RPVCCA_SR_2010_07_20_12_CUP_No_68CllY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYO
JOEL ROJAS,COMMU ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JULY 20,2010
INITIATION REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO.68 (LUNADA POINTE TRACT NO.40640)(ZON2010-
00185)
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Amy Trester,Associate Planner .A"l
Authorize Staff to process an amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP)No.68 that would
modify the existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be consistent with the
provisions of the City's View Restoration process.
BACKGROUND
In October 2009,several residents located on Laurel Drive in the Lunada Pointe Tract submitted
a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit"application form,which alleged that the
foliage on seven properties located on Marguerite Drive (also in the Lunada Pointe Tract and
addressed as:63, 67,75,69,83,87 and 95 Marguerite Drive)were impairing their views.
(VRP2009-00041).After receiving the Notice of Intent,Staff conducted some research into the
matter.Staff discovered that the properties within the Lunada Pointe Tract were approved
through Conditional Use Permit (CUP)No.68,(Planning Commission Resolution No.81-57)on
November 10,1981 (Exhibit A),and Tentative Tract Map No.40640,(City Council Resolution
81-87)on December 7,1981.(Exhibit B)
Within the approved resolution for the CUP No.68,condition of approval No.7 requires that:
"Landscaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted for approval to the
Director of Planning.Said plans shall include,but not be limited to,proposed plant materials,
walls/fences,and exterior lighting ..."Over the years some of the home sites complied with this
condition by submitting landscape plans to the City.According to City Files,some may have
not.Specifically,City Staff determined that there were landscape permits on file for three of the
seven addresses listed on the Notice of Intent (EXhibit E),and that these landscape permits
contained conditions that were intended to restrict the growth of foliage on the property to 16
feet or the ridgeline of the dwelling on the property.Specifically,the landscape permit for 63
Marguerite Drive states,"Maximum height of all vegetation shall not exceed 16 feet or the
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310)544-5228 /BUILDINC (310)265-7800 /DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293 /E-MAIL PLANNINC@RPV.COM
12-1
CllY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYO
JOEL ROJAS,COMMU ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JULY 20,2010
INITIATION REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO.68 (LUNADA POINTE TRACT NO.40640)(ZON2010-
00185)
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Amy Trester,Associate Planner .A"l
Authorize Staff to process an amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP)No.68 that would
modify the existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be consistent with the
provisions of the City's View Restoration process.
BACKGROUND
In October 2009,several residents located on Laurel Drive in the Lunada Pointe Tract submitted
a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit"application form,which alleged that the
foliage on seven properties located on Marguerite Drive (also in the Lunada Pointe Tract and
addressed as:63, 67,75,69,83,87 and 95 Marguerite Drive)were impairing their views.
(VRP2009-00041).After receiving the Notice of Intent,Staff conducted some research into the
matter.Staff discovered that the properties within the Lunada Pointe Tract were approved
through Conditional Use Permit (CUP)No.68,(Planning Commission Resolution No.81-57)on
November 10,1981 (Exhibit A),and Tentative Tract Map No.40640,(City Council Resolution
81-87)on December 7,1981.(Exhibit B)
Within the approved resolution for the CUP No.68,condition of approval No.7 requires that:
"Landscaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted for approval to the
Director of Planning.Said plans shall include,but not be limited to,proposed plant materials,
walls/fences,and exterior lighting ..."Over the years some of the home sites complied with this
condition by submitting landscape plans to the City.According to City Files,some may have
not.Specifically,City Staff determined that there were landscape permits on file for three of the
seven addresses listed on the Notice of Intent (EXhibit E),and that these landscape permits
contained conditions that were intended to restrict the growth of foliage on the property to 16
feet or the ridgeline of the dwelling on the property.Specifically,the landscape permit for 63
Marguerite Drive states,"Maximum height of all vegetation shall not exceed 16 feet or the
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90275-5391
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310)544-5228 /BUILDINC (310)265-7800 /DEPT.FAX (310)544-5293 /E-MAIL PLANNINC@RPV.COM
approved ridge line."The landscape permit for 83 Marguerite Drive states,"Trees on site shall
be maintained so as not to exceed 16'0"or the ridgeline,whichever is lower."And the
landscape permit for 87 Marguerite Drive states,"Trees onsite shall be maintained so as not
exceed [sic]16'-0"OR the Ridgeline,whichever is lower."
Initially,Staff believed that these conditions in the landscape permits could be enforced through
the code enforcement process,rather than though the standard View Restoration process,
which requires a mediation meeting as the initial step to resolve foliage/view disputes.As a
result,the three foliage owners with landscape permits on file were initially excluded from the
mediation process.However,partway through the mediation process for the other four
properties,Staff instructed the City's mediator to also work with the three "code"properties,as it
was thought that if a private agreement could be reached between the applicants and all of the
foliage owners,without the involvement of the City's code enforcement process,this would be
beneficial to all residents involved.In the end,a private agreement could not be reached,and
the applicants asked that the City enforce the conditions of approval through its code
enforcement process for those three properties with the restrictive landscape permit conditions.
As Staff prepared to initiate code enforcement action against the properties with landscape plan
conditions,Staff identified some discrepancies between the conditions of the CUP and the
conditions of the landscape permits.As a result,Staff contacted the City Attorney and after a
review of all the facts and circumstances related to the matter,the City Attorney raised concerns
with the discrepancies with the CUP.Thus,on May 19,2010,the applicants who filed the
"Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit"in October 2009 were notified that the City
would not be pursuing code enforcement against the properties with landscape plan conditions
(see attached letter).The applicants were also notified that the Director would be initiating a
code amendment to eliminate the inconsistencies within CUP No.68,and that the applicants
were free to continue the pursuit of a formal view restoration application.
Staff is now seeking formal City Council authorization to proceed with an amendment to CUP
No.68 that would modify the existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be
consistent with the provisions of the City's View Restoration process as described in Municipal
Code Section 17.02.040.
DISCUSSION
Development Code Section 17.60.090 allows an amendment to an approved CUP to be initiated
by the City or by the property owner.For the reasons described below,the Director is seeking
the Council's concurrence to initiate an amendment to CUP No.83,which approved
development of the Lunada Pointe Tract in 1981.
The Planning Commission passed Resolution No.81-57 in November 1981,which approved a
residential planned development of 25 single family dwelling units which is known as the
"Lunada Pointe"tract where all the parcels included with the aforementioned view case are
located.There were several conditions listed on Exhibit "A"of this Conditional Use Permit
which were meant to protect the views of properties within the tract.One of these conditions
refers to several provisions that were to be included in the tract's CC&Rs,including a provision
that,"All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or group of
trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.Furthermore,no tree shall be
planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum
ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot,as established by this permit,unless written approval is
granted by the Planning Commission."Also,Condition NO.7 in Exhibit "A"of the Resolution
12-2
approved ridge line."The landscape permit for 83 Marguerite Drive states,"Trees on site shall
be maintained so as not to exceed 16'0"or the ridgeline,whichever is lower."And the
landscape permit for 87 Marguerite Drive states,"Trees onsite shall be maintained so as not
exceed [sic]16'-0"OR the Ridgeline,whichever is lower."
Initially,Staff believed that these conditions in the landscape permits could be enforced through
the code enforcement process,rather than though the standard View Restoration process,
which requires a mediation meeting as the initial step to resolve foliage/view disputes.As a
result,the three foliage owners with landscape permits on file were initially excluded from the
mediation process.However,partway through the mediation process for the other four
properties,Staff instructed the City's mediator to also work with the three "code"properties,as it
was thought that if a private agreement could be reached between the applicants and all of the
foliage owners,without the involvement of the City's code enforcement process,this would be
beneficial to all residents involved.In the end,a private agreement could not be reached,and
the applicants asked that the City enforce the conditions of approval through its code
enforcement process for those three properties with the restrictive landscape permit conditions.
As Staff prepared to initiate code enforcement action against the properties with landscape plan
conditions,Staff identified some discrepancies between the conditions of the CUP and the
conditions of the landscape permits.As a result,Staff contacted the City Attorney and after a
review of all the facts and circumstances related to the matter,the City Attorney raised concerns
with the discrepancies with the CUP.Thus,on May 19,2010,the applicants who filed the
"Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit"in October 2009 were notified that the City
would not be pursuing code enforcement against the properties with landscape plan conditions
(see attached letter).The applicants were also notified that the Director would be initiating a
code amendment to eliminate the inconsistencies within CUP No.68,and that the applicants
were free to continue the pursuit of a formal view restoration application.
Staff is now seeking formal City Council authorization to proceed with an amendment to CUP
No.68 that would modify the existing conditions in the CUP regarding foliage height to be
consistent with the provisions of the City's View Restoration process as described in Municipal
Code Section 17.02.040.
DISCUSSION
Development Code Section 17.60.090 allows an amendment to an approved CUP to be initiated
by the City or by the property owner.For the reasons described below,the Director is seeking
the Council's concurrence to initiate an amendment to CUP No.83,which approved
development of the Lunada Pointe Tract in 1981.
The Planning Commission passed Resolution No.81-57 in November 1981,which approved a
residential planned development of 25 single family dwelling units which is known as the
"Lunada Pointe"tract where all the parcels included with the aforementioned view case are
located.There were several conditions listed on Exhibit "A"of this Conditional Use Permit
which were meant to protect the views of properties within the tract.One of these conditions
refers to several provisions that were to be included in the tract's CC&Rs,including a provision
that,"All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or group of
trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.Furthermore,no tree shall be
planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum
ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot,as established by this permit,unless written approval is
granted by the Planning Commission."Also,Condition NO.7 in Exhibit "A"of the Resolution
states:"Landscaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted for approval
to the Director of Planning ...The final landscape plan shall be designed pursuant to the
approved CC&Rs and in a manner so that views from adjacent properties will not be
significantly affected..."
The City has historically not enforced the conditions contained within CC&Rs for tracts within
the City.However,the language of Condition 3.C in CUP No.68 (also listed above)essentially
puts the City in the position of doing so:"All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be
maintained so that no tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent
properties.Furthermore,no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably
be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot,as
established by this permit,unless written approval is granted by the Planning Commission."
This language has been written into the CC&Rs as the following section:
Section 20.VIEW RESTRICTION:
All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or group of trees
significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.No tree shall be planted in any location on
a Lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation
assigned to that Lot,as shown on Exhibit C-I hereto,unless prior written approval is granted by
the Planning Commission of the City.In the event of a dispute between Owners with respect to
the obstruction of a view from a Lot,such dispute shall be submitted to the Environmental
Control Committee,whose decision in such matters shall be binding upon such owners.Any
such obstruction shall,upon request of the Environmental Control Committee,be removed or
otherwise altered to the satisfaction of the Environmental Control Committee by the Owner of
the Lot upon which the obstruction is located.
The height of all structures end [sic]landscaping vegetation shall not exceed the maximum
ridge height as shown on Exhibit:C-1,the tentative map.All structures shall conform to the
City's requirements as given in the conditions of approval for Tract 40640.
Since the approval by the Planning Commission of the resolution for CUP No.68,and the
inception of the CC&Rs,palm trees have been planted on several properties within the Lunada
Pointe development,apparently with only the consent of the HOA and/or their Environmental
Committee,but without the formal approval of the Planning Commission,as required by the
CUP conditions of approval.
In reviewing the aforementioned conditions for purposes of dealing with the applicants'view
application,Staff noted that the conditions restricting foliage height in Exhibit "A"of the CUP
Resolution are not consistent with each other.Specifically,Condition NO.7 stipulates that views
from adjacent properties shall not be significantly affected by any landscaping within the Lunada
Pointe tract,but does not identify a maximum allowable foliage height,while the provision for
the Lunada Pointe CC&Rs refers to the maximum ridgeline elevation of the dwelling on a
particular parcel as an explicit limit for foliage height.But,at the same time,the provision also
refers to preventing significant view obstruction.Furthermore,the conditions imposed on the
subsequent landscape plan permits for individual properties in the tract differ from the language
of the CUP.
To eliminate these inconsistencies within CUP No.68,and thus to alleviate any confusion for
the current and future residents in the Lunada Pointe development regarding what City foliage
restrictions actually apply to their properties,Staff proposes to initiate an amendment to the
12-3
states:"Landscaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted for approval
to the Director of Planning ...The final landscape plan shall be designed pursuant to the
approved CC&Rs and in a manner so that views from adjacent properties will not be
significantly affected..."
The City has historically not enforced the conditions contained within CC&Rs for tracts within
the City.However,the language of Condition 3.C in CUP No.68 (also listed above)essentially
puts the City in the position of doing so:"All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be
maintained so that no tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent
properties.Furthermore,no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably
be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot,as
established by this permit,unless written approval is granted by the Planning Commission."
This language has been written into the CC&Rs as the following section:
Section 20.VIEW RESTRICTION:
All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or group of trees
significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.No tree shall be planted in any location on
a Lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation
assigned to that Lot,as shown on Exhibit C-I hereto,unless prior written approval is granted by
the Planning Commission of the City.In the event of a dispute between Owners with respect to
the obstruction of a view from a Lot,such dispute shall be submitted to the Environmental
Control Committee,whose decision in such matters shall be binding upon such owners.Any
such obstruction shall,upon request of the Environmental Control Committee,be removed or
otherwise altered to the satisfaction of the Environmental Control Committee by the Owner of
the Lot upon which the obstruction is located.
The height of all structures end [sic]landscaping vegetation shall not exceed the maximum
ridge height as shown on Exhibit:C-1,the tentative map.All structures shall conform to the
City's requirements as given in the conditions of approval for Tract 40640.
Since the approval by the Planning Commission of the resolution for CUP No.68,and the
inception of the CC&Rs,palm trees have been planted on several properties within the Lunada
Pointe development,apparently with only the consent of the HOA and/or their Environmental
Committee,but without the formal approval of the Planning Commission,as required by the
CUP conditions of approval.
In reviewing the aforementioned conditions for purposes of dealing with the applicants'view
application,Staff noted that the conditions restricting foliage height in Exhibit "A"of the CUP
Resolution are not consistent with each other.Specifically,Condition NO.7 stipulates that views
from adjacent properties shall not be significantly affected by any landscaping within the Lunada
Pointe tract,but does not identify a maximum allowable foliage height,while the provision for
the Lunada Pointe CC&Rs refers to the maximum ridgeline elevation of the dwelling on a
particular parcel as an explicit limit for foliage height.But,at the same time,the provision also
refers to preventing significant view obstruction.Furthermore,the conditions imposed on the
subsequent landscape plan permits for individual properties in the tract differ from the language
of the CUP.
To eliminate these inconsistencies within CUP No.68,and thus to alleviate any confusion for
the current and future residents in the Lunada Pointe development regarding what City foliage
restrictions actually apply to their properties,Staff proposes to initiate an amendment to the
CUP pursuant to Development Code Section 17.60.090 (Exhibit C).In order to clarify this
matter,Staff will propose that the conditions regarding foliage height in the CUP be consistent
with the provisions of the City's View Restoration process described in Development Code
Section 17.02.040.(Exhibit D)This would allow for the property owners within the tract to seek
remedies for any view impact caused by foliage owned by other property owners within the
tract,through the City's existing View Restoration Permit process.This process is guided by
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §17.02.040.B.3.b,which states:
No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage
to grow to a height exceeding:
b.If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a
height which is the lesser of:
i.The ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or
ii.Sixteen feet.
