09/11/2001 Planning Commission Agenda September, 2001, 09/11/2001, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, 30020 Via Victoria stated he felt the issues previously raised had been mitigated. He felt there were two outstanding issues the Planning Commission should consider. He noted that Item No. 6 in the Conditions of Approval that lot 7 was approved for a residence height of 16 feet, however it could be built higher through a height variation. He felt the same condition should apply to lot 6, as the same type of issues applied to this lot as lot 7. He too was concerned with the size of the proposed houses and felt they were too large and not compatible with the house sizes on Via Victoria, Commissioner Long concluded by stating that in the negotiations with the developer, the City has laid all of it’s cards on the table while the developer has showed very little, as they have been telling the City it is all or nothing and there is no compromise. He felt that what will happen in the City approves the project in its current form, the City will be told that a 9-hole golf course is not enough and further concessions must be made. He felt the City was negotiating from a standpoint of weakness where they should be negotiating from a standpoint of strength. He stated that he would propose a motion to deny the project and reject the use of public land, or a motion to recommend denying the project in its current form The 09/11/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Meeting September 11, 2001

September 11, 2001

DISCLAIMER

The following Planning Commission agenda includes text only version of the staff reports associated with the business matters to be brought before for the Planning Commission at its Regular Meeting of this date. Changes to the staff reports may be necessary prior to the actual Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission may elect to delete or continue business matters at the beginning of the Planning Commission Meeting. Additionally, staff reports attachments, including but not limited to, pictures, plans, drawings, spreadsheet presentations, financial statements and correspondences are not included. The attachments are available for review with the official agenda package at the the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department area at City Hall.

...end of disclaimer...

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

** CLICK HERE FOR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS


This agenda has been prepared for the orderly progression of Planning Commission business.  The Planning Commission is very interested in hearing your comments and encourages your participation in the meeting.  These agenda instructions are intended to familiarize you with how the meeting will be conducted, what to expect and how to most effectively participate in the process.

Staff Reports

Detailed staff reports on the items contained in this agenda are available from the Planning Department the Friday before the meeting and are posted for public viewing immediately prior to the meeting in the hallway outside the chambers.  The Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department is located at City Hall at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes.  The Department's public counter hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday.  The telephone number is (310) 377-6008.

Organization of the Agenda

The Planning Commission agenda is divided into the following sections:

Consent Calendar: This section consists of routine items, which, unless a request has been received from the public, a Commission member or Staff to remove a particular item for discussion, are enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission.
Continued Business:  This section consists of items that were held over from a previous Planning Commission meetings and for which a decision has not yet been made.
Public Hearings: This section is devoted to noticed public hearings which have not been previously heard by the Commission.
New Business: This section is for items that do not require a noticed public hearing.  Pursuant to adopted Planning Commission procedure, the Commission will, except under exceptional circumstances and with the consent of the majority of the Commission, adjourn its meetings on or before 12:00 a.m. and not consider new business items after 11:00 p.m., with any unfinished business being continued to the next regular, adjourned, or special meeting.
Audience Comments: This part of the agenda is reserved for making comments on matters which are NOT on the agenda.  Comments must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission.  Due to State law, no action can be taken on matters brought up under Audience Comments.  If action by the Commission is necessary, the matter may be placed on a future agenda, or referred to Staff, as determined by the Commission.

Presentation of Agenda Items

Unless the Chairperson in his or her discretion should direct otherwise, the order of the presentation is generally as follows:

(a) Presentation of staff report, including any environmental analysis or recommendation.
(b) Questions of staff by members of Planning Commission.
(c) Public hearing opened.
(d) Presentation of the applicant(s) or appellant(s).
(e) Presentation of persons in favor of the requested action.
(f) Presentation of persons in opposition to the requested action.
(g) Rebuttal comments by the applicant(s) or appellant(s), if requested.
(h) Closing comments by staff.
(i) Public hearing closed.

 

How to Speak on an Item

 In order to speak on an item, please completely fill out a Request to Speak form and return it to the recording secretary.  These half-sheet forms (which are printed on colored paper) are available on the table in the hallway outside the chambers or from the recording secretary, who is seated on the left-hand side of the dais (the table with the blue skirt at the front of the meeting room), next to the light timer.  Requests to speak on an item must be submitted to the recording secretary prior to the completion of the remarks of the first speaker on the item.  No request forms to speak on the particular item will be accepted after that time.

 After your name is called by the recording secretary, please approach the lectern and speak clearly into the microphone.  The height of the microphone may be adjusted by hand if necessary.  Before beginning your comments on the item, please state your name and address for the record.

 The length of time that each person is allowed to speak on individual items is determined by the Chairman and is usually based on the number of speakers on the particular item.  Normally, the applicants and appellants are limited to a five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other persons are generally limited to three (3) minutes per person. 

 Submittal of Written Correspondence

 You may submit written evidence to the Planning Commission through the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and request that the Commission receive copies of the submitted materials prior to the meeting.  However, such written evidence must be submitted by 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.  If any written evidence is submitted after the Monday noon deadline, the Commission will not consider it at the meeting.  However, it will be distributed as part of the agenda packet for any forthcoming meeting, provided that the item is continued.  This does not prevent you from reading written comments that are submitted late into the record as part of oral comments, in accordance with the time limits discussed above.

Conduct at the Meeting

The Planning Commission has adopted a set of rules for conduct during Planning Commission meetings. Although it is a very rare occurrence, the Chairperson may order from the Planning Commission Chambers any person(s) who commit the following acts with respect to a regular or special meeting of the Planning Commission:

1. Disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Commission or any member thereof, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
2. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, which interrupts the due and orderly course of said meeting.
3. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairperson which shall include an order to be seated or refrain from addressing the Commission.
4. Any other interference with the due and orderly course of the meeting.

Your cooperation in making the Planning Commission meeting run smoothly and fairly for all participants in greatly appreciated.


BEGINNING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


 

 

SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-28


 

CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

NONE

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2001

2.MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2001

3.AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 901 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8822: Jack & Irene Hung, (applicant), 27856 Longhill Drive.

    Requested Action: Amend Condition of Approval No. 7 of Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822, which were approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2000 per Resolution No. 2000-13.


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


4. VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294 and ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34: William Urso, (applicant), 3825 Crest Road. (ES)

    Requested Action: Allow construction a 355 square foot addition at the front of the residence with a 5-foot front yard setback, where the Development Code requires 20-feet; conduct 60 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the addition; and construct a 6-foot high wrought-iron fence within the City’s public right-of-way.

    Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__; approving Variance Permit No. 485, Grading Permit No. 2294 and Encroachment Permit No. 34, subject to conditions.


5.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231: Focus on Learning Center / Shiuling Huang, (applicant), 500 Silver Spur Road. (BY)

Requested Action: Allow a tutorial center serving up to 48 students per day, at an existing office building.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__; approving, with conditions, Conditional Use Permit No. 231


6.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 – REVISION ‘A’: Compass Telecommunications, representing Cingular Wireless, (applicant), 500 Silver Spur Road. (ES)

Requested Action: Allow installation of three personal communications systems (PCS) panel antennae on a two-story building. One panel will be mounted at the southeast corner of the building, and two panels will be mounted at the northeast corner of the building, and will be screened by architectural façade covering that is not taller than the existing parapet wall. Further, the equipment cabinets will be located in a suite inside of the building.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision ‘A’, subject to conditions.


CONTINUED BUSINESS:


7.PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL POLICY

Requested Action: Review the draft E-mail Policy and provide staff with direction.

Recommendation: Provide Staff with direction.


8.LONG POINT RESORT: Consisting of Coastal Permit No. 166, General Plan Amendment No. 28, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Conditional Use Permit No. 216, Parcel Map No. 26073, Grading Permit No. 2229, Grading Permit No. 2230, and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report; Destination Development Corporation, (applicant), 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (AM)

Requested Action: Approve Coastal Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Conditional Use Permit No. 216, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26703, Grading Permit No. 2230 and General Plan Amendment No. 28 for the Long Point Resort.

Recommendation:Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Discuss the revised site plan for the Resort Hotel Area and determine whether the plan is acceptable to the Commission and consistent with the August 28th motion; 2) Consider the applicant’s request to introduce a modification to the Upper Point Vicente Area site plan; 3) Discuss the various improvements on the Resort Hotel Area, such as the golf course, hotel building, casitas, villas, parking, and public parks and trails; 4) If deemed appropriate, review the preliminary findings and revised draft conditions of approval for the project applications; and 5) If deemed appropriate, forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at their October 2nd meeting.


NEW BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff


9.PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,

September 25, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.


AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.


 

 

SCHEDULING NOTES

REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE REMARKS OF THE FIRST SPEAKER ON THE ITEM. NO REQUEST FORMS WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THAT TIME.

PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURE, NEW BUSINESS ITEMS NOT HEARD BEFORE ll:00 P.M. WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUED AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA.

NEXT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-28


 

CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

NONE

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2001

Draft

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 14, 2001

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:05 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

FLAG SALUTE

Commissioner Paulson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Present:Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon

Absent:None

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Snow, Acting Senior Planner Mihranian, Assistant Planner Yu, and Assistant City Attorney Pittman.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Without objection, Chairman Lyon approved the agenda as presented.

COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed items of correspondence relating to Agenda Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and noted items of late correspondence related to agenda item no. 5 which were not accepted by the Commission.

Director/Secretary Rojas reported that correspondence had been received regarding the "Planning Commission e-mail" item discussed at the previous meeting, including a request to re-agendize the item. The Commission agreed to re-agendize the item.

Commissioner Long reported that he had attended a breakfast meeting with members of SOC II. He stated that there was no discussion on any of the pending permit applications, however they did discuss use of public land for the project.

Commissioner Cartwright reported that he had a phone conversation with Steve Kuykendall regarding the Tentative Tract Map application on Palos Verdes Drive West. He also received a package from Dena Friedson with information regarding the Long Point project.

Commissioner Paulson stated he had received the same information from Ms. Friedson and he had also had a conversation with Mr. Kuykendall regarding Agenda Item No. 4.

Chairman Lyon, Commissioner Mueller, Vice Chairman Clark all reported that they had received phone calls from Mr. Kuykendall regarding Agenda Item No. 4.

CONSENT CALENDAR


1.Minutes of July 10, 2001

Commissioner Long noted a typo on page 12 of the minutes.

The minutes were approved as amended, (7-0).


2.Minutes of July 24, 2001

    Commissioner Long did not feel the last paragraph on page 1 of the minutes reflected what was actually said, and felt it should only say that the Chairman reported he had a discussion with Mike Mohler.

    Commissioner Long noted on page 15 of the minutes a comment should be added to the last paragraph noting that he had indicated that finding no. 6 should not be treated as being identical to finding no. 4. He also asked that the phrase "which he did not feel could be made" be added to the next sentence in the paragraph.

    The minutes were approved as amended, (7-0).


PUBLIC HEARINGS

3.Conditional Use Permit No. 227: LLC International, 28041 Hawthorne Blvd.

    Commissioner Long stated that he had been on vacation and had not been able to perform the site visit, therefore he would recuse himself from this application.

    Assistant Planner Yu presented the staff report. She explained the project and noted that staff was able to make all findings necessary and recommended approval of the project.

    Commissioner Cartwright asked if staff had received any public comments regarding the project.

    Assistant Planner Yu answered that there had been no comments received from the public.

    Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

    Celly Adamo (applicant) 27401 Los Altos, Suite 275, Mission Viejo stated she was available for any questions.

    Commissioner Cartwright asked if there had been a master plan submitted to the City.

