RPVCCA_SR_2010_09_21_11_Modifications_To_Coastal_Specific_Plan_NanTasket_Residential_Development_Date:
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING
September 21,2010
California Coastal Commission Modifications to the Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment Pertaining to the Nantasket Residential
Development (Case Nos.SUB2008-00001,and ZON2008-00074
thru ZON2008-00078;Address:32639 Nantasket Drive,a Vacant
Lot Located on the West Side of Nantasket Drive Between
Beachview Drive and Seacove Drive)
Subject Property:32639 Nantasket Drive
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Wolowicz
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Senior Planner Schon born
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:N/A
Applicant:N/A
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Wolowicz
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
W:\AGENDA\Public Hearing Formats\public hearing format Council-Form 25 Nantasket sept 21 2010.doc
11-1
CrrvOF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS uI
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D1RECTO't}\~'
SEPTEMBER 21,2010
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS
TO THE COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
PERTAINING TO THE NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (CASE NOS.SUB2008·00001,AND
ZON2008·00074 THRU ZON2008·00078;ADDRESS:
32639 NANTASKET DRIVE,A VACANT LOT LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN
BEACHVIEW DRIVE AND SEACOVE DRIVE)
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER@~~
Eduardo Schonbom.AICP.Senior Plann~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No.2010-_,thereby accepting the modifications adopted by the
California Coastal Commission on August 13,2010 in regards to the City's coastal Specific
Plan and imposing new conditions on the four coastal development applications to ensure
their consistency with the modified Coastal Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND
On February 2,2010,the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider a subdivision
and a residential development on a vacant 1.42-acre lot along Nantasket Drive,in the
City's Coastal Zone.After discussing the merits of the project,the Council adopted
Resolution No.2010-08,certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration,and,adopted
Resolution No.2010-09,approving a General Plan Amendment,Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment,Zone Change,Vesting Tentative Parcel Map,Variance,Grading Permit,
Height Variations,and Coastal Permit,thereby facilitating development of four single-family
11-2
California Coastal Commission Modifications --Nantasket Residential Project
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
September 21 ,2010
residences on the vacant Nantasket Drive parcel (located between Seacove and
Beachview Drives).Final approval of the project was contingent upon the California
Coastal Commission's approval of the Coastal Specific Plan Amendment.Consistent with
the Council approved amendment,on March 17,2010,Staff submitted a LCP Amendment
to the California Coastal Commission to change the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use
designation of the subject site from Agriculture to Residential,and the zoning from
Commercial Recreation (CR)to Single-Family Residential (RS-3).Coastal Commission
Staff deemed the application incomplete pending submittal of additional information
regarding the agricultural use of the property.City Staff submitted a response to this
request on April 20,2010.After working with Coastal Commission Staff,the City's
application was deemed complete in May.Subsequently,the Coastal Commission
considered and approved the City's request at their August 13,2010 meeting in San Luis
Obispo.The Coastal Commission's approval,however,also included changes to the text
of the City's LCP and changes to the policies of the City's LCP that were not part of the
City Council's February 2nd approval.
Since the Coastal Commission's approval included additional changes to the City's LCP,
the additional changes must be accepted by the City Council.As such,in accordance with
the City's Development Code,Staff mailed notices to all property owners within a SOO-foot
radius from the subject property,including the Sea Bluff HOA and all interested parties,
informing them of the hearing before the City Council.The notice was also published in
the Peninsula News on September 2,2010,and posted on the City's website.As of the
preparation of this report,Staff has received no correspondence in response to the notice.
CODE CONSIDERATION
Municipal Code Section 17.78.040 sets forth the procedure for amendments to approved
applications.Specifically,this Code Section states in part,"The amendment to the project
shall be considered by the same body which took the final action in granting the original
application ...".Since the City Council was the City body which took the final action,the
Coastal Commission's approved amendments to the LCP that were not part of the City
Council's final action,must be reviewed by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
As stated above,on August 13th the California Coastal Commission approved the LCP
Land Use and zoning change to Residential.However,the Coastal Commission also
approved modifications to the text of the City's LCP and changes to the policies of the
City's LCP that were not part of the City Council's February 2 no approval.The Coastal
Commission's modifications to Subregion 2 of the City's Coastal Specific Plan involve the
following:
11-3
California Coastal Commission Modifications --Nantasket Residential Project
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
September 21 !2010
•Agriculture Section (page S2-7):deleted the paragraph that makes reference to
maintaining the subject property as Agriculture.
•Potential Activities Section (page S2-7):deleted the paragraph that makes
reference to a secondary use of the subject property as commercial recreation.
•Induced Activity Section (page S2-11 ):modified and edited the paragraph which
references the use of the subject property as Agriculture and Commercial
Recreation,and added language specifying that the land use ofthe subject property
is Residential.
•Transportation Systems Section (page S2-14):deleted the paragraph and
guidelines that relate to development of the subject property as a commercial
recreational facility.
•Policy NO.8 (page S2-16):modified and edited the policy to memorialize the
change in land use to Residential;and,added language requiring non-invasive
landscaping on the subject property so that the natural habitat areas on the abutting
T erranea Resort property are not adversely affected.
•New Policy No.1 0 (page S2-16):added new policy prohibiting the construction of
structures or gates within the public sidewalk that is adjacent to the subject property.
Attached,for the Council's review are the edited pages that show all the text revisions made
to Subregion 2 of the City's Coastal Specific Plan as approved by the Coastal Commission
on August 13,2010.The revisions are shown in bold underline for text that has been
added,and in strikethrough for text that has been removed.
As a result of this Coastal Commission action,Staff is now recommending that the City
Council adopt the same modifications to the City's Coastal Specific Plan and conversely
modify the conditions of approval for the four coastal development projects previously
approved by the City Council to ensure that the four new residences are developed in
compliance with said Coastal Specific Plan amendments.
Staff believes that the modified language approved by the Coastal Commission will provide
a more consistent document regarding the subject property,and provides additional
safeguards for the natural habitat area on the Terranea Resort property.Staff also
believes that accepting the modifications approved by the Coastal Commission does not
alter the intent or ultimate approval to allow residential development of the subject property.
As such,Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No.2010-_,thereby
accepting the modifications adopted by the California Coastal Commission on August 13,
2010.Staff has incorporated the new and modified policies into conditions of approval
Nos.47 and 60 in the attached Resolution.
11-4
California Coastal Commission Modifications --Nantasket Residential Project
Case No.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 thru -00078
(PM,GPA,ZC,CSP Amendment,CP,VAR,GR,HV &EA)
September 21,2010
FISCAL IMPACT
When the original 5-lot development project was before the City Council in 2007,the
Council ultimately denied the current applications and remanded the item back to the
Planning Commission.However,in doing so,the City Council directed that no new fees be
collected for resubmitted applications.As such,the cost of processing the applications and
the cost of processing this LCP Amendment have been borne by the City's General Fund.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2010-_,accepting the modifications associated with the Coastal
Commission's August 13,2010 approval,and approving the Vesting Parcel Map,
General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Coastal
Permit,Variance,Grading Permits and Height Variations
•Edited Version of Proposed Revisions to Subregion 2 of the Coastal Specific Plan
•Letter from Coastal Commission Staff dated September 9,2010,memorializing the
Coastal Commission's approval
•California Coastal Commission Staff Report,presented to the Coastal Commission
on August 13,2010 (with attachments)
11-5
RESOLUTION No.2010-_,ACCEPTING THE
MODIFICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S AUGUST 13,2010 APPROVAL,AND
APPROVING THE VESTING PARCEL MAP,GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT,COASTAL PERMIT,VARIANCE,GRADING
PERMITS AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS
11-6
RESOLUTION NO.2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE NOS.SUB2008-
00001 AND ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078 FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT AS APPROVED BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION,VESTING PARCEL MAP,VARIANCE,COASTAL PERMIT,
GRADING PERMIT AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE
FOLLOWING:GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CHANGE FROM
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL (CR)TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
TWO-TO-FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE;ZONE CHANGE FROM
CR TO RS-3;LAND DIVISION OF A 1.42-ACRE LOT INTO FOUR SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS;A VARIANCE TO ALLOW LOT DEPTHS OF
93-FEET INSTEAD OF 11 O-FEET;HEIGHT VARIATIONS TO ALLOW THE
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOTS 3 AND 4 TO EXCEED
THE 16-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITS;AND ALLOW A TOTAL OF 4,028 CUBIC
YARDS OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES ON FOUR NEW LOTS;ON AN EXISTING
VACANT LOT LOCATED 32639 NANTASKET DRIVE,WHICH IS ON THE
WEST SIDE OF NANTASKET DRIVE BETWEEN BEACHVIEW DRIVE
AND SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE (APN 7573-014-
013).
WHEREAS,on September 26,2006,November 14,2006,January 9,2007,March
13,2007,and March 27,2007,the Planning Commission considered Case Nos.ZON2005-
00536 and ZON2006-00180 thru -00182 for a proposed General Plan Land Use
Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a Coastal Specific Plan Land Use
Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a Zone Change from CR (Commercial
Recreational)to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential),a 5-lot subdivision and development of
five single-family residences on a vacant parcel on Nantasket Drive between Beachview
Drive and Seacove Drive (APN 7573-014-013);and,
WHEREAS,on April 24,2007,the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution
Nos.2007-29,2007-30 and 2007-31,recommending that the City Council certify the
Mitigated Negative Declaration;approve the Land Use Designation changes to Residential;
approve the Zone Change to RS-4 (Single-Family Residential);approve the single-family
residences on Lots 1 and 2;and deny the single-family residences on Lots 3,4,and 5 due
to these residences not being compatible with the immediate neighborhood with regards to
bulk and mass;and,
WHEREAS,on May 15,2007,the proposed project,along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation was presented to the City Council for consideration.After
hearing public testimony and discussing the merits of the project,the City Council denied
the applications and remanded the item back to the Planning Commission with instructions
that consideration be given to rezone the project from Commercial Recreational to RS-2 or
Resolution No.2010-09
11-7
RS-3,which are less dense residential zoning districts than the Planning Commission's
recommendation of RS-4;and,
WHEREAS,in response to the City Council's May 15,2007 directive,the property
owner/applicant submitted new applications on January 31,2008,which are the same
application types submitted in 2006 and 2007.However,the current proposal includes a
zone change to RS-3 instead of RS-4,which is a lower density;a 4-lot subdivision and
residential development instead of a 5-lot subdivision;Height Variation applications for
Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit;a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic
yards of grading to facilitate the construction of the new residences;and,continues to
propose a General Plan Land Use Designation Change from Commercial to Residential,a
Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation Change from Agricultural to Residential,a
Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of 93-feet instead of the 110-
feet lot depth requirement (hereinafter referred to as Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and
ZON2008-00074 thru -00078);and,
WHEREAS,on February 25,2008,Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru -00078 were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional
information;and,
WHEREAS,after submittal of additional information,including construction and
certification of the required temporary silhouettes,on September 29,2009 the applications
were deemed to be complete for processing;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulation,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(F)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined
that,by incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration,there is no
substantial evidencethat the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074
thru -00078,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Coastal Permit,Grading,and
Height Variations,would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly,a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and notice of that fact
was given in the manner required by law;and,
WHEREAS,the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were prepared and
circulated for public review between October 2,2009 and November 10,2009;and,
WHEREAS,on October 2,2009,the City mailed notices to all property owners
within a 500-foot radius from the subject property,including the Sea Bluff HOA,informing
them of the Planning Commission hearing to consider the pending development
applications.Further,the notice was published in the Peninsula News on October 8,2009.
11-8
WHEREAS,in accordance with the requirements of CEQA,a Mitigation Monitoring
program has been prepared,and is attached to the Environmental Assessment and
Resolution No.2010-08 as Exhibit "A";and,
WHEREAS,copies of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to
the Planning Commission,and prior to taking action on the proposed development
proposal,the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the
information and findings contained in the Negative Declaration and determined that the
document was prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and local
guidelines,with respect thereto;and,
WHEREAS,after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines,the Planning Commission
held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10,2009,at which time all interested
parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on November 10,2009,the Planning
Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2009-47,recommending that the City Council
certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-
00074 thru -00078;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on November 10,2009,the Planning
Commission adopted P.C.Resolution No.2009-48,recommending that the City Council
approve the land use amendments,zone change,and development project associated with
Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on February 2,2010,the City Council adopted
Resolution No.2010-08,certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and determining that
there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and
ZON2008-00074 thru -00078,otherwise known as General Plan Amendment,Zone
Change,Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,Vesting Parcel Map,Variance,Coastal Permit,
Grading,and Height Variations,would result in a significant adverse effect on the
environment;and,
WHEREAS,at a public hearing held on February 2,2010,the City Council adopted
Resolution No.2010-09,approving Case Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -
00078,for a General Plan Land Use change from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-
Family Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3;a
Parcel Map,subdividing a 1.42-acre lot into four single-family residential lots;a Variance to
allow lot depths of 93-feet instead of 11 O-feet;Height Variations to allow the new single-
family residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limits;and allow a total of
4,028 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the construction of single-family residences
on the four new lots;and,
WHEREAS,since final approval of the project was contingent upon the California
Coastal Commission approval of an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Plan (Le.,
Coastal Specific Plan),City Staff submitted a LCP Amendment to Coastal Commission
Staff on March 17,2010 to change the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation from
11-9
Agriculture to Residential,and the zoning from Commercial Recreation (CR)to Single-
Family Residential (RS-3);and,
WHEREAS,the City's LCP Amendment was accepted by the California Coastal
Commission Staff and identified as Local Coastal Program Amendment RPV-MAJ-1-10,
and subsequently deemed complete for processing in May 2010;and,
WHEREAS,on August 13,2010,the California Coastal Commission considered the
City's LCP Amendment,and approved the LCP Amendment with suggested modifications
to the text and policies of the City's LCP (i.e.,the City's Coastal Specific Plan);and,
WHEREAS,after issuing notice pursuant to the requirements of the City's
Development Code, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public
hearing on September 21,2010,to consider the Coastal Commission's suggested
modifications,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The proposed project is for a General Plan Amendment to change the
land use designation from Commercial Recreational (CR)to Single-Family Residential,2-
to-4 dwelling units per acre;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3;Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Residential;
subdivision of the existing 1.42-acre site to four single-family residential lots;development
of a single-family residence on each lot;a Variance to allow the four lots to maintain a lot
depth of 93-feet,which is less than the 11 O-foot lot depth requirement for RS-3 zoned lots;
a Grading Permit for approximately 4,028 cubic yards of total grading on all 4 lots to
accommodate the construction of a single-family residence on each lot;Height Variation
Permits for the single-family residential structures on Lots 3 and 4 (the 2 lots closest to Sea
Cove Drive),to exceed the 16-foot building height requirement;and,a coastal Permit for
development within the City's Coastal Zone.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 2:The City Council finds that the request for a General Plan Amendment,
which involves changing the Land Use designation from Commercial Recreational (CR)to
Single-Family Residential,2-to-4 dwelling units per acre is warranted for the following
reasons:
A.The size of the subject site,at 1.42-acres,does not meet the minimum development
site area for CR Zoned lots.The Development Code calls for CR Zoned lots to be a
minimum of 20-acres in area,and maintain a minimum of 250-feet of lot width and
150-feet of lot depth.The subject property,as a result of previous subdivisions,
maintains an existing lot depth of 93-feet,which does not conform to the current CR
Zoning standards.
11-10
B.The appropriateness of the site lends itself to the need within the community for the
proposed residential use,and is compatible with surrounding uses.A commercial
use would create more sensory impacts than a residential use with regards to hours
of operation,noise,and traffic circulation.The subject site is an existing in-fill site,
accessed from the residential streets of Beachview Drive,Nantasket Drive,and Sea
Cove Drive.Although the subject site abuts a commercial development,i.e.,the
Terranea Resort Hotel,to the immediate north,west,and south,there are also
single-family residences to the north and south of the subject site and a mUlti-family
residential development to the east,all within 500-feet of the subject site.Any
development would be required to front along Nantasket Drive,and either type of
development is anticipated to impact the adjoining commercial recreational,single-
family,and multi-family residences;however,a single-family residential
development on the subject site would have less impact on the adjoining residential
properties with regards to traffic,light,and noise pollution.As such,the Residential
land use is more compatible with the existing residential uses of the adjoining area.
C.Changing the land use to Residential brings it into consistency with the "Residential
type land uses found on the other properties along Beachview,Seacove and
Nantanket Drives,and is thereby internally consistent with the General Plan and is
not contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan.The General Plan states,
'The predominance of residential use [within the City}is based on several factors:
the ability of residential activity to produce low environmental stress,the
geographical location of the community with no major transportation facilities,lack of
market potential for any major commercial,and need for support facilities only to
meet the community's demand"(General Plan Page No.194).Additionally,the
General Plan states,"Commercial uses tend to have environmental impacts unless
small in scale and very carefully designed"(General Plan Page No.196).Even
though this site is small in scale,it is currently vacant,and any commercial venture
would cause impacts to the area that would be considered more intrusive than what
could be found from a residential development.More specifically,residential uses
tend to generate less vehicle trips,create less noise,and have less light and glare
impacts than commercial uses.Thus,the General Plan Amendment to Residential
will be in the public's interest,and the General Plan Amendment is appropriate.
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 3:The City Council finds that the request for a Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment,which involves changing the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation from
Agricultural to Residential,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.With respect to commercial recreational development on the subject site,the
Coastal Specific Plan states that "access should not be taken from Nantasket
Drive (in Subregion 3)since it is designated as a residential street and
commercial traffic would in all likelihood cause significant problems."Currently,
Nantasket Drive is used to access the existing single-family and multi-family
residential developments along Beachview Drive and Sea Cove Drive.
11-11
Additionally,vehicular access from the privately owned Terranea Resort Hotel to
the su bject site does not exist and it is not likely that a driveway easement would
ever be created to facilitate vehicular access to the site so that access to the site
is not via Nantasket Drive.Thus,a CR development on the subject site would be
inconsistent with this policy direction of the Coastal Specific Plan.
B.The Coastal Specific Plan speaks of potentially adverse impacts resulting from a
CR development on the adjoining residential developments in Subregion 3.In
general,a single-family residential use on the site would be a less intensive use
of the subject site than were it developed with a comparable sized commercial
development when examining the potential traffic,noise,and light pollution
generated from the site.Further,a residential development would be more
compatible with the existing residential uses in the adjoining area.Furthermore,
the development of a CR use on the subject site would result in an appearance
incompatible with the existing single-and multi-family uses in the adjoining
areas.For instance,the site being used as a commercial filming site,a recycling
facility,a helistop,or a small hotel,etc.,would erode the character of the
neighborhood,which is primarily composed of single-family and multi-family
residential structures.
C.The current Agricultural Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Designation is
inconsistent with the current Commercial-Recreational General Plan Land Use
Designation,and changing the land use designation to Residential will be
compatible with the proposed revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
designations.Further,the size of the subject property,at 1.42-acres,is too
small to conduct a viable agricultural use on the property.
Section 4:Subregion 2 of the City's Coastal Specific Plan is hereby amended to
read as follows (the bold underlined text represents new language and strikethrough text
represents deleted text):
Agriculture Section (page S2-7):
"AGRICULTURE
The most extensive agricultural operation in the area takes place on a 17 acre site
located at the eastern extremity of this Subregion.This site is currently leased for
$800 per year from Palos Verdes peninsula unified school district,which has
declared the site surplus and intends to sell it in the near future.Additional
agricultural activity takes place on an undeveloped portion of Marineland's site.The
grain and tree farming activities are bounded on the south by Marineland's access
road and on the north by Palos Verdes drive south.
The ooastal speoifio plan makes a primary effort to maintain agrioultural aotivityon
the 17 aore sohool site.This astion is \Narranted beoause of the site's high orop
yield,irrigation and substantial site size.In order to maintain the aotivity,the oity
needs to add an agrioultural distriot to its development oode and apply it to this site.
11-12
Maintaining agriculture on this site is contingent on the site not being needed for a
school,and sufficient funding from other agencies being available for purchase of
the site.Should these conditions not be met,then the plan recommends a
secondary use of commercial recreation as proposed by the general plan."
Potential Activities Section (pages S2-7 and S2-8):
"POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES
The only totally undeveloped site capable of supporting new activity is the 17 acre
site owned by the school district.The district had intended to use this site for
development of an intermediate school;however,enrollment studies done by the
district did not substantiate the need for an additional school in this vicinity.
Therefore,the site has been found potentially surplus and may be sold in the next
few years.The site's gentle topography and its lack of biotic resources and geologic
constraints make it a desirable area for supporting structured activities.
Additional potential activity is presented on those areas which presently have limited
site development.This potential is reflective of site buildout and is discussed below
under each site's respective land use designation.
Should the primary aim of maintaining agriculture on this site prove unworkable,
then a secondary proposal of commercial recreation should be implemented.
Development under a commercial recreational use would raise two concerns.One,
the point of primary access which is discussed under vehicular net\vorks and should
be referred to therein;and t\vo,possible adverse impacts onto adjoining residential
areas located in Subregion 3.Site planning efforts need to be cognizant of
adjoining residential areas.Buffer areas should be supplied along the site's
common property lines along with the shielding of any outdoor lighting.Noise should
be retarded at the generating sources.A critical view corridor traverses the site
(see corridor section)requiring structural improvements to be carefully reviewed in
the affected area.Also,consideration should be given to a development's
appearance from residential areas."
Induced Activity Section (page S2-11 ):
"INDUCED ACTIVITY
The general plan designates a commercial recreational use for the 17 acre
surplused school site.The coastal specific plan changes this proposal.It
designates a land use of residential for the 1.4-acre parcel on the eastern
boundary near Nantasket Drive on the site and a commercial recreation use
on the remainder.Primary use of agriculture on the site,a secondary use of
commercial recreation,and encouragement of a retirementlsenior citizen/fixed
income facility on a portion of the site.Aside from this,the coastal specific plan
concurs with land uses established in the general plan."
11-13
Transportation Systems Section (page S2-14):
VVith respect to the future potential development of the school site as a commercial
recreation facility (secondary use),this plan does not identify specific recommended
uses;however,the following are guidelines which should be considered in any such
development plans:
1)access should not be taken from Nantasket drive (in Subregion 3)
since it is designed as a residential street and commercial traffic
'1/ould in all likelihood cause significant problems.
2)the project proponents should investigate the possibility of sharing
access with Marineland through the use of appropriate legal methods.
3)parking and access should be designed so that it is sufficiently
buffered from existing and future residential development."
Policy No.8 (page S2-16):
"8.Change the primary land use on the designate as agricultural use on 1.42-
acre site,which was subdivided from the former Abalone cove school
site,located on the west side of Nantasket Drive adjacent to the
Terranea Hotel Resort site in the event that the property is not required for
construction of a school and if sufficient non city funds are made available to
the city through the coastal conservancy (or other funding)for purchase of
the site.A secondary use designation shall be commercial recreation and
encouragement of a retirement/senior citizen/fixed income facility on a
portion of the site.from agriculture to residential.
Parcels adjacent to the natural habitat areas created as mitigation for
development of the Terranea Resort Hotel including the residential parcels
along Nantasket Drive to the east shall be required to use onIv non-invasive
plant species,as identified by the California invasive pest council (cal-IPC)
or the Santa Monica Mountains Chapter handbook entitled Recommended
List of Native Plants for Landscaping in the Santa Monica Mountains.In
addition,all landscaping shall be required to consist of primarily native,
drought resistant species and all landscaping within 15 feet of the rear
property line adjacent to the natural habitat area shall consist of non-
invasive,native plant species only.Fuel modification for parcels adjacent
to the Terranea Resort Hotel shall not be carried out in native habitat zones
created as a part of the Terranea Resort."
New Policy No.10 (page S2-16):
"10.The sidewalk along Nantasket Drive,which connects to the Flowerfield
trail on the Terranea Resort site shall remain open to the public and no
physical obstructions such as gates or guardhouses or signs that
restrict public access to the trail shall be allowed on or fronting
Nantasket Drive."
11-14
ZONE CHANGE
Section 5:The City Council finds that the request for a Zone Change,which
involves changing the underlying Zoning of the subject property from CR to RS-3,is
warranted for the following reasons:
A.In order to bring the zoning in compliance with the proposed General Plan Land
Use Designation,the project warrants the subsequent change of the site's
zoning designation from CR (Commercial Recreational)to RS-3 (Single-Family
Residential,two-to-four dwelling units per acre).By changing the zoning,the
land use on the subject site would be consistent with the adjacent residential
areas and the General Plan.
B.An RS-3 zoning of the property provides a transitional neighborhood between
the existing RS-1 zoned properties to the south along the bluff on Sea Cove
Drive and the RS-4 zoned properties that exist to the north (i.e.,the Sea Bluff
community).Further,an RS-3 zoning designation is a suitable zoning
designation for the subject property.Although there is no other RS-3 zoning in
close proximity to the proposed project site,an RS-3 zoning would provide a
transitional zoning district not only between the RS-1 zone to the south and the
RS-4 zone to the north,but also between the non-conforming multi-family
development to the east and the open space of the T eranea site to the west;
therefore the zone change is appropriate.