If the Council agrees to initiate said amendment,then the formal amendment would be reviewed
at a later date by the Planning Commission and the City Council through noticed public
hearings.The proposed amendment would affect all the properties in the Lunada Pointe
Residential Tract (Tract Map no.40640)(Thomas Guide 822-E2,E3,F2,F3)which include the
following addresses on Marguerite Drive:19,37,41,45,49,53,57,59,63,67,71,75,79,83,
87,91,95;AND the following addresses on Laurel Drive:24,60,68,73,77,85,89,93,97,
AND the following two vacant properties identified as APN 7582-001-021 and APN 7582-001-
022.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A letter was sent to the applicants on May 19,2010 (Exhibit E)which detailed the fact that,
notwithstanding the Director's proposal to amend the CUP,the applicants were free to attempt
to continue the temporarily halted mediation process with regards to the view obstruction.They
were also given the option to deem the mediation process completed,and pursue a formal View
Restoration Permit application.Staff has received one phone call from one of the applicants
inquiring about the meaning of the letter and the process from this point forward,as well as
letters from three of the applicants and one of the foliage owners,but has not received any
formal View Restoration applications.
Although public notice of this initial action is not required by the City's Code,Staff sent a
courtesy notice advising all property owners within the Lunada Pointe Tract of this City Council
meeting (7/20/10).
CONCLUSION
At this time,Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize Staff to process an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No.68 that would involve modifying the Lunada Pointe Residential
Tract's existing foliage height conditions to ensure consistency with the provisions of the City's
View Restoration process,as described in Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 and the View
Restoration Guidelines.
12-4
CUP pursuant to Development Code Section 17.60.090 (Exhibit C).In order to clarify this
matter,Staff will propose that the conditions regarding foliage height in the CUP be consistent
with the provisions of the City's View Restoration process described in Development Code
Section 17.02.040.(Exhibit D)This would allow for the property owners within the tract to seek
remedies for any view impact caused by foliage owned by other property owners within the
tract,through the City's existing View Restoration Permit process.This process is guided by
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §17.02.040.B.3.b,which states:
No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage
to grow to a height exceeding:
b.If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a
height which is the lesser of:
i.The ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or
ii.Sixteen feet.
If the Council agrees to initiate said amendment,then the formal amendment would be reviewed
at a later date by the Planning Commission and the City Council through noticed public
hearings.The proposed amendment would affect all the properties in the Lunada Pointe
Residential Tract (Tract Map no.40640)(Thomas Guide 822-E2,E3,F2,F3)which include the
following addresses on Marguerite Drive:19,37,41,45,49,53,57,59,63,67,71,75,79,83,
87,91,95;AND the following addresses on Laurel Drive:24,60,68,73,77,85,89,93,97,
AND the following two vacant properties identified as APN 7582-001-021 and APN 7582-001-
022.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A letter was sent to the applicants on May 19,2010 (Exhibit E)which detailed the fact that,
notwithstanding the Director's proposal to amend the CUP,the applicants were free to attempt
to continue the temporarily halted mediation process with regards to the view obstruction.They
were also given the option to deem the mediation process completed,and pursue a formal View
Restoration Permit application.Staff has received one phone call from one of the applicants
inquiring about the meaning of the letter and the process from this point forward,as well as
letters from three of the applicants and one of the foliage owners,but has not received any
formal View Restoration applications.
Although public notice of this initial action is not required by the City's Code,Staff sent a
courtesy notice advising all property owners within the Lunada Pointe Tract of this City Council
meeting (7/20/10).
CONCLUSION
At this time,Staff is requesting that the City Council authorize Staff to process an amendment to
Conditional Use Permit No.68 that would involve modifying the Lunada Pointe Residential
Tract's existing foliage height conditions to ensure consistency with the provisions of the City's
View Restoration process,as described in Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 and the View
Restoration Guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
There could potentially be cost savings for the City in the long run,as it is possible that any
enforcement of strict foliage height conditions (for landscape permits associated with properties
in the Lunada Pointe Tract)through the City's Code Enforcement process,which would
probably be necessary if this CUP admendment is not approved,would likely require the
involvement of the City Attorney.
ALTERNATIVES
The following are alternatives to Staff's recommended action:
1)Do not authorize the Staff to process an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.68;
2)Identify any issues of concern that may require further study and direct Staff to provide
additional information at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A -Planning Commission Resolution No.81-57 for CUP No.68
EXHIBIT B-City Council Resolution 81-87 for Tentative Tract Map No.40640
EXHIBIT C-Development Code Section 17.60.090
EXHIBIT D-Municipal Code Section 17.02.040
EXHIBIT E-Letter sent to Applicants on May 19,2010
EXHIBIT F-Correspondence
12-5
FISCAL IMPACT
There could potentially be cost savings for the City in the long run,as it is possible that any
enforcement of strict foliage height conditions (for landscape permits associated with properties
in the Lunada Pointe Tract)through the City's Code Enforcement process,which would
probably be necessary if this CUP admendment is not approved,would likely require the
involvement of the City Attorney.
ALTERNATIVES
The following are alternatives to Staff's recommended action:
1)Do not authorize the Staff to process an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.68;
2)Identify any issues of concern that may require further study and direct Staff to provide
additional information at a subsequent meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A -Planning Commission Resolution No.81-57 for CUP No.68
EXHIBIT B-City Council Resolution 81-87 for Tentative Tract Map No.40640
EXHIBIT C-Development Code Section 17.60.090
EXHIBIT D-Municipal Code Section 17.02.040
EXHIBIT E-Letter sent to Applicants on May 19,2010
EXHIBIT F-Correspondence
RESOLUTION P.C.NO.&1-5;
(
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNJNr.COMM1SS~()N OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO.68 FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS,Burrell,L~d.,has requested a Conditional Use Permi~to allo~
a Residential Planned Development (RPD)on a 36.4 acre site located in subregion 1
of the Coastal Zone adjacent to the Palos Verdes Estates boundary,which is zoned
Residential Single Family (RS-l)and Open Space Hazard (OB):and
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the City's
Development Code a public hearing was held on September 22,October 13 and October 27,
1981,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That the proposed Residential Planned Development (RPD)is
permitted in single family districts,subject to the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit.
Section 2:That the 36.4 acre site,located on Palos Verdes Drive West
is adequate in size and configuration to allow for twenty-five (25)single family
dwelling units and common area under an RPD concept and for open space,private
outdoor living areas,landscaping,and other features required by the Development
Code or by conditions imposed by this permit.Further,that the "common open
space'standard required by Section 9133 C 1 of the City's Development Code is
hereby waived since private open space and outdoor living areas (patios and
yard areas)are in substantial excess of the Code requirement and since the
open space preservation and trail easemnt will largely function as common open
space due to its size,configuration and location.
)
-----------
(
Section 3:That the proposed RPD is not contrary to the General Plan
and Coastal Specific Plan since said conformance has been insured by site de-
sigo and landscaping requirements.which are included as conditions of approva-
to this permit and Tentative Tract Map No.40640.
Section 4:That the RPD will locate individual driveways on public streets
that are designed to carry both the type and the quantity of traffic generated.
n
Section 5:That given the project's location,site design,and conditions
imposed through this permit,the granting of this Conditional Use Permit will
not significantly adversely affect the peace,health,safety,or general welfare
of the area,nor will it be materially detrimental to property values,jeopardize,
endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health,safety,and
welfare of persons in the surrounding area.
Section 6:That the Pl.anning Commission does hereby declare that Final
Environmental Impact Report No.21 has been completed in compliance with State
and local environmental guidelines and that the Commission has reviewed and
considered its contents in reaching its decision.The Planning Commission
further finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not result
in a significant adverse environmental impact,since mitigation measures are
required.
Section 7:For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby grants approval of Conditional Use Permit No.68
subject to the attached conditions mjirked Exhibit "A"and subject to City Council
approval of Tentative Tract No.40640.
ATTACHMENT 12-1
.I ..
...~....'
.:r =:'..-
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of November,1981.
:'.;.
!.:~ltl
··'.f"''$'to(··
~.'...'
(.~
"-.r
)
()(
baron W.Hightower
Director of Planning and
Secretary to the Commission
Page 2
.,.--,
-.~~..
Resolution P.C.No.81-57
ATTACHMENT 12-2
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.68 IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1.No more Lhan twenty-five (25)single family dwelling units shall be permitted.
2.Prior to the approval of the final map)a bond or other acceptable security shall
be posted to ensure completion of all off-site and on-site improvements as
identified in this permit or required by the tentative map approval.
3.A Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions shall be approved by
the City Attorney and Director of Planning prior to final approval.Said
CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to the following provisions:
/
(,
()
(
A.
B.
c.
Identify the presence of the Coastal Setback Zone with a map (not less
than 40 scale)of each lot and provide that no permanent structures shall
be permitted closer than twenty-five (25)feet to said zone unless approval
is granted in writing by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.Furthermore,no grading (cut or fill)shall be permitted
within the Coastal Setback Zone except as shown on the Tentative Tract Map.
No development other chan landscaping and the common fence 8S required by
condition 10 shall be permitted seaward of the Coastal Setback line,
except safety fencing up to six (6)feet in height which allows for ninety
(90)percent light and air~with written approval by the Director of Planning.
Limit the height of all structures to not exceed the max~um ridge height
that is noted on the approved Tentative Tract Map No.40640.The approved
Tentative Tract Map No.40640 shall be used to reference existing topography.
All landscaping (including parkwBy trees)shall be maintained so that no
tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.
Furthermore,DO tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could
reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned
to that lot,as established by this permit,unless written approval is
granted by the Planning Commission.
D.Identify all factors that control structure appearance and use restrictions.
(
",
f
)
(
)E.All structures,accessory Btructures~and other improvements shall conform
to applicable district zoning standards and general development standards
as established in the City1s Development Code.unless approval is granted
in writing by the City or unless superceded by this permit.All future
structures,improvements and landscaping shall be subject to review by
the Director of Planning.Sideyard setbacks shall conform to the City's
development standards except on lots 2-9.On lots 3-9 the sideyard setbacks
shall conform to the City's development standards if the building height is
sixteen (16)feet or less;but if the height exceeds sixteen (16)feet.
the combined setback shall increase by six (6)inches for everyone (1)foot
of building height above sixteen (16)feet.On lot 2 the southern sideyard
setback shall be ten (10)feet and the northern sideyard setback shall be
fifteen (15)feet 1f the building height is sixteen (16)feet or lessi but if
the height exceeds sixteen (16)feet.the northernly setback shall increase by
one (1)foot for everyone (1)foot of bUilding height above sixteen (16)feet.
The front Bnd rear yard setbacks shall conform to the approved Tentative Tract
Map.Walls shall be limited to forty-two (422 inches in the sideyard setbacks.
F.No changes to the intent of the above provisions shall be made without written
approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
G.Residences contiguous to the site will be permitted and encouraged to join the
Homeowners Association.
4.Following recordation of the CC&R's,the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of
the document to the Director of Planning.
5.Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to the approval of Tentative Tract
Map No.40640 by the City Council without substantial changes or modifications hereto
(including offers of dedication of land and easements).
E),hibit itA"of Resolution P.C.No.81-57
ATTACHMENT 12-3
Landscaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted
for approval to the Director of Planning.Ssid plans shall include,but not
be limited to,proposed plant materials,walls/fences,and exterior lighting.
The final landscape plan shall be designed pursuant to the approved CC&Rs
and in a manner so that views from adjacent properties will not be significantly
affected and so that aolar access to all dwelling units is protected.The
design of landscaping and structures using "passive solar"techniques is
encouraged.
Within thirty (30)days of the approval of the tentative tract map,the developer
shall submit,in writing,a statement that he has read and understands the above
conditions.
Prior to recording the final map a landscape master plan shall be submitted by
the applicant for review and approval by the Planning Commission.The landscaping
in the sideyard setbacks of the bluff lots 2-17 will be reviewed with consideratiol
for maintaining the view corridors from Marguerite Drive.The approved landscape
plan shall be included in the approved CC&Rs.
Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider shall post a cash deposit,
bond,combination thereof or other acceptable security to cover the cost of
constructing common fences approved by the Director of Planning.One fence
shall be constructed adjacent to Palos V2Ides Drive West and the other fence
ahall be constructed no closer than twenty-five (25)feet inland of the bluff
top on lots 1-17.The fences must allow a minimum of ninety (90)percent
light and air to allow for maximum view through the fence.The fences must be
gated for each lot in order to provide access for maintenance of the bluff top.
Stub fencing must be constructed on lots 3 and )7 to prOVide for safety.Chain
link fencing shsll not be permitted.
Exhibit "A"of Resolution p.e.No.81-57
On lots 1-25 the roof of the main structure must have a pitch of at least 2 in 12
except where it is necessary to have small areas with less pitch in order to comply
with Building Code criteria.On lots 3-17,the ridge of the main structure must
be setback at least twenty (20)feet from the rear setback line unless the ridge i~
approximately perpendicular to the bluff •
7.
6.Final improvement plans for each lot and structure shall be submitted to the
Director of Planning for review.Said plans shall include but not be limited
to plot plan.elevation drawings,grading and landscaping.The plot plan shall
clearly show existing and proposed topography,all structures,and all easements
and setbacks.All dwelling units shall be designed and constructed so that the
plumbing and circulating system will allow utilization of solar energy as part
of the hybrid system for providing hot water.Solar panels shall not exceed
the ridgeline of the structure upon which they are placed.Without written
approval from the City.
9.The grading and landscaping plan shall include provisions to provide temporary
landscaping on the individual lots after rough grading is completed to prevent
excessive Boil erosion and adverse drainage situations.
10.
8.The use of native plant materials shall be incorporated in the landscape plan.
11.Tennis court lighting is not permitted unless approval is granted in writing
from tbe Planning Commission.
Page 2
·_-o···?·_:·~
I
"12.
})
~3
~f1~~
~-.(-l~.
,'-....
. .
(
ATTACHMENT 12-4
RESOLUTIOl,NO.61-87
A RESOLlITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAl'NO.40640
...~
~~i.-,~~'"""ffO!l:il ~
--~-
-----------
~-,4 0-,/('4''Dry/VI
\\~~f)egJO/JKtli
!xzJfA..tVt>.3 '
#25¥~,Tentative Tract No.40640 bas been filed which would create
twenty-five (25)single family lots and common area from a 36.4 acre site,
purauant to the Residential Planned Development (RPD)provisions of the City's
Development Code;and
WHEREAS,the Planoing C~sion has held hearings on this ~tter and
has rec~ended approval subject to conditions and Conditional Use Permit
No.68;and
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the proviaions of the City's
Development Code,a public hearing was beld on December 1,1981 at which
ti~e all intereated parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,:mE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY 'FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That the ~enty-five (25)single family residential lots,
a private park,and common areas i6 consistent with tbe City's Development
Code,General Plan end Coastal Specific Plan .
