Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
   

MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: AUGUST 28, 2002

SUBJECT: LONG POINT RESORT PROJECT (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, ET. AL.)

Prepared By: Ara Michael Mihranian, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION

1) Review and discuss the revisions to the draft Conditions of Approval, and if deemed acceptable by the Council; 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__, certifying the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report making certain environmental findings; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2002-__ approving with conditions, the Long Point Resort Hotel project.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2002, Staff presented the Council with the draft conditions of approval for its review and discussion. The draft conditions were prepared by Staff in collaboration with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works and the Director of Finance, as well as the applicant’s project team and representatives from various community interest groups. After reviewing the conditions and receiving public testimony at its August 6th meeting, the Council directed Staff to make the modifications discussed at the meeting, and to prepare the appropriate resolutions for consideration at the August 28th meeting. Furthermore, during the public hearing, additional concerns were raised regarding drainage, water quality, and hotel landscaping. In response to these concerns, the Council directed Staff to coordinate meetings with the respective parties and the applicant’s project team to address the outstanding concerns before the August 28th meeting. Furthermore, the Council requested that if any unresolved issues remain between the parties, that these issues be identified and presented to the Council for resolution.

Pursuant to Council direction staff coordinated several meetings with the applicant’s project team and the interested parties. The outcome of the meetings is discussed in greater detail later in this Staff Report. Furthermore, in order to focus the Council on the outstanding concerns, Staff has prepared an "Issues Table," that lists the issues according to subject matter and summarizes the current status of the issues. The Issues Table is attached to this report for review.

It should also be noted that while Council has been reviewing the draft conditions, the Planning Commission has been reviewing the applicant’s variance request to allow the construction of a swimming pool and cabana, referred herein as the Lower Pool Facility, with the City’s Coastal Setback Zone. After two public hearings, the Commission unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2002-20 on August 13, 2002, recommending that the City Council, approve, with conditions, the applicant’s variance request to allow the construction of the Lower Pool Facility within the Coastal Setback Zone (see attachment). A detailed discussion on the Commission’s decision can be found later in this report.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion addresses the various issues pertaining to the proposed project, and summarizes the documents presented to the Council for its consideration at tonight’s meeting.

Lower Pool Facility

On August 13, 2002, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2002-20, recommending to the City Council, the approval of Variance No. 489 to allow the construction of the Lower Pool Facility within the City’s designated Coastal Setback Zone. The Lower Pool Facility proposed by the applicant consists of the construction of a new cabana structure, as well as a new swimming pool and spa. The proposed cabana would be approximately 1,400 square feet in area, and would be constructed at a height of sixteen (16) feet, as measured from the structure’s lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline. According to the applicant, the proposed cabana would separately serve both hotel guests and the general public by dividing the pool facility into two sections, an area for hotel guests and a separate area for the general public. These two sections would be separated by a six (6) foot high open fence, and would maintain separate entry gates off the public access trails. The hotel guest area would contain a pool and spa, concrete terrace area surrounding the pool, outdoor showers, private restroom facilities, and a kitchen/bar area. As for the public area, this section would provide restroom facilities, an outdoor concrete terrace, outdoor showers, access to the kitchen/bar area, and a drinking fountain.

The Commission’s decision on the applicant’s variance request was based on its review of the design and layout of the pool facility, as well as the geologic feasibility of the project site. According to the Commission, the Lower Pool Facility would result in an added benefit to the general public, because of increased public amenities, as well as improved access to the shoreline. In terms of geology, on July 31, 2002, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer determined that the site is geologically feasible to accommodate the construction of the Lower Pool Facility within the Coastal Setback Zone. The City’s Geotechnical Engineer’s determination was based on the review of the applicant’s geotechnical reports, as well as a site visit to observe the two 24-inch diameter auger borings. According to the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, the location of the proposed lower pool facility is underlain by intact basalt bedrock. Furthermore, the results of the slope stability analysis indicate that the proposed structure will be located in an area where the factor of safety exceeds 1.5. As such, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer determined that the proposed lower pool facility is feasible from a geotechnical point of view.

Therefore, based on the belief that the pool facility would provide an increased benefit to the general public, the Commission determined that the required findings could be met and that relief, in the form of a variance, from the required setbacks established within the Coastal Setback Zone is warranted. For further information regarding the Commission’s Variance findings, as well as the project related geotechnical studies, please see the attached Planning Commission Staff Reports (dated July 23 and August 13, 2002), adopted Resolution, and minutes (the minutes from the August 13th meeting were not available to be included in this report). Therefore, unless additional issues with regard to the Lower Pool Facility are raised by the Council, the proposed pool facility will be incorporated into the overall approved plan and the specific conditions of approval integrated into the master list of conditions.

It should be noted that at the August 13th Commission meeting, Vice-Chairman Long indicated that a disclaimer in the applicant’s geotechnical report requires that the City’s Geotechnical Engineer’s obtain approval prior to reviewing the respective reports. He also stated that the City’s Geotechnical Engineer must also wet-stamp the Response Review Checklist. The applicant indicated that by submitting the report to the City for its review, it implies approval to use the report in the City’s analysis. Furthermore, in regards to the City’s Geotechnical Consultant, attached is the wet-stamped Response Review Sheet.

Drainage / Water Quality

At the August 6th meeting, a concern was raised by community members regarding on-site and off-site drainage, as well as the specifics of the proposed Water Quality Management Plan. In regards to on-site and off-site drainage, the Director of Public Works met with the applicant’s project team on several occasions to discuss possible improvements to the existing storm drain facilities along Palos Verdes Drive South. As a result of the meetings, it was determined that the applicant would be responsible to improve the drainage facilities immediately adjacent to the project site along Palos Verdes Drive South. Furthermore, the applicant would be responsible to improve the existing Fishing Access storm drain facility, that is causing the erosion along the bluff-top, by diverting the water through a pipe to the proposed drainage outlets. These required improvements are reflected in the attached conditions of approval.

In regards to water quality, as noted in the conditions of approval, the applicant is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The Plan is required to identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction and post-construction activities. Furthermore, the Plan is to identify the operation, maintenance and monitoring procedures of the water treatment train. In order to ensure the BMPs are properly implemented by the operator of the hotel, a condition has been imposed that requires the Maintenance Agreement of the Plan to be recorded against the property with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. It should be noted that community members have raised specific questions regarding the Plan and its potential impacts to surrounding plant and wildlife. Since the Plan is still a conceptual design, Staff is unable to address some of these specific questions at this time. Therefore, in order to provide the public with an opportunity to review the details of the Plan and provide Staff and the applicant with their input, a condition has been imposed that requires the City Council review and approve the Water Quality Management Plan at a public meeting. Staff is of the opinion that any unresolved issues regarding water quality could be addressed at that time. For more information regarding the outstanding concerns raised by community members, with respect to drainage and water quality, please see the attached Issues Table.

Landscaping

At the August 6th City Council meeting, a concern was raised by community members with respect to the proposed hotel landscaping. Specifically, their concern pertains to the type of vegetation that will be planted within the 50-foot bluff transition zone, located inland of the public access trail immediately adjacent to the 30-foot habitat Enhancement Area and the 2.2 acre public park, as well as a concern pertaining to irrigation. As such, the Council directed Staff to coordinate a meeting with the applicant’s project team and the respective community interest groups to address their concerns.

On August 15, 2002, Staff coordinated a site visit meeting with the applicant’s project team (Rob Lowe, Mike Mohler, Timi Hallem, Tim Bolton and their Landscape Architect) and representatives from the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy (Barbara Dye and Steve Hein) and the respective community members (Angelika Busi-Brinkman, Barbara Sattler and Jim Knight) at White Point Park to review local native plants that may be used in the hotel’s landscape design. At the site visit, the applicant’s project team was able to view the various non-invasive native plants that the community members are encouraging to be used in the hotel’s landscape design. Although the meeting was in intended to introduce the various plant species to the participants, the applicant indicated his willingness to incorporate non-invasive plants in the hotel’s plant palette. To ensure that the landscape design does not include non-invasive plant species, a suggested plant list was prepared by the community members and given to the applicant. Staff has attached the plant list to this Staff Report for Council review (see attachment). It should be noted that according to the conditions of approval, the project Landscape Plan is subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. As such, during the Director’s review of the Landscape Plan, the respective community members will have an opportunity to review and provide their input on the proposed landscape design, plant palette, and irrigation system.

Issues Table

As noted in the above discussion, at the August 6th meeting, the Council recognized that there are still outstanding questions from various community members that remain unresolved. As such, the Council directed Staff to coordinate appropriate meetings with the applicant’s project team and the respective community members in order to attempt to resolve project related concerns before the August 28th meeting. Additionally, the Council directed Staff to report back on any outstanding issues that have not been resolved, either through project modifications or conditions of approval, for consideration by the Council.

In response to Council direction, Staff coordinated several meetings with the applicant’s project team and representatives from various community interests groups. The purpose of these meetings was to identify and address the outstanding concerns. In order capture the content of the concerns, Staff has prepared a table, referred herein as to the Issues Table, for the Council’s review (see attachment). The Table has been formatted so that each unresolved issue is categorized by subject matter, includes the origin of each issue, and lists the respective response and status. Therefore, Staff respectfully requests that the Council review the attached Table and provide Staff and the applicant with input and direction on the unresolved issues.

Conditions of Approval

Pursuant to Council direction, Staff has modified the conditions of approval based on the comments received at the August 6th meeting. The modified conditions are attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit "A" to the project application Resolution (see attachment). It should be noted that since the August 6th Council meeting, Staff has worked closely with the applicant’s project team, as well as community interest groups, to review and fine tune the conditions, so that all project related concerns are adequately addressed. The unresolved issues from the Issues Table correspond to the Conditions of Approval.

Please note that the numeric order of the conditions have been altered since the Council’s last review of the conditions. The numeric change is a result of added, deleted or modified conditions.

Affordable Housing

Since the August 6th Council meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Stern has raised a question regarding the City’s affordable housing requirements. Specifically, Mayor Pro-Tem Stern was interested in why the Development Code was written so that non-residential projects are required to pay a fee, as opposed to being required to construct on-site or off-site affordable housing units. Furthermore, it was requested that Staff estimate what the required affordable housing fee would be for the proposed project.

At the time the City was rewriting the Development Code in 1994 and 1995, the City hired an affordable housing consultant to draft the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (Chapter 17.11 of the current Development Code). When presented to the City Council for review on November 8, 1995, the draft ordinance included a program to require an affordable housing fee for non-residential development projects. As explained in a letter from the City’s Affordable Housing Consultant, Sandra Genis, to the City dated May 18, 1995 (see attachment), State Law does not address affordable housing requirements or in-lieu fees for non-residential development and therefore all aspects of such programs are completely discretionary. The draft ordinance included such a program because it was foreseen that large scale commercial development in the city could increase the demand for affordable housing by changing the job/housing balance. At that time, the issue was whether to include such discretionary program in the City’s ordinance. There was no discussion on whether there should be construction of units as opposed to a fee since the issue involved "non-residential" development which would likely not allow for, nor accommodate, residential housing. The Council agreed to include the non-residential fee in the Ordinance.

Pursuant to Section 17.11.140 of the RPVMC, the City's affordable housing requirement applies to all applications for construction, expansion or intensification of nonresidential projects, which includes, but is not limited to applications for commercial projects, golf courses, private clubs and institutional developments. The trigger for the affordable housing requirement is development projects where more than thirty (30) full-time / part-time jobs are created; or where more than 10,000 square feet of space will be created or converted. Since the proposed resort hotel project is anticipated to generate more than thirty (30) full time / part time employees, the City's affordable housing requirement applies. It should be noted that according to the applicant, as noted in the traffic and parking analysis, the resort hotel is projected to employ approximately 700 full-time equivalent employees, with approximately 100 employees working per shift.

In terms of an estimated fee, Section 17.11.140(C) states that the developer of a commercial project shall pay a residential impact fee to be set by resolution of the City Council. The fee shall be adequate to provide one low or very low affordable housing unit for each 10 employees to be generated by the project. The fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. According to Resolution No. 99-28, the residential impact fee for nonresidential development projects is $13,313 per affordable unit. Therefore, based on staff’s calculation, the estimated fee is as follows: 700 employees /10 employees per unit = 70 units x $13,313 per unit = $931,910.00. These funds would be deposited into the City’s In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fee Program. The funds in this program do not have a time restriction for when the funds need to be expended. Therefore, the funds can be used for a variety of affordable housing programs, such as a Housing Subsidy Program or the construction of new affordable housing units.

Addendum to the Certified EIR

On May 7, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002-34, certifying the project Environmental impact Report (EIR), thereby making certain environmental findings and determining that the EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adequately addressed the City’s environmental concerns.

Based on the revised project currently being reviewed by the City Council, which involves the exclusion of the Upper Point Vicente Area and the reconfiguration of the resort hotel area, no new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of impacts previously identified will occur. Furthermore, no new significant information, which was not known at the time the previous EIR was certified, has been identified, and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, a draft Addendum to the certified EIR, as required in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, has been prepared to address the revised project currently before the Council. The draft Addendum was transmitted to the Council in its June 18th Agenda Packet. It should be noted that pursuant to CEQA, the draft Addendum did not require circulation for public review. Nonetheless, the draft Addendum was made available at City Hall, Hesse Park Community Building, the Miraleste Library and the Peninsula Main Library for public review. Furthermore, the draft Addendum was also made available on the City’s website. Since the draft Addendum was made available in June 2002, no public comments or concerns regarding potential environmental impacts were raised. Therefore, based on provisions set forth in CEQA, the preparation of the Addendum has determined that the revised project will not result in any new or increased impacts to the surrounding environment that has not been adequately addressed in the EIR.

It should also be noted that pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the impacts identified in the EIR and Addendum that have been found to result in a significant impact to the surrounding environment that cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance with mitigation, may be approved by the Council through the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration. According to the EIR and the attached Addendum, the project will result in unavoidable impacts to Air Quality and Noise. However, the City Council may balance, as deemed appropriate, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project against the adverse environmental impacts, and may find that the proposed project outweighs such environmental impacts, thereby considering such impacts as acceptable. Under this scenario, the Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration in association with the decision of the project applications. As such, Staff has prepared a Statement of Overriding Consideration, as it pertains to the unavoidable impacts to air quality and noise, for consideration by the City Council.

Resolutions

Pursuant to Council direction at its August 6th meeting, Staff has prepared and attached to this Staff Report the appropriate resolutions for the proposed project. The resolutions have been separated into two documents, one for the environmental component of the project, and the other on the project applications. If the Council determines that the adoption of the resolutions is appropriate, the Council will be required to first adopt the environmental resolution, followed by the project resolution.

In terms of the environmental resolution, the adoption of this resolution states that the City has completed the appropriate review of the revised project with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and finds that the revised project will not result in any new or increased impacts to the surrounding environment, as identified in the certified Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, attached as an exhibit is the Statement of Overriding Consideration for review the Council. As for the project resolution, the adoption of this resolution states that the required findings for each project application requested by the applicant can be positively made in accordance to the City’s General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and any other related documents. Additionally, attached as an exhibit to the project resolution is the conditions of approval.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Coastal Commission

The proposed project is located within the appealable portion of the City’s coastal zone, and can therefore be appealed to the California Coastal Commission after the City’s decision is issued. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Development Code, an appeal of the City’s final decision may be filed with the Coastal Commission by an applicant, any aggrieved person, or by any two members of the Coastal Commission within ten (10) calendar days of the City’s decision. If no appeal is filed, the City’s decision becomes final, and a Final Notice of Decision is issued to the applicant, interested parties and the Coastal Commission.

Permit Streamlining Act

Pursuant to Section 65950 of the California Government Code, the public agency (City of Rancho Palos Verdes) shall render a decision on the project applications 180 calendar days after certification of the EIR. Since the project EIR was certified on May 7, 2002, the City Council has until November 4, 2002 to take action on the project applications.

Public Comments

Attached to this report are the public comments (including e-mail messages) received since the August 6th City Council meeting. There are 5 comment letters, two supporting the project, and the other three expressing concern with certain aspects of the project. Such concerns pertain to the location of the Lower Pool Facility and its potential impacts to public access trails to the shoreline, as well as the placement of hotel amenities (e.g. restaurants). Public comments submitted after the transmittal of this report will be provided to the City Council the night of the meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT

The processing of the proposed project applications will have no significant fiscal impact on the General Fund in that the applicant is paying for all costs associated with the City Attorney’s review of the project and the EIR Consultant’s preparation of the required environmental documents.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, Staff seeks the City Council’s input on the unresolved issues of the Issues Table and to the corresponding conditions of approval. In the event the Council finds the project Conditions of Approval to be acceptable, Staff recommends that the Council adopt the appropriate Resolutions certifying the Addendum to the project EIR and approving, with conditions, the project applications.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available for consideration by the City Council:

  1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, and provide the applicant with further direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain to review the project modifications.

Respectfully submitted,
Joel Rojas
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed by:
Les Evans
City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

  • Addendum to the EIR
  • Resolution No. 2002-__ (Environmental), includes the Statement of Overriding Consideration
  • Resolution No. 2002-__ (project application), includes the Conditions of Approval
  • P.C. Resolution No. 2002-20 – Lower Pool Facility
  • July 23 and August 13, 2002 P.C. Staff Reports
  • P.C. July 23, 2002 Minutes – Lower Pool Facility
  • Affordable Housing Policy Memo – Sandra Genis
  • Development Code Section on Affordable Housing
  • Issues Table
  • Invasive Plant List
  • Public Comments

RESOLUTION NO. 2002- ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, VARIANCE NO. 489, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND RELATED USES TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT

WHEREAS, a formal application was filed by Destination Development Corporation (the "Developer") requesting approval of conditional use permits, grading permits, a coastal development permit and a tentative parcel map (collectively the "discretionary permits") and a general plan amendment to allow construction of a 550-room resort hotel and conference center, 32 private villas, and a 9-hole golf course on 103.5 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 64.9 acres of land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the " Initial Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Initial Project has since been revised to eliminate the portion of the Project that called for the use of 64.9 acres of publicly-owned land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, commonly known as Upper Point Vicente Area ("UPVA"), and a 1.4 acre strip of land owned by CIGNA (the "Revised Project"), so that the entire development will be located entirely on 102.1 acres of privately-owned land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South, which formerly was occupied by Marineland (the "Project site"); and

WHEREAS, the City analyzed the Initial Project’s potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Initial Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Initial Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land-use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems; and

WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an environmental impact report (the "EIR") for the Initial Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of the EIR from July 20, 2000, through September 4, 2000, for an extended 45-day comment period in order to receive written comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR; and

WHEREAS, the City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to the Initial Project and the CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR; and

WHEREAS, the scoping session was noticed by publication in the local press, by mailing to all residents within a 500-foot radius of the Initial Project and by posting at City Hall, Hesse Park, and the Ladera Linda Community Center and was attended by the applicant, representatives of various agencies, and members of the general public; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices"), was completed on February 2, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between February 6, 2001, and April 6, 2001, for an expanded 60-day comment period pursuant to Guidelines Section 15087(c); and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on April 10, 2001, April 14, 2001, April 24, 2001, May 17, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 10, 2001, and July 24, 2001, at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project and the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process, the City received over 30 hours of public testimony and more than 300 written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the adequacy of the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the DEIR in response to the comments; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary revisions to the DEIR in July 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the responses to comments and the revisions to the DEIR, City staff concluded that the revised material in the biological resources analysis (Section 5.3 of the DEIR) constituted new information requiring recirculation of the biological resources analysis of the DEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Guidelines Section 15088.5; and

WHEREAS, the City recirculated the Revised Biological Resources Analysis to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interest persons between August 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, for a shortened 30-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(c) and 15105(a) (the "Second Public Review and Comment Period").

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further held duly noticed public hearings on August 14, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project, the DEIR, and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and

WHEREAS, during the Second Public Review and Comment Period, the City received several hours of testimony and fifteen written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the adequacy of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, where appropriate, in response to the comments received during the Second Public Review and Comment Period; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis on September 24, 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public at least ten (10) days prior to considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"); and

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the FEIR and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2230, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND GOLF COURSE TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT;" and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things, certification of the FEIR for the Initial Project and adopted Resolution No. 2002-34 certifying the FEIR; and

WHEREAS, City Staff has determined that while the Revised Project did require some minor changes and additions to the previously certified FEIR, the Revised Project did not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the FEIR because the Revised Project, which will be developed on fewer acres of land than the Initial Project and will be located on a site that was previously developed and used for the Marineland facility, will not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the effects that previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR; furthermore, there are no changed circumstances or new information, which was not known at the time the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum"); and

WHEREAS, the City completed preparation of the Addendum, together with all related technical studies, on June 11, 2002; and

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, City Staff distributed the Addendum to the City Council and made the Addendum available to the public; and

WHEREAS, On June 18, 2002, July 16, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 28, 2002, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings to consider the Revised Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the FEIR, the Addendum and the project applications;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR") consists of five volumes, as more particularly described in Section 1 of Resolution No. 2002-34. The City Council previously certified the completeness and adequacy of the FEIR on May 7, 2002:

Section 2. The Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum") consists of a single volume dated June 11, 2002. The City Council received the Addendum on June 18, 2002, when it also was made available to the public. The City Council has reviewed the Revised Project at duly noticed public meetings on June 18, 2002, July 16, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 28, 2002 (collectively the "Hearings"), at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the Hearings on the Revised Project was provided in accordance with applicable law. Following the completion of the public hearings on the Revised Project, and based upon the all of the written and oral testimony that has been presented and the record of the Hearings, the City Council certified the completeness and accuracy of the Addendum.

Section 3. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR (some of which have been restated in the Addendum) and the Addendum and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours with the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, who serves as the custodian of these records.

Section 4. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the Addendum prior to deciding whether to approve the Revised Project, pursuant to Guidelines Section 15084(e). The City Council hereby finds that the Addendum, in conjunction with the FEIR, reflects the independent judgment of the City and the City Council. The City Council further finds that, based upon the record before the City Council, the Revised Project does not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to previously certified FEIR because: (i) the Revised Project will not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the effects that previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR; (ii) there are no changed circumstances or new information, which was not known at the time the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports and in the evidence presented in written and oral testimony at the Hearings, does not constitute new information requiring a subsequent or supplement EIR or re-circulation of the FEIR under CEQA. None of the information presented to the City Council at the Hearings indicates that the public has deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the Revised Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. All feasible mitigation measures suggested in the FEIR and incorporated into the Addendum have been considered by the City Council, and the City Council will incorporate such mitigation measures into the Revised Project as conditions of approval of the Revised Project. No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified.

Section 5. The City Council finds that the City Council has received staff reports and written and oral testimony regarding the adequacy of the Addendum, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to taking any action on the Revised Project. The City Council hereby certifies that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section 15164.

Section 6. Based upon the Initial Study, the FEIR, the Addendum, and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Objectionable Odors, Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Population and Housing. Explanations for why the City Council determined that the Revised Project will have no impact or will cause a less than a significant impact to the foregoing resources are contained in the Initial Study (included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR) and in Section 10.0 of the FEIR in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Section 15128.

Section 7. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Revised Project, as mitigated, will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational Facilities. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are fully discussed in the "Statement of Findings and Facts In Support of Findings" set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, Section 5.0 of the FEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, and the Initial Study (included as Appendix 15.1 to the FEIR).

Section 8. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will create significant unavoidable impacts in the impact categories of Air Quality (short-term air pollutants and long-term operational impacts) and Noise (long-term impacts). These significant impacts are further described in the "Statement of Findings and Facts In Support of Findings" set forth in Exhibit A, and in Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum. The construction-related significant impacts to Air Quality arising from the Revised Project are associated with construction equipment and grading activities and will be temporary in nature, while the operational significant impacts to Air Quality will be long term in nature. The long-term significant impacts to Noise are attributable to Project-related traffic. Although the Revised Project’s individual contribution will not be significant, the existing ambient noise levels exceed State standards; when Project-generated and cumulative vehicular noise are combined, the result will cause a significant and unavoidable noise impact on a cumulative level. All feasible mitigation measures have been considered, and changes or alterations will be required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project that will substantially lessen the level of significance of the significant environmental impacts identified but will not reduce them below a level of significance. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum.

Section 9. Based upon the Addendum, the FEIR and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Revised Project’s cumulative impacts, with the exception of the impacts to Noise and Air Quality, are not significant. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum.

Section 10. Section 7.0 of the FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Revised Project, which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Revised Project. These alternatives include "Alternative 7.1 - No Development Alternative," "Alternative 7.2 - No Project Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 - With Coast Guard Site Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.5 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.6 - No Resort Villas - Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.7 - No Resort Villas - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.8 - Program of Utilization Alternative," "Alternative 7.9 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative," and "Alternative 7.10 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing Entitlement Alternative." With respect the each of the Revised Project Alternatives analyzed in the FEIR, the City Council hereby makes the findings set forth in Exhibit A. The City Council expressly finds that each of the alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Revised Project or will do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project, as proposed, minimizes any adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, or set forth in the FEIR, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the each of the alternatives identified in the FEIR, and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the FEIR and the City Council’s ultimate decision on the Revised Project.

Section 11. For the environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as "significant and unavoidable," namely in the impact areas of Air Quality and Noise, the City Council hereby adopts the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council further adopts each of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and imposes each mitigation measure as a condition of Project approval. Finally, the City Council hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" which is presented in Exhibit D.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of August, 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

______________________________

JOHN C. MCTAGGART, MAYOR

Attest:

___________________________________

City Clerk

State of California )

County of Los Angeles ) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palo Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 28, 2002.

______________________________

City Clerk

EXHIBIT A

Statement of Findings and Facts In Support Of Findings

Article I. Introduction.

The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:

    1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
    2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
    3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.

Pursuant the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes the environmental findings set forth in this statement with regard to the potentially significant environmental effects in connection with the proposed construction of a 400-room resort hotel and conference center, 50 resort casita units (multiple-keyed for a maximum of 150 overnight accommodations), 32 privately-owned villas, and a golf practice facility on 102.1 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South to be known as the "Long Point Resort" (the "Revised Project"). The Revised Project is more fully described below and in Section 4.0 of the Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum"). These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its contents including, without limitation, the Initial Study, the DEIR, the Appendices, the Responses to Comments on the DEIR, the Revised Biological Resources Analysis and the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, the Addendum, and staff and consultants’ reports prepared and presented to the City Council.

Article II. Project Description.

The Revised Project encompasses approximately 102.1 acres in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California. The Revised Project site includes privately-owned land formerly occupied by Marineland, generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South (the "Project site").

The Revised Project is intended to be a multi-faceted destination resort. The cornerstone of the Revised Project is a full-service hotel and conference center. The Revised Project includes a resort hotel with 400 rooms in the main building and bungalows (which will be multiple-keyed for an additional total of 150 overnight accommodations), 50 resort casita units (the casitas will be privately-owned but will be included in the Revised Project’s visitor-serving accommodations pool), 32 resort villas (which will be privately-owned but will be included in the Revised Project’s visitor-serving accommodations pool), a 68,000 square foot conference and meeting center, a 25,000 square-foot full-service health spa and fitness center, a golf practice facility (which includes an 8,000 square-foot clubhouse, a driving range and three practice holes) and related amenities. In addition to the resort and conference center, the Revised Project will provide a habitat preserve (with both conserved and enhanced habitat) and public open space and recreation facilities (including the public golf practice facility, 100 parking spaces for use by the general public, two shoreline access ramps, public parks and scenic overlooks, and a 3.0-mile series of public walkways, jogging paths, hiking trails and bike trails linking visitor-serving areas of the Project site with public facilities within the surrounding area).