VESTING PARCEL MAP
Section 6:The City Council hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide the existing 1.42-acre lot into four single-family residential lots for the following
reasons:
A.Since the General Plan Land Use designation changes from Commercial
Recreational to Single-Family Residential,and the zoning changes from CR to
RS-3,the subject site is located in an area designated as Residential,two-to-
four dwelling units per acre (RS-3).Vacant land designated in this density range
has low to moderate physical and social constraints,and the density is
compatible with the adjacent existing densities,which range from one d.u.lac
(along Seacove Drive)to 4-6 d.u.lac (along Beachview Drive).The proposed lot
sizes range between 14,081 square feet and 17,704 square feet,which are
consistent with the RS-3 zone,which requires a minimum lot size of 13,000
square feet.
B.The subject application permits the division of a 1.42-acre lot into four residential
lots,which will maintain a minimum lot area of 13,000 square feet and a
minimum contiguous lot area of 4,290 square feet,as required by the City's
11-15
Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance for lots located within the
designated RS-3 zoning district.
C.The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of the
development in that the proposed subdivision will result in four residential lots
that will each have a gross lot area that exceeds the 13,000 square foot
minimum area required by the City's Development Code for the RS-3 zoning
district.Further,the proposed lots will exceed the minimum 4,290 square feet of
contiguous land requirement.The proposed contiguous lot area of each lot will
be large enough to accommodate a residence that complies with the standards
set forth in the City's Development Code for an RS-3 zoning district,as it
pertains to structure size,lot coverage,and setbacks.
D.The proposed division of land will not cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife ortheir habitat.According to
the City's most recent Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP),no
Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or sensitive species have been identified on the
subject property.Further,the proposed Initial Study determined that the
potential impacts to the surrounding environment would not result in a significant
effect that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the appropriate
mitigation measures.
E.The proposed division of land will not cause serious public health problems.The
proposed residences will have to be constructed in conformance with the
recommendations of the City's Geotechnical Consultant who has reviewed the
proposed division of land site plan during the planning stage and identified no
significant concerns.Further review and approval of geotechnical reports will be
required prior to the issuance of grading permits and at the time the lots are
developed.Additionally, the applicant will also be required to make certain
public improvements to ensure that the residential development will not be
detrimental to the public's health and safety as set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program,Exhibit "A",attached to Resolution No.2010-08,and
incorporated into the scope of the proposed project.
F.The proposed division of the land will not be in conflict with the easements,
acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,property within the
proposed subdivision.The existing 30-foot wide access easement to the benefit
of the City on the northernmost end of the site exists,which was created to
provide access to the adjoining property to the west,now Terranea Resort Hotel
site.However,since the Terranea Resort Hotel provides its own access,this
access point is no longer necessary and can be vacated.Vacation of said
easement shall be done prior to Final Parcel Map approval and/or issuance of
any grading/building permits.
11-16
VARIANCE
Section 7:The City Council finds that the request for a Variance to allowthe four
lots to maintain a lot depth of 93-feet,which is less than the 11 O-foot lot depth requirement
for RS-3 zoned lots,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.There are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved,or to
the intended use of the property,which do not apply generally to other property
in the same zoning district to warrant an approval of a variance to allow for
nonconforming lot depths of 93-feet,which does not comply with the 11 O-foot
minimum requirement for RS-3 zoned lots.Specifically,the subject site has had
a nonconforming lot depth upon its creation by the City under any zoning district.
B.The approval of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right of the applicant,which right is possessed by other
property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.The property
right in question is the applicant's ability to develop the subject site,in
accordance with the Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act;thus a
variance is necessary to ensure the applicant's property right to develop single-
family residential lots,which is a right that other property owners of Residentially
zoned and designated properties maintain.With the exception of the
nonconforming lot depth,the proposal satisfies the minimum contiguous lot
area,minimum lot size,and minimum lot width requirements.
C.Granting the variance for these four lots created with nonconforming lot depths
will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements
in the area since a residential development will bring compatibility to the existing
residential use in the adjoining area.The lot depth deficiency does not result in
a deficient rear yard setback,as the residences will maintain rear yard setbacks
that exceed the minimum requirement.This is further augmented with the fact
that the rears of the parcels abut the golf course area which provides for
additional open area.Thus,there is no impact upon the appearance of the
residences,the appearance of the lots or to the location of the residences since
they do not have to encroach into any required setback area.
D.Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives ofthe General Plan or
the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan.The development of
single-family residential structures on the four lots is consistent with the
underlying Residential Land Use designation since the Development Code
allows for subdivision of land,provided that such proposal meet the minimum
conditions as warranted by the Subdivision Map Act and City's Development
Code.As concluded,the new residential lots will not be detrimental to the public
welfare,or injurious to property and improvements in the area,which is
consistent with the General Plan's goal to protect the general health,safety,and
welfare of the community (Land Use Plan,Page 192-193).Further,the new
residential lots are consistent with General Plan Housing Policy No.3 to
"[encourage]and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing
11-17
residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards ofhousing
quality and design."Thus,granting the variance will not be contrary to the City's
General Plan.
COASTAL PERMIT
Section 8:The City Council finds that the request for a Coastal Permit to allow
the development project within the "appealable area"of the City's Coastal Zone is
warranted for the following reasons:
A.For the reasons specified in the General Plan Amendment,Zone Change,
Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,and Subdivision sections above,the project
is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.
B.The proposed project,when located between the sea and the first public road,is
consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal
Act.The proposed land use change,the division of land and subsequent
development of four single-family residential structures are confined to the
property limits and will not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea
since the subject property does not abut the coastline.Further,the proposed
development of residences on the lots is not anticipated to interfere with the
existing unique water-oriented activities,such as the Point Vicente Fishing Point
or other recreational uses,which can be engaged in near the shoreline.
GRADmGPERWT~O~1~RU~
Section 9:The City Council finds that the request for a Grading Permit to conduct
4,028 cubic yards of total grading on all 4 lots to accommodate the construction of a single-
family residence on each lot,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.The grading proposed does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot.The subject properties will be designated and zoned RS-
3 (Single-Family Residential),which permits single-family residential
development.The grading will facilitate construction of the new residential
structures.Terracing the subject 1.42-acre lot by means of grading will
accommodate the new construction of four residences on the four lots that are
created by the subdivision.In addition,the grading will facilitate a basement for
the residence on Lot 3.Although it is to increase the residential square footage
on this lot,the grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary uses of the lots since a single-family residence is classified as a
permitted primary use in the RS zoning district.Further,the proposed terracing
has been designed to follow the existing street grade and the basement will not
be evident from the surrounding residences or from the street.
11-18
B.The proposed grading and/or related construction will not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with,or the views from the "viewing area"of
neighboring parcels.The grading will not affect the maximum ridgeline
elevations forthe new residences.Lots 1 and 2 are considered sloping lots,and
new structures are limited to 16-feet in height as measured from the highest
preconstruction grade elevation covered by structure,and 30-feet as measured
from the lowest finish grade elevation covered by structure,to the highest
ridgeline elevation.The new residences on Lots 1 and 2 are at ridgeline
elevations that are 16-feet or less above the highest preconstruction grade
elevation covered by the proposed structures.Further,the overall heights of
these residences on Lots 1 and 2 will be 24.1-feet as measured from the highest
ridgeline elevations down to the finish pad elevations covered by the structures.
Although fill is proposed on Lots 1 and 2,the fill does not result in a higher
ridgeline elevation than what is allowed "by-right".Rather,the fill is a function of
the sloping lot condition,which results in a split-level design,but does not result
in a higher ridgeline elevation than what is allowed "by-right",and does not result
in higher structures than what can be built in the same location on the lots if
measured from existing grade.
Lots 3 and 4 also contain fill;however,similar to the grading for lots 1 and 2,the
fill on these lots is provided so that there is no crawl space under the up-slope
portion of the new residences.Although Lots 3 and 4 will be constructed with
grading that does not artificially raise the grade for the proposed residences,the
ridgeline elevations of these residences exceed the 16-foot height limits,and are
thus subject to Height Variations,which can be approved for the reasons stated
below.
C.The nature of proposed grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours
and finished contours so that they will be reasonably natural.The existing
contours of the project site are not the original natural contours,partly as the
result of past farming on the subject site until the late 1980s.The subject site is
a gently sloping lot with steeper slopes around the front edge of the lot.The
subject lot is proposed to be re-contoured in a manner to minimize change to the
existing contours.
D.The grading proposed takes into accountthe preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-
made or manufactured slope into natural topography.The existing "natural"
contours of the project site are partly the result of human alteration in the past.
Thus,there are no significant natural topographic features that would be
disturbed by the proposed grading.
E.The proposed grading is associated with the construction of residences on these
lots;therefore,a Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis of the proposed
residences is warranted.For the purposes of conducting a Neighborhood
Compatibility Analysis,the current project constitutes its own immediate
neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood compatibility analysis,which
is consistent with the City Attorney's previous opinion on performing a
11-19
neighborhood compatibility analysis for the proposed project and is supported by
the City Council approved Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines.According to
the Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines,"for purposes of Neighborhood
Compatibility,the immediate neighborhood is normally considered to be at least
the twenty (20)closest residences within the same zoning district."Since the
Zone Change allows for RS-3 zoning of the subject property and since there are
no other RS-3 zoned properties in the area,this creates its own neighborhood
and creates a transition between the existing RS-1 and RS-4 zones that are to
the north and south of the subject site.
The structure sizes and lot coverages are significantly less than the previous
project,and are consistent with the neighborhoods to the north and south of the
subject site,which are in different zoning districts than the subject property.
Notwithstanding,the residential development will comply with and exceed the
minimum setback standards for RS-3 zoned lots.With regards to fagade
treatments,the new residences will incorporate smooth stucco finishes,hip-
pitched roofs and clay tile roof materials,which is consistent with the materials
found in the residential developments in the area.Lastly,with regards to bulk
and mass,the applicant has modified the proposed architectural design of the
residences to address the concerns that led to the denial of the previous
proposal.
F.The project conforms to all the City's grading criteria in that the grading will be
conducted in a manner that facilitates construction of the residences with a split-
level design that slopes with the topography of the site.The grading will not be
conducted on extreme slopes,no slopes steeper than 2:1 will be created,and
the retaining walls will be under the building footprints to accommodate for the
split-level designs.
HEIGHT VARIA TlONS (LOTS 3 AND 4)
Section 10:The City Council finds that the request for Height Variation permits to
allow for the construction of single-family residences on Lots 3 and 4 that exceed the 16-
foot height limit,is warranted for the following reasons:
A.The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City by providing addressed,stamped/pre-paid postage
envelopes,a copy of the mailing list,reduced copies of the plans,a letter with a
description of the proposed project,along with a $10.00 fee,to the City for
mailing.The City mailed the envelopes on August 28,2009,which satisfied this
finding.
B.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory,which the
Development Code defines as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of
hills,bluffs,or highlands,while a promontory is defined as a prominent mass of
land,large enough to support development which overlooks or projects onto a
11-20
lowland or body of water on at least two sides.The subject property and the
new single-family residences are proposed to be on a lot which was previously
used as farmland and is gently sloping,which is not considered a ridge or
promontory.
C.The proposed structures comply with all other Code requirements.The
proposed residences meet or exceed the minimum Development Code
standards with regards to lot coverage and setbacks.The residences will be
constructed outside of any required setbacks.Lastly,the resulting lot coverages
will be 37%for Lot 3 and 34%for Lot 4,which is less than the 45%maximum
permissible by the RS-3 zoning district.
D.As indicated above in the Grading Permit Section,the current project constitutes
its own immediate neighborhood for the purpose of the neighborhood
compatibility analysis.
E.Several view analyses were conducted from residences in the Sea Bluff
Community,which identified two residences at 6617 and 6619 Beachview Drive
as containing views.Further,view analyses were conducted from the Villa
Apartments;however,consistent with the City's Height Variation Guidelines,one
unit in each structure of the apartment complex was identified to be ",...where
the best and most important view is taken"(Page 2,Height Variation Guidelines,
April 20,2004).The three units were units #334,#45 and #88,which have views
in the direction of and over the subject property_Thus,the portions of the new
residences on Lots 3 and 4 that are above 16-feet will not significantly impair a
view or cause significant cumulative view impairment from the viewing area of
another parcel as follows:
Beachview Residences:
i.The angle of the view,the topography of the area,and the location of
the residences on the proposed lots results in a Lot-4-residence that
is only partially visible from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive
since the proposed residence on Lot 3 will screen most of the
proposed residence on Lot 4.In light of the whole view that is
obtained from the viewing area at 6619 Beachview Drive,the
proposed residences on Lots 3 and 4 will only encroach into the lower
part of the view frame,obstructing a small amount of ocean view.
However,a large portion of the ocean will continue to be
unobstructed,and the view of Catalina Island will not be impaired by
these structures;thus,the proposed structures will not result in
significant view impairment.
Villas Apartments:
ii.Three units (one in each structure)were identified as having the best
and most important views,which are units #334,#45 and #88.These
11-21
units have views over the subject property.Staff's view analyses of
the previous project concluded that the previous project significantly
impaired the view from only Unit #45.Since the proposal has been
modified,Staff conducted new view analyses from the same three
units on November 4,2009.Based upon the analyses,Staff has
concluded that the new project will not cause any view impairment to
Unit #334 in structure 1 (closest to Beachview Drive)and Unit #88 in
structure 3 (closest to Seacove Drive).With regards to Unit #45 in
structure 2 (located between the aforementioned structures),the
proposed residence on Lot 3 will impair the view of the Teranea hotel,
which is not a significant impairment.The residence on Lot 4 will
impair some ocean view at the bottom of the view frame,but the view
of Catalina Island will not be impaired.Although some ocean view will
be impaired,the amount of view impairment is minimal,is located at
the periphery of the view frame,and Catalina Island is not impaired;
thus,the structure on lot 4 will not result in significant view
impairment.
Section 11:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 ofthe California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable shortened period of limitations.
Section 12:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the California Coastal Commission Staff Report considered by the Coastal
Commission on August 13,2010,Planning Commission and City Council Staff Reports,
Environmental Assessment and other components of the legislative record,in the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,and in the public comments received by the City
Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the
modifications approved by the California Coastal Commission on August 13,2010 for Case
Nos.SUB2008-00001 and ZON2008-00074 thru -00078 subject to the conditions in Exhibit
B attached hereto,thereby allowing a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u.lac);a Coastal Specific
Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to Residential;a
Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);a 4-lot subdivision and
residential development;a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to maintain a lot depth of
93-feet;a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading to facilitate the
construction of the four new residences;Height Variation applications for the new
residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot height limit;and,a Coastal Permit to
allow the development within the appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone.
11-22
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 21 st day of September 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the
above Resolution No.2010-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on September 21,2010.
Carla Morreale,City Clerk
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
11-23
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS.SUB2008-00001 &ZON2008-00074 THRU -00078
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,ZONE CHANGE,
COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT,VESTING PARCEL MAP,VARIANCE,
COASTAL PERMIT,GRADING PERMIT,AND HEIGHT VARIATIONS (LOTS 3 &4)
GENERAL
1.This approval is for a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use
Designation from Commercial Recreational to Residential (2-4 d.u.lac);a Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Agriculture to
Residential;a Zone Change from CR to RS-3 (Single-Family Residential);a 4-lot
subdivision and residential development;a Variance to allow the RS-3 zoned lots to
maintain a lot depth of 93-feet;a Grading Permit for a total of 4,028 cubic yards of
grading to facilitate the construction of the four new residences;and Height
Variation applications for the new residences on Lots 3 and 4 to exceed the 16-foot
height limit.
2.Final approval of this project shall be contingent upon approval of the Coastal
Specific Plan Amendment by the California Coastal Commission.
3.The property owner/applicant shall submit a trust deposit in an amount deemed to
be appropriate by the Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement for the
City to submit the necessary applications for an Amendment to the City's Coastal
Specific Plan.
4.Within ninety (90)days of this approval,the applicant and/or property owner shall
submit to the City a statement,in writing,that they have read,understand and agree
to all conditions of approval contained in this approval.Failure to provide said
written statement within ninety (90)days following the date of this approval shall
render this approval null and void.
5.The developer shall supply the City with one mylar and 12 copies of the map after
the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
6.This approval expires twenty-four (24)months from the date of approval of the
vesting parcel map by the City Council,unless extended per Section 66452.6 ofthe
Subdivision Map Act and Section 16.16.040 of the Development Code.Any request
for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing prior to the
expiration of the map.
7.With the exception of the lot depth requirement,all lots shall comply with the lot
criteria required by the Development Code for the RS-3 Zoning District,including the
13,000 square foot minimum lot area and the 4,290 square foot minimum
contiguous lot area.
11-24
8.Unless specific development standards for the development of the lots are
contained in these conditions of approval,the development ofthe lots shall comply
with the requirements of Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code.
9.All mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program
contained in Resolution No.2010-08 for the Mitigated Negative Declaration,shall be
incorporated into the implementation of the proposed project and adhered to,and
are incorporated herein by reference.
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.69928
10.The proposed project approval permits the subdivision of the existing 1.42 acre
subject parcel into four separate parcels as shown on the Vesting Tentative Parcel
approved by the Council.Parcel #1 shall measure 14,402 square feet;Parcel #2
shall measure 15,567 square feet;Parcel #3 shall measure 14,081 square feet;and
Parcel #4 shall measure 17,704 square feet.
11.Prior to submitting the Final Map for recording pursuant to Section 66442 of the
Government Code,the subdivider shall obtain clearances from affected
departments and divisions,including a clearance from the City's Engineer for the
following items:mathematical accuracy,survey analysis,correctness of certificates
and signatures,etc.
12.An agreement shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City
Attorney prior to recordation of Final Map,and shall be made part of the recordation
of the Final Map.Said agreement shall hold the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
harmless from death,damage and injury resulting from golf balls going onto the four
lots approved by Tentative Parcel Map No.69928.
13.Installation of gates that allow for direct access from any lot of Parcel Map No.
69928 onto the Terranea property shall be prohibited.
14.The Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Amendment shall be approved by the
California Coastal Commission prior to submitting the Final Map for recording
pursuant to Section 66442 of the Government Code.
15.The thirty-foot wide access easement across the property in favor of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes shall be abandoned by the City prior to the recordation of the
Final Parcel Map.The developer shall pay all applicable costs relating to the
abandonment of the easement and the process relating thereto.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 1211-25
PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEER CONDITIONS
16.Final Parcel Map shall be recorded for the site.
a.A Termination of Offer of Dedication shall be made for any offer of dedication
previously rejected and shall be deemed to be terminated upon the approval of
the map by the legislative body.The map is required to contain a notation
identifying the offer or offers of dedication deemed terminated by Section
66477.2(e)of the SMA.
b.The PVPUSD easement(s)shall be abandoned priorto recordation of the Final
Parcel Map,and the developer shall provide the City with confirmation that the
easement has been formally abandoned prior to the recordation of the final
parcel map_
c.ADA accessibility easements shall be provided for public sidewalk as required
at the top of all driveways or ramps
17.Per the City Engineer,subject to review and approval by the Director of Public
Works,the following items shall be constructed,or the construction shall be
guaranteed by surety or cash bond accompanied by a subdivision improvement
agreement,prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map:
a.The developer shall remove and replace any damaged or off-grade portions of
the existing curb and gutter and replace it,in kind,with A2-200(8)curb and
gutter per APWA Standard Plan 120-1 for the entire project frontage length of
Nantasket Drive -to match existing.
b.The developer shall remove and replace any damaged or off-grade portions of
the existing sidewalk and replace it with four-inch thick,4-foot wide portland
cement concrete sidewalk for the entire project frontage length of Nantasket
Drive.
c.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,the developer
shall provide for crack filling and slurry sealing throughout the project frontage
along Nantasket Drive from edge of gutter to edge of gutter,both sides of the
street.
d.The developer shall remove any existing driveways and construct new
driveways as applicable.Driveway approach slope and details needs to
comply with APWA STD PLAN 110-0 and other applicable drawings.
e.The developer shall construct pedestrian curb ramps at the north and south
ends of Nantasket Drive that conform the latest requirements of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
f.Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works,provide new
street striping to replace the existing street striping disturbed by the street
resurfacing.
g.An Engineered (Rough)Grading Plan shall be prepared for the site.Fine
Grading may be incorporated into an (overall)Grading Plan if the houses are
to be built all at one time.If the houses are to be built individually,at different
times,separate Fine Grading Plans may be prepared for those houses in
addition to the previously required Rough Grading Plan.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 1211-26
h.A final Drainage Report shall be prepared for the site.
Post-development storm water run-off quantities shall be mitigated per the
NPDES (Stormwater)Review by John L.Hunter.The Final Drainage Report
calculations shall be prepared in conformance with Los Angeles County
Standards (see on line manual
http://ladpw.org/wrd/publication/engineering/2006 Hydrology Manua1/2006%2
OHydrology%20Manual-Divided.pdf
18.Per the Department of Public Works and subject to approval by the Director of
Public Works,the Applicant shall ensure the following:
•No above ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way.
•Only cement concrete or asphalt concrete surface are allowed in the ROW.
•Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,a complete hydrology and hydraulic
study (include off-site areas affecting the development)shall be prepared by
a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.The report shall
include detail drainage conveyance system including applicable swales,
channels,street flows,catch basins,and storm drains which will allow
building pads to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff which may be
expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 1OO-year flood.
•It is the property owners responsibility to maintain landscaping in the right of
way and keep it in a safe condition
•ADA access by way of the public sidewalk with appropriate easements as
required,shall be provided at the back of the right of way,behind the top of
all driveways.
•Catch Basin shall have "NO Dumping-Drain to Ocean"painted on them in the
ROWand on the property
•Filtering and Water Quality devices shall be installed in all storm drain inlets
along Nantasket Drive from Beachview Drive to Seacove Drive,including the
knuckles.
•All plans shall provide Best Management Practices (BMP's)and Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
•Plans shall provide Sewer connection information,and shall be approved by
LA County Public Works Department prior to approval by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes.
19.N.P.D.E.S.(Stormwater)Conditions
Best Management Practices (BMP's)shall be incorporated into the design of this
project to accomplish the following goals.
a.Minimize impacts from storm water runoff on the biological integrity of Natural
Drainage Systems and water bodies in accordance with requirements under
CEQA (Cal.Pub.Resources Code §21100),CWC §13369,CWA §319,CWA
§402(p),CWA §404,CZARA §6217 (g),ESA §7,and local government
ordinances.
b.Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allow more percolation of
storm water into the ground.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 12
11-27
c.Minimize the amount of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and to
the MS4.
d.Minimize pollution emanating from parking lots through the use of appropriate
Treatment Control BMP's and good housekeeping practices.
e.Properly design and maintain Treatment Control BMP's in a manner that does
not promote breeding of vectors.
f.Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant
loads in stormwater from the development site.
g.A SUSMP and SWPPP shall be prepared and approved by the City's NPDES
consultant prior to any building or grading permits being issued.
h.A vegetative area (slope less than 6%)shall be constructed surrounding each
lot (minimum 10 feet wide)except for the paver driveway.
MITIGATION MONITORING
The development shall comply with all of the following mitigation measures of the adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Aesthetics:
A-1:Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.No outdoor lighting is
permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a
parcel of property or properties other than upon which such light is physically located.
Air Quality:
AQ-1:During construction the owner shall ensure that the unpaved construction areas are
watered at least twice a day during excavation and construction to reduce dust emissions
and meet SCAQMD Rule 403 which prohibits dust clouds to be visible beyond the project
site boundaries.
AQ-2:During construction the owner shall ensure that all clearing,grading,earth moving
or demolition activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (Le.,greater than
30 mph),so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
AQ-3:During construction of any improvements associated with the subdivision,the
owner shall ensure that General contractors shall maintain and operate construction
equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.
AQ-4:A weatherproof notice/sign setting forth the name of the person(s)responsible for
the construction site and a phone number(s)to be called in the event that dust is visible
from the site as described in mitigation measure AQ-1 above,shall be posted and
prominently displayed on the construction fencing.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 1211-28
Cultural Resources:
CR-1:Prior to the commencement of grading,the applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist and archeologist to monitor grading and excavation.In the event
undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and excavation,work
shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist and/or
paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures.
Geology/Soils:
GEO-1:The applicant shall ensure that all applicable conditions as specified within the
geotechnical report and all measures required by the City Geologist are incorporated into
the project.
GEO-2:Prior to building permit issuance,the applicant shall prepare an erosion control
plan for the review and approval of the Building Official.The applicant shall be
responsible for continuous and effective implementation of the erosion control plan during
project construction.
Hyd rology/Water Qual ity:
HWQ-1:Subject to review and approval of the City Public Works and Building and Safety
Departments and prior to the issuance of grading permits,the project applicant shall submit
a storm water management plan which shows the on-site and off-site storm water
conveyance systems that will be constructed by the project proponent for the purpose of
safely conveying storm water off the project site.These drainage structures shall be
designed in accordance with the most current standards and criteria of the City Engineer
and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to ensure that adequate drainage
capacity is maintained.The plan shall also show whether existing storm water facilities off
the site are adequate to convey storm flows and what additional improvements to these
existing facilities are required by the project applicant to ensure these facilities will be
adequate to meet the needs of this project.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for
any of the proposed residences,the project applicant shall install/improve such facilities to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Building Official.