Section 2:That the proposed use of the residential lots shall be for
detached single family dwelling units and related improvements which are com-
patible with the objectives,policies,general land use,and programs specified
in the General Plan and Coaaral Specific Plan.
Section 3:That the subject property is physically suitable to accommodate
Tentative Tract No.40640 in te~s of design and density,and will not result
in substantial environmental damage,baaed on compliance with the City's
Development Code,General Plan,and Coastal Specific Plan,and consideration of
information contained in the project's Final EnviYonmental Xmpact Report
(EIR 21).
Section ~:'That the creation of the lots and asaociated improvements will
not be materially detrimental to property values,j~opardize,endanger,or
otherwise constitute a ~nace to the surrounding area,since physical improvements
and dedications are required.
Section 5:That the division and development of the property will not
unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public enti:y
and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the trect.
Section 6:The discharge of aewage from this land division into the
public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional
~ater Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section
13000 of he l~ateT Code).
Section 7:Dedications r~quired by local ordinance are ahown in the
tentative 1Il8P and/or set forth in the conditions Bttached hereto as Exhibit "A".
ATTACHMENT 12-5
ATTEST:
Resol.No.81-87
llI"'nE~llO'.J~:::......
--._-----~~~...._._.-..
CITY CLERK
Section 9:FOT the foregoing reasons the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes hereby grants approval of Tentative Tract Hap No.40640
subject to the attached conditions Ularked :Exhibit "A"which are necessary to
protect the public health,safety and general welfare 1n the area.
'PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of December,1981.
Jack!Bacharach
MAYOR
DONALD F.GULUZZY,CITY CLERJ<&
EX OfFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
/s/~~ry Jo Lofthus,Deputy
CITY CLERJ<
Is/Jacki Bacharach
Section 8:That the City Council does hereby declare that Final Environ-
Ulental Impact Report No.21 has been cOUlpleted in compliance \Jith City and
Environmental Guidelines (CEQA)and that the Council has reviewed and considered
the contents of the report in reaching its decision.The Council further finds
that the approval of this tentative tract map will not have a significant ad-
verse environmental impact because Ulitigation Uleasures are required.
DONALD F.GULUZZY,CITY CLERK &
EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COUNClL
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
Resolution No.81-87 approved and adopted by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes at a meeting thereof held on the 7th day of December,lgBl
Page 2
-c-Jf~~-.n'l'"-st....
.~......~
ATTACHMENT 12-6
EXHIBIT "Au
TENTATIVE TRACT no.4061,0 1S APPROVtll SUBJECT TO T!IE.FOL1.01HNG CONDITIONS:
~,~"'...,.,.--.-
Provide for the proper distribution of drainage.
Provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer Bnd dedicate and show tbe
necessary easements on the final map.
Eliminate the sheet overflow and ponding or elevate the floOTS of
the buildings vith no openings in the foundation walls to at least
12 inches above the finished pad grade.
Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.
Provide drainage facilities to protect the lots from high velocity
scouring action.
All geologic hazards aaaociated with this proposed development must be
eliminated or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consul-
tant geologist to the satisfaction of the Engineering Geology Section
and dedicste to the CiCy the right to prohibit the erection of buildings
or other structures within the restricted use aress.
a.
Specific reccmmendations will be required from the consultant regarding
the suitability for developent of all lots designed essentially as un-
graded site lots.A report will be filed ",ith the State Real Estate
Commissioner indicating that additional geologic and/or soils engineer-
ing studies may be reqUired for ungraded site lots by the Engineering
Geology Section.
A geology and/or soil engineering report may be required prior to ap-
proval of building or grading plans.
e.
d.
o.
f.
c.No building permits viII be issued for lots subject to flood haz-
&rd until adequate drainage facilities protecting thos lots are
operable as determined by the City Engineer.
e.Drainage plans and pecessary support documents to comply with the
follOWing requirements must be approved prior to filing of a final map:
2.The final &81'~st be approved by the Engineering Geology Section to
Bssure that all geologic factors have been properly evaluated.
3.
l,.
5.
1.This approval expires twelve (12)months from the date of approval of
this tract map by the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Veroes.
6.The grading plan must be approved by tbe Engineering Geology Section prior to
f:l.ling of a final 1Ilsp and ahall conform to the approved tentative map.
7.A preliminary Goi1 report is required before grading plan approval.
Prior to :l.ssuance of building permits,submit a soil engineer's report
on the e.wansive properties of soils as such soils are defined by
Building Code Section 2904(b)on all bUilding sites in the proposed
subdivision.
9.In accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the California Fish and
Game Code,the State Department of Fish and Game,350 Golden Shote,
Long Beach,California,90802,telephone 590-5177,shall be notified
prior to co~encement of work within the natural drainage courses
affected by this project.
-:-'.-.
------'
ATTACHMENT 12-7
'i
10.
11.
Approval of this land division is contingent upon the installation and
dedication of local main severs and separate house laterals to serve
each lot of the land division.The subdivider sho~l consult the
Sewer Design Section of the Department of City Engineer to determine
the sewer design requirements.
Easements are tentatively required.Said easements are subject to revie~
by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements.
12.All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities
vhich shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location
as deteYDdned by the Fire Chief.The water mains shall be of sufficient
size to accommodate to total domestic and fire flows required for the
land division.Domestic flows required are to be determined by the Cit·
Engineer.Fire flow required are to be determined by the Fire Chief.
~r -
13.At the time the final land division map is submitted for checking,
plans and specifications for the water system facilities shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for checking and approval,and shall
comply with the City Engineer's standards.Approval for filing of this
land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications
mentioned above.If the vater system facilities are not installed
prior to the filing of this land division,the subdivider =ust also
submit a Labor and Materials Bond in addition to either:
Page 2 Exhibit "A"to Resol.No.81-87
An Agreement and a Faithful Performance :Bond in the amount
estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation
of the water system,or
An Agre~ent and other evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer,
indicating that the subdiVider has entered into a contract With
the serving water utility to construct the uater system as required,
and has deposited with such water utility security gusranteeing
payment for the installation of the water system.
b.
B.
A final map prepared by,or under the direction of,a Registered Civil
Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor must be processed through this
Department prior to being filed with the County Recorder.
There shall also be filed with this Division s statement from the
vater purveyor indicating that the proposed vater mains and any other
required facilities will be operated by the purveyor and that under
normal operating conditions the system will meet the tequirements for
the land division.
Prior to submitting the finsl map to the City Engineer for his examina-
tion pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code,obtain clearances
fram &11 affected Depsrtments and Divisions including a clearance from
the Subdivision Section of Mapping Division of the County Engineer for
the follo~ing mapping items:mathemati~accuracy,survey analysis,
and correctness of certificates,signatures,etc.
14.
15.
16.Easements shall not be granted or recorded "ithin areas p~oposed to be
granted,dedicated,o~offered for dedication for access rights,or other
easements until after the final tract map is filed with the County Recorder
unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication.
If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval,s sub-
ordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing
of the final tract uap.
Ii.
19.Prior to approval of the final map the subdivider shall post a cash de-
posit,bond,combination thereof,or other acceptable security to cover
the costs of full improvements for the streets within the property.Said
improvements shall be designed to the following specifications:
18.Dedicate the proposed streets to the City,as shown on the approved
Tentative Tract Map.
ATTACHMENT 12-8
a.Marguerite Drive shall have a vidth of thirty-six (36)feet measured
from curb-to-curb ~th B sixty-foot right-of-~ay width.
b.
c.
Laurel Drive shall have a minimum width of thirty-two (32)feet
measured from curb-to-curb with a forty (40)foot right-of-way
or wider.
All public Gtreets ohall have a vertical type curb.
d..\11 proposed ~treets shall be designed in Bubstaintially the same
alignment as shown on the approved tentative map.
Place a note on the final map stating tllst;"a twenty foot l'.ccess easement
will be provided if legally required"to the lot located between lots I
and 2 from the p!oposed public street (Marguerite Drive).
The subdivider shall dedicate an easement on lot 27 to the City for public
trail purposes.The Homeowners Association shall maintain all landscaping.
drainage facilities and the public trail within said easement.
Place a note on the final ~p indicating a fifteen (15)foot wide public
access easement from the cul-de-sac of Marguerite Drive to lot 27.
Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider ahall post a cash deposit.
bond,combination thereof or other gcceptable security to cover the costs
of the full improvements to the centerline of the right-of~ay of Palos
Verdes Drive West adjacent to the property.The design of said improvements
shall be pursuant to City design specifications identified by the Director
of Public lJorks.Improvements shall include but not be limited to pavement,
median,right and left turn pockets.curbs/gutters,walkway,landscaping
and signs.Landscaping shall include vegetation in the landscaped divider.
A note shall be placed on the final ~ap dedicating development rights to
the city,on 11.11 lands aeaward of the Coastal Setback Zone as shoun on the
approved tentative map.
Prior to approval of the final map,the subdivider shall post a cash
deposit.bond,combination tbereof or other acceptable securiTY to cover
the cost of sn off road "class 1"bikeway/\ialkway within the right-of-way
of Palos Verdes Drive West adjacent to the site.The design of the bike\"ay
shall be in accordance with the city design specifications as identified
by tne Director of Public Works.
Friar to final ~p approval,the Gubdivider shall grant a Bcenic easement over
the face of the bluff to the city by recording B document approved by the
City Attorney.
A lateral public access easement for passive recrestional use shall be noted
on the final map from the twenty-five (25)foot contour line seaward as
shown on the approved tentative map.
e.Cul-de-sacs shall be designed to the specifications of the Director
of Public \lorks.
~tw~ty (20)foot wide access easement over lot 2 to lot ~and over lot 25
to lot 24 shall be provided and noted on the final map as :ioun on the
approved tentative map.
f.(..·U,l-.~f'FVe./l I"~""
t')""-8~
24 .
25.
29.'!be final map shall clearly delineate and label the "Coastal Setback 20ne"
line as established in the City's Coastal Specific Plan.A note shall be
placed on the map stating that no permanent structures shall be allowed
closer than twenty-five (25)feet to the Coastal Setback Zone,unless
approval is granted in '~iting from the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Falos Verdes.
26.
27.
28.
Page 3
o .:fl
"",~-,,,,~,""'~'-"'.,..'~~"'f'-'''''''''''-''---~-1
~-.
I¥
~.~'
,.~.
ATTACHMENT 12-9
i,"
J ~.f.•.
i
30.
31.
The 5ubdivider ahall aeaicate to the city the right to prohibit con-
struction of any 6tructures trlthin the Coastal Setback Zone.
Place a DOte on the final ~p to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
indicBting that this map is approved as a planned development project.
r·'I 32.e Dedicate vehicular eccess Tights to Pelos Verdes Drive West to prevent
entrances to a major thoroughfare.Alao dedicate access rights to the
Tear of lots 18 throught 23 to prevent a thoroughfare situation on these
double frontage lots.
33.Dedicste develo~t xigbts to the city on lots 26,27,snd 28.
34.
35.
Upon the initial aale of each lot the buyer shall be made a~are of the
restrictions placed on development within the twenty-five (25)foot
"open spBce preservation and public accesS easement"Bnd within the
"CoBstal Setback Zone"(see conditions numbers 26 through 30 of this
resoluti.on).
A declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)shall
be approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director prior to approval
of the final map.Said CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to the
provisions defined in Conditional Use Permit No.68.
A copy of the recorded CC&Rs sball be submitted to the Planning Director
within thirty (30)days of recording.
El:h:lb1 t "A"to Resol.No,81-87
The grading plan shall include a method to insure that material ~ill not
be dumped over the bluff or into the natural drainage course and will insure
rhat natural appearing grades ~ill be created.
A const~-uction plan ahall be submitted to the Director of Planning prior
to any permits bieng issued.Said plan shall include but not be limited
to limits of grading,estimated length of time for rough grading and im-
provements,location of construction trailer,location and type of tem-
porary utilities,etc.I
Landscaping and irrigation plans (as described in Resolution P.C.No.~
which approves Conditional Use Permit No.68)are required and are to be
approved by the Director of Planning prior to approval of the final map.
Said plaD6 shall include all public,cammon,(including lot 27)and 610pe
areas ~ithin the development.Bonds and agreement6 must be submitted
prior to npproval of the final ma~.
Place a note on the final map to the satisfaction of the Director
of Planning indicating that lot 26 is to be utilized for agriculture uses only
in accordance with a recorded agreement approved by the City Attorney.
Lor 1 must be modified by grading andlot structural height to establish
II maximUlD ridgeline not to exceed aD elevation of 213'.
A note sball be placed on the approved grading plan that requires Planning
Director approval of rough grading prior to final clearance.The Director
(or designated scaff member)shall inspect the graded site for accuracy
of pad elevations,created slope gradients,and pad size.Further,the
Director may require certification of any grading related ~atcer.
3fl.
37.
39.
40.
42.
41.
Pege 4
~
(38.:
~l1:!J~§)1£U ~~1S- --..~""'"1ll'1lOE!l.C.~'
ATTACHMENT 12-10
43.
/.:4.
47.
A qualified paleon 010g1st shall be present during ell rough grading
operations.If paleontological resources are found,the paleontologist
ahall stop all ~ork 1n the affected area and all resources shall be
excavated or preserved.All "finds"shall be reported to the Director
of Planning immediately.
A qualified archaeologist shall make frequent periodic in-grading
inspections to further evaluate cultural resources on the site.If
archaeological resources nre found,all work in the immediate area
shall stop and the resources shall be removed or preserved.All
"finds"shall be reported to the Director of Planning ilmnediately.
A parkland dedication fee of $~200.00 shall be paid to the City prior
to the approval of the f:J.nal map •.
.lithin thirty (30)days the developer shall submit,in '-TIiting),~state-._
ment that h~has read and understands the above conditions.lor"II_~J $1J(J-
:t:J>/I~¢
The City's filing fee for a final map shall be paid within six (6)
months of approval of the tentative map.
\
J
J
48.The developer shall supply the City with one brownline and one print of
the recorded map.
49.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the developer shall comply with
Section 66493(c)(relative to special BSSeS6lDents)of the State Subdivision
Map Act.)
t
')
?
./
~\..,.
Page 5 Exhibit "A"to Resol.No.81-87
ATTACHMENT 12-11
Mumcoae
I 17.60.090·Amendments.
rage 1 ur 1
An amendment to an approved conditional use permit may be initiated by the city or by the property owner
pursuant to Section 17.78.040 (Miscellaneous)of this title.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
httn://lihrarv .municode.com/nrint.asnx?clientID=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2fl'102fli...6/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-12
IVJ.UUl.vVU"",,"
I :17.Q~040 -View preservation and restoration.