The Revised Project applications consist of requests for a conditional use permit to allow construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, 32 privately-owned villas, and a golf practice facility on the Project site (CUP 215), a grading permit to allow grading for subdivision, master grading, and infrastructure improvements on the Project site (GRP No. 2229), a coastal development permit to allow construction of the proposed resort hotel and conference center, villas, and golf facilities on the Project site within Subregion 2 of the City’s Coastal Specific Plan (CDP No. 166), a variance to allow a reduction in the building setback requirement for construction of a proposed pool and public restrooms seaward of the established building setback line (VAR No. 489), and a tentative parcel map to allow the redefinition of land parcels on the Project site (TPM No. 26073) (collectively referred to herein as the "discretionary approvals").

Article III. Project Objectives.

As set forth in Section 4.3 of the Addendum, the objectives that the Project applicant seeks to achieve with this Revised Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows:

  • To establish a successful coastal resort that provides a mix of hotel and resort accommodations, recreational amenities, health facilities, restaurants, meeting rooms, and other related visitor-serving uses on the Project site (former Marineland) as the core of a successful destination coastal resort;
  • To provide a variety of hotel/resort accommodations that serve the needs of a wide range of coastal visitors;
  • To provide a high-quality, on-site golf experience as an integral part of the destination resort, and ensure that the golf course and related practice and teaching facilities are open to the general public;
  • To provide for a variety of public open spaces, including natural and active open space areas, trails, and general public recreation areas within the Revised Project;
  • To provide for expanded public coastal access, including (i) 100 off-street parking spaces for use by the general public, (ii) vertical access from Palos Verdes Drive South, through the proposed resort, to the shoreline, and (iii) continuous horizontal access comprised of a bluff-top trail and scenic overlooks along the full length of the coastal bluff;
  • To design a destination coastal resort facility that is architecturally and visually compatible with the surrounding landscape;
  • To provide for implementation of the City’s Master Plan of Trails in all areas adjacent to the resort;
  • To protect sensitive coastal bluffs on the Project site, and limit the degradation of marine resources on or adjacent to the Revised Project, that may occur with increased public access and use of the area;
  • To provide for a project that is financially feasible for the private sector to develop, operate, and maintain on a sustainable basis and for the benefit of the City, its residents and the surrounding community;
  • To protect the ecological value of the off-shore marine areas through creation of a conservation area adjacent to the Fisherman’s Access Area that will include protection of native vegetation, including a transitional planting area (ecotone) between the bluff edge and the adjacent public park and provisions to direct drainage and surface runoff away from the bluff;
  • To improve water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff management and Water Quality Management Plan;
  • To provide for the redevelopment of the former Marineland site (the Project site) with visitor-serving uses that will attract new visitors to the area and provide economic benefits to the City.

Article IV. Potential Environmental Effects Determined to be Insignificant.

The Initial Study prepared in connection with the Initial Project identified potentially significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project in the following impact categories of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, and Recreational Facilities. Section 5.0 of the FEIR and Section 5.0 of the Addendum fully analyzed these identified impact areas. Based on substantial evidence presented in the record of these proceedings (including the FEIR, the Technical Appendices, the Initial Study, the Addendum and oral and written evidence, including staff and consultant reports) the City Council finds that the record amply demonstrates the Revised Project will have a less than significant impact in the areas discussed in this Article IV.

A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare.

1. Potential Impacts

Section 5.1 of both the FEIR and the Addendum analyze the potential for significant impacts to aesthetics in the form of both short-term and long-term impacts to views, potential loss of visual resources or scenic vistas, alteration of the visual character of the site, creation of new sources of light and glare, and increased urbanization of the Project site. Construction activities will temporarily disrupt views across the Project site from surrounding properties and public rights-of-way, while full implementation of the Revised Project will permanently alter the existing view from neighboring properties and will clearly change the visual character of the site. Additionally, the Revised Project has the potential to disrupt scenic vistas and views in recognized visual corridors. These views and vistas are visual resources and help define and add visual character to the City. Finally, the Revised Project will add new sources of light and glare to the environment and add to the overall urbanization of the area. These potential impacts were fully analyzed in Section 5.1 of the FEIR and the Addendum.

2. Findings

The short term nature of the construction-related impacts and compliance with applicable City Codes will make the Revised Project’s impacts less than significant in these areas.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

a. Short term impacts. Construction activities associated with implementing the Revised Project will temporarily degrade the visual character of the Project site and disrupt views across the site from surrounding areas. Graded surfaces, construction debris, construction equipment and truck traffic will be visible. Soil will be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities will be staged at various locations throughout the Project site. These impacts will be short-term and cease upon project completion. These impacts will be considered as less than significant through compliance with Section 17.56.020 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code which regulates conduct of construction and landscaping activities. Section 17.56.020 will require the installation of temporary fencing to screen the construction activities from view. Further, construction-related impacts are not considered significant as they are anticipated to be short-term and will cease upon project completion. The City Council finds that the record demonstrates that any construction-related impacts to views are less than significant.

b. Visual Character. Implementation of the Revised Project will forever alter the visual character of the site. However, the transformation of the site resulting from the proposed improvements will not be considered a degradation to the visual character of the site or its surroundings. The existing character of the site, that of an abandoned land use containing vast parking lots and dilapidated structures over grown with weeds and unkempt vegetation, will be replaced with new buildings, a golf practice facility, parking areas and landscaping throughout. Additionally, the Revised Project will preserve and enhance the coastal bluff scrub along the rocky cliff face and will implement a conservation district with a landscaping plan which is compatible with and complements the natural surrounding. The Revised Project must comply with the specified development standards for each zoning district regarding lot size, building height, lot coverage and parking, and project design, height and architecture will be subject to review by the City to ensure conformance with applicable Development Codes, thus, reducing any potential impacts to less than significant levels. Further, the Revised Project proposes no safety netting of the golf practice facility, nor will any be required, and all utility lines will be placed underground in accordance with the City’s Development Code, thereby eliminating any potential for visual impacts. Thus, the City Council finds that implementation of the Revised Project will aesthetically enhance the site, and compliance with applicable Development Codes for each zoning district will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

c. Scenic vistas and/or visual resources. The General Plan identifies two vistas within the Project area, both oriented toward the former location of the Marineland Aquatic Park. The vistas, which were directed toward the Marineland Tower as a structural focal point, no longer exist since the Tower was removed after the closure of Marineland. Given the degraded condition of the remaining facilities on the site, project implementation will have no impact on this vista. In fact, the proposed resort hotel, while not the focal point referenced in the General Plan, likely will become a man-made focal point on the Project site. In addition to the foregoing vistas and structural focal points, Palos Verdes Drive South provides two vehicular view corridors of Point Fermin and Catalina Island, respectively, identified in the General Plan. The Revised Project will not impact either view corridor. While the casitas and the resort hotel will be visible, the development will not intrude on the overall panoramic view of the seacoast, Pacific Ocean or Catalina Island. Additionally, the grade differential between the site and the road ensures that project implementation will not impact views along this corridor. The Revised Project is designed to lower the building pads for the resort villas, thereby further reducing any impacts along this view corridor. Since the design, landscape, building height, and architecture of the Revised Project will be subject to design review by the City, conformance with applicable Development Codes and height restrictions will prevent any adverse impacts to scenic vistas or visual resources. Thus, no significant impact is anticipated.

d. Light/Glare. The Project site currently is primarily vacant, and surrounding land uses are not affected by light or glare from the site. Implementation of the Revised Project will introduce a new source of light and glare to the area. The Revised Project will include general nighttime building lighting, security lighting, and landscape lighting. This lighting will be detectable from surrounding sites. This impact will be reduced by the incorporation of both project design features and compliance with the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. No lighting of the golf practice facility is proposed or required. Section 17.56.040 of the Municipal Code, which regulates outdoor lighting for all non-residential uses, requires a Lighting Plan detailing the location, height, number of lights, wattage, estimates of maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines. Compliance with this provision will ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.

e. Urbanization. Project implementation will contribute to the growing urbanization of Rancho Palos Verdes. Construction of currently approved and pending projects in the vicinity will permanently alter the predominantly rural nature and appearance of the area through the loss of undeveloped land. The security and street lighting associated with such development will introduce light and glare potential, further urbanizing the area. Impacts are typically mitigated separately on a project by project basis. However, cumulative impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with use of building materials that are consistent with the general character of the area, landscaping design, and proper lighting techniques to direct light on-site and away from adjacent properties. The Revised Project will contribute to the cumulative loss of undeveloped land within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. However, redevelopment of the Marineland site actually removes a blight condition by replacing it with a manicured golf practice facility and resort complex. Additionally, the Revised Project will include a conservation district which will protect and enhance the native vegetation and will implement a landscaping plan which is compatible with the natural surroundings. Finally, the Revised Project has been carefully designed to take advantage of the setting and minimize the physical impacts of a large structure to this site. Thus, while the appearance of urbanization will be evident, it will be moderated due to the inclusion of the natural areas and careful design. The Revised Project complies with applicable zoning restrictions and a less than significant impact will occur in this regard.

B. Biological Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Section 5.3 of the FEIR, contained in Volume IV, and Section 5.3 of the Addendum identify the potential for significant impacts to various special status species (both plant and wildlife), to critical habitat areas, wildlife movement, local environmental policies, and overall biological resources. Project implementation could potentially displace special status species and disturb critical habitat necessary for the survival of sensitive species. Fencing, grading, and other improvements associated with Project implementation could interfere with the movement of native or migratory wildlife species. Further, the loss of undeveloped land has the potential to conflict with local habitat conservation plans. Finally, the Revised Project may lead to the cumulative loss of the City’s biological resources.

2. Finding

The analysis of this issue and substantial evidence contained in the record demonstrates that the Revised Project’s impacts will be less than significant in these areas.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Special status species. The conclusions set forth in the FEIR and the Addendum are supported by reliable technical studies. These studies were conducted at appropriate times and employed appropriate methodologies to correctly ascertain the presence or absence of special status species on site and determine the project’s potential impacts, if any. The FEIR and the Addendum adequately demonstrate that Revised Project impacts will be less than significant. The Revised Project, as designed, will avoid sensitive plant species. In fact, the Revised Project includes as a project design feature a conservation district to protect and enhance the coastal bluff scrub on the Project site. A focused study for the Palos Verdes Blue butterfly (conducted in Spring 2001) did not observe this species on site; and adequate mitigation measures are being incorporated to ensure the Revised Project will have no impact on the El Segundo Blue butterfly. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any impacts to these species. The Project site includes limited habitat suitable for the Western Spadefoot Toad, and implementation of the Revised Project will not disturb this habitat. Accordingly, Revised Project impacts, if any, will not be significant. The FEIR and Addendum demonstrate that the Revised Project will not impact any coastal sage scrub habitat and, as already noted, will provide an ecotone buffer to protect the coastal bluff scrub on the Project site. The only two threatened or endangered species identified as likely to occur on site are the California brown pelican and the peregrine falcon. The Revised Project will not directly impact roosting or breeding habitat for the pelican, since the rocky shore habitat on the Project site that is used for roosting will not be impacted. Therefore, no mitigation is required for the California brown pelican. The peregrine falcon is known to occur in the vicinity and has a high potential to occur on the Project site. Suitable foraging habitat for the peregrine falcon is present on the Project site; however, due to the small size of the Revised Project, relative to the amount of available foraging habitat in the region, the potential loss of foraging habitat for this species is not considered significant. Potentially suitable nesting habitat is also present along the cliffs in the Project site. As previously noted, the cliff area will not be impacted by the Revised Project; therefore, the Revised Project will not directly impact nesting habitat for the peregrine falcon. Focused studies for the endangered Pacific Pocket Mouse concluded that this species is neither present nor expect to occur on site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Finally, the Revised Project will reduce foraging ground and potentially suitable roosting habitat for various bat species. While this loss would contribute to the ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat for these species, the Revised Project impacts are not considered significant, since these bat species are relatively common in the project area. Indirect impacts associated with noise and increased human activity on site will not be significant or cause a substantial reduction in common wildlife populations in the region.

b. Sensitive natural communities/habitats. The FEIR, the Addendum, and the technical studies conclusively demonstrate that Revised Project impacts to annual grassland, agricultural areas, and disturbed vegetation and developed areas will not be significant due to the abundance of these habitats in the region and their low biological value. Impacts to mule fat scrub were also determined to be insignificant because the relatively small area that will be disturbed, the fact that the Revised Project is designed to avoid this habitat in onsite drainages and blue-line streams, and the fact that the Revised Project will need permits from appropriate state and federal agencies to disturb any mule fat scrub located in onsite drainages and blue-line streams. No loss of habitat, loss of wildlife, wildlife displacement, or habitat fragmentation will result from Revised Project implementation. Indirect effects of construction (the accumulation of dust on leaf surfaces) of the Revised Project on the native vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the construction area is not considered significant, since it will not reduce plant populations below self-sustaining levels and will be temporary in nature. Indirect noise impacts attributable to the Project site will increase over current noise levels, and will become more constant; however, this increase will not substantially reduce common wildlife populations in the region. Thus, no significant to sensitive natural communities or habitats are anticipated.

c. Wildlife movement. The proposed development of the Project site will not impact wildlife corridors or local travel routes. The Project site consists of disturbed, non-native vegetation and was previously occupied by the Marineland facility. The Project site does not provide any major linkage between habitat areas that would be disrupted by Revised Project implementation. The steep cliffs of the Project site that are expected to provide a narrow linkage for wildlife east and west of the site will be maintained as permanent open space and will not be impacted. In addition, the conservation district proposed onsite and the newly-created coastal bluff scrub areas are expected to provide for adequate local movement on and offsite. Moreover, the ecotone buffer between the manicured lawns of the resort facility and the existing coastal bluff scrub will prevent adverse impacts from invasive, non-native vegetation. Any fencing erected on site will be designed to allow wildlife to pass through unimpeded. Thus, the Revised Project will have no significant effects on wildlife movement.

d. Local policies and ordinances. There is currently no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that includes the Project site. Therefore, under CEQA, Revised Project implementation will have no impacts on adopted plans. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the City is currently in the process of adopting a NCCP. The Revised Project is consistent with the three preserve alternatives currently under consideration. Thus, Revised Project implementation will not foreclose the adoption of the NCCP.

e. Cumulative impacts. The Revised Project will not result in the loss of coastal sage scrub or other native vegetation, nor the loss of wildlife habitat or the displacement of wildlife species in the project area; therefore, the Revised Project will not have any adverse cumulative effect that are significant. In the absence of an approved NCCP program, cumulative impacts to coastal sage scrub by the Revised Project and recently approved projects will be mitigated to a level of less than significant through compliance with the permitting process under the Federal Endangered Species Act ("FESA"). If the Revised Project disturbs any coastal sage scrub, the Revised Project will be required to obtain a habitat "take" permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). Compliance with FESA and its associated permitting process will ensure that a cumulative impacts remain less than significant.

C. Cultural Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Cumulative development may adversely affect cultural resources.

2. Finding

Resources are evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis. The FEIR and the Addendum demonstrate that the Revised Project has no cumulative impacts on the loss of cultural resources.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

Potential impacts will be site specific and an evaluation of potential impacts will be conducted on a project-by-project basis. This will be especially true of those developments located in areas considered to have a high sensitivity for cultural (archaeological, paleontological, and historical) resources. Each incremental development will be required to comply with all applicable State and Federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources. In consideration of these regulations, potential cumulative impacts upon cultural resources will not be considered significant.

D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.

1. Potential Impacts

Section 5.5 of the FEIR and Section 5.5 of the Addendum identify the potential for significant impacts resulting from faulting and seismicity (which includes ground rupture; ground shaking; seismically induced ground failure or liquefaction; seismically induced compaction and ground lurching) and from soil and slope instability and erosion caused by Revised Project grading and excavation.

2. Finding

Analysis has concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Revised Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to these hazards. Moreover, Revised Project compliance with local and state building codes will ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

No active or potentially active faults are located within the Project site. Of the faults located in the general Los Angeles area identified as active or which are considered potentially active, none pass through the subject property. Therefore, the likelihood of fault-related ground rupture affecting the site is negligible. The project area is not currently known to be located within an Alquist-Priolo Earth Fault Zone. No subsurface conditions favorable to liquefaction or lateral spreading exist on the Project site, nor is ground lurching expected to expose persons or structures to substantial risk. Further, the Revised Project will be required to comply with numerous controls imposed by local and state building and development codes. Accordingly, Revised Project implementation is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact regarding the exposure of people/structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with seismic activity.

E. Land Use and Relevant Planning.

1. Potential Impacts

Section 5.7 of the FEIR and Section 5.7 of the Addendum identify the potential for the Revised Project to divide an established community, conflict with the General Plan, conflicts with the Coastal Specific Plan, and conflict with the Zoning Code.

2. Findings

Analysis has concluded that the Revised Project, through compliance with applicable code requirements and approval of required permits, will have a less than significant impact on the land use and planning policies of the City.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

a. Physical division of community. A major roadway, Palos Verdes Drive South abuts the Project site. This roadway, as well as the spatial separation caused by local topography, create "pockets" of development which function independent of one another. Overall, implementation of the proposed Long Point Resort Project will not physically divide an established community, hence, will not result in a significant land use impact in this regard.

b. General Plan. The Revised Project is consistent with all of the applicable goals and policies in the General Plan. Implementation of the Revised Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. Thus, Revised Project implementation will not have a significant effect on the General Plan.

c. Coastal Specific Plan. The Project site is located within and subject to the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. Based on the data provided in the FEIR and the Addendum, implementation of the Revised Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan. However, the Revised Project is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit consistent with the CSP requirement. The Revised Project’s applications include both the required conditional use permit (CUP No. 216) and the coastal development permit (CDP No. 166). With the City’s review and approval of these applications, Revised Project implementation will not have a significant effect on the Coastal Specific Plan.

d. Zoning Ordinance. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, identifies permitted and prohibited land uses according to the particular zoning category. Based on the analysis provided in the FEIR, implementation of the Revised Project will not conflict with the land use plan, policies and regulations of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. However, the Revised Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for development of the proposed resort/conference hotel, and golf practice facility proposed in the CR District of the Project site and a variance to allow a reduction in the required building setback line in the coastal zone. With the City’s review and approval of these applications, Revised Project implementation will not result in a significant impact with respect to compliance with the Development Code.

F. Marine Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Operation of the Revised Project may potentially result in long-term effects that could impact marine biological resources.

2. Finding

Because the Revised Project incorporates a long-term Runoff Management Plan/Water Quality Management Plan as a Project Design Feature, long-term water quality impacts will be minimized. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact will occur.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

The FEIR and its Technical Appendices and the Addendum amply demonstrate that the Revised Project will not adversely impact marine resources. Reduced Salinity Impacts on Nearshore Water Column and Benthic Marine Communities: due to the short duration of projected high-flow stormwater runoff events, water column and benthic nearshore marine resources will not be significantly impacted by stormwater runoff that reduces ambient salinity levels. Additionally, nuisance flows will be diverted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) to the nearest wastewater line and disposed of through the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District system. Therefore, nearshore water column and benthic marine fishes will not be affected by any dry weather runoff from the Project site. Reduced salinity as a result of stormwater runoff events will have no significant effects on shorebirds and seabirds, since they will forage in fresh and/or saltwater habitat or can move to areas unaffected by stormwater runoff. Reduced salinity as a result of stormwater runoff events will have no significant effects on marine mammals because pinniped food resources will not be affected by reduced salinities and cetaceans transiting along the coast will not be physiologically or behaviorally affected. No adverse significant impacts on seagrass beds, kelp beds, or Marine Managed Areas are anticipated as a result of Revised Project urban runoff hydrology. The short duration of expected high flows and the high energy nature of the coastal waters within the area will assist in the mixing process and will counteract the influence of the stormwater flow into the marine environment. Further, nuisance flows will be diverted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) to the nearest wastewater line and disposed of through the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District system. Therefore, sensitive marine habitats will not be affected by any dry weather runoff from the Project site. Finally, contaminants contained in urban runoff will have less than significant impacts on shorebirds and seabirds. The level of contaminants expected to be contained within the storm water discharge will be very low and will not significantly impact populations of shorebirds or seabirds that may come in contact with the water through ingestion of water, their prey, or physical contact. Shorebirds and seabirds do not concentrate their foraging within particular areas of the coastline, further reducing the likelihood that they will be adversely affected.

G. Noise.

1. Potential Impacts

The Revised Project may result in temporary short-term noise impacts from construction activities.

2. Finding

Adherence to City Code requirements will reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally will be restricted to daytime hours, since City standards exempt construction noise if construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (construction is prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays). Construction noise will last the duration of construction, although it will be the most noticeable during the initial months of site intensive grading and building construction. Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the construction site may experience excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities. These impacts, however, are exempt and, as noted above, will be short-term in duration, ceasing upon completion of each grading/construction phase. Thus, construction impacts will be less than significant.

H. Public Health and Safety.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan for the area.

2. Finding

Analysis in the FEIR has concluded that compliance with the City Development Code will result in a less than significant impact to the emergency response plan.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

Two streets located adjacent to the project area are indicated as disaster routes: Palos Verdes Drive South and Hawthorne Boulevard. Modifications to Hawthorne Boulevard are not proposed as part of the Revised Project. However, Revised Project implementation will involve modifications to Palos Verdes Drive South. The proposed access improvements are designed to facilitate adequate traffic movement for peak hour conditions and will ensure adequate emergency condition vehicular movement from the Hotel site and along the adjacent roadway network. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Revised Project will not have a significant impact relative to the implementation or interference with emergency response/evacuation plans. There are no areas depicted as evacuation routes on the project site.

I. Public Services and Utilities.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project implementation may result in significant effects to public services and utilities, including significant physical impacts to existing school facilities, increased demand for library service, generate additional wastewater, require expansion of existing sewer and water treatment facilities, increase demand for potable water, generate increased solid waste, and increase demand for utilities.

2. Finding

Analysis in the FEIR has concluded that Revised Project implementation will have a less than significant impact on public services and utilities. Moreover, compliance with applicable city codes and permitting requirements will ensure that any effects on public services and/or utilities will remain less than significant.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

Since the Revised Project does not include residential units, Revised Project implementation will not directly generate students. Any increased student population would result from Revised Project employees who relocate to the City. This impact will not be significant and can be absorbed by existing school facilities. The Revised Project will not generate significant library usage. With a permit and payment of fees to offset the costs to construct an incremental expansion of the existing sewerage system, the Revised Project will not have a significant impact on wastewater facilities. Sufficient water supplies are available to adequate serve the Revised Project from existing resources. Compliance with the requirements of AB 939 will ensure that the Revised Project does not have a significant impact on solid waste generation. Additionally, the Project site is adequately served by existing utilities. Accordingly, Revised Project implementation will not have a significant impact on public services and utilities.

Article V. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Determined to be Reduced to a Level of Insignificance.

The FEIR and the Addendum identified potentially significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project in the following impact categories of Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational Facilities. Except as discussed in Article VI below, measures were identified that will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.

The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts are discussed below. The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, that the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are feasible and, with the exception of the impacts identified in Article V below, will reduce the Revised Project’s impacts to a level of insignificance. The City Council adopts all of the mitigation measures described in the FEIR as conditions of approval of the Revised Project and incorporate those mitigation measures into the Revised Project.

A. Aesthetics/Light and Glare.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project implementation may have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or resource identified in the Coastal Specific Plan.

2. Findings

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

The Coastal Specific Plan restricts building heights in established visual corridors to protect views from Palos Verdes Drive to significant land forms and ocean edges. The Revised Project will potentially impact two identified view corridors (the view toward Point Fermin and the view toward Catalina Island). These impacts are considered significant. The Coastal Specific Plan restricts building heights within the view corridors to 16 feet. The Revised Project, as proposed, will lower the building pads for the villas thereby reducing the impact of these structures to the identified view corridors. In addition, the FEIR identified three mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 5.1-4a, 5.1-4b, and 5.1-4c) to reduce this impact below a level of significance. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and the conditions of approval imposed by the City Council restricting the finished heights of the proposed buildings will reduce any impacts below a level of significance.

B. Biological Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project implementation may have significant effects on identified special status species (both plant and wildlife) and may impact sensitive natural communities that serve as habitat for these sensitive species.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Special status species. The Project site includes several plant and wildlife species which are identified as special status. Implementation of the Revised Project could result in significant and irreversible impacts to these species. However, several focused studies were performed as part of the environmental review process. These studies identified mitigation measures which, once implemented, will reduce the Revised Project’s potential impacts on special status species to a level of insignificance. These measures include seed collection and reestablishment for special status plants, avoidance and/or federal take permits for special status wildlife. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project’s potentially significant effects on special status species will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the following mitigation measures identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1f):

1. A pre-construction survey for the island green dudleya shall be conducted during the peak flowering period prior to Grading Permit Issuance (approximately April through June), by the Project biologist. The limits of each impacted dudleya location shall be clearly marked with lath and brightly colored flagging.

If any of the dudleya is located in the impact area, the loss of the dudleya shall be mitigated by seed and corm collection, and revegetation into a suitable mitigation site in the undeveloped portion of the Project site or at an off-site location. A qualified biologist shall be selected by the Applicant, subject to the approval of City staff, to prepare and implement a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program. The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be prepared and implemented prior to disturbance of the dudleya. The detailed mitigation program shall include the following requirements:

• The existing locations of dudleya shall be monitored every two weeks by the Project biologist to determine when the seeds are ready for collection. A qualified seed collector shall collect all of the seeds from the plants to be impacted when the seeds are ripe.

• Following the seed collection, the corms shall be dug up, cleaned, and stored by a qualified nursery or institution with appropriate storage facilities. The top 12 inches of topsoil from the dudleya locations shall be scraped, stockpiled, and used at the selected mitigation site.

• This mitigation shall be conducted concurrent with the coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub mitigation. The site shall be located in dedicated open space on the Project site or at an offsite mitigation site. The selected site should not attempt to enhance existing populations.

• The dudleya mitigation site shall be prepared for seeding as described in the Special Status Plant Mitigation Program.

• The topsoil shall be re-spread in the selected location as approved by the Project biologist. Approximately 60 percent of the seeds and corms shall be spread/placed in the fall following soil preparation. Forty percent of the seed and corms shall be kept in storage for subsequent seeding, if necessary.

• The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall include detailed descriptions of maintenance appropriate for the site, monitoring requirements, and annual report requirements. In addition, the Project biologist shall have the authority to suspend any operation on the Project site which is, in the Project biologist's opinion and confirmed by the City, not consistent with the Special Status Plant Mitigation Program. Any disputes regarding the consistency of an action with the Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be resolved by the Applicant and the Project biologist.

• The performance criteria developed in the Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall include requirements for a minimum of 60 percent germination of the number of plants impacted. The performance criteria should also include percent cover, density, and seed production requirements. This criteria shall be developed by the Project biologist following habitat analysis of an existing high-quality dudleya habitat. This information shall be recorded by a qualified biologist.

• If the germination goal of 60 percent is not achieved following the first season, remediation measures shall be implemented prior to seeding with the remaining 40 percent of seed. Remedial measures shall include at a minimum: soils testing, control of invasive species, soil amendments, and physical disturbance (to provide scarification of the seed) of the planted areas by raking or similar actions. Additional mitigation measures may be suggested as determined appropriate by the Project biologist.

• Potential seed sources from additional donor sites shall also be identified in case it becomes necessary to collect additional seed for use on the site following performance of remedial measures.