HWQ-2:The project shall comply with the requirements of the statewide National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity to prevent storm water pollution from impacting
waters of the U.S.in the vicinity of the project site.
HWQ-3:In accordance with the Clean Water Act,the project applicant shall coordinate with
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)regarding the required National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for the project.The project
applicant shall obtain this permit and provide the City with proof of the permit before any
site grading begins.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 6 of 12
11-29
HWQ-4:Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP),including sandbags shall be used
by the project applicant to help control runoff from the project site during project
construction activities.Measures to be used shall be approved by the City Engineer before
a Grading Permit is issued for the project.
Noise:
N-1:Demolition,grading and construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am
and 7:00pm,Monday through Saturday.There shall be no construction on Sundays or
federally observed holidays.
N-2:During demolition,construction and/or grading operations,trucks shall not park,
queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,
Monday through Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated
above.
Public Services:
PS-1:As there is no park or recreational facility designated in the general plan to be
located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and
future needs of the residents of the subdivision,the project applicant shall,in lieu of
dedicating land,pay a fee equal to the value of the land prescribed for dedication in
Section 16.20.100.0 and in an amount determined in accordance with the provisions of
Section 16.20.1 OO.G.
Transportation/Traffic:
T-1:Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project,the project applicant shall
prepare a haul route plan for approval by the City's Public Works Department.The project
applicant shall also be required to post a bond with the City in an amount determined by
the Public Works Department that will provide for the repair of City streets damaged by the
hauling of soil away from the project site.
PARK DEDICATION
20.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,which is contingent upon California Coastal
Commission approval ofthe Coastal Specific Plan Amendment,the developer shall
pay to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,subject to the City Council's approval,a
Parkland Dedication in lieu fee which is to be calculated pursuant to the City's
Development Code Section 16.20.100.
UTILITIES
21.Prior to submittal of plans into bUilding division plan check,the applicant shall
provide evidence of confirmation from the applicable service providers that provide
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 7 of 12
11-30
water,wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal,that current water supplies
are adequate to serve the proposed project.
22.All utilities to and on the property shall be provided underground,including cable
television,telephone,electrical,gas and water.All necessary permits shall be
obtained for their installation.Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line
at the developer's expense.
DRAINAGE
23.All drainage swales and any other on-grade drainage facilities,including gunite,
shall be of an earth tone color and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement.
24.Site surface drainage measures included in the project's geology and soils report
shall be implemented by the project developer during project construction.
25.Prior to issuance of any permits,the City's NPDES consultant shall review and
approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable
requirements for the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project
site.
SURVEY MONUMENTATION
26.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,a bond,cash deposit,or combination thereof
shall be posted to cover costs to establish survey monumentation in an amount to
be determined by the City Engineer.
27.Within twenty-four (24)months from the date of filing the Final Map,the developer
shall set survey monuments and tie points and furnish the tie notes to the City
Engineer.
28.All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance
with the City's Municipal Code.
29.All corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with
the Subdivision Map Act.
UNIT NUMBERING
30.Any unit numbering by the developer must be approved by the City Engineer.
GRADING
31.Approval of the project shall allow a total of 4,028 cubic yards of grading,which is
distributed as follows:
Resolution No.2010-
Exhibit B
Page 8 of 12
11-31
1 340 809 5.5-ft.6-ft.
2 793 248 5.7-ft.1.8-ft.
3 431 489 10-ft 3.1
4 393 132 2-ft.4-ft.
TOTAL 1,957 2,071
32.Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the project,the Coastal Specific Plan
Amendment shall be approved by the California Coastal Commission.
33.A construction plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning,Building and
Code Enforcement prior to issuance of grading permits.Said plan shall include but
not be limited to:limits of grading,estimated length of time for rough grading and
improvements,location of construction trailer,location and type of temporary
utilities.The use of rock crushers shall be prohibited.
34.Prior to filing the Final Map,a grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer and City Geologist.This grading plan shall include a detailed
engineering,geology and/or soils engineering report and shall specifically be
approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer and show all recommendations
submitted by them.It shall also be consistent with the tentative map and conditions,
as approved by the City.
35.Grading shall conform to Chapter 29,"Excavations,Foundations,and Retaining
Walls",and Chapter 70,"Excavation and Grading of the Uniform Building Code".
36.Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall demonstrate to the
Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement that dust generated by
grading activities shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 403 and the City Municipal Code requirements that require regular watering for
the control of dust.
37.During construction,all excavating and grading activities shall cease when winds
gusts (as instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 mph.To assure compliance with this
measure,grading activities are subject to periodic inspections by City staff.
38.Construction equipment shall be kept in proper operating condition,including proper
engine tuning and exhaust control systems.
39.Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park,queue and/or idle at the
project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM,Monday through
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 9 of 12
11-32
Saturday,in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in Section
17.56.020(B)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
40.The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise
insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels.
41. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no
additional noise,due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated.
42.Haul routes used to transport soil exported from the project site shall be approved
by the Director of Public Works to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to
potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations.
TRACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
43.The Final Map shall be in conformance with the lot size and configuration shown on
the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map,as approved by the City Council on February 2,
2010.
44.The approved residences shall maintain the following minimum setbacks:
•Front:20-feet
•Side:10-feet
•Rear:15-feet
45.The approved residences shall comply with the following standards:
LOT SIZE 14,402 sf 15,567 sf 14,081 sf 17,704 sf
LOT COVERAGE 35%32.5%37%34%
MAX RIDGELINE
ELEVATION 180.1-ft.165.4-ft.160.3-ft.152.9-ft.
STRUCTURE
HEIGHT 15.2-ft./24.1-ft.16-ft.l24.1-ft.19.6-ft.l24-ft.19.9-ft./25.3-ft.
The cumulative total square footage of all four residences plus garages shall not be more
than 23,411.7 square feet.However,in no case shall the structure size of anyone
residence plus garage be more than 6,744 square feet.
Any request to make the size of any residence larger or taller,shall require approval of a
revision to the Grading Permit and/or the applicable Height Variation permit by the City
Council.
46.Prior to submittal of grading plans and/or building plans for the residence on Lot 1
into plan check with the Building and Safety Division,the applicant shall redesign
the proposed residence on Lot 1 to minimize view impairment from the viewing
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 10 of 12
11-33
areas of properties located at 6619 Beachview Drive,6617 Beachview Drive and
6615 Beachview Drive.Said redesign shall be submitted to the Director of
Community Development and shall be reviewed by the City Council.Notice of said
review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500-
foot radius,to persons requesting notice,to all affected homeowners associations,
and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code Section 17.80.090.
47.The landscaping for each parcel shall be required to use only non-invasive plant
species,as identified by the California Invasive Pest Council (Cal-IPC)orthe Santa
Monica Mountains Chapter handbook entitled Recommended List of Native Plants
for Landscaping in the Santa Monica Mountains.In addition,all landscaping shall
be required to consist of primarily native,drought resistant species,and all
landscaping within 15 feet of the rear property line adjacent to the natural habitat
area on the Terranea property shall consist of non-invasive,native plant species
only.Fuel modification for these parcels shall not be carried out in native habitat
zones that were created as a part of the Terranea Resort.These landscape
requirements shall be noted on the approved site plan,and these landscape
requirements shall be recorded on each of the lots as part of the Final Parcel Map.
Lastly,fuel modification for these parcels adjacent to the Terranea Resort Hotel
shall not be carried out in native habitat zones created as a part of the T erranea
Resort.
48.Landscaping for the project shall be designed,implemented and maintained to
comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and with the
Landscape Regulations.
49.Subject to review and approval by the Building Official,a ridge height certification is
required for each residence by a licensed land surveyor or engineer prior to
installation of roof materials.
50.Subject to review and approval by the Building Official,structure size certification is
required for each residence by a licensed surveyor or engineer prior to building
permit final of the residences.
51.Driveway slopes shall conform to the maximum 20-percent standard set forth in the
Development Code.
52.Each residence shall maintain a minimum three-car garage,with each space being
individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension of
9-feet-wide by 20-feet-deep by 7-feet-vertical clearance.
53.Chimneys,vents and other similar features shall not be any higher than the
minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code.
54.Fences,walls,pilasters,hedges,etc.located within the 20-foot front-yard setback
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 11 of 12
11-34
area shall not exceed forty-two inches (42")in height.
55.With the exception of solar panels,roof-mounted mechanical equipment is not
permitted.Mechanical equipment may encroach upon the rear-and side-yard
setback areas,provided that such equipment does not generate noise levels in
excess of 65 dBA at the property line.
56.Construction of the approved project shall substantially comply with the plans
originally stamped APPROVED and with the RS-3 district and site development
standards of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code.
57.In the event that a Planning Division and a Building Division requirement are in
conflict,the stricter standard shall apply.
58.The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be
kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes.Such excess material may
include,but not be limited to:the accumulation of debris,garbage,lumber,scrap
metal,concrete asphalt,piles of earth,salvage materials,abandoned or discarded
furniture,appliances or other household fixtures.
59.Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Monday
through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal
holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code.There shall be no idling vehicles and equipments related to the approved
scope of the project prior to 7:00 a.m.and after 7 p.m.
60.The sidewalk along Nantasket Drive,which connects to the Flowerfield trail on the
Terranea Resort site shall remain open to the public and no physical obstructions
such as gates or guardhouses or signs that restrict public access to the trail shall be
allowed on or fronting Nantasket Drive.
Resolution No.2010-_
Exhibit B
Page 12 of 12
11-35
EDITED VERSION OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
SUBREGION 2 OF THE COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN
11-36
SUBREGION 2 -COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Subregion 2 is a predominantly developed,161-acre site which is bordered on the north by
vacant land and on the east by both vacant land and Nantasket drive.It is made up of three
public uses,a large commercial recreation center (Marineland,and a potentially surplused
school site supporting farming activities.Although the uses within the Subregion are
different in terms of primary function,most have the secondary homogeneous characteristic
of being accessible,or at least partially accessible,to the general public.Therefore,
Subregion 2 can be referred to as an attractor/generator.This homogeneity and
predominantly developed character are the major factors which established the area as a
Subregion.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
TERRESTRIAL
Climatic conditions experienced within the confines of this Subregion are reflective of those
characterized under the zone ii discussion presented in the climatic section of the coastal
region.Point Vicente itself is slightly windier and cooler than other areas of this Subregion.
This is due largely to the unsheltered aspects of the point.Because of its exposure,the site
will experience strong winter storm winds,frequently in excess of 25 miles per hour.
MARINE
The northern portion of this Subregion is a rocky headland facing west-southwest and,
therefore,the prevailing wind waves and swells can travel unobstructed to break on the
shoreline.This condition exists from the northern boundary of the county's point Vicente
beach park,south to long point at Marineland.
Windwaves generated from within the southern California bight and travelling from a
southern direction impact the south facing shoreline of Subregion 2.
GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS
TOPOGRAPHY
TERRESTRIAL
The slope conditions of this Subregion are somewhat diverse,with the northern area haVing
a rather flat (S10%)blufftop area extending from Palos Verdes drive west to the bluff edge.
Rather steep and high bluffs are present in this area.Southward lands adjacent to Palos
Verdes drive south are steeper and more rugged.At the fishing access,the blufftop nearly
11-37
meets the road's edge.To the east the road sweeps away from the cliffs as long point
descends to the ocean.In this area the bluffs are lower and less severe.
MARINE
The shoreline is made up primarily of rocky headland with the exception of point Vicente
cove where there are a number of large rock outcroppings.Near the center of the cove a
rock strata of angular shelves is visible at low tide.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The only geologic hazards within Subregion 2 are those associated with bluff instability and
steep topography.Insufficient information warrants further investigation into geologic
stability along the blufftop from point Vicente Beach Park to the fishing access should any
development proposals arise.
HYDROLOGY
Within Subregion 2,there are no major natural drainage channels.In the Marineland area
there are a few small drainage courses,none of which warrants extensive efforts for
preservation.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
TERRESTRIAL
Significant vegetative and resident wildlife habitats are associated with bluff lands.
Although resident biotic resources are weak in the remainder of this Subregion,migratory
flight patterns are documented (see coastal region biotic resource section),which strongly
relate to point Vicente.This is due to its seaward jutting nature.
The undeveloped point Vicente beach park is in the development planning stage.This park
offers great potential for intensifying and establishing natural vegetation species which
serve as a food source for migratory birds that pass through the area.
MARINE
The marine biotic resources from the northern Subregion boundary to point Vicente have
been determined to be significant enough to warrant reserve status.The city should strive
to convince the State Lands Commission and the state fish and game commission that
reserve status is needed to preserve one of the richest stretches of shoreline,in terms of
intertidal biotic resources,in southern California.
A kelp restoration effort is currently underway in the point Vicente area.This small but
growing kelp bed is being maintained by the California state department of fish and game.
Encouragement of the existence of this bed and others that may be proposed for restorative
efforts would provide the "ring of kelp"that once surrounded the peninsula.
11-38
The shoreline below Marineland serves as home to a number of wild California sea lions
(Zalophus Californianus).
It is thought that they may frequent the area as a result of hearing other marine mammal
noises from within Marineland.This is the only place along the peninsula where these
mammals can be found in significant numbers.
SOCIO/CULTURAL
SOCIAL FACTORS
NATIONAL
The federal government owned 49.7 acres of land within Subregion 2,18.9 of which
belongs to the U.S.coast guard.The remaining 30.8 acres were recently surplused by the
U.S.department of defense and title transferred to L.A.County for use for park purposes.
COUNTY
Los Angeles County owns 41.3 acres of land.The county has delegated responsibility for
these areas to the department of beaches for use as park sites.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
On a promontory,named by the English sea captain George Vancouver,stands Point
Vicente lighthouse.Erected in 1926 in response to a petition from ship's masters,who
deplored this dangerous stretch of coastal waters,it flashes a two-million candlepower light
more than 20 miles to sea.The beacon is developed from a 15 watt bulb focused through a
5 foot lens.Made in Paris in 1886,the lens saw 40 years of service in Alaska before being
brought to the peninsula (Augusta Fink).
The general plan established a city policy,which is concurred with by this coastal specific
plan,to have point Vicente lighthouse included in the national register of historical places.
URBAN ENVIRONMENT
ACTIVITY AREAS
COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT ACTIVITIES
This Subregion's character is that of an attractor/generator to the vast majority of the
populace which resides outside the peninsula.When this characteristic is coupled with the
high intensity of use,the results are that of imposing conflicts on surrounding areas.The
11-39
closer the proximity of the noncompatible use (such as residential areas),the greater the
intensity of conflict.
The most effective means by which to mitigate impacts is to focus on the source.
Therefore,reduction of impacts such as noise,traffic,outdoor lighting,etc.,should be
attacked at the generating source.
Fringe areas abutting residential areas can be buffered by locating activities away from
common boundaries.Landscaping,earth berms and other appropriate measures can be
employed within buffer land strips to further reduce generating impacts.Mass transit
systems can be encouraged to service this area,especially during peak use periods,in
order to reduce the amount of auto intrusion onto the peninsula.Mechanical equipment can
be of a low noise level nature and located within enclosed structures to constrain emanating
noise.Loudspeaker systems can be designed and directed in a manner which allows them
to serve their purpose without allowing off-site noise spillover.Lighting can be indirect
where possible and,where direct lighting is necessitated,screening measures can be
concurrently employed to impede possible light source spillover.View impacting areas can
be screened from public corridors and view sheds.
EXISTING ACTIVITIES
COMMERCIAL
Marineland,the largest commercial activity in the city,is located on an 84.7 acre site.The
facility provides a specialized form of entertainment centered around marine animal shows
and displays.Marineland also has a pier which is used for animal transport and,until
recently,for entertainment in the form of boat excursions.There is parking for more than
2,000 automobiles.
Marineland was recently purchased by Taft Broadcasting Corporation.For the last several
years,the facility was experiencing declining attendance which has been blamed on poor
management.Attendance figures were still declining (950,000 in 1975 to 900,000 in 1976),
with an additional drawback being posed by the age of the facilities.Both structures and
marine tanks require extensive expenditures to bring them in line with current codes or to
rectify existing limitations.Galley West (Marineland's restaurant)is currently closed and
cannot be reopened until the structure meets building and health code requirements
(Michael Downs).
INSTITUTIONAL
Point Vicente lighthouse is situated on a plateau atop point Vicente and encompasses an
18.9 acre site.Erected in 1926,it flashes a two-million candlepower light more than 20
miles to sea.Addition of a radio station,living quarters,and helicopter landing pad have
made point Vicente lighthouse the coast guard's principal communication center in southern
California,as well as a base for rescue operations.Should this facility be declared surplus,
and barring historical preservation,the state department of parks and recreation
recommended in its 1971 California coastline preservation and recreation plan that the
facility be made available for park and recreation purposes.
11-40
RECREATION
TERRESTRIAL
Los Angeles county department of beaches operates two park sites within Subregion 2
totaling 41.3 acres.
Point Vicente fishing access is a fully developed 10.5 acre site.Approximately 46 parking
spaces and a restroom structure are on top of the bluff directly adjoining Palos Verdes drive
south.From there,a well defined dirt ramp affords public pedestrian access down to the
nearby shoreline.
Point Vicente beach site was partially opened in the summer of 1976.The site's current
operation is confined to the accommodation of a 24 space parking lot.The remainder of the
site is fenced off and contains a rifle range which was utilized when the Nike site was
operational.No shoreline access from this site is presently afforded,however,the
department of beaches'development plans for this site contain such a proposal.
MARINE
The only real access,within this Subregion,to the shoreline is located at the fishing access.
The trail down the bluffs (referred to by local users as "cardiac hill"serves divers,fishermen,
picnickers,beachcombers and sightseers.Due to the difficulty of negotiating the rocky
headland,which is typical of this area,this access point has only localized impact on the
shoreline.
AGRICULTURE
The most extensive agricultural operation in the area takes place on a 17 acre site located
at the eastern extremity of this Subregion.This site is currently leased for $800 per year
from Palos Verdes peninsula unified school district,which has declared the site surplus and
intends to sell it in the near future.Additional agricultural activity takes place on an
undeveloped portion of Marineland's site.The grain and tree farming activities are bounded
on the south by Marineland's access road and on the north by Palos Verdes drive south.
The coastal specific plan makes a primary effort to maintain agricultural activity on the 17
acre school site.This action is warranted because of the site's high crop yield,irrigation
and substantial site size.In order to maintain the activity,the city needs to add an
agricultural district to its development code and apply it to this site.Maintaining agriculture
on this site is contingent on the site not being needed for a school,and sufficient funding
from other agencies being available for purchase of the site.Should these conditions not be
met,then the plan recommends a secondary use of commercial recreation as proposed by
the general plan.
POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES
11-41
The only totally undeveloped site capable of supporting new activity is the 17 acre site
owned by the school district.The district had intended to use this site for development of an
intermediate school;however,enrollment studies done by the district did not substantiate
the need for an additional school in this vicinity.Therefore,the site has been found
potentially surplus and may be sold in the next few years.The site's gentle topography and
its lack of biotic resources and geologic constraints make it a desirable area for supporting
structured activities.
Additional potential activity is presented on those areas which presently have limited site
development.This potential is reflective of site buildout and is discussed below under each
site's respective land use designation.
Should the primary aim of maintaining agriculture on this site prove unworkable,then a
secondary proposal of commercial recreation should be implemented.Development under a
commercial recreational use would raise two concerns.One,the point of primary access
which is discussed under vehicular netvJorks and should be referred to therein;and two,
possible adverse impacts onto adjoining residential areas located in Subregion 3.Site
planning efforts need to be cognizant of adjoining residential areas.Buffer areas should be
supplied along the site's common property lines along with the shielding of any outdoor
lighting.Noise should be retarded at the generating sources.A critical view corridor
traverses the site (see corridor section)requiring structural improvements to be carefully
revie\Ned in the affected area.Also,consideration should be given to a development's
appearance from residential areas.
COMMERCIAL
Marineland's present site development utilizes roughly 50%of the total 8s acres.During
the spring of 1978 renovations were made to the facility,including landscaping and building
exteriors,some attractions were relocated,and new additions included a stranded animal
facility,tidepool,picnic area,food stands,theatre,and maintenance building with parking.
The site presently has 2244 parking spaces plus temporary overflow spaces.
A master plan for future additions is underway by Marineland and tentatively may include
retail shops,motel,restaurants,and a "cove of tall ships"anchored off-shore.The
management hopes to increase annual attendance to 1.2 million,the number that visited
the facility in the mid-1960.All impacts,such as traffic,described in this plan were based
on this potential maximum attendance.
Any future development on the site will require city approval in the form of a conditional use
permit.Compatible uses could include those of a commercial recreational nature,visitor-
oriented,such as additional oceanarium attractions,retail facilities,recreation uses,motel,
convention facility,restaurants,museum,etc.Those considered not compatible are uses of
a "carnival"nature.
The major criteria which will be of concern with any future development proposals are:
Protection of visual corridors.
Enhancement of visual quality.
Buffering from adjacent residential uses.
11-42
Attenuation of noise and light.
Protection of the natural environment.
The city should be cognizant of both financial and operational problems associated with this
facility and work in a positive direction to assist in Marineland's desired viability.This
support may require the city,as well as nearby residents,to endure short term impacts
associated with special events conducted in an effort to increase attendance.Once
management is capable of implementing its master plan,then the city should ensure that
concerns pertaining to noise,visual,traffic and other pertinent impacts are properly
mitigated in order to achieve a harmonious functioning within the community.
RECREATION
Point Vicente beach site's development is currently limited to a parking lot for 24
cars.The Los Angeles County Department of Beaches'Master Plan for this site
projects two development phases.The initial phase will include the following
improvements:
•Leveling of the target mound, removal of existing structures,and grading of
the park area.
•Installation of utilities,landscaping,and sprinkler system.
•Preparation of a parking area for 25 cars to supplement existing parking for
24 cars.
•Provisions of pedestrian access by means of a sidewalk to be built along
Palos Verdes drive.
•Installation of safety fencing (split rail or other wood material of pleasing
appearance)on the bluff above the steep cliff.
•Installation of park facilities that will initially include 12 picnic tables,12
braziers,2 drinking fountains,and 2 temporary portable toilets.
The department of beaches envisions the second phase involving the following
improvements:
•Construction of stairs for access to the beach and tide pools.
• A low-profile structure to provide shade and weather protection.This building
will house marine exhibits and other educational materials,and will serve as
an interpretive center for marine sciences.A circular,open-sided viewing
structure also is being considered.
• A permanent restroom building replacing the temporary toilets.
•Expansion of parking,picnic.And recreational facilities to meet a gradually
increasing patronage.It is recognized,however,that the natural character of
the area must be retained by limiting the number of visitors.This will be done
by limiting the amount of parking.The size of the park.And the number of
picnic tables and other facilities.Additional picnic facilities and parking spaces
will be limited to double those provided in the initial phase.
The area would thus contain parking,picnic areas,and access to the shoreline.The
ultimate goal is a relatively low level of development,maintaining as far as possible the
11-43
natural and aesthetic setting,providing primarily picnic areas and parking to accommodate
demand.
The location and appearance of previously mentioned improvements will be of concern to
the city.The proposed stairway should be stricken from the master plan since such an
action in this area would require major structural measures,thereby significantly altering the
cliff face.The site's adjacency to Palos Verdes Drive West and its visual exposure from this
corridor causes concern about appearance and ability to integrate with the corridor's theme.
As part of this study,the city contacted the department of beaches to obtain a time frame for
the park's development.In discussions with the staff it was indicated that the site's
development hinged on obtaining funding and that no specific time is known as to when this
funding will be made available.
INDUCED ACTIVITY
The general plan designates a commercial recreational use for the 17 acre surplused
school site.The coastal specific plan changes this proposal.It designates a land use of
residential for the 1.4-acre parcel on the eastern boundary near Nantasket Drive on
the site and a commercial recreation use on the remainder.Primary use of agriculture
on the site,a secondary use of commercial recreation,and encouragement of a
retirement/senior citizenlfixed income facility on a portion of the site.Aside from this,the
coastal specific plan concurs with land uses established in the general plan.
INFRASTRUCTURE
As a separate and distinct area within the Rancho Palos Verdes coastline,Subregion 2 has
developed somewhat differently than other coastal areas.The results are most obvious in
the physical characteristics;however,study of the infrastructure reveals a system which is
somewhat atypical in form and function.Furthermore,the type of activities found in the
Subregion require a traffic analysis which deviates from that predominantly used throughout
this plan.
SEWERAGE
The sewerage network within the Subregion consists of the sanitation district's long point
pumping station and a private sewerage system owned and operated by Marineland.The
long point pump station is designed to receive sewage from a major portion of Subregion 3,
Marineland,and the school site and transmit it to the sea cove pump station,located east of
the Palos Verdes bay club.Marineland's system consists of an internal sewerage collection
system,a pump station and a force main;all of which is designed to collect and transmit
sewage to the long point pump station.
At this time,both public and private sewerage systems appear to be functioning adequately.