The residents of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes,by the adoption of this section,have made a finding that the peace,health,safety and
welfare of the community will be served by the adoption of this section and by the regulations prescribed herein
A.Definitions When not inconsistent with the context,the words used in the present tense include the future;words in the singular
number include the plural:and those in the plural number include the singular.In carrying out the intent of this section,words,
phrases and terms shall be deemed to have the following meanings ascnbed to them:
1."City"means the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and its employees and staff and those designated by the city council to ad on
behalf of the city.
2.·City council"means the duly elected legislative body of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes
3."Director"means the director of the planning,bUilding and code enforcement department of the CIty of Rancho Palos Verdes
4."F oliage"means natural growth of trees,shrubs and other plant life.
5."Lot coverage"means that portion of a lot or bUilding site which is occupied by any building or structure,induding courtyards
which are fully enclosed or which have a maximum of one exterior entrance:trellises:decks over thirty inches in height (as
measured from existing adjacent grade);patl<.ing areas;driveways;or impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than
five feet in width and/or one patio area less than live hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the lot coverage
calculation).(The lot coverage of a courtyard that is not fully enclosed shall be calculated by the director as if it were fully
enclosed by drawing an imaginary line between the walls on either side of the entrance of the courtyard When the walls on
either side of the entrance are of uneven length,the imaginary line shall be an extension of the end of the wall on the
shortest side of the courtyard,see diagram below.)
BUllOING FOOTPRltfT
BUIlDtNG FOOTPRINT
6."Neighborhood characte('means the existing characteristics In terms of the follOWing.
a.Scale of surrounding residences;
b.Architectural styles and materials;and
c.Front,side and rear yard setbacks.
7."Planning commission"means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes as defined in Chapter 2.20 (Planning
Commission)of this Municipal Code.
8."Prrvacy"means reasonable protection from Intrusive visual observation.
9."Scale"means the total square footage and lot coverage of a residence and all ancillary structures.
10.·Setback"means the minimum horizontal distance as prescribed by this Code,between any property line or private easement
boundary used for vehicular and/or pedestrian access and the closest point on any building or structure,below or above ground
level,on the property.In cases where there is no structure on a lot,setback shall mean the minimum horizontal distance between
the property line or easement boundary line and a line parallel to the property line or easement boundary line Please refer to
Chapter 17.48 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)for setback regulations.
11.Shall and May."Shall"is mandatory and "may"is permissive.
12.·Structure"means anything constructed or buill,any edifice or building of any ind,or any piece of work artificially buill up or
composed of parts Joined together in some definite manner,which is located on or on top of the ground on a parcel of land utilized
for residential purposes,excluding antennas.skylights,solar panels and similar structures not involving the construction of
habitable area.
13."Style"means design elements which consist of.but are not limited to:
a.Facade treatment;
b.Height of structure,
c.Open space between structures,
d,Roof design;
e.The apparent bulk or mass of the structure,and
f.The number of stories.
14.View.On the Palos Verdes peninSUla,it is quite common to have a near view and a far view because of the nature of many of the
httn://I ihrarv .municode.com/nrint.asnx?clientTD=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2f%2fli...6/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-13
lVlUllU':UUt::
hills on the peninsula Therefore,a ·view"which IS protected by thiS section is as follows
a.A "near view"which is defined as a scene located on the peninsula including.but not limited to,a valley,raVine,equestrian
trail,pastoral environment or any natural setting;and/or
b.A "far view"which is defined as a scene located off the peninsula including,but not limited to,the ocean,Los Angeles basin,
city lights at night,harbor,Vincent Thomas Bridge,shoreline or offshore islands.
A "view"which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is developable under thiS Code,distant mountain
area not normally Visible,nor the sky.either above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands.A view may
extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred sixty degrees of horizontal arc)and shall be considered as a single view,even if
broken into segments by foliage,structures or other interference.
A ''view"which is protected by this section shall not include vacant land that is developable under this Code,distant mountain
area not normally visible,nor the sky,either above distant mountain areas or above the height of offshore islands A View may
extend in any horizontal direction (three hundred Sixty degrees of horizontal arc)and shall be considered as a single view,even if
broken into segments by foliage,structures or other interference
15."Viewing area"means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms,hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (exclUding
the setback areas)where the owner and city determine the best and most important view exists.In structures,the finished floor
elevation of any viewing area must be at or above existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest to
said viewing area.
16.The "view restoration commission"means the planning commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
B. Regulations.
1.BUilding Height Any individual or persons desiring to bUild a new structure or an addition to an existing structure shall be
permitted to build up to sixteen feet in height pursuant to subsection B of this section provided there is no grading,as defined
in Section 17.76.040 of this title,to be performed in connection with the proposed construction,and further prOVided that no
height variation is required,and all applicable residential development standards are or will be met.In cases where an
existing structure is voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an involuntary event,a height variation application
will not be required to exceed sixteen feet in height,provided that the replacemenl structure will have the same or less
square footage and building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed within the building envelope and
footprint of the pre-existing structure.Approval for proposed structures or additions to existing structures exceeding sixteen
feet in height,may be sought through application for a heighl variation permit,which,if granted pursuant to the procedures
corltained herein,will permit the individual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-SiX feet in h!"ight,except as provided in
subsection (8)(1 )(d)of this section,or such lower height as approved by the city,measured as follows:
a.For sloping loIs which slope uphill from the street of access or in the same direction as the street of access and for
which no building pad exists,the height shall be measured from the preconstruetion (existing)grade at the highest
point on the 101 to be covered by the structure to the ridgeline or the highest point of the structure,as illustrated in
Figure 1 below
FIGURE 1
rt
I
tlF
b.For sloping lots which slope downhill from the street of access and for which no building pad exists.the height shall be measured
from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street of access to the ridgerine or the highest point of the structure,as
illustrated In Figure 2 below
FIGURE 2
httn://l1hrarv .municode.com/nrint.asnx?cl ientrD=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2fOIo2f1i...6/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-14
-
It
I.
c.For lots with a "building pad"at street level or at a different level than the street or lot configurations not previously discussed,the
height shall be measured from the preconstructlon (existing)grade at the highest elevation of the eXisting building pad area covered
by the structure to the ridge line or highest point of the structure.as illustrated In Figure 3 below.Portions of a structure which
extend beyond the "building pad"area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure,for the purposes of
determining maximum building height Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed twenty feet in height,as
measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade.to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.
Otherwise,a height variation permit shall be required.
FIGURE 3
-x~f
--
d.On sloping lots described in Sections 17.02.040(B)(1)(a)and 17.02.040(B)(1)(b)of this chapter.the foundation of the structure shall
contain a minimum eight foot step with the slope of the lot,as illustrated in Figure <I below.However,no portion of the structure
shall exceed thirty feet in heighl.when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade 10 the
ridge line or highest point of the structure The thirty foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen foot height tine
(from the high point of the uphill step of the structure).
2.Setbacks for Sloping lots.On lots which slope uphill from the street of access and where the height of a structure is in excess of
sixteen feet above the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground,areas in excess of the sixteen foot height limit
shall be set back one foot from the exterior building facade of the first story,most parallel and dosest to the front property line,for
every foot of height in excess of sixteen feet.as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground.as
illustrated in Figure 4 below.
FIGURE 4
httn://lihrarv .municode.com/nrint.asnx?c1ientlD=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a°l,02f%2tli...6/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-15
l.VIUl11\"VUl"
-
---
l.f
3.Foliage Obstruction.No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage to grow to a height
exceeding:
a.The height determined by the view restoration commission through issuance of a view restorallOn permit under Section
17.02.040(C)(2)of this chapter;or
b.If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a height which is the lesser ot
i.The ridge line of the primary structure on the property;or
ii.Sixteen feet
If foliage on the property already exceeds the proVisions of subdivisions (i)and (ii)of Section 17.02.040(8)(3)of this chapter on the
effective date of this section,as approved by the voters on November 7.1989.and significantly impairs a view from a viewing area of a lot.
then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained issuance of a view restoration permit.the foliage owner shall nOllet the
foliage exceed the foliage heighl existing on the effective date of this section (November 17.1989).The purpose of this paragraph is 10
ensure that owners of foliage which violates the provisions of this paragraph on the effective dale of this section shall not allow the foliage
to increase in height.This paragraph does not "grandfather"or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to block a view
4.Removal of Foliage as Condition of Permit Issuance.The city shall issue no conditional use permit,variance,height variation,
building permit or other entitlement to construct a structure,or to add livable area to a structure on a parcel utilized for residential
purposes,unless the owner removes that part of the foliage on the lot exceeding sixteen feet in height or the ridge line of the
primary structure,whichever is lower,that significantly impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel.The owner of the
property is responsible for maintaining the foliage so that the views remain unimpaired.This requirement shall not apply where
removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the
foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means allowed
within the development code that does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property.The initial decision on
the amount of foliage removal required or the reasonable degree of privacy to be maintained shall be made by the director,the
planning commission or the city counCil,as appropriate for the entitlement in question.If the permit issuance involves property
located within the Miraleste recreation and park district,the findings of Section 17.02.040(C)(2)(c)(vi)of this chapter shall apply.A
deCision by the director on either of these matters may be appealed to the planning commission,and any decision of the planning
commission may be appealed to the city council.
5.Determination of Viewing Area.
a.The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of
the area of the structure or lot from where the view is taken.Once finally determined for a particular application,the vieWing
area may not be changed for any subsequent application.In the event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area,
the decision of the city shall control.A property owner may appeal the city's determination of viewing area.In such event.the
decision on the viewing area will be made by the body making the final decision on the application.A property owner may
preserve his or her right to dispute the decision on the viewing area for a subsequent application.without disputing the
decision on a pending application,by filing a statement to that effect and indicating the Viewing area the property owner
believes to be more appropriate The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of the pending application by
the city.
C.Procedures and Requirements.
1.Preservahon of Views Where Structures are Involved.
a.Any person proposing to construct a structure above sixteen feet shall submit a height variation permit application to
the city.A determination on the application shall be made by the director in accordance with the findings described in
Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(e)of this chapter.The director shall refer a height variation application directly to the
planning commission for consideration under the same findings,as part of a public hearing,if any of the follOWing is
proposed:
i.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the
front or street-side property line;or
ii.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (the second story footpnnl)exceeds seventy-five
percent of the first story footprint area (residence and attached garage);
httn:lllihrarv.munlcode.com/nrint.a"nx?c1ientID=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2flIo2f1i...6/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-16
............................
2.
-·-0 -----
iii.Sixty percent or more of a garage footprint is covered by a structure whIch exceeds sIxteen feet in height (a
second story);
iv.The portion of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-
family residence;or
v.Based on an initial site visil,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed
sixteen feet in height may significanUy impair a view as defined In this chapter.
b.The applicant shall take reasonable steps established by the city council to consull with owners of property located
withm five hundred feet of the applicant's property.The applicant shall obtain and submit with the application the
signatures of the persons with whom the applicant consulted.Where a homeowners'association existing In the
neighborhood affected has provided written notice to the director of its desire to be noMed of height variation
applications,the applicant shall mail a letter to the associatIOn requesting its position on lhe application.A copy of this
letter and the response of the association,if any,shall be submitted with the application.A fee shall be charged for
the application as established by resolution of the city council.
c.The director shall,by written notice,notify property owners within a five-hundred-foot radius of the subject.property
and the affected homeowners'association,if any,of the application and inform them that any objections to the
proposed construction must be submitted to the director within thirty calendar days of the date of the nolJce.
d.The applicant shall construct on the site at the applicant's expense,as a visual aid,a temporary frame of the proposed
structure-
e.A height variation application to build a new structure or an additJOn to an existing structure,either of which exceeds
sixteen feet in height up to the maximum height permilted in subsection (B)(1)of this section,may be granted with or
without conditions if the following findings can be made:
i.The applicant has complied with the earty neighbor consullation process established by the city;
ii.The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feel in height or addition to an existing structure that is above
sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares,bike
ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,
as city-designated viewing areas;
iii.The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory;
iv.The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure
that is above sixteen feet in height,as defined in subsection B of this section,when considered exdusive of
existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.If the viewing area
is located in a structure,the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a structure which was constructed
without a height variation permit or variance,or which would not have required a height variation or variance
when originally constructed had this section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,been in effect at
the time the structure was constructed,unless the viewing area located in the portion of the existing structure
which required a height variation permit or variance constitutes the primary living area (living room.family
room,dining room or kitchen)of the residence;
v.If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant,as
described in subsection (C)(1)(e){vi)of this section,the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in
height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feel in height is designed and situated in such a
manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view;
vi.There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application Cumulahve view
impairment shall be detennined by:(a)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the
proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feel
in height;and (b)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other
parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.
vii.The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements;
viii.The proposed strudure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,
ix.The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above
sixteen feet in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the pnvacy of the occupants of
abutting residences.
1.Written notice of the director's or planning commission's decision shall be sent to the applicant,hlslher representatIve
and to all parties who responded to the original nollce.
g.The decision of the director may be appealed to the planning commission by the applicant or any person who
responded in writing to the director prior to the director's decision;provided,the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen
calendar days after the dale of the director's decision.The appellant shall pay an appeal fee as established by
resolution of the dty council.
h.Notice of the public hearing for an initIal determination of a height variation application by the planning commIssion or
an appeal to the planning commission and/or city council shall bemailedthirtycalendardayspriortothehearing.to
property owners within five hundred feet of the applicant's property,as well as any additional property owners
previously determined by the city to be affected by the proposal.
i.In heanng an appeal of the director's decision,the planning commission shall granl the application and cause a permit
to be issued,only ifit finds that all of the requirements of subsection (C)(1)(e)of this section have been mel
j.A decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the dty council by the applicant or any person who
commenled orally or in writing to the planning commission;provided,the appeal is filed in writing within fifteen
calendar days after the date of the planning commission's decision.The appellant shall pay an appeal tee as
established by resolution of the city council.In order to grant a permit,the city council must determine that all of the
requirements listed in subsection (C)(1)(e)of this section have been mel
Restoration of Views Where Foliage is a Factor.
a.Any resident owning a residenllal structure with a view may fite an application with the city for a view restoration
permit.The applicant shall file with the application proof that the applicant consulted,or attempted to consult,with the
property owner whose foliage IS in question The applicant shall pay a fee for the view restoration permit as
established by resolution of the city council.
b.The application shall be submitted to the view restoration commission.Written notice of the time and place for the
hearing on the application shall be sent to the applicant and the property owner(s)of the foliage involved at least thirty
calendar days prior to the meeting of the commission.Commission members shall inspect the site prior to the public
hearing.Only view restoration commission members who make a site inspection may participate in the public heanng
c.In order for a view restoration notice \0 be issued,the commission must find:
1.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consullation process and has shown proof of cooperation
on hislher part to resolve connicts;
httn://lihrarv .municode.com/nrint.asnx?c1ientlD=165 71 &HTMReOllest=httn%3a%2fOIo2fli ...0/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-17
JV.lUl11LUUL
Foliage exceeding sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,whichever is IOY/er,SlgnificanUy impairs
a VIeW from the applicant's viewing area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property;
iii.The foliage to be removed is located on property,any part of which is less than one thousand feet from the
applicant's property line(s);
iv.The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist.as vIew impairing vegetation,when the lot from whIch
the view is taken was created;
v,Removal Of trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants
of the property upon which the foliage is located;
vi.For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste recreation and park distncl,the commission shall
also find the removal or trimming of the foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of
thIS section,as set forth in the ordinance approved by the voters on November 7,1989,and preserving the
historical developments of the Miraleste recreation and park district area with a large number of trees.
d.Should the commission make findings requiring issuance of a view restoration permit,the director shall send a notice
to the property owner to trim,cull,lace or otherwise cause the foliage to be reduced to sixteen feet or the ridgeline of
the primary structure,whichever is lower,or such limit above thaI height which will restore the view,The property
owner will have ninety calendar days to have the foliage removed,The applicant shall be responsible for the expense
of the foliage removal and/or replacement ordered pursuant to this subsection only to the extent of the lowest bid
amount provided by contractors licensed to do such work In the city of Rancho Palos Verdes and selected by the
applicanl After the initial trimming,culling,lacing or removal of the foliage,the owner,at the owner's expense,shall
be responsible for maintaining the foliage so that the view restoration required by the view restoration permit is
maintained.
e.To the extent legally permissible,trees or foliage on property owned by any governmental entity,except lhe city and
the Miraleste recreation and park district,shall be subject to view restoration control,as per the prOVisions of this
section;except,that the foliage shall be trimmed or removed thirty calendar days follOWIng issuance of the notice.