2. Pre-construction special status plant surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of aphanisma, south coast saltscale, Catalina crossosoma, Santa Catalina Island desert-thorn, and Lyon’s pentachaeta. The focused surveys for these species shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period (spring) prior to Demolition Permit Issuance. In the event any of these species are found to be present on the Project site, then a Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be developed in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies if the status of the species and the size of the population warrant a finding of significance. The Special Status Plant Mitigation Program shall be developed and implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified botanist and shall be subject to review by the City. The program shall include avoidance of the populations, relocation, or purchase of off-site populations as appropriate and feasible. The program shall also include the requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure 5.3-1a as appropriate for the species being addressed.

3. No more than seven days prior to commencement of demolition activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey to determine whether Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, prairie falcon, and peregrine falcon, or other raptor species, are nesting in or adjacent to the impact area. In the event nesting is not occurring, construction work may proceed. In the event an active nest is present, construction work shall be prohibited within 300 feet of the nest (or as otherwise determined by the Project biologist) until fledglings have left the nest. Results of the surveys shall be provided to USFWS, CDFG, and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

b. Sensitive natural communities/habitats. A total of 102.1 acres of native and non-native vegetation types, including developed areas, will be impacted by the Revised Project. The majority of this area (95.4 acres) has previously been disturbed or developed. However, impacts to certain sensitive natural communities would be considered significant because of the value of these communities to identified sensitive status species. These communities include the coastal bluff scrub and riparian habitat within jurisdictional drainages. As fully detailed in Section 5.3 of the Addendum, the Revised Project includes as a project design feature a proposed conservation district which will preserve 6.7 acres of existing coastal bluff scrub habitat and add a 1.2-acre enhancement area to ensure the continued vitality of this sensitive habitat for the El Segundo Blue butterfly. The FEIR has identified mitigation measures which will ensure that the Revised Project avoids any affect to the coastal bluff scrub area. Implementation of this mitigation and complete avoidance will reduce Revised Project impacts to this habitat type to less than significant levels. In light of the identified measures and the extensive habitat protection and enhancement features proposed by the Revised Project, the Revised Project’s impact on sensitive habitats is considered less than significant.

Finally, jurisdictional delineation determined that there are three drainages on the Project site that will be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Project site contains 0.19 acre of waters considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, none of which, however, includes wetlands as defined by Section 404. Impacts to these three drainages will require a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. If impacts to the drainages cannot be avoided or minimized, compensation through either on-site or off-site habitat creation must be provided. Because the areas impacted are all unvegetated, ephemeral drainage channels, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is considered appropriate. Additionally, the Project site contains 0.20 acre of waters considered jurisdictional under Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code that is regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game. The Revised Project will impact 0.18 acre of CDFG jurisdictional waters in the three drainages. Impacts to these three drainages will require obtaining a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. If impacts to these three drainages cannot be avoided or minimized, compensation through either on-site or off-site habitat creation must be provided. Because these impacts are all to unvegetated ephemeral drainage channels, a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is considered appropriate.

c. Indirect impacts. The Revised Project may result in indirect impacts from increased noise, dust and urban pollutants, lighting, human activity, and introduction of non-native species, both during construction and operation of the Revised Project. Edge effects occur where development, including roads, takes place adjacent to natural open space areas. Edge effects threaten the ecological integrity, recreational experience, aesthetic quality, public investment, and safety operations of preserved natural areas. When development is configured in a manner that creates a high ratio of development next to natural open space, there is an increase in the potential impacts caused by human use (indirect impacts). These indirect effects will be reduced to levels of insignificance through implementation of the specified mitigation requiring: (1) avoidance of active nests ,(2) avoidance of preserve areas, and (3) restricting human activities near the coastal bluff scrub habitat along the cliffs. Implementation of a transitional area along the boundary of developed land uses will provide a natural noise buffer and reduce impacts to special status species that nest or roost along cliffs and the rocky shore of the proposed open space areas on the Project site. This impact will be potentially significant. Implementation of the proposed conservation district included as a project design feature will introduce a transitional area along the boundary of developed land uses that will reduce this impact to less than significant by providing a natural noise buffer. Dust impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of specified mitigation that requires the Applicant apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity and comply with all of the provisions of the permit, including the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (which includes provisions for the implementation of Best Management Practices and erosion control measures). The introduction of non-native plants and species will be controlled through mitigation measures requiring natural buffer zones and transitional areas with non-invasive plants species and limited irrigation. Finally, lighting impacts will be controlled through implementation of the specified mitigation requiring that a lighting plan be prepared which directs lighting away from sensitive biological resources will reduce this impact to less than significant.

Human Activity. The increase in human activity (i.e., noise, foot traffic) will pose the largest indirect disturbance on or adjacent to the Project site. Human disturbance could disrupt normal foraging and breeding behavior of wildlife remaining in these and adjacent areas diminishing the value of these preserved open space habitat areas, particularly with activity on the golf practice facility. Implementation of the specified mitigation measures will reduce this impact to less than significant.

C. Cultural Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may cause a significant impact to archaeological and/or historical resource on-site and may disturb human remains.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Archaeological/historical resources.

The Project site includes one historical resources of local significance – 6621 Beachview Drive (the Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex). The Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex is not eligible for listing in the California Register, and thus does not qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA. The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project’s potentially significant effects on archaeological and historical resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the Mitigation Measures 5.4-1a through 5.4-1j identified in the FEIR.

In addition to the Ishibashi Farmhouse Complex, the Revised Project is located near several other historical resources of local significance. These sites include Site CA-LAN-103 (Rock Shelter and Shell Midden), Site 19-180589 (Base End Stations), Site 19-180591 (Nike Air Defense Site LA-55-L), and Site 19-180593 (Documented Long Point Defense District. None of these sites are currently registered as historical landmarks. Site CA-LAN-103 would qualify as a historical resource under California Register Criterion 4 ("information potential") if it contained intact archaeological deposits. However, the area has been seriously disturbed by artifact hunters and scavengers. Implementation of the Revised Project will not result in any significant impacts to these resources.

b. Paleontological resources. Grading could lead to the loss of valuable fossil resources and limit scientific knowledge regarding the geologic past of the site and surrounding area. Of note is the fact that grading associated with the Revised Project could unearth fossil resources which may not have ever been discovered otherwise. The potential loss or destruction of fossil resources and the concomitant loss of scientific knowledge is considered a significant impact under CEQA and mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project’s potentially significant effects on paleontological resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the following mitigation measures identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measures 5.4-2a through 5.4-2d):

1. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Project developer shall provide a letter of verification to the City Planning Department stating that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meetings to consult with the excavation contractor. The paleontologist’s duties shall include monitoring, salvaging, preparation of collected materials for storage at a scientific institution that houses paleontological collections and preparation of a monitoring results report.

2. The paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall be on-site to inspect for fossils during all excavation/grading activities. Monitoring shall be done full-time in those formations with a high sensitivity rating, and shall be done half-time in those formations with a moderate sensitivity rating. The monitoring time may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the paleontologist in consultation with City staff. Monitoring shall occur only when excavation activities affect the geologic formation.

3. In the event that fossils are encountered during grading, the paleontologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt construction activities in the area of discovery to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely fashion. Because of the potential for recovery of small fossil remains, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on-site.

4. Fossil remains collected during grading/construction activities shall be cleaned, sorted, repaired, cataloged, and then (with the permission of the owner of the property where the remains were collected) stored in a local scientific institution that houses paleontological collections. The qualified paleontologist shall be responsible for preparation of fossils to a point of identification, and submittal of a letter of acceptance from a local qualified curation facility. If the fossil collection is not accepted by a local qualified facility for reasons other than inadequate preparation of specimens, the Project paleontologist shall contact City staff to suggest an alternative disposition of the collection.

c. Burial sites. Human remains in a previously unknown burial site could potentially be encountered during construction activities associated with the Revised Project. Any alterations to human remains associated with Revised Project implementation will be considered a significant adverse impact. However, implementation of the mitigation which details the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered will reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate that the Revised Project’s potentially significant effects on paleontological resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance through implementation of the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measures 5.4-3):

1. In the event human remains are discovered during grading/ construction activities, work shall cease in the immediate area of the discovery and the Project Applicant shall comply with the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant".

D. Geology, Soils and Seismicity.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project implementation may increase the number of people/structures exposed to effects associated with seismically induced ground shaking or landslides, may result in substantial soil erosion, may be located on expansive soils, may increase the number of people/structures exposed to effects associated with landslides, or may be located on a geologic unit that is unstable or that may become unstable.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Seismic ground shaking and landslides. Given the highly seismic character of the Southern California Region, moderate to severe groundshaking can be expected within the project area due to moderate to large earthquakes on the nearby Palos Verdes Fault or other nearby faults (i.e. Compton Blind Thrust Fault). Therefore, impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation requiring that an engineering geologist to perform additional design-level geotechnical studies, as well as prepare and submit a report for City approval, to provide the adequate level of information to properly design and engineer the Revised Project. Impacts associated with ground shaking will be further reduced through compliance with the City Development Code and the California Building Code. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-2a and 5.5-2b identified in the FEIR will reduce impacts below a level of significance. Strong earthquake-generated ground motions can worsen the existing unstable slope conditions along the seacliff/bluffs with in the Project site. The most common types of earthquake induced landslides in terrain similar to that in the project area are soil slips, shallow slumps, shallow slides within the marine terrace deposits, and rockfalls on the seacliff, Moreover, existing landslides could be reactivated as the result of strong ground motion from future nearby earthquakes. Therefore, impacts associated with seismically induced landslides will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation Mitigation Measure 5.5-7 identified in the FEIR.

b. Erosion. The existing artificial fill soils and marine terrace deposits blanketing much of the Project site and capping the bluff are highly erodible. Adverse surface drainage could promote accelerated soil erosion which could undermine proposed structures and lead to surficial slope failures on either manufactured or natural slopes. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.5-2 (discussed above) requiring that additional design-level geotechnical studies be performed assessing potential soil related constraints and hazards such as sea cliff erosion. In addition, impacts associated with ground shaking will be reduced through compliance with the City Development Code and the California Building Code.

c. Expansive soils. The soils which occur on the Project site have been classified with a moderate to high potential for expansion. According to the geotechnical consultant for the Revised Project "....many of the surface (soil) materials within the Project area are expansive...". If adequate measures are not taken to mitigate the impact of expansive soils during development, significant distress in the form of cracking and/or differential uplift of concrete footings and floor slabs may result when the soils become wet. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of specified mitigation including placing a layer of relatively non-expansive soils beneath floor slabs and specialized building footings. In addition, impacts associated with expansive soils will be further reduced through compliance with the City Development Code and the California Building Code and implementation of specified hydrological and drainage mitigation.

d. Landslides. Based on information currently available, portions of the development adjacent to the existing landslides could be significantly impacted by renewed landslide movement resulting from strong ground motion from nearby earthquakes, potential groundwater buildup within the landslides, erosion at the toe of the bluff from storm generated waves, and ongoing natural erosion of the bluffs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.5-7a and 5.5-7b identified in the FEIR reduce impacts below a level of significance.

e. Sea cliff retreat. Active sea cliff/bluff retreat may pose a significant impact to any form or development within 50 to 75 feet of the current bluff top area. Reactivation or renewed landslides on the sea cliff, and continual (albeit episodic) spalling of large blocks of bedrock along the sea cliffs, present hazards which cannot be practically mitigated, except with an adequate setback from the top of the actively eroding bluff. Moreover, numerous human contributions associated with anticipated construction activities typically leads to increased area erosion through construction of storm drains, fences and stairways, removal of plant/soil cover; oversteepening/ overloading of slopes; and both accidental and purposeful release of water onto and into the marine terrace sands and bedrock. Based on this data, impacts associated with sea cliff retreat will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation requiring compliance with the building setback line and a comprehensive subsurface investigation at project design-level pursuant to City review requirements.

E. Hydrology and Drainage.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may significantly alter drainage patterns that could result in increased erosion potential and runoff and may result in long-term impacts to the quality of storm water and urban runoff. Additionally, grading, excavation and other construction activities may impact water quality.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Drainage and runoff. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices and the Addendum demonstrate that the Revised Project will significantly alter the drainage patterns on the Project site. This impact could be potentially significant to erosion potential. However, the Revised Project proposes design features (including proper bluff drainage and impact basin installation) which will likely improve bluff stability and curb bluff erosion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.6-1a and 5.6-1b, identified in the FEIR, will further ensure that any potential impacts are reduced below a level of significance.

b. Water quality. As part of its compliance with the NPDES requirements, a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board providing notification and intent to comply with the State of California general permit. Prior to construction, completion of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required for the construction activities on-site. A copy of the SWPPP will be required to be available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP will outline the source control and/or treatment control BMPs that will avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the "maximum extent practicable." Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.6-2, identified in the FEIR, which requires the project applicant to comply with all NPDES requirements, and implementation of source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will ensure that any water quality impacts are reduced below a level of significance.

c. Stormwater quality. The Revised Project has the potential to significantly violate water quality standards because of the pesticides associated with the golf practice facility and the increased activity levels on the site. However, the Revised Project proposes a comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, including both Structural and Non-Structural BMPs. The Plan partially complies with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additional mitigation is required and is proposed to ensure compliance with SUSMP requirements and that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The additional mitigation for water quality can be broken into three sub-categories: additional Standard BMPs; additional treatment BMPs, and expansion of the proposed water quality monitoring and adaptive management plan. Further, the FEIR has identified three additional mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 5.6-3a, 5.6-3b, and 5.6-3c). Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR will further ensure that any long-term water quality impacts are reduced below a level of significance.

F. Marine Resources.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project Implementation may result in both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) impacts to marine resources.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Grading impacts. The significant impacts of grading activities on intertidal marine resources will be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation requiring the implementation of (1) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (2) Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified within the State of California "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction Activity" and (3) preparation and implementation of a Construction Erosion Control Plan prior to site construction. (Refer to the Construction Erosion Control Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Section below for further details regarding these Plans.) These plans and documents will identify dry season and wet season runoff control measures, source control, and or treatment controls that will avoid and/or mitigate potential soil erosion, runoff pollutants, and other storm water constituents. Less than significant grading effects on near-shore marine life are anticipated with the inclusion and implementation of the Erosion Control Plan and the Storm Water Pollutant Prevention. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.8-1a through 5.8-1f (identified in the FEIR) will reduce grading impacts to marine resources below a level of significance.

b. Long-term impacts. Revised Project implementation will involve long-term design impacts that, if left unmitigated, could adversely affect shoreline and nearshore marine resources. Impacts associated with the operation of the Long Point Resort Project include (1) degradation of water quality as a consequence of stormwater and dry weather runoff from the Project site and a subsequent degradation of marine habitat and (2) from the direct and indirect effects of increased tourism (visitor use) to the local shoreline. These project-related impacts will be reduced below a level of significance with implementation of the mitigation measure identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measure 5.8-2).

c. Visitor use impacts. The Revised Project will result in increased visitor use of the shoreline. This increase could lead to a significant and long-term reduction in the value of the intertidal habitat. Intertidal marine resources in southern California are in a steady state of deterioration because of unmanaged or under-managed policies which regulate these areas. However, implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5.8-3a through 5.8-3g) will reduce impacts associated with visitor use to a less than significant level:

1. The intertidal resources of the Fisherman's Cove and east to the tip of Long Point shall be actively managed on an on-going basis by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes/County of Los Angeles and the Applicant to offset potentially significant impacts to intertidal marine resources. This area shall be managed as part of Conservation Area 1-A in association with the westerly bluffs below the bluff-top edge of the Project site. The area shall be designated as a Habitat Reserve. Although recreational fishing for fin fish is permitted, the Habitat Reserve Designation shall restrict certain uses below the resort hotel including commercial fishing, the collection of invertebrates, and the disturbances of plants, birds, and other animal life.

2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the City and the Applicant shall work with a qualified marine biologist to develop a Long-term Shoreline Resource Management Plan that identifies and details the means by which visitor use of the rocky outcrops of the project area shall be actively managed. At a minimum the plan shall implement monitoring and enforcement of protected regulations herein: (1) signage; (2) enforcement of posted regulations; (3) on-site naturalists or other personnel to enforce regulations and to cite violators; (4) educational and docent programs; and (5) areas of restricted or no access. This Plan shall be implemented prior to Occupancy Permit issuance.

3. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall develop an educational booklet for hotel guests that provides ways to prevent ecological damage to the intertidal and subtidal habitats.

4. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall develop an interpretive display at the hotel/resort that informs visitors of the area’s natural resources and provides suggestions for minimizing damage to these resources.

5. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant shall post simple, but direct and enforceable signage in multiple languages at all access points to the rocky intertidal habitats from the residential and resort areas to advise the public of the area’s ecological value and to help prevent degradation of the intertidal habitat.

6. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Applicant, under the guidance of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall provide training for and enforcement of the Habitat Reserve shoreline on a daily basis during the summer and on weekends during the winter months between Labor Day and Memorial Day. Enforcement personnel shall have the authority to enforce local statutes and State of California laws regarding fishing limits and the illegal take of marine plants and animals.

7. A qualified Marine Biologist shall conduct intertidal monitoring studies to document the effects of visitor use and storm drain discharges on the Habitat Reserve intertidal and marine life. In association with surveys being conducted to assess runoff effects on marine life, the Visitor Use Monitoring Program shall include quarterly (four times/year) monitoring surveys of beach and rocky intertidal habitat use and concurrent intertidal biological resource surveys over a five-year post-construction monitoring period to determine if the management program is effective at preventing degradation of the intertidal communities. Methodology to be used shall be consistent with other long-term intertidal monitoring programs within Southern California and shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Annual reports shall be prepared and the management plan's objectives shall be evaluated and updated as necessary to ensure protection of the intertidal resources. If it is determined through survey results that after the first five years the overall management program is not effective in reducing the degradation of intertidal habitat, a written assessment of the management plan shall be prepared by the assigned marine biologist(s). This assessment shall prescribe alternative methods for improvement of habitat quality and health. The assessment report/revised program shall be reviewed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prior to implementation of alternative methods. The assessment/revised program shall be prepared and submitted for review prior to the completion of the sixth year after implementation of the original Resource Management Plan.

d. Cumulative impacts. The proposed Long Point Resort Project will have a long-term cumulative impact on marine biological resources as a result of (i) the potential visitor increases in the use of the rocky intertidal habitat at Long Point and Fisherman's Cove above the levels that presently exist and (ii) the potential water quality degradation in the vicinity of Long Point and Fisherman's Cove. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures 5.8-1, 5.8-2 and 5.8-3 (identified in the FEIR) will ensure that cumulative effects are minimized. In addition, a more effective enforcement program for protecting marine life along the Palos Verdes Peninsula at the city, county, and state levels will assist in preventing a long-term cumulative degradation of shoreline marine life.

G. Noise.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may have significant short-term (construction) and long-term (operation) noise impacts from grading and construction activities and long term operation of the clubhouse, loading dock, mechanical equipment, parking lot, and maintenance activities.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Construction noise. Excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities generally will be restricted to daytime hours since standards exempt construction noise if construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday (construction is prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays). Construction noise will last the duration of construction, although it will be the most noticeable during the initial months of site intensive grading and building construction. Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the construction site may experience excessive noise levels resulting from construction activities. These impacts, however, are exempt as noted above and will be short-term, ceasing upon completion of each grading/construction phase. Thus, construction impacts are considered to be less than significant. Nevertheless, implementation of the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR (Mitigation Measure 5.9-1) will further reduce impacts below a level of significance:

1. During grading/construction activities, the contractor shall employ the following measures to ensure that construction noise will not adversely affect adjacent sensitive uses. Construction activities shall be periodically monitored by the City to ensure compliance with applicable City Codes, including the limitation of construction hours to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.

  • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
  • On-going inspection and maintenance of equipment.
  • Stationary equipment will be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
  • Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practical from the occupied dwellings adjacent to the Project site.
  • Every effort shall be made to create the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.

b. Operations noise. New stationary noise sources created by implementation of the Revised Project include resort/golf uses and associated mechanical equipment and parking areas. New stationary noise sources created by implementation of the Revised Project include resort/golf uses and associated mechanical equipment and parking areas. The potential noise typically associated with operation activities of resort uses will be generated by (i) Delivery/supply vehicles traveling on the site, to and from loading areas; (ii) Activities at loading areas (maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and clanging of equipment and P.A. systems); and (iii) Mechanical equipment (air conditioners, trash compactors, emergency generators, etc.). Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.9-3a and 5.9-3b (identified in the FEIR) will reduce impacts below a level of significance.

H. Public Health and Safety.

1. Potential Impacts

Revised Project implementation may expose the public to significant health and safety risks related to the use and disposal of hazardous materials, golf activities, introduction of fire ants to the region,

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Hazardous materials. Revised Project implementation may expose people to significant risks from potentially hazardous materials from both historical uses of the site (underground storage tanks, lead paint, etc.) and from the introduction of chemicals and pesticides for use in maintaining the golf practice facility and landscaped areas. The FEIR and Technical Appendices demonstrate the implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5.10-1a through 5.10-1k) will reduce these impacts to below a level of significance:

1. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II level investigation shall be conducted to determine the characteristics and extent of the potential contamination (i.e, soil and groundwater) associated with the concrete sump located in the former service station in the Project site. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required.

2. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, a Phase II level investigation shall be conducted to determine the characteristics and extent of the potential contamination (i.e, soil and groundwater) associated with the liquid contained within the vault of the former sky tower on the Project site. Results of the sampling shall indicate what level (if any) of disposal is needed and whether remediation efforts shall be required.

3. Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, site specific investigations shall be conducted to determine the contents of the interior of all structures on the Project site. In the event that hazardous materials are encountered, they shall be properly tested and then properly disposed of prior to renovation/demolition activities.

4. If during demolition of any of the structures paint is separated from the building materials (e.g., chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the building material to determine its proper management. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control, if paint is not removed from the building material during demolition (and is not chipping or peeling), the material could be disposed of as construction debris (a non-hazardous waste). The landfill operator shall be contacted in advance to determine any specific requirements they may have regarding the disposal of lead-based paint materials.

5. Prior to the commencement of any remedial work and consistent with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), building owners shall conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs). Prior to Demolition Permit issuance, areas shall be sampled as part of an asbestos survey.

6. Any demolition of the existing building shall comply with State law, which requires a contractor, where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of ACMs, to be certified and that certain procedures regarding the removal of asbestos be followed.

7. Soil sampling of the agricultural portion of the Project site shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of banned agricultural pesticides, prior to Grading Permit issuance.

b. Golf safety. The proposed golf practice facility was routed using the standard method for golf hole corridor widths identified in the Existing Conditions discussion. In connection with the previously proposed 9-hole golf course (the Initial Project), a golf safety analysis was conducted to confirm that the layout, routing and grading of the proposed golf practice facility will not create safety concerns with respect to residential units, adjacent holes, streets, and pedestrian traffic. A hole by hole analysis was conducted through which it was determined that in general, the golf practice facility as designed will work well with respect to both safety and playability based on the aforementioned standards. Based on the analysis, it was concluded that each hole within the golf practice facility is consistent with the accepted standard lengths for each par. The recommendations set forth in that analysis have been integrated into the design of the golf practice facility and a subsequent safety review was conducted. Based on the analysis, Section 5.10 of the Addendum recommends one mitigation measures (Mitigation 5.10-2a) requiring that certain modifications be incorporated into the design of the practice facility. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.10-2a will ensure that any safety impacts form golf activities will be reduced to a less than significant level.

c. Fire ants. The potential infestation of the Project site by fire ants is considered potentially significant due to the resulting potentially serious medical threat to visitors of public and private lands on and adjacent to the Project site. Implementation of the specified mitigation requiring the inspection of all imported nursery stock/other items and the development of a management program, will reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant impact.

I. Public Services and Utilities.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may result in impacts to emergency services (fire and police), increase demand for utility services, and increase of solid waste generation.

2. Finding

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Finding

a. Fire and police services. Revised Project implementation will potentially impact the Fire Department’s level of service and will contribute to the need for construction of a new fire station. Since the Revised Project is situated within the Consolidated Fire Protection District, the District will receive property tax revenues from the property. According to the LACFD, this funding, which will be used for staffing and equipment, will offset the costs associated with the increased demand for fire protection services and new fire facilities associated with the Revised Project. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur in this regard. The LACSD anticipates that there will be an increase in the number of calls for service, and patrol requirements as a result of Revised Project implementation. The Revised Project along with existing conditions will contribute to the need for the City to increase their contract for service with the LACSD by one deputy for 24-hours (equivalent to three additional shifts per day). The Applicant will be required to pay their fair share portion of the funding associated with the additional deputy. Payment by the Applicant of their fair share portion of the funding associated with the additional deputy will reduce the Revised Project’s impact to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 5.11-1 and 5.11-2 (identified in the FEIR) will ensure the Revised Project has not significant impacts on emergency services.

b. Utilities. The proposed development will require additional electric facilities to service the site. SCE has stated that they stand ready to install electrical distribution facilities within the project area. Upon notification from the Project Applicant and payment of advances, SCE will install an underground distribution system within the development, as well as underground service laterals from the distribution system to individual parcels. The developer will be responsible for providing and funding any additional electric facilities required to service the Revised Project. Implementation of the Revised Project will not result in a significant impact with respect to electric services as it will not significantly impact SCE’s system capacity or ability to provide service. Additionally, since the required electrical distribution facilities will occur within the Revised Project limits, implementation of the Revised Project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts.

c. Solid Waste. The Revised Project will generate an estimated 2,096 pounds of solid waste per day. This projected increase in solid waste generation will increase the demand to provide disposal service and will impact the capacities at the Puente Hills Landfills and South Gate Transfer Station. Further, this increased solid waste generation will incrementally shorten the lifespan of the Puente Hills Landfill. The Revised Project will be required to comply with the requirements of AB 939. Additionally, implementation of the following mitigation measure (identified as Mitigation Measure 5.11-7 in the FEIR) will further reduce the Revised Project’s solid waste impacts below a level of significance:

1. The Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department, implement the following on an on-going basis:

  • Grasscycle, use as mulch, or compost all greenwaste generated from the Golf practice facility;
  • Recycle all bottles, aluminum cans, glass, and foodwaste. The foodwaste generated on-site may be used for composting efforts if the Project Applicant desires; and
  • Annual reports shall be prepared and submitted to the City Public Works Department on the progress of the recycling program. This report shall include the amount of tonnage which has been diverted to trash, recycling, composting and grasscycling.

J. Traffic and Circulation.

1. Potential Impacts

Implementation of the Revised Project may cause significant increases in traffic, exceed congestion management plan standards, create undue hazards and conflicts due to design, and provide inadequate parking.

2. Findings

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or reduce the potential significant impacts identified in the FEIR to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

a. Increased traffic congestion at local intersections. The traffic study prepared in connection with the FEIR analyzed the Revised Project’s projected average daily trip (ADT) generation and analyzed the Revised Project’s impacts at 25 local intersections. A revised traffic study was conducted in conjunction with the preparation of the Addendum. The traffic studies and the analysis set forth in the FEIR and the Addendum concluded that the Revised Project would have a significant impact at only three (3) study area intersections projected to operate at Level of Service "E" or "F" during the peak hours: Silver Spur Road (NS) at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW); Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW); and Western Avenue (NS) at 25th Street (EW). The FEIR and Traffic Study conclude that the impacts to these intersections will be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of identified mitigation. This conclusion was independently reviewed by the City’s Traffic Committee. On June 26, 2001, the Traffic Committee concluded that the traffic analysis adequately analyzed the Revised Project’s potential traffic impacts and recommended that the City Council certify the traffic portion of the FEIR and adopt each of the mitigation measures identified therein. The City Council hereby finds that implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified as Mitigation Measures 5.12-1a through 5.12-1e in the FEIR) will reduce Revised Project traffic impacts below a level of significance:

1. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, Palos Verdes Drive South, adjacent to the Project site, shall be widened to its ultimate width as a 100 foot right-of-way.

2. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, a 150-foot minimum left turn pocket shall be provided for vehicles traveling west on Palos Verdes Drive South and desiring to turn left into the main access to the Project site.

3. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance , a traffic signal shall be installed by the Project Applicant at the Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive South (EW).

4. Prior to Occupancy Permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the following roadway improvements as detailed in Table 5.12-11, Project Fair Share Contribution, or other such measure(s) as the City determines are necessary to adequately mitigate the project’s impacts on the intersection:

  • Silver Spur Road (NS) at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW)
    - Restripe south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane and
    - Provide north leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane
  • Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW)
    - Provide west leg with one left turn lane, one shared left/ through lane, one through lane and one right turn lane
  • Western Avenue (NS) at 25th Street (EW)
    - Provide east leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane
  • Silver Spur Road (NS) at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW)
    - Restripe south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane and
    - Provide north leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane
  • Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW)
    - Provide west leg with one left turn lane, one shared left/ through lane, one through lane and one right turn lane
  • Western Avenue (NS) at 25th Street (EW)
    - Provide east leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes and one right turn lane

b. Congestion Management Plan. The following three (3) intersections are designated as part of the Los Angeles County CMP arterial monitoring intersections and are affected by 50 or more peak hour Revised Project trips (i) Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Sepulveda Boulevard (EW); (ii) Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Pacific Coast Highway (EW); (iii) Gaffey Street (NS) at 9th Street (EW) The FEIR demonstrates that the addition of Revised Project traffic at the three (3) CMP arterial monitoring intersections will not be significant, after implementation of specified mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 5.12-12). The Revised Project will not add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM peak hours along the I-110 Freeway and no further CMP analysis is required.

c. Internal circulation and design. The Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive South (EW) intersection warrants careful consideration of a traffic signal due to the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volume forecast. Impacts to this intersection will be considered significant unless mitigated. Impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation requiring that a signal be installed at this intersection. The level of service at the Project Entrance (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive South (EW) intersection is LOS A in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, one Project entrance can accommodate the forecast Revised Project traffic. There does not appear to be a need to provide two separate access driveways onto Palos Verdes Drive. Implementation of the following mitigation measures (identified in the FEIR as Mitigation Measures 5.12-3a and 5.12-3b) will reduce the circulation related impacts below a level of significance:

1. Sight distances at the Project entrances shall be further reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans/City of Rancho Palos Verdes sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

2. Internal traffic signing/striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project.

d. Parking impacts. The Long Point Resort is projected to employ approximately 700 full-time equivalent employees (FTEE). These employees, however, will work staggered shifts, with a maximum of approximately 100 actual employees on site at one time (with the exception of major conferences, banquets, and/or meetings). The parking supply of 825 spaces will adequately serve both the hotel patronage and employee parking on a regular business day. In addition, the Revised Project provides 100 additional parking spaces for use by the general public. These parking spaces could be utilized after public hours to accommodate hotel overflow. The traffic study and FEIR concluded that the parking provided is more than adequate to meet the needs generated by the hotel. In addition, implementation of the Mitigation Measure 5.12-4 restricting the use of public parking areas will reduce this any potential parking impact to a less than significant level.

Article VI Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts.

A. Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance

The FEIR identified three impacts as potentially significant and unavoidable. Based on the information provided in the FEIR and the record of decision, the City Council finds that each of these impacts can be mitigated to some degree, but that such mitigation will not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance and further mitigation is infeasible. Therefore, as required by Section 21081 of CEQA, and as shown below in more detail, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the FEIR. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project are described below, along with measures that will partially mitigate the impacts.

Air Quality

1. Significant Impacts

Section 5.2 of the FEIR indicates the Revised Project will result in both temporary (construction-related) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts which will remain significant even after implementation of mitigation. Specifically, These impacts may result in the Revised Project conflicting with the Air Quality Management Plan and Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide with respect to these emissions.

2. Findings

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which will substantially lessen but not completely mitigate the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

Short-term air quality impacts. Short-term air quality impacts will occur during grading and construction activities associated with implementation of the Revised Project. These temporary impacts will include (i) fugitive dust(PM10) emissions from clearing and grading activities on-site; (ii) exhaust emissions (including CO, ROG, NOx, and PM10) and potential odors from the construction equipment used on-site as well as the vehicles used to transport materials to and from the site; (iii) off-site air pollutant emissions at the power plant serving the site, while temporary power lines are needed to operate construction equipment and provide lighting; and (iv) exhaust emissions from the motor vehicles of the construction crew. Emissions associated with demolition and construction equipment within the project area are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. Specifically, PM10 emissions associated with Revised Project construction activities (the primary source of PM10 emissions on site) are expected to exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds, even with implementation of the applicable dust control provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (Sections 17.56.020 and 17.76.040(G)(4)), limitations on construction hours, installation of temporary construction fencing, and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (which imposes watering requirements for inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.). The FEIR and its technical studies demonstrate that implementation of the following mitigation measure will substantially reduce but not completely mitigate the PM10 emissions:

1. In accordance with the City Development Code and SCAQMD Rules, the Project Applicant shall incorporate the following measures during the construction phase of the Revised Project to the satisfaction of the SCAQMD and City Public Works Director. Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic field inspections by the SCAQMD and City Public Works Director.

Grading:

  • Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded for ten days or more);
  • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
  • Enclose, cover, water two times daily or apply non-toxic soil binders in accordance to manufacturer’s specifications to exposed piles (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt) with 5% or greater silt content;
  • Water active sites at least three times daily;
  • Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; and
  • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of the CVC Section 23114.

Paved Roads:

  • Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads; and
  • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip.

Additional feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of short-term construction NOX and PM10 emissions to less than significant levels. Thus, these impacts will be significant and unavoidable.

Long-term operational impacts. Long-term air quality impacts will consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic and stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the Project site. Implementation of the Revised Project will create a significant and unavoidable individual project impact from ROG, NOX and CO emissions. In addition, the Los Angeles Basin (the "Basin") is in non-attainment for these same three pollutants. Since the Revised Project will exceed established ROG/NOX, CO and PM10 thresholds, the Revised Project will also create a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to regional levels of these pollutants. The Revised Project is not anticipated to create a significant localized emission of CO or create significant localized impacts to nearby sensitive receptors in this regard.

Although the Revised Project will represent an incremental negative impact to air quality in the Basin, of primary concern is that project-related impacts have been properly anticipated in the regional air quality planning process and reduced whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the Revised Project’s consistency with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (the "AQMP"). The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act (the "CAA") for determining conformity of local projects, plans and programs with the SCAQMD AQMP. To assist local governments in assessing projects, SCAG released the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG"), in May 1995. The RCPG is a compilation of the summaries of Plans for the Southern California Region. It establishes a broad set of goals for the region, and identifies strategies for agencies at all levels to use in guiding their decision-making toward implementation of the proposals. There are two main indicators of consistency. First, will the project under consideration result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP; and second, will the project under consideration exceed the AQMP’s assumptions for 2010 or increments based on the year of project build-out and phase.

The Revised Project will be consistent with the second of the two indicators. The existing entitlements for the Project site, which were approved in 1991, will generate a projected total of 9,619 average daily trips (ADT). In contrast, the currently Revised Project will generate and estimated 6,263 ADT. Since the AQMP assumptions take into consideration the ADT for the existing entitlements, the volume of ADT generated by the Revised Project will not exceed the ADT projected for the existing entitlement. Thus, the Revised Project will not exceed the AQMP’s assumptions and is, therefore, consistent with the AQMP in this regard.

However, the Revised Project will result in an increase in the severity of existing air quality violations. The Basin is presently in non-attainment for ROG, NOx and CO emissions. The FEIR and its Technical Appendices demonstrate that the mobile source and area emissions associated with the Revised Project will generate pollutant emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds despite adherence to applicable SCAQMD and local rules and regulations. This increase in the severity in an existing non-attainment area will make the Revised Project inconsistent with first of the two indicators of consistency. Revised Project implementation will, therefore, result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP.

Cumulative operational impacts. The annual short-term and long-term emissions associated with the cumulative projects analyzed in the FEIR, will be dependent on the phasing of each project. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations will help to lessen these impacts. However, the build out, sale and occupancy of the dwelling units and other uses will be controlled by market demand. Since the Basin is non-attainment for O3, CO and PM10 air quality standards (both State and Federal standards), any additional emissions of ROG and NOX (precursors to O3), CO and PM10 will be considered significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. Additionally, it should be noted that Cumulative Projects include development of a sensitive receptor adjacent to UPV (i.e., Montessori School). However, traffic impacts under existing plus ambient growth plus the Revised Project plus other development conditions will not create a significant localized emission of CO or create significant localized impacts to the proposed school. The FEIR and its technical studies demonstrate that implementation of the following mitigation measure will substantially reduce cumulative air quality impacts, but not to a level of insignificance:

1. The Project shall comply will SCAQMD standards and Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requirements.

Noise

1. Significant Impacts

Section 5.9 indicates project-generated traffic will result in significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impacts along several roadways. The Revised Project will generate additional vehicular traffic on local roadways, thereby resulting in noise level increases along these roadways. Furthermore, implementation of the Revised Project, together with cumulative projects, will increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Revised Project. Vehicular traffic from the Revised Project, coupled with vehicular traffice from cumulative projects, will exacerbate current ambient noise levels which already exceed State and local noise standards along local roadways. These impacts are expected to occur with or without implementation of the Revised Project.

2. Findings

Analysis has concluded that Revised Project implementation will contribute to a significant and unavoidable noise impact along several roadways, and no feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.

3. Facts in Support of Findings

Revised Project implementation will result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby increasing vehicular generated noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed residential uses. These impacts will result from project-related vehicle travel, thereby contributing to future noise level increases above standards along adjacent roadway segments. While the project-related increase, in and of itself, will not create a "substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels," (the threshold established by CEQA), the increase will further exacerbate the current (and anticipated Future 2010 Without Project) exceedance of noise standards for sensitive receptors located along several roadways. Thus, the Revised Project traffic will contribute to a significant and unavoidable increase in cumulative noise levels along local roadways. The Revised Project, and all cumulative projects analyzed in the FEIR, must adhere to State and local noise standards. The FEIR and its technical appendices demonstrate that this adherence will substantially reduce project-related noise impacts, but not to a level of insignificance. Existing ambient noise levels already exceed these standards. Thus, although the Revised Project’s individual contribution will not be significant, the existing conditions, combined with project-generated and cumulative vehicular noise will result in a significant and unavoidable noise impact at a cumulative level. Additional feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce the significance of traffic-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. Thus, these impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.

B. Additional Impacts Which May Not Be Fully Mitigated

The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures have been applied, and based on the record before it, the City Council finds that all significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance except for temporary significant air quality impacts resulting from construction, long-term air quality impacts related to project-related traffic and Revised Project operations, and long-term noise impacts resulting from increased traffic on adjacent roadways. In the event that any other environmental impact identified in the FEIR cannot, through full compliance with mitigation measures imposed herein, be fully mitigated over time, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the record and that the Statement of Overriding Considerations that is an exhibit to this Resolution applies with equal force and effect to such impacts.

Article VII. Project Alternatives.

The alternatives identified in the FEIR either will not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Revised Project or will do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth below or in the FEIR, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives identified in the FEIR, and each is hereby rejected. The City Council also finds that the Initial Project, as proposed, will result in unacceptable adverse impacts and, for any one of the reasons set forth below, finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Initial Project, as proposed, which is being rejected in favor of the Revised Project. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the FEIR and the ultimate decision on the Revised Project.

CEQA requires agencies reviewing the environmental impacts of a project to consider a range of reasonable alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), 14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15126(d)). The range of alternatives considered in an FEIR should include those which can feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. As defined by CEQA, "feasible" means "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15365, 14 Cal. Code of Reg. § 15365.)

The FEIR analyzed a total of ten alternatives to the Revised Project. The alternatives considered were: "Alternative 7.1 - No Development Alternative," "Alternative 7.2 - No Project Alternative," "Alternative 7.3 - With Coast Guard Site Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.5 - Relocate Practice Facility - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.6 - No Resort Villas B Option ‘A’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.4 - No Resort Villas - Option ‘B’ Alternative," "Alternative 7.8 - Program of Utilization Alternative," "Alternative 7.9 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative," and "Alternative 7.10 - Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing Entitlement Alternative."

The City Council has carefully considered the attributes and environmental impacts of all of the alternatives analyzed in the FEIR and has compared them with those of the Revised Project. As required by CEQA, the City Council finds that each of the alternatives is infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons set forth below. The City Council further finds that the Initial Project as proposed is also infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social and other reasons set forth below. The Revised Project, as modified or conditioned by the City Council, represents the combination of features that, in the City Council’s opinion, best achieves the Revised Project’s objectives while minimizing environmental impacts. Each alternative analyzed in the FEIR is discussed separately below.

A. Alternative 7.1 (No Development Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

Under the No Development Alternative, the Revised Project will not be constructed and the Project site will remain in its current condition.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Because the No Development Alternative will not permit any development, it will result in the least amount of environmental impacts compared to the Revised Project and the other alternatives. However, the No Development Alternative will not fulfill any of the Revised Project’s objectives (e.g., establishing a successful destination coastal resort, providing a high quality golf experience, providing additional public trails and recreational facilities, as well as the additional objectives identified in Section 4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum) and will not provide the same benefits as the Revised Project (i.e. creation of jobs, increased revenue to the city, removal of blight, etc.).

For any one of these reasons, the City Council has determined the No Development Alternative to be infeasible.

B. Alternative 7.2 (No Project Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

The "No Project" Alternative involves development of the Project site only based upon the existing entitlements. In 1991, the City and the Coastal Commission approved a conditional use permit and coastal development permit to allow development of 102.1 acres of land on the Project site. The entitlements would permit development of a resort hotel and conference facility on consisting of a 400-room hotel facility, 50 casitas, a golf practice facility (including an 8,000 square-foot clubhouse, a driving range and three practice holes), a 30,000 square-foot conference center, rehabilitation of the Galley West Restaurant, a 25,000 square-foot spa/fitness center, 8 tennis courts, and a 30,000 square foot country-market/café.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

The No Project Alternative will be generally similar to the Revised Project, however, it will result in a more intensified use of the Project site. Overall, this Alternative will involve more intensive development (i.e., a five-story building of a larger scale and mass and more concentrated development on the Project site) than the Revised Project. Implementation of this Alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in Section 4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum, on the Project site. However, the increased intensity of development on the Project site could potentially increase impacts to the federally-protected El Segundo Blue butterfly (which was observed on the Project site during focused surveys in June 2001) and the sensitive coastal bluffs on the Project site. The City Council has determined Alternative 7.2 (the No Project Alternative) to be infeasible and not environmentally superior.

C. Alternative 7.3 (With Coast Guard Site Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

This alternative will add to the Initial Project the approximately 3.9-acre site on UPV that was retained by the U.S. Coast Guard when the federal government transferred ownership of the bulk of UPV to the City in 1975 (refer to Exhibit 7-1, With Coast Guard Site Alternative of the FEIR). Existing uses at this site include asphalt walkways, remnants of a World War II military battery and undeveloped lands. Implementation of this alternative will increase the size of the Initial Project’s use of UPV from 64.9 to 68.8 acres (an increase of approximately six percent). The additional acreage will be used to (i) add approximately 1.8 acres of native habitat to the preserved/restored/created habitat currently proposed; (ii) expand the proposed City Hall Park Expansion by approximately 0.9-; and (iii) add approximately 1.2 acres to the golf design.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all the objectives identified in Section 3.4 (Project Objectives) of the FEIR and will have impacts similar to the Initial Project as originally proposed. However, during the public review and comment period on the DEIR, the Coast Guard indicated that inclusion of its site was not an option and directed the City to cease further consideration of this alternative. Moreover, this alternative proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, City Council has determined Alternative 7.3 (the With Coast Guard Site Alternative) to be infeasible.

D. Alternative 7.4 (Relocate Practice Facility – Option A Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

This alternative includes the same components as the Initial Project but relocates the Initial Project’s proposed golf practice facility and driving range to the undeveloped land located adjacent to the City’s Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC), on the Lower Point Vicente Area (LPVA) (refer to Exhibit 7-2, Relocate Practice Facility - Option "A" Alternative of the FEIR). A portion of the approximately nine acres vacated by relocation of the golf practice facility will be used for the creation of new habitat, creating a larger conservation zone in the northern portion of UPV.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum and will have impacts similar to the Initial Project as proposed. This Alternative will increase the habitat preserve area provided, but in exchange, requires the use of additional public lands. Alternative 7.4 does not offer any substantial economic or environmental improvements over the Revised Project as proposed, nor is the City Council receptive to the use of public lands for the proposed resort. In fact, implementation of Alternative 7.4 would result in greater environmental impacts than either the Initial Project or the Revised Project and would require the use of public land. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that Alternative 7.4 is infeasible.

E. Alternative 7.5 (Relocate Practice Facility – Option B Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

The Relocate Practice Facility – Option "B" Alternative includes the same components as the Initial Project but relocates the Initial Project’s proposed golf practice facility and driving range to the eastern portion of the Project site, between the Entry Road and Hole No. 9. The golf practice facility will displace Golf Holes Nos. 7 and 8 in the Project site. The displaced golf holes will replace the golf practice facility in UPV (refer to Exhibit 7-3, Relocate Practice Facility - Option "B" Alternative of the FEIR).

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Implementation of Alternative 7.5 will fulfill most of the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum, but will result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the Revised Project as now proposed. While Alternative 7.5, would increase the habitat preserve area provided, allow for the development of future recreational areas for the general public, reduce golf safety concerns associated with locating the golf practice facility and driving range adjacent to the residences at Villa Capri, and minimize the need for safety netting to protect said residences, it would also require the use of public land and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that Alternative 7.5 to be infeasible and hereby rejects this alternative.

F. Alternative 7.6 (No Resort Villas – Option ‘A’ Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

Alternative 7.6 will be similar to the Initial Project but will exclude the Resort Villas proposed for development in the northeastern portion of the Project site adjacent to Rancho Palos Verdes Drive South (refer to Exhibit 7-4, No Resort Villas - Option A Alternative, of the FEIR). Hole No. 5 of the golf course will be relocated from UPV to the area vacated by the Resort Villas on the Project site and renumbered. The area vacated by Hole No. 5 on UPV will be used to create additional new habitat, thereby resulting in a larger conservation zone in the southeastern portion of the UPV. All other components of the Initial Project will be retained.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Implementation of this alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) Addendum, with one exception – the absence of the villas removes a type of resort unit. When compared to the Revised Project, this alternative will have greater impacts on sensitive habitat because of the inclusion of UPV and slightly greater overall impacts due to the increased intensity of development. When compared to the Revised Project, Alternative 7.6 reduces the variety of visitor-serving units that will be available, thereby impacting the clientele the resort attracts reducing the potential revenue benefits to the City from transient occupancy tax, and creates greater environmental impacts. Moreover, this alternative proposes the use of public land and proposed more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds that Alternative 7.6 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the Revised Project applicant and determines that the No Resort Villas – Option ‘A’ Alternative to be infeasible

G. Alternative 7.7 (No Resort Villas – Option ‘B’ Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

Alternative 7.7 will also exclude the Resort Villas proposed for development in the northeastern portion of the Project site but will retain all other components of the Initial Project. Under this alternative, the area vacated by the Resort Villas will be replaced by Hole No. 8. The area vacated by Hole No. 8 will be replaced by the golf practice facility. A portion of the area vacated by the golf practice facility will be replaced by Hole No. 3. The portion of UPV vacated by the golf practice facility not used for Hole No. 3 will be used for the creation of new habitat, creating a larger conservation zone in the northwestern portion of UPV.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Implementation of this alternative will fulfill all of the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum, with one exception – the absence of the villas removes a type of resort unit. When compared to the Revised Project, this alternative increases the impacts to biological resources and public safety because it involves the use of UPV. It also reduces the variety of visitor-serving units that will be available and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. . As with Alternative 7.6, Alternative 7.7 adversely impacts the clientele the resort attracts and reduces the potential revenue benefits to the City from transient occupancy tax without any corresponding decrease in environmental impacts. Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds that Alternative 7.7 does not best meet the needs of either the City or the Revised Project applicant and determines that the No Resort Villas – Option ‘B’ Alternative to be infeasible.

H. Alternative 7.8 (Program of Utilization Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

The Program of Utilization Alternative concentrates solely on the development of UPV with recreational uses. UPV was transferred to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes in October 1979 by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service "for public park and public recreation area purposes". The Deed established a Program of Utilization (POU) for the transferred property. The POU provides for the development of both active and passive recreational uses on the property. The recreational uses identified in the POU are detailed in Table 5.7-1 (Program of Utilization) of the FEIR, and illustrated in Exhibit 5.7-4 (Program of Utilization Conceptual Plan) of the FEIR. None of the components associated with the Revised Project or the Initial Project will be developed.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

This alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPV only, as the Marineland site is not subject to the POU. Thus, none of the impacts associated with development of the Initial Project site will occur with this alternative. However, this alternative results in a more intensive development of UPV than does the Revised Project and would not preclude concurrent development of the Revised Project. The increased use of UPV for active recreational activities is less compatible with the preservation of sensitive habitat areas and wildlife than the either the Initial Project’s proposed golf activities or the Revised Project’s complete elimination of UPV and will result in greater impacts on UPV than associated with the Revised Project. Moreover, implementation of this alternative will not fulfill the basic Project objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum. Accordingly, the City Council has determined Alternative 7.8 (the Program of Utilization Alternative) to be infeasible and not environmentally superior.

I. Alternative 7.9 (Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

The Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative was presented by the Save Our Coastline II (SOC II) citizens group. This Alternative focuses only on the development of UPV, utilizing the areas by the City Hall for active recreation and gradually merging into more passive recreation areas near the bluffs (refer to Exhibit 7-6, Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative, of the FEIR). The majority of the land will be preserved or restored as native habitat with the participation of community groups. A series of trails will be designed to provide access to areas for views of the coastline and ocean or for more social activities. Landscaping to enhance the City Hall and conceal the maintenance yard will be provided. This Alternative will not include any of the components associated with either the Initial Project or the Revised Project.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

Overall, this Alternative results in a less intensive development of UPV than does the Initial Project. This Alternative focuses on an alternate use of UPV only, and none of the impacts associated with development of the Initial Project site will occur with this Alternative. However, implementation of this Alternative would not foreclose development of the Revised Project on the Marineland site. Further, implementation of this Alternative will fulfill only one of the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum – to provide additional public trails and recreational facilities on the publicly-owned UPV. This alternative will not provide as many jobs or revenue to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, nor will this alternative provide the City with a high caliber resort capable of attracting visitors and business to the City. Finally, implementation of this alternative will leave the Project site underdeveloped and dilapidated. Accordingly, for any of the foregoing reasons, the City Council finds Alternative 7.9 to be infeasible.

J. Alternative 7.10 (Point Vicente Park Enhancement and Existing Entitlement Alternative)

1. Summary of Alternative

The "Combined Existing Entitlement and Point Vicente Park Enhancement" Alternative will involve development of the Project site based upon the existing entitlements (see discussion under Alternative 7.2 – No Project Alternative) in conjunction with development of UPV based upon the Save Our Coastline II (SOC II) citizens group proposal (see discussion of Alternative 7.9 – Point Vicente Park Enhancement Alternative).

2. Reasons For Rejecting Alternative

This Alternative has been developed in response to the possibility that implementation of Alternatives 7.2 and 7.9 are not mutually exclusive. Implementation of this Alternative will fulfill the majority of the objectives identified in Section 4.3, Project Objectives, of the Addendum, on the Project site. Overall, this Alternative will involve more intensive development of the Project site (i.e., a five-story building of a larger scale and mass and more concentrated development on the Project site), contained in a smaller geographical area, than the Revised Project. Coupled with the anticipated increased use of UPV, Alternative 7.10 will not avoid the impacts associated with the Revised Project. Additionally, this alternative does not provide the same level of benefits to the City as the Revised Project. The existing entitlements do not provide for the same high caliber resort as proposed by the Revised Project. Thus, this Alternative is expected to create less jobs, less revenue, and less public trails and amenities. Accordingly, the City Council finds that Alternative 7.10 does not best serve the needs of either the City or the Project applicant and determines that Alternative 7.10 is infeasible.

K. The Initial Project

1. Summary of Alternative

The Initial Project is described in detail in Section 3.0 of the FEIR.

2. Reasons For Rejecting Initial Project

Implementation of the Initial Project will fulfill most of the objectives identified in Section 4.3 (Project Objectives) of the Addendum, but will result in greater environmental impacts than those associated with the Revised Project as now proposed. While the Initial Project would increase the habitat preserve area provided, allow for the development of future recreational areas for the general public, reduce golf safety concerns associated with locating the golf practice facility and driving range adjacent to the residences at Villa Capri, and minimize the need for safety netting to protect said residences, it would also require the use of public land and proposes more intense uses of environmentally sensitive areas than proposed by the Revised Project. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that the Initial Project is not environmentally superior, is infeasible and hereby rejects this alternative.

L. The Revised Project

1. Summary of Alternative

The Revised Project is described in detail in the Introduction of this Exhibit A and in Section 4.0 of the Addendum.

2. Reasons For Accepting Revised Project

The Revised Project, as proposed, calls for the location of a resort hotel/conference center, a golf practice facility and related amenities on the former Marineland site (the Project site). The Revised Project has been revised to eliminate the use of UPV and proposes a less intense use of the Project site than the existing entitlements (Alternative 7.2). The Revised Project, as revised, eliminates all of the adverse environmental impacts associated with the Initial Project’s use of UPV and preserves both the natural habitat on UPV and the peace and quiet enjoyment of the residents at Villa Capri and the members of St. Paul’s Church. Additionally, the project design features include a conservation district which will preserve and enhance the existing coastal bluff scrub habitat on the Project site, thereby protecting the federally-endangered El Segundo Blue butterfly, while providing the City with a world-class, visitor serving use to attract visitors and business to the area. Moreover, the Revised Project represents the combination of features that best achieves the Project objectives while minimizing environmental impacts. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in the FEIR, the Addendum, and this Resolution, the City Council accepts the Revised Project, as proposed, as the preferred design.

EXHIBIT B

Statement of Overriding Considerations

Pursuant that to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), the City Council hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the Revised Project that is described in detail in the Introduction of Exhibit A and in Section 4.0 of the Addendum.

CEQA Requirements

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a)). Where the decision of the local agency to approve a project will result in unavoidable significant effects which are identified in the FEIR but are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, CEQA further requires the local agency to provide written findings describing the specific reasons to support the agency’s action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (CEQA Guidelines section 15093(b)). This Statement of Overriding Considerations provides those reasons with respect to the Revised Project.

Project Impacts

As stated in Section VI of Exhibit A, the Revised Project will result in significant unavoidable impacts relative to cumulative noise from Project-related traffic and regional mobile air quality emissions.

