 4 Mtng Agenda
If she has an MLS Waiver filed with the Association she's OK as far as the MLS Rules are concerned.
Jolaine Merrill,CRS,GRl,SRES
Coldwell Banker Palos Verdes
600 Deep Valley Drive
Palos Verdes,CA 90274
(310)265-7303
jolaine@jolainemerrill.com
DRE License 00425678
2007 President,Palos Verdes Peninsula
Association ofREALTORS
2007 PVPAR REALTOR ofthe Year
From:BPoeanderson <beckypoe@remaxpv.com>
To:Jolaine Merrill <jolaine@jolainemerrill.com>;Nelsongang@aol.com;cc@rpv.com
Cc:becky@poeandpoe.com
sent:Sat,April 24,2010 5:33:54 PM
Subject:RE:Nantasket Now Advertised as 'Approved':Your May 4 Mtng Agenda
Good job Jolaine,I just told Bob the same thing that it is NOT on MLS either.
Maybe someone should call Sandra Sanders,owner Re-Max and complain.
lSec~k1 poe-A~oleY$o~
Associate Broker -GRI -Hall of Fame -DRE#00571636
Direct Line:310-514-1662
Personal Fax:1-866-591-0656
Email:becky@poeandpoe.com
Website:www.poeandpoe.com
4/26/2010
12-42
Page 2 of3
From:Jolaine Merrill [mailto:jolaine@jolainemerrill.com]
sent:Saturday,April 24,2010 5:21 PM
To:Nelsongang@aol.com;cc@rpv.com
Cc:becky@poeandpoe.com
Subject:Re:Nantasket Now Advertised as 'Approved':Your May 4 Mtng Agenda
Bob:I called the listing agent this morning when I saw the ad.I told her I was calling about her ad because I could not fmd it in the
MLS.She said,it's not in the MLS yet and when I asked when it might be in the MLS we got disconnected--I assume a cell phone
problem on her end,but she didn't call me back.
Jolaine Merrill,CRS,GRl,SRES
Coldwell Banker Palos Verdes
600 Deep Valley Drive
Palos Verdes,CA 90274
(310)265-7303
;olaine@;olainemerrill.com
DRE License 00425678
2007 President,Palos Verdes Peninsula
Association ofREALTORS
2007 PVPAR REALTOR ofthe Year
From:"Nelsongang@aol.com"<Nelsongang@aol.com>
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:jolaine@jolainemerrill.com;becky@poeandpoe.com
sent:Sat,April 24,2010 2:49:25 PM
Subject:Nantasket Now Advertised as 'Approved':Your May 4 Mtng Agenda
City Council:
Re:May 4,2010,Meeting:
Item:Interpretation of Condition of Approval re Nantasket Residential Project (Dana Ireland)
Would appreciate this being made part of the administrative record for Dana's project as it goes forward to Coastal.
In our Daily Breeze insert 'The RelMax Collection,'Dana Ireland has commenced advertising lot #1 for $1,999,950 with
comments that are,to the best my knowledge,false:
1."Approved plans for a beautiful home over 5,500 square feet'and
2."Large lot over 17,000 square feet."
For some reason I don't believe there are 'approved'plans until you decide May 4 just how big his McMansions can be and Coastal
Commission agrees to the numerous variances 4 of you gave him,including letting a named trail have it's ocean view blocked by the
5,500 square foot,two story plans he is now advertising as 'approved.'I know it's real estate and it's Dana but isn't this kind of 'false
and misleading advertising?'
I assume I am wrong again on Nantasket.Knowing this is RPV coastal real estate,my assumption is RE/Max did due diligence and
that Dana has all necessary approvals to place this ad.Therefore,by copy,I would appreciate Director Joel Rojas appraising me of the
4/26/2010
12-43
Page 3 of3
dates you and our Coastal Commission approved Dana's plans he is now having Re/Max advertise as 'approved'on a 'large lot'and
again explaining to me why you are apparently wasting your time on May 4th with this item.As we said for 5 years 'It's a Dana done
deal.'Based on this ad,I would suggest you pull the item off your agenda.And,from past experience,despite whatever Dana says,
this ad is no mistake.Nantasket apparently has another approval accommodation.