Trees and/orfoliage located on city property,or In the public right-of-way,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),
shall be subject to view restoration control,as per the provisions of this section,pursuant to the city tree review permit
procedure contained in Section 17.76.100 (City tree review permit.)
f.The view restoration commiSSion may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions on the approval of a view
restoration permit as may be found to be appropriate or necessary to protect the public health,safety or welfare or the
foliage owner's reasonable enjoyment of his or her property.Such conditions or restrictions may indude,but are not
limitecllo:(1)requiring the complete removal of the subject foliage when the commission finds thal the trimming.
culling,lacing or reducing of that foliage to sixteen feet or the ridge line is likely to km the foliage,threaten the public
health,safety and welfare,or will destroy the aesthetic value of the foliage that is to be pruned or reduced in height,
provided that the property owner consents to the removal;and (2)requiring replacement of sUCh foliage when the
commission finds that removal without replacement will cause a significant adverse impact on:(a)the public health,
safety and welfare,(b)the privacy of the property owner.(c)shade provided to the dwelling or the property,(d)the
energy-efficiency of the dwelling,(e)the health or viability of the remaining landscaping,or (f)the integrity of the
landscape plan,provided that the property owner consents to the replacement.
g.The applicant,the owner of the property where the foliage is located.or any other interested person may appeal the
decision of the view restoration commission to the city council by filing with the city cleric:a written notice of appeal,
IOduding the grounds for the appeal,and any speafic action being requested by the appellant,together with the
appeal fee established by resolution of the city council,within fifteen calendar days after the view restoration
commission adopls the resolution setting forth its decision.The decision of the view restoration commission is final.f
no appeal is filed within fifteen calendar days.If such an appeal is timely and properly filed,a copy of the findings of
the view restoration commission and atl materials on file with the director shall be transmitted to the city council,which
shall be part of the appeal hearing record.together with the notice of appeal and any other written materials submitted
by interested parties.Additional written materials shall be submitted 10 the city clerk at least seven calendar days prior
to the date that the appeal will be heard by the city council.
Upon receiving the notice of appeal,the city derk shall schedule the matter for review at a forthcoming meeting of the
City councIl.At the city oouncil meeting,oral testimony shall be limited to five minutes in length for each of the parties whose
properties are affected by the dectsion and two minutes per person for other individuals.Oral testimony shall be limited to the
Issues raised in the written appeal.At the conclusion of the oral presentation,the dty council may do one of the following'
i.Affirm the decision of the View restoralJon commission and approve the application upon finding that all
applicable findings have been correctly made and all provisions of subsection (C)(2)of this section are
complied with;
ii.Approve the application but impose additional or different condItions as the city council deems necessary to
fulfIll the purposes of subsection (C)(2)of this section;
iii.Disapprove the application upon finding Ihat all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of
subsection (C)(2)of this section have not been complied with;or
iv.Refer the matter back to the view restoration commission to conduct further proceedings.The remanded
proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the
appeal.The city council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instructions to the view
restoration commission concerning any error found by the city council in the commission's prior determination.
h.If,after ninety calendar days,the foliage has not been removed or ttimmed in accordance with the requirements of a
view restoration or view preseNation permit the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will authonze a bonded tree service to
trim,cull,lace or remove the identified foliage at the owner's expense.In the event that the city is required to perform
the work,the foliage owner will be billed for all city expenses incurred in enforcing the VIew restoration or preservation
permit (including reasonable attorney's fees).If the property owner does nol pay the city for the amount set forth on
the invoice.the city may reoord a lien or assessment against the foliage owner's property,pursuant to Chapter 8.24 of
this Code,
Upon receiving the notice of appeal,the City derk shall schedule the matter for review at a forthcoming meeting of the
city council At the city council meeting,oral testimony shall be limited to five minutes in length for each of the parties whose
properties are affected by the decision and two minutes per person for other individuals Oral testimony shall be limited to the
issues raised in the written appeal.At the conclusion of the oral presentation,the city council may do one of the follOY/ing'
i.Affirm the deciSIon of the view restoration commission and approve the application upon finding that all
applicable findings have been correctly made and all proviSIons of subseetJon (C){2)of this section are
complied with;
httn://lihrarv.municode.com/nrint.asnx?clientID=16571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2f%2fli...61:10/2010ATTACHMENT 12-18
---0-.-- -
ii.Approve the apphcalton but impose additional or different conditions as the City council deems necessary to
fulfill the purposes of subsection (C)(2)of this section;
iii.Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings cannot be made or all provisions of
subsection (C)(2)of this section have not been complied with;or
iv.Refer the matter back to the view restoration commission to conduct further proceedings The remanded
proceedings may include the presentation of significant new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the
appeal.The city council shall state the ground(s)for the remand and shall give instructions to the view
restoration commission concerning any error found by the city council in the commission's prior determination.
(Ord.481 §10,2OOS;Ord.442 §1,2006;Ord.405 §§7-9.2004;Ord.400U §§7-9,2004;Ord.389 §5,2003;Ord.386 §3,2003:Ord.355 §8,2000;Ord.340 §S
(pan),1998;Ord.329U §1,1997;Ord.319 §8,1997:Ord.298 §'.1994;Ord.262 §§2,3,1991:Proposirion M.passed November 7,1989;Ord.194 § 5 (p;1.rI),1985;
Ord.114 §1.1979:Ord.90 §I,1977;Ord.78 (pari),1975)
TABLE 02·A:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development standards that apply to single·family residential
areas,see Articles VI and VII of this title.The number which follows an "RS·"designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre
permitted in the zone;the "RS-A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted
IDISTRICT OT DIMENSIONS'MlNIMUM SETBACKS J ,6 FOR ~INIMUM SETBACKS2,3,6 FOR MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PARKING
LlTY CREATED LOTS I'-0TS CREATED PRIOR TO OT HEIGHTJ ,REQUIREMENTs
NCORPORATIONIAN NEXATION OVERAGE 4,7
AREA WIDTH PEPTH RONT NTERIOR ISTREET ~EAR "'RONT NTERIOR ISTREET REAR ess than
:sIDE :sIDE I)IDE I)IDE 5,000 s.f.of
TIL ONE habitable
BOTH ::lIDE pace =2
SiDES enclosed
IRS-A5 5 200 pOO 20 30 10 20 120 120 5 10 15 6%16 garage spaces
acres
IRS-1 1 acre 100 150 20 25 10 120 120 120 5 10 15 25%16 5,000 s.f.or
RS-2 20,000 90 120 20 20 10 120 20 120 5 10 15 40%16 more of
.f.habitable
IRS·3 13,00080 110 20 20 10 120 15 120 5 10 15 45%16 space =3
.f.~nclosed
IRS·4 10,00075 100 20 20 10 120 15 120 5 10 15 50%16 ~arage spaces
.f.
IRS-5 8,000 65 100 20 20 10 120 15 120 5 10 15 52%16
.f.
Editor's nole-
1 For an existing lot which does not meet these standards,see Chapter 17 84 (Nonconformlltes)
Editor's nOIe-
2.Lots of record,eXisting as of November 25.1975 (adoption of thiS Code),or within Eastview and exisltng as of January 5.983
(annexation),shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks.
Editor"s f1ol~
3 For description,c1artfication and exceptions,see Chapter 17 48 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and BUilding Height)
Editor's note-
4 For a description of height measurement methods and the height variation process.see Section 17.02 040 of this chapter
Editor'S notr.--
A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission for conSideration.if any of the follOWing IS
proposed
Editor's note-
A.Any portion of a structure which exceeds slx1een feet in height ex1ends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street-
Side properly line.
Editor's note-
B The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet In height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the
existing first story footprint area (residence and garage),and
EditOr's note-
C Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feel in height (a second
story)
Editor's nole--
D The portion of a structure that exceeds six1een feet in height is being developed as part of a new single-family residence,or
httn://lihrarv.municode.com/nrint.asnx?clientJD=l 0571 &HTMReauest=httn%3a%2f>102fli...0/30/2010ATTACHMENT 12-19
EditOr',note-
E.Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen feet In
height may significantly impair a view as defined In this dlapter.
Editor,nOle--
5.For parking development standards,see Section 17 02.030{B)of this chapter
Edftor"1l note-
6.A garage with direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be less than twenty feet from the front or street-side
property line,whichever is the street of access.
Editor'S nole-
7 Exterior stairs to an upper story are prohibited,unless leading to and/or connected to a common hallway,deck or entry rather
than a specific room,
httn:lllihrarv.municode.com/nrinLasnx?clientJD=1657 J &HTMReouest=httn%3a%2f%2tli ...6130/2010ATTACHMENT 12-20
CITY Of-
May 19.2010
Mr.Dinu Patel &Mrs Mina Dahya
73 Laurel Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
RE:Determination Regarding Enforcement of Landscape Permit Foliage Height
Conditions on 63,83 and 87 Marguerite Drive
Dear Mr.Patel &Mrs.Dahya:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that a determination has been made by the
Community Development Director and the City Attorney regarding the enforcement of
landscape permit foliage conditions for 63,83 and 87 Marguerite Drive.As you are aware,
these three properties were listed with four other properties as having view-impairing foliage on
the "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit"application form that was submitted by
you and three other applicants on October 13,2009,After receiving this complaint regarding
the foliage on these properties.City Staff determined that there were landscape permits on file
for three of the seven addresses listed,and that these landscape permits contained conditions
that were intended to restrict the growth of foliage on the property to 16 feet or the ridge line of
the dwelling on the property.Specifically,the landscape permit for 63 Marguerite Drive states,
"Maximum height of all vegetation shall not exceed 16 feet or the approved ridge line,"The
landscape permit for 83 Marguerite Drive states,"Trees on site shal/be maintained so as 110t to
exceed 16'0"or tile ridgeline.whichever is lower."And the landscape permit for 87 Marguerite
Drive states,•Trees onsite sllall be maintained so as 110t exceed {sic]16'-0"OR the Ridgeline,
whichever is lower."
Initially,Staff believed that these conditions in the landscape permits could be enforced through
the code enforcement process.rather than though the standard View Restoration process.As a
result.the three foliage owners with landscape permits on file were initially excluded from the
mediation process.However,partway through the mediation process for the other four
properties.Staff instructed the City's mediator to also work with the three 'code"properties,as it
was thought that if a private agreement could be reached between the applicants and all of the
foliage owners,without the involvement of the City's code enforcement process.this would be
beneficiatto all residents involved.However,as you are aware.in the end.a private agreement
could n01 be reached.and you asked that the City enforce the conditions of approvat through its
code enforcement process for those three properties with the restrictive landscape permil
conditions.
As you are also aware.the conditions on these landscape permits were derived from
Conditional Use Permil (CUP)No.68,which was granted in November of 1981 by Planning
Commission Resolution No,81-57.This Resolution approved a residential planned
development of 25 single family dwelling units which is known as the "Lunada Pointe"tracl
where all the parcels included with this view case are located.There were several conditions
listed on Exhibit "A"of this Conditional Use Permit which were meant to protect the views of
properties within the tract.One of these conditions refers to several provisions that were to be
included in the tract's CC&Rs,inclUding a provision that."AI/landscaping (inclUding parkway
trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from
.'r':}4()f i ..,\\"j 'OJ-.'\_!11\:),.I~·\'...(,1-10 jJ,\J'\-,v''('I"(A ~J~..t1 ';:.'J
I'\....\J ....1/:1M;I '\;<l,~{;\;1 \1 ';;1\)1'.:'::·;);'IH i !{\'!i n \,f t')·V "s~,~Jl~;'J ':il i'[f.\.\r':::'[,,:1,:':"'~.I i I \1\11 I"~.\....1\;;,(Ja~~(I;\'r :~\'ATTACHMENT 12-21
Mr.D,nu Patel &Mrs Mina Dahya
May 19.2010
Page 2 of 3
adjacent properties.Furthermore,no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could
reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot,
as estabtished by this permit,unless written approval is granted by the Planning Commission."
Also,Condition No.7 in Exhibit"A"of the Resolution states:"Landscaping and irrigation plans
(inclUding street trees)shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Planning ...The final
landscape plan SI1811 be designed pursuant to the approved CC&Rs and in a manner so that
views from adjacent properties will not be significantly affected..."
As you can see.the conditions restricting foliage height in Exhibit "A"of the Resolution are not
consistent with each other.Specifically,Condition No.7 stipulates that views from adjacent
properties shall not be significantly affected by any landscaping within the Lunada Pointe tract,
but does not identify a maximum allowable foliage height.while the provision for the Lunada
Pointe CC&Rs refers to the maximum ridgeline elevation of the dwelling on a particular parcel
as an explicit limit for foliage height.But,at the same time,the provision also refers to
preventing significant view obstruction.Furthermore,the conditions imposed on the landscape
plan permits differ from the language of the CUP.
To eliminate these inconsistencies within CUP No.68,and thus to alleviate any confusion for
the current and future residents in the Lunada Pointe development regarding what City
restrictions actually apply to their properties,the Director will be initiating a formal amendment to
the CUP pursuant to Development Code Section 17.60.090.The proposed amendment will
need to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council after conducting duly
noticed public hearings,on dates that are to be determined.In order to clarify this matter,Staff
will propose that the conditions regarding foliage height in the CUP be consistent with the
provisions of the City's View Restoration process described in Municipal Code Section
17.02.040.This would allow for the property owners within the tract to seek remedies for any
view impact caused by foliage owned by other property owners within the tract,through the
City's existing View Restoration Permit process.Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code §
17.02040.B.3.b states:
No person shall significantly impair a view from a viewing area of a lot by permitting foliage to
grow to a height exceeding:
b.If no view restoration permit has been issued by the view restoration commission,a height
which is the lesser of:
i.The ridge line of the prim8ly structure on the property;or
ii.Sixteen feet.