Project Benefits

The City Council finds that the following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of the Revised Project:

  • Establishment of an attractive resort facility that is architecturally and visually compatible with the surrounding landscape, that is consistent with the commercial recreational zoning designation, and that will provide the City’s major visitor-serving uses within the coastal zone and attract new visitors and businesses to the area and provide economic benefits to the City.
  • Removal of local blight and the development of currently underutilized land on privately-owned property (former Marineland site).
  • Creation of jobs and increased revenue to the City from sales tax and transient occupancy tax.
  • Development of a variety of public open space, both natural and active areas, including approximately 3.0 miles of public trails, 8.0 acres of general public recreation areas and scenic overlooks (including a 6.7-acre bluff-face habitat reserve, 1.2 acres of El Segundo Blue butterfly habitat enhancement areas, and 2.1 acres of native vegetation in open space areas of conserved and enhanced natural habitat) within the project at no cost to the City.
  • Expansion of public coastal access, including:
    • 100 off-street parking spaces for the general public, in addition to those provided to resort visitors and guests;
    • creation of a 2.2-acre public park and coastal access viewpoint;
    • Vertical access from Palos Verdes Drive South, through the resort, safely and conveniently down to the shoreline in two locations;
    • Continuous horizontal access comprised of a bluff-top trail and scenic overlooks along the full length of coastal bluff; and
    • Where feasible, trails and facilities accessible to disabled persons.
  • Implementation of the City's Master Plan of Trails in all areas adjacent to the resort, including connections to existing trails.
  • Protection of sensitive coastal bluffs on the Long Point Site, and limitations on activities causing the degradation of marine resources on or adjacent to the Revised Project, that may occur with increased public access and use of the area.
  • Increased utilization of privately-owned land in the City’s coastal zone as the result of construction of public trails and recreational facilities.
  • Protection of the ecological values of the off-shore marine areas through creation of a conservation area adjacent to the Fisherman's Access Area that will include protection of native vegetation, including a transitional planting area (ecotone) between the bluff edge and the adjacent public park and provisions to direct drainage and surface runoff away from the bluff.
  • Improved water quality through construction and implementation of a Runoff Management/Water Quality Management Plan.

Statement of Overriding Considerations

The City Council has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above (traffic-related noise and regional mobile air pollutant emissions) in deciding whether to approve the Revised Project. Although substantial evidence demonstrates that the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Revised Project, the City Council recognizes that approval of the Revised Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.

After balancing the Revised Project’s environmental risks with its benefits described above, the City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that the specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the Revised Project, as set forth above, outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council specifically finds that any one and each of the foregoing benefits constitutes a significant consideration sufficient to approve the Revised Project independent of any other benefits, will warrant approval of the Revised Project notwithstanding the unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project identified in the FEIR and the Addendum. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts each of the foregoing benefits as an overriding consideration with respect to each of the significant unavoidable impacts individually. Each overriding consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Revised Project.

EXHIBIT C

"Mitigation Measures"

The Mitigation Measures that is attached as an exhibit to Resolution 2002-34, which certified the FEIR, is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit D to this resolution

EXHIBIT D

"Mitigation Monitoring Plan"

The Mitigation Monitoring Plan that is attached as an exhibit to Resolution 2002-34, which certified the FEIR, in hereby incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit D to this resolution.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, VARIANCE NO. 489, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESORT HOTEL CONFERENCE CENTER, RESORT VILLAS, AND DRIVING RANGE AND GOLF PRACTICE FACILITY TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT LOCATED IN COASTAL SUBREGION 2.

WHEREAS, a formal application was filed by Destination Development Corporation (the "Developer") requesting approval of conditional use permits, grading permits, a coastal development permit and a tentative parcel map (collectively the "discretionary permits") and a general plan amendment to allow construction of a 550-room resort hotel and conference center, 32 private villas, and a 9-hole golf course on 103.5 acres of land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 64.9 acres of land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the " Initial Project"); and

WHEREAS, the Initial Project has since been revised to eliminate the portion of the Project that called for the use of 64.9 acres of publicly-owned land generally located at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, commonly known as Upper Point Vicente Area ("UPVA"), and a 1.4 acre strip of land owned by CIGNA (the "Revised Project"), so that the entire development will be located entirely on 102.1 acres of privately-owned land generally located at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South, which formerly was occupied by Marineland (the "Project site"); and

WHEREAS, the City analyzed the Initial Project’s potential impacts on the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.) promulgated with respect thereto, and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Initial Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Initial Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land-use and planning, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems; and

WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an environmental impact report (the "EIR") for the Initial Project in accordance with the provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation of the EIR from July 20, 2000, through September 4, 2000, for an extended 45-day comment period in order to receive written comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR; and

WHEREAS, the City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to the Initial Project and the CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR; and

WHEREAS, the scoping session was noticed by publication in the local press, by mailing to all residents within a 500-foot radius of the Initial Project and by posting at City Hall, Hesse Park, and the Ladera Linda Community Center and was attended by the applicant, representatives of various agencies, and members of the general public; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices"), was completed on February 2, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between February 6, 2001, and April 6, 2001, for an expanded 60-day comment period pursuant to Guidelines Section 15087(c); and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on April 10, 2001, April 14, 2001, April 24, 2001, May 17, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 10, 2001, and July 24, 2001, at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project and the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process, the City received over 30 hours of public testimony and more than 300 written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the adequacy of the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the DEIR in response to the comments; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary revisions to the DEIR in July 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the responses to comments and the revisions to the DEIR, City staff concluded that the revised material in the biological resources analysis (Section 5.3 of the DEIR) constituted new information requiring recirculation of the biological resources analysis of the DEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Guidelines Section 15088.5; and

WHEREAS, the City recirculated the Revised Biological Resources Analysis to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interest persons between August 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, for a shortened 30-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(c) and 15105(a) (the "Second Public Review and Comment Period").

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further held duly noticed public hearings on August 14, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project, the DEIR, and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and

WHEREAS, the City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California (the "State Clearinghouse") and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15083, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on August 22, 2000, to provide an introduction to the Initial Project and the CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR; and

WHEREAS, the scoping session was noticed by publication in the local press, by mailing to all residents within a 500-foot radius of the Initial Project and by posting at City Hall, Hesse Park, and the Ladera Linda Community Center and was attended by the applicant, representatives of various agencies, and members of the general public; and

WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain technical appendices (the "Appendices"), was completed on February 2, 2001; and

WHEREAS, the City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested persons between February 6, 2001, and April 6, 2001, for an expanded 60-day comment period pursuant to Guidelines Section 15087(c); and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on April 10, 2001, April 14, 2001, April 24, 2001, May 17, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 10, 2001, and July 24, 2001, at which times all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project and the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, during the public review and comment process, the City received over 30 hours of public testimony and more than 300 written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the adequacy of the DEIR; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the DEIR in response to the comments; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary revisions to the DEIR in July 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and

WHEREAS, after reviewing the responses to comments and the revisions to the DEIR, City staff concluded that the revised material in the biological resources analysis (Section 5.3 of the DEIR) constituted new information requiring recirculation of the biological resources analysis of the DEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Guidelines Section 15088.5; and

WHEREAS, the City recirculated the Revised Biological Resources Analysis to the public, the State Clearinghouse, and other interest persons between August 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, for a shortened 30-day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(c) and 15105(a) (the "Second Public Review and Comment Period").

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further held duly noticed public hearings on August 14, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the Initial Project, the DEIR, and the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and

WHEREAS, during the Second Public Review and Comment Period, the City received several hours of testimony and fifteen written and oral comments regarding the Initial Project and the adequacy of the Revised Biological Resources Analysis; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and additions to the Revised Biological Resources Analysis, where appropriate, in response to the comments received during the Second Public Review and Comment Period; and

WHEREAS, the City completed the Responses to Comments on the Revised Biological Resources Analysis on September 24, 2001, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and the public at least ten (10) days prior to considering the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"); and

WHEREAS, on October 9, 2001, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider the FEIR and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2001-37 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2230, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073 FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL AND GOLF COURSE TO BE KNOWN AS THE LONG POINT RESORT;" and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things, certification of the FEIR for the Initial Project and adopted Resolution No. 2002-34 certifying the FEIR; and

WHEREAS, City Staff has determined that while the Revised Project did require some minor changes and additions to the previously certified FEIR, the Revised Project did not require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or a supplement to the FEIR because the Revised Project, which will be developed on fewer acres of land than the Initial Project and will be located on a site that was previously developed and used for the Marineland facility, will not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the effects that previously were identified and analyzed in the FEIR; furthermore, there are no changed circumstances or new information, which was not known at the time the FEIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or major revisions to the FEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, and, in accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Addendum to the FEIR (the "Addendum"); and

WHEREAS, the City completed preparation of the Addendum, together with all related technical studies, on June 11, 2002; and

WHEREAS, on July 31, 2002, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, after reviewing the geotechnical reports submitted by Developer in connection with Variance No. 489 (a request for a variance to allow construction of a pool facility within the designated Coastal Setback Zone) and observing the auger borings from the project site, determined that the location where the proposed pool is to be located is geologically stable; and

WHEREAS, on August 13, 2002, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting to consider Variance No. 489 and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2002-___ entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE VARIANCE NO. 489 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL FACILITY WITHIN THE CITY’S DESIGNATED COASTAL SETBACK ZONE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG POINT RESORT HOTEL PROJECT, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6610 PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH;" and

WHEREAS, On June 18, 2002, July 16, 2002, August 6, 2002, and August 28, 2002, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings to consider the Addendum and the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has by separate resolution certified the Addendum and made certain environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") required by law; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed the FEIR, the Addendum and the Project applications;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Project applications (hereafter the "Project applications") will permit grading of the project site and the construction of a resort hotel with 400 rooms in a main hotel structure and freestanding bungalows and 50 privately-owned, multiple-keyed casita units for a maximum aggregate of 150 additional accommodations, 32 privately-owned resort villas, a 68,000 square-foot conference/banquet facility, a 25,000 square foot spa and fitness center, 3 to 4 restaurants with an aggregate total of 22,500, a golf academy and driving range with three (3) practice holes (the "driving range and practice facility"), an 8,000 square-foot golf clubhouse, tennis facilities for hotel guests, and various public amenities, including public trails, a public park, 825 parking spaces for the Project, and 100 additional parking spaces for the general public.

Section 2. In considering the Project applications, the City Council independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR for the Project and the Addendum in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 15084(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. By Resolution No. , adopted concurrently herewith, the City Council made certain environmental findings in connection with the Project, determined that the FEIR and the Addendum represent the independent judgment of the City as lead agency with respect to the Project, and certified the Addendum. The City Council previously adopted Resolution No. certifying the FEIR. Additionally, with respect to the potential significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council finds as follows:

2.1 The FEIR and the Addendum identify potential significant environmental impacts related to Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology and Drainage, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Marine Resources, Noise, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, and Recreational Facilities. However, as noted in the FEIR, the Addendum, and Resolution Nos. and , these impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. The specific mitigation measures to be imposed are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the FEIR and the Addendum, attached as Exhibit D to Resolution No. .

2.2 The FEIR and the Addendum indicate that the Project will create significant unavoidable impacts to air quality and noise. The impacts to air quality will arise from short-term construction-related activities and long-term operation of the Project, while the impacts to noise will arise from Project-related traffic. The FEIR indicates that these impacts will remain significant even after they have been mitigated to the extent feasible. All feasible mitigation measures suggested in the FEIR have been considered and will be adopted by the City and incorporated into the Project as a condition of Project approval. No additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified. Accordingly, the City Council adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. .

Section 3. Pursuant to Section 17.60.050 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code/ (the "Municipal Code"), and based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to CUP No. 215:

3.1 The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The General Plan land use map designates the project site as Commercial/Recreational. Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s Official Zoning Map (adopted June 26, 1975) which designates the majority of the project site as a Commercial Recreational (CR) zoning district, while the remainder of the project site consists of coastal bluffs designated as an Open Hazard (OH) zoning district. Chapter 17.22 of the Municipal Code clearly defines the allowable uses in the CR zoning district and specifically permits the proposed resort hotel/conference center, golf uses, and related ancillary uses with a conditional use permit. (Section 17.22.030.) Moreover, the Project, as designed, complies with all applicable restrictions for the OH zoning district. (Sections 17.32.030 and 17.32.040.) The proposed resort and ancillary uses are visitor serving and include transient occupancy facilities consisting of a 400 room Resort Hotel and freestanding bungalows, 50 multi-keyed casitas (for a maximum of 50 additional rooms), and 32 single-keyed Resort Villas, a 68,000 square foot conference/banquet facility, 3 to 4 restaurants, public recreational facilities, (including a 25,000 square foot spa/fitness center, public golf facilities - including a driving range, golf academy and 3 practice holes, an 8000 square foot golf club house, tennis facilities for hotel guests, a network of public trails and vista points, and a public park), and 925 parking spaces (825 parking spaces for hotel guests and visitors, and 100 additional parking spaces for the general public). The Project will provide public access to the bluffs and coastline, while still protecting the sensitive marine environment through a transitional planting area (ecotone) between the bluff edge and the adjacent public park to buffer the sensitive coastal bluff habitat from invasive non-native vegetation. These land uses are consistent with those specified in the Coastal Specific Plan in Section 17.22.030 (conditionally permitted uses in a CR zoning district).

The Project, as conditioned or modified by the City Council, will not result in adverse impacts to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or to the preservation of the City’s paleontological, historical, and/or archaeological resources. As more fully discussed in Section 5.4 of the FEIR and Section 5.4 of the Addendum, the proposed improvements to the project site will not result in adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance in regards to archaeological/historical resources and paleontological resources, and the City Council has, by adopting Resolution No. ____, imposed mitigation measures requiring site monitoring during grading and construction phases to avoid disturbance to historical artifacts, archaeological remains, or fossils. Finally, it should be noted that the City and the Coastal Commission previously approved a prior project consisting of similar uses on the project site. The elements of the current Project are consistent with the mix of uses contemplated by the prior entitlements, which were found to be consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. Further, the current Project incorporates more recreational amenities than were included in the previously approved entitlements.

3.2 The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed Project and all yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by Title 17 of the Municipal Code or by the conditions imposed pursuant thereto to integrate the Project with adjacent land uses and the neighborhood. The project site consists of approximately 102.1 acres along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South and was formerly occupied by the Marineland Aquatic Park. The project site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the required development standards, and the Project, as modified by the City Council, complies with, or is conditioned to be consistent with, all setbacks, lot coverage restrictions, landscaping, parking, trails and public access requirements.

Specifically, all proposed structures are setback approximately 40 feet from the property line abutting Palos Verdes Drive South (the Villas and entry trellis), approximately 310 feet from adjacent nonresidential property (the Fishing Access); and at least 100 feet from adjacent residential property. Furthermore, there are no structures proposed within the required setbacks from residential property and residential streets, except for an entry trellis located at the main entrance, which is setback approximately 20 feet from the boundary line abutting residential property. Pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 17.12.030, the City Council hereby approves those portions of the proposed golf driving range and practice facility located within the required landscape setbacks. Additionally, except as specifically permitted by the approval of Variance No. 489, the proposed Project exceeds the required 25-foot coastal setback established by the Coastal Specific Plan and complies with the required setbacks for the CR and OH zoning district.

As proposed, the lot coverage on the project site is 1,013,060 square feet, which represents 22.8 percent of the 102.1 acre-site, which is well within the maximum 30-percent lot coverage permitted by the Municipal Code (Section 17.12.030). Moreover, the Project provides ample landscaping on the project site. Although the Municipal Code prohibits activity within the designated landscape setbacks, the City Council has approved the proposed golf activities within these setbacks, provided that no structures are erected within the 20-foot landscaping setback. The Project only proposes to locate golf practice fairways and portions of the driving range with no structures within the required landscape setback from Nantasket Road and the abutting residential properties. Since the proposed golf uses within the required 20-foot landscape setback require manicured lawns, which will be enhanced with other more decorative or natural looking landscapes, the proposed Project will provide more than adequate landscaping throughout the project site.

A traffic and parking study was prepared for the Project in connection with the FEIR, which was updated in connection with preparation of the Addendum. The traffic study analyzed the projected traffic and circulation impacts of the Project and assessed the Project’s parking needs. The Project includes a parking supply of 925 spaces, including 100 spaces designated exclusively for use by the general public. The traffic study, which was prepared using the methodologies set forth in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Parking Manual, determined that the Project will provide parking at a rate of 1.7 spaces per guest room, a rate well above the accepted range of 0.80 to 1.4 parking spaces per guest room for comparable resorts, and concluded that the parking supply proposed by the Developer will adequately meet the hotel guest and employee parking needs for all of the site’s amenities, as well as provide ample parking spaces for use by the general public visiting the site to enjoy the free public trails and coastal access amenities.

In addition to the resort hotel, the Developer proposes to include a driving range and three practice holes on the project site. The Project, as conditioned and modified by the City Council, adequately addresses golf-safety concerns, and the project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed golf facilities. According to the FEIR and the Addendum, the proposed golf driving range and practice facility are adequately situated on the site to ensure the safety of golfers, hotel guests, and the general public.

3.3 The project site is served by streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. The environmental analysis conducted for the proposed Project included the preparation of a Traffic Study by the City’s consultant, Urban Crossroads. The traffic impact analysis evaluated the Project’s projected impacts to local roadways, intersections, regional facilities and ingress/egress locations on-site. The traffic study served as the basis for the traffic analysis set forth in Section 5.12 of the FEIR and Section 5.12 of the Addendum, and analyzed existing traffic conditions, ambient growth traffic, other local projects, and the proposed Project in relation to the guidelines established by the 1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP), prepared by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). Both the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission independently reviewed the traffic study and recommended that the City Council approve the Project subject to the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. Based on its independent review of the traffic study and the recommendations provided by the Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby imposes mitigation measures requiring the Project to widen Palos Verdes Drive South to a 100 foot right-of-way immediately adjacent to the project site; provide a 150 foot minimum left turn pocket for vehicles traveling west of Palos Verdes Drive South and desiring to turn left into the hotel’s main entrance; a traffic signal shall be installed by the Developer at the project entrance; and install certain roadway improvements at the intersections of Silver Spur at Hawthorne Boulevard, Hawthorne Blvd. at Palos Verdes Drive North, and Western Avenue at 25th Street. As conditioned and modified by the City Council, the Project will not result in any adverse traffic impacts at local streets or intersections. Moreover, the Project provides ample emergency access and good on-site circulation.

3.4 The proposed Project, as conditioned or modified by the City Council, mitigates or reduces significant adverse effects to adjacent properties or the permitted uses thereof. Further, the City Council does hereby declare that the FEIR was certified pursuant to Resolution No. ____ and the Addendum was certified pursuant to Resolution No. ____, in compliance with CEQA and State and local Guidelines, and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the contents of the FEIR and the Addendum in making its decision with respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the social, recreation, economic and other benefits of the Project outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that may occur. The Project implements the CR zoning designation for the project site set forth in the General Plan, while preserving, to the extent feasible, much of the site as recreational open space, with public trails and vista points, golf facilities, and a public park. The Project further provides a high quality resort hotel and conference center with a variety of ancillary uses that will provide additional public recreational opportunities, community meeting facilities, and local jobs. Due to the overriding benefits and considerations, the City Council finds that any unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project are acceptable. Resolution No. ____, including the detailed statement of overriding considerations attached thereto as Exhibit B, is hereby made a part of this resolution, by reference, as required by CEQA. The City Council further finds that the Project, as conditioned or modified herein, adequately mitigates all golf-safety related concerns, protects view corridors, minimizes the use of fencing, and preserves and enhances sensitive habitat. The Project design includes a comprehensive water management and drainage plan to control runoff and minimize Project impacts on sensitive biological resources. The City Council has further conditioned the Project to require a drainage plan that controls irrigation and runoff to regulate the Project’s impacts on offshore marine biological resources, Additionally, the Project includes a transitional planting area (ecotone) to protect sensitive native habitat and the endangered El Segundo Blue butterfly on the project site from any adverse impacts.

3.5 The Project complies with all applicable requirements of Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts). The project site is located within the Urban Activities Overlay Control District, the Socio/Cultural Overlay Control District, and the Coastal Specific Plan.

(a) The Urban Activities Overlay Control District is located along the northern portion of the project site along Palos Verdes Drive South. The Urban Activities District involves land areas with food and flower production, recreational, aesthetic, and scenic qualities, hill areas and predominant views. The Project’s consistency with the aesthetic and scenic qualities bordering Palos Verdes Drive South are addressed in Section 5.1 of the FEIR and Section 5.1 of the Addendum. The FEIR and the Addendum concluded that that Project’s impacts on land areas with food and flower production, recreational, aesthetic, and scenic qualities, hill areas and predominant views will not be significant. Additionally, the discussion under Subsection 5.1 of this Resolution with respect to the findings for CDP 166 addresses many of these topics and concludes that the Project will not result in significant impacts and is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.

(b) The Socio/Cultural Overlay Control District is intended to preserve, protect, and maintain land and water areas and improvements which have significant historical, archaeological or cultural importance to the public. Such impacts and mitigation measures are fully discussed in Section 5.4 of the FEIR and Section 5.4 of the Addendum. The Project, as conditioned and modified by the City Council, mitigates any potential impacts on the Socio/Cultural District to a less than significant level.

(c) Finally, the project site is entirely located within Subregion 2 of the Coastal Specific Plan District. The Project’s consistency with the Coastal Specific Plan is more fully analyzed in Section 5 of this Resolution. Based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, the FEIR, the Addendum, and the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby finds that the implementation of the proposed Project is compatible with the applicable requirements for the outlined Overlay Control Districts.

3.6 In adopting certain conditions of approval and mitigation measures for the Project, the City Council deems said conditions of approval and mitigation measures necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community.

Section 4. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040, and based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, and the FEIR, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to GRP No. 2229:

4.1 The proposed grading associated with the Project does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the project site. The grading takes advantage of the natural topography and will be balanced on the site with no import or export of material. The quantity of grading proposed does not exceed that which is necessary to improve the project site with the proposed commercial and recreational uses, which are part of the related conditional use permit application. As previously noted, the project site will be developed with a multitude of commercial/recreational based uses ranging from the resort hotel building to a golf driving range and practice facility. The topography of the project site was altered in the past to accommodate Marineland and its related retail and entertainment uses. The proposed grading is requested to further alter the site’s topography to allow the Project’s proposed uses to capture views of the Pacific Ocean and Catalina Island from various vantage points of the project site while not impeding off-site views. The grading will improve the existing dilapidated condition of the project site. By allowing the grading, the proposed improvements will cohesively connect active and passive recreational uses with entertainment based commercial uses by creating natural transition zones within the project site, thus minimizing the appearance of an over abundance of uses. The recontouring of the site’s terrain to accommodate the proposed golf uses, hotel building, conference center, and parking structure is consistent with the uses conditionally permitted in the CR zoning district. Therefore, the grading associated with the project will serve the community, by providing continued commercial services and expanded recreational opportunities for the general public, in keeping with the uses that once occurred on the project site. In fact, implementation of the Project and its required grading will enhance the general character of the surrounding area and provide the community with additional services and recreational opportunities.

4.2 The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The proposed grading will step the main hotel structure into the existing topographic depression on the southwest portion of the site, and will permit the majority of the parking required for the Project to be notched into the ground to give the visual appearance of an at-grade surface parking lot or placed in a subterranean parking structure, thereby reducing the visual impact of the Project and preserving view corridors identified in the Coastal Specific Plan when viewed from Palos Verdes Drive South and adjacent properties. In addition, the Developer proposes to grade the project site to lower the building pads for the proposed villas to reduce the finished height of these structures and has redesigned the Project to relocated the villas to protect view corridors. To further ensure that implementation of the Project does not adversely impact identified view corridors on the project site, the City Council has conditioned the Project to limit the finished height of the villas to the grade of Palos Verdes Drive South adjacent to the curb. As proposed, the grading will actually return the project site to a more natural topographic condition and will be used to disguise and minimize the scale and mass of the Project, allowing the proposed structures to blend into the surrounding environment.

4.3 The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The project site was extensively graded in the past to form the building pads and parking lots for the Marineland development. The grading associated with the Project will actually return the project site to a more natural, sloping topography. The quantity of earth movement has been balanced between the proposed cut and fill, which eliminates the need to transport earth to and from the site. The use of transitional slopes, as opposed to support structures, further enhances the natural appearance of the site by visually creating an undulating feeling of the site’s terrain. Once completed, the visual appearance of the project area will not appear as if substantial earth movement and site alterations occurred because the graded portions of the site will appear natural and landscaped accordingly. The site will also appear more natural and vegetated because of the removal of the flat and unnatural looking large parking areas, which will be replaced with a parking structure that will be notched into the ground and a subterranean parking garage. The proposed parking structure will accommodate the majority of the parking spaces for the Project in a more unobtrusive design than that employed by the Marineland use and will blend more naturally into the topography, giving the visual appearance of an at-grade surface parking lot. In addition, the hotel design will be integrated with the natural terrain, thus minimizing its mass and scale and reducing any adverse impacts to surrounding uses. Thus, the proposed grading will minimize the disturbance of the natural contours, and finished contours will look more natural than the site’s existing appearance.

4.4 The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing designed to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography. As previously noted, the project site was once occupied by Marineland, which largely disturbed the natural condition of the site with the exception of the natural bluff faces. The grading will attempt to restore the site to a sloping condition that is more akin to it’s original topographic condition. This is achieved by respecting the natural grade of the project site, which descends from Palos Verdes Drive South towards the coastal bluffs. To enhance the appearance of natural topographic features, the proposed earth movement has been balanced, requiring no earth to be transported to or from the project site. The proposed grading has been designed to manipulate the existing disturbed contours of the project site by creating a series of terraced building pads that will allow each of the proposed uses to maintain ocean and island views. The man-made or manufactured slopes are integrated into the existing contours through the use of transitional slopes that vary in height depending on the proposed grade differences between terraced buildings pads.

In order to visually simulate the site’s natural condition, the proposed earth movement for the project site is designed in a manner that manipulates the contours with the use of earth berms, earth mounds and earth depression. As previously noted, the main hotel building is designed as a stepped structure that follows the contours of the site, and the two-story parking structure is notched into the ground, giving the visual impression of an at-grade parking lot. The fluid pattern of the grading plan with the use of undulating slopes further mimics the rolling hillside character of the Peninsula while achieving a condition that enhances public safety and visual appearance through the use of natural features. The proposed Project will restore the natural sloped character of the site through the use of grading. Furthermore, the Project will enhance the visual transition between the natural and improved contours, landscaping is proposed that will soften the site’s overall appearance and proposed improvements.

4.5 The grading will not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. The project site was previously occupied by Marineland. Hence, much, if not all, of the natural environment of the site was impacted by this pre-existing development. The Project, as conditioned or modified by the City Council, preserves 6.7 acres of existing rocky shore/coastal bluff scrub habitat on the project site and will add 1.2 acres of enhanced coastal bluff habitat as part of the Project’s proposed conservation district. In addition, the Project has been designed to avoid the 4.54 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and the identified wetlands and Mulefat (a sensitive wetland plant type), existing on the project site as indicated in the FEIR and the Addendum. Furthermore, since the proposed project will generate increased run-off and additional water usage for the maintenance of the on-site landscaping and golf facilities, the Project has been specifically conditioned to require a drainage plan designed to address irrigation and runoff in order to regulate the Project’s impacts on the surrounding environment, particularly with respect to the sensitive marine wildlife found in the coastal region abutting the project site.