Furthermore,service agencies have indicated that the facilities should remain adequate into
the foreseeable future.While the ultimate use of the school site is not known and therefore
difficult to make accurate demand projections,it is felt that the system could facilitate a
rather intense use.This is a function of the overall system having been designed to allow
for a more intense usage (residential)than that proposed by this plan.Marineland has
11-44
explained that the capacity of its system is contingent upon future expansion plans and
resultant increased attendance.At the time of this writing,Marineland had not yet
developed expansion plans,however,it is felt that those alternatives within the scope of
possibility could be facilitated.
Within the northern portion of the Subregion,the fishing access and lighthouse/coast guard
facility employ septic tanks (or similar)to dispose of sewage.The intensity and nature of
these uses are such that present systems appear to be functioning adequately.
Furthermore,there are no known health hazards.
The draft environmental impact report for Point Vicente Beach Park indicates that the
proposed recreation facility will be served by the sanitation district's trunk line,which is
located north of Palos Verdes drive south.While the city would support this disposal
technique over the use of septic tanks,it should be stated that a pump would probably be
necessary in order to transmit sewage to the trunk line,which is at a substantially higher
elevation than the likely location of the comfort station.Should a pump be required,it is
recommended that the proponents investigate the feasibility of including the fishing access
and/or lighthouse in such a system.
In addition to the sewerage facilities normally found,Marineland has a seawater disposal
system which discharges as much as 3,060,000 gallons of waste water per day,the
disposal system consists of a network of lines and pumps which discharge waste water
from two separate outfalls.The outfalls are both located above sea level and are about 600
feet apart.Outfall #1 has a potential output of about 2,100,000 gallons per day and is
situated about 40 feet above sea level.Outfall #2 is located about 10 feet above sea level
and can discharge about 960,000 gallons per day.Both out falls discharge directly onto the
bluff face and the waste water flows over bluff rocks to the surf line.The quality of waste
water is regulated and monitored by the California regional water quality board (Los
Angeles region).The two most significant man-induced wastes include chlorine and copper
sulfate.The chlorine is used in the tanks which display the marine mammals and must be
controlled because it acts as an irritant to the mammals.Copper sulfate is an algaecide
which is used in the fish display tanks.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
VEHICULAR NETWORKS
The vehicular network within Subregion 2 consists of Palos Verdes Drives South and West,
minor access roads to public facilities,and a private road which serves Marineland.All
roads currently function adequately and all are in satisfactory condition.(As discussed in
the introduction,the character of the Subregion is such that the method of analysis used in
other Subregions does not allow the reader to see the true impact of existing and proposed
uses.Therefore,the following analysis concentrates not on weekday a.m.peak hour traffic,
but rather on the weekend peak hours,when the traffic is greatest.)
An evaluation of the existing conditions which generate and/or attract traffic indicate that on
a weekday morning,outbound traffic is insignificant and that inbound traffic is limited to
those persons employed within the Subregion.Inbound traffic (to the Subregion itself)is
estimated to be about 75 trips at peak hour.Assuming the Subregion maintains a similar
11-45
character,the proposed activities are not expected to significantly change the existing traffic
conditions.
At the present time,it is estimated that the activities within Subregion 2 have the potential
(worst case)to attract 1185 cars,during a peak traffic hour on a summer Saturday or
Sunday.Furthermore,it is estimated that the existing activities could generate as many as
3,664 trips in a 24-hour period.Marineland,with over 1,000,000 visitors annually (1978),
accounts for a major portion of the peak hour total.
Based on the activities proposed in this plan and preliminary estimates on Marineland's
short-run future improvements,it is estimated that the traffic generated by Subregion 2
could be substantially the same during a peak weekend/holiday hour as is now
experienced.The lack of any real change to Subregion traffic patterns is due primarily to
the insignificant changes in Subregion activities.Marineland has made and will continue
making physical improvements to the park,but a current peak daily attendance of 11,900
(7/4/78)is considered by park officials to be just about as many visitors as can be
accommodated on one day.Further,the remaining Subregion activities will undergo some
physical changes,but not in a way that is expected to significantly change traffic generation.
This is not to say that the various activities will not attract more visitors on a yearly or
monthly basis,but merely that the activities seem to have reached a maximum visitor
potential on a 24-hour or peak-hour basis.
In the long run,traffic may be significantly changed upon implementation of future changes
to Marineland's activities and with potential development of the school site.However,long
range traffic projections have not been made due to the obvious difficulties anticipating what
these changes/additions might involve.An analysis of potential traffic impact will be
required for both environmental and project review at such times that proposals are made
beyond the shortrun analysis described above.
A problem which has been experienced and is expected to occasionally re-occur on peak
visitor days at Marineland is congestion at the park entrance.The Marineland access road
is designed so that ingress/egress may be taken at two points;however,the westernmost
entrance is only used for egress from the park.A recently approved conditional use permit
for various improvements requires that improvements be made to Palos Verdes Drive South
including the left-hand turn pocket.The improvements,which are intended to reduce
congestion,include widened and lengthened left-hand turn pocket,
acceleration/deceleration lanes,and redesigned entrance utilizing the abandoned Texaco
site.It is anticipated that these improvements will be made prior to the summer of 1979.
The impacts of Subregion generated traffic (existing and potential)to the carrying capacity
of Palos Verdes drive south/west within the Subregion itself is not considered significantly
adverse,since Palos Verdes drive south is not projected to experience impactive traffic
conditions.The impacts of the traffic generated by Subregion 2,however,does impact
areas outside the Subregion boundaries.For a discussion of the impacts,see coastal
region -infrastructure.
The nature of the activities within the Subregion are such that a substantial amount of land
is allotted to parking.This is particularly true of Marineland.Of the 85 acres which
Marineland occupies,approximately 14 acres (16%)are currently utilized for parking.This
11-46
translates into 2,020 on-site parking spaces.The aforementioned conditional use permit
also required that new parking spaces be developed when attendance reached a certain
level.Since attendance surpassed the level during the summer of 1978.Plans have been
submitted to the city that would allow for approximately 900 new parking spaces on the site.
This is anticipated to relieve parking problems on Palos Verdes drive south and in nearby
residential neighborhoods.The other facilities within the Subregion appear to provide
adequate parking;however.There are intermittent times when the fishing access parking lot
is full.
VVith respect to the future potential development of the school site as a commercial
recreation facility (secondary use),this plan does not identify specific recommended uses;
however,the follovt'ing are guidelines 'A'hich should be considered in any such development
plans:
1)access should not be taken from Nantasket drive (in Subregion 3)since it is
designed as a residential street and commercial traffic would in all likelihood
cause significant problems.
2)the project proponents should investigate the possibility of sharing access
with Marineland through the use of appropriate legal methods.
3)parking and access should be designed so that it is sufficiently buffered from
existing and future residential development.
PATH AND TRAIL NETWORK
Two corridor loops originate/terminate within the confines of Subregion 2 and both should
be designed to a class 1 standard which will meet the varied demands of its users.Within
Subregion 2 both corridor loop trails are slightly modified versions of that proposed in the
general plan.The following discussion talks to the two loops per their alignment and design
characteristics.
•Corridor loop #1 will intersect the northern property line of Point Vicente
Beach Park at the bluff top.From here the bikeway/walkway turns to an east-
west alignment through the park to a point where it intersects with Palos
Verdes drive west along the eastern extremity of this site.Due to the park's
proposed characteristics.Bike stands could be a part of site improvements so
that cyclists may stop to rest and enjoy the park.Since auto access is
proVided on-site.The path and trail network in this vicinity should be
designed to minimize possible mode conflicts.An additional minor trail is
proposed to lead through the site in a northeasterly direction toward the Palos
Verdes drive wesUHawthorne boulevard intersection.The park will provide
parking for trail users as well as park users.
•Corridor loop #2 originates/terminates within Subregion 2 at the surplus
school site.Although the precise alignment of the loop trails through the
school site will depend largely on the type of development that occurs.It is
proposed that the trail align with,and run parallel to,the common property
line between the school site and Marineland.If this alignment is used it will
maximize the trail length while providing a buffer between Marineland and
future development on the school site.At the bluff,the loop trails turn to an
11-47
east-west alignment and run parallel to the bluff to a point just west of the
P.V.Bay Club condominiums.At this location the trail will merge with
Coastsite Drive and follow Beachview and Seahill Drives to the primary
corridor on Palos Verdes Drive South.Due to potential development
techniques on the bluff,the bluff trail segment may be impractical;therefore,
an alignment on Seacove Drive is proposed as an alternate to insure
implementation of this loop.
In addition to the trail network,there are two existing coastal access points in this
Subregion.
Point Vicente fishing access is fully developed and provides public access to the shoreline
via a dirt ramp.Auto parking and restroom facilities are afforded at the bluff top.
The second access point is a part of Marineland's site and is of a private nature.Access is
facilitated on gentle sloping terrain and leads to the Marineland pier.At present this access
is closed to patrons.There is also a path to the area inhabited by the wild sea lions,open
to patrons.
Policies
It is the policy of the city to:
1.Encourage the county to incorporate native plant materials beneficial to migratory
and resident bird species into the landscaping plan for point Vicente Beach Park.
2.Encourage establishment of designated intertidal areas as marine reserves and
apply strict enforcement of the regulations of the reserves.
3.Encourage restoration of kelp beds off point Vicente.
4.Encourage the inclusion of point Vicente lighthouse in the national register of historic
places.
5.Ensure that impacts such as noise,outdoor lighting,etc.,are mitigated at the point of
origin.
6.Encourage mass transit systems to service Subregion 2,especially during peak use
periods,in order to reduce the amount of auto intrusion onto the peninsula.
7.Encourage actions deemed necessary or appropriate in the upgrading of Marineland
and its activities so long as such action(s)is not detrimental and does not result in an
adverse effect on surrounding areas.
8.Change the primary land use on the designate as agricultural use on 1.42-acre
site,which was subdivided from the former abalone cove school site located on
the west side of Nantasket Drive adjacent to the Terranea Hotel Resort site iR
the event that the property is not required for construction of a school and if sufficient
non city funds are made available to the city through the coastal conservancy (or
other funding)for purchase of the site./\secondary use designation shall be
11-48
commercial recreation and encouragement of a retiremenUsenior citizen/fixed
income facility on a portion of the site.from agriculture to residential.
Parcels adjacent to the natural habitat areas created as mitigation for
development of the Terranea Resort Hotel including the residential parcels
along Nantasket Drive to the east shall be required to use only non-invasive
plant species,as identified by the California invasive pest council (cal-IPC)or
the Santa Monica Mountains Chapter handbook entitled Recommended List of
Native Plants for Landscaping in the Santa Monica Mountains.In addition,all
landscaping shall be required to consist of primarily native,drought resistant
species and all landscaping within 15 feet of the rear property line adjacent to
the natural habitat area shall consist of non-invasive,native plant species
only.Fuel modification for parcels adjacent to the Terranea Resort Hotel shall
not be carried out in native habitat zones created as a part of the Terranea
Resort.
9.Require the point Vicente beach park site plan to reflect city concerns with regard to
shoreline access and prohibit any stairway.
10.The sidewalk along Nantasket Drive,which connects to the Flowerfield trail on
the Terranea Resort site shall remain open to the public and no physical
obstructions such as gates or guardhouses or signs that restrict public
access to the trail shall be allowed on or fronting Nantasket Drive.
11-49
LETTER FROM COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF DATED
SEPTEMBER 9,2010,MEMORIALIZING THE COASTAL
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
11-50
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY RECEIVED ARNOLD SCHWARZENNEGGER,Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate,Suite 1000
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302
(562)590-5071
Eduardo Schonborn,Senior Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
SEP 10 2010
PLANNING.BUILDING AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT September 9,2010
Re:Rancho Palos Verdes Local Coastal Program (LCP)Major Amendment No.1-10.
Dear Mr.Schonborn:
You are hereby notified that the California Coastal Commission,at its August 13,2010 meeting
in San Luis Obispo,approved City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP Amendment No.1-10 with
modifications.Local Coastal Program (LCP)Amendment No.1-10 was submitted pursuant to
City Council Resolution No.2010-09.The Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan portions of
the certified LCP were affected by this amendment.
The Commission approved the LCP amendment with suggested modifications,which are
attached (Attachment A).Therefore,LCP Amendment No.1-10 will not be effective for
implementation in the City's coastal zone until:1)the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
adopts the Commission's suggested modifications,2)the City Council forwards the adopted
suggested modifications to the Commission by resolution,3)the Executive Director certifies
that the City has complied with the Commission's August 13,2010 action,and 4)the
Commission concurs with the Executive Director's determination that the action by the City
Council adopting the suggested modifications is legally adequate.The Coastal Act requires
that the City's adoption of the suggested modifications be completed within six months of the
Commission's August 13,2010 action.If six months is not adequate,the City may request
additional time to obtain local approval of the suggested modifications.Such requests must be
approved by the Commission at a hearing.If you wish to have additional time,please contact
Commission staff regarding the appropriate procedure.
Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to working with you and your st~ff in the
future.Please give me a call at (562)590-5071 if you have any questions regarding the
modifications required for effective certification of City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP
Amendment No.1-10.
1reIY'j~
Gary~m
Coastal Program Manager
11-51
RPV-MAJ-1-10
ATTACHMENT A
Suggested Modifications
Page 2
Certification of City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP Amendment Request No.1-10 is subject to
the following modifications.
The City's proposed additions are shown as underlined text.
The City's proposed deletions are shown as strike out text.
The Commission's suggested additions are shown in bold.italic.underlined text.
The Commission's suggested deletions are shown in bold.italic.underlined.strike out
text.
Note:The numbering used in the suggested modification below may be re-numbered as
necessary to conform to the format of the existing certified LCP document.
Suggested Modification No.1
Subregion 2,Transportation Systems Section:
With respeet to the future potential development of the sehool site as a
eommercial reereation facility (secondary use),this plan does not identify
specific recommended uses;however the following are guidelines lIIhich
should be considered in any such development plans
1)Access should not be taken from Nantasket drive (in subregion 3)since
it is designed as a residential street and commercial traffic would in all
likelihood cause significant problems
2)The Project proponents should investigate the possibility of sharing
access with Marineland throUf/l1 the use of appropriate legal methods.
3)Parking and access should be designed so that it is sufficiently buffered
from existing and future residential development.
Suggested Modification No.2
Subregion 2,Agriculture Section:
The coastal specific plan makes a primary effort to maintain agricultural
activity on the 17 acre school site.This action is vlarranted because of the
site's high crop yield,irrigation and substantial site size.In order to
maintain the activity,the City needs to add an agricultural district to its
development code and apply it to this site.Maintaining agriculture on this
site is contingent on the site not being needed for a school,and sufficient
funding from other agencies being available for purchase of the site.
Should these conditions not be met,then the plan recommends a
secondary use of commercial recreation as proposed by the General Plan.
11-52
RPV-MAJ-1-10
ATTACHMENT A
Suggested Modifications
Page 3
Suggested Modification No.3
Subregion 2,Potential Activities Section:
Should the primary aim of maintaining agriculture on this site prove
unworkable,then a secondary proposal of commercial recreation should
be implemented.Development under a oommeroial recreational use
IIlould raise two ooncerns.One,the point of primary access which is
discussed under v:ehicular networks and should be referred to therein;
and two,possible adv:erse impacts onto adjoining residential areas
located in subregion 3.Site planning efforts need to be cogni2ant of
adjoining residential areas.Buffer areas should be supplied along the
site's common property line along IIlith the shielding of any outdoor
lighting.Noise should be retarded at the generating sources.A critical
v:iew corridor trav:erses the site (see corridor section)requiring structural
improvements to be carefully rev:iewed in the affected area.Also,
consideration should be given to a development's appearance from
residential areas.
Suggested Modification No.4
Subregion 2,Induced Activity Section:
The General Plan Designates a commercial recreational use for the 17 acre surplus
school site.The Coastal Specific Plan changes this proposal.It designates a land
use of Residential for the 1.4 acre parcel on the eastern boundary near Nantasket
Drive on the site and a Commercial Recreation use on the remainder.primary use
of agriculture on the site,a secondary use of commercial recreation,and
encouragement of a retirement/senior citizen!fixed inoome facility on a portion
of the site.·Aside from this,the coastal specific plan concurs with land uses
established in the general plan.
Suggested Modification No.5
Subregion 2 Policy 8:
Change the primary land use on the Designate as agricultural use 1.42-acre site,which
was subdivided from the former Abalone Cove School Site located on the west side of
Nantasket Drive adjacent to the Terranea Hotel Resort sitein the event that the property
is not required for construction of a school and if sufficient non city funds are made
available to the City through the Coastal Conservancy (Or other funding)for purchase of
the site.A secondary use designation shall be commercial recreation and encouragement
of a retirement/senior citizen!fixed income facility on a portion of the site.from
Agriculture to Residential.
11-53
RPV-MAJ-1-10
ATTACHMENT A
Suggested Modifications
Page 4
Parcels adjacent to natural habitat areas created as mitigation (or development ofthe
Terranea Resort Hotel including the residential parcels along Nantasket Drive to the
east shall be required to use only non-invasive plant species.as identified by the
California Invasive Pest Council (Cal-IPC)or the Santa Monica Mountains Chapter
handbook entitled Recommended List ofNative Plants (or Landscaping in the Santa
Monica Mountains.In addition.all landscaping shall be required to consist of
primarily native.drought resistant species and all landscaping within 15 feet ofthe rear
property line adjacent to the natural habitat area shall consist ofnon-invasive.native
plant species only.
Suggested Modification No.6
Add the following policy to the Policies Section of Subregion 2 of the Land Use Plan:
10.The sidewalk along Nantasket Drive.which connects to the
Flowerfield trail on the Terranea Resort site shall remain open to the
public and no physical obstructions such as gates or guardhouses or
signs that restrict public access to the trail shall be allowed on or fronting
Nantasket Drive.
11-54
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF REPORT,
PRESENTED TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION ON AUGUST
13,2010 (WITH ATTACHMENTS)
11-55
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate,Suite 1000
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302
(562)590-5071
ADDENDUM
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Governor
F8a
Date:
To:
From:
August 10,2010
Commissioners &Interested Persons
JOHN AINSWORTH,DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT STAFF
Subject:Commission Hearing of August 13,2010,item F8a of agenda,Local Coastal
Program Amendment RPV-MAJ-1-10,Rancho Palos Verdes,Los Angeles
County
Attached is one letter of opposition to the project received on August 10th •
Edit the suggested modifications to Subregion 2 Policy 8 by adding the sentence below,
marked by double-underline
Subregion 2 Policy 8:
Change the primary land use on the Designate as agricultural use 1.42-acre site,
which was subdivided 'from the former Abalone Cove School Site located on the
west side of Nantasket Drive adiacent to the Terranea Hotel Resort sitein the
event that the property is not required foJi'construction of a school and if sufficient
non city funds are made available to the City threugh the Coastal Conservancy (Or
other funding)for purchase of the site.A secondary use designation shall be
commercial recreation and encouragement of a retirementfsenior citizen/fixed
income facility on a portion of the site.from Agriculture to Residential.
Parcels adjacent to natural habitat areas created as mitigation for
development of the Terranea Resort Hotel including the residential parcels
along Nantasket Drive to the east shall be required to use only non-invasive
plant species.as identified by the California Invasive Pest Council (Cal-IPC)or
the Santa Monica Mountains Chapter handbook entitled Recommended List of
Native Plants for Landscaping in the Santa Monica Mountains.In addition.all
landscaping shall be required to consist of primarily native.drought resistant
species and all landscaping within 15 feet of the rear property line adjacent to
the natural habitat area shall consist of non-invasive.native plant species
only.Fuel modification for parcels adjacent to the Terranea Resort Hotel shall not
be carried out in native habitat zones created as a part of the Terranea Resort..
11-56
Page 2 of2
To the Findings for Denial of Land Use Plan Amendment as Submitted add the
following passage:
New residential development on the subject parcel may be subject to fuel
modification requirements from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Fire department or
from requirements from private insurers.Clearing of native plants would reduce the
habitat value of the natural habitat area for native species.As submitted,the LCP
amendment does not contain policies which would protect the native habitat zones
on the T erranea Resort from brush clearing associated with fuel modification
zones.As a result,the proposed LCP change,as submitted,is not consistent with
Coastal Act Section 30240
To the Findings for Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment RPV·MAJ·1·10 if
Modified as Recommended,in Part,and as Submitted,in Part add the following
passage:
New residential development on the subject parcel may be subject to fuel
modification requirements from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Fire department or
from requirements from private insurers.As submitted,the LCP amendment does
not contain policies which would protect the native habitat zones on the Terranea
Resort from brush clearing associated with fuel modification zones.Only if modified
as suggested will the sensitive habitat present in the native habitat zones be
protected from brush clearing associated with fuel modification requirements,and
only if modified as suggested will the LCP amendment be compatible with Coastal
Act Section 30240.
11-57
Aug 09 10 10:35p
EZStevens
p.1
1b "~"-l
To:
Subject:
August 9.2010
E~vens(~evens)
Letl.er RE:Nantasket ~Coastal Commission Agenda item 8113
TO CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIONERS and STAFF
RB:Friday Agenda item FBa August 13,2010
FROM:RPV resident Opposed to this request
Subject:Major Amendment Request No.01-10 to the Rancho Palos Verdes
certified Local Coastal Program.(Nantasket RPV-NAJ-I-IO)
Dear Coastal Commissioners and Staff.
I agree with the Staff Recommendation to DENY the Land Use Plan Amendment as proposed.
No modifications should be considered.The proposed Land Use Plan amendment would not
comply with the California Environmen1al Quality Act because there are feasible alternatives.
Amending the LUP for the economic gain ofthe developer is questionable.Mr.Ireland knew
what the land use and zoning was when he purchased the land..
Altbough the staff-suggested modifications (only native,non-invasive plants allowed)
may lessen any significant adverse effects ofthe plan on the environment,there
are other feasible alternatives.Cultivated flowers and vegetables on the property would not be
invasive and.will respect the Goals ofthe city ofRPV for the Coastal Zone.Agricultural use would also he
more compatible with the smrounding neighborhood.The proposed houses would not be compatible.
Although the city's Director explained that the proposed residential use would require a neighborhood
compatibility review and finding,that finding could not be made.(RPV Planning Commission Minutes of
11/1612006 )
With all due respect,I propose a feasible Ahemative to the staff's
r:ecommendation:Keep the primary use ofthis parcel Agricultural as designated
in the LCP.Do not change the primary use to residential.
RPV Coastal Specific Plan Subregion 2,Agriculture Section:
The coastal specific plan makes a primary effort to maintain agricultural
activity on this site.(LCP pg.82-7)This use was not explored by the developer.
Although this parcel is substantially smaller than the original lot,
commercial agricultmal activity is still a viable use of this.land,and would comply with
the LCP without amendment.Also,the property is within a view corridor.Agricultural use would not create
any view obstruction from the adjoining public trail,the Flower Field Trail.The proposed houses would block
the outstanding views that tourists and residents currently enjoy.
(Lep pg.C-12»
For those who say that the lot is too small for viable agricultural use,may I remind you that
First Lady Michelle Obama has planted a vegetable garden on only 1,100 square feet oftbe
1 11-58
Aug 09 10 10:35p p.2
White House Lawn."While the organic garden provides food/or the first [Qlm1y's meals and
formal dhmers.'its most important role~Mrs.Obama 8aid.'will be to educate children about
healtJifid.locally grown fruit and vegetables at a time when obesity and diabetes have become
Q national concern'.. ..the Obamas [were]lobbiedfor months by advocates who believe that
gruwing more food locally.and organically,can lead to more healthful eating and reduce reliance on hugs
industrial/arms that use more oil for transportation and chemicals for jertilizer.JI
(source:hup:i!w\yw.mlimcs.c()n1/Jl)()W()3t20Jdinil1l.!./2()gnn.l~n.html r=1)
Likewise,.last year First Lady of California Maria Shriver planted parsley when the
first edible garden at a State Capitol went into the ground in Sacramento.Garden guru-chef
Alice Waters was also on hand to shovel some dirt.That 800-square-foot garden)which replaced
a flower bed in Capitol Park on the east side ofthe Capitol builclin&includes chives,thyme and
basil along with beets~radishes,peppers,tomatoes,eggplant.zucchini and garbanzo beans.
Only 800 SQuare feet and 1)1100 sgam feet of productive agricultural activity !
Wow!This site is 61,855 square feet (1.42 acres).That's plenty of space to
provide neighboring Terranea Resort and local eateries with:fresh
produce and flowers.
Isnl agricultural activity a better use of the land than increasing density in the
coastal zone with 41arge mansions on 4 small lots?Although the city did not submit pictures
revealing the dense appearance of the site plan,a neighboring resident sent you photos of
silhouettes oftile proposed houses.(Pg.3S of item F8a staff report)
The Flower Field ~originally plaaned to pass between the eastern edge ofthe Terranea resort
aud the westem edge ofthis 1.42 aae parcel (the subject property),adjacent to the resort?s
golf course,was moved to the public sidewalk Iooated along Nantasket Drive due to concerns
about pedestrian safety next to the golf course.(Exhibit 2)Ifthis loemon on the western edge of
the golf course is a safety concern for a pedestrian trail,is it an appropriate location for single
family houses?Terranea Resort posed this question in their letter to the city which is attached.