Nothwithstanding the Director's proposal to amend the CUP,you and your co-applicants are
free to attempt to continue the temporarily halted mediation process with regards to your view
obstruction or.to deem the mediation process completed,and pursue a formal View Restoration
Permit application.Please feel free to contact Staff regarding how you wish to proceed.
Please also note that as preViously stated,the City's process for amending the Conditional Use
Permit,for View Restoration,etc.,is not affected by the actions of the Lunada Pointe HOA and
any committees related to that HOA.Just as the City does not enforce the conditions of a
neighborhood's CC&Rs,these CC&Rs do not restrict the City's permit processes.
Please contact me at (310)544-5228 or via email atj3.lr.yt@rQY~.!<om if you have any questions
at this time.Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 12-22
Mr.Dinu Patel &Mrs.Mina Dahya
May 19,2010
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
d4ttp~
Amy Trester
Associate Planner
Encl:Landscape Permit for 63 Marguerite Drive
Landscape Permit for 83 Marguerite Drive
Landscape Penmit for 87 Marguerite Drive
P.C.Resolution No.81-57 for CUP No.68
CC:Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Greg Pfost,Deputy Community Development Director
Carol Lynch,City Attorney
Julie Peterson,Code Enforcement Officer
Coleen Berg,Mediator
Maria &Chris Ballinger,85 Laurel Drive
Mr.&Mrs Sim,63 Marguerite Drive
Mr.Moshfeghi,67 Marguerite Drive
Mr.Yeh,75 Marguerite Drive
Dr.&Mrs.Lewis,79 Marguerite Drive
Mr.&Mrs.Sheng,83 Marguerite Drive
Dr.Unatin,87 Marguerite Drive
Mr.Liu,95 Marguerite Drive
Mr.Richard C.Greenberg,C/O,Greenberg,Whitcombe &Takeuchi,LLP,21515 Hawthorne
Boulevard,Suite 450,Torrance,CA 90503-6531
Ms.Connie Lai,Esq ..C/O Tressler LLP,3070 Bristol Street Suite 450,Costa Mesa,CA 92626
File
ATTACHMENT 12-23
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
CLEARANCE
PROJECT LOCATION :__..::6c::3:...2M~a~rO;!g~u""ec:r..o!io.':t~e,,--_
LOT AND TRACT NO.:._
OWNER f S NAME :..::C~o::..l~l_=i~n!..'s'___'R~e_"s_=ic:d~e:.2nC!:c~e'__
AND ADDRESS:_
PROJECT NO.:...,L"",a=.n=d-"s"'c"'a"p"-""-'...,N""o,"-,-,~2-,,5 _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Landscape and irrigation Plan
Approval is granted subject to the following conditions:
L.Final inspection of installed landscaping is required
maximum 180 days after certificate of occupancy has been
issued.
2.Landscaplng un property shall remain 80%drought tolerant
plant materials.
3.Only drought tolerant ground cover shall be used.
4.Maximum height of all vegetation shall not exceed 16 feet
or the approved ridge line.
S.Hedge height shall not exceed approved fence height.
6.No retaining walls permitted except as indicated on the
sit:"e plan.
7.All future structures and improvements shall be subject
to review by ~he Dlrector of Environmental Services a
B.All created slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
g.The applicant shall submit to the City a Covenant to
Protect views prior to issuance of building permits.
THIS FORM,ALONG WITH THE TWO COPIES OF THE APPROVED PLANS,MUST BE SUBMITTED w~EN
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERflIT.
The City strongly urges tbe applicant for this project to contact the Homeowners
Association or local Art .Jury,if any,to gain any additional approvals that may be
required before applying for a building permit.Homeowners Associations are on file
vnth the Environmental Services Department of Rancho Palos Verdes.
City
[Jump Deposi t Hequi red,_
Dump Deposit
Receipt No.:, _
/~~,_'-------::~=~~~7:~~:3...:.-Lt-_I4--,-LL.!::C!,,--!,.===__
~nmental Services
Verdes
Dated:2--'1-1'0
APPROVAL VOID AFTER 180 DAYS
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
3091.0 Huwthorne Boulevard
(213)377-0J60
'!£r
ES 10112/88 ~Ministcria I o Discretionary
ATTACHMENT 12-24
CITY OF PANCHO PALOS \'ERDES
PRO.TECT LCCATION:V.3 {V]1A~f""rtft1L.eru.·fv~fJ:..:.:..r~IvVlL-_
WT AND TRA_C?NO.:/4-1 ~f#-O---'---4/-'-'--"'-'--"'-----------------------
f!v...,')'r r M/,;J •OWNER 1 3 NAII,1E:_.::.V.=v~lAI~.'('---f_=____
AND ADDRESS:8~ro rvilf>WiVV 13fVt!.j fuef1y HIII~
PROJECT NC.:~W/.d,fJ(,tp!_fL:(""'I.WI"_'____-t.__"_7____o_---------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:f[«l'1fi1r-!~~1:uh~i~!¥'~~·;c:8V1~-~Pk::.aV7~_---------
~BUILDING PERMIT REQUJRED.
Tins FORI1,ALONG HlTH THE TWO COPIES OF THE APJ-'ROVED PLfu\lS,~~l!.ST BE SUB,l1'l'1yD WHEN
A?PLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT..'
The City strongl.y urges the applicant for this project to contact.the Homeov..rI:e:rs
Association or local Art Jur3t ..if allY,to gain ar(f additional apP1~ova18 that ma;,;r be
required before applying for a building permit~Homeo\'mers Associat:i.ons are on file
i,v:ith the Environmental Services Department of Rancho Palos Verdes ..
~2np Deposit Required _
Dump Deposit
Receipt No~:_
City of'Hanc.ho Palos Verdes
30940 Ha~~hoI~e Boulevard
(213)377-0360
By:~tJi0\
For Director of En-,--C,j-rc-·n-m-en-..t-a-=-l Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ES ]()J!2i88 ¥?Ministerial o Discretionary
ATTACHMENT 12-25
CITY OF RANCHO P AI IJS liEHDES
PLAN~ll',G CLEARANCE
PROJECT LOCATION:
LOT AND TRAC NO.:----------------------------
/V\{l~0'h'NER1S NAME;~,,~-...J__--.:....-..=.:~~'_LJ~._.L__"___
AND ADDRESS:-------------------------------------
'-...;
PROJECT NO'J."./);{IV)::;"oJ'(~6 {J?~''1·D ,.of (/\\
•'_C I"-'"'".;~}:::.l..,'~L Ic'n t'\..1
PROJECT DESCRI PTION ~~~Pi<Yi/).Jril!'l~6/r.JL :r"J£(6{(fd,'t7i2A).::p !cXt,J_..:..LJ-:",:~,,,,:,C-.!....~,'~~~f---:::::"'<~~----"'=:"':"'T'=::::..L=.l.,/P~~~~-_..=.:,!-~~~c..:::::...--
V
~,BUr.LDlNG PERMIT REQUIRED,
TIn S FORM,ALONG I>JITH THE TIm COPIES OF THE APPROVED PLANS,HUST BE SUBHITTED ImEN
APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
The City strongly urges the applicant for this project to contact the Homeo~~erG
Association or local Art Jury)if ~~y,to gain any additional approvals that me v 'be
required Defore applyL'1g for a buildirtg permit.Homeowners Associations are on file
with the Environmental Services Department of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Dump Deposit Required---
Dump Deposit
Receipt No.;
,(/-.v'./'-I!;~
By :_~,)!:.nlq...I./g:j!.~';'T/".£!'/)1 ~t2i',~,;"..)
For Director of n,ironm ntal Services
City of Rancho Pa os Verdes
Cit or Rarcho Palos Verdes
30940 H':i.'Nthorne Boulevard
(213)377-0360
Gi ~h -Cj'-;Dated:..0"....I /...--'
APPROVAL VOID ArtER 180 ')AYS
ES 10112/88 ,Po"Ministerial o Discretionary
ATTACHMENT 12-26
CITY OF HANCHC PAillS v"ERDES
PLANNING CtEAM CE
'-''1:;:S
",
T))(.Ai:<'f~F;f)/
'"\•/\/1 .'~,t <j/'·····ra J
)}/[[/1/{,t:t(/CA.I<V 1.A."......'<"j
(:.
OWNER IS N.AME:__~--'-'=----...........t..l=:~:::..:_w....~~_
AND ADDRESS:___-=-----'--;--I'-+--'""""'~,AL_¥_':':>O:=--=-""-'="O:~----------------_
lDT AND T~\CT NO~:-----------------------------------
V"'{\J?5"r·.~
PROJECT LOCAT.ION:
J /
1-:.
...-
0/(.
condit~ons :
/1 C \!--(1..-1~.J'._
The C:tt.y strongly urges the applicant for this project to contact the Homcowne-rs
A.ssociation or local Art Jury)if a11..Y,to gain any additional crpprove.ls that may be
required before applying for a building permit.Homeovmers Associations are on file
with the Environmental Services Department of Rancho Palos Verdes.
~T.p Deposit Required---
Du.rnp Deposi t
Receipt No.:--------
City of Hancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
(213)377-0J60
ES 101/2188 o Ministerial :.:J Discretionary
ATTACHMENT 12-27
RESOLUTION'P.C.NO.8J-5:
A RESOLUTION OF THE Pu.NNINr.~OMM1ss":nN OF THE ern'
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING CONUITlo.'iAL USE
PERMIT NO.68 FOR A RESIDENT lAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
~~EREAS.Burrell.Ltd.,has requested 8 Conditional Use Perm1t [0 311o~
a Residential Planned Development (RPD)on 6 36.4 acre 81~e located in subregion 1
of the Coas~al Zone adjacent to the Palos Verdes Estates boundary,whJch is zoned
Rp.sidential Single Family (RS-I)and Open Space Hazard (OB):and
~~REAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the City's
Develoymant Code a public hearing was held on September 22.October 13 and October 17,
1981,at which time all interested parties were giveD eo opportunity to be heard
and to present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE.THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF RANCHO PA1.0S VERDES
DOES REREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLYE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:That the proposed Residential ?lanned Develop~ent (RPD)16
permitted in single family districts.8ubject to tlle issuance of a Conditional
Use Pendt.
)
)
()
(
(1
/'I ,.
\...1
Section 2:That the 36.4 acre site,located on Palos Verdes Drjve WesL
1s adequate in s1~e and configuration to allow for t~en~y-five (25)single family
~'eI11ng units and common area under an RPD concept and for open Space,prjvate
outdoor living arees,landscapins s and other fea~ures required by the Development
Cod!!or by conditions iIlIpoaed by this p!!rmit.Further.that the "common open
space'standard required by Section 9133 C I of the City's Development Code is
hereby waived since private open space and outdoor liv1~g areas (patios anc
yard areas)are in substantial excess of the Code Tequirement and sin~e the
open space preservation and trail eosemnt ~ill largely function as common open
space due to it.s £ize.confiBuration and loc:ation.
Section 3:That the proposed RPD is Dot contrary to the General Plan
anG Coastsl SpecifJc Plan since said conformance has been insured by site ce-
aign and landscaping requir~~ents.~hich are includerl es conditions of approva:
to tbis permit and Tentative Tract Map No.406GO.
Section 4:That the RPD ~111 locate individual driveways on public streets
that are designed to carry both the type and the quantity of Lraffic generated.
(~.)
~,
Section 5:That given the project's location.sjte deGign.and conditions
imposed through thie permit.the granting of this Conditional Use Permit ~ill
not Significantly adversely affect the peace.health,safety,or general welfare
of the area,nor will it be ~teria!lY detrimental to property values,jeopardize.
endanger or otherwiae constit.ute a aenace to the public health,safety.ancJ
welfare of p~rsons in the eurrounding area.
Section 6:That the Planning Commission does hereby declare thal Fin3)
Envjronmental Impact Report No.21 has been ~ompleted in co~liance Yith Stat~
and local environmental guidelines and that the Commission has revie~ed and
considered its contents in reaching jts deciaion.The Planning Commi8eion
further finds that tbe approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not result
in a significant adverse environmental impact.since mitigation measures are
required.
Section 7:Por the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby grants approval of Conditional Use Permdt No.68
Bubject to the attached conditions 'l!Iflrlc:ed Exhibit "A"and ~ubject to City Council
approval of Tentative Tract No.G06GO.
ATTACHMENT 12-28
APPROVED and ADOPTED this J Oth day of November,
haron W.High~ower
Director of Planning and
Secretary to the Commission
1981.
(
.
~~.)).
\'~(~r
()(
Page 2 Resolution P.C.No.81-57
,.1Y'Xo"t·"
ATTACHMENT 12-29
I -I,
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.68 IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDlTlONS:
1.No more than twenty-five (25)single family dwelling units shall be p~rmjtted.
2.Prior to the approval of the final map.8 bond or other acceptable security shall
be posted to ensure completion of all off-site and on-site improvements as
identified in this permit or required by the tentative map approval.
3.A Declaration of Covenants.Conditions and Restrictions shall be approved by
the City Attorney Bnd Director of Planning prior to finnl approval.Said
CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to the fOllowing provisions:
/'
(
()(
(
A.
B.
Identify the presence of the Cons tal Setback Zone with a m~p (not less
than 40 scale)of each lot and provide that no permanent struetures shall
be permitted closer chan twenty-five (25)feet to said zone unless approval
is granted in writing by the Plenning Cocmission of the City of Raneho
Palos Verdes.Furthermore.no grading (cut or fill)shall be permitted
vithin the Coastal Setback Zone except 8a shown on the Tentotive Trect Hap.
No development other than landscaping and the common fence as required by
condition 10 shall be permitted seaward of the Coastal Setback line,
exeept safety fencing up to six (6)feet in height which allows for ninety
(90)percent light:aud a1r~'With written approval by the Director of Planning.
Limit the height of all structures to not exceed the maximum ridge height
that is noted on the approved Tentative Tract Map No.~06~O.The approved
Tentative Tract Map No.40640 shall be used to referenee existing topography.
c.All landscaping (including parkway uees)shall be maintained so that no
tree or group of trees significantly obstructs vieys from adjacent properties.
Furthermore,no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could
reasonably be expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned
to that lot,85 established by th18 permit.unless ~~1tten approval is
granted by the Planning Commi8sion.
D.Identify all factors that control structure appearance and use restrictions.
()E.All structures,accessory structures,end other improvements shall conform
to applicable district zoning standards and general development 8tandards
as established in the City's Development Code,Unless approval is granted
in Yriting by the City or unless superceded by this permit.All futu~e
structures.improvements and landscaping ehall be subject to review by
the Director of Planning.Sideyard setbacks shall conform to the City's
deVelopment standards except on lots 2-9.On lots 3-9 tbe sideyard setbacks
shall conform to the City's development standarda if the building height is
sixteen (16)feet or less;but if the heigh~exceeds sixteen (16)feet,
the Combined setback shall increase by six (6)inches for every one (1)foot
of building height above sixteen (16)feet.On lot 2 the southern sideya~d
setback shall be ten (10)feet and the northern sideyard setback shall be
fifteen (15)feet if the building heigbt is sixteen (16)feet or less;but if
the height exceeds sixteen (16)feet.the northernly setback shall increase by
one (1)foot for every one (1)foot of building height above sixteen (16)feet.