4.6 The grading exceeds the threshold for height of cut/fill, but departure from the standards does not constitute a special privilege nor will it be detrimental to the public safety or other property. The Municipal Code limits the depth of a cut or fill to a maximum depth of five (5) feet. The proposed grading will consist of approximately 392,275 cubic yards of cut and 392,275 cubic yards of fill, for a balanced quantity of on-site earth movement. However, the proposed depth of cut and fill exceeds the five (5) foot height threshold. The Project will improve the deteriorating condition of the site with commercial, retail and recreational uses that consist of a resort hotel, public golf course and other related ancillary uses, such as banquet facilities, restaurants, shops, spa facilities and public trails and parks. The proposed uses are conditionally permitted within the CR zoning district. The requested grading is necessary to prepare the site for development of the proposed uses and to provide building pads that accommodate related hotel structures, parking, golf facilities and relatively flat areas for public parks. The proposed grading is designed to accommodate the uses permitted pursuant to this Resolution in a manner that enhances the surrounding environment by cohesively connecting the natural contours with the finished contours. Moreover, the proposed grading adequately mitigates public safety and health concerns related to golf safety, fencing, view impairment, noise, lighting and traffic that are related to the project and were identified in the FEIR and the Addendum. As conditioned by this Resolution, departure from the standards in Section 17.76.040 will not constitute a grant of special privilege, and the proposed grading is consistent with the grading activities of commercial projects of similar size under like conditions.

Section 5. Pursuant to Section 17.72.090, and based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to CDP No. 166:

5.1 The proposed Project conforms with the Coastal Specific Plan, which designates the site as appropriate for Commercial Recreational uses. The proposed resort hotel/conference center and ancillary uses are consistent with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. The Coastal Specific Plan acknowledges the former Commercial/Recreational use of the site (Marineland) on page S2-5, and future expansion of the commercial recreational uses on the site are discussed on pages S2-5 and S2-8. The project site is located in Subregion 2 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which is referred to as an attractor/generator region because of its characteristic of being accessible, or at least partially accessible, to the vast majority of the public outside the Peninsula. The Coastal Specific Plan requires City approval, in the form of a conditional use permit, of all future improvements to the project site to ensure that proposed uses are compatible with the City’s General Plan, the Municipal Code, and the Coastal Specific Plan which is being approved concurrently herewith. The Coastal Specific Plan defines compatible uses as those uses of a commercial recreational nature which are visitor oriented, including but not limited to, retail facilities, recreation uses, motels, convention facilities, restaurants, and museums. While the primary designation for the project site in the Coastal Specific Plan is for coastal dependent activities, the Coastal Specific Plan recognizes that these uses may be impractical (see pp. U-17 and U-18). Thus, the Coastal Specific Plan designates the site for Commercial/Recreational uses, and the Project is consistent with this land use designation.

The Project consists of mixed-uses that the Coastal Specific Plan considers compatible with Subregion 2. With respect to the privately-owned resort villas and casita units, the City Council has included a condition of approval limiting the villa owners’ occupancy of their respective units to a maximum of three (3) months out of each year, with a maximum single visit duration of twenty-nine (29) days and limiting the casitas owners’ occupancy of their respective units to a maximum of two (2) months out of each year, with a maximum single visit duration of twenty-nine (29) days. As so restricted, the City Council finds that the villas and casitas are similar to hotel accommodations, as opposed to residential units, in terms of consistency with the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan. The City Council has also modified the Project to preserve the view corridors identified in the visual corridors section of the Coastal Specific Plan. As conditioned or modified by the City Council, the Project adequately addresses concerns pertaining to visual corridors, visual quality, buffering from adjacent residential uses, attenuation of noise and lighting, protection of the natural environment, traffic and other pertinent impacts that are properly mitigated in order to achieve harmony within the community.

With respect to protecting the natural environment of the project site, the project site was formerly occupied by Marineland, leaving much of the site impacted by this development. However, the Project, as conditioned or modified by the City Council, preserves 6.7 acres of existing rocky shore/coastal bluff scrub habitat on the project site and will add 1.2 acres of enhanced coastal bluff habitat as part of the Project’s proposed conservation district. In addition, the Project has been designed to avoid the 4.54 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and the identified wetlands and Mulefat (a sensitive wetland plant type), existing on the project site as indicated in the FEIR and the Addendum. Furthermore, since the proposed Project will generate increased run-off and increased water usage for the maintenance of the golf course, a drainage plan designed to address irrigation and runoff will be reviewed by the City to ensure the sensitive marine habitats off shore are not impacted by the Project. As previously noted, the FEIR and the Addendum conclude that the project will not generate adverse traffic impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and conditions, which have been imposed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. ____ adopted concurrently herewith. Finally, although maintaining agricultural activity on the eastern portion of the project site was identified as a "primary effort" in the Coastal Specific Plan, the Municipal Code would require and amendment to add an Agricultural Land Use District that would be applicable to this portion of the project site property. The agricultural zoning district was never implemented by the City. The Coastal Specific Plan indicates that if efforts to maintain this area of Subregion 2 for agricultural use are unsuccessful, then the Coastal Specific Plan recommends a secondary use of Commercial Recreation, as proposed by the General Plan. Given the pattern of existing development and the existing Commercial Recreational land use designation, the City Council finds that agricultural use is no longer a viable land use for the project site, and the proposed Project, with a resort hotel, conference center, golf facilities, and various ancillary uses is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.

5.2 The proposed Project, which is located between the sea and first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The Project will provide 100 public parking spaces on the project site, a public park with vista points, trails along the bluff top, and coastal access points. As proposed, the Project will provide increased public access trails to the shore as well as increased recreational opportunities for the general public, resort guests and resort visitors. Additionally, the proposed Project is a visitor serving use, offering a resort hotel and conference center and related amenities, which will be open and available for use by the general public, albeit for a charge. The amenities provided include hotel accommodations, golf facilities, restaurants, a spa and retail shops. Additionally, the Project includes improvements that will enhance the existing coastal access trail while providing the public with a variety of additional recreational opportunities. The Developer will improve the Marineland Trail along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Dive South which parallels the entire length of the project site. This trail is a joint-use public trail (pedestrian and bicycle) segment that connects the expanded Fishing Access Parking Lot to the main entry of the project site. Existing coastal access ramps formerly associated with Marineland will be maintained and enhanced to provide safe public access from the bluff top of the project site to the shore. Additionally, the Developer proposes to expand the parking lot of the Los Angeles County Point Vicente Fishing Access to provide an additional 50 parking spaces for the public as well as an additional 50 parking spaces on the hotel grounds for use by non-hotel guests or visitors during the day for public access to the surrounding trails and park. Finally, a portion of the project site will be improved with a 2.2-acre Bluff Top Park overlooking the Pacific Ocean to the west and south. In accordance with the requirements of the California Constitution, the Project has been conditioned to require the Developer to post signs in conspicuous locations to alert the public to the recreational opportunities available to the general public. Thus, the Project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan.

Section 6. Pursuant to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the California Government Code), and based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to TPM No. 26073:

6.1 The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The requested Tentative Parcel Map seeks to divide the 102.1-acre parcel into four (4) parcels, as described in the following table:

PROPOSED PARCEL

PROPOSED USE

PROPOSED SITE AREA

PARCEL NO. 1

Resort Hotel, parking, casitas, tennis courts, pools, spa facility, golf practice holes, driving range and golf clubhouse

87.5 Acres

PARCEL NO. 2

Western Casitas

6.3 Acres

PARCEL NO. 3

Eastern Casitas

1.7 Acres

PARCEL NO. 4

Villas

6.5 Acres

As the table illustrates, the proposed Parcel Map will not result in a change to the uses permitted within the project site by the City’s General Plan Land Use Policy Map or Coastal Specific Plan. The proposed Parcel Map merely accommodates the allowable uses on individual parcels of land for financial and regulatory purposes.

6.2 The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element and Official Zoning Map designate the project site as Commercial Recreational. In order to subdivide within a Commercial Recreational land use designation, the General Plan and Zoning Map require new lots to meet certain minimum lot size requirements. In addition, the proposed Parcel Map must comply with all development standards, such as setbacks, lot coverage and building height identified in Chapter 17.22 of the Municipal Code for the CR zoning district.

All newly created lots in the CR zone must meet the following minimum requirements established by the Municipal Code:

Minimum site area – 20 acres
Minimum lot width – 250 feet
Minimum lot depth – 400 feet
Minimum street frontage – 200 feet

Section 17.22.050 authorizes the City Council to modify the minimum lot size for any newly created parcel through a Conditional Use Permit application. The City Council hereby modifies the minimum lot size for Parcel No. 4, which will house the villas, to allow a reduced area of only 6.3 acres. The City Council finds that Parcel 4, as modified, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed villas and all related improvements and to meet all other development standards for the CR zoning district. The City Council further imposes a condition on the Project requiring the project site to be operated as a single, cohesive use. As modified and conditioned by the City Council, the proposed subdivision will result in four (4) parcels that comply with or are conditioned to comply with the development standards for the CR zoning district. Furthermore, the proposed lot division is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan requirement for compliance with zoning criteria.

6.3 The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development that the proposed Parcel Map will create. The requested subdivisions will allow for a Resort Hotel with ancillary uses such as golf and spa facilities. The proposed Parcel Map will not result in any changes of use within the project area, but rather will provide the Developer with an opportunity to separate each of the proposed uses on separate parcels for financial and operational purposes. Although the proposed Parcel Map will create four individual lots, each of the lots will indirectly be accessible from Palos Verdes Drive South through the use of the hotel entrance driveway. As indicated in below, the Developer proposes to record a public easement for the purposes of egress and ingress and trails along the driveway. This will not only allow the public to access the project site for trails use, but will also allow public access to the proposed parcels.

6.4 The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project site was previously occupied by Marineland, and much of the site has already been impacted by development. The Project, as conditioned or modified by the City Council, preserves 6.7 acres of existing rocky shore/coastal bluff scrub habitat on the project site and will add 1.2 acres of enhanced coastal bluff habitat as part of the Project’s proposed conservation district. In addition, the Project has been designed to avoid the 4.54 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat and the identified wetlands and Mulefat (a sensitive wetland plant type), existing on the project site as indicated in the FEIR and the Addendum. Furthermore, since the proposed Project will generate increased run-off and increased water usage for the maintenance of the golf course, a drainage plan designed to address irrigation and runoff will be reviewed by the City to ensure the sensitive marine habitats off shore are not impacted by the Project. The Project will further be required to obtain approval from the State Water Resource Control Board for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. By implementing the mitigation measures identified in Sections 5.3 and 5.6 of the FEIR, regarding biology and hydrology, respectively, the potential impacts from the Project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Thus, the proposed Parcel Map will not result in adverse environmental damage or substantial injury to fish or wildlife.

6.5 The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. As indicated earlier in this analysis, the Parcel Map will not result in newly created lots that will support development that is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan. Rather, the Parcel Map will create individual lots that will accommodate each of the uses proposed for the project site for financial and operational purposes. Furthermore, the proposed land division will allow improvements to the project site project site to occur in stages based on specific parcel improvements. Thus, the proposed Parcel Map will not result in adverse impacts to the general public.

6.6 The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The project site contains numerous easements that were recorded on the property at the time Marineland and the surrounding residential tracts were developed. Such easements are for storm drain, sewer and utility purposes. These easements will remain in full force and effect under the Developer’s proposal, as indicated on the Parcel Map and the Site Plan, and the Project is specifically conditioned to preserve these easements. Additionally, since the Project proposes a network of trails, public parking, and public access roads, the Project will be required to dedicate public access easements with the recordation of the Parcel Map to ensure continued public ingress and egress and enjoyment of the various trails and parking.

6.7 The City Council has considered the effect of the parcel map on the housing needs of the region as set forth in the City’s Housing Element. The Project will be required to comply with the provisions of Section 17.11.140 with respect to the City’s affordable housing requirements. The Project is expected to create 700 jobs and, therefore, is subject to the City’s affordable housing requirements in the Municipal Code, and the Project is conditioned accordingly to pay the residential in lieu impact fee that was established by resolution of the City Council.

Section 7. Pursuant to Section 17.64.050, and based upon the evidence presented in the record, including staff reports, oral and written testimony, the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to Variance No. 489:

7.1 There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. The project site is located in an area designated by the General Plan Land Use Policy Map and the Zoning Map as a Commercial Recreational (CR) zoning district. Pursuant to Section 17.22.010, the purpose of this district is to provide entertainment and recreational activities that are commercial in nature. Furthermore, the project site is located within the appealable portion of the City’s Coastal District and is, thus, subject to the requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan, which designates the project site as an "attractor/generator" region because of its accessibility to the vast majority of the public living within and outside the Peninsula. The project site is unique to other properties within the City. The project site is the only commercially zoned property in the City that is intended for entertainment or recreational activities. Furthermore, it is the only commercially zoned property within the City’s Coastal District designated for such entertainment or recreational activities. The development requirements applicable to the project site require the property to be developed in a manner that provides amenities for the benefit of the general public and maximizes coastal access. The unique location of the project site and its zoning designation, coupled with the applicable development requirements, result in extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are not generally applicable to other properties and create development constraints that are not typically associated with other development projects located within commercial zoning districts. Strict application of the development standards will deprive the project site of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification and creates a hardship for the property owner. Accordingly, the City Council hereby determines that the unique circumstances and constraints applicable to the project site warrant a variance for relief from the strict requirements of the Municipal Code for constructing the lower pool facility within the Coastal Setback Zone.

7.2 Granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege and is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Developer, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. Other properties located within the City’s Coastal Setback Zone are developed with swimming pools. At the time the City’s Coastal Specific Plan was adopted, the Coastal Setback Line was delineated along the coastal region of the entire City based on available geologic information. In response to the establishment of the Coastal Setback Line and concerns regarding the intrusion of development onto areas of geologic concern, Section 17.72.040(C) was enacted to prohibit all new structures or uses located seaward of the Coastal Setback Line. This prohibition applies, but is not limited to, slabs, walkways, decks six inches or more in height, walls or structures over 42 inches in height, fountains, irrigation systems, pools, spas, architectural features, vertical supports, chimneys, and grading involving 20 cubic yards or more. Based on this Code requirement, the proposed lower pool facility would not be permitted. However, strict application of the coastal setback line requirements to the project site deprives the property owner from enjoying a property right enjoyed by other property owners in the same zone. Currently available geologic information indicates that the delineation of the coastal setback line within the project site does not truly reflect the ability of the site to sustain development. As discussed more fully in Section 7.3 below, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer, after reviewing the geotechnical reports submitted by the Developer in connection with the variance application, concluded that the site is geologically stable and can accommodate the proposed development. Moreover, the location for the proposed lower pool facility was previously graded and used as a water holding tank by the Marineland development. Based on this new geological information, the City Council hereby finds that strict application of the Coastal Setback Line deprives the property owner of the rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the Coastal Setback Zone, and the requested variance is necessary to preserve this substantial property right for the Developer.

7.3 The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed pool facility will not be visible from neighboring properties. The unique topography that surrounds the pool’s pad area and the design of the proposed hotel structure will screen the pool from neighboring properties, isolating the proposed pool facility between the main hotel structure and the coastal bluffs along the seaward edge of the project site. As noted above, the proposed location of the lower pool facility lies within the Coastal Setback Zone. The coastal setback line was established based on geologic information to prevent the construction of structures too close to the top of marginally stable slopes or cliffs. A geotechnical study was prepared by the Developer in connection with the proposed lower pool facility to analyze the geologic feasibility of constructing such a structure within the Coastal Setback Zone. The City’s Geotechnical Engineer reviewed the geotechnical study and determined that the proposed location geologically accommodate the construction of the lower pool facility. The location of the proposed lower pool facility is underlain by intact basalt bedrock. Furthermore, the results of the slope stability analysis indicate that the proposed structure will be located in an area where the factor of safety exceeds 1.5. Based on this information, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer concluded that the proposed lower pool facility is geologically feasible at the proposed location. From a public safety perspective, the proposed lower pool facility is located in a very isolated area, with limited public visibility. Accordingly, the City Council has imposed a condition requiring the Developer to regularly patrol the area surrounding the lower pool facility, as well as the nearby shore, with the resort hotel’s on-duty personnel during public access hours. As conditioned, the proposed lower pool facility will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in the vicinity of the project site.

7.4 The granting of the Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan in that the City’s General Plan Land Use Policy Map designates the project site as Commercial/Recreational, which permits the operation of commercial activities that serve the general public. Furthermore, the City’s Zoning Map designates the majority of the project site as Commercial Recreational (CR), while the remaining portion of the property, consisting of the coastal bluffs, is designated as the Open Hazard (OH) zoning district. The proposed resort hotel, golf academy, public access trails and park area, and related ancillary structures and uses are permitted with a conditional use permit in the CR zoning district. The proposed location of the lower pool facility is also subject to the Natural Environment Element of the General Plan, which designates the area as a Seal Cliff Hazard Zone. The Natural Environment Element defines a Sea Cliff Hazard Zone as the area from the base of the ocean side cliff, extending inland to a point where a line formed by a 20-degree angle from the horizontal plane at the base of a cliff or bluff would extend out to the surface. This zone has been identified in this manner due to the fact that a soil mass, according to its composition, stabilizes at various angles of repose. Some structurally stable soils may have relative steep angles of repose, whereas other more unstable soils have very low angles of repose. In order to ensure that all varying conditions of sea cliff erosion are addressed, detailed engineering/geologic studies are required for any proposed development within a Sea Cliff Hazard Zone to demonstrate the site’s stability and suitability for development. The applicable provisions of the General Plan state that the development setback dimension from the sea cliff edge or bluff top in any given area of the Coastal District should take into account the local geologic conditions and should be judged on an individual basis. As noted previously, the Developer submitted detailed geotechnical reports in connection with the variance application. These reports have been reviewed by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer. This review concluded that the proposed location of the lower pool facility is geotechnically stable and can safely accommodate the lower pool facility. Finally, the proposed lower pool facility is consistent with the permitted uses specified by the Coastal Specific Plan. According to the policies set forth in the Coastal Specific Plan, the development of the project site must be completed in a manner that provides adequate public amenities, such as coastal bluff-top trails, throughout the property. The construction of the lower pool facility in this area will provide an added public amenity to the resort hotel project because of its close proximity to the shore and the coastal access trails. The pool facility will provide the general public with an adequate seating and viewing area, access to the pool kitchen/bar area, outdoor showers, restroom facilities, and a drinking fountain. Furthermore, the footprint of the lower pool facility will not obstruct ocean views and will actually provide a public viewing area from the public section, thereby increasing the public’s use and enjoyment of the area. As conditioned, all pool fencing will be plotted in a manner that secures the pool area but utilizes materials that will not obstruct views. Furthermore, the Project has been conditioned to require the lower pool facility to be designed in accordance to the ADA requirements to ensure that those with special needs who may be using the Coastal Access Trails can readily access the pool area. Thus, as conditioned, the lower pool facility structure will result in an added benefit to the general public, and granting the requested variance will be consistent with the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan.

Section 8. Based upon the evidence presented in the record, the findings set forth in Sections 3 through 7, inclusive, of this Resolution, the FEIR and the Addendum, the City Council hereby approves CUP No. 215, GRP No. 2229, CDP No. 166, Variance No. 489, and TPM No. 26073 subject to the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and set forth in Exhibit C to Resolution No. ____ and the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of August, 2002, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

______________________________

JOHN C. MCTAGGART, MAYOR

Attest:

___________________________________

City Clerk

State of California )

County of Los Angeles ) ss

City of Rancho Palos Verdes )

I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palo Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2002-___ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August ___, 2002.

______________________________

City Clerk

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

FOR

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215
GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 166
VARIANCE NO. 489

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073

LONG POINT RESORT HOTEL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

(Coastal Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215,

Grading Permit No. 2229, Variance No. 489, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073)

GENERAL CONDITIONS

  1. The approvals granted by this resolution shall not become effective until the applicant and property owners submit a written affidavit that each has read, understands and accepts all conditions of approval contained herein. Said affidavits shall be submitted to the City no later than ninety (90) days from the date of approval of the project by the City Council. If the applicant and/or the property owner fail to submit the written affidavit required by this condition within the required 90 days, this resolution approving Coastal Development Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Variance No. 489 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073 shall be null and void and of no further effect.
  2. In accordance with the provisions of Fish and Game Code §711.4 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §753.5, the applicant shall submit a check payable to the County of Los Angeles in the amount of $875.00 for the Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee. This check shall be submitted to the City within five (5) business days of City Council approval of this project. If required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish and Game.
  3. Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring program attached as Exhibit "C" of Resolution No. 2002-34 is hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for Coastal Development Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Variance No. 489 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073.
  4. The applicant shall fully implement and continue for as long as the hotel is operated the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit "C" to Resolution No. 2002-34 and execute all mitigation measures as identified and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project as certified in said Resolution No. 2002-34.
  5. The owner of the resort hotel and the property upon which the hotel is located shall be responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with all of the conditions of approval stated herein. Accordingly, as used herein, the term "applicant" shall include the owner of the resort hotel and the property upon which the hotel is located.
  6. The conditions set forth in this Resolution are organized by application type for ease of reference. Regardless of such organization, each condition is universally applicable to the entire project site, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise. Said conditions shall be applicable as long as a hotel is operated on the property, unless otherwise stated herein.
  7. In the event that a condition of approval is in conflict or is inconsistent with any mitigation measure for this project, the more restrictive shall govern.
  8. The applicant shall pay the Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC).
  9. The Resort developer shall be responsible for constructing the public amenities required by these conditions of approval. A bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney shall be provided to secure completion of such Public Amenities.
  10. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall enter into an agreement that requires the owner of the property to have the hotel operator maintain to the City’s satisfaction the public amenities, including, but not limited to the bluff-top park, park benches and tables, public trails (pedestrian and bicycle), bicycle racks, public restrooms, landscaping, habitat protection, general public parking lot near the resort hotel building, fences, irrigation, and signs to name a few, as long as a hotel is operated on the property. Furthermore, the applicant shall specify in the agreement how funding will be provided to maintain the public improvements constructed as part of the project which are not maintained by the City, County or other governmental agency.
  11. The Resort owner shall maintain all on-site drainage facilities not accepted by Los Angeles County, including but not limited to structures, pipelines, open channels, retention and desilting basins, mechanical and natural filtering systems, and monitoring systems, so long as the property is operated as a resort hotel. A bond, letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City shall be provided to secure completion of such drainage facilities. A bond to cover the cost of their maintenance for a period of 2 years after completion shall also be provided to the City.
  12. Subject to the agreement of Los Angeles County, the applicant shall turn over all eligible drainage facilities to the Los Angeles County Public Works Department upon completion and acceptance of the facilities by the County of Los Angeles.
  13. The applicant shall be required to pay 110% of the estimated amount of the cost of services to be provided on behalf of the City by outside consultants that have been retained by the City to render services specifically in connection with this project, in the form of a trust deposit account, prior to commencement of such services (e.g. golf safety consultant, geotechnical consultants, biologist, and landscape architect to name a few.). Services provided by the City Attorney and other consultants that routinely provide services to the City shall be exempt from this condition. However, in such cases, the applicant shall adequately fund said trust deposit accounts prior to the commencement of services, in amounts reasonably requested by the City, based upon an estimate of the cost of services for the period of at least 90 days to which services are rendered. In addition, the trust deposits shall be replenished within thirty days of receipt of notice from the City that additional funds are needed.
  14. All costs associated with plan check reviews and site inspections for the Department of Public Works shall be incurred by the applicant through the establishment of a trust deposit with the Director of Public Works at the time of plan check submittal or site inspection request.
  15. All City Attorney costs associated with the review and approval of the conditions stated herein shall be incurred by the applicant in the form of a trust deposit established with the City.
  16. Six (6) months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the main resort hotel building, the City Council shall review the Conditions of Approval contained herein at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of said review, the City Council shall assess the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time, the City Council may add, delete or modify any conditions of approval as evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates are necessary and appropriate to address impacts resulting from operation of the project. Said modifications shall not result in substantial changes to the design of the hotel structures, to the ancillary structures, or the golf practice facility. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500’ radius of the site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance the RPVMC. As part of the six-month review, the City Council shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns (pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular), lighting, landscaping, and noise. The Council may also consider other concerns raised by the Council, Planning Commission, Finance Advisory Commission, Traffic Committee and/or interested parties. The City Council may require such subsequent additional reviews, as the City Council deems appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as a limitation on the City’s ability to enforce any provision of the RPVMC regarding this project.
  17. These approvals authorize the construction and operation of a resort hotel, a golf practice facility and other related amenities. Any significant changes to the operational characteristics of the development, including, but not limited to, significant changes to the site configuration or golf practice facility; number of guest rooms (increases or decreases); size or operation of the conference center, banquet facilities, spa, restaurants, or other ancillary uses or significant alterations shall require an application for revision to this Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC. At that time, the City Council may impose such conditions, as it deems necessary upon the proposed use resulting from operations of the project. Further, the Council may consider all issues relevant to the proposed change of use.
  18. These approvals shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of the City Council approval unless building permits for the main hotel structure have been applied for and are being diligently pursued. Extensions of up to one (1) year may be granted by the City Council, if requested prior to expiration. Such a time extension request shall be considered by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to the provisions stated in the RPVMC.
  19. The hotel spa facility shall be made available to the general public for a reasonable fee for use basis. Appropriate promotions shall be offered to encourage use of the spa facility by non-hotel guests, including area residents.
  20. All on-site golf facilities shall be made available to the general public for a reasonable fee for use basis. Appropriate promotions shall be offered to encourage use of the on-site golf facility by non-hotel guests, including area residents
  21. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all golf facilities, public trails, public parks and public areas shall be designed to protect golfers and the general public in accordance with common safety standards and practices in the industry, subject to review and approval by the City’s duly assigned Golf Safety Consultant. The applicant shall establish a trust deposit account with the City to cover all costs associated with the Golf Safety Consultant’s review, as required in Condition No. 13.
  22. Temporary construction fencing and temporary public trail fencing shall be installed in accordance with RPVMC.
  23. All on-site construction and grading activities shall be limited to the hours between seven a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall occur on Sundays or legal holidays as set forth in RPVMC unless a special construction permit is first obtained from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  24. Construction and grading activities within the public right-of-way shall be limited to the days and hours approved by the Director of Public Works at the time of permit issuance.
  25. No on-site repair, maintenance or delivery of equipment and/or materials shall be performed before seven a.m. or after seven p.m. Monday through Saturday, nor on any Sunday or legal holiday, unless otherwise specified in the conditions stated herein or a Special Construction Permit is obtained from the City. Emergency repairs are exempt from this condition.
  26. All construction activity shall generally adhere to the phasing scheme identified in the Addendum to the Certified Environmental Impact Report shown as Exhibit "__" of Resolution No. 2002-__ (TO BE COMPLETED LATER). Any significant changes to the construction activity schedule shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  27. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for the Villas or Casitas, unless a Certificate of Occupancy has been first issued for the main resort hotel building.