Please consider that amending the LCP for one developer may set a precedent which may have
a domino effect on other properties and developments in the RPV Coastal Zone.
This could open up a gigantic can ofwoans!
Ifsomeone makes a motion for approval with suggested Moc:Iifications f Conditions,
please vote NO.
Please make a MOTION IN FAVOR ofthe Staff Recommendation to DENY the LCP
amendment as submitted,and please v~YES.
Thank you for all you do for Califomial
Sincerely.~a-/.~_~
EdwnrdZ ~9--
RPV resident for 40 years
310·377-(1606
2 11-59
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate,Suite 1000
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302
(562)590-5071
ADDENDUM
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.Governor
F8a
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 9,2010
Commissioners &Interested Persons
JOHN AINSWORTH,DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT STAFF
Commission Hearing of August 13,2010,item F8a of agenda,Local Coastal
Program Amendment RPV-MAJ-1-10,Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles
County
One letter from Mr.Bob Nelson stating that he is withdrawing his opposition to the project
was received at the South Coast District Office.on August 2,2010 and two letters opposing
the project were received at the South Coast District Office on August 9,2010.
11-60
·.FROM :Nel son RPV FAX NO.13105441762 Aug.02 2010 12:01PM P2
Coastal Commission case RPV-MAJ-1·10
Robert A.Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verde&"CA 90275
John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analyst
California Coastal Commission
South Coast District Office
200 Oceangate,1fi'J1 Floor
Long Beach,CA 90802-4416
Faxed to:S62·S9()..S084
caJifomia Coastal Commission
Long Beach.CA
August 2,2010
Coastal COlDmiuion Agenda
August 2810 Ac-da:Friday,AugtIIt 13,2810:item F Sa
"City ofRancho Palos VerdcsLCP Amendment No.RPV-MAJ·I ..lQ
NamasOt Drive"(Mr.Dana Ireland,applicant)
Further to my July 17th and August 1st Letters
John Del Arroz,
Tbank you for your call this molDing and statusing my August I-request to delete my
COIl"flspondence and atlachments on this item from the Coastal Staff Report.
As I indieatec:l to you,due to a recont conversatiQl1 with the applicant,I can no longer be
involved or have my OpWOJ1 considered.
I would appreciate your distribution of this letter to our Coast.aI Commissioners so that
they will know to ignore my input and proceed with Staff recommendations.
This residential addition to our costal environment has no personal impact on me and~
again.it is best for me to be no longer involved.
ThaDldng you in advance for your time and advice,
Sincerely.
~~
Bob Nelson
cc:Joel Rojas,Director.RPV Plannillg
..~
pg.1 of 1 11-61
FRON :GARY I=IMO PHONE NO.:+310 434 5384 Aug.08 201121 07:38PM pp;
FAX to 562·590--5084 ATTN:John DelArroz.
:.""."",'SunshineeLlmetreelane '
Rancho Palos Veraes,CA 90275--5909
310·377·8761 RE'
§unshIDtBeaaaol.gom·Sou'thCEJV~D
,Coast Region
AUG 8'-2010 .
GQ,A ~UFORN'A
rw II'\L COMMISSION
Auguat7,2010
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
2000CEANGATE,10th FLOOR
LONG BEACH,CA 908
RE:uNanmskett'RPY-NAJ..1*10.
Dear Caftfomla Coastal Comml8sloners:
••tro"gly urge anyone of you to atep up and move stiffs recon~·i'lend.1i()nto
dlnVhis.l!IS!&osll.
And I strongly urge all of you to then vote UVE$".
Pleaee do not even discUS8 the "amen dments'\II tno dificatlons",condlrllns etc Any
action you take which mighllead to four big houses on substandard II ~.;.,~in th(\.California .
Coastal Zone would simply be missing the point of your eXlste~ce ari :.,'\oven;'uht body.
For the local realdenta.local buslneasea and the people of the State (I!'Califoll 'Ita ..,
agriculture,as in low growing specially crops and ftowera,16 the beat '.:~~e of thl~~land
here In our Coastal Zone.'The current property owner did 'his own ri9h rnanag;:tm$nt
and paid way too much for ,thlaland and then has paid way tDo much '~;'I ArchltuctB and
the RPV planning process.That is nobody's fault but hl8 own.It 1$1'1'::a goot:."thlng'that
the RPV Staff Is trying to save him from his folly.
There Is a reason why the trail in the easement ;s8ue;8 t;8lted The FI(,"jer Fief:')Trail.
Sing along with Peter,Paul and Mary ...Where have alJ:the flowers ,~,'",e?Tt:,~time i8
right to bring the flowers back to the Palos Verdes terraces.
Now more than ever,we need to avoid Importing fruits,vegetables and floWen:which
arrlve with na8ly bugs.We need to be able to teach our children whE:te)food (',!)mes
from (4wH,Project Good Sense).We need to employ our mentally diE;,bled (B:"1&d to
Plate)."
This little bit of the Callfomla Coastal Zon._I.the p.rfecfpl.a~'to ej<p~~~jd tt1eiS(~good
works.I am completely confident that this particular develQj)er Is wl$~*~n6ugh:to use
some government bailout program and make lemonade o~~f hi",f~n,;,on.,...~. ..'.."
Thank you for .erving on behBlf of tn.ClIlzens d CallfoinJ.:'d,-,,J ....11-62
COVER SHEET
TO:
John Del Arroz,Project Analyst
Gary Tlmm,District Manager
John Ainsworth,Deputy Director
Peter Dougl.~Executlve Director
Coastal CommlUlonet8
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
HEADQUARTERS AND
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
200 OCEANGATE,10th FLOOR
LONG BEACH.CA
FAX 562-680-5084.415-904-S400
From:Lente Bilski
Rancho Palo.Verd..
FAX:310-377-2845
RE:FBa Aug.13,2010 "Nantasket"(RPV-HAJ-1-10)
Staff:Kindly forward to all Commlsaioners prior
to Aug.11th opening meeting.
RECEIVED
South Coast Region
AUG 9'-2010
COAS~Ut8~~'ON
11-63
Aug.6,2010
Please Forward to All Commisstoners via email,fax.or hand dellvety
TO·CALIFORNIA COASTAl COMMISSIONERS and STAFF
RE:Friday Agenda item FSa August 13.2010
FROM:RPV resident Opppsed to this ~
SUbject:Major Amendment Requeet No.01-10 to the Rancho Palos Verdes
certified local Coastal Program.(Nsntasket RPV-NAJ-1-10)
Dear Coastal Commissioners and Staff,
I agree with the staff Recommendation to DENY the land Use Plan Amendment as proposed.
No modifications should be considered.The proposed Land Use Plan amendment would not
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible alternatives.
Amending the LUP for the economic gain of the developer Is questionable.Mr.Ireland knew
what the land use and zoning was when he purchased the land.
Although the staff-suggested modifications (only native.non-lnvasN&pWtts allowed)
may lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment,there
are other feasible alternatives.Cultivated flowers and vegetables on the property would not be
invasive and will respect the Goals of the city of RPV for the Coastat Zone.AgricUltural use vtould
also be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.The proposed houses would not
be compatible.Although the cily's Dnctor explained 1hatthe proposed residential use would
require a neighborhood compatibility review and finding.that finding could not be made.
(RPV Planning Commission Minutes of 11/1612006 )
With all due respect.I propose a feasible Altemative to the staffs
recommendation:Keep the primary use of1his percel Agricultural as designated
in the i.CP.Do not change the primary use to residential.
RPV Coastal Specific Plan Subregion 2.Agriculture seetlon:
The coastsl specific plan makes a prlmary effort to maintain agricuKurai
activity on this sfte.(lCP pg.62·7)This use was not explored by the developer.
Alltlough this parcel is substantisDy smBlIer 1han the original lot,
commercial agricultural activity Is stili a viable use of this land,and would comply With
the LCP without amendment.Also,the property is wfthin a view corridor.Agricultural use would
not create any view obstruction from the adjoining public trail,the Flower Field Trail.'111e proposed
houses would bJock the outstanding views that tourists and residents currently enjoy.
eLC?pg.e-12)}
For those who say that the lot Is too smaB for viable agricultural use,may'remind you that
First Lady Michelle Obama has planted a vegetable garden on only 1,100 square feet of the
White House Lawn."While the OIfISnic garden pt'Ovides food for the first family's mesls and
fannal dinners,,its most important IO/s:Mrs.Obema said,'wHJ be to educate children about
healthful.locally groWn fruit at1d vegetabfes at a time When obesity and diabeles have become
a national concsm'....the Obamas [were}lobbied for-months by advacat&s who belieVe that
growing more food foc:aHy,and organicaHy.can lead to more hasfthful eating and reduce reliance
on huge industrial farms that use mrKe 011 for transportation and chemIcBIs for fertilizer."
(source:http://WWW.nytlmes.comJ2009I03flOidiningl2Cgarden.htmLp;1)
11-64
L.ikeWls6.last year First Lady of CalifOrnia Marla Shriver planted parsley when the
first edible garden at a Slate capftol went into the ground in Sacramento.Garden guru-chef
Alice Waters was also on hand to sOOwI some dirt.That 8DQ.square-foot garden,which replaced
a flower bed in Capitol Park on the east side of the capItol building,Includes chives,thyme and
basil along with beets.radishes.peppers,tomatoes,eggplant.zucchini and garbanzo beans.
Only 800 sgu@re fief SOd 1,10Q ta9aure feet of productive agriCLdlufai actOO1Y 1
Wowl This sIte Is 61,855 square reet (1.42 acres).That's plenty of space to
provide neighboring Terranes Re!5ort and Iccal eateries with fresh
produce and flowers..
Isn't agricultural activity a better use of 1I1e land than increasing denSity In the
coastal zone with 4 large mansions on 4 small lots?Although the oily cfid not submit pictures
revealing the dense appearaooe of the site plan,a neighboring resident sent you photos of
silhouettes of the proposed houses.(pg.35 of item FBa staff report)
The Flower Field trail,originally plamed to pass between the eastern edge of the Terranea resort
and the western edge or this 1.42 acre parcel (the subject properly),adjacent to the resort's
golf course,was movecf to the public sidewalk Jocatsd along Nantasket Drive due to concerns
aboUt pedestrian safety next to the golf course.(Exhibit 2)If this location on the western edge of
the golf course is a safety concern for a pedestrian uan,is It an appropriate locatiOn for single
family houses?Terranea Resort posed this question in their letter to the city which fe attached.
Please consider that amending the lCP for one developer may set a precedent WhIch may have
a domino effect on other properties and developments in the RPV Coastal ZOne.
ll1is could open up a gigantic can of worms!
If someone makes a motion for approval with suggested Mod'lflcations I Conditions,
please vote NO.
Please make a MOTION IN FAVOR cfthe Staff Recommendation to DENY the LCP
amendment as SUbmitted,and please vote YES.
Thank you for all you do for california!
SIncerely,
Lenee Bilski
RPV resident
31Q.3n-2645
email:tlb910@juno.com
11-65
January 25,20]0
Edllardo Schonborn
Senjor Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthome Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re~POsed Single Fanrily Ho ....Adj....t to T........
Dear Edl1ardo,
TI1is letter is written Te8arding the proposed single family residential project to be located on Natasket
dri\'e,adjacent to Terranea Resort.Upon ~view oftha infonnation contained in the Rancho Palos Verdes
(RPV)Planning Commission Stsffreportdated November 10.2009,Long Point Development (LPO)has
the following comments and COn~nl!!l.
First,1he Staff report indicates that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit a ~elopment with
shallower lot depths than are required by City Code for RS-3 zoned properties.According to the Staff
Report.the existing parcel has a Jot depth of93'which does not comply with the required minimum Jot
depth of 110'.While we understand that applicant still adheres to the minimum setback requirements
specified for an RS-5 zoned lot,\'Ve are concerned that proposed plan has not considered the potential
implications the shallower deptn will have on the lots.houses 011 the loti,and the persoDs residing in
those houses,related to goJf~ty.Sballower lots will cause the houses to be closer to 1he Links at
Terranea,and leave the applicant with no room to provide potential golf safety mitigation.
We respectfully request that the City require the applicant to undertake the appropriate golf safety review
and to include any necessary mitigation in his development.
In addition.we ask the City to require that a declaration be recorded against the Ireland property which
sers forth as to all future·owners the following:
1.A perpetWlI.nonex:clusivc easentent for golfbaU overfligbL
2.An acknowledgement and agreement which incl udes the following:"'that the Ire!and property is
located adjacent to the Links at Terranea Golf Course and is subj ect tD risk of damage or injury
due to person or property,inc]udio&without limitation,damage to the improvements
constructed all the property and damages for personal injury or death due to errant golf balls.
Eacb owner$for itself and for future own.ers,hereby assumes the risk ofany and an damage or
injury to persons or property,including,without limitation,damage to impro~'en1el1ts on each lot
or other property thereon,and damages for personal injury or death due to errant gotfballs,and
hereby releases Long Point Development.LLC and its successors and assigns as OWller ofthe
11-66
•
Terranea Resort and/or the Links 8t Terranea Golf COlillie and My OpCllltor of the Resort or
Links Golf Course and each of their officers.directors,employees and agents from any and all
liability for damage or injury caused by errant golf balls."
3.A similar acknowledgement and agreement regarding tbe resort itself,the conditions of approval
for the Reso14 and the fact that (he ReSOl1 is a 24n operation.with cars coming and going all
night and outdoor as well as j ndoor lighting and usage of facilities.
4.An acknowledgement and agreement that there is and can be no access from the Ireland proptrty
to the Resort and no entry into the resort property and the Habitat area.
Second.pursuant to Section 16.04.040.E oftne RPV Subdivision Ordinance,.IUl well as CaJifomia
Environmental Quality Act requirements,the findings contained in the StaffReport indicate that the
applicants'project will not have a detrimental effect on '(wildlife or its habitat"'.While we cannot provide
comment on the merits of this analysis.,we are coneemed that the applicant has not adequately studied the
impacts ofthe proposed developmcot on the TelTanea Habitat Zone tJlat directly abuts the.proposed
development.This ,Habitat Area.referred to by the Califomia Coastal Commission (CCC)as Zone C.is
a requirement ofTen-aoea's Coastal Development Permit.Please see attached Exhibit A (LP~1
Nantasket Habitat).As Staff is aw~LPD has invested significant resources in assuring the integrity of
its habitat areas and 'tIte non invasive ornamental zones that abut tltem.We respectfully request tllat the
City consider the impacts of the proposed development on acljacent native habitat arelUl.fuat the City
require that no nonnative or invasive species be permitted within fifteen feet af the Habitat Zone and that
nonnative and invasive species be required to be removed by the property owners as needed from such
area,and appropriate additiollal mitigation measures to preserve the integrity ofthe restored Habitat.We
ask that Staff revise its finding accordingly.
Third,regarding the applicant's confonnance with the Coastal Specific Plan.we are concerned that the
applicant"s proposed development is not being held to offsite improvement or c.oastal aecess precedents
imposed on other developers (including Long Point Development)within Rancho Palos Verdes.For
example.while the Staff report notes that "'the ...residences are confined to property limits and will not
interfere with the public's right to s.ccess the sea,"other developers,iocluding Long Point Development,
were required to improve off-site trails,including the Flowerfield Trail whicn directly abuts the
applicant's property.We respectfully request that tfJe City require 'the applicant to improYe and maintain
the portion of the Flowerfield Trail adjacent to his property.
We appreciate your attention to our comments and concerns regarding this development application.
Should you have any questions or require any additional materials or ~planat[oJi.please contact me at
j"oUt'<:arIiest conven:cnce so that 'we may respond 85 needed.
Regards.
~!.--(.''--+~ajcher
Vice President
Long Point Development
11-67
Aug 09 10 07:308 Lenee
I
I
I
I:-----1 "
]CJ«EJ1I8''l:IrI ,
I
i;
j;
O',
:.
i'..........----/;:.+
i
JI
j
11It1I~J~"i~!i I'.,1.......:
1(310)377-2645
J :
.;.1
'j,
p.1
---_._---..-..11-68
Aug 09 10 07:35a
f5fcL-
Lanse 1(310)377-2645 p.6
11-69
Aug 09 10 07:378 Lenee
F&
1(310)377-2645 p.?
;1..--'.1
~.~
"
_liiio __._......_
~1'"",..,"
'Ii.i -~{......~...,.:....,I
f<r-,~rI.ooo.---=.~.,:,~
I
i
i
i-
I
',.............
'...
I !~!,
I ~I e!\~I
I~
!
UR.i _1RE!.AHt),--:---_....!
'%..
11-70
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate,Suite 1000
Long Beach,CA 90802-4302
(562)590-5071
MEMORANDUM:
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor
July 21,2010
F Sa
TO:
FROM:
Commissioners and Interested Parties
Jack Ainsworth,Deputy Director
Gary Timm,Coastal Program Manager,South Coast District
John Del Arroz,Coastal Program Analyst
SUBJECT:Major Amendment Request No.01-10 to the Rancho Palos Verdes certified
Local Coastal Program (for public hearing and Commission action at the
August 11-13,2010 meeting in San Luis Obispo)
SUMMARY OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST
On March 22,2010,the city of Rancho Palos Verdes submitted a request to amend the
Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Program (LCP).The proposed amendment
would change the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use from Agriculture to Residential,and
the zoning designation from Commercial Recreational to Single-Family Residential for a
vacant 1.42 acre property located at 32639 Nantasket Drive.The subject site is located
to the south of Palos Verdes Drive and on the north south and east sides adjacent to the
T erranea Resort habitat restoration areas.Residential development is located to the east
and south of the subject site.If the amendment is approved,the site could potentially be
divided into four parcels and developed with 4 single-family residences (SFRs)on
individual lots On April 30,2010,Commission staff determined that the City's submittal
was complete.On June 11,the City and the Commission agreed to extend the 90-day
time limit for consideration of the amendment to the total LCP for one additional year
pursuant to Public Resources Code section 30517.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Commission,after public hearing:
1.Deny the LUP amendment as submitted,and approve it if modified as
recommended below.
2.Approve the amendment request to the Implementation Plan as submitted.
The City's proposed LCP amendment,as submitted,is inconsistent with Section 30240 of
the Coastal Act relative to the requirement that development in areas adjacent to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas be sited and designed to prevent impacts which
would significantly degrade those areas and be compatible with the continuance of those
habitat areas.The proposed LCP amendment,which will allow residential use on the
subject site,could adversely impact the habitat restoration areas on the adjacent
Terranea Resort by the introduction on non-native and/or invasive plant species unless
11-71
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 2 of 20
policy requirements are established that prohibit the planting of such species and require
the use of native,non-invasive plant species as a component of permitted residential
development of the site.Therefore,staff is recommending suggested modifications to
the LCP amendment request to add protective policies regarding future landscaping on
the site.
The motions to accomplish this recommendation are found on pages 3 &4.As
proposed,the LUP amendment does not meet the requirements of and is not in
conformity with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.Only if modified as
recommended will the LUP Amendment meet the requirements of and be in conformity
with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.The Implementation Plan amendment is
in conformity with and adequate to carry out the policies of the certified Land Use Plan,
as they are proposed to be amended as modified in accordance with the staff
recommendation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
The standard of review for the proposed Land Use Plan amendment,pursuant to Coastal
Act sections 30512(c)and 30514(b),is its consistency with the policies of Chapter 3 of
the Coastal Act.The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the Rancho
Palos Verdes Implementation Plan,pursuant to Coastal Act Sections 30513 and
30514(b),is its conformance with and adequacy to carry out the provisions of the certified
Rancho Palos Verdes Land Use Plan.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in Local Coastal Program
development.It states:
During the preparation,approval,certification,and amendment of any local coastal
program,the public,as well as all affected governmental agencies,including
special districts shall be provided maximum opportunities to participate.Prior to
submission of a local coastal program for approval,local governments shall hold a
public hearing or hearings on that portion of the program which has not been
subjected to public hearings within four years of such submission.
On Oct.2,2009,the city of Rancho Palos Verdes notice of the Nov.10th Planning
Commission hearing was mailed to property owners within a 500 ft radius.On Oct.8,
2009 notice was also provided in the Peninsula News.On November 10,2009,the
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-1 to
approve Resolution 2010-09,recommending City Council approval of the Coastal Plan
amendment and Zone change.Notice was mailed to property owners within a 500 foot
radius,informing them of the proposed project and City Council Hearing.After public
hearing,on Feb.2,2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-08,accepting the
mitigated negative declaration,and Resolution 2010-09 approving the proposed
amendment.
11-72
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 3 of 20
The South Coast District office has received a total of 5 letters from the public.All letters
express opposition to the proposed amendment.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
1.Aerial view
2.Plan of trails from Permit for Terranea Resort
3.Map of habitat zones from Todd Machjer
4.Maps of Coastal Resource Management Districts from the City's Natural Environment
Element portion of the LCP.
5.LCP map of visual corridors
6.Public Comment Letters
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The matter is scheduled for Public Hearing and Commission Action at the meeting of
August 11-13,2010,in San Luis Obispo,California.For further information,please
contact John Del Arroz at the South Coast District Office of the Coastal Commission,at
(562)590-5071.Copies of the proposed amended Land Use Plan and Implementation
Ordinances are available for review at the Commission South Coast District office or from
the RPV Planning department at 310-544-5228.
I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the following resolutions:
A.Denial of the Land Use Plan Amendment as Submitted
MOTION:I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment No.
1-10 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Local Coastal Program as
submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY AS SUBMITTED:
Staff recommends a NO vote.Failure of this motion will result in denial of the
Amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolution and findings.The
motion passes only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed
Commissioners.
RESOLUTION TO DENY THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:
The Commission hereby denies certification of the Land Use Plan Amendment 1-10 as
submitted by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and adopts the findings set forth below on
the grounds that the amendment does not meet the requirements of or conform with the
policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment
would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which could substantially lessen any
11-73
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 4 of 20
significant adverse impact which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the
environment.
B.Approval of the LUP Amendment with Suggested Modifications
MOTION:I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment No.
1-10 for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes if it is modified as
suggested by staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED
MODIFICATIONS:
Staff recommends a YES vote.Passage of the motion will result in the certification of the
Land Use Plan Amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following
resolution and findings.The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only
upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the appointed Commissioners.
RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
The Commission hereby certifies the Land Use Plan Amendment No.1-10 for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on
the grounds that the Land Use Plan Amendment with suggested modifications will meet
the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Certification of the Land Use Plan Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act because either 1)feasible mitigation measures
and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse
effects of the plan on the environment,or 2)there are no further feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts
which the Land Use Plan Amendment may have on the environment.
C.Approval of the Implementation Plan Amendment as Submitted
MOTION:I move that the Commission reject the Implementation
Program Amendment 1-10 for the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes as submitted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF CERTIFICATION AS SUBMITTED:
Staff recommends a NO vote.Failure of this motion will result in certification of the
Implementation Program amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following
resolution and findings.The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of
the Commissioners present.
11-74
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 50f20
RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM AMENDMENT AS
SUBMITTED:
The Commission hereby certifies Implementation Program Amendment 1-10 for the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes as submitted and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds
that the Implementation Program amendment conforms with,and is adequate to carry
out,the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan as amended,and certification of the
Implementation Program amendment will meet the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act,because either 1)feasible mitigation measures and/or
alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse
effects of the Implementation Program on the environment,or 2)there are no further
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any
significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the
Implementation Program amendment.
II.PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 13551 (b)of the California Code of Regulations,a resolution for
submittal must indicate whether the Local Coastal Program amendment will require
formal local government adoption after Commission approval,or is an amendment that
will take effect automatically upon the Commission's approval pursuant to Public
Resources Code Sections 30512,30513 and 30519.If the LCP Amendment is approved
as submitted,the City's resolution of adoption (Resolution No.2010-09)will take effect
upon Commission certification.If the LCP Amendment is approved with suggested
modifications,the LCP Amendment will take effect after the City formally accepts the
suggested modifications,and the Executive Director determines that the City's action is
legally adequate to satisfy the requirements of the suggested modifications and the
Commission concurs with the Executive Director's determination at a regularly scheduled
public meeting.
III.SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Certification of City of Rancho Palos Verdes LCP Amendment Request No.1-10 is
subject to the following modifications to the City's certified Land Use Plan.
The City's proposed additions are shown as underlined text.
The City's proposed deletions are shown as strike out te~.
The Commission's suggested additions are shown in bold,italic,underlined text.
The Commission's suggested deletions are shown in bold,itali6,strike Ol:lt text
11-75
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 6of20
Subregion 2,Transportation Systems Section:
With respest te the future poteRtial ElevelopmeRt of the sshool site as a
sommereial re&reatioR (asility (sesoRdary use),this plaR does Rot iEleRtify
spe6ifie resommeREled uses;however the IollewiRg are guiEleliRes v.fhish
shouIEJ he sORsiElered iR aAY sush ElevelePmeRt plaRS
4J Assess should Rot he takeR from NaRtasifet drive (iR suhregioR 3)siRse it
is ElesigRed as a resiEleRtial stFeet aRd sommeFGial traffis would iR aU
likelihood sause sigRilisaRt prohlems
-2}The PFOjest propoReRts should iRvestigate the possibility of shariRg
assess with MariRelaRd through the use of appropriate legal methods.