    Ms. Adamo explained that the type of proposed antenna was not part of a network and therefore no master plan existed.

    Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-22, thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 227 as presented by staff, (6-0-1) with Commissioner Long abstaining.

4.Tentative Tract Map No. 52666, Grading Permit No. 2282, Environmental Assessment No. 708: 3200 Palos Verdes Drive West

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report for his continued item. He reported that a meeting had been held with neighbors and as a result of the meeting the design of the tract was modified to address concerns by lowering building pads of lots 9 and 10, separate driveways were eliminated to lots 9, 10 and 13. He noted these lots were now served by a flag lot driveway that serves lot 12. He noted the grading quantities had been significantly reduced. He explained that concerns regarding lot density could be addressed through development standards for the proposed lots. He noted these development standards were included in the conditions of approval. Mr. Mihranian stated that staff had received a phone call from Palos Verdes Estates expressing concerns over the amount of earth movement and construction vehicle activity on Palos Verdes Estates streets. He explained that staff had modified the conditions and the modification was presented to the Commission in a memo distributed at the beginning of the meeting.

    Vice Chairman Clark expressed concern over the lot size and the size of the proposed homes on these lots.

    Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

    David Olin 123 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach stated he was the designer for the project. He stated that the project meets all the requirements of the RS-4 zone and no variances would be required. He discussed lot 13 and the letter received by staff from a resident who was concerned his view would be impaired. He stated he would drop the height of the roof 2 feet, which would make it the same height as the roofs on lots 9 and 10. He requested a two-story home be allowed on the lot, with a maximum height of 26 feet on the downslope side. He stated he agreed with the conditions in the staff report. In discussing proposed home sizes, he noted that the size of the home included three car garages.

    Commissioner Paulson asked staff if they had any problem with the architect’s proposal for lot 13.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the changes would be acceptable provided the amount of grading was reduced and that the house ridgeline does not exceed the Via Victoria street elevation.

    Vice Chairman Clark stated that at the previous Planning Commission meeting on this item the houses were proposed at approximately 3,800 to 4,200 square feet. He noted that in the present staff report the size of the proposed homes were substantially larger. He was concerned with in-fill development and asked Mr. Olin for his comments.

    Mr. Olin understood Mr. Clark’s concerns. He stated that the homes had good articulation and assured the Planning Commission that there were adequate setbacks. He stated there would be the maximum amount of green space which would reduce the impact of the houses.

    Sandy McElroy 30034 Via Victoria thanked the Planning Commission and staff for recommending the neighborhood meeting. She felt the developer had gone out of his way to work with the neighbors and she was now confident that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood.

    Rich Sittel 30020 Via Victoria stated he felt the issues previously raised had been mitigated. He felt there were two outstanding issues the Planning Commission should consider. He noted that Item No. 6 in the Conditions of Approval that lot 7 was approved for a residence height of 16 feet, however it could be built higher through a height variation. He felt the same condition should apply to lot 6, as the same type of issues applied to this lot as lot 7. He too was concerned with the size of the proposed houses and felt they were too large and not compatible with the house sizes on Via Victoria.

    Faye Seiger 30034 Via Victoria stated she was very satisfied with the changes made by the developer. She discussed the trees and foliage for the new development and asked that the parkway area not be planted with trees.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian explained there were two separate conditions of approval dealing with foliage and trees. One condition dealt with the trees in the public right-of-way along Via Victoria and the other dealt with the individual lots and limiting the heights of foliage on the property. He stated that the foliage on the right-of-way was subject to review by the Director of Public Works, who would work with staff to ensure that no right-of-way trees or foliage would result in view impairment. He noted a landscape plan would be required for each individual property.

    Commissioner Cartwright asked staff to explain why there appeared to be a discrepancy in the conditions of approval regarding the height of foliage on the lower lots and the upper lots.

    Director/Secretary Rojas agreed there was a discrepancy and suggested changing the condition of approval to incorporate the language of Proposition M which prohibits view impairment.

    Gene Steiger 30034 Via Victoria was satisfied with the changes made by the developer. He discussed the monitoring of the air quality during construction and noted that grading was to cease when the wind reached 30 mph. He felt that this was too high and asked it the wind speed be lowered.

    Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Steiger if he had any concerns regarding the sizes of the proposed homes.

    Mr. Steiger answered that he did not have a concern over the proposed sizes of the homes.

    Jerry McLaughlin 3000 PVDW, PVE, was concerned with the increase in traffic this project would cause. He felt the Commission should discuss how the construction traffic could be routed so as not to impact Palos Verdes Estates.

    Commissioner Long noted that there had been correspondence from the City of Palos Verdes Estates regarding this issue.

    Hal Arafat 7231 Rue Godbout objected to the size of the proposed houses and the amount of grading associated with the project.

    Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Long reviewed condition no. 6 of Exhibit A and felt that the way it was worded may suggest that if the code is amended in the future, the amendments will not apply to this project.

    Director/Secretary Rojas stated that staff has found it appropriate to clarify in the conditions that staff relies on the Code when an issue is not discussed specifically in the conditions.

    Commissioner Long asked why the wording couldn’t be changed to read that the development of the lots shall comply with both the specific development standards and the requirements of Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code.

    Director/Secretary Rojas stated that when the Code is amended staff needs to be sure that the tract conditions of approval are applied, otherwise all tracts would be non-conforming.

    Commissioner Long asked if there was going to be any grading that could potentially impact the support of adjoining existing structures.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian answered that the Building and Safety Division will review the grading plans to ensure that certain mechanisms are implemented to ensure the grading doesn’t create a hazard to adjacent properties.

    Commissioner Long felt there should be a condition requiring the developer to obtain insurance of an amount sufficient, as determined by staff, to address any potential damage that may occur.

    Commissioner Cartwright stated he was very happy with the outcome of the developer and neighbors working together to satisfy concerns of the neighbors. He felt the current plans reflected a very good project that he could support.

    Commissioner Lyon agreed with Commissioner Cartwright.

    Commissioner Mueller asked about the open space and what guarantee, if any, the City had that Palos Verdes Estates would maintain the adjacent open space and not allow it to be built out.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian stated that this was at the discretion of Palos Verdes Estates. However he noted that at looking at the tract map the lot in question was landlocked as there is no access to it other than by a 10-foot wide trail easement.

    Vice Chairman Clark asked if adopting the tract development standards still allowed each individual house to be reviewed by the City for compliance.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian answered that the applicant is still required to submit a Site Plan Review or, in some cases, a Height Variation, for each individual lot. This allows staff to do public noticing and check for neighborhood compatibility conformance.

    Vice Chairman Clark asked if staff had any concerns about the maximum structure size.

    Acting Senior Planner Mihranian answered that the maximum structure size includes the garage area and felt it was roughly consistent with what is in the neighborhood.

    Commissioner Paulson moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-23 and P.C. Resolution No. 2001-24 as presented by staff with the modification regarding the pad elevations on lot 13, thereby approving Tract Map No. 22666, Grading No. 2282, and Environmental Assessment No. 708, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

    Commissioner Long suggested an amendment to add a condition stating that the developer shall obtain insurance, if city staff deems it appropriate, in connection with the grading.

    Commissioner Paulson accepted the amendment, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed, (7-0).


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:30 p.m. the Commission took a short recess to 8:40 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT)

5.Long Point Resort: 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. He stated that staff had no new information to report to the Commission other than what was presented in the staff report. He stated that the City’s EIR consultant, the traffic consultant, and the biologist were all available for questions from the Planning Commission.

The Commission discussed the process for conducting the discussion of this project, concluding that the applicant would be asked to make a presentation similar to that given to the Council of Homeowners Associations, and that each speaker would be allocated two minutes to address the Commission.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Mike Mohler 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 900, Los Angeles gave the power point presentation that he had previously given at a meeting to the Council of Homeowners Associations. The presentation explained the previously approved Monahan plan and the current Long Point proposal.

Commissioner Long moved to allow those speakers who are opposed to the project and who have specific responses to Mr. Mohler’s presentation be allowed more than the specified two minute time limit to speak, seconded by Commissioner Mueller. The motion failed, (2-5) with Commissioners Cartwright, Vannorsdall, Paulson, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon dissenting.

Angie Papadakis 28655 Roan Road expressed her support for the project and asked the Commission to approve the project.

Bruce Megowan 700 Yarmouth Road, PVE, expressed his support for the project and noted that the City would still own the land, receive money through the concession agreement, gain new trails, as well as expanded natural habitat. Otherwise, the dilapidated condition at Long Point would continue.

Maureen Megowan 700 Yarmouth Road, PVE, stated she was firmly in support of the project. She did not think the project was viable without the 9-hole golf course.

Roberta Weaver 2978 Crownview Drive stated she was representing the Miraleste Hills Community Association, which was very much in favor of the project.

Russell Schweiger 30828 Via La Cresta stated he fully supported the project and requested it be approved.

Mike Philbin 30257 Via Victoria felt the project would add to the beauty, recreational facilities, and the revenue of the City.

Susan McNeill 32735 Seagate Drive stated she very much supported the project and felt it would be a mistake not to take the opportunity presented by the project.

Ken McNeill 32735 Seagatge Drive expressed his support for the project.

Chuck Powell 30047 Knoll View Drive stated he was in support of the project.

Betty Marler 32724 Coastsite Drive asked the Planning Commission to make a decision on the use of the property without any further delays.

Lou McCreight 101 Cresta Verde Drive, RHE, stated he was very much in favor of the project.

Jim Knight 5 Cinnamon Lane felt there were still quite a few problems with the proposed habitat restoration and biology reports. He discussed tee times and the public use of the golf course, concluding that the proposed plan would amount to 50 percent exclusion of the public. He was concerned that building the golf course on public land excludes children and would result in the loss of the utilization of the parkland. He felt the developer should work on a plan that utilizes only Long Point land.

William Tolliffe 6347 Tarragon Road discussed his objection to the golf course on public land. He encouraged the use of a golf academy on the Long Point property with the use of shuttles to Ocean Trails for golfing, believing that this configuration would be a sufficient attractor for the hotel. He asked that the City not give away what it already owns.

Jack Downhill 20 Vanderlip Drive felt the project was well conceived, well considered, and studied to death and stated his support for the project. He expressed opposition to privately owned villas on the Long Point site.

Barbara Gleghorn 28850 Crestrige Road stated that as a representative of SOC II she felt that SOC II had made many strong points supporting no development on City land. She felt other important points could be made but felt the Planning Commission needed the maximum amount of time for discussion among themselves. She stated that SOC II now has over 3,000 signatures from Rancho Palos Verdes residents plus over 1,000 other peninsula residents asking the City to keep the park for general public use.

Barbara Walsh 34 Oceanaire Drive stated that the number of signatures on the petition in support of keeping the public land is continually growing. She also stated that the City has been promised $15,000 in financial support from residents. She stated that a resident had committed to a donation of $50,000 to the City, contingent upon the City Council’s decision to retain Upper Point Vicente Park as public park land.

Trish Malin 43 Santa Catalina Drive expressed her support for the project. She stated that Rancho Palos Verdes residents would receive the benefits of tax revenue and improved landscape.

Sonja Hayes 64 Via Capri stated that the project would enhance the City. She felt it was a first class project and the City should endorse the project.

Juan Forteza 4021 Via Larga Vista, PVE felt it was time for the Planning Commission to make a decision and asked them not to pass up the project.