    Indemnification/Insurance

  28. The owner of the property upon which the project is located shall hold harmless and indemnify City, members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials, (collectively, "Indemnitees"), from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense, including but not limited to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, resulting from willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions of the owner, the applicant, the project operator, or any of their respective officers, employees, or agents, arising or claimed to arise, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related to the construction or the operation of the project approved by this resolution.
  29. The applicant shall defend, with counsel satisfactory to the City, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, commissions, boards, committees and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, commissions, boards, committee or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul this resolution or one or more of the approvals set forth in this resolution and PC Resolutions 2001-37, 2001-39, and 2001-40. Alternatively, at the City’s election, the City may choose to defend itself from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul this resolution or one or more of the approvals set forth in this resolution. In that case, the applicant shall reimburse the City for all of its costs, including attorney fees, arising from such claim, action or proceeding. The obligations set forth in this condition include the obligation to indemnify or reimburse the City for any attorney fees that the City becomes obligated to pay as a result of any claim, action or proceeding within the scope of this condition.
  30. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding within the scope of this condition and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of any such claim or action.

  31. The applicant shall submit to the City Attorney for review and approval an agreement whereby the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold the City and members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials, (collectively, "Indemnitees"), harmless from any claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense, including, but not limited to, death or injury to any person and injury to any property, caused by golf balls.
  32. The applicant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the operation of the hotel and/or golf practice facility primary general liability insurance in the amount of $ 2 million dollars, which amount shall be increased on each fifth anniversary to reflect increases in the consumer price index for the Los Angeles County area. Such insurance shall insure against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the long-term operation of the resort hotel and golf practice facility authorized by this resolution. Such insurance shall name the City and the members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds. Said insurance, shall be issued by an insurer that is admitted to do business in the State of California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by Standard & Poor’s, and shall comply with all of the following requirements:

    1. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured.
    2. For any claims related to the project, applicant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials.
    3. Applicant’s $2 million primary insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Additionally, the limits of applicant’s $ 2 million primary insurance shall apply separately to the project site.
    4. Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by first class mail has been given to City.
    5. Each insurance policy required by this condition shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be materially modified except after 5 business days prior written notice by first class mail has been given to City.
    6. Each insurance policy required by this condition shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City and members of its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials.
    7. Copies of the endorsements and certificates required by this condition shall be provided to the City when the insurance is first obtained and with each renewal of the policy.
    8. No golf facilities may be operated unless such general liability insurance policy is in effect.

The applicant also shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the operation of the hotel and/or golf practice facility additional general liability insurance in the amount of $ 3 million dollars to insure against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the long-term operation of the resort hotel and golf practice facility authorized by this resolution. Such insurance shall likewise name the City and the members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds. Said insurance, may at applicant’s option, be in the form of a separate excess insurance policy and may be issued by a non-admitted carrier so long as the insurer is authorized to do business in the State of California with a Best’s rating of at least A-VII or a rating of at least A by Standard & Poor’s and shall comply with all of the requirements of paragraphs a, b, d,e, f and g of this Condition 33.

COASTAL PERMIT NO. 166

  1. All plans submitted to Building and Safety for plan check review shall identify the location of the Coastal Setback Line and the Coastal Structure Setback Line in reference to the proposed structure.
  2. Except as provided herein as part of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance (allowing the construction of the Lower Pool Facility within the Coastal Setback Zone), pursuant to the RPVMC, no new uses or structural improvements shall be allowed in the area seaward of the Coastal Setback Line including, but not limited to, slabs, walkways, decks 6" or more in height, walls or structures over 42" in height, fountains, irrigation systems, pools, spa, architectural features, such as cornices, eaves, belt courses, vertical supports or members, chimneys, and grading involving more than 20 cubic yards of earth movement, or more than three feet of cut or fill.
  3. All proposed structures within the Point Fermin Vista Corridor and Catalina View Corridor shall be constructed in accordance with the height limitations as identified in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and the project’s certified EIR.

    CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215

  4. Hotel Operations

  5. The main hotel building and the freestanding bungalow units shall consist of no more than an aggregate total of 400 rooms (360 hotel rooms and 40 bungalow units) and shall not be designed for multiple keys for a configuration exceeding 400 rooms. A main hotel room, for purposes herein, shall consist of any of the following: a typical guest room, a two-bay suite, one or more multiple-bay rooms with a single key, or a hospitality suite, as shown in Exhibit 7.14 of the Long Point Resort Permit Documentation dated June 23, 2000. Furthermore, the bungalow units shall consist of single-keyed accommodations with one or more bedroom areas which may contain a living room area as shown in Exhibit 7.15 of the Long Point Resort Permit Documentation dated June 23, 2000.
  6. The casita units shall consist of no more than 50 casita units, with a maximum keying configuration of three (3) keys per casita unit resulting in a maximum possible 150 accommodations. The casita units may be sold to individual persons or private entities, subject to the following restriction: An owner of a unit may utilize that unit for no more than sixty (60) days per calendar year, and no more than twenty-nine (29) consecutive days at any one time. A minimum seven (7) day period shall intervene between each twenty-nine (29) consecutive day period of occupancy by the owner. When not being used by the owner, the casitas unit shall be available as a hotel accommodation, which shall be fully managed by the resort hotel operator. Deed restrictions to this effect, which are satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to any sale of any unit.
  7. The resort villa units shall consist of no more than 32 single keyed units. The resort villa units may be sold to private entities, subject to the following restriction: An owner of a unit may utilize that unit for no more than ninety (90) days per calendar year, and no more than twenty-nine (29) consecutive days at any one time. A minimum seven (7) day period shall intervene between each twenty-nine (29) consecutive day period of occupancy by the owner. The Villas shall be fully managed by the resort hotel operator when not used by the owners, and made available for rental by the general public. When not being used by the owner, the villa shall be available as a hotel accommodation, which shall be fully managed by the resort hotel operator. Deed restrictions to this effect, which are satisfactory to the City Attorney, shall be recorded prior to any sale of any unit.
  8. If any Villa or Casita unit is not sold or made available for sale, the unit shall be available as a hotel accommodation which shall be fully managed by the resort hotel operator.
  9. Any person or entity ("hotel guest") who pays the hotel operator for the privilege of occupying one or more rooms, bungalows, villas or casitas ("unit") shall not occupy or have the right to occupy any unit for more than twenty-nine (29) consecutive days. On or before the twenty-ninth day, the hotel guest shall be required to check out of the unit(s).
  10. Prior to issuance of building permits for the resort villa and casita units, the following shall be completed:
    1. The applicant shall process a tract map in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.
    2. Deed Restrictions shall be recorded restricting the use and operation of the resort villas and casitas, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

  11. The Resort Hotel building, ancillary structures, including but not limited to the Lower Pool Facility, and all accessory buildings associated with the golf practice facility shall substantially conform to the plans approved by the City Council and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
  12. The public section of the Lower Pool Facility, which consists of public restroom facilities and a viewing deck area, as shown on the plans approved by the City Council on the effective date of the adoption of these conditions, shall be open and made available to the general public during City park hours, as specified in the RPVMC.
  13. Approval of this conditional use permit is contingent upon the concurrent and continuous operation of the primary components of the project, which are the hotel, villas, casitas, banquet facilities, spa facilities, retail facilities, and the golf practice facility.
  14. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the use of gardening equipment for the golf practice facility and landscape areas shall be controlled by a Golf and Hotel Landscape Maintenance Plan which is subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, based on an analysis of equipment noise levels and potential impacts to neighboring residents. The implementation of the Plan shall be formally reviewed by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement three (3) months after the first day of operation of the golf practice facility, and shall be subsequently reviewed on an annual basis thereafter. At the three (3) month review, the Director may determine that the Plan needs to be revised to address potential noise impacts. The Director may also determine that additional review periods and/or other conditions shall be applied to the Maintenance Plan.
  15. Furthermore, if the City receives any justified noise complaints that are caused by the maintenance of the golf or hotel landscaped and lawn areas, as verified by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, upon receipt of notice from the City, the operators of the hotel and golf practice facility shall respond to said verified complaint by notifying the City and implementing corrective measures within 24 hours from the time of said notice.

    The Director’s decision on any matter concerning the Landscape Maintenance Plan may be appealed to the City Council. Any violation of this condition may result in the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.

  16. All deliveries utilizing vehicles over forty (40) feet in length shall be limited to the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Other vehicles shall be allowed to make deliveries 24 hours a day.
  17. No heliport operations are approved or permitted for the Resort Hotel Area. If in the future such operations are desired, a revision to this Conditional Use Permit shall be required. Any such revision shall be reviewed by the City Council subject to the provisions stated in the RPVMC.
  18. The applicant shall provide twenty-four (24) hour monitoring, in the form of regular patrols of the project site throughout the calendar year. The monitoring shall include observation of all parks, trails and habitat areas. Additionally, the resort hotel shall provide regular monitoring of the area surrounding the lower pool facility and the nearby shore, in the form of regular patrols, during City park hours, as specified in the RPVMC.
  19. The Maintenance Building and associated maintenance repairs shall be conducted in an area that is visually screened with landscaping from public view.

    Building Design Standards

  20. The resort hotel shall contain the following principal visitor-serving structures and uses, and shall substantially comply with, and not to exceed, the following square footage numbers:
    1. Conference Center / Banquet Facilities – 60,000 square feet
    2. Restaurant, bar and lounge - approximately 22,500 square feet
    3. Resort related retail, visitor services and guest amenities – approximately 20,000 square feet.
    4. Spa Facilities – 25,000 square feet
    5. Swimming pools - Three for the resort hotel (including the lower pool facility), one for the West Casitas, one for the Resort Villas, and one within the spa facility
    6. Pool Cabanas: - commensurate with size of adjacent pool
    7. Lower Pool Facility – 1,400 square feet
    8. Tennis Courts – two tennis Courts
    9. Golf School / Club house – 8,000 square feet.
    10. Golf Cart and Maintenance Facility (adjacent to tennis courts) – 4,000 square feet.
    11. Parking Structure – 180,000 square feet (459 parking spaces; 239 spaces on the lower level and 197 on the upper level).
    12. Lookout Bar – 3,500 square feet
    13. Resort Hotel Entry Trellis – 250 square feet of roof area

  21. A Square Footage Certification prepared by a registered surveyor shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, prior to a framing inspection, indicating that the buildings, as identified in the previous condition, do not exceed the permitted square footages.
  22. The maximum heights of the buildings approved for the project site shall not exceed the following criteria:

  23. Hotel Building

    1. Maximum roof ridgeline 153 feet above sea level – plus fireplace chimney to the minimum height acceptable by the Uniform Building Code.
    2. Maximum height of 86 feet at eastern elevation, as measured from adjacent finished grade located in the middle of the elevation, 53 feet at the inland most end of the elevation, and 50 feet from the seaward most end of the elevation.
    3. Maximum height of 50 feet at northern elevation, as measured from adjacent finished grade, 30 foot maximum at western most end of the elevation, and 40 foot maximum at the eastern most end of the elevation.
    4. Maximum height of 85 feet, as measured from lowest finished grade at the highest point along the southern elevation, 40 feet at the eastern most end of the elevation, and 50 feet at the western most end of the elevation.
    5. Maximum height of 90 feet, as measured from lowest finished grade elevation along the western elevation, 60 feet at the seaward most end of the elevation, and 50 feet at the inland most end of the elevation.

    Resort Villas – Maximum height shall not exceed 26 feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline for those villa structures located outside of the visual corridor of Vertical Zone 1. If any Villa structure is located within the visual corridor of Vertical Zone 1, as identified on the site plan, it shall not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline

    Casitas - Maximum height of the casitas located outside of the visual corridor of Vertical Zone 1 shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade. The Casitas located within the Coastal Specific Plan’s Vertical Zone 1 shall not exceed 16 feet in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Bungalows - Maximum height of the bungalows shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Clubhouse – Maximum height of the clubhouse shall not exceed 16 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Golf Maintenance Facility - Maximum height of the maintenance facility shall not exceed 16 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Lookout Bar – Maximum height of the Lookout Bar shall not exceed 19 feet as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Lower Pool Facility – Maximum height of the lower pool facility shall not exceed 16 feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Parking Structure – Maximum height of the parking structure shall not exceed 16 feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest parapet wall and railing thereon.

    Accessory Structures – Maximum height of all accessory structures shall not exceed 12 feet, as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade to the top of the highest roof ridgeline.

    Architectural Features – architectural elements (cupolas, rotundas, and towers) may exceed the foregoing height limits with the prior written approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, provided that such elements are generally consistent with the plans reviewed by the City Council.

    Chimneys - Fireplace chimneys shall be limited to the minimum height acceptable by the Uniform Building Code

  24. A Building Pad Certification shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted to Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to final inspection of grading activities. A Roof Ridgeline Certification, indicating the maximum height of each building, shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted to Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the final framing certifications for each building.
  25. In no event shall any structure, including architectural features, exceed the elevation height of Palos Verdes Drive South, as measured from the closest street curb, adjacent to the Resort Hotel Area. This condition shall not apply to chimneys built to the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code.
  26. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building surfaces and vehicles shall be mitigated by such measures as incorporating non-reflective building materials and paint colors into the design of the hotel architecture, as well as landscaping around the buildings and parking lots.
  27. The design of the parking structure shall resemble the hotel architecture and shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The materials used for the parking structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of building permits.
  28. The applicant shall submit an Architectural Materials Board for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of building permits. The Materials Board shall identify, at the least, a sample of the proposed exterior building materials, such as roof tile materials and paint colors.
  29. The hotel buildings, and ancillary structures, shall be finished in a muted earth-tone color, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement during the review of the Materials Board.
  30. The roof materials for all pitched roofs of the hotel buildings, including but not limited to the Villas, Casitas, Bungalows, Golf Clubhouse and all other ancillary structures, shall be tile, consisting of a muted color, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement during the review of the Materials Board. The material for all flat roofs shall be a color that is compatible with the color of the tiles used on the pitched roofs throughout the resort hotel, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  31. All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six (6) feet in height with the capability of accommodating recycling bins. The enclosures shall be consistent with the overall building design theme in color and material, and shall include self-closing / self-latching gates. The enclosures shall integrate a trellis type roof cover to visually screen and to reduce their visibility from all public rights-of-way and surrounding properties.
  32. In accordance with the Commercial Recreational zoning district, the Resort Hotel Area shall not exceed a maximum lot coverage of thirty (30%) percent. For the purpose of this project, the definition of Lot Coverage shall adhere to the residential standards set forth in Section 17.02.040(A)(5) of the RPVMC.
  33. In addition to the Coastal Setback line, as required by the RPVMC, all other building setbacks shall comply with the Commercial-Recreational zoning requirements, unless otherwise noted herein. A Setback Certification shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted to Building and Safety prior to the framing inspection on each structure.

  34. Public Amenities (Trails and Parks)

  35. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the hotel, casitas, spa, villas, or clubhouse, the applicant shall submit and receive approval for a Public Amenities Plan which shall include specific design standards and placement for all trails, vista points, parking facilities, signs, and park areas within the project site, as specified in the conditions herein. Additionally, the Plan shall include the size, materials and location of all public amenities and shall establish a regular maintenance schedule. City Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the public amenities. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing, as specified in the RPVMC.
  36. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or the operation of the golf practice facility, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall complete the construction of the following public access trails, public parks and other public amenities within the project site, except for the Lookout Bar, which shall be constructed within six (6) months after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the resort hotel:
    1. Implementation of the Public Amenities Plan (such as benches, drinking fountains, viewing telescopes, bicycle racks, fences, signs, irrigation, and landscaping)
    2. Public trails and trail signs to the satisfaction of the City (The Marineland Trail Segment (C5), Long Point Trail Segment (D4), Flowerfield Trail Segment (E2), and Café Trail Segment (J2) improvements).
    3. Bicycle paths along southern lane of Palos Verdes Drive South adjacent to the project site.
    4. The coastal public parking area within the resort hotel project area serving the coastal access points.
    5. The expansion of the Fishing Access Parking Lot.
    6. Improvements to the existing Fishing Access Parking lot.
    7. Improvements to the Public Restroom facility at the Fishing Access site.
    8. Public section of the Lower Pool Facility (consisting of outdoor tables and seating, men and women restroom and changing facilities, planter boxes with trees that provide shaded seating areas, access to the pool kitchen facility, outdoor showers and drinking water fountains).
    9. The 2.2 acre Bluff-Top park.
    10. Habitat Enhancement area.

  37. The City encourages incorporation of a marine theme into the project’s public trails and park area.
  38. The applicant shall upgrade the Los Angeles County Fishing access parking lot, fencing, signs, and landscaping to be consistent with the proposed 50 space parking lot expansion on the project site. Said improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles or the subsequent landowner of the Fishing Access, and shall be constructed prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the resort hotel.
  39. The applicant shall improve, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Public Works Director, the existing public restroom facility located at the Los Angeles County Fishing Access to architecturally and aesthetically resemble the resort hotel buildings and related public amenities. Said improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the County of Los Angeles or the subsequent landowner of the Fishing Access, and shall be constructed prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the resort hotel.
  40. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, or prior to recordation of Final Parcel Map No. 26073, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall dedicate easements over all public trails, habitat areas, vista points, and public amenities to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
  41. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate the 2.2 acre Bluff-Top park and 1.0 acre adjacent Fishing Access parking lot expansion (50 parking spaces) to the City. Maintenance of the trails, park grounds and landscaping, including but not limited to the landscaping located within the Fishing Access Parking Lot shall be maintained by the applicant as long as a hotel is operated on the property.
  42. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate an easement to the City and construct two Public Vista Points along the Long Point Trail Segment (D4) in locations to be approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement in the review of the Public Trails Plan.
  43. Prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works a Public Trails Plan which identifies the on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle trails proposed for the project for review and approval by the City Council. The plan shall include details regarding trail surface, trail width, and trail signage. Furthermore, all trail segments shall be constructed with appropriate trail engineering techniques, as approved by the City’s Director of Public Works, to avoid soil erosion and excessive compaction. The public trails, as identified in the city’s Conceptual Trails Plan shall include: the Marineland Trail Segment (C5); the Long Point Trail Segment (D4); the Flower Field Trail Segment (E2); and the Café Trail Segment (J2). Furthermore, the beach access trail at the southeast corner of the project site shall also be kept open to the public and shall be maintained by the applicant.
  44. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall construct class I and class II bikeways along Palos Verdes Drive South, adjacent to the project site, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. In the event any drainage grates are required, all grates shall be installed in a manner that is perpendicular to the direction of traffic to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  45. All project related trails, as identified in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, shall be designed to the following minimum standards for trail widths, with easements extending an additional foot on either side of the trail:
    1. Pedestrian Only – 4 foot improved trail width, 6 foot dedication
    2. Pedestrian/Equestrian – 6 foot improved trail width, 8 foot dedication
    3. Pedestrian/Bike - 6 foot improved trail width, 8 foot dedication
    4. Joint Pedestrian/Golf Cart – 10 foot improved trail, 12 foot dedication.

    Standard golf cart-only paths, if constructed, shall be 6 feet wide, and require no easement dedication.

    If a golf cart path is parallel, but not immediately abutting, a pedestrian path, a 2-foot minimum separation between the two paths shall be incorporated into the design of the paths in question and shall be maintained at all times thereafter. If a golf cart path is a immediately abutting a pedestrian path without separation, the golf cart path shall be curbed.

  46. Where feasible, the applicant shall design, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, public trails, public restrooms and public park facilities that are in compliance with the American Disabilities Act requirements.
  47. The Lower Pool Facility and the trail from the public parking lot nearest the hotel building to the Lower Pool Facility shall be constructed in substantial compliance with all the standards established by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  48. Where feasible, the applicant shall design trails, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that do not exceed a maximum gradient of twenty (20%) percent.
  49. Landscaping/Vegetation

  50. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall record a conservation easement covering the Bluff-face/Habitat Enhancement Area. The conservation easement shall be recorded in favor of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and shall first be reviewed and accepted by the City Attorney.
  51. The Habitat Enhancement Area shall extend from the Los Angeles County Fishing Access Parking Lot to the appurtenant outdoor areas surrounding the Lookout Bar. The Habitat Enhancement Area shall be thirty (30) feet wide, as measured from the inland limits of the coastal bluff scrub, as specified in the Mitigation Measures adopted by the City Council by Resolution No. 2002-34. All public trails in this portion of the site shall not encroach into the Habitat Enhancement Area.
  52. A Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect in accordance with the standards set forth in RPVMC. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, a qualified Landscape Architect and a qualified botanist, hired by the City, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. The applicant shall establish a Trust Deposit account with the City prior to the submittal of Landscape Plans to cover all costs incurred by the City in conducting such review. During the Director’s review, the Landscape Plan shall also be made available to the public, including but not limited to representatives from the California Native Plant Society, for review and input.
  53. The Ornamental Landscape Plan shall comply with the water conservation concepts, the View Preservation Ordinance, the planting requirements, the irrigation system design criteria, and all other requirements of the RPVMC. The plan shall also take into account protected view corridors as identified in the project EIR such that future impacts from tree or other plant growth will not result. A colorful plant palette shall be utilized in the design of the hotel landscaping where feasible, provided that impacts to native and protected vegetation will not occur. No invasive plant species shall be included in the plant palette, except for the following species which exist on-site or within the immediate area: Eucalyptus, Nerium Oleander, Olea Europia (olive tree), Phoenix (all species), Shinus Molle (California Pepper Tree), Shinus Terebinthifolius (Florida Pepper Tree).

    The Habitat Enhancement Area, which serves as a plant buffer for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly and the Bluff Habitat shall consist of suitable, locally native plants. In addition, the 50-foot wide planting area inland of the Habitat Enhancement Area, as specified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (5.3-2c) attached as Exhibit "C" of Resolution No. 2002-34, shall also be planted with suitable, locally native plants and grasses. Where feasible, it is recommended that seeds and plants for both areas come from local sources.

  54. Landscaping proposed surrounding the Resort Villas shall be situated in a manner that, at maturity, visually screens the buildings from Palos Verdes Drive South, as well as visually separates the dense appearance of the Villas. Said landscaping shall also be permitted to grow beyond the maximum height of the Villas’ roof ridgeline, only when such landscaping is able to screen the roof materials and not block a view corridor, as determined by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement at the time the Landscape Plan is reviewed.
  55. Reasonable efforts shall be made by the applicant to preserve and replant existing mature trees, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Any replanted trees, if invasive, shall not be located in the native plant area (30-foot Habitat Enhancement Area and 50-foot transition area). Any such replanted or retained trees shall be noted on the required landscape plans.
  56. Where practical, landscaping shall screen the hotel building, ancillary structures, and the project’s night lighting as seen from surrounding properties and/or public rights-of-way, as depicted on the Landscape Plan.
  57. Lighting

  58. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Lighting Plan for the Resort Hotel Area in compliance with the RPVMC. The Lighting Plan shall clearly show the location, height, number of lights, wattage and estimates of maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at property lines for all exterior circulation lighting, outdoor building lighting, trail lighting, parking lot lighting, landscape ambiance lighting, and main entry sign lighting. The Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of any building permit for the Resort Hotel Area. Furthermore, prior to the Director’s review, the Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist for potential impacts to wildlife.
  59. Parking and Security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded so that only the subject property is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto residential properties or halo into the night sky. A trial period of ninety (90) days from the installation of the project exterior lighting for the hotel, spa, west casitas, east casitas, villas, clubhouse, golf practice facility, tennis courts, surface parking lots, and parking structure shall be assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding environment. At the end of the ninety (90) day period, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement may require additional screening or reduction in the intensity or number of lights which are determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts.
  60. Outdoor tennis court lighting shall be permitted on individual timers up to 10:00 p.m. Light poles for such lighting shall not exceed an overall height of 16 feet, including the light fixture.
  61. No golf practice facility lighting shall be allowed other than safety lighting for the use of trails through the golf practice facility areas and lighting for the clubhouse and adjacent parking lot.
  62. Signs

  63. Prior to the issuance of any building, a Uniform Sign Program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the City Council, at a duly noticed public hearing. The Sign Program shall include all exterior signs including resort identification signs, spa identification signs, golf practice facility signs including routing signs and any warning signs, public safety signs for trails and park areas, and any other proposed project signs. Furthermore, the Sign Program shall indicate the colors, materials, locations and heights of all proposed signs. Said signs shall be installed prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.

  64. Utilities/Mechanical Equipment

  65. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities exclusively serving the project site shall be placed underground including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All appropriate permits shall be obtained for any such installation. Cable television, if utilized, shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the applicant’s expense.
  66. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all existing above ground utilities serving the project site within the public right-of-way adjacent to the property frontage of the project site shall be placed underground by the applicant. In addition, the two (2) power poles on either side of Palos Verdes Drive South, and the lines thereon, shall be placed underground.
  67. No above ground utility structures cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed within the public rights-of-way without prior approval of the Director of Public Works.
  68. Mechanical equipment, vents or ducts shall not be placed on roofs unless the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, that there is no feasible way to place the equipment elsewhere. In the event that roof mounted equipment is the only feasible method, all such equipment shall be screened and/or covered to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement so as to reduce their visibility from adjacent properties and the public rights-of-way. Any necessary screening or covering shall be architecturally harmonious with the materials and colors of the buildings, and shall not increase any overall allowed building height permitted by this approval. This condition shall apply to all buildings in the Resort Hotel Area, including but not limited to, the hotel, bungalows, casitas, villas, spa, and golf clubhouse.
  69. Use of satellite dish antenna(e) or any other antennae shall be controlled by the provisions set forth in the RPVMC. Centralized antennae shall be used rather than individual antennae for each room, building or accommodation.
  70. Mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA at the project site’s property lines. Mechanical equipment for food service shall incorporate filtration systems to eliminate exhaust odors.
  71. All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking area and walkways, shall be properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris. The hours of maintenance of the project grounds shall be restricted to Mondays through Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Said maintenance activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and National holidays.
  72. The storage of all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies and other commodities shall be permanently housed in entirely enclosed structures, except when in transport.

  73. Fences, Walls, and Gates

  74. No freestanding fences, walls, or hedges shall be allowed, unless a Uniform Fencing Plan is reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, except as otherwise required by these conditions or the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached as Exhibit "C" to Resolution No. 2002-34. Said Fencing Plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any building permit and shall be installed prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. No entry gates shall be permitted.
  75. The design of the fencing required along the bluff top park, bluff top trails, and the Habitat Preserve Areas shall be included in the Public Amenities Plan, as required herein. Said fencing shall be modeled to generally resemble the wood / cable fence installed in City parks, such as Shoreline Park and Ocean Trails.
  76. All pools and spas shall be enclosed with a minimum 5’ high fence, with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located no closer than 4’ above the ground.
  77. All fencing surrounding the Lower Pool Facility, including pool and spa security fencing, shall be constructed in a manner that meets the minimum fence standards for pool safety, as noted in the above condition, and shall minimizes a view impairment of the coastline.
  78. No safety netting for the golf course or practice facility shall be permitted.
  79. Any on-site fencing along Palos Verdes Drive South shall be no higher than two (2) feet in height and shall be modeled to generally resemble the fencing installed along Palos Verdes Drive West for the Ocean Front Estates project.