3}ParkiRg aRd assess should he ElesigRed so that it is suffisieRtly huffered
from uistiRg aRd future resiEleRtial ElevelopmeRt.
Subregion 2,Agriculture Section:
The soastal spesifis plaR makes a primary effort to maiRtaiR agrisultural
astivity OR the 17 a&re sshool site.This astioR is warraRted he63use of the
site's high 6FOp yield,irrigatioR aRd suhStaRtialsite si2e.III order te
maiRtaiR the astivity,the City Reeds te add aR agrisultural distrist te its
ElevelopmeRt soEle aRd apply it te this site.MaiRtaiRiRg agrisulture OR this
site is sORtiRgeRt OR the site ROt heiRg ReeEled for a sshool,aRd suffisieRt
fuRdiRg from other ageRsies heiRg availahle for pUFGhase of the site.Should
these sORditioRS ROt he met,theR the plaR resommeRds a sesoRdary use of
sommeFGial resreatioR as fJFO/iJosed By the GeReral P-IaR.
Subregion 2,Potential Activities Section:
ShouIEJ the primary aim of maiRtaiRiRg agrisulture OR this site prove
uRworkahle,theR a sesoRdary proposal of sommereial reereatioR should he
implemeRted.lJevelepmeRt uREler a sommeFGial resreatioRaluse VJOuld
raise two sORserlls.ORe,the pOiRt of primary assess wIlish is dissussed
URder vehisular Retworks aRd should he referFed te thereiR;aRd two,
possihle adverse impasts ORte adjoiRiRg resiEleRtial areas lesated iR
suhregioR 3.Site plaRRiRg efforts Reed te he SOgRiURt of adjoiRiRg
resiEleRtial areas.Buffer areas should he sl:lpplied aloRg the site's sommOR
property liRe aloRg with the shieldiRg of aAY outdoor lightiRg.A#oise should
he retarded at the geReratiRg SOUFGes.A sritisal view sorridor traverses the
site (see sorridor sestioR)requiriRg strustural improvemeRts te he sarefully
11-76
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 70f20
revietlJed iR the atfe6ted area.Also,60RsideratioR should be giveR to a
deve#&pmeRt's appearaR6e from resideRtial areas.
Subregion 2,Induced Activity Section:
The General Plan Designates a commercial recreational use for the 17 acre surplus
school site.The Coastal Specific Plan changes this proposal.It designates a land use
of Residential for the 1.4 acre parcel on the eastern boundary near Nantasket Drive
on the site and a Commercial Recreation use on the remainder.lNimary we of
agri61llture OR the site,a se60Rdary we of 60mmer6ial re6FeatioR,aRd
eR60wagemeRt of a retiremeRtlseRior GitizeRl fixed m60me fa6ility OR a pOrtiOR of
the site.Aside from this,the coastal specific plan concurs with land uses established in
the general plan.
Subregion 2 Policy 8:
Change the primary land use on the Designate as agrioultural use 1.42-acre site,
which was subdivided from the former Abalone Cove School Site located on the
west side of Nantasket Drive adjacent to the Terranea Hotel Resort sitein the
event that the property is not required for oonstruction of a sohool and if suffioient
non oity funds are made available to the City through the Coastal ConseF\<anoy (Or
other funding)for purohase of the site.A seoondary use designation shall be
oommeroial reoreation and enoouragement of a retirement/senior oitizen.'fixed
inoome faoility on a portien of the site.from Agriculture to Residential.
Parcels adjacent to natural habitat areas created as mitigation for
development of the Terranea Resort Hotel including the residential parcels
along Nantasket Drive to the east shal/be required to use only non-invasive
plant species.as identified by the California Invasive Pest Council (Cal-IPCJ
or the Santa Monica Mountains Chapter handbook entitled Recommended
List of Native Plants for Landscaping in the Santa Monica Mountains.In
addition.aI/landscaping shal/be required to consist of primarily native.
drought resistant species and aI/landscaping within 15 feet of the rear
property line adjacent to the natural habitat area shal/consist of non-
invasive.native plant species only.
Add the following policy to the Policies Section of Subregion 2 of the Land Use Plan:
10.The sidewalk along Nantasket Drive.which connects to the Flowerfield
trail on the Terranea Resort site shal/remain open to the public and no
physical obstructions such as gates or guardhouses or signs that restrict
public access to the trail shal/be aI/owed on or fronting Nantasket Drive.
11-77
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 8 of 20
IV.FINDINGS
The following findings support the Commission's denial of the proposed LCP Amendment
as submitted and approval if modified as recommended by staff.The Commission
hereby finds and declares as follows:
A.Amendment Description
The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA)No.1-10 consists of a change
in the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use designation from Agriculture to Residential and a
change in the Implementation Plan Zoning designation from Commercial Recreation(CR)
to Single-Family Residential (RS-3)for a vacant 1.42 acre parcel located at 32639
Nantasket Drive (APN 7573-014-013)to allow for potential subdivision and the
construction of four single family residences.The subject site is within the area
appealable to the Coastal Commission.This amendment would modify Policy 8 of the
Coastal Specific Plan,Subregion 2 as follows (language to be added is underlined and
language to be deleted is in stril'm out):
Change the primary land use on the Designato as agriGultural use 1.42-acre site,
which was subdivided from the former 17 acre Abalone Cove School Site fn-.tR.e
event that the property is not required for Gonstruotion of a SGhool and if suffiGient
non Gily funds are made available to the City through the Coastal ConservanGY (Or
other funding)for purohase of the site.A seGondary use designation shall be
Gommeroial reGreation and enGouragement of a retirement/senior Gitizenl fi*ed
inGome faGility on a portion of the site.from Agriculture to Residential.
The subject site is bordered to the north and west by the Terranea Resort,to the north,
west and south by native habitat plant zones on the Terranea Resort site,and to the east
by the Villa Apartments.The single family residential street,Channelview Drive lies a
short distance to the north.
The subject parcel was once a part of a 17 acre parcel of surplus Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District property.Between 1975 and 1980,a portion of the site was used
for agriculture.In recognition of the "site's high crop yield,irrigation and substantial site
size"(page S2-7 of the LUP),the Coastal Specific Plan recommended an Agricultural
Land Use designation for the site in 1978,contingent on the availability of non-city
funding for purchase of the site.A secondary,alternate designation of Commercial
Recreation was proposed if funding was not obtained.In 1979 the operators of
Marineland acquired the property.In 1980 the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning
Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map No.12715,creating the subject 1.42 acre
parcel for use as a parking lot for the nearby Villa Apartments,which was never
developed.In 1983,the Local Coastal Program for Ranchos Palos Verdes was certified
with the above described LUP and Zoning designations for the subject parcel.
11-78
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 9 of 20
The remaining portion of the 17 acre parcel was approved for development as part of the
Terranea Resort Hotel.The conditions for approval of the Terranea Resort included
requirements for the construction of public trails throughout the development and for the
creation of natural habitat areas.The Flowerfield trail was originally planned to pass
between the eastern edge of the Terranea resort and the western edge of the 1.42 acre
parcel (the subject property),adjacent to the resort's golf course.Due to concerns about
pedestrian safety next to the golf course,the trail was moved to the public sidewalk
located along Nantasket Drive on the eastern edge of the subject property(Exhibit 2).
Sensitive habitat,including coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub,was identified on
the site of the Terranea Resort as part of city review of the Terranea development.In
order to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat,the Terranea development was required
to restore and enhance a number of habitat areas throughout the site.The Nantasket
Habitat Area is located directly adjacent to the site,to the north,west and south (Exhibit
3).
Although the city's general plan,Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance designate the
subject site as Agriculture and Commercial Recreation,the Coastal Specific plan has not
been updated since its adoption,and therefore still designates the primary land use for
the site as Agriculture.
B.Findings for Denial of Land Use Plan Amendment as Submitted
The standard of review for Amendments to a certified Land Use Plan is consistency with the
policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.The Commission may require conformity with Chapter 3
only to the extent necessary to achieve the basic stated goals specified in Section 30001.5.
1.Sensitive Habitat
Section 30240(a)&(b)states:
(a)Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption
ofhabitat values,and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those
areas.
(b)Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade those areas,and shall be compatible with the continuance ofthose habitat and
recreation areas.
Section 30107.5 defines environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA)to include
[A]ny area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable
because oftheir special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or
degraded by human activities and development.
The natural environment element of the LUP states:
11-79
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 10 of 20
"CRM 9 -Wildlife Habitat
Existing wildlife habitats can be retained with vegetation and natural drainage patterns
maintained to provide water andforaging material in the habitat.It is important to review any
proposed development within or adjacent to wildlife habitat districts for the nature ofthe impact
upon the wildlife habitat and possible mitigation measures to fully offiet any impacts."
"Require developments within or adjacent to wildlife habitats to describe the nature ofthe impact
upon the wildlife habitat and provide mitigation measures to fully offiet the impact."
Directly adjacent to the subject parcel is an Enhanced Native Planting Zone of the
T erranea Development.This area is designated as habitat enhancement for
endangered species and native animals of concern,including the Federally Endangered
California Gnatcatcher.As a result,the area qualifies as ESHA,and the adjacent
development must be compatible with the continuance of the habitat area.
Condition 7 of the Special Conditions for the Terranea Development states in part:
Zone C Roadside Enhanced Native Planting Zone.Applicant shall install plants adjacent to Palos
Verdes Drive South that provide food and cover for wildlife,including gnatchachers,migration
between the nearby habitat areas to the northeast and northwest under consideration for inclusion
in the City's Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)Program as depicted in Exhibit 24"
The findings from the staff report for the T erranea Development states:
Staffin researching restoration and landscaping special conditions interviewed Dr.Barry Prigge,
a California Native plant specialist.He indicated to staffthat in his opinion,a very significant
problem for the persistence ofnative plant communities in southern California habitat areas is the
use ofinvasive non-native plants in nearby developed areas.This is because invasive plants can
and do invade disturbed areas and habitat areas and supplant native plants.The non-native plants
often do not provide the necessary foodfor native butterflies and other insects.For this reason Dr.
Prigge advised against allowing use ofinvasive plants near habitat restoration areas.
And
The Commission finds that the objective ofthe plans for the enhancement and restoration areas
should be to enhance habitat for the endangered butterflies.Other landscaping on the site should
(1)protect the enhancement areas (2)provide additional food and cover for native animals of
concern including the gnatcatcher and the cactus wren.The objectives ofthis planting in
enhancement areas should be,within the constraints offire protection to provide food and cover
for the endangered species and other CSS(Coastal Sage Scrub)species found on the site and
nearby.Most importantly the landscaping elsewhere on the site should not have impacts on
habitat areas.
The LUP includes a map which designates specific areas for each Coastal Resource
Management zone.The Habitat Area adjacent to the subject site is not included on the
LCP's map of Wildlife Habitat (Exhibit 4).Therefore the existing LUP could be construed
as only protecting those areas that are specifically designated as Wildlife Habitat within
the LCP.Without adequate protection,the natural habitat areas created as mitigation for
the Terranea development could be at risk from development on the adjacent parcel.
11-80
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 11 of 20
The Nantasket Habitat Area lies directly adjacent to the subject development on the
Terranea Resort site.As submitted,the amendments to Land Use Plan and
Implementation Plan do not address negative effects of residential development and
landscaping on the adjacent habitat area.The Terranea Development specifically
prohibited the use of potentially harmful plant species anywhere on the Resort.If there
are no restrictions placed on development of the subject site,non-native,invasive
species planted within the residential parcel directly adjacent to a habitat area have the
potential to outcompete native species,resulting in loss of biodiversity and habitat and
food sources for native species,resulting in significant degradation of the natural habitat
area.As proposed,the amendment to the LUP is not "compatible with the continuance of
those habitat and recreation areas,"as required by Coastal Act Section 30240(b).
2.Inconsistencies in the Land Use Plan
As submitted,the amendments to the Land Use Plan would change the Policies section
of Subregion 2,but would not change other sections of Subregion 2 of the Land Use Plan
which state that the permitted uses on the subject site are Agriculture and Commercial
Recreation.As submitted,the findings in the LUP which support the stated policies
would be inconsistent with the amended Policies section.This would leave ambiguity as
to the permitted uses on the subject site.
3.Public Access
Coastal Act Section 30210 states:
In carrying out the requirement ofSection 4 ofArticle X ofthe CalifOrnia Constitution.maximum
access,which shall be conspicuously posted,and recreational opportunities shall be providedfor
all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights,rights of
private property owners,and natural resource areas from overuse.
Coastal Act Section 30211 states:
Development shall not interfere with the public's right ofaccess to the sea where acquired through
use or legislative authorization,including,but not limited to,the use ofdry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line ofterrestrial vegetation.
As submitted,the amendment to the land use plan would not provide specific protections
to ensure that the residential development of the subject site will not impact public access
to and along the Coast through the Flowerfield trail.Due to the proximity of the
Flowerfield trail to the subject site,residential development could lead to pressures to
restrict public utilization of the Flowerfield Trail.Without adequate protections in place,
this could lead to a reduction in public access to the shoreline and along the bluff.
Therefore,as submitted,the proposed change in Land Use designation of the subject site
is not compatible with Sections 30210 and 30211
11-81
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 12 of 20
C.Findings for Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment RPV-MAJ-1-10 if
Modified as Recommended.in Part.and as Submitted.in Part
1.Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
The habitat area adjacent to the subject parcel on the eastern edge of the Terranea
Resort site contains habitat which is important to native species,including the federally
endangered California Gnatcatcher.The certified LUP contains policies to protect and
enhance native plants and natural habitat;however,as discussed in the preceding
section,there are some existing deficiencies in these policies that require modifications to
ensure that the native habitat areas adjacent to the subject parcel are protected.The
proposed LCP Amendment to change the zoning and land use of the subject parcel to
Residential would introduce urban landscaping to the parcel as a part of residential
development.Without adequate protections,landscaping on the subject parcel may
contain invasive,non-native species.Non-native,invasive species may outcompete and
replace native plants within the natural habitat area with non-native plants.This would
reduce the habitat value of the natural habitat area for native species.As a result,the
proposed LCP change,as submitted,is not consistent with Coastal Act Section 30240.
Therefore,it is necessary to add a policy to the Land use Plan as a suggested
modification which restricts the use of non-native and invasive plant species on newly
developed sites adjacent to the established natural habitat on the Terranea Resort site.
Only if modified as suggested would invasive and non-native plant species associated
with residential development be prohibited from use within the subject parcel,and
degradation of the adjacent habitat area avoided.Only with the suggested modification
can the development be found in conformance with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act.
2.Agriculture
Coastal Act Section 30241 states in part:
The maximum amount ofprime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to
assure the protection ofthe areas'agricultural economy,and conflicts shall be minimized between
agricultural and urban land uses through all ofthe following:
(a)By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas,including,where
necessary,clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban
land uses.
(b)By limiting conversions ofagricultural lands around the periphery ofurban areas to the
lands where the viability ofexisting agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts
with urban uses or where the conversion ofthe lands would complete a logical and viable
neighborhood and contribute to the establishment ofa stable limit to urban development.
(c)By permitting the conversion ofagricultural land surrounded by urban uses where the
conversion ofthe land would be consistent with Section 30250.
(d)By developing available lands not suitedfor agriculture prior to the conversion of
agricultural lands.
(e)By assuring that public service andfacility expansions and nonagricultural development
do not impair agricultural viability,either through increased assessment costs or degraded
air and water quality.
11-82
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 13 of 20
(f)By assuring that all divisions ofprime agricultural lands,except those conversions
approved pursuant to subdivision (b),and all development adjacent to prime agricultural
lands shall not diminish the productivity ofsuch prime agricultural lands.
Coastal Act Section 30242 states:
All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless
(I)continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible,or (2)such conversion would preserve
prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250.Any such
permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
Coastal Act Section 30250 states in part:
(a)New residential,commercial,or industrial development,except as otherwise provided in this
division,shall be located within,contiguous with,or in close proximity to,existing developed areas
able to accommodate it or,where such areas are not able to accommodate it,in other areas with
adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects,either individually
or cumulatively,on coastal resources.
The City's Certified Land Use Plan,Subregion 2 states:
The coastal specific plan makes a primary effort to maintain agricultural activity on the 17 acre
school site.This action is warranted because ofthe site's high crop yield,irrigation and
substantial site size ...Maintaining agriculture on this site is contingent on the site not being
needed for a school,and sufficient funding from other agencies being available for purchase ofthe
site ....Should the primary aim ofmaintaining agriculture on this site prove unworkable,then a
secondary proposal ofcommercial recreation should be implemented.Development under a
commercial recreational use would raise two concerns.One,the point ofprimary access ....and
two,possible adverse impacts onto adjoining residential areas located in subregion 3.Site
planning efforts need to be cognizant ofadjoining residential areas.Buffer areas should be
supplied along the site's common property line along with the shielding ofany outdoor lighting.
Noise should be retarded at the generating sources.
The primary land use currently specified by the Rancho Palos Verdes Local Land Use
Plan is Agriculture.The City's Land Use Plan states that the site had "high crop yield,
irrigation,and substantial site size."According to this description,the 17 acre parcel may
qualify as prime agricultural land.According to Sections 30241 and 30250,conversion of
prime agricultural land may only be permitted where:the site is surrounded by urban
uses,and the new development is "located within,contiguous with,or in close proximity
to,existing developed areas able to accommodate it."The proposed change in land use
meets this requirement.The subject site is surrounded by urban uses,including
apartments and single family residences to the North and East,and the golf course for
the Terranea Resort to the West.The site is located within existing developed areas,the
proposed residential use at the subject site will fit with the surrounding residential uses,
and the residential street Nantasket Drive and existing utilities will be adequate to
accommodate the new development.
11-83
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 14 of 20
Conversion of other agricultural land may only be permitted where continued agricultural
production is not feasible,or where doing so would "concentrate development consistent
with Section 30250".While the LCP states that the site was suitable for continued
agricultural use,that designation was contingent on the availability of funding for
purchase of the subject site.That funding was not obtained,and the size of the parcel
has since been greatly reduced due to the lot split approved by the city in 1980.The
Commission then approved a permit for the Terranea Resort Hotel,which resulted in the
development of most of the former 17 acre parcel once used for agriculture,leaving
behind the 1.42 acre remnant parcel.The subject property is not currently in agricultural
production,and has not been used for agriculture since the 1.42 acre parcel was created
in 1980.Although the city did not submit an agricultural viability report,the small site
size,lack of agriculture for the past 30 years,lack of funding for public acquisition,and
the Commission's prior approval of a Commercial Recreation land use on the Terranea
site indicate that agriculture is not viable on the subject site.The subject site is currently
bordered on four sides by urban uses and therefore the proposed conversion to
Residential can be considered located "within,contiguous with,or in close proximity to,
existing developed areas able to accommodate it,"in conformance with Coastal Act
Section 30250.Allowing use of the site for residential development is therefore
consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30241,30242 and 30250.The suggested
modification to Subregion 2 of the City's Certified Land Use Plan removes language
designating the subject site as an Agricultural land use designation,and therefore brings
the Land Use Plan into conformity with the proposed change in land use designation to
Residential.
3.Commercial Recreation
Coastal Act Section 30222 states:
The use ofprivate lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to
enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential,
general industrial,or general commercial development,but not over agriculture or coastal-
dependent industry.
The City's Certified Land Use Plan,Subregion 2 states:
With respect to the future potential development ofthe school site as a commercial recreation
facility (secondary use),this plan does not identifY specific recommended uses;however the
following are guidelines which should be considered in any such development plans ....Access
should not be taken from Nantasket drive (in subregion 3)since it is designed as a residential street
and commercial traffic would in all likelihood cause significant problems....Parking and access
should be designed so that it is sufficiently buffered from existing andfuture residential
development.
The secondary land use suggested by the City's LUP is Commercial Recreation.
Commercial Recreation is a higher priority coastal land use than Residential.However,
Coastal Act Section 30222 states that Commercial Recreational uses should be given
priority on "suitable"private lands.Most of the pre-1980 17 acre site is now devoted to
visitor serving uses.The remaining 1.42 acre parcel,however,is not suitable or no
longer preferable for development of a commercial recreational use due to conflicts with
11-84
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 15 of 20
the surrounding residential uses;therefore Commercial Recreation is not a priority use at
the site.The subject site is a thin rectangular parcel,with little room available to buffer
impacts between conflicting land uses.Development of a Commercial Recreational
facility would create additional light and noise impacts which are incompatible with the
surrounding residences and the adjacent habitat areas on the Terranea Resort site.The
City's certified LUP states that access to a commercial recreational use should not be
taken through Nantasket Drive due to additional vehicle trips and increased demand for
parking on residential streets.However,due to development of the Terranea Resort to
the west,access to a commercial recreational use or any use at the subject site must be
taken through Nantasket Drive,a residential street,in contradiction of the City's certified
LCP.No other suitable access for a Commercial Recreational land use exists at the
subject site.Conversion of the site to residential is also warranted because significant
commercial recreational resources already exist in the immediate area due to the
development of the Terranea Resort to the west of the subject property,including public
trails,restaurants,and other visitor serving commercial facilities.The suggested
modification to Subregion 2 of the City's Certified Land Use Plan removes language
designating the subject site as a Commercial Recreation land use designation,and
therefore brings the Land Use Plan into conformity with the proposed change in land use
designation to Residential.
4.Visual Resources
Coastal Act Section 30251 states:
The scenic and visual qualities ofcoastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of
public importance.Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and
along the ocean and scenic coastal areas,to minimize the alteration ofnatural land forms,to be
visually compatible with the character ofsurrounding areas,and,where feasible,to restore and
enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.New development in highly scenic areas such as
those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the
Department ofParks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the
character ofits setting.
The Visual Corridor Section of the Corridors Element in the LCP states in part:
The Visual Corridors which have been identified in the general plan and are discussed
here are those which are considered to have the greatest degree ofvisual value and
interest to the greatest number ofviewers,and are thus afunction ofPalos Verdes Drive
as the primary visual corridor accessible to the greatest number ofviewers,with views of
irreplaceable natural character and recognized regional significance.
The Corridors Element of the certified LCP states:
It is the policy ofthe City to:Require development proposals within areas which might impact
corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts and obtain feasible
implementation ofall corridor guidelines.
11-85
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 16 of 20
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Local Coastal Program protects coastal visual
resources through the designation of view corridors which protect specific coastal views.
The subject site is within a partial/indirect view from a vista to the northwest along Palos
Verdes Drive,and partially within a direct full view corridor towards Point Fermin to the
southwest(Exhibit 5).
The City's certified LCP requires all development proposals to "mitigate impacts and
obtain feasible implementation of all corridor guidelines."Current land use policies allow
for a land use of agricultural or commercial,and current zoning allows for a commercial
use at the site.The proposed change to residential land use and residential zoning (RS-
3)would not impact the indirect or direct view corridors to any greater degree than the
existing land use and zoning designations as long as permitted development is sited and
designed to comply with the LCP's view protection policies.
Residential development at the site would not be expected to be visible from the indirect
view corridor to the northwest along Palos Verdes Drive.The residences located along
Channelview Drive located north of the subject site currently partially obstruct views from
Palos Verdes Drive,allowing views of the ocean but not of the coastline.If future
development of the site would pose additional view impacts to the indirect view corridor,
current LCP policies require the City to do a view analysis to mitigate the impacts to
views.Thirty to fifty feet of the 650 ft long subject site infringes on the direct view corridor
towards Point Fermin.However,policies in the City's certified LCP protect impacts to
direct view corridors from development,and require that any future development on the
site would be required to follow the view corridor guidelines of the LCP and avoid or
mitigate visual impacts.
Public comments received during the City's public hearing process commented on the
potential for view obstruction from nearby private residences.However,the Commission
has not interpreted the Coastal Act as protecting private views.The Commission has
previously found this to be the case under permits A-5-RDB-04-261 (Doyle),and LCP
Amendment LGB-MAJ-2-06 for the City of Laguna Beach.The Visual Corridor policy of
the LUP identifies specific public views which "are considered to have the greatest
degree of visual value and interest to the greatest number of viewers ..."Likewise,
Section 30251 states:"The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be
considered and protected as a resource of public importance".By referring to the
protection of views of interest to the greatest number of viewers,and the public
importance of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas,the policies indicate that public
views are to be protected.Nowhere do these provisions of the LCP or the other LUP
policies refer specifically to the importance of protecting private views.
One letter was also received by the City which objected to potential obstruction of views
from the Flowerfield trail to the north of the parcel.New residential construction on the
site will undoubtedly obstruct public views from the section of the Flowerfield trail that
traverses the sidewalk fronting Nantasket Drive.However,similar views are available
from the Flowerfield trail adjacent to the subject parcel on the East and at other locations
northwest and south of the subject parcel.Additionally,a similar obstruction of views
11-86
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 17 of 20
would still occur with the development of a commercial development,which is currently
allowed under the City's certified Land Use Plan and zoning code.