The front and rear yard setbacks shall conform to the approved Tentative Tract
~~p.Walls shall be limited to forty-two (42)inches in the sideyard setbacks.
F.No changes to the intent of the above provisions shall be made without written
approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
G.Residences contiguous to the site will be permitted and encouraged to join the
Homeowners AsSOCiation.
4.rolloving recordation of the CC&R's.the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of
the document to the Director of Planning.
S.Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is subject to the approval of Tentative Tratt
Map No.406~0 by the City Council without substantial changes or modifications hereto
(incJuding offers of dedication of land and casements).
Exhibit "AI<oC Resolution P.C.No.81-$7
ATTACHMENT 12-30
B.The use of native plant materials shall be incorporated in the landscape plan.
6.Final improvement plans for each lot and structure shall be submitted to tne
Director of Planning for revie~.Said plans shall include but not be limited
to plot plan,elevation drawings,grading and landscaping.The plot plan shall
clearly Bho~existing and proposed topography,all 6tructures,and all easements
and setbacks.All dwelling units shall be designed Bnd constructed so thaL the
plumbing and circulating system will allow utilization of solar energy as part
of the hybrid system for providing hot water.Solar panels shall not exceed
the ridgeline of the structure upon Which they are placed,Without ~~itten
approval from the City.
o-··>_·:~
7.Landacaping and irrigation plans (including street trees)shall be submitted
for approval to the Direc1:or of Planni.ng.Said plans shall include,but not
be limited to,proposed plant materials,walls/fences,and exterior lighting.
The final landscape plan shall be designed pursuant to the approved CC&Rs
and in a manner so that views from adjacent properties will not be significantly
aff~cted and 80 that solar access to all d"elli.ng units is protected.The
design of landscaping and structures using "passive solar"techniques is
encouraged.
11.Tennis court lighting is not permitted unless approval is granted in writing
from the Planning Commission.
9.The grading and 1.andscaping plan shall include provisions to provide temporary
landscaping on the individual lots after rough grading is completed to prevent
excessive soil erosion and adverse drainage aituations.
Within thirty (30)days of the approval of the tentative tract map,the developer
shall sub~t,in writing,a statement tbat he has read and understands the above
conditions.
Prior to recording the final map a landscape master plan shall be submitted by
the applicant for review and approval by the Planning Commission.The landscaping
in the sideyard setbacks of the bluff lots 2-17 will be reviewed with consideration
for maintaining the view corridors from Marguerite Drive.The approved landscape
plan shall be included in the approved CC&Rs.
On lots 1-25 the roof of the main structure must have a pitch of at least 2 in 12
except where it is necessary to have small areas with less Eitch in order to comply
~ith Building Code criteria.On lots 3-17 1 the ridge of the main structure must
be setbaCK ar least twenty (20)feet from the rear setback line unless the ridge is
approximately perpendicular to the bluff.
10.Prior to approval of the fi.nal map.the subdivider shall post s cash deposit,
bond,combination thereof or otber acceptable security to cover the cost of
constructing common fences approved by the Director of Planning.One fence
shall be Constructed adjacent to Palos V2rdes Drive ~est and the other fence
shall be constructed no closer tban twenty-five (25)feet inland of the bluff
top on lots 1-17.The fences must allow a minimum of ninety (90)percent
light nod air to allow for maximum view through the fence.The fences ~ust be
gated for ea~h lot in order to provide access for maintenance of the bluff top.
Stub fencing must be constructed on lots 3 and ]7 to prOVide for safety.Chain
link fencing shall not be permitted.
12.
14.
)
(
t.
'-
Exhibit "A"of Resolution P.C.No.81-57Page2
ATTACHMENT 12-31
Honorable Mayor and the City Council Members,
RECE\VED
.\lJL 13 2mO
plANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Purpose of this letter is to request to object the amendment of the CUP 68 on determination on regards
to landscape permit foliage conditions and enforcement of this code on the said homeowners 63,83
and 87 Marguerite Drive.
We understood the CC&R s and CUP clearly and hoped that the view will not get obstructed due to the
strict rules enforced by the RPV city and Planning commission and will be enforced by the CC&R sand
Enforced by the city and planning commission on this tract will protect our view.
Each home owner has been given these CC&Rs by the HOA when they purchased their homes through
escrow as we were so they are all aware of these regulations.
Some of these Marguerite Homeowners,Past LPHOA,and Past ECC,past Architectural committee and
past landscape committee knowingly allowed planting of multiple groups of trees and hedges that
violate the ridgeline height and foliage fence heights and coastal commission corridor view from
Marguerite Drive requirements.One of the homeowners specifically was a contractor now a board
member has signed off on the landscape permits with full knowledge of the mature height of the trees
that were planted.(There are 34 palm trees just between three homes 79,83 and 87)and (total of 54
palm trees and three trees between 6 homes 63,67,75,79,83and 87.)
When we purchased our home 73 Laurel Drive none of the trees were above the ridge line.Please see
attached picture taken in 1999 we purchased our home in 1997.
Trees were growing up and we brought to the attention of LPHOA board many times and each time not
much was done at all.
There are many reasons for this objection as you will see:
A)For many years view restoration has been requested to the HOA and many years we have been
ignored by all Marguerite home owners and LPHOA as they were the majority on the board.
B)Finally On December 2008 the board agreed to send a letter to all Marguerite home owners to
address this issue as I was requested by one of the Home owners and I was the landscape chair
and a board member at that time.Even after that no action further was taken by the board or
Homeowners on Marguerite drive not even regular trimming except one home owner who was
kind and trimmed.Only one home owner is following the rules exactly after his home was built
on Marguerite Drive till today in front of our home.
C)No action was taken for many months even after asking the board many times.We had no
choice but to request help from the city by filing "Notice of Intent to file a view Restoration
Permit".Only after the city got involved and visited the tract did the foliage owners bothered to
even trim their trees.See attached letter that was sent.
D)City suggested having mediation and we did so but after months of talking it failed as it would
not have restored our view.
E)We requested the city to enforce code on the three homes which has code enforcement.
ATTACHMENT 12-32
F)Meanwhile we continued to ask the board to follow up with our concerns as they hired a new
management company and the newly formed LPHOA board (majority are foiiage owners
involved in the mediation with the city)formed an EEC committee (also all Marguerite owners)
have now come to a conclusion that no further action on the foiiage or trees will be taken as
they feel there is no significant view obstruction.(see attached)Also there is a proposal to
change the CC&R for their benefit.
G)I am an existing board member as I had one more year to go but i have been compietely
ignored,disrespected and out voted by all the actions taken by the board.
H)Attached is our package given to the EEC to consider our before and after pictures of our view.
I)Why we have to go through view restorations process when some of the homes are violating the
existing landscape permits which can be enforced by the city now.As you can see LPHOA or
CC&Rs are not going to help us enforce any restrictions.
It has never been confusing to the current residents in Lunada Pointe they were all well aware and
were trying to avoid for many years so they may keep their trees and let them grow higher than the
ridgeiine as the ECC letter states they have been postponing to address this for the last 12 years.We
would not iike to see Catalina Island or any other of our view through 54 palm tree trunks even
when they have grown above ridge iine this is not a palm tree plantation we bought our home in.
We are being reasonable in asking only a certain percentage of palm trees to be decreased not even
100 %as the city rules should require originally in the CUP No.68 and CC&Rs.
Changing the language definitely makes it very difficult for us to prove significance after knowingly
the rules have been already broken from the beginning.
Our fiiing for "Notice of Intent to file a view Restoration Permit"was dated before these changes are
being done it was filed dated on existing CUP no.68 as well as any changes to the existing CC&Rs
are after the fact.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dinu Patel and Dr.Minakshi Dahya
73 Laurel Drive Home Owner
310-200-8290
CC:Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT 12-33
.J~T Pi ~T(i3 P-
c..Pt P;1.o ~7-"i €Pt fl.S
ATTACHMENT 12-34
103 -s,,,,,
".,-l'I\OS\-,~')~\
w~(1'-"''':.iA.~J.1A"u..~;n \'1'i-=tLY"I1 '.:,m t\I-eo--r(cld)
~\l:>t.ue..&~\i\~w"'~+--€.e..<;'c::t,cA no~c:.roH
,~d.~\.,;"e-.N 0 oio~\-r'-I.c..-h~'c>f:.\I~.
ATTACHMENT 12-35
MEDIA-tOP-.Is:flfc;IL;.[(ES;
'TV ('DENT\'F-'1 'tREES-
FP-OM Ou..R....\-tom E
'Po ~'f 112-<rY\fY\l N 6-
ATTACHMENT 12-36
t3~P-ofLE
'YrEH 75
SHe f\f 6-&'3 U V'i l!~<'71
\rl~fTFTEJ2-.-"e \MM\NCr ATTACHMENT 12-37
'f6H I l,..<2'wiS,
75 ,'f
Sr\tCN &~",p..TI,,"\'v...NA-T'~,
~3 <g::r
'.lleN \NC ...."'OIN&
'",-'-Ll70 V".n~C.,q);
AL....pA-g.rl~1-
CO""'-€fI5 ('6::')I U."",h"L~tB
ATTACHMENT 12-38
S"(Y\PtL-L PA-un'~
~t::t'fYO{)Em Bi mUQ-i P1=&+1 I E:.;;:r
TF.,Et;A-f\JJ)51)U,,,,i-j HED~BEfOPE.
'"TqL\'fY\'~\r-J 6-
~D «,11-1 1-1 cO&e'"1S2Pb (21:::
'Tf.2-\1'Y)yy\;N 6-ATTACHMENT 12-39
fllE[)6t?/tN-o f1Z-EG ~
A-FTE:P-'TJ2-l r("\M'vJ &.ij
/llnA-f)')~"NT Hc1)(..,-cJ772..r-;:;N vi l1e-i rrq'hC2J)ATTACHMENT 12-40
ATTACHMENT 12-41
ATTACHMENT 12-42
i 11tj~'.~.i.'I'··i~l..~~l!a>.J
"
~G
~.
r~;::..
",....
ATTACHMENT 12-43
.•4.~.x.~s®'S·t~\i.H
1.r.it..j fie''~,~
t~
11::I
II
2
ATTACHMENT 12-44
Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association
c/o Dawn Runyan
25004 Cypress Street
Lomita,California 90717-2029
Office 310-534-3366 Fax 310-534-3933
LPHOAla),pacbell.net
December 16,2008
To:79 Marguerite Drive;83 Marguerite Drive;87 Marguerite Drive;91
Marguerite Drive;95 Marguerite Drive.
Re:Compliance with View Preservation Guidelines
We have received complaints from several HOA members on Laurel Drive regarding
obstruction of ocean views resulting from trees and other foliage on the Marguerite
properties listed above.This concern was raised at the Annual Meeting of the members
on November 2,2008,as well as on other occasions.
Our CC&Rs and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have clear guidelines regarding
preservation of ocean views.The following are excerpts from our CC&Rs and the City
of RPV Guidelines regarding view restrictions:
CC&Rs,Section 20.View Restriction:
All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so that no tree or
group of trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.No tree
shall be planted in any location on a Lot that could reasonably be expected to
grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that Lot,as shown on
Exhibit C-l hereto,unless prior written approval is granted by the Planning
Commission of the City.
City of Rancho Palos Verdes View Restoration Guidelines,Section V.Subsection B:
B."Foliage exceeding sixteen (16)feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,
whichever is lower,significantly impairs a view from the applicant's viewing
area,whether such foliage is located totally on one property,or when combined
with foliage located on more than one property."
ATTACHMENT 12-45
Please assess the trees and other foliage on your lot to detennine how it obstructs your
neighbors'ocean views on Laurel Drive.Please trim and/or cut/remove your trees and/or
other foliage as necessary to comply with both our CC&Rs and the City ofRPV.
Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association
c/o Dawn Runyan
25004 Cypress Street
Lomita,California 90717-2029
Office 310-534-3366 Fax 310-534-3933
LPHOA@pacbeU.net
If you have any questions regarding which trees and/or other foliage on your property
are obstructing your neighbors'views,please meet with your Laurel Drive neighbors to
discuss the matter.Our understanding is that the following Laurel Drive properties suffer
from view impairment:73 Laurel Drive;77 Laurel Drive;85 Laurel Drive;97 Laurel
Drive.We are therefore,sending a copy of this letter to each of these residents.The
affected Laurel Drive residents have said they would welcome a meeting with you to
show you the obstruction of their views and discuss with you a reasonable plan for their
view preservation.
Attached is a neighborhood phone/contact list,so you may contact your neighbors.
We are confident this matter can be handled informally and amicably.
Sincerely,
Dawn Runyon,LPHOA Property Manager
Mina Dahya,LPHOA Landscaping Committee Chair
ATTACHMENT 12-46
Cc..+?-s
impede the drainage pattern within the Common'Area
which exists as of the date of the sale of the first Lot,or in
any way interfere with or impede the drainage from any private
patio area into,the drainage system established by Declarant,
without the Environmental Control Committee's prior approval.
Section 19.WATER SOFTENERS:
All water softeners installed in a Residence must be
commercially serviced.No Owner shall deposit or dispose,or
permit to be deposited or disposed,any salts or other
chemicals from water softeners in the sewage systems.
Section 20.VIEW RESTRIenOff~'
All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be
maintained so that no tree or group of trees significantly
obstructs views from adjacent properties.No tree shall be
planted in any location on a Lot that could reasonably be
expected to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation
assigned,to that Lot,as shown on Exhibit C-l hereto,unless
prior written approval is granted by the Planning Commission of
the City.In the event of a dispute between Owners with respect
to the obstruction of a view from a Lot,such dispute shall be
submitted to the Environmental Control Committee,whose
decision in such matters shall be binding upon such Owners.Any
such obstruction shall,upon request of the Environmental
Control Committee,be removed or otherwise altered to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Control Committee by the
Owner of the Lot upon which the obstruction is located.
The height of all structures end landscaping
vegetation shall not exceed the maximum ridge height as shown
on Exhibit:C-I,the tentative map.All structures shall
conform to the City's requirements as given in the conditions
of approval for Tract
40640.
Section 21.TRANSFER OF LOTS:
Upon the transfer of any Lot,the Owner shall provide
the transferee with a copy of the Maps,attached hereto as
Exhibits C-I,C-2,and C-3,prior to the closing of escrow or
recordation of transfer.
Section 22.EXCEPTIONS:
The covenants and restriction 3et forth in this
Article V or in Article VI below shall not and d not apply to
any of the following:
(a)Any act done or proposed robe done upon the
Property,or any condition created thereon,by any governmental
ATTACHMENT 12-47
TO;Lunada Pointe Environmental Control Committee
March 18"2010
Dear ECC Committee,lrv,Lee and Joe,
Thank -you for meeting with us on March 13'"2010 in reference to our view issues.