  80. Source Reduction and Recycling

  81. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a comprehensive Integrated Waste Management Plan that addresses source reduction, reuse and recycling. The Plan shall include a description of the materials that will be generated, and measures to reduce, reuse and recycle materials, including, but not limited to, beverage containers, food waste, office and guest room waste. The Plan shall also incorporate grass cycling, composting, mulching and xeriscaping in ornamental landscaped areas. Grass cycling, composting, or mulching shall not be used in the Habitat Areas. It is the City’s intention for the project to meet Local and State required diversion goals in effect at the time of operation. The specifics of the Plan shall be addressed by the applicant at the time of review by the Director of Public Works.
  82. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, an approved Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP or the Plan) shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Public Works for approval. The CDMMP shall include all deconstruction, new construction, and alterations/additions. The CDMMP shall document how the Applicant will divert 85% of the existing on-site asphalt, base and concrete, through reuse on-site or processing at an off-site facility for reuse. The Plan shall address the parking lots, concrete walkways, and other underground concrete structures. The Plan shall also identify measures to reuse or recycle building materials, including wood, metal, and concrete block to meet the City’s diversion goal requirements as established by the State Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939). In no case shall the Plan propose to recycle less than the state mandated goals as they may be amended from time to time.
  83. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, a Construction and Demolition Materials Disposition Summary (Summary) shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works upon completion of deconstruction and construction. The Summary shall indicate actual recycling activities and compliance with the diversion requirement, based on weight tags or other sufficient documentation.
  84. Where possible, the site design shall incorporate for solid waste minimization, the use of recycled building materials and the re-use of on-site demolition debris.
  85. The project site design shall incorporate areas for collection of solid waste with adequate space for separate collection of recyclables.

  86. Street and Parking Improvements

  87. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, emergency vehicular access shall be installed at the project site, specifically to the hotel, villas, casitas, and the golf club house and golf practice facilities. A Plan identifying such emergency access shall be submitted to the Fire Department and the Director of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.
  88. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall prepare an Emergency Evacuation Plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Said plan shall comply with the City’s SEMS Multihazard Functional Plan.
  89. The applicant shall construct and retain no fewer than 875 parking spaces on the resort property, of which 50 parking spaces shall be dedicated for public use during City Park Hours, which are from one hour before sunrise until one after sunset. The 50 dedicated public parking spaces on the resort hotel property nearest to the hotel building may be used by the hotel to accommodate its overflow valet parking needs when the City parks are closed for those wishing to use hotel amenities but who are not staying overnight. Additionally, these 50 public parking spaces may be used by the operator of the resort hotel for special events during City park hours, provided that a Special Use Permit is obtained from the Planning Department, which shall be processed pursuant to the provisions of the RPVMC. The applicant shall install signs in the public parking lot nearest to the hotel building stating that additional public parking is available at the Fishing Access parking lot. The applicant shall also expand the Fishing Access Parking Lot by constructing 50 additional public parking spaces that shall be deeded to the City as a public parking area.
  90. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, an appropriate public access easement in favor of the City across the resort entry drive from Palos Verdes Drive South to the designated public parking area adjacent to the main hotel building, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, shall be recorded.
  91. A Parking Lot Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to issuance of project-related grading permits. The Parking Lot Plan shall be developed in conformance with the parking space dimensions and parking lot standards set forth in RPVMC, and shall include the location of all light standards, planter boxes, directional signs and arrows. No more than 15% of the total parking spaces shall be in the form of compact spaces. The filing fee for the review of the Parking Plan shall be in accordance to the City’s Fee Schedule as adopted by Resolution by the City Council.
  92. Prior to the recordation of any final map, or issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, to cover any damage caused to existing public roadways during construction. The amount of said security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works.
  93. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall replace all damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project’s Palos Verdes Drive South frontage, as determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to approval of the Street Improvement Plan, the applicant shall post a security bond in an amount sufficient to ensure completion of such improvements, including, without limitation, the costs for labor and material. The amount of such security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works
  94. All proposed driveways shall be designed in substantially the same alignment as shown on the approved site plans, subject to final design review and approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the Director of Public Works.
  95. Any on-site raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards approved by the Director of Public Works.
  96. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed and or retrofitted in accordance with the current standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Access ramps shall be provided at all intersections and driveways.
  97. If excavation is required in any public roadway, the roadway shall be resurfaced with an asphalt overlay to the adjacent traffic lane line to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  98. Prior to commencing any excavation within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director Public Works.
  99. Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of any building or grading permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security guaranteeing the construction of the following public and/or private improvements in conformance with the applicable City Standards: street improvements, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, bus turnouts and shelters, bikeways, trails, signing, striping, storm drain facilities, sub-drain facilities, landscape and irrigation improvements (medians, slopes, parks, and public areas including parkways), sewer, domestic water, monumentation, traffic signal systems, trails, and the undergrounding of existing and proposed utility lines. If security is posted it shall be in an amount sufficient to ensure completion of such improvements, including, without limitation, the costs for labor and materials. The amount of such security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works. The security referred to in this condition may be grouped into one of the following categories, provided that all of the items are included within a category: 1) Landscape and Irrigation; 2) On-site Street Improvement Plans and Parking, and 3) Palos Verdes Drive South Improvements.
  100. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the street improvements to Palos Verdes Drive South as identified in the Mitigation Measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached as Exhibit "C" to Resolution No. 2002-34. The improvements shall include the following: Installation of a new traffic signal on Palos Verdes Drive South at the project entrance, a right turn lane for south-bound traffic to facilitate ingress into the project and a lengthened left turn lane for north-bound traffic to facilitate ingress into the project.
  101. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall improve with landscaping and irrigation the median and parkway along Palos Verdes Drive South, in the area generally located in front of the project site’s entrance driveway, including the portion of the median that is to be improved with an expanded left-turn pocket, up to the eastern most driveway of the Fishing Access Parking Lot. If feasible, said landscaping shall consist of non-invasive plant species, except the permitted invasive species listed in Condition No. 78, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Public Works.
  102. The design of all interior streets shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works.
  103. The applicant shall dedicate vehicular access rights to Palos Verdes Drive South to the City, except as provided for private driveways and emergency access as shown on the site plan.
  104. Prior to the approval of Street Improvement Plans, the applicant shall submit detailed specifications for the structural pavement section for all streets, both on-site and off-site including parking lots, to the Director of Public Works for review and approval.

  105. Traffic

  106. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay the City of Los Angeles for its fair share of the following improvements to the intersection of Western Avenue (NS) at 25th Street (EW): Provide east leg of 25th Street with one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane.
  107. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay the City of Rolling Hills Estates for its fair share of the following improvements to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW): Provide west leg with one left turn lane, one shared left and through lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
  108. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay The City of Rolling Hills Estates for its fair share of the following improvements to the intersection of Silver Spur Road( NS) at Hawthorne Boulevard (EW): Provide north leg with one left turn lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane; and re-stripe south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.
  109. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall provide security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the Director of Public Works, in the amount of $100,000 to cover the cost of mitigating any impacts caused by this project that would require the installation of any new traffic signal that may be required along Hawthorne Boulevard, Palos Verdes Drive South, or Palos Verdes Drive West. This security will be held by the City in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66001 for a minimum five year period, from the date of the main hotel building’s Certificate of Occupancy.
  110. Upon the opening of the resort hotel or golf practice facility, whichever occurs first, the hotel operators shall implement a shuttle service between the Long Point Resort Hotel and the Ocean Trails Golf Course. The use of low emissions vehicles shall be used for the shuttles. The hotel operators shall design the schedule of the shuttles so as to encourage and maximize its use by hotel guests.
  111. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City's Transportation Demand Management and Trip Reduction Ordinance as set forth in RPVMC Section 10.28.

  112. GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229

    Grading

  113. The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the Resort Hotel Area, as shown on the approved grading plans received by the City on May 21, 2002, and prepared by Incledon Kirk Engineers:
    1. Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 784,550 cubic yards.
    2. Maximum Cut: 411,889 cubic yards (392,275 cubic yards with 5% shrinkage).
    3. Maximum Fill: 392,275 cubic yards.
    4. Maximum Depth of Cut: 35 feet (located in the area of the western most bungalow units).
    5. Maximum Depth of Fill: 21 feet (located in the area of the more inland row of Western Casitas).

    Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above amounts shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the City Council. This is a balanced grading project. No import or export of earth shall be permitted, except as provided in Condition No. 155.

  114. All recommendations made by the City Geologist, the City Engineer, and the Building and Safety Division during the ongoing review of the project shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
  115. All recommendations made by the project’s geologist, as modified by comments from the City’s reviewers, shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
  116. If applicable, as determined by the City Geologist, prior to the issuance of grading permits, a bond, cash deposit, or combination thereof, shall be posted to cover costs for any geologic hazard abatement in an amount to be determined by the Director of Public Works.
  117. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall submit to the City a Certificate of Insurance demonstrating that the applicant has obtained a general liability insurance policy in an amount not less than five million dollars per occurrence and in the aggregate to cover awards for any death, injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by the applicant. Said insurance policy must be issued by an insurer that is authorized to do business in the State of California with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide or a rating of at least A by Standard & Poors. Such insurance shall name the City and the members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers and agents serving as its independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds. A copy of this endorsement shall be provided to the City. Said insurance shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of five (5) years following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City and shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.
  118. All on-site public improvements (Parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the appropriate improvement bonds in amounts to be deemed satisfactory by the Director of Public Works.
  119. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement a plan that demonstrates how dust generated by grading activities will be mitigated so as to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the City’s Municipal Code Requirements which require watering for the control of dust.
  120. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan indicating, to scale, clear sight triangles, which shall be maintained at each roadway and driveway intersection. No objects, signs, fences, walls, vegetation, or other landscaping shall be allowed within these triangles in excess of three feet in height.
  121. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following improvements shall be designed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works: 1) all provisions for surface drainage; 2) all necessary storm drains facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and 3) all water quality related improvements. Where determined necessary by the Director of Public Works, associated public street and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City.
  122. Prior to the issuance of any precise grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, a plan for the placement of traffic signing, pavement delineation, and other traffic control devices.
  123. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, for his review and approval, a construction traffic management plan. Said plan shall include the proposed routes to and from the project site for all deliveries of equipment, materials, and supplies, and shall set forth the parking plan for construction employees. All construction related parking must be accommodated on-site. No construction related parking shall be permitted off-site.
  124. If applicable, as determined by the City Geologist, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated, or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area on the Final Parcel Map where the erection of buildings or other structures shall be prohibited.
  125. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an independent Geology and/or Soils Engineer’s report on the expansive properties of soils on all building sites shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Geologist in conformance with the accepted City Practice.
  126. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock, and an as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.
  127. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant’s project geologist shall review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign such plans and specifications.
  128. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a grading plan review and geologic report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer.
  129. Except as specifically authorized by these approvals, foundations shall be set back from the Coastal Setback Line in accordance with the RPVMC and shall extend to such a depth as to be unaffected by any creep-prone surficial soil and/or weathered bedrock. Field review and certification by the project geologist is required.
  130. All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils engineer in accordance wit the applicable provisions of the RPVMC and the recommendations of the City Engineer. Written reports, summarizing grading activities, shall be submitted on a weekly basis to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
  131. The project shall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.
  132. Grading activity on site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards.
  133. Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, the graded slopes shall be properly planted and maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. Plant materials shall generally include significant low ground cover to impede surface water flows, and shall be non-invasive, except the permitted invasive species listed in Condition No. 78
  134. Prior to final grading inspection by Building and Safety, all manufactured slopes shall be contour-graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible.
  135. Any water features (lakes, ponds, fountains, and etc.) associated with the golf practice facility, excluding the bioswales used in the water quality treatment train, shall be lined to prevent percolation of water into the soil. Designs for all water features shall be included on the grading plans submitted for review by the City’s Building Official and Geotechnical Engineer.
  136. The City’s Building Official, Geotechnical Engineer and Biologist. shall determine in their review of the grading plans whether water features associated with the water quality treatment train, such as the bioswales or catch basins, shall be lined to prevent water percolation into the soil, and potential impacts to nearby sensitive habitat areas.
  137. The proposed swimming pool and spa for the Lower Pool Facility shall be double lined and shall contain a leak detection system, subject to review and approval by the City’s Building Official.
  138. Should the project require removal of earth, rock or other material from the site, the applicant shall first obtain City approval in the form of a revised Conditional Use Permit and Grading Permit application. Said review shall evaluate potential impacts to the surrounding environment associated with export or import. If the revised grading impacts are found to be greater that identified in the Certified EIR that cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level, a Supplemental EIR shall be prepared and reviewed by the City, at the expense of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant shall prepare and submit a hauling plan to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
  139. The use of a rock crusher on-site shall be conducted in accordance with the project’s mitigation measures and shall be contained to the area analyzed in the project’s Environmental Impact Report.
  140. During the operation of the rock crusher, a qualified biologist shall monitor noise levels generated by the activity for potential impacts to nearby wildlife. Said specialist shall be hired by the City at the cost of the applicant, in the form of a trust deposit account provided by the applicant.
  141. Retaining walls shall be limited in height as identified on the grading plans that are reviewed and approved by the City. Any retaining walls exceeding the permitted heights shall require the processing of a revised grading permit for review and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

  142. Drainage

  143. The irrigation system and area drains proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer and Director of Public Works.
  144. A report shall be prepared demonstrating that the grading, in conjunction with the drainage improvements, including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, will protect all building pads from design storms, as approved by the Director of Public Works.
  145. All drainage swales and any other at-grade drainage facilities, including gunite, shall be of an earth tone color, as deemed necessary by the Director of Building Planning and Code Enforcement.
  146. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit a Local Grading and Drainage Plan identifying how drainage will be directed away from the bluff top, natural drainage courses and open channels to prevent erosion and to protect sensitive plant habitat on the bluff face. Said Plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Said review shall also analyze whether potential impacts to the bluff top may be caused by the proposed drainage concept.
  147. Drainage plans and necessary supporting documents that comply with the following requirements shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of grading permits: A) drainage facilities that protect against design storms shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and any drainage easements for piping required by the Director of Public Works shall be dedicated to the City on the Final Map; B) sheet overflow and ponding shall be eliminated or the floors of buildings with no openings in the foundation walls shall be elevated to at least twelve inches above the finished pad grade; C) drainage facilities shall be provided so as to protect the property from high velocity scouring action; and D) contributory drainage from adjoining properties shall be addressed so as to prevent damage to the project site and any improvements to be located thereon.
  148. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall upgrade the drainage facility that currently is located on the Fisherman’s access property and construct a pipe that will convey this water to the proposed drainage system terminating at Outlet No. 2 to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  149. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Master Drainage Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. The Plan shall demonstrate adequate storm protection from the design storm, under existing conditions, as well as after the construction of future drainage improvements by the City along Palos Verdes Drive South immediately abutting the project site.
  150. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that the design storm can be conveyed through the site without conveying the water in a pipe and without severely damaging the integrity of the Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP), especially the bioswale system. If such integrity cannot be demonstrated, the applicant shall redesign the USMP to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, which may require offsite flows to be diverted into a piped system and carried though the site. If the piped system is used, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage easement to the City to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  151. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit that proposes to convey off-site drainage through the subject property, the applicant shall execute an agreement with the City that is satisfactory to the City Attorney that defending, indemnifying and holding the City, members of its City Council, boards, committees, commissions, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of city or agency officials, (collectively, "Indemnitees") harmless from any damage that may occur to the subject property or any improvements, persons or personal property located thereon due to the conveyance of offsite design storm flows through the site.

  152. NPDES

  153. Prior to acceptance of the storm drain system, all catch basins and public access points that cross or abut an open channel, shall be marked with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.
  154. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall furnish to the Director of Public Works, for review and approval, the project’s Water Quality Management Plan and Maintenance Agreement outlining the post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).
  155. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Public Works a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing the construction phase Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges associated with construction activity (Grading Permit), No. CA s000002.
  156. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works a Water Quality Management Plan ("Plan"), for review and approval by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing. The Water Quality Management Plan, which shall remain in effect for the life of the project, shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to minimize and reduce project storm water and runoff pollutants. The Plan shall include project water quality parameters that meet the objectives of the California Ocean Plan for non-point discharges in receiving water bodies. Additionally, all storm water treatment systems shall be designed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works "Manual for the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan(SUSMP)". The specific BMP design criteria in the SUSMP (May 2002), as developed by the U.S. EPA and American Society of Civil Engineers, shall be followed.
  157. The Plan shall contain the operation, maintenance and monitoring procedures, including Fire and Argentine ant management. The Plan shall indicate potential impacts of the storm water treatment train to surrounding plants and wildlife. The monitoring of the treatment train shall include the bioswales and catch basins for the accumulation of pollutants through sampling and testing of both soil material and vegetation. The Plan shall indicate the frequency of the required monitoring and the frequency of the removal and replacement of plant material and soil from the biolswale. Said report shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Biologist and/or Chemists. Said monitoring shall be required for the life of the project.

    All costs associated with the review, installation and maintenance of the Plan and project related BMPs shall be the responsibility of the applicant. If the plan requires construction of improvements, such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.

  158. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Water Quality Management Plan Maintenance Agreement, outlining the post-construction Best Management Practices, shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
  159. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall file any required documents, including the Notice of Intent, and obtain all required permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  160. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Public Works an Erosion Control Plan. Said Plan shall be designed in conformance with the City standards and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  161. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall implement the project in full compliance with the standard urban storm water mitigation plan adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  162. Prior to the City Council’s review of the Water Quality Management Plan, the City’s Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve the Plan. In the event the City’s Geotechnical Engineer determines that additional improvements need to be constructed, the applicant shall revise the Plan accordingly.

  163. Sewers

  164. Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, the applicant shall prepare sewer plans in accordance with the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District. The applicant shall be responsible for the transfer of sewer facilities to the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance.
  165. A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of Public Works and the County of Los Angeles.
  166. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, a written statement from the County Sanitation District accepting any new facility design and/or any system upgrades with regard to existing trunk line sewers. Said approval shall state all conditions of approval, if any.
  167. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate sewer easements to the City, subject to review and approval by the Director of Building, Planning and Code Enforcement and the Director of Public Works with respect to the final locations and requirements of the sewer improvements.
  168. Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.
  169. A sewer connection fee shall be paid to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prior to the issuance of a permit to connect to the sewer line.

  170. Water

  171. Prior to the construction of any water facilities, the Director of Public Works shall review and approve the water improvement plan. Any water facilities that cannot be constructed below ground shall be located on the subject property and screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In addition, an easement to California Water Service shall be dedicated prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
  172. The project site shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities which shall include fire hydrants of the size and type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the development. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the City Engineer. Fire flow requirements shall be determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and evidence of approval by the Los County Fire Department is required prior to issuance of building permits.
  173. Framing of structures shall not begin until after the Los Angeles County Fire Department has determined that there is adequate fire fighting water and access available to said structures.
  174. The applicant shall file with the Director of Public Works an unqualified "will serve" statement from the purveyor serving the project site indicating that water service can be provided to meet the demands of the proposed development. Said statement shall be dated no more than six months prior to the issuance of the building permits for the main hotel structure. Should the applicant receive a qualified "will serve" statement from the purveyor, the City shall retain the right to require the applicant to use an alternative water source, subject to the review and approval of the City, or the City shall determine that the conditions of the project approval have not been satisfied.
  175. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits, the applicant shall file with the Director of Public Works, a statement from the purveyor indicating that the proposed water mains and any other required facilities will be operated by the purveyor, and that under normal operating conditions the system will meet the needs of the project.

  176. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073

  177. The proposed parcel map shall result in the creation of four (4) parcels (resort hotel parcel, west casita parcel, east casita parcel, and villa parcel). The 2.2 acre Bluff Top park and Fishing Access Expansion Parking Lot shall be separately deeded to the City prior to recordation of the Final Map.
  178. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant or other document that is satisfactory to the City Attorney that requires all of the various parcels that are within the boundaries of the parcel map to be fully managed by the resort hotel operator.
  179. The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar and ten copies of the map no later than thirty (30) days after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.
  180. All improvement plans shall be as-built upon completion of the project. Once the as-built drawings are approved, the applicant shall provide the City with a duplicate mylar of the plans.
  181. The improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, and shall be prepared on standard city size sheets. Plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map and site plan as approved by the City Council and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
  182. This approval expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval of the parcel map by the City Council, unless extended per Section 66452.6 of the California Government Code and Section 16.16.040 of the RPVMC. Any request for extension shall be submitted to the Planning Department in writing at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the tentative map.
  183. This development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property.
  184. According to Section 16.20.130 of the RPVMC and the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), at the time of making the survey for the final parcel map, the engineer or surveyor shall set sufficient durable monuments to conform with the standards of the Subdivision Map Act. Prior to recording the final map, the exterior boundary of land being subdivided shall be adequately monumented with no less than a two (2) inch iron pipe, at least eighteen (18) inches long, set in dirt and filled with concrete at each boundary corner. The parcel lot corners shall be monumented with no less than one-half inch iron pipe for the interior monuments. Spikes and washers may be set in asphalt pavement and lead and tacks may be set in concrete pavement or improvements in lieu of pipes. All monuments shall be permanently marked or tagged with the registration or license number of the engineer or surveyor under whose supervision the survey was made.
  185. The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public streets which may be damaged during development of the subject parcels.
  186. Easements shall not be granted within easements dedicated or offered for dedication to the City until after the final map is filed and recorded with the County Recorder. No easements shall be accepted after recording of the final map that in any way conflict with a prior easement dedicated to the City, or any public utility. All existing easements shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly released by the holder of the easement.
  187. Any easement that lies within or crosses public rights-of-way propose to be deeded or dedicated to the City, shall be subordinated to the City prior to acceptance of the rights-of-way, unless otherwise exempted by the Director of Public Works.

  188. Prior to Submittal of the Final Map

  189. Prior to submitting the final map to the City Engineer for examination, the applicant shall obtain clearance from all affected departments and divisions, including a clearance from the City Engineer for the following items: mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, correctness of certificates and signatures.

  190. Prior to Approval of the Final Map

  191. Prior to approval of the final map, any off-site improvements, such as rights-of-way and easements, shall be dedicated to the City.
  192. Prior to approval of the final map, all existing public or private easements, including utility easements, shall be shown on the final parcel map.
  193. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the parkland dedication requirement shall be fulfilled by the applicant in the form of either dedication of land for park purposes or the payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination thereof, as determined by the City Council pursuant to the RPVMC.
  194. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing fee required in accordance with the RPVMC.
  195. The final map is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall establish a trust deposit with the City to cover any costs incurred by the City in conducting this review.
  196. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the RPVMC.

ISSUES TABLE

CATEGORY

CONCERN / QUESTION

RESPONSE

NPDES

What will be the actual distance of the water catch basins be from the coastal bluff edge and/or habitat areas, and 50’ planting buffer? (Sattler)

The actual location of the water catch basins are unknown at this time because a detailed plan has not been submitted to the City for review. Nonetheless, according to the conditions the applicant is required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan for review and approval by the City Council. At the time the Plan is submitted, detailed information will be made available for public review and input.

NPDES

The bioaccumulation of toxins in plants and standing water used to treat run-off before entering the ocean may potentially pose a danger for any wildlife that may be attracted to the site as a food source or for nesting and shelter. What Source Control BMPs will be integrated in the preparation of the Water Quality Management Plan to limit the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers with an Integrated Pest Management Plan? Will there be a monitoring system to ensure that these BMPs are enforced? (Sattler)

Similar to the above response, since the specifics of the Water Quality Management Plan are unknown at this time, this issues will be adequately addressed at the time the City Council reviews the Water Quality Management Plan. Therefore, Ms. Sattler would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

NPDES

Will a qualified biologist and a qualified chemist set up and implement a monitoring plan to check for the accumulation of heavy metals or other contaminants in vegetation or sediment that may pose a hazard for wildlife which are attracted to the treatment sites? (Sattler)

According to Condition No. 171 the City is requiring that the water treatment facility be monitored by a qualified biologist for the life of the project. The monitoring will occur by the applicant, and a qualified biologist, hired by the City, will review said report. This issue is similar to the above issue related to water and will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. Ms. Sattler would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

NPDES

Before dredging occurs, can a survey be taken to avoid injury to wildlife, specifically pertaining to disturbance during nesting season ? (Knight)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. However, it should be noted that the baselines studies for protected wildlife were conducted with the preparation of the EIR. Nonetheless, Mr. Knight would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

NPDES

Where will the dredged bio swales be dumped? (Knight)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Knight would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

NPDES

What is the baseline criteria for the L.A. County Water Quality Monitoring program? (Knight)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Knight would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

NPDES

Please list the specific contaminants which the Water Quality Management Plan is expected to treat and indicate how each will be reduced (e.g. by exposure to light, absorption into vegetation, chemical breakdown, sedimentation, etc.) What level of reduction is anticipated for each contaminant? (Sattler)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. At the time the Plan is submitted to the City, a detailed list of the contaminants and how such contaminants will be treated will be reviewed by the City. Ms. Sattler would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

Biological

What impacts will the revise plan have on the Loggerhead Shrike? (Knight)

The Loggerhead Shrike is a species designated as California Species of Special Concern or federal Species of Concern. Nonetheless, according to the EIR, the implementation of the project is not expected to reduce the value of the project for the Loggerhead Shrike to any great extent since the golf practice facility will provide suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, no mitigation is required.

Landscape

Will the landscape manager implement an environmentally friendly vegetation management program, including golf turf, to minimize toxins introduced into the environment? (Knight)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. The City’s NPDES program requires the most up to date technology be used to mitigate pollutants from entering the City’s storm drains. Mr. Knight would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

Landscape

Plants differ in their ability to absorb contaminants. What type of plants will be used in the bio swales? What wildlife species are likely to be attracted to these plants for food or shelter? (Sattler)

This issue will be addressed in greater detail at the time the Water Quality Management Plan is reviewed by the City Council. It should be noted that a general plant list has been provided to the Ms. Sattler. However, she is requesting that a detailed plant list be included in the Plan. Therefore, Ms. Sattler would like this item to remain on this table as a place holder for future review.

Landscape

Plants that may be potentially invasive should not be used on the project site or street median, including the removal of existing invasive plant species. (Sattler)

Staff, the applicant’s project team and the community interest groups have attempted to resolve this issue through various meetings and the field visit to White Point Park. Notwithstanding, the applicant does not believe that they should be restricted from using invasive plants that currently exist on-site or in the immediate area. Therefore, as a compromise, the applicant is willing to adhere to the invasive plant species list except for the five plant species listed in Condition No. 77.

Landscape

It is important that seeds and plants for the Habitat Enhancement Area and the 50' planting area come from local sources. This should not be a problem if seeds are collected from the local area (with appropriate permits from CDFG) and plants are propagated by special contract in advance. (This was done at Ocean Trails.)

As reflected in Condition No. 77, the applicant is requesting that the local seeds and plants be used where feasible.

Finance

Can the City include a condition requiring the City’s affirmative consent to a transfer of the property and/or operation of the business (e.g. sale, operational management agreement)?

(FAC – Committee Member Clark)

The City typically does not impose this type of condition, and absent a development agreement, the City does not have the legal basis for imposing such a condition. However, it should be noted that the entitlements run with the land and are binding on any subsequent owner of the property, so that the operational requirements and the conditions of approval that have been imposed to ensure a quality project, which also protects the City, will be performed in the future.

Operation

Can there be a condition or a deed restriction that prohibits the owner of a villa or casita unit from sub-leasing?

(FAC – Chairman Wolowicz)

The City can address this issue by adding a provision to the cc&rs for the villas and casitas that either preclude subleasing or requiring any owner of a unit who subleases the unit to someone else, for monetary consideration, to pay the City's transient occupancy tax to the City or to the hotel operator, who will transmit the tax to the City. The outstanding issue is whether this condition could be enforced.

Attached to this table are additional comments submitted by Ms. Sattler Thursday afternoon based on her review of the conditions of approval. These items are listed as unresolved and requires further review by the Council.