Therefore,for the reasons discussed above,the Commission finds that the proposed
LUP change to a residential land use is consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251,and
the change in zoning is consistent with the Visual Corridors section of the LCP.
5.Public Access
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states:
In carrying out the requirement ofSection 4 ofArticle X ofthe California Constitution,maximum
access,which shall be conspicuously posted,and recreational opportunities shall be providedfor
all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights,rights of
private property owners,and natural resource areas from overuse.
Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states:
Development shall not interfere with the public's right ofaccess to the sea where acquired through
use or legislative authorization,including,but not limited to,the use ofdry sand and rocky coastal
beaches to the first line ofterrestrial vegetation.
Section 30212 of the Coastal Act states in part:
(a)Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be
provided in new development projects except where:(1)it is inconsistent with public safety,
military security needs,or the protection offragile coastal resources,(2)adequate access exists
nearby,or,(3)agriculture would be adversely affected.Dedicated accessway shall not be required
to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept
responsibility for maintenance and liability ofthe accessway.
The permit for the Long Point Resort (now Terranea Resort Hotel)includes a deed
restriction detailing an easement for a number of trails around the property.The
Flowerfield Trail,which runs along the sidewalk adjacent the subject site,is described in
the permit as:
"Flowerfield Trail:A 4-foot wide trail in a IO-foot wide corridor,extending from the
northern end of the Resort Entry Trail,running east to the eastern edge of the property and
continuing south and terminating on the southeast comer bluff top and connecting to the
offsite Vanderlip Trail that continues down coast.This trail also connects to the Long
Point Trail."
11-87
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 18 of 20
The Flowerfield trail,as previously described,is located on a public sidewalk along
Nantasket Drive for a portion of its length to avoid potential hazards (errant golf balls)
associated with the adjacent golf course on the Terranea Resort.Future development of
residences on the subject property will not block or impede access to the trail.The trail
adjacent to the subject site is located on public land,and a change from
Agriculture/Commercial to Residential would not be expected to have impacts on Public
Access.However,occasional conflicts arise when new residential development is
constructed adjacent to public trails which result in attempts to block or restrict usage of
the trail.All of the trails on the Terranea Resort are protected by recorded easements
required by special condition to the Coastal Development Permit for the resort.The
protective easement for the Flowerfield trail does not extend to the portion of the trail that
traverses the public sidewalk along Nantasket Drive,however.Therefore the
Commission finds that it is necessary to add a policy by suggested modification to the
Land Use Plan that prohibits the future construction of gates or guardhouses or
placement of signs along or fronting Nantasket Drive that could restrict public access to
the Flowerfield trail.Future residential development on the site would be expected to
comply with front yard setbacks specified in the city's zoning requirements,further
separating the sidewalk and trail from potential conflicts with residential development.
Currently,there are two parking lots open for public use when accessing the beach or the
public trails on the T erranea site:the 50 space lot adjacent to the Point Vicente Fishing
Access,and the 50 space eastern parking lot on the eastern part of the T erranea site.
The permit for the Terranea Resort did not incorporate Nantasket Drive into the
conditions for availability of parking,or the findings for approval of the coastal
development permit.Additionally,current city policy requires adequate on-site parking
supplies for new single family residences.Therefore,the proposed land use change will
have no impacts on the parking supply for the public trails and amenities on the Terranea
site.For the reasons discussed above,the Commission finds that together with the
location of the trail on a public sidewalk,along with the suggested modification described
above,the public trail will be protected from any physical obstructions or perceptions of
privatization.
D.Findings for Approval of Amendment of Implementation Plan as Modified
and as Submitted
The standard for review of Amendments to the City's Implementation Plan is the City's
Certified Land Use Plan,as amended.As certified,the Rancho Palos Verdes LCP does
not make a clear distinction between the Land Use Plan policies and the Implementation
Plan policies.Each geographic segment contains goals,objectives,and policies which
address future or potential development within that segment.In a sense the LCP is a
hybrid combination of both the LUP and IP and a finding of LCP consistency relates to
both components (LUP and IP)that typically comprise a total LCP.Because the LCP has
been constructed and certified in this manner the suggested modifications contained in
this staff report serve both the LUP and the IP relative to future development of the
subject parcel.
11-88
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 19 of 20
The Zoning Ordinance,which designates specific uses,densities,height and setback
requirements etc.should be viewed as a stand alone Implementation Plan document,
however.The proposed RS-3 zoning would form a transition between the higher density
land use of the Villa Apartments toward the East,to the lower density RS-1 single family
residences to the North on Channelview drive.The proposed zoning change would
create a logical barrier between residential uses to the east and commercial recreational
uses to the west of the project site,and would preserve the residential character of
Nantasket Drive.
The proposed zoning change is compatible with the proposed land use change.The
proposed amendment will change both the Land use and Zoning to residential,resulting
in agreement between the two currently conflicting policies.Therefore,the Commission
finds that if modified as suggested,the Implementation Plan is adequate to carry out the
policies of the Certified Land Use Plan,as amended.
4.Conclusion
Therefore,the Commission finds that for the reasons stated above,with the suggested
modification,the LUP amendment is consistent with the Coastal Act.The Commission
further finds that,as submitted,the Amendment to the Implementation Plan is adequate
to carry out the City of Rancho Palos Verdes policies of the certified Land Use Plan.
V.CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code -the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)-exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing
environmental impact reports (EIRs),among other things,in connection with their
activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of local coastal
programs (LCPs).Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the
California Code of Regulations [Title 14,Sections 13540(f),13542(a),13555(b)]the
Commission's review of this LCP amendment must be based in part on its consistency
with CEQA Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A).That section ofthe Public Resources Code
requires that the Commission not approve or adopt an LCP:
...if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen any significant adverse effect which the
activity may have on the environment.
As described above,the proposed LUP Amendment,as submitted,is inconsistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.However,if modified as suggested,the LUP
Amendment will be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.Thus,the
Commission finds that the LUP Amendment,if modified as suggested,is consistent with
the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.In addition,as is also outlined above,the IP
portion of the LCP amendment is consistent with and adequate to carry out the policies of
the Land Use Plan.Therefore,the Commission finds that approval of the LCP
Amendment as modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts under
11-89
Rancho Palos Verdes
Local Coastal Program Amendment 1-10
Page 20 of 20
the meaning of CEQA.There are no feasible alternatives under the meaning of CEQA,
which would reduce the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts.
Therefore,the Commission certifies Rancho Palos Verdes'LCP amendment request 1-
10 if modified as suggested herein.
11-90
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #.......-.;/..........__
PAGE l _OF--.i_
11-91
)
)
)
)
I
I
I
J
J
~
~
~
/
f
f....'!!'"I .,._f(~'~:..:.~r ..~.....,~
~"a ."~....i,..,.~",..
....iI;.~".
..- -. .I
'_."'.:,""".:I
.".......~".......,."¥
'..'j;.~~.·_:_.~~-l'.",.".,.:
~,·t:;i
.;~t~nt
NEW PUBLIC TR/\ILS
-Long Point Bluff-Top Trail
•MoriflelCInd TrOi')within
Palos Verdes Drive
Landscape Corridor
•Flowerfield Trail
Resort Entry Trail
ADA-Complian!Coostol
Access for Disabled
...I ·c .......,1-
:=:~e...--u.:I t4··0
o iQ
.."~.......
-!!W~~..~.Q
11
-
9
2
,Nativf)Habitat
'Planting Zone Per
CCC.~
b 'I ton
'"......,c ..,.,Wdt..'v'"$1...._.,S.(1I.ff'~",..,...¥t
.~~t'.141\(A ,~,
'It:,;:=--.j I "I
•I In.
11-93
•
•
WHICH ARE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH VEGE-
TATION COMMUNITIES.THESE ARE G~NERALLY
FOUND ON BLUFF FACES AND NATURAL CANYON'
AREAS WHERE WILDLIFE THRIVES DUE TO THE
PROTECTION AND FOOD FOUND FROM THE NATURAL
VEGETATION.THOUGH THERE ARE NO FORMALLY
RECOGNIZED ENDANGERED OR RARE SPECIES OF
WILDLIFE OR VEGETATION,THESE WILDLIFE
HABITATS ARE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF THE
WIDE VARIETY AND NUMBERS OF WILDLIFE
WHICH ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.ADDI-
TIONALLY,THE NATURAL VEGETATION OF
GRASSES AND WILD FLOWERS FOUND ON THE
HILLSIDES AND CANYONS GIVES A UNIQUE
figure 12 areas for preservation of natural reSQures
••
ENV IRONMENT AL CHARACTER To THE."~,,I TY W r'H.
IF TO BE PRESERVED,REQUIRES C;SSIDE ~ON
OF THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYST~~ND T 0
GRAPHY.•LL==0
THE ARE'AS FOR PRESERVATION Or=-,&TURA ~
RESOURCES MAP (FIGURE 12)ID~,.""',IFrE~
CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCES.J!cSE ~E
CALLED nUT ON THE MAP AS FOLL,ltS:!§UJazC)
HYDROLOG IC FACTORSQ ~~
WILDLIFE HABITATS 9
OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION 10
AREAS
•
m
1~:~l~:@1 nalural veget(ltion crm-to [m Jmarino mail'lten"rlce
o wildlife habitat ctm-9 [p I marln~preservation
~hydrologic latlors crm-8 0 ma"ne resloratiCJrl
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \tlo ~J200
N--:>n
11
-
9
4
•••
•
NATURAL OUTCROPS.GRADING RESPECTING
NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY,ROADS AND DRIVEWAYS
FOLLOWING NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE,PROVISION FOR
SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL.REVEGETATION
OF ALL CLEARED AND/OR GRADED AREAS.AND
DRAINAGE ACCOMPLISHED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT
WIT~OTHER NATURAL SYSTEMS ARE IMPORTANT.
CRM 3 -HAZARD
CATEGORY JA -AREAS HAVING THE MOST
SEVERE TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN CRM 3A.MOST OF
~~~/
THESe AREAS ARE CHARACTERIZED Bj§STEEP~~
BROKEN TOPOGRAPHY,AND INCLUDE ~e ST R
SECTIONS OF SEA CLIFF,MOST OF ~E AC IV
PORTUGUESE BEND LANDSLIDE WI THI~THE ~
COASTAL REGION.AND SEVERAL ST~WAtLE
CANYONS.THE HIGHER AND STEEP~PORtOHS
of THE SEA CLIFF ARE MAINLY BE~OCK ~
SURES,HOWEVER.IN SOME SECTIONS IN H~
SOUTHERN PART OF THE CITY.A LOWER.BUT
eQUALLY STEEP SEA CLIFF HAS SEEN CUT IN
ANCIENT LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS.GeOLOGIC
HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEA CLIFF
INCLUDE COASTAL EROSION AND LANDSLIDING,
•
natural environment element
IIexlleme !Ilope crm-1 I IwUdIUe habitat Crm-9
geolOgic nazard crm-3 naturel ...egetation crm-l0
marginally stable crm-4
flood-InUndation na~ald erm-][LJ-.
III h-..I 2 P preser ....tIon19"s ope crm--
.•in$l,lfnc'~~nt lnC;;)rmation crm-S ...-__
..
.wildland liro Crm-6 I _r Irllsloration
nycfrologlc 1actors crm-8 ..
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~~3200
11
-
9
5
•
DEGREES)AND I NO I.RECT (32.5-90 DEGREES).
A 90-DeGREE ANGLE TO THE SIDE WAS DETERMINED
TO BE OUT OF THE NORMAL RANGE OF VISION OF
DRIVER AND PASSENGER.
THE aOU~DARIES OF THE VISTAS IDENTIFIED ALONG
PALOS VERDES DRIVE ARE DEFINED 80TH VERTICALLY
AND HORIZO~TALLY ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLANS AND
SECTIONS OF THE COASTAL AREA (FIGURES 26.
21,AND 28).THESE BOUNDARIES WERE ESTABLISHED
BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD.
"HORIZONTAL BOUNDARIES
RIGHT EDGE FROM THE BEGINNING
POINT OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING
STATION TO THE RIGHT EDGE OF THE
o
:ae
VIEWING FOCUS.,J.r..~
:e &
LEFT EDGE -FROM THE ENDI.-POI I
OF A CONTINUOUS VIEWING S•.~....TION 0
THE LEFT EDGE OF THE VIE.•...4·G *.......j!".....FOCUS._m
-c -UJ
VERTICAL BOUNDARIES g ~~o.
BOTTOM EDGE - A VERTICAL ARC WAS
ESTABLISHED FOR THE BOTTOM EDGE ~
FROM THE VIEWING STATION ELEVATION •I ~
TO THE FOCAL POINT ELEVATION.FOR
DISTANT FOCAL POINTS (I.E.CATALINA
AND MALIBU COASTLINE)A MINIMUM
2-0EGREE DOWN-ARC FROM HOR1Z0NTAL
WAS USEO.
View corridors
hOfi~ol1tal boundaries
partial
direct tull &Indirect yerticat zOnesIZlP7110ne1
WP1 Ii'I tone 2
fiilP1 r:z]zone 3
•landm.rk
;---,view corridor
~tlori~ol'ltal edge$
..,...
--catalina
4'J/iL.>-;:....Pt.fermi"
catalina---
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES \~~3200
11
-
9
6
FROM :a:lRY AMO PHONE NO.+310 434 5384 Jul.18 2010 07:08PM PId.:
.:"
FAX to 562~590·508 ,ATTN:John Delarroz.
Sunshine
6 Lirnetree Lane
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275-5909
310~377~87e1 .
SunsmDIBP~ao~
July 16.2010
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
200 OCEANGATE,10th FLOOR
LONG BEACH,CA
RE:"Nantasket"RPV-NAJ ..1..10,
Dear Commissioners and Staff:
I oppose this requested change In the land use designation.I am COl ·.::rned ~',)out the
requested change in the zoning.
The powers that be in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes have been f'I=!.-tosln.I,",rsuing
the preservation of loeaf agriculture as described in the RPV Genelr~'l ~:.:m 8;1(."tlla RPV
Coastal Specific Plan.
The Palos Verdes Peninsula School District now regrets having sok\I ::.:rt of UI .ir land
holdings.Sell they did and now the children Df the Peninsula's reside ..~,;~get t;::deal'with
the unforeseen consequences.
The pendulum of public attitUde Is swinging back toward recogniZing r i :~value .:.';f local
agriculture.In recent years,the City of Rancho Palos Ver~es has tw;1<·d '8 bill d 'eye to
the requests by various associations to manage educational agriollltw .prog,r'::i ns 'on
City property.
11-97
July 18,2010
TO:John Del Arroz.California Coastal Commission members
FAX S62-S90M S084
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
200 OCBANGATE,10th FLOOR
LONG BEACH,CA
Subject:Nantastket RPV-NAJ-l~lO
Dear Commissioners and Staft~
RE(E.··~·...~,.)!
South Coast Region
JUL 2 iJ 2010
I am opposed to the requested changes to the RPV Ge.aeral Plan and Coastal Specific
Plan.It should remain agricultural land -this property should be considered a Cultural
Landscape property and preserved a agrlculturalland instead of being developed with 4
huge houses on 4 small lots.
The current owner bought an entitlement to agriculture,and that aBrioultural use
was profitable on that land in years past (they even had a stand for sale to the
public of lOads from that land).
The View Corridor that I see in the RPV Coastal Specific Plan appears to include that
plot of land which should limit the heights.<Pa.c-IO fig.26)
from the Public Trail that is located between Palos Verdes Dr.South
and the bluff acljacent to this property,the public's view of
Catalina Island would be significantly impaired ifnot totally blocked by
tl'le proposed structures since the owner/developer has plaDs for 2-story houses on this
property.The proposed bulk and.mass would definitely obstruet the public's Catalina
view.
The Coastal Specific Plan states Uno buildings should project into a
:zone measured 2 degrees down-arc from horizontal as measured along the
shortest distance between the viewing station and the coastline."LCP
Pi.C..12
Isn't a Public Trait within the Coastal Zone considered a vi6wiug station?
After all,limiting development in the coastal 20ne in partioular so that
views could be preserved was the reason our city was founded.
The award-winniug RPV General Plan states that agrioultlJral use of1aDds should
continue to be encouraged wherevC1'possible.Thatls what this land has been used for
even when the parcel was much larger.This area of the Coastal SUbregion would still be
perfect for growing produce or flowers which the local resort and restaurants would
appreciate.This could also be an edueational opportunity for 4-8'8 or other groups.
There are volunteers ready and wilJ.ing.
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT#_(......~......
PAGE--.;;;;;.'l_OF /1
..2/'00 39'ii'd 11-98
If the citYs General Plan and the Coastal Plan both callout for preserving agricultural use
in RPV,then there does not appear to be a valid reason for approving these requests.The
objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan should take precedence over a
developer's hopes of amending these documents not for the pUblic good,but fot the
developer's gain.
The public trail's names is Flowertield Ttail which comes from the historical.use ofthis
land (Wltil recent years)to grow flowers.This Cultural Landscape should be preserved.
Thank you for yow-consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely 1
Lenee Bilski
4255 Palos Verdes Dr.So.
R.P.V.90275(3Id)877-~6Ib
e:fflflP/II"'lIt)@JtlfAf/(J,('(J7Yj
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #_(__......,.~
PAGE 'f OF...LL
11-99
Comttll Commission Letter:case RPV-NAJ-I-IO
Robert A.Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
John Delarroz
California Coastal Commission
South Coast District Office
Jack Ainsworth,Director
200 Oceangate,10th Floor
Long Beac~CA 908024416
RPV-NAJ-I-IO
Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan Change
Ireland:Nantasbt Residential Project
July 17,2010
John Delarroz,
Received a phone call from another RPV resident that had spoken with you and was
surprised you did not have any correspondence from RPV residents on case RPV-NAl-l-
10,known hereabouts as the Nantasket Residential Project.Coastal Commission is being
asked to change the Coastal Specific Plan zoning for a 1.2 acre parcel from 'agriculture'
to 'residential'and approve the developer's 4 what we call McMansions (1st such homes
in neighborhood.FYI 4 lots and 'approved plans'are already on the market with
ReMax!).
Can't explain how they disappeared but I have enclosed two letters I wrote April 27th
and May 5th to Jack Ainsworth,Director,South Coast District Office of our California
Coastal Commission,with their attachments.
Case RPV-NAJ-I-IO has been a neighborhood issue since 2005.Trying to spare you
reading 5 years worth (hundreds of pages)of RPV Planning Dept Staff Reports,
Planning Commission findings and City Council opinions,decisions and re-decisions,I
will swnmarize,as direct neighbors of the project,our thoughts.
In an Executive Summary format (j.e.,detaU foHows,using the same number):
I.Current Coastal Specific Plan land use is agriculture,the purchased entitlement
and stUl profitable today.
2.Called an 'orphan'strip of land;the lots are not large enough to legally buUd on
without namerous variances,including lot depth.
3.Over 5 years of public testimony before various city land use groups,not one penon
other than the applieant has spoken jn favor ofhis plans.
4.Why is this before you?We believe the reason is political.
5.Acknowledging staff finding there is no required 'neighborhood compatibility,'
the dty attorney immediately suggested approving bodies deelare it a 'ne~~!.,,!()Od
unto itself,'thus kUling RPV's 35 year history ofthis requirement for d~COMMISSION
or improvement Any effort can now be declared this 'neighborhood unto itself.'
6.Proposed lot size is insufficient,per city code,for home development.City answer /'
is variances.EXHIBIT #~_fJ_-.oIi!!~_
7.Unable to wait for your approval,the applieant has plaeed these lots __as 'f.OF if
'large lots with approved plans'with ReMu.When did you approve them?
pg.lof3
11-100
COlISlaJ Collfl'llisslon Letter:elISe RPV-NAJ-I-IO
As you can tell,the neighborhood is not supportive,period.Obviously our Planning
Commission and Council,regardless of RPV code,are.Expanded detail is:
1.The historical use ofthis parcel is it's Coastal Specific Plan zoning-agriculture.As
part of a Japanese truck farm before and after WW II,almost until the start of
construction in 2007 ofTerranea Resort,its produce was sold at a stand on Nantasket.
Again,the correct land use entitlement the applicant bought with this property is
agriculture.And it is profitable.RPV leases nearby land of similar size to a cactus farmer
and has for years.This dry farming uses no water and is profitable.Water comes from the
morning fogs found here.
Palos Verdes has bad dry farming for decades.Our Council was insistent dry farming be
preserved in the nearby Interpretative Center and even vetoed this land be used for youth
athletics (which was highly favored by some of our public).Agriculture usage is what the
applicant is entitled to and purchased.Unless he had some side assurances his
development would be approved,all he could expect was agricultural land use.
We would appreciate our Coastal Commission consider keeping it that way.
2.The Director of Planning for RPV called this parcel an 'orphan'in 2005 (to my face),
stating it could never be developed.It was not deep enough for any home eonstrumon
and the hope was Terranea Resort would purchase it and incorporate it in their native
plantings alongside their golf course.(Yes,the 6,000 sq.It.hOlDes will have 15-foot
baekyards bordering a golf murse!Let's hope golfer's accuracy reigns supreme!)But
Terranea purchase didn't happen because of the inflated price the applicant wanted.
3.In 5 yean of publie testimony not ORe penon,neighbor or otherwise,not associated
with the applicant has SpokeR ill favor of this rezoBing or development plans.Not
ORe.
4.So one wonders why this is eveR before you.Need I say past Coastal Commissioner
Larry Clark is such a close mend ofthe applicant Larry was forced to recuse himself.
And the applicant has hosted parties for council candidates,made contributions to city
efforts,etc.As an example ofthe applicant's political power,even though the two newly
elected RPV council members campaigned against what we called Nantasket
McMansions,one wound up voting in favor.There was never a question about the three
older members that were not up for election.All =yes.
exHJBIT#_{~
PAGE ~OF-l.i-
Ilg.2of3
5.That there is no neighborhood eompatibDitywas a finding ofthe Planning Dept
staff,Commission and Council.B~to get around this mandatory issue,our city attorney
neatly finessed by saying the Planning Commission and City Council could declare this
project a 'neighborhood unto itself!'All of us were and remain in total disbelief -but this
is RPV and this ends RPV 'neighborhood compatibility'planning requirement!As some
said -RPV was founded to avoid this kind oflegal beaglism in land use D1JMirA~«OMMISSION
much for 35 years of precedent.This case clearly legally establishes neighborhood
compatibility to be a non~issue.
11-101
Coufal Commission Letter:cue RPV-NAJ-l-lfJ
6.5 large homes on 1.2 acres was the initial plan,reduced to four by the Council.But
these lots are too smaD for even four.In fad they are not deep enough for any.So
the council ofcourse approved variances.And my neighborhood will have 26-foot tall
home facades IS feet from a NCCP trail with a IS-foot deep backyard!These are shown
in the attachments.
7.The projects 4 lots,caJled 'large,approved with plans,'are being advertised by
ReMax.This exemplifies the applicant's lack ofrespect for approving authority and urge
to get rid ofthis property.The ReMax ad for lot #1 is attached to the enclosed letters.
So I thought you should have the advantage of knowing from our electeds I appointeds
this project is a political must have despite not one person speaking in favor over the past
5 years.
For years I had the privilege ofrepresenting my fellow 60 homeowners who voted 58
against -1 undecided - 1 in favor.And we are its neighbors!But we understand this is
RPV and those in the approval line are sometimes 'listening challenged.'So we assume
you'll approve and we'll get,sooner or later,the Georgetown look right here in our
backyards.
Any questions from you or your fellow staff or Coastal Commission members,just give
usacaU.
Just reading our RPV Planning Staff reports,listing the numerous land use and
building code aecommodatioos our Planning Commission and Council needed to
make in order for the applicant to achieve this goal,in spite of total neighborhood
opposition,tells me something is not aecording to Hoyle heR.Thank you for your
time and effort on case RPV-NAJ-l-lO.
Sincerely,
1bbo~
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
310-544-4632
attachments:
1.April 27,2010 letter to RPV City Council,copy Jack Ainsworth,Coastal Commission,
Long Beach and attachments;
2.May 5,2010 letter to Jack Ainsworth,Coastal Commission,Long Beach and
attachments;
3.Prepared remarks,City Council,Feb.2,2010,Bob Nelson COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #/-:-'---PAGE 6..-OF-lL-
pg.3 on
11-102
........,..
Ireland:Nanmsket:CC 5/412010
Hand Delivered..to Planning Dept.
Bob Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
City Council
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
clo Joel Rojas.AICP
Director ofPlanning~Building and Code Enforcement
Eduardo Schonborn~AICP
Senior Planner
April 27,2010
'.'...,
'",',t
l
'.<0,.
RECEIVED
APR 2720i3
PLANNING,BUILDING AND
Subject:CODE ENFORCEMENT
City_Council May 4,1010,Meeting:I~em #tbd:
(Coastal Commission:Ireland:Nantasket)
Subject:An Interpretation of Condition of Approval ##45,of Resolution No.1010-89,regarding
the strueture sizes ofthe residenees approved under Case Nos.SUB1008-00001 and ZON1008-
00074 thru ZON2008-00078 whieh was approved by the City CouneD on February 1,1010•
....r':_tL "1151bcWiMfE A
Mayor Wolowicz,Mayor Pro-tern Long,members,.~;t:::""'"~-IE"'D:-.i ..T lun--I ":r\~"'~....l£~•
c:",oKl""?J
My understanding is the applicant has requested an accommodation to permit him to..ch6se the 'b'O~'
amount of reduction of each home as long as the total reduction is 10010;i.e.,Lot #1 0010,lot #2 10%,
lot 3 15%,lot #4 10%.