Our view issue involves the following homes;63(Sim),67 (Moshfeghi),75 (Yeh),79 (Lewis),83 (Sheng)
and 87(Unatin)Marguerite Drive.
As you well know we discussed this matter in great length during the annual meeting in 2008.The
Marguerite homes wanted to know which tree affects our view and they asked to specifically point out
each and every tree that blocks our view which we subsequently did.There was no follow up on this
issue by the foliage homeowners,the new board or an ECC.
We have had a very detailed proposal given to each home owner during our mediation with the city
with our photos clearly pointing out and identifying which trees block our view.Unfortunately the
mediation with the city has been unsuccessful.This dispute still stands with the city.
We are hoping that the ECC in all fairness will review the photos,one by the city (even though this is a
separate and independent dispute which was suppose to be confidential),three pictures by the
mediator (which were also suppose to be confidential to the mediation)and our pictures attached in
this package to clearly understand the exact view blocking trees and hedges.
Removal of some of the many trees that are bunched together will help restore some of our views of
the Ocean,off shore Island Catalina,Lighthouse,White waters and coastline on both sides of our home.
As we discussed during our meeting ECC will help resolve our request for restoration and future
preservation of our view.There is a clear violation of our rules,regulations and CC&Rs regarding
specifically view restrictions section 20 which also refers to Exhibit C-1 conditions of approval
requirement of our tract 40640 by the city.Also please refer to our landscape requirements for the
hedge heights and the set back requirements.(7.6)
In the last board meeting the board stated that the ECC finding s and resolutions on the view issue will
be final.
We feel this problem can be resolved among ourselves and we hope the ECC after reviewing all the
evidence and facts presented by both sides will fairly and independently reach an amicable decision.
With the amount of trees we are faced up with we feel we have asked a very reasonable amount of
trees to be cut to help restore our view.Out of the six homes who have a total of 57 trees (54 Palms and
3 other trees)we have only asked for 24 trees to be cut out of which three homes are common between
the Ballinger's and us so we have selected common trees to reduce amount of trees to be cut.The
diagrams attached are in the mediators own handwriting except for Sim's which I have drawn.5im's
home does not require any removal of trees only trimming down of hedges and trees to the required
ATTACHMENT 12-48
heights.We have allowed some of the hedge between Sim's home and Moshfeghi home to stay a
reasonable height for their privacy.
Remember we all bought our homes here for our views you can refer to our old pictures when the trees
had not yet reached the ridgeline.
Please feel free to contact us or email for any additional information or clarifications.We appreciate
your time and effort in trying to resolve this issue.
Please refer to the Ballinger package for our joint proposal.Same applies to the three homes affecting
us atone with these attached diagrams which also Includes 63,67 and 75 Marguerite.
Regards,
Dinu and Mina Dahya
ATTACHMENT 12-49
LUNADA POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
c/o HORIZON MANAGEMENT
21535 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD,SUITE 530
TORRANCE,CALIFORNIA 90503
ATTENTION:JOANN PARKS
May 14,2010
Minakshi Dahya
Dinu Patel
73 Laurel Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,Califomia 90275
Re:Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association ("Association")
Dear Minakshi and Dinu:
The ECC has been working very diligently on your claim that certain palm trees on your
neighbors'lots violate Article V,Section 20 of the Associations CC&R's and must be removed.
Section 20 states that:
"Section 20.View Restriction:
All landscaping (including parkway trees)shall be maintained so
that no tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from
adjacent properties.No tree shall be planted in any location on a
Lot that could reasonably be expected to grow beyond the
maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that Lot,as shown on
Exhibit C-l hereto,unless prior written approval is granted by the
Planning Commission of the City.In the event a dispute between
Owners with respect to the obstruction of a view from a Lot,such
dispute shall be submitted to the Environmental Control
Committee,whose decision in such matters shall be binding upon
such Owners.Any such obstruction shall,upon request of the
Environmental Control Committee,be removed or otherwise
altered to the satisfaction of the Environmental Control Committee
by the Owner of the Lot upon which the obstruction is located."
(Emphasis added.)
ATTACHMENT 12-50
Minakshi Dahya
DinuPatel
May 14,2010
Page 2
To assist the ECC in evaluating your complaint,the ECC has reviewed the View Restoration
Guidelines of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City").The Guidelines evaluate view
obstructions from a single viewing area (where the best and most important view exists).The
ECC has determined that the City's approach is both fair and reasonable.Accordingly,in
evaluating your complaint,the ECC has carefully considered the pictures taken by the City from
the "viewing area"on your property,and it has determined that:
1.The palm trees at issue do not significantly obstruct your view from the viewing
area designated by the City in the pictures (or any other viewing area for that
matter).
2.By their very nature,palm trees will always grow higher than the ridgeline
elevation,because a palm tree cannot be topped.The Association will
nonetheless reqUire that all palm trees in the Association be trimmed two times
per year to minimize any potential obstruction.
3.The trees and hedges located on the south side of 63 Marguerite Drive should be
trimmed to the standards set by the Association.
Other than as set forth above,the ECC has determined the no further action is warranted by the
ECC with this matter.
We hope you accept these conclusions,as we have tried our best to use the proper guidelines that
would best suit our small community now and into the future.
Regards,
Environmental Control Committee '
Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association
ATTACHMENT 12-51
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:m ballinger [mcballinger@hotmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 13,2010 11 :53 AM
To:joel rojas;amy trester
Cc:cballinger;m
Subject:Objection to Proposal to Initiate Amendment to CUP 68
Attachments:Objection to City Proposal to Amend CUP 68.docx
Dear Joel and Amy,
Attached is our Objection to the proposed amendment to CUP No.68,Case No.ZON2010-00185.
Please give a copy of our Objection to each of the City Council members for their review prior to
the July 20th meeting.As we told Amy yesterday,we may not be able to attend the meeting,so it
is important that the City Council members read our Objection before the meeting.
Also,thank you for confirming yesterday that the City does NOT intend to delete references in CUP
68 related to the City's requirement that prior written approval from the City must be obtained
before the subdivision can change any of the view restrictions set forth in CUP 68.
Regards,
Chris and Maria Ballinger
85 Laurel Drive,RPV
7113/2010 ATTACHMENT 12-52
July 13,2010
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Joel Rojas,Community Development Director
Amy Trester,Associate Planner
RECEIVED
JUL 13 2010
PlANNING,BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Re:Objection to Proposal to Initiate an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit o.68;
Case o.ZON2010-00185
Dear City Council Members,Mr.Rojas,and Ms.Trester:
We strongly object to the proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.68
pertaining to the Lunada Pointe subdivision.There is no legitimate basis for amending CUP 68.
On the other hand,if CUP 68 were amended,important property rights could be taken away from
residents of Laurel Drive,as well as RPV residents above Lunada Pointe.
Lunada Pointe consists oftwo streets:Marguerite Drive and Laurel Drive.Marguerite
Drive has all oceanfront homes.Laurel Drive is behind and above Marguerite.Given this
configuration,CUP 68's view restrictions were clearly aimed at Marguerite Drive,as those
oceanfront homes have the greatest potential for obstructing views.CUP 68 not only benefits
Laurel Drive residents,but also protects views of residents living above the subdivision,walking
on popular trails,or even driving along PV Drive.
The Public Notice we received states that the "proposed amendment would allow for the
property owners within the tract to seek remedies for any view impact caused by foliage owned
by other property owners within the tract,through the City's existing View Restoration Permit
process."This is a questionable statement,as Lunada Pointe residents already have that
right.Amending CUP 68 does not change that.City resources should not be spent
pursuing an amendment that weakens the existing remedies available to RPV residents and
the City.
Such an amendment would also set bad precedent for enforcing all other restrictions
the City has imposed or would like to impose in the future.By the logic of the proposal,the
City should also move to amend aU other permits of record in RPV that may not have the
exact same language as in the View Restoration guidelines.Otherwise,the City would be
discriminating against Lunada Pointe.All City permits issued in the past and the future
containing view restrictions could be in question.
The stated reason for pursuing this amendment is that some CUP 68 conditions are
inconsistent and need to be fixed in order to have the same language as the View Restoration
ordinance.CUP 68's conditions are not "inconsistent"at all,but rather complementary to each
other.CUP 68's view conditions include not "significantly obstructing views from adjacent
properties,"restricting foliage height to "maximum ridgeline elevation,"and requiring that the
final landscape plan "be designed pursuant to the approved CC&Rs and in a manner so that
views from adjacent properties will not be significantly affected."These conditions work
together,not separately.Each condition is a part ofthe whole.Inconsistent conditions would be
ATTACHMENT 12-53
if one section restricted foliage height to 16 feet,while another section set a restriction of 18 feet.
That is not the case here.
The view restrictions set forth in CUP 68 are necessary and important to protect the
spectacular views of all RPV residents behind Marguerite Drive.The need for that protection
has not changed,even though we also now have the View Restoration ordinance.The View
Restoration ordinance is less restrictive than CUP 68,and the intent of the View Restoration
ordinance was not to supersede existing view protections.Had the City intended for the View
Restoration ordinance to supersede pre-existing view rights established through its permits and
CUPs,it could have done so explicitly when the ordinance was originally passed.
Instead,the View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures itself acknowledges that
there may be differences in City rules:"Where this Ordinance is in conflict with other City
ordinances,the stricter shall apply."(View Restoration Permit Guidelines and Procedures,LB.).
Wllile a CUP is not a City ordinance,it is another City mandate and the stricter of the two should
apply.
The View Restoration process is intended for RPV residents who want help from the City
in restoring their views.CUPs are different in that they allow special use of a propelty subject to
certain conditions.The fact that there may be differences in a CUP and the View Restoration
guidelines is to be expected.For example,CUP 68 requires all landscaping to be "maintained so
that no tree or group of trees significantly obstructs views from adjacent properties.
Furthermore,no tree shall be planted in any location on a lot that could reasonably be expected
to grow beyond the maximum ridgeline elevation assigned to that lot..."This does not conflict
with the View Restoration ordinance,but establishes important conditions applicable to a new
development with oceanfront homes to ensure that views are preserved.
Amending CUP 68 would be unreasonable and unfair to Laurel Drive and other residents
who rely on the City for its enforcement powers.Among other things,it would unfairly shift the
cost burden of City enforcement to the resident seeking the City's help.The cost of correcting a
CUP violation is on the foliage owner,but under the View Restoration guidelines,the applicant
must bear the cost (over $5000 simply to file an application).The CUP is more akin to View
Preservation rather than Restoration,where the foliage owner bears the cost.
CUP 68 makes clear that view preservation was a significant concern to the City when
approving the development of Lunada Pointe.CUP 68 prohibits the subdivision from changing
the requirements set forth in the City permit "unless written approval is granted by the Planning
Commission ...No changes to the intent of the above provisions shall be made without written
approval from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes"(Resolution P.C.No.81-57,Exh.A,Sections
3.C.,F.).This is an important City requirement that insures the subdivision complies with the
City's goal of preserving views.
If the City relaxes the restrictions of CUP 68,the City may forever relinquish its rights to
enforce important restrictions that protect views from Laurel Drive,PV Drive and several
walking trails enjoyed by RPV residents.It puts the City in a position of taking sides in an HOA
dispute and removes any incentive for HOA residents to compromise and work together to
ATTACHMENT 12-54
achieve a mutually acceptable solution.It rewards a few residents who have willfully violated a
City CUP,while taking away important view rights from other residents who relied on CUP 68
when purchasing homes.The City should not change,but should enforce,CUP 68 as it was
written and intended.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris and Maria Ball inger
85 Laurel Drive,RPV
ATTACHMENT 12-55
Page 1 of 1
Amy Trester
From:Rosemary Miller [rose-miller@cox.net]
Sent:Tuesday,July 13,2010 10:09 AM
To:amyt@rpv.com
Subject:Fw:case no.zon201 0-00185 (conditional use permit)
----Original Message ---
From:Ros_emary Miller
To:a..!Il¥@LQv.com
Sent:Tuesday,July 13,2010 9:01 AM
Subject:case no.zon2010-00185 (conditional use permit)
Dear Ms.Trester
We are residents of Lunada Pointe-97 Laurel Drive.We bought this lot in 1989 and completed our dream house
in 1992.When we bought this property we were given the CC&R rules as was everyone else in the
development.The purpose of the rules regarding views are to protect the views of everyone in the development.
This enhances our enjoyment of our property as well as the value.It would be detrimental to the property
owners on Laurel Drive to change these rules or to amend them.We are asking that you do not change or
amend these rules in any way
Sincerely,
Rosemary and Richard Miller
97 Laurel Drive
7/13/2010 ATTACHMENT 12-56
From:Connie Sheng [consterj@yahoo.com]
Sent:Tuesday,July 13,20102:45 PM
To:Amy Trester
Subject:RE:Case No.ZON201 0-00185 (Conditional Use Pennit Amendment for
Lunada Pointe)
Amy:
I added a sentence to the bottom of my letter.Please use the revised version with regard
to the written comments for this issue.
In compliance with the Public Notice for Case No.ZON2010-00185 (Conditional Use
Pennit for Lunada Pointe),this will serve as a written comment on behalf of the
homeowners of83 Marguerite Drive.
As you know,the property located at 83 Marguerite Drive,Rancho Palos Verdes,
California 90275 (the "Property")was the subject of an unresolved view restoration
mediation involving numerous homeowners of Lunada Pointe.The mediation reached an
impasse as a result of inconsistencies between the Rancho Palos Verdes View Ordinance
and alleged permits for various properties at Lunada Pointe.As you know,the validity of
said permits are a point of contention between the City and the homeowners as they set
forth contradictory height conditions for foliage.
The validity of this alleged pennit was challenged on numerous grounds,including but
not limited to,the identity of the applicant,the date of issuance,the role the City played
in issuing and backdating a pennit to a defunct party when ownership of the Property had
already transferred to the current homeowners,the restrictive nature of the alleged pennit
which is over and beyond that required by the city code,and the lack of notice of the
permit or any permit proceedings to the homeowners.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes has a comprehensive ordinance which governs any
alleged view obstructions.To ensure consistency for residents of Rancho Palos Verdes,
the View Restoration Guidelines should be applied for purposes of any dispute between
the residents of Lunada Pointe.For purposes of efficiency and judicial economy,a
consistent application of the Code would benefit all parties as due process would ensure
that:(1)all neighbors are provided notice of any obligations to each other;(2)identical
regulations would apply to all;and (3)unifonn rulings could be entered between adjacent
neighbors.As such,we believe any conflicts regarding foliage should be dealt with
through the City's existing View Restoration Process.
To the extent the Lunada Pointe CC&Rs conflict with the proposed Conditional Use
Pennit No.68 or the View Restoration Guidelines,we believe the CC&Rs should
govern.We appreciate the opportunity to have the City Council review our comments
regarding this issues.
Regards,
The Homeowners of 83 Marguerite Drive
ATTACHMENT 12-57