Linda Lawler Freitag 22 Via Capri stated that the Upper Point Vicente area has remained mostly unused, inaccessible, and unattractive. She stated the Long Point proposal would transform the property into an attractive, usable area with hiking trails, parks, overlooks, and picnic areas. She felt the proposal would restore and create new native habitat area, all at no expense to the City. She stated that 3,000 signatures on a petition was out of 46,000 residents in the City.

Joseph Freitag 22 Via Capri stated the Board of Directors of the Villa Capri HOA held a special meeting where a vote was taken regarding the use of the Upper Point Vicente area. He stated that approximately 84 percent of the homeowners were in favor of Long Point, with certain conditions being met. He noted that these conditions were contained in a letter sent to the City on July 20, 2001. He stated that Mr. Mohler has responded to the conditions, and for the most part showed a willingness to meet the conditions.

Don Shults 2129 Velez Drive stated he was president of the Rolling Hills Riviera HOA which represented approximately 700 homes. He stated at the last board meeting of May 2 it was decided to support the request of SOC II for no development on the Upper Point Vicente Park area. He read a letter from the Board.

Dena Friedson 1737 Via Boronada, PVE stated that the General Plan was never amended to implement the Program of Utilization. She asked that the City follow the advise of the National Park Service letter of April 9 and that no development, no project, Point Vicente Park enhancement alternative has the most likelihood of being accepted.

Holly Cain 52 Avenida Corona discussed the traffic committee approval and her thoughts that traffic will significantly increase in the area.

Gerllinde Ryan 3224 Barkentine Road expressed her concerns over development of the Upper Point Vicente Park and felt the City owed it to future generations to leave the area undeveloped.

Todd Anderson 2 Masongate Drive, RHE stated his support for the project and the additional revenue it would create for the City.

Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated she was very much opposed to using Upper Point Vicente Park for golf purposes.

Ken Zuckerman 1 Ocean Trails Drive stated the Long Point project would have very positive benefits for Ocean Trails. He stated he was not concerned about competition and felt that this type of development would bring more golfers to Ocean Trails. He stated he would be available for any questions regarding the Ocean Trails golf course and their successful habitat restoration.

Bob Stearns 5023 Delacroix Drive stated he has reviewed the plans, walked the site, and attended the Planning Commission meetings. He stated that, as a result of his investigation, he was convinced the project was a positive use for the area.

Frank Bescoby 19 Surrey Lane did not think this project was the best use of public land for public use. He felt the project should be developed on Long Point land.

Eric Paris 29234 Stadia Hill Lane referred to an advertisement taken out by the developer in the Palos Verdes News. He stated that the City did not encourage the developer to file the application, but rather permitted the applicant to file the application. He felt this was a significant difference. He referred to a statement made by the developer that the Upper Point Vicente land was mostly inaccessible and ecologically disturbed. He felt this was an endorsement to minimize changes to the land, not make extensive modifications. Finally, he discussed the viability of the project as the applicant has continually scaled back the scope of the project. He encouraged the Planning Commission to disregard the developers hype, lobbying, and threats.

Mike Mohler (in rebuttal) discussed advanced reservations for tee time, and noted that a maximum of 50% would be allocated to the hotel. He pointed out that this does not include securing or encumbering 50% of the play at the golf course to hotel guests. He stated that biological issues have been addressed in the recirculated biology section of the EIR. Mr. Mohler stated he has presented the project and noted that everything he has presented has either been upheld, validated, or not disputed by the City consultants. He thanked the Commission for their patience and stated he was available for any further questions.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

The Commission discussed the process for Commission deliberations for the project.


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 10:15 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess to 10:25 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT.)

Chairman Lyon moved to change the normal procedure of the Planning Commission by having each Commissioner in turn express their opinions about the project, allow the Commission to ask questions of that Commissioner about their opinions, and discuss any prospective motions they plan to make, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (7-0).

Chairman Lyon began the discussion. He discussed the following points: 1) a successful hotel complex on Long Point would be beneficial to Rancho Palos Verdes. In addition to beautifying Long Point, even a fraction of the projected revenue would be very useful to the City; 2) Some land beyond the Long Point property would be needed to construct an attractive 9-hole golf course and golf academy that is said to be necessary for project viability; 3) From the City’s standpoint, allowing all of the requested golf holes on Upper Point Vicente land is not desirable. Retaining the relatively flat hill-top area by City Hall for other potential uses is most beneficial to the City; 4) It is questionable whether a 9-hole golf course would provide sufficient attraction to ensure success of this large hotel complex. This decision must be made by the applicant; 5) Even if the project were to fail in the future, conditions of approval could be included that would leave Upper Point Vicente land in better condition that it is now; 6) A cooperative arrangement with Ocean Trails golf course would significantly increase the probability of success of both projects; 7) Important habitat and bird nesting areas in Upper Point Vicente can be protected while still using some areas for golf; 8) The City already has 13 public parks totaling 241 acres and 372 acres of undeveloped City-owned open space, with plans to buy 22 acres more. This far exceeds the State guideline of 4 acres of park land per 1,000 residents (about 168 acres), and is much more than the City can currently afford to develop; 9) Development of Upper Pint Vicente land by the applicant would provide far greater access to this property by the public than currently exists, and can achieve some of the SOC II goals; 10) More Rancho Palos Verdes residents are likely to use the proposed Long Point golf course and public areas than those currently using our tennis courts, bike paths, hiking trails, and many parks; 11) The location of public trails and scenic overlooks in and around golfing areas must be planned to completely avoid any reasonable chance of personal injury to the public; 12) Use of the land adjacent to Villa Capri for golf (currently proposed holes 3 and 4) would be a significant long-term benefit to Villa Capri compared with other possible uses; 13) The villas planned on Long Point property are not a necessary element of the project and may not be consistent with current zoning

Commissioner Cartwright asked Chairman Lyon to clarify the area at Upper Point Vicente Park that he suggested be retained by the City.

Chairman Lyon clarified the area on a map displayed on the overhead projector. He pointed out the relatively flat area surrounding the City Hall area, consisting of the western 2/3 of golf hole 5.

Commissioner Long asked why other land owned by Mr. York could not be used for a golf course.

Chairman Lyon felt that Mr. York owned no viable property that could serve the purpose of a golf course. He noted that the land in question was in the landslide moratorium area, would require an extensive amount of grading in an unstable area, and was not contiguous with the hotel.

Commissioner Long asked Chairman Lyon if he concluded that the likely receipts from additional revenue and/or concession agreements from the project would exceed the expenses created by the additional burden on City infrastructure.

Chairman Lyon stated that his opinion was the revenue would exceed the projected expenses.

Commissioner Long asked if there was anything Chairman Lyon could tell him that would lead to the conclusion that the City’s current parklands are more than sufficient to meet all of the anticipated future needs.

Chairman Lyon answered that one has to use some type of guideline to make that judgement. He referred to the State Guideline for Municipalities which is 4 acres per 1,000 residents. He stated that for Rancho Palos Verdes that computes to approximately 168 acres and the City currently has 241 acres of parkland and 372 additional acres pending acquisition that could be parkland.

Commissioner Long asked Chairman Lyon what his thought was if in the future the developer were to say that a 9-hole golf course was not sufficient and they needed more land for an 18 or 36-hole golf course.

Chairman Lyon felt that providing land for an 18 or 36-hole golf course was impossible. He felt the City could, however, provide some land for a 9-hole golf course.

 

Commissioner Vannorsdall made the following points: 1) Destination Development is a well known company and are specialists in resort type facilities. He noted that they have resorts in Maui and he felt their golf courses appear to be healthy. He also noted the company holdings in Hotel Del Coronado and operates 24 domestic hotel and condominium resorts, making if the seventh largest hospitality management company in the U.S. He felt that if the City could reach an agreement with Destination Resorts it would be the only facility of this type in Los Angeles County. That fact alone magnifies the need in the community for such a facility. 2) According to the EIR and various City committees there are no significant impacts on traffic, geology, landslides and other potential hazards. He felt this was important to the success of the project. 3) From his observation and conversations with others that seem knowledgeable in this business, a change in business conferences has been taking place over the years. He noted that companies allow the spouse and children to now go along on business trips which creates a need for casitas and other amenities proposed in this application. 4) The City has a lot to gain for other reasons beyond adding additional business to Ocean Trails and cleaning up the eye sore at Long Point, along with the tax revenues from the resort. He felt this was a good place for high school proms and other civic groups to have functions, wedding receptions, and the like. 5) If the Commission recommends the partial use of Upper Point Vicente Park, he felt this was a real contribution to the City in that it would provide public access to areas that are only accessible to the hearty hiker. It would provide walking paths, enhance the natural habitat and native plant life, provide maintenance at no cost to the City and then, after paying for the construction and maintenance of the property, pay the City a concession fee. 6) The City has 13 parks that are mostly either not developed, underdeveloped, or incomplete. The primary reason is lack of funds, and this certainly includes Upper Point Vicente Park. 7) Only a small portion of the Upper Point Vicente Park is subject to protected land and according to the present plan as submitted, it would be increased substantially. Experience at increasing natural habitat at Ocean Trails is well documented. They have more nesting gnatcatchers than ever before. 8) At the present time the only real access to the Upper Point Vicente is the flat area currently occupied by City Hall, parking, tennis court, and a helicopter pad. Most of the other areas are really not visitor friendly.

Commissioner Vannorsdall recommended the Commission encourage the developer to make some changes to their proposal in regards to the Upper Point Vicente area. He felt that it was important to retain the flat area where City Hall is located for City use. He also felt that golf safety was a key issue in terms of threat to Villa Capri and the church. He suggested removing Hole 4 from the area, meaning that Hole 3 could remain because the tee would be located in an area where one would be driving away from those entities.

Commissioner Vannorsdall felt the City has had very little commercial enterprise compared to most Cities and as such has had to struggle and impose Utility Taxes and the like. He felt it was time to allow private enterprise to provide the finances for the City’s needs rather than additional city taxes and/or suffer our dependence on whims of State Legislators in Sacramento. He felt that private enterprise should pay for the development and maintenance cost and provide the residents with more use of their own land than they currently have.

Commissioner Vannorsdall recommended that the Commission approve the partial use of the Upper Point Vicente Park and ask the applicant to come back to the Commission with their revisions.

Commissioner Paulson asked, and Commissioner Vannorsdall confirmed, that his proposal was for elimination of all of both holes 4 and 5.

Commissioner Long stated he resisted the Planning Commission having to make this decision and felt the decision on whether or not the use of public land should be used for the project should be made by the City Council. He felt the Planning Commission was being asked to make a recommendation on a decision that was, in part, a political decision. He felt the decision they were now being asked to make was on the issue of the use of public land and not the actual merits of the project. He stated that it was without question that whatever was built on the Long Point property would be far more beautiful than what is down there right now. He also felt that it was without question that Upper Point Vicente was being neglected, not effectively used, and by outside appearances was being treated by the City as surplus property.

Commissioner Long agreed with many of the opinions outlined by Chairman Lyon but was not sure they were particularly relevant to the issue at hand. He felt the issue at hand was not just whether the use of Upper Point Vicente for golf is better than the current use, but whether the use of Upper Point Vicente for golf is better than all of the other anticipated uses to which the residents of the City might want to put that land. He did not think there was very much information on that subject made available to the Planning Commission. He noted that if the Commission decides to surrender public land for use by the private developer it will, for all practical purposes, be an irrevocable decision.