THIS IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS DECIDED FEB.2,2010.I admit Joel
Rojas has indicated I am wrong but what I thought I heard deeided was:
I.Dana Ireland to reduce EACH home 10%;
2.Dana to discuss redesign ofhouse on lot #1 with Juan Carlos-Monnaco (6619 Beachview)to
reduce partial view destruction over golf course and Terranea Resort resulting from Dana's lot #1
large home.
3.That the same discussions take place with homeowners at 6617 and 6615 Beachview (Stephanie
McLaughin and Bipin Bajania.
However,since Dana Ireland has already plaeed lot #1 on the market with 'approved phlnsfor a
beautiful home over 5,500 square feet'and 'large lot at over 17,000 square feeL'(See attached
RElMax ad:agent Tr;c;a Rapaport'published 4/14/2001 in 'The RelMax Collection'in the Daily
Breeze,a local newspaper,I quickly admit this RPVreal ~tate and all that Ctlll entail.
So this meeting and any decision may be moot.
COASTAL COMMISSION
We understand from Tricia Rapaport,his ReJMax real estate agent,this item will be befo~
you in two weeks so,ifwe are too late,that's our loss.You'll note Tricia calls ~ot and plans (
'approved.'RPV has toJd us that is Dot true but see #4 below.IBIT #....L1-
PAGE 1.OF
pg.lof2
For our Coastal Commission (copied)this is our initial correspondence on an item we believe
you will entitle 'Ireland:Nantasket'In Raneho Palos Verdes.
11-103
·.
Ireland:Nanmsket:CC 5/412010
The applicable address is called out by RPV Planning Staff as 'West Side ofNantasket Drive,
between Beachview Drive and SeaCove Drive,'referred to at times by RPV's Planning Director as
an 'orphan lot'.
These 1.2 acres fall within our coastal zone.
The development falls within Rancho Palos Verdes'Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP)-as does aU ofRPV-but has a ntlllted trail (Flower Field Trail)with ptlnortlmic ocetln
views (see tltttlched Tricitl RtlptlJlOrt RelMllX tid with picture).
Tbis proposal eliminates these views in favor oflarge homes on small lots.To date Ireland has
overcome:
1.Any COastal ·oceanlCatalfua Island view obliteration problems (includiilg from anamed trail,as
above),lot division problems (so as to maximize parcel density impact and profit,neighborhood
compatibility (staff admitted there is none so,believe it or not,Council declared Ireland's homes a
cneighborhood unto themselves'),etc.,etc.
2.Nantasket's four lots are so smaU homes could Dot legally be built.So RPV's Planning
Commission and four Council members eliminated Dana's problem with quick approval of 4 lot size
'variances'creating small lots and resulting large homes with 10'-15'front yards and 10'·15'
backyards (the 'Hermosa Beach look brought into RPV).
3.In 5 years oftestimony,not one resident spoke in favor 01 Daoa's 'Nantasket Resideotial
Project.'Yet every political body quickly approved it with numerous accommodations required to
subdivide this orphan lot into smaller than legal lots (the 'variance')and build large homes on these.
4.I understand this will NOT be presented to our Coastal Commission as A SINGLE
PROJECT.As good developer strategy,initiaUy you wUl never see it in its entirety.First,the
Coastal Specific Plan,subdividing this orphan parcel into 4 lots~will be presented (in two weeks?)
and tben,later,(2-3 months)the large homes that will go on these small lots.I believe it sbonld be
presented as a single package so the total impacts to RPV's neigbborhood can immediately be
seen.Splitting this project into two Coastal presentations allows the developer to camouflage his
impacts,recognized at least by his neighbors,until it's too late to change ...smart strategy on
Ireland's part but it is our coast and our views.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Bob Nelson
SlO'S'4"l ..4:b~L
""Attached:'The RelMax Collection'ad 4/24/2010 for 10t#1 in Daily Breeze
V"S ite pictures
2:California Coastal Commission
V ~~uth Coast District Office
Jack Ainsworth Director
200 Oceangate,lOth Floor
Long Beach,CA 90802-4416
COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHIBIT #d
PAGE...r.OF ilf
11-104
COASTAl AND CnY COUNCil 412112010
IRELAND:NANTASKET SILHOUETTES
t '
\I
~
".,
COASTAL COMMISSION:SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
RANCHO VERDES
IRELAN~~id(!~..~.mt!!:~a~1 ~~~~~~~hl!il.;:;,.~_
11-105
·'
REF:South Coast Di3bict OffK:e:IRELAND:NANTASKET:Rancho Palos Verdes
SOURCE:DAILY BREEZE:'THE REIMAX COU..ECTI0N'INSERT 412412010
City Council:From:lob NeisM,8612 cn.nrll~MewCoul1,RPV
it ill April 24,2010.On May 4,2010,you hlWe IIIflndized this project to futther imerpmte ju~exactly wh8t
you appl'OV«l 00 Feb.2,2010.Dane "_nd'.8d below Bhowl e buyer cain rely on 'approved plan,'for a
home 'OWl'5.500 8qlUJre feet'on 8 'large lot.'True?we knOlM from the wrianOOl you glWe D8na '~lot'
is net true but 'approved pl8ns'..when did you,'When did CoIis.1 CcmmIMion?PeflOnaly,I don't think.eithal'
Pil!1.y h.given 'finel'approvals to hia 4 McM8nsions in our neighborhood --hil ad says "m ~agein.
.~----
,$'(1(Tftf:'f<,\([':tt ll·()l(,'v,;f.\'L.,n f)di
Bvy OR SELl.wmi THE HEl.P OF THE (i()J (J REAl-TOR
OcEAN VU~W COASTAL HOME SITE
FOR SALE
COASTAL COMMISSION &CITY COUNCIL
CURRENT SEA BLUFF HOA VIEW:TO BE LOT.1 VIEW
~to>tM New T~lGsMt"'~
'g~'P~V~"P~.
~IsW "PolH \I~UiJisik
GoIt~~
~1.:Af'l.'t,'11'Pf ,II IJh:Of 17.(l{lfl sqU;JI'I;'(,.'1."
.4.f'I(lIt'I·,'td pi;",...'('I(""":lutiJiJl Jill/II"t,f "",'f 5.5tkJ ..qU;Ji't·J~""i
Call l'or morc dcl£!iI!'i • • •Pric.'Cd af S1.999.9S0
~
RAPAPORT
"IThe tr,iftdleoltw~_4.:_~.~•
(310)378-1/63
www.The(;C'JA~K(cedMWUSSION
h~~~IE T)',5EXHIBifii~_~i_....'F1L
W~
11-106
MA'"},-'.
i ;1 lmil
California Coastal Commission
South Coast District Office
Jack Ainsworth.Director
200 Oceangate~10Cb Floor
Long Breach,CA 90802-4416
Coaatal Commission:Coastal Specific Plan Change:RPV:Ireland:Nantasket
Robert A.Nelson
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes.CA 90275
Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan Change
Ireland:Nantasket Residential Project
May 5,2010
Jack Ainsworth,
In anticipation,should your staff and Coastal Commission approve rezoning Ireland's
parcel from Agriculture to Residential.last night our City Council overruled their
Planning Staff's findings and voted unanimously to let developer Dana Ireland,pick and
choose which of his four large homes he will reduce to meet a 10%bulk and mass
reduction.
~to:ry to last night's meeting Staff had reviewed the video ofCouncil's February
2nd meeting and Council's downsizing requirement Staff concluded it was to reduce each
home 10%.Ireland disagreed with StatTand the videotape,stating last night a 10-10
reduction in square footage of each home was not economieslly feasible.Instead he
wanted a revised decision permitting him to pick and choose which homes he reduced
and by how much.
As Staffpointed out,he could remove a basement,meet most of the 10%reduction
requirement and not change the exterior bulk and mass impact one bit!
This being RPV,Council agreed with their developer friend Ireland,voting 5~O to
overrule Staff's video finding and accommodate Ireland.
Coastal Specific Plan change:
The l't .request before you will be to change this parcel's Coastal zoning from
agricultural to residentiaL (Note:as happens in RPV,the General Plan zones this parcel
Commercial Recreational but our Coastal Specific zoning is Agriculture.)Despite
Planning Staff statements to the contrary,the attached picture will show the parcel is
surrounded on 3 sides with California native plantings under CR zoning (Terranea
Resort)and.on the 4th side,Nantasket Drive,a public road.
I would argue CoastalstatTrecommeud 'leave it be,'no zoning change.
Leave it zoned Agriculture for the following reasons:
Prevent increased coastal density with,as our late Councilman Peter Gardiner MISSION
caJled Ireland's project,no 'big boxes on small lots.'COASTAL COM
This parcel's Agricultural zoning .is profitable.For decades a stand was .bere selling /
produce.Within a mile,RPV leases an even smaller parcel for agricul~FtJ8rf#,__-6_~_
PAGE.Ll OF /1
pg.lof2
11-107
EXHIBIT # ( •
PAGE ,12 OF-L!-
Coastal Commission:Coastal Specific Plan Change:RPV:lrelfmd:NantasJcet
commercial growing of cactus.Agriculture has always been a viable use of this
parcel
Ireland knew,when he purchased this parcel,called an 'orphan>parcel by RPV
Planning Director Rojas.his only entitlements would be for agriculture usage.Now>
to maximize his developer profits,he needs this changed to Residential.But that is not
his entitlement;rather this allows his profit maximization desire.As evidence:
Before you could take any action,Ireland couldn't wait and already has one lot for
sale!(attached is his RWMax lot sale ad)
Agricultural usage melds mucb better with this landscape than Residential.This
parcel is surrounded on 3 sides by California native plantings ofTerranea Resort,
not 6,000 square foot homes.Ifyour Coastal Specific Plan zoning is changed,realize
we will have homes with 20'facades 10 feet from the NCCP Flower Field Trail on the
sidewalk along Nantasket Drive,obliterating this 1raifs views.
Since Ireland knew about the decades long profitable agricultural usage when he
purchased this parcel,I would urge you do not change our CoasiaI Specific Plan's
agricultural zoning.Doing so will simply enable his maximization ofreal estate profit at
the cost of some of your citizens ocean I Catalina views.
'Big boxes on small lots.'Ireland's homes are so large he needs 4 variances to even
build them on these small lots.Simply,each lot is too smaD.
Not a single person has spoken in favor (except Ireland and his City Council friends -
which include your long-time member Lany Clark who had to recuse himself from
Ireland's presentations).
Ifzoning is changed,you should be aware Ireland's homes will be of such mass and
bulk RPV's Planning Staff could not make the required rmding of neighborhood
compatibility.Rather,the City attorney provided a work around by opining the large
homes could be declared a 'neighborhood unto itself'and thereby meet our required
compatibility finding.It took Council 10 seconds to agree!
Other rational for maintaining this parcel'S 'agriculture'zoning include eliminating
any public safety issues with errant golf balls (backyards 10'deep,borders golf course),
maintaining existing,never disturbed,ocean /Catalina views and avoiding drainage
issues (sprinkler water).
As admitted by Staff.this parcel has been used for agriculture for decades,aboost
until Ireland bought it.This profitable agriculture usage,a usage Ireland is granted
through entitlements at purchase,is a rarity in RPV,an entitlement to be preserved.
Leave it be.
You are the last hope we have to preserve our neighborhood.
Thank.you for this time.Please advise me of Commission hearing date and send me a
~~that I may acewatc1y testifjr.Again,thank you!
Bob Nelson COASTAL COMMISSION
6612 Channelview Court
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
~---Attachments:RelMax lot ad;current pictures of parcel
pg.20£2
11-108
COASTAL COMMISSION:RPV COASTAL SPECIFIC PLAN:ZON~NG CHANGE
AGRICULTURAL TO RESiDEm~Al
IRELAND:NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
11-109
RANCHO PALOS VERDES:COASTAL COMMISSION:COASTAl SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE CHANGE VISUALIZATION
",i{;,:;;~..":~.•:'.~>.'1::.;;.:>;-~..:
I;;('~\·"..~.~E~,~:~~~:ASKET .:~~~CH~NGE:AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDE~TIAl j .~pv APPROVED ~~Lm..BL
RPV COUNCil VOTE:4 YES,1 NO (WANTED NEIGHBORHOOD INPUT TO COUNT.IN 5 YEARS NOT ONE PERSON
...",".,.:~::;3it·~~\~,:<,;~~,;".
11
-
1
1
0
NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT:BEFORE YOU APPROVE CONSIDER ...
RPV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FEB.2,2010
1.Bob Nelson,6612 Channelview Court,RPV
Mayor Wolowicz and distinguished members of our City Council:
2.Begin by expressing publicly our appreciation of the time and consideration given us
by Eduardo Schonborn,Senior Planner,RPV Planning Dept.Thank you Eduardo.
And I also thank Dana Ireland,the applicant,for meeting with me last week during
the driving rain storms.
3.Respond to any Ireland comments about our meeting.
4.For the record and those tuned in,a few comments about Sea Bluft Sea Bluff
BOA is a next-door neighbor to Dana's Nantasket Residential Project.Sea Bluff is a
Planned Unit Development (PUB),zoned RS-4 and composed of 60 single-famlly
residences,mostly stand alones,some duplexes with 8 *IICres o(open SD4ce.Our
regulations are found in RPV CUP ##51 and our CC&Rs.Most homes have ocean and
Catalina views but Beachview Drive homes face a wall or the Villas Apartments.Four
Beachview homes have,from their 2nd story balcony,an ocean view.One does from
their interior.Usual lot size is 4,300 sq.ft.;sold as a 10,000 sq.ft.lots since our 8-%
acres of HOA open space is split between our 60 bomes.I fOWld my home pad covers
roughly 1,700 sq.ft.of my lot.Home living area varies:2,400 to 3,000 sq.ft.Homes
are on 'zero lot lines.'Beachview homes appear 2 story from street with their usable
balcony fronting their 2nd story;other homes appear one story from street and are actually
two story walkouts in the back.Built in 1987-1990.
5.I'D begin witb my summary comments:Tonight's decision focuses 00 issues
arouod chaoging our historic General Plan zoning to accommodate the applicaot
and you,as our representatives,concurring with your Planning Commission's quick
approvals of what the applicant asked for.Tonight you'll hear challenges and questions
about changing our historic General Plan,questions needing further thought and
analysis.I believe equity for all iDvolves the applicant receiving from you tonight,
expanded,specific directions,including to actually meet with our neighborhoods as a
group,listening to each other's concerns and then meeting again and maybe again to see
where the middle ground is,perhaps with our Planning Dept present.That way all of us
will agree we have a successful development plan.That's my conclusion.Now,details.
6.Sea Bluft"s heartburn:sioce 2007 for our BOA notbiog has changed.Bulk and
mass,loss of views.Applicant has not changed his lot #1 house,its height,lot
placement,etc.It's your and our view blocker.Your's because it blocks views of the
ocean from a NCCP trail which,we are told,our Coastal Specific Plan does not
permit.Of course,the views from our Beachview homes will be destroyed though we are
told these views do not count since they are mostly from 2nd story balconies but I assure
you,these neighbors ...they count.Also,per our LA Assessor,applicant's bulk and ./
mass are double the 'under 3,000 sq.ft.'size of 73%of 44 receot home sales withiD ~
%mOe.No home recently sold aDd listed by our assessor is even close to the size
prop?sed.One is 5,300 s~.ft.That's i~So nothing has chaog~for ~L COMMISSION
Nothmg.No accommodation,no nothing but we are told our CIty support'S;at feast at
your Planning Commission level,accommodating the developer.Therefore,we are still
swinging our bat,marshalling our forces.EXHIBIT # (
pg.lof5 PAGE.Ij-OF 11
11-111
pg.20f5
NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT:BEFORE YOU APPROVE CONSIDER ...
RPV CITY COUNcn..COMMENTS FEB.2,20 I0
7.Regarding our General Plan,tonight you have at least 4 alternatives on your
plate:
a.Change our historic General Plan to accommodate our local fJJ.1-in developer.
b.Recommend to our Calif.Coastal Commission they change our Coastal Specific Plan
to increase single-family residences within our coastal zone,basically that they
join you in this accommodation to our local developer.
c.Remand this revised application back to your Planning Commission and the developer
with definitive,concrete direction such as don't come back without a plan
acceptable to our Planning Dept and your 4 surrounding neighborhoods.Mandate
neighborhoods attend these meetings.Not to do so will limit their influence on the
final product And,as Larry Clark used to say,compromise,compromise ...tell all
parties if you have to make the final decision,neither party will like it.
d.Lift Nantasket Residential Project from your Planning Commission.We all know
where they stand anyway.Twice they've approved everything.So,like Terranea
Resort,put this directly on yoW'platter so it will efficiently move along for all
parties.
Now let's talk a minute about changing our General Plan,tonight's decision.And
let's not quote Bob Nelson;rather let's quote leaders of our community:From your
Minutes of October 4,2005,meeting,when another developer requested you change our
General Plan,the same meeting where you approved letting this applicant go forward:
Quoting from those Minutes:
'"1.Barbara Sattler:"The General Plan is the articulation of the goals and objectives
of the entire community;that the point of the GP was to maintain the City's vision
for the community and to hold to it.She cautioned Councll against making any
change to the General Plan."
~2.Lois Carp:speaking as an individual since the 239 homes in her BOA where she
was President had yet to vote.From the Minutes:"her belief this city should not be
amending the General Plan •••that this developer bOUght the property with all its
entitlements •••(his proposal)would not be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood."1 should remind you and our audience Nantasket Residential Project is
surrounded on 3 sides by CR zoning and one side by a non-confonning structure with
three +80~OOO sq.ft.parcels zoned RS-4,across the street.Further,you were advised in
your last meeting on this (May 14,2007)by Lisa Brant,an attorney,that you could not
consider these 80~000 sq.ft.Villas Apts parcels when detennining this project's
'neighborhood.'
~3.George Fink,representing the Ladera Linda BOA,reminded you "the General
Plan requires,(repeat requires)that aD new housing be developed to include suitable,
adequate landscaping,open space •••that the 'I1lral open character'ofthe City be
preserved •••that the recently adopted plan require all new housing to 'consider'
neighborhood compatibility."COASTAL COMMISSION
EXHrSfT#,
PAGE_1~/~_-O-F-/-4-
11-112
NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT:BEFORE YOU APPROVE CONSIDER ...
RPV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FEB.2.2010
4.I agree with one that night who said 'Our city loses something every time we
change our General Plan.'It's why we are what we are.So we are asked tonight to
change what we are,what we've been for 35 years.
All 40,000 RPV citizens you represent will clearly see or read about your decision
tonight.
As each of you know,most of us view our General Plan,a product of our founders,
as our land use bible and the rationale for forming our town.
/Further,as Councilman Stem said on May 15,2007,'This has so many bizarre
aspects.'Amongst these was including the Villas Apts three 80,000 sq.ft.parcels,
zoned RS-4,in the calculation of how big the applicant's homes could be in the
neighborhood.As you know,this resulted in a neighborhood home size of some 12,000
sq.ft.!And,at that point,to assure a finding of neighborhood compatibility,om City
Attorney opined for only your Planning Commission's view,a letter with 4 findings,one
of which was the then proposed 5 homes could be considered a neighborhood unto
itself,regardless of what your citizens see as their neighborhood.
Your May 15,2007,Minutes show this 'neighborhood unto itself'option was ~
promptly labeled 'mental gymnastics'by Lisa Brant,a land use attorney employed by
some in our neighborhood,including our HOA.The reason Lisa was hired was we tired,
as many othen will attest,of undergoing your Planning Commission !l~o~eys.
interrogations and Lisa,we hoped,at your level,would finally brin~I"iMliIlOMMISSION
sensibili'ty to ears that actually listeD.
(A major exception is your Planning Commission,which has 1.twice now with zip-zero
debate approved changing our General Plan to accommodate this developer and 2.told us
in 2007 you never reverse their decisions -but to their amazement and wonderment,then
you did!f).On Nov.10,2009,your Planning Commission met on this developer's
Nantasket Residential Project and within their purview,approved everything they could.
In watching the video I found it very interesting and of value,they spent more time
discussing chimney height than aDything else,including you and our General Plan!)~Our General Plan surrounds this orphan parcel on 3 sides by historical CR zoDiDg,
now Terranea Resort.As you know,for years Long Point wanted to change this
zoning from CR to RS-l,one home per acre and build it out accordingly.However,I
understand they were told on no uncertain terms,don't even try.Zoned CR it was,
is and will be forever.So now you are asked to ignore that 104 acre CR precedent
and accommodate with Single-family zoning a local developer whose 1.4 acre parcel
wiD erect a waJl of Georptown facades,homes with 10'deep front yaros,on lots
needing a lot size variance to even build on,in a neighborhood that lacks any
resemblance to his silhouettes or drawings.The neighborhood sees this Nantasket
Residential Project as beach city mansionization in RPVl For future reference,
mansionization quickly OK'd by your Planning Commission.Beach city
mansionization.In RPV!
pg.30f5
11-113
NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT:BEFORE YOU APPROVE CONSIDER ...
RPV CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS FEB.2,2010
The Minutes state Lisa also pointed out the high standard under California law as to
when variances are aBowed to be granted.I am not an attorney,but the Chair ofyour
Planning Commission,an appeallant attorney,is here and I hope could provide for us a
quick review of our Calif variance case law that substantiates his Planning Commission's
quick approval,for the second time,of both lot size and height variances necessary to
accomplish in RPV the applicant's four beach city McMansions.
Lisa further stated.as in the Minutes,that 'because the property would be more
valuable to Mr.Ireland was not enough reason to grant variances and,(noted)
maximizing his profits above the interests of the commullity would be inconsistent
with the laws of California and the planning and zoning the community worked so
hanl to put in place.'Interesting.Granting variances to make the property more
valuable to Mr.Ireland,maximizing his profits above community interests would be in
violation of California laws.Ignored by your Planning Commission attorneys but,
according to Lisa,part of California law.Opinion duly noted for future reference.
Lisa also pointed out a change in General Pion zoning must legally be found to be in
the public interest Another topic largely ignored by your Planning Commission (but
chimney height was not and occupied most of their time).
So tonight,should you approve changing the zoning of a CR parcel surrounded on 3
sides by CR parcels,to residential,we look forward to your rationale explaining in
accord with California law,how this project possibly is in the public interest.The
last time the applicant got into his project's reducing traffic vs.commercial use,as proof
of satisfying this public interest requirement but the commercial usage bringing
substantial additional traffic was never defined.I believe mentioned was a hotel or
recyeling center.I believe you'll agree with me those would be interesting Coastal
Commission land use considerations -within its coastal zone!And I assure you,with
any approval tonight,we will be very interested in meeting our Coastal Commission
staff,Coastal Commission members and any other environmental group,such as those
involved in our NCCP,who will hear our saga of RPV's Nantasket developer
accommodations in detail.
We know you all want to know what we feel is acceptable to us,tbe neighborhood.
Bluntly,I will not and we should never answer.That question is,I believe,legally,a
ltypothetieaL We are not the developer.We don't own this property.The appticant
does.He bought it fully understanding all of its development sbortcomings.Someone
probably told him with,easily obtainable in RPV,necessary variances,zoning changes,
etc, etc,this orphan fill~in parcel,in our Coastal Zone,was sure fire profit.The applicant
is way too intelligent to have bought it otherwise.But it is the responsibility of the
applicant,not us,to bring forth a plan acceptable to aU,not just your Planning
Commission.Again,developing an acceptable plan is not the responsibility of the
neighborhood.We are not developers.But we are listeners.The Nantasket Residential
Project is not the responsibility of us,its neighborhood.Please don't askOOA8'IAlJt£OMMISSION
want.
I believe it is also yoar resJMlDsibiJi!y,..tlu:prtJtecto....preservers o~i1~~
Plan,to give your firm guidance to our local developer,no namby p-.J8EP!:%b.......-aOF
pg.4 of5
11-114
NANTASKET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT:BEFORE YOU APPROVE CONSIDER ...
RPV CI1Y COUNCIL COMMENTS FEB.2.2010
viable solution starts with actual neighborhood meetings with for all to listen and
comment Initially no presentatio~just discussion.The developer going house-~house
presenting his plans doesn't work;it's a waste ofbis valuable time.This time,after 5 or 6
trips into Sea BlufI,the applicant still couldn't get the mandatory neighborhood
signatures and Senior Planner Eduardo had to figure a way around that.
In closing,we admit it's your caD,as representatives of aD 40,000 RPVers.We
simply ask you f'mt ten him what you want to ten him,thell ten him,then tell him
what you told him and adjourn this item for a total rethink by all sides.nank you.
Any questions?
COASTAL COMMiSSION
EXH\BiT #_..,.;(-~--
PAGE I/l_OF .-/.!L
pg.50f5
11-115