Copy of the ad follows and is attached as a .pdf.
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
City Council:
Dana Ireland's NantasketLot #1 for sale with 'APPROVED PLANS
fOR A BEAUTIFUL HOME OF OVER 5,500SQUARE'AND 'LARGE lOT OVER
17,000 SQUARE FEET:Ad in Daity Breeze 'Re/Max Collection'insert 4/24/10.
4/26/2010
12-44
Page 1 ofl
EduardoS
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,April 26,2010 8:21 AM
To:Nelsongang@aol.com;Planning@rpv.com
Cc:eduardos@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Dana Ireland:Nantasket Questions
Bob
While the city council did approve Mr.Ireland's plans for 4 new homes,the approvals are contingent on the Costal
Commission approving a change in the City's Coastal Plan land use designation to a residential land use.This has not
occurred and the issue will likely not be taken up by the coastal commission for a few more months.As this can be
confusing,we'll contact the listing agent to make sure she's aware of this.
Joel
From:Nelsongang@aol.com [mailto:Nelsongang@aol.com]
sent:Saturday,April 24,2010 6:25 PM
To:Planning@rpv.com
Subject:Dana Ireland:Nantasket Questions
Joel Rojas,Eduardo Schonbom
Noted this weekend Dana Ireland is advertising 'for sale'for $1,999,950 his lot #1 of what you know as the Nantasket Residential
Project.His ad states sale includes 'Approved plans for a beautiful home over 5,500 square feet'and 'large lot at over 17,000 square
feet.'
Therefore,I have sent our City Council a request they pull the Nantasket item scheduled for May 4th as obviously Dana has obtained
both Council and Coastal approvals.Otherwise,I believe,his agent has participated in 'false and misleading'advertising.
So,have Dana's plans completed Council and Coastal approval?
Ifnot,I think a real estate agent has a big problem!Let me know.I think the answer is no,his McMansions have not been approved!
Bob Nelson
nelsongang@aolcom
4/26/2010
12-45
Page 1 of 1
EduardoS
From:Joel Rojas Uoelr@rpv.com]
Sent:Monday,April 26,2010 8:21 AM
To:Nelsongang@aol.com;Planning@rpv.com
Cc:eduardos@rpv.com
Subject:RE:Dana Ireland:Nantasket Questions
Bob
While the city council did approve Mr.Ireland's plans for 4 new homes,the approvals are contingent on the Costal
Commission approving a change in the City's Coastal Plan land use designation to a residential land use.This has not
occurred and the issue will likely not be taken up by the coastal commission for a few more months.As this can be
confusing,we'll contact the listing agent to make sure she's aware of this.
Joel
From:Nelsongang@aol.com [mailto:Nelsongang@aol.com]
sent:Saturday,April 24,2010 6:25 PM
To:Planning@rpv.com
Subject:Dana Ireland:Nantasket Questions
Joel Rojas,Eduardo Schonbom
Noted this weekend Dana Ireland is advertising 'for sale'for $1,999,950 his lot #1 of what you know as the Nantasket Residential
Project.His ad states sale includes 'Approved plans for a beautiful home over 5,500 square feet'and 'large lot at over 17,000 square
feet.'
Therefore,I have sent our City Council a request they pull the Nantasket item scheduled for May 4th as obviously Dana has obtained
both Council and Coastal approvals.Otherwise,I believe,his agent has participated in 'false and misleading'advertising.
So,have Dana's plans completed Council and Coastal approval?
Ifnot,I think a real estate agent has a big problem!Let me know.I think the answer is no,his McMansions have not been approved!
Bob Nelson
nelsongang@aolcom
4/26/2010
12-46