Commissioner Long felt there was inadequate information on what the needs in the City are for golf versus other recreation and what is the best long-term use of the property at Upper Point Vicente. He felt that whatever public land the City has should be put to it’s best possible use, but questioned what that best possible use of Upper Point Vicente would be. He stated he had no evidence to suggest that golf would be the best possible use and so, in the Commission’s role in making this recommendation, he stated he was unprepared to support any use of public land for the project. He felt that the role of the Commission and other City officials charged with the responsibility of making recommendations and decisions was essentially as trustees of the public land and making sure the public land is put to it’s best possible use. He felt a far better use for the property, based on information and testimony received, was to devote portions of the property to habitat and softball/soccer fields. He acknowledged that if the development proceeds and is financially successful the City will undoubtedly receive improved bike baths, running trails, and public swimming pool, and much more. However, he did not think this should govern the decision as to what the City should do with public land. He stated that the reason the City land at Upper Point Vicente, as well as the land at Long Point are neglected is an issue of bad choices. He felt that the fact that a series of bad choices had been made was not a reason to make another bad choice. He further believed that use of the Filiorum property for golf could be feasible.

Commissioner Long suggested that what was being proposed is inconsistent with promises the City made when it received the land. He stated that if one looks at the application for Federal Surplus Property it shows that one of the promises the City made was they would forever use the property in accordance with the application and the approved program of utilization included in the application. He stated the application states that the land shall be devoted to public use.

Commissioner Long stated that the Commission has not heard what the City will get in return for the use of the public land. He stated there had been discussions of a concession agreement and he asked what the concession agreement will be, what will the minimum rent be, what will the percentage of gross receipts be, what will the letter of credit be, from what financial institution. He stated the City was not financially destitute. He urged his fellow Commissioners to look at the use of the City land in a long-term perspective and consider what all of the potential uses of the land may be. He stated that nothing had been considered other than leaving the land as is, enhancing the habitat, or using the land as a golf course. He felt there were a number of other uses that others in the community may have ideas for the use of the land.

Commissioner Long concluded by stating that in the negotiations with the developer, the City has laid all of it’s cards on the table while the developer has showed very little, as they have been telling the City it is all or nothing and there is no compromise. He felt that what will happen in the City approves the project in its current form, the City will be told that a 9-hole golf course is not enough and further concessions must be made. He felt the City was negotiating from a standpoint of weakness where they should be negotiating from a standpoint of strength. He stated that he would propose a motion to deny the project and reject the use of public land, or a motion to recommend denying the project in its current form.

Commissioner Vannorsdall pointed out that there would be a concession agreement and the land would not be given away.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that the question was, "Should a part of Upper Point Vicente be used as part of the Long Point Project?" He stated that the Commission has listened to different perspective and viewpoints, and that the Commission would not be able to satisfy everyone. He hoped that the Commission had included everyone in the discussion. He stated there were those who felt the project should be approved and those who opposed the project. He also felt there was a third group of people in the City who were unable to tell the difference between open space and a golf course. He did not think many of this third ground had entered into the debate.

Commissioner Cartwright felt that the use of public land was a policy issue that ultimately would be settled by elected officials. He felt policy issues do not lend themselves to the Planning Commission processes, however the Commission has been asked to make recommendations, which they would do.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that he did not think golf at Upper Point Vicente was the issue because it had been conceptually approved by the City Council in 1989. He did not think habitat was an issue as impacts could be mitigated. He did not think access was an issue since there was very little public to the property now. He felt the Long Point project would be a resource for the City and that the Planning Commission should recommend the use of a portion of Upper Point Vicente that was absolutely essential to ensure a viable project. He stated that the project would eliminate eyesores at the old Marineland site and Upper Point Vicente, generate $4.5 to $5 million to the City’s general fund, lessen the City’s dependency on local and state tax dollars, create employment opportunities, attract tourist dollars, as well as significantly increase the public access to the land. He wished he had more information to potential alternative uses of Upper Point Vicente and had a better feel for how essential golf was to the viability of the project. However, without the information, he felt the best use for Upper Point Vicente was to use a portion of the land to ensure that the project goes forward.

Commissioner Mueller discussed the application made to the Federal Government for this land. He noted that the land is publicly owned and that is stressed many times in the application as well as in letters from the Park Service. He felt the most important issue in publicly owned land was access to the land. He was concerned that golf was a restrictive use and would restrict full and complete access to the land, especially by children. He wondered how public access would be guaranteed to this area when the golf course was built. He felt there were many other recreational opportunities for the site that have not been fully explored. He felt the Upper Point Vicente area needed to have joint use that supported both passive and active activities. He felt that by approving the project the City was opening up an avenue of increased liability to the City. He felt an option to approving the project would be to ask the developer to redesign the project and put all nine holes on Long Point property and provide a smaller hotel.

Commissioner Paulson asked if there were any proposed restrictions on the golf course to children.

Mike Mohler answered that there was nothing that would preclude children of any age using the golf course or having access to the area, and that the misinformation could be from financial projections.

Director/Secretary Rojas agreed that there was nothing that would restrict children from the area.

Commissioner Paulson stated he has tried to approach this project from the question of general public use as defined in the program of utilization and all of the deed restrictions. He stated he was looking for something that said that there absolutely was no golf allowed on this property. He did not think there was anything in the documents that said that in the future a passive or active use could not be put on the property. He stated that he then looked at who the prime people were who were going to be impacted as far as the project and the use of public property. He felt those living at Villa Capri were directly impacted by the project. He stated he listened to the speakers from Villa Capri and the Church and concluded that the majority felt that the golf course was the best use of the land from their viewpoint.

Commissioner Paulson felt there was a constituency in the community that would like nothing done with the property and it should be used only for view purposes and habitat. He stated there was another constituency that felt the property should be developed and was essential for the developer. He stated there was a third constituency that didn’t want any development in Upper Point Vicente or on the Long Point property. He felt that the one constituency the Planning Commission owed an obligation to was the community as a whole. He felt the community must be represented by the Planning Commission and the Commission owed that constituency a very careful review of the project as to what is going to happen in the future. He felt there was a great need for facilities for team sports in the City.

Commissioner Paulson stated that in looking at the overall benefit that can be achieved by having some use of the public property used concurrently with the Long Point property, he has come to the conclusion that there is a valid benefit to the community at large. He stated that he would propose allowing golf use for general public purposes at the currently proposed holes 3, 4, 2, and 7. He suggested the City retain the land at holes 5 and 6. He felt this would maintain for the City the views and trails and all of the land would not be committed.

Commissioner Paulson concluded by saying there was no simple solution and the solution was not black or white. He felt that if it were a viable project to build a hotel and golf course on the Long Point property somebody would have done it. He also did not feel it was a viable project, as presented, using all of the Upper Point Vicente property. He also did not think the Long Point project should include the villas and suggested they be deleted from the project.

Vice Chairman Clark complimented his fellow commissioners, the developer, and both the supporters and opponents for the hard work they had all put into this project. He realized that whatever decision was made would make someone unhappy. He stated that he was an avid golfer, however he was here as a Planning Commissioner and his job was to judge whether the proposed joint public/private land use application makes sense for the City. He discussed the project and the developer’s claim that golf was necessary for the viability of the project. He stated that 2 miles down the road is Ocean Trails, which is a world class golf course. He felt there was a symbiotic relationship between Ocean Trails and Long Point in that Long Point could provide a state of the art practice facility which Ocean Trails did not have and Ocean Trails could provide a championship 18-hole golf experience to the guests at the Long Point resort. He stated that if Ocean Trails is going to be all that it can be, it needs the resort hotel. Conversely, if Long Point is going to be all that it can be it needs Ocean Trails. He explained that he has visited all of the major 5-star resorts in California and visited many in the United States and Europe. He stated that not one of the resorts would have attracted his interest with a 9-hole golf course. He stated that Long Point and Ocean Trails would have to come together in sort of way to make both projects viable.

Vice Chairman Clark continued by stating that looking at this project in its totality and considering all of the input from the applicant and public, he could not look favorably at using public land for the golf amenity. He did not believe the golf course would be the attractor that will make the resort successful. He did think that Long Point was on the right track in proposing, along with their world class resort hotel and world class spa facility, their world class golf academy. He also felt reshaping some of the project on the Long Point site to include practice holes that are a challenge to beginning golfers and those golfers who want to hone their game would be beneficial. He did not think the financial viability of the project rests with the 9-hole golf course. To that end, he would suggest a motion denying the use of Upper Point Vicente Park or any public land for the use of a golf course and direct the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised project that considers the potential design of the practice holes to give a multiplying affect to the golf experience on site. Further, he would recommend the developer consider the possibility of a tie-in with Ocean Trails for the additional golf amenities desired for the project.

Chairman Lyon moved to conditionally approve only the eastern and lower portions of Upper Point Vicente land for golf and exclude the relatively flat area by City Hall, generally the area requested for the first 300 yards of hole no. 5. This would be subject to the applicant submitting a revised plan that is acceptable to the Commission that incorporates the following features: 1) the plan must reasonably protect important habitat and nesting areas; 2) public trails and scenic overlooks must be relocated to ensure public safety; 3) develop hilltop land around City Hall for passive public recreation, the details of which could be worked out with the Recreation and Parks Department; and 4) if the applicant fails to submit a revised plan, or the plan with suitable modifications is not acceptable to the Commission, then the use of Upper Point Vicente land for golf is denied, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that he believed that golf was an essential amenity to the success of the resort. He was not sure it was a good idea, however, to ask the developer to assume responsibility for a plan for the area around the City Hall.

Commissioner Long agreed with Vice Chairman Clark’s suggestion to deny the use of public land. He noted that there was nobody on the Commission who favored the approval of the project in its current form. He felt the pending motion was the wrong negotiating strategy, in the sense that the Planning Commission would be putting all of their cards on the table. He felt that Vice Chairman Clark’s proposal was a better negotiating strategy. He suggested recommending denial of the project in its current form. He felt this would open up a real discussion with the developer as to what he want, needs, and is willing to do.

Commissioner Cartwright did not disagree with Commissioner Long’s comments if the responsibility of the Planning Commission was to negotiate with the developer. He did not believe negotiating was their responsibility, and he was very reluctant to do so. He felt that the Planning Commission had been asked to make a decision on land use.

Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed with Commissioner Cartwright’s comments.

Chairman Lyon felt his motion gave the Planning Commission and developer more latitude than Vice Chairman Clark’s motion. With Vice Chairman Clark’s motion the developer could not come back to the Planning Commission with any plan that uses any of the public land. He stated that with his motion the applicant may come back with a plan that uses public land or not. The developer would still have the option, at his discretion, to use only Long Point property. He felt this gave the applicant more options.

Commissioner Long suggested a motion that recommended the Planning Commission recommends rejection of the project in its current form.

Commissioner Vannorsdall strongly objected to that suggestion as he felt the Planning Commission should give the developer some direction so that he can come back with a viable project.

Commissioner Paulson felt it was wrong to send a recommendation to the City Council which says the project is denied based on it’s current form. He felt that if the Planning Commission felt the project should be changed or modified it was their responsibility to ask the questions and have the developer come back with a modified plan and at that point either approve or deny the project.

Commissioner Mueller stated he supported Vice Chairman Clark’s recommendation but asked if that recommendation could be made without prejudice. He felt that when the Planning Commission begins carving up the use of public land then he was not sure they were then answering the request of the City Council as to whether or not public land should be used for the project.

Commissioner Long felt that if the Planning Commissioners believed that this 9-hole golf course requires some portion of public land is going to be the amenity that makes the project viable, then so be it. However, if the Planning Commission has any doubts then he suggested the doubts should weigh in favor of voting against the motion.

Commissioner Paulson had a concern with Chairman Lyon’s recommendation that the land around City Hall be developed for passive public recreation. He did not think passive use was defined.

Chairman Lyon stated he would be open to amending the recommendation to develop the hilltop land around city hall for passive and/or active recreation.

Commissioner Long referred to the suggestion that some of the golf course be put on Mr. York’s property at Filliorum. He asked staff if that entire property was in the landslide moratorium area.

Deputy Director Snow answered that approximately 15 – 20 acres of the land was outside of the moratorium area.

Chairman Lyon amended his motion to say that the applicant shall develop a plan in conjunction with City staff for use of hilltop land around City Hall for passive and/or public recreation, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

Director/Secretary Rojas understood the Chairman’s revision however he was concerned that it would require the developer and City to come up with a plan for the passive/active public recreation area. He stated this would require hearings and input from the City, Recreation and Parks, and the City Council. He suggested revising the motion to require the developer to implement what is in the Parks Master Plan. However, if the Planning Commission wants the developer to contribute towards the development of the land, perhaps the recommendation could be reformatted so that the developer enter into a development agreement with the City and the amount of contribution towards those amenities be negotiated with the City Council.

Chairman Lyon revised his amendment so that no. 3 stated that the developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City to develop hilltop land around City Hall for passive and/or active recreation. He added that if the applicant fails to submit a revised plan or the plan with suitable modification is not suitable to the Planning Commission then the use of Upper Point Vicente land for golf is denied. The motion failed on a roll call vote, (3-4) with Commissioners Long, Mueller, Paulson and Vice Chairman Clark dissenting.

Vice Chairman Clark moved to deny the use Upper Point Vicente Park or any public land for the use of a golf course and direct the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised project that considers the potential of an expanded golf academy and practice facility with practice holes with the potential design of the practice holes to give a multiplying affect to the golf experience on site. Further, the developer consider the possibility of a tie-in with Ocean Trails for the additional golf amenities desired for the project, seconded by Commissioner Long. The motion failed on a roll call vote, (3-4) with Commissioners Cartwright, Paulson, Vannorsdall, and Chairman Lyon dissenting.

Commissioner Paulson moved that the only public land to be considered for golf purposes are those currently labeled as holes 7, 2, 3, and 4 and all other property so indicated for golf purposes not be dedicated to golf use, which would be holes 5 and 6, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

Commissioner Cartwright asked why he chose to eliminate the area around holes 5 and 6.

Commissioner Paulson responded that he believed hole 6 encroaches into the habitat area.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that hole 6 does not encroach into the habitat area and in his discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Agency their concerns with habitat areas were centered around holes 3, 4, and 7.

Commissioner Paulson revised his motion to conceptually approve only the eastern and lower portions of the Upper Point Vicente land for golf, excluding the relatively flat area on top of the hill by City Hall (eliminating all of Hole No. 5), subject to the applicant’s submittal of a revised plan acceptable to the Commission that incorporates the following features: 1) reasonably protects important habitat and bird nesting areas; 2) relocates public trails and scenic overlooks to ensure public safety; and 3) at the appropriate time, the applicant enters into a development agreement with the City to contribute toward the development of the area excluded from the golf course (hole no. 5) with passive and/or active public recreational amenities. Further, if the applicant fails to submit a revised plan, or the plan (with suitable modifications) is not acceptable to the Commission, then the use of Upper Point Vicente land for golf is denied, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. The motion passed (4-3) with Commissioners Long, Mueller, and Vice Chairman Clark dissenting.

Chairman Lyon indicated the project would return to the Planning Commission on August 24, 2001 with revisions and conditions for Planning Commission discussion.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Commissioner Long noted that, being after midnight, there should be a vote as to whether to consider any further items on the agenda. He noted that Planning Commission rules stated that no new item would be heard after 11 p.m.

Commissioner Cartwright moved to continue hearing the Agenda, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. The motion passed, (5-2) with Commissioners Long and Mueller dissenting.

6.General Plan Amendment No. 29 – Housing Element

Director/Secretary Rojas presented a brief staff report stating this was a procedural matter that had to go before the Planning Commission before being forwarded to the City Council, and that the Commission had already considered the Housing Element. He explained that the recommended changes had been incorporated into the Housing Element.

Commissioner Mueller asked about the senior affordable housing project mentioned in the Housing Element and if it was still an active project as stated in the Housing Element.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that technically, as of now, the statement is not true as the applicant had changed the plan and it was pending a hearing before City Council. He stated the Housing Element could be amended to say that an application has been submitted.

Commissioner Mueller noted a typo on page 2-24 of the Housing Element.

Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2001-25, recommending City Council certification of a Negative Declaration for the project, and adopt P.C. Resolution NO. 2001-26, recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment NO. 29, thereby approving the final housing element, seconded by Commissioner Paulson. Approved, (7-0).


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS

Chairman Lyon suggested hearing Item No. 3 first and the Commission agreed.


ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Lyon adjourned the meeting at 1:35 a.m.


2.MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2001

Draft

CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 28, 2001

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lyon at 7:03 p.m. at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.

FLAG SALUTE

Vice Chairman Clark led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Present:Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Paulson, Vannorsdall, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Lyon

Absent:Commissioner Mueller was absent (excused)

Also present were Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Rojas, Deputy Director Snow, Acting Senior Planner Mihranian, Associate Planner Schonborn, Assistant City Attorney Pittman, and Recording Secretary Peterson


APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairman Lyon suggested hearing the items in the following order: 5, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 4. The Commission agreed.


CONTINUED BUSINESS

Height Variation 920, Grading Permit No. 2274, Minor Exception Permit No. 320, and Fence, Wall, and Hedge Permit No. 36: Mr. And Mrs. Kiger (applicant) 30357 Diamonte Lane.

Without objection, Chairman Lyon tabled the item, as recommended by staff, until a new application is submitted and a new public hearing is noticed.


COMMUNICATIONS

Director/Secretary Rojas reported that the City Council, at their last meeting, adopted the Housing Element and did not enter into a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the developer for the Senior Affordable Housing project. He explained that the City Council directed staff to look into alternative uses for the site.

Director/Secretary Rojas distributed a copy of an e-mail from Commissioner Mueller, a letter regarding the zone 2 moratorium issue, and 14 pieces of correspondence regarding Long Point. In addition, he noted there were 2 items of late correspondence regarding Long Point, which the Planning Commission directed be distributed.

Commissioner Cartwright noted that he had received a copy of a letter from Mr. Freeman and from Ms. Clarkson regarding the Planning Commission policy on e-mail. The other Commissioners acknowledged they had received the same correspondence.

Commissioner Cartwright discussed a letter to the editor written by Commissioner Long that had been published in the Palos Verdes News and the Daily Breeze. He stated that the letter was highly critical of the majority of the Planning Commission who had voted August 14 to recommend to the City Council to use a portion of Upper Point Vicente for the Long Point project. He felt that Commissioner Long had a right to write to whomever he wishes, but did not have a right to misstate a position or distort facts to make his point. He quoted several portions of the letter, which he felt were misleading or untrue. He felt Commissioner Long was ill advised to write a letter to the editor as a Planning Commissioner before the Planning Commission had concluded deliberations. He felt this would confuse the public and make it more difficult for the Commission to act collectively on tough, difficult issues. More importantly, he felt the public deserved fair and honest dealings and to distort facts and misstate a Commissioner’s position in an attempt to sway public opinion was not fair.

Commissioner Long stated that that in writing the letters to the editor he was attempting to express a better statement of the views that oppose the project in a better way than had been presented in the newspaper articles. He stated that what was in the letter was nothing more than a summary of what he had said at the meeting. He felt that a statement made at 1:00 a.m. at the Planning Commission meeting was less useful to the public than a statement that could be read and considered by the public. He stated that the purpose of writing the letter was to encourage those who are opposed to the project and encourage the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision. He stated that it was not intent to distort anyone’s position.

Commissioner Vannorsdall stated that there had always been an unwritten code that the Commission was not to debate a Commission decision made as a whole. He stated that the Commissioners join ranks to report their joint decisions to the City Council and the public as a single body. He did not think individual Commissioners should attempt to influence the City Council’s decision beyond the debate that took place within the Planning Commission meetings. He felt the letter written to the editor was a deliberate attempt to do just that. He felt the decision made by the Planning Commission should be upheld by all of the Planning Commissioners.

Commissioner Paulson expressed his disappointment with the letters to the editor. He stated that Commissioner Long had his opportunity in a public forum to articulate his position on the subject. He felt that Commissioner Long had a right to write to the editor, however he felt it should have been done as an individual citizen and not as a member of the Planning Commission. He stated that he would make his decisions regarding Long Point based on the facts presented to the Planning Commission in the public hearings and staff reports.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that, if asked, he would have advised Commissioner Long not to write the letters to the editor. He stated the Commission must act together as a Commission. He stated the issue of use of Upper Point Vicente was still before the Planning Commission and from that perspective he regretted the letter to the editor.

Chairman Lyon added that he was disappointed and felt it was very important for the Planning Commission to continue to work together. He felt that Commissioner Long has had many opportunities to state his views to the Planning Commission and the public at the various hearings. He felt it was very disappointing when one member of the Planning Commission could not accept the majority decision of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Long noted that he did not sign the letter as a Planning Commissioner and that the title was added by the newspaper.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Minutes of August 14, 2001

Commissioner Long noted a typo on page 15 of the minutes.

Commissioner Cartwright noted that on page 13 of the minutes there were some comments he made that he felt should have been included. He requested the Recording Secretary listen to the tape and include the comments in the minutes. He requested the minutes be returned at the next meeting to verify these corrections.

Vice Chairman Clark noted on page 17 of the minutes there were comments he made that were left out that he would like included. He also noted on page 20 of the minutes there were comments he made that he would like repeated in his remarks on page 17.

Chairman Lyon noted a typo on page 4 of the minutes. He noted on page 7 of the minutes that one of the statements was out of order and requested that it be revised. Chairman Lyon slightly reworded the motion on page 11 for clarity.

Without objection, the minutes were continued to the meeting of September 11, 2001.

Planning Commission e-mail addresses

Chairman Lyon stated that the Commission and staff had received several letters from the public regarding the Planning Commission e-mail policy. He clarified that when there is an item before the Commission, any information received by one Commissioner must be shared with all of the Commission. He stated that there must be a procedure guaranteeing that any correspondence received by one Commissioner will be received by all.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that he absolutely wants public input and the Planning Commission needed a policy to ensure that it happens most effectively.

Commissioner Paulson felt that the intent of the Planning Commission when this subject was originally discussed was to improve the methods of getting public input to the Commissioners. He felt the process agreed upon at the meeting would provide a better way of getting communications to the Commissioners. He discussed his concerns with getting e-mail directly from the public and noted that the public could not assume Commissioners would get their e-mail in a timely manner if they happen to be out of town. He felt that whatever approach was chosen, it must include timeliness and the ability to transmit the information that comes into the Commissioners wherever they may be.

Commissioner Cartwright emphasized the fact that he does not have access to a computer and therefore cannot receive e-mail from the public. He felt the system that was in place was working reasonably well.

Commissioner Long agreed that it was important that all of the Commissioners receive the same e-mail, they all receive them at as much the same time as possible, and they all have them in advance of the meeting in which they’re intended to relate. He stated that if it was easier to be centralized with the City staff it would be something that would assist all of the Commissioners.

Commissioner Paulson wondered if it were time to look at an overall City policy on how e-mail information should be handled. He was concerned that the City Council and the different Commissions and Committees all handled their e-mails in a different manner.

Chairman Lyon agreed but added that they were in a position only to recommend the City Council establish such a policy. He felt the best thing to do was clarify the procedure the Planning Commission would like to follow and present that to the City Council as a model that they may wish to emulate or change at their discretion.

Commissioner Long felt the Planning Commission should reconsider the previous directive to remove all personal e-mail addresses from the City roster. He stated there were several Commissioners willing to have their e-mail addresses available to the public.

Commissioner Cartwright clarified that the Planning Commission had directed the Planning Staff to collect all e-mail sent to the City and send the e-mail to the Commissioners in the most efficient manner possible. He emphasized that there was no direction to censor the e-mail and all e-mail was to be forwarded.

Chairman Lyon suggested reaffirming the existence of the central planning Commission e-mail address, which should be the main vehicle of communication with the Planning Commission. Secondly, on the website or City roster, add any information each individual Planning Commissioner would like to have shown. He stated the central e-mail received up to 5:30 p.m. on the Monday before the meeting should be forwarded to each of the Planning Commissioners. He stated that e-mail received after 5:30 p.m. should be treated as late correspondence. He stated that the e-mail should be automatically forwarded to all of the Commissioners who have an e-mail address and those who do not, it will be placed with the written material to be given to that Commissioner.

Commissioner Long asked staff if the City had the capability to digest the e-mail.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he did not know the answer and would have to check with the technical staff. He also stated he would have to check to see if a cutoff time of 5:30 could be set up on the e-mail system for the automatic forwarding of the e-mail.

Vice Chairman Clark was concerned that if staff did not present the Commissioners with a hard copy of the e-mail, there may be e-mails that Commissioners do not receive because of travel, etc. He asked Assistant City Attorney to comment on Mr. Freeman’s correspondence to the Planning Commission, if he had seen it.

Assistant City Attorney Pittman stated he had not reviewed Mr. Freeman’s correspondence, but did discuss the what e-mail is private and what e-mail is public. He stated that any e-mail received through city website became a matter of public record at that point. If the e-mail is sent to the Planning Commissioner’s personal e-mail address it is not public information until the Planning Commissioner discloses the e-mail, unless the e-mail is relative to a matter before the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Paulson moved to continue the use of the City website for e-mail directed to the Planning Commission, however Commissioners should put any information regarding personal e-mail addresses back onto the City roster if they desired. He stated that staff should return to the Planning Commission at the next meeting with a recommended procedure and policy for the Commission to consider, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (6-0).

Vice Chairman Clark suggested this item be opened to public comment at the next meeting.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision ‘C’

Associate Planner Schonborn presented a brief staff report. He explained the original Conditional Use Permit and the two subsequent revisions to that Conditional Use Permit. He explained that the Permit expired in August, 1998. He explained that the request before the Commission was an extension of the original CUP for the continued operation of the school and a request for approval to increase the maximum student enrollment. He stated that staff could make all necessary findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit Revision.

Commissioner Paulson asked staff what the existing enrollment cap was under the Conditional Use Permit.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the existing cap was 28 students. He stated that the current enrollment is 110.

Commissioner Vannorsdall asked how many students Ladera Linda School could hold.

Associate Planner Schonborn answered that the school could hold 338 students.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if there was a way, if this request were approved, to monitor enrollment and if enrollment were to exceed what was approved by the Planning Commission, a revision would be applied for.

Associate Planner Schonborn stated the conditions have been modified to indicate which rooms are to be used at the school with a cap of 112 students. He noted that any deviation from either the cap or additional rooms to be utilized would require a revision before the Planning Commission.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing

John Ernst 32201 Forrestal Drive (applicant) stated he was available for questions.

Commissioner Cartwright asked if a cap of 112 students was enough and if they would have to come back to the Planning Commission in the future to request a raise to that cap.

Mr. Ernst stated that 112 students was based on the amount of rooms currently being used at the school. He explained that he would have to go before the City Council to request the use of more rooms, and all of the rooms at Ladera Linda were currently being used.

Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road stated that she had brought to the attention of the City Council that the Montessori School at Ladera Linda does not have it’s own meters and is using the electrical and gas meters designed for the entire school. She felt that because nobody was overseeing the use of the meter the school was using as much electricity and heat as they desired. She stated that the Recreation and Parks Department had told her they keep that in mind when they calculate the rental fee for the rooms. She questioned whether they do keep that in mind, particularly now that the utility rates have risen so high.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if this issue was handled in a lease agreement.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this issue had been raised before and that the utilities are handled under a lease agreement which is approved by the City Council.

Chairman Lyon closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Cartwright moved to adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-27 thereby approving Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision ‘C’ as presented by staff, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall. Approved, (6-0).


NEW BUSINESS

General Plan Annual Report

Chairman Lyon waived the reading of the staff report.

Commissioner Paulson referred to Commissioner Mueller’s e-mail in which he noted that on page 5 of the General Plan there was no reference to the Golden Cove Montessori School.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that would be incorporated.

Vice Chairman Clark asked staff when was the last time the General Plan had a comprehensive review and update.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that the City’s General Plan had not had a comprehensive review or update.

Vice Chairman Clark asked if there were State requirements to review and update the General Plan.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that the State only requires the Housing Element to be updated.

Vice Chairman Clark asked why the City Council had not addressed the possibility of a comprehensive review and update of the General Plan.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that the last time the City Council addressed the subject they felt that the original policies and goals of the General Plan are still valid.

Chairman Lyon noted on Page 7, a statement where the City had entered into an agreement to purchase 622 acres of open space land. He stated that should be 722 acres.

Commissioner Vannorsdall moved to forward the General Plan to the City Council, as amended, seconded by Commissioner Cartwright. Approved, (6-0)


RECESS AND RECONVENE

At 8:40 p.m. the Planning Commission took a short recess until 8:55 p.m. at which time they reconvened.


COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (REGARDING NON-AGENDA ITEMS)

Lois Larue was called to speak but did not respond.


CONTINUED BUSINESS (CONT)

Long Point Resort: 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Blvd.

Chairman Lyon suggested the following: 1) hearing the staff report; 2) open the public hearing to hear comments limited to elements of the new plan or the draft conditions of approval included in the staff report; 3) a discussion amongst the Commissioners to determine if the new plan meets the requirements of the motion made at the last meeting. If it does not meet the requirements, the Commission may consider modifications to the plan that would satisfy the requirements; 4) review the draft conditions of approval; and, 5) vote on the approval or denial of the project.

Commissioner Cartwright agreed with the suggestions, however he felt that the Commission should hear from the applicant, since a new plan was being presented.

Chairman Lyon stated his thought was that the staff report would describe the new plan and in the discussion of the new plan if there were questions, the Commission may direct those questions to the applicant.

Vice Chairman Clark felt the applicant should have a chance to describe the revisions made to the plan after the staff report has been given. In reviewing Chairman Lyon’s suggestions, he did not feel the Planning Commission was in a position to make a decision on the project relative to the resort hotel area. The Commission agreed.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian presented the staff report. A revised plan was displayed on the overhead projector and Mr. Mihranian pointed out that hole no. 5 had been removed, resulting in an increase of public area of approximately 12.6 acres. He pointed out the areas where the applicant had removed park area and one overlook area. He noted that the golf area had been reduced from 35.6 acres to 20.3 acres. He explained that hole no. 8 had been modified to co-exist with the golf school and practice facility. He stated that the revised plan has resulted in less impact to biological resources and in general the plan is designed to ensure public safety. He stated that the City’s EIR consultant and traffic consultant were available if the Commissioners had questions.

Vice Chairman Clark addressed a letter received from the Department of Interior relative to concerns over the use of Upper Point Vicente. He stated that the letter indicates the Department of Interior has significant or serious concerns with the use of Upper Point Vicente in this project. He asked staff about these concerns.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated he was aware of these concerns and noted they were primarily over habitat connections at Upper Point Vicente. He stated that the EIR consultants had concluded that the impacts to biological resources are not significant after mitigation. He stated that staff felt the changes made to the project plan are an improvement and address some of the concerns the resources agencies have expressed. He stated that it was staff’s intent to meet with the resources agencies to review the latest changes to the plan.

Commissioner Cartwright discussed view corridors and impacts to these corridors from buildings on Long Point that were proposed to be 26 feet high. He asked if staff had addressed these concerns.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian stated that staff had addressed these concerns in the conditions of approval for the resort hotel area. He noted that the proposed structures that exceed the height limits have been restricted in the conditions of approval, based on the Coastal Plan’s vertical zones.

Commissioner Paulson noted that in Commissioner Mueller’s e-mail he expressed concern about the height of buildings on the resort hotel area. He asked what was being used as the base to determine the height of the structures.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian answered that in regards to height calculations, the commercial recreation zone in which the resort hotel is located does not specify how height is measured. He explained that it was staff’s approach in this case was to measure height from finished grade. He noted that the applicant has requested to grade the site and lower the existing grade.

Commissioner Cartwright asked staff if they had concerns with golf safety on holes 7 and 8.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian stated that staff was deferring to the recommendations of the golf safety sub-consultant for holes 7 and 8 and that they be incorporated into the plan.

Chairman Lyon asked staff if the applicant had reviewed the recommendations of the golf safety expert and if they had agreed to implement these recommendations.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian stated the applicant had received the recommendations but was uncertain as to whether he accepted these recommendations.

Chairman Lyon opened the public hearing.

Mike Mohler 11777 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles, displayed a map that he felt responded, to the letter, to the condition set forth by the Planning Commission. He noted that the new plan does reasonably protect important habitat and bird nesting areas, which he noted the City consultant agreed with, and relocates public trails and scenic overlooks to protect public safety. He reviewed the new golf plan at Upper Point Vicente and noted that public park area increased, native vegetation area increased, and the golf area decreased.

Commissioner Paulson expressed concern with hole no. 2. He asked what the distance was from the tee to the path.

Mr. Mohler stated it was approximately 100 feet, and approximately 50 feet downslope. He stated there was sufficient grade separation enhanced by shrubbery and a fence that would provide total protection for anyone on the path.

Commissioner Paulson asked if this berm concept was built into the existing plan.

Acting Senior Planner stated that the plan showed more of a fence rather than a berm.

Mr. Mohler explained that the fencing and berms were integrated into the landscaping.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Mohler if he agreed with the consultant’s recommendations regarding hole no. 3.

Mr. Mohler answered that he could live with the consultant’s recommendations regarding hole no. 3. He did not agree with the consultant’s recommendations for hole no. 2. He stated that he did not think the consultant realized the road was already graded and he preferred not to do any more grading than was necessary.

Vice Chairman Clark stated his concern with parallel fairways, such as holes 3 and 4, and the possibility of being hit by golf balls.

Mr. Mohler stated that hole no. 4 was a par 3 and the city consultant agreed that it worked well and there were no problems from a design or safety point of view. He stated he was trying to be responsive to the biologist concerns while considering golf safety. He noted that there was quite a bit of vegetation between the two holes.

Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Mohler if he had an idea of the distance from the back tee at hole no. 4 to a point he indicated at hole no. 3.

Mr. Mohler did not know the distance but said he would get the answer for him.

Chairman Lyon stated that, as described, he was satisfied that holes 3 and 4 were safe. He felt that the consultant’s suggestion to move the cart path was not a good suggestion when one considers all of the factors. He felt it was safer as described with the shrubbery fence and berm.

Commissioner Paulson stated that if that was the case, then there should be something submitted or incorporated into the plans that describes in detail how this will happen.

Chairman Lyon suggested adding this as a condition. Staff agreed.

Commissioner Cartwright added that a condition should be added reflecting the applicant was in agreement with the consultant’s recommendation regarding hole no. 3.

Commissioner Paulson read condition "E" of the development agreement regarding public access to the resort hotel and golf course. He asked Mr. Mohler if he agreed with this condition.

Mr. Mohler stated the developer would record easements to the satisfaction of the City over the property to ensure public use, as stated in the condition.

Commissioner Vannorsdall requested a condition be added that no golf cart or pedestrian path have a slope greater than 20 percent.

Mr. Mohler felt that was a good condition, but indicated there was one trail that was over 20 percent and asked that one be excluded. He noted the area around the trail had tremendous habitat and felt it was better to limit any additional grading in that area.

Commissioner Vannorsdall agreed, as did staff.

Alfred Sattler 1904 Avendia Aprenda stated he was the political chair for the Palos Verdes/South Bay region of the Sierra Club. He stated that he was pleased with the directive that includes the condition that the plan reasonably protect important habitat and bird nesting areas. He felt that in order to determine whether this condition has been met the Planning Commission will need to thoroughly review all comments that are submitted for the revised biological section of the EIR. He did not think the Planning Commission could make any responsible decision as to whether this condition has been met until the public comment period for this section of the EIR has been closed. He felt that many of the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are inadequate and unsubstantiated, and despite developer claims, impacts to habitat from this project will be severe.

Dr. Jeff Greenwood 3612 Gurnard Ave., San Pedro, felt that public park area and private golf courses do not mingle very well. He stated his experiences at Ocean Trails have not been good, and described his experiences.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that staff would look into Dr. Greenwood’s experience to make sure that wasn’t still happening.

Joseph Picarelli 30311 Via Borica discussed holes 3 and 4 and did not think Mr. Mohler explained them very well. He felt the changes at holes 3 and 4 were major changes and needed further review. He did not think the adjacent properties were being considered in terms of safety.

Chairman Lyon noted that the changes to holes 3 and 4 were made 3 months ago, on the plans dated May 17, 2001.

Don Shults 2129 Velez Drive felt the changes requested by the Planning Commission to the Upper Point Vicente property have been made. He stated he had heard enough from golfers to realize there are some dangerous spots that need to be looked at closer. He felt it was time to ask the developer to leave Point Vicente property altogether and there was room on the developer’s own property to develop the resort and golf course.

Frank Buzard 26961 Springcreek Road stated he was going to go home and wished the Planning Commissioners could to, as they were going to have to listen to several more hours of absolute drivel and irrelevancy.

Rowland Driskell 30 Via Capri stated that it is likely that a par 3 executive course would not offer a golf experience commensurate with the needs of the typical resort guest. He noted that this proposed course was now 634 yards less than an executive course. He read a portion of a letter from the National Park Service regarding the use of Upper Point Vicente which indicated they would now favor public recreational uses of the property which has the fewest impacts on biological resources.

William Tolliffe 6347 Tarragon Road stated the latest golf course proposed for the Long Point development has problems. He felt the some-time driving range / some time 9th hole was an inconvenience for the early morning golfer and restrict the use of the driving range. He felt this would have little appeal for the experienced golfer or the beginner. He was concerned that shots at holes 2 and 6 would be made over habitat, where in order to retrieve a bungled drive the golfer must walk into the brush or give up the ball. He felt safety problems still existed at holes 2 and 3. He felt that there was a need for a comprehensive Upper Point Vicente plan to preserve the natural habitat and improve the recreational features.

Ann Shaw 30036 noted that twice in the Conditions of Approval there were statements that no netting would be allowed. She asked that if, in the future, it became evident that netting was necessary for safety purposes, could that condition be changed.

Assistant City Attorney Pittman responded that a discretionary application could always be reviewed by the body that crafts the permits, so that if there was some need to change a condition, the change could be brought before the deciding body at a public hearing to determine if the condition should be changed.

Ms. Shaw stated that she did not see anything in the conditions regarding application of pesticides and fertilizers on the golf course. She asked if that was included anywhere.

Acting Senior Planner Mihranian responded that pesticides and fertilizers were addressed in the mitigation monitoring program. He stated that the conditions were

worded so that the project would adhere to all mitigation measures approved in the certification of the EIR.

Ms. Shaw asked what had happened to the need for a regulation 9-hole golf course that the developer could not live without. She stated that golfers who wanted to practice on the driving range want to do it at any time of the day. She stated that golfers who want to play golf do not want to play on a hole that is used as a driving range. She felt this new design was proposed because Destination Resorts was not willing to give up one single rental unit. She stated that if the Planning Commission were to approve this design they were accepting the developer’s contention that they must have all 582 rental units.

Dena Friedson 1737 Via Boronada, PVE, did not think the idea of a hole that also served as a driving range would never work. She did not think golfers would want to play on such an abbreviated course. She did not think investors or lenders would want to risk their money on such a project. She did not think the new design reasonably protected important habitat and bird nesting areas at Upper Point Vicente.

Frank Bescoby 19 Surrey Lane did not feel the area around hole no. 2 was safe for people walking the trails, as errant golf shots could come down at very sharp angles. He was also concerned for the area at Villa Capri and the Church as errant shots from hole no. 4 could land in the parking areas.

Gloria Anderson 6818 Los Verdes had noted that in no place in the staff report is the spelled out that 50 percent of the golf tee times would be reserved for the public. She asked who would decide which 50 percent would be given to the public. She stated there was nothing discussing the protection of the beach. She noted that there was mention of equestrian trails in the staff report. She asked if there was a stable proposed. She wondered if the people at Villa Capri have considered the fact that they would be exposed for 4 years to a major amount of dust during construction. Finally, she asked what the accessed value of the property was around City Hall.

Lois Larue 3136 Barkentine Road was disappointed that the Planning Commission was willing to give away City owned property.

Barbara Sattler 1904 Avenida Aprenda asked the Commissioners to give careful review to the biological section of the EIR. She also asked that the Commissioners carefully review all comments received regarding that section. She stated she had come across a letter from California Water Service stating that the increased development in the area would require the addition of a storage tank of 5 million gallons of water which would require a site of 1 to 2 acres with a tank approximately 35 feet high and 130 – 150 feet in diameter. She stated she did not see this tank anywhere on the plans and has not heard it addressed by anyone.

Holly Cain 52 Avenida Corona noted that mitigating a problem was not solving a problem. She felt that mitigation makes what is terrible a little less bad. She noted that time shares were not allowed on the property, so the developer called the time-shares "villas". She did not see anything in the staff report about keeping pesticides and fertilizers out of the ocean. She did not think the use of land at Upper Point Vicente was appropriate for the use of a private developer for golf. She noted that Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife have money available to purchase other property, however both have stated that there is no money coming to Rancho Palos Verdes because of the golf that is proposed at Upper Point Vicente.

Commissioner Paulson indicated that he would like to get the name and phone number of the person Ms. Cain spoke to at the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Mohler stated that there were no trails planned between fairways. He mentioned the trail at Ocean Trails that runs perpendicular to the coast and that it was extremely close to the golf course. He stated that if the City employed the same golf safety analysis rigors on Ocean Trails that they have to this proposed plan he did not think there would be any public trails at Ocean Trails. He discussed a resort in Oregon and stated that what was very noticeable was that every golf hole had bike trails and paths 30 feet off of the fairway. He stated that golf and pedestrian traffic could co-exist, as he had seen it happen. Mr. Mohler noted that in one letter from the National Park Service they recognize the potential for golf being an acceptable use of the Upper Point Vicente area. They continued on to speculate on what the conditions might be. He explained that they pursued this subject with the National Park Service and they were told that one condition that would make the proposal more amenable would be the recordation of public use on private property. He stated that this is something he has already agreed to.

Chairman Lyon asked how pesticides would be kept on the golf course and not in the ocean or habitat area.

Mr. Mohler stated that the mitigation monitoring program has provided mitigation measures that must be followed, and they will be followed to the tee. Secondly, the habitat conservation plan will monitor the issues and that the acceptable pesticides and fertilizers will be used.

Commissioner Cartwright asked Mr. Mohler to comment on the statement by one of the speakers that at two of the holes the ball would have to be hit over habitat area and golfers would have to go into the habitat area to retrieve their balls.

Mr. Mohler stated that the speaker was correct in that the flight of the ball in both cases would fly over sections of habitat. He noted that this circumstance happens 4 or 5 times at Ocean Trails. He stated golfers will not be able to go into the habitat. There will be golf marshals on site, golfers will have to sign agreements before golfing stating they will not enter the habitat area, and if golfers do enter the habitat area to retrieve a ball they will be ejected from the golf course.

Commissioner Paulson asked to speak to the biologist for the EIR. He stated there had been quite a bit of discussion regarding the conditions put in place for the protection of the nesting areas and habitat areas. He asked Ms. Johnson if she had any comments to the condition that she made on the proposed revision and if this proposed revision protect the areas in question.

Ann Johnson, the city biological sub-consultant, stated that this proposed plan is consistent with the previous plan in preservation and proposed restoration of habitat. She stated the new plan actually proposes more restoration and preservation. She stated she has made some recommendations regarding limiting some of the trails through the habitat area. She stated that she had also made a recommendation, in the area south and east of the Coast Guard site, to limit the relocation of natural trails.

Chairman Lyon explained that the Planning Commission would now discuss whether or not this revised plan satisfies the requirement of the motion made at the last meeting. He stated that involved the Upper Point Vicente property as well as the resort hotel area.

Vice Chairman Clark asked Mr. Mohler to describe the concept of the dual use between the golf course and the practice facility/driving range.

Mr. Mohler began by stating that the golf course on the Upper Point Vicente site was not the developer’s proposal but rather what the Planning Commission did with their proposal. Mr. Mohler displayed the overhead of the proposed golf course and pointed out the various locations of the holes. At the request of Vice Chairman Clark, Mr. Mohler pointed out the area that the practice facility and driving range was previously located. He explained that because of the new direction given by the Planning Commission the golf school was now challenged rather than the golf course. He felt it was important that there was still a good 9-hole golf experience. He stated that the golf school now has scheduling issues. He felt they would be able to operate the putting and chipping facilities all day, but based on golf and school demand a demand schedule would have to be created, and the golf school would have to have flexibility. He felt this was part of the compromise the Planning Commission asked the applicant to make in removing the par 5 hole on Upper Point Vicente.

Commissioner Paulson clarified that the Planning Commission did not force anything on the developer to come up with this design. He stated that this design was one that the applicant elected to do in response to what was decided at the last meeting. He stated this was only one approach to solve the problem of not having the 5th hole at Upper Point Vicente, not the only approach.

Mr. Mohler agreed, and pointed out where a par 3 golf hole could be located. He stated there was no room to keep the villas and parking and have the width to create a golf hole in that area. He agreed there were options, but the options in the applicant’s opinion weaken the golf course.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that in attempting to preserve a 9-hole golf course, the applicant has taken away the driving range and practice facility. The issue he saw with this approach was three-fold: 1) One of the real attracters designed into the project was a practice facility to be used at any time and located at the resort. That, coupled with the state of the art golf academy was a real attracter. He felt this attractor has now been diluted. 2) The developer has taken away one of the natural elements of the symbiotic relationship with Ocean Trails. He noted that Ocean Trails does not have a practice facility or driving range. He stated that the previous plan met the needs of Ocean Trails and Ocean Trails has the reciprocal championship 18-hole golf course experience, and 3) He was having a difficult time understanding how the developer would manage the logistics and timing of actual play on the course without effectively eliminating the practice facility, as it was really part of the course. He asked Mr. Mohler if there was anything else, that may not be obvious, that drove him to this schematic conceptual plan other than preserving a 9-hole course.

Mr. Mohler began by stating they did not design Long Point to accommodate Ocean Trails, nor did Ocean Trails design their project for Long Point. He stated they designed what they felt was a freestanding project, and had to have an amenity that would be an attraction for the financing and justification for the resort hotel.

Vice Chairman Clark agreed, however he stated that Ocean Trails does exist and what they don’t have they have put into their plan.

Mr. Mohler agreed that the symbiotic relationship has been lessened some because space has been created for major general public uses. He stated that something had to give and he felt he had done the best he could keeping in mind the project economics before the Finance Committee.

Vice Chairman asked Mr. Mohler for his reaction to the suggestion the developer return to the concept of a state of the art practice facility, three holes on the Long Point property that could be multiplied or effectively turned into a 9-hole experience, and remove golf from Upper Point Vicente.

Mr. Mohler responded that was clearly not the motion that was passed nor the instructions received, and was not the direction he was heading with this plan.

Chairman Lyon stated that he found that plan, as submitted, not to be acceptable. He felt the Planning Commission had in mind, when discussing the motion at the last meeting, that the villas would be removed and be replaced with golf area. He felt the practice facility was a key part of the plan and did not understand why the developer went to the dual use hole concept. He felt it was an arrangement that clearly would not work.

Mr. Mohler responded that the Planning Commission pulled the villa issue out of motion, which may have thrown him a curve. He stated he had tried to follow the

conditions as best they could. He stated that if this was a modification they felt they had to have, they had a right to vote it in.

Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Mohler and the Planning Commissioners how they felt about taking out the villas and adding another golf hole, which would allow the retention of the driving range. He felt this would preserve the concept approved by the Planning Commission at the last meeting.

Commissioner Paulson stated that the motion did not include the villas for a very specific reason, it was a motion concerning the property at Upper Point Vicente Park area. He noted that he had made a statement at the last meeting that it should be the developer’s discretion as to how he compensated for the loss of hole no. 5. He stated he was opposed to villas for many reasons. He was concerned that this new proposal compromised part of the basic reason this overall project was created. He felt that it was the developer’s decision as to whether the project would be economically viable with the retention of the villas and the reduction of the practice facilities.

Commissioner Long asked Mr. Mohler if this proposal was really what he wanted. He asked if this proposal had come so far from what was originally proposed that it was really no longer what he wanted, as it doesn’t give the developer what he needs. He asked Mr. Mohler if there was something else he had in mind.

Mr. Mohler’s answer was no. He stated that in developing this proposal they were trying to comply with the Planning Commission’s intent for the Upper Point Vicente property, as the Planning Commission had not had many discussions for the proposals on the Long Point property. He agreed that this proposal was not as good as it was with the 5th hole on Upper Point Vicente, but he felt from an operational and aesthetic standpoint the proposal was a beautiful amenity both on the City and Long Point property.

Chairman Lyon asked Mr. Mohler to describe how the plan would look with the elimination of the villas.

Mr. Mohler responded that the space could accommodate a 160 to 170 yard, par 3 hole. He stated the practice facility could remain the way it originally was.

Vice Chairman Clark asked if the villas were of greater value in the project than the practice facility.

Mr. Mohler stated he did not know the answer to that question.

Commissioner Cartwright stated the Finance Advisory Committee was still analyzing the financial plan submitted to the City. He asked if they were looking at the latest plan or the previous plan.

Mr. Mohler answered they were looking at the previous plan, but he did have a discussion with the Finance Director asking if he could pass this new information to the consultant for comment at the next Finance Committee meeting, which he did.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that approximately 5 percent of the revenue would come from golf. He asked if that 5 percent included the golf practice facility and golf academy.

Mr. Mohler responded that the 5 percent was all inclusive

Commissioner Cartwright stated he was one of the Commissioner’s who suggested removing the elimination of the villas from the motion at the previous meeting, as he had not heard any good reason as to why the villas should be eliminated from the project. He still had not heard a good reason to eliminate the villas from the project.

Commissioner Paulson stated that a subdivision map would need to be filed in order to build the villas. He also noted that the villas would be independently owned homes, with limitations on the number of days of usage. He stated he had problems with this type of arrangement as it was not part of the hotel business.

Commissioner Long took a different approach and felt that a golf amenity was unnecessary and could be achieved through Ocean Trails and that Long Point could build more villas instead of less. He felt all kinds of conditions could be attached to the villas that run with the land and the fortuity that the individual villas could be sold to individual persons would be of no consequence in terms of the outward operation of the facility to the outside observer. He stated that the logic behind the villas was that some people had cash to burn and are willing to spend amounts of money that could not reasonably be economically justified as investments to have a house that they will be in only 90 days per year. Further, these houses will have deed restrictions on them that the resort will be able to rent to other people at an enormous profit.

Commissioner Cartwright agreed that villas are an amenity that would not be unique to Long Point, and are something that are found in most large resorts.

Chairman Lyon stated that eliminating the villas would free up land that could be used for the golf course and relieves the pressure on Upper Point Vicente. He did not think the villas were an attractive entry into the Long Point area and felt it would be far more attractive to have a golf hole at the location rather than condominiums. He stated there was a view impairment issue with the villas, which would go away if the land were used for a golf hole. Lastly, the elimination of the villas would enable the developer to retain the practice facility and driving range which he felt was imperative to make the project viable.

Vice Chairman Clark agreed that the practice facility was absolutely essential. However, he noted that one of the top resort developers in the world was adding this

type of villa concept to their properties. He stated these villas were an economic multiplier for the resort.

Commissioner Paulson asked if a zone change would be necessary to build the villas.

Director/Secretary Rojas responded that a zone change would not be required, as staff believed that they are consistent with the Commercial/Recreation zoning.

Chairman Lyon questioned whether the Coastal Commission would accept the villas as an element of a public use complex.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that in a past staff report examples were cited where the Coastal Commission has found similar arrangements to be consistent.

Commissioner Paulson stated that what was weighing heavily in his decision was if there was a possibility of losing the lower development for the sake of 20 acres of the 77 acres at Upper Point Vicente. He was convinced that unless something was done to revise the current plan to retain the driving range, he had problems with the proposal.

Vice Chairman Clark felt that the general consensus of the Commission was to send the developer back to reconsider the conceptual plan. He stated that it also seemed to be the consensus of the Commission that the practice facility was an important amenity to the plan. He suggested that Destination Resorts needs to look at whether or not there is greater value to them in this project with the villas on their property versus taking golf off of Upper Point Vicente and putting it only on their property.

Commissioner Vannorsdall suggested asking the developer to consider relocating some of the villas rather than eliminating them.

Mr. Mohler stated that it has been his experience in 30 years of practice that a City body will approve a project, deny a project, or approve the project with conditions. He stated that if the Planning Commission wants something changed they have the right to ask it to be changed. He stated this was not a multiple-choice task and he couldn’t keep coming back and ask how the Planning Commission liked the current plan. He stated that the Planning Commission spoke with conviction at the last meeting about Upper Point Vicente. He asked that the Planning Commission do the same with respect to the Long Point property.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that, when reviewing Ocean Trails, the developer had been sent back several times to revise the plan to meet the concerns and issues that the Planning Commission and public had. He felt this was a major project and this was a typical process in trying to find a refined project that the Planning Commission could approve.

Chairman Lyon stated that he would like to determine whether or not this plan, or modification to this plan, was acceptable to the Planning Commission. He stated that the motion made at the last meeting required the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised plan. He stated that it was clear that as stated, the plan was not acceptable to the Commission. He stated that the Commission needed to make a decision, and a proper way to decide it was to vote on the acceptability of the developer’s plan, not to send him back. Further, if the motion does not carry then it automatically defaults back to a decision of no use of public land at Upper Point Vicente Park is disapproved for the use of golf.

Commissioner Cartwright agreed but believed that the Commission had agreed that the applicant could return to the Commission with a plan for Upper Point Vicente, but did not say that he had to come back with a plan that was acceptable to the Commission for the Long Point property.

Chairman Lyon read aloud the motion that was made and approved at the last meeting. He did not feel that it said nor implied that the plan was restricted to Upper Point Vicente.

Vice Chairman Clark pointed out that the applicant has changed the golf course on Upper Point Vicente and the lower area. He asked how the Commission could deal with the acceptability of part of the plan and not the rest.

Vice Chairman Clark noted that the applicant has submitted a revised plan, as required by the motion, however the revised plan was not acceptable to the Commission and therefore the use of Upper Point Vicente Park for golf purposes should be denied.

Chairman Lyon moved to accept the plan submitted by the applicant with the additional condition that the villas be eliminated and the golf practice facility be restored, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

Commissioner Cartwright did not feel it was appropriate to make a decision to trade the villas for a practice facility without any information or facts that would allow them to make that decision.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that before making such a motion it would be more appropriate to send the applicant back to consider those kind of changes in the context with any others that he can come up with that he believes fit within the compatibility, and return to the Planning Commission with his findings.

Commissioner Paulson felt that the Commission could all agree that they would support a motion that a dedicated practice facility should be included in the project. He felt this was direct guidance that the applicant must respond to and how he responds to that guidance is at the applicant’s discretion.

Chairman Lyon revised his motion to ask the applicant to bring back to the Planning Commission a revised plan that retains a dedicated golf practice facility on his property, seconded by Commissioner Vannorsdall.

Director/Secretary Rojas noted that in a past staff report, staff had indicated that the current parcel for the villas does not meet the Development Code lot area criteria for the CR zoning district. Therefore, if the Commission wishes to create that parcel they would have to make special findings under the Conditional Use Permit.

Chairman Lyon noted that this would not mean that the use of Upper Point Vicente was approved for golf. He stated that the Commission would review the entire plan before making that determination.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that the applicant had returned to the Commission with a plan that was not acceptable and the Commission was asking the applicant to make revisions. He asked if the new revised plan that the applicant presents is still not acceptable to the Commission, will the Commission then revert back to the condition that was in the original motion.

Director/Secretary Rojas stated that this motion has an implication that the previous motion made last meeting is not being met. He felt the Planning Commission may be indirectly determining that the plan presented was not acceptable. He suggested one way to resolve the problem was to reword the motion and asked the Assistant City Attorney for assistance.

Assistant City Attorney Pittman stated the implication was that by requesting the modification to the plan, as submitted, the plan does not meet the prior motion and suggested it may be more appropriate to word the motion to state that with the following modifications the plan would be acceptable.

Commissioner Paulson stated that was pre-supposing that the changes would be acceptable.

Chairman Lyon stated that the Planning Commission was merely asking the applicant to return to the Commission with a plan that embodies one change that they have dictated, which is to incorporate the original concept of a practice facility. He noted that this does not restrict the applicant from making other changes.

Commissioner Long added that the prior motion does not prevent the Planning Commission from subsequently finding the revised plan the applicant will be submitting, with suitable modifications, does satisfy the prior motion. He did not think there was anything in the prior motion that says there will be only one opportunity to submit a revised plan.

Chairman Lyon repeated his motion. The motion passed, (5-1) with Commissioner Long dissenting.

Commissioner Paulson asked staff if, before the next meeting, they would research the letter from California Water Service about the water storage tank and whether that tank would be an onsite requirement. He also noted the comment from a speaker regarding equestrian trails and asked staff to explain that at the next meeting.

Commissioner Long asked about conditions regarding liability insurance. He also would like to see some discussion regarding the joint use of bike paths and pedestrian paths. He asked to have a better understanding of the dangers of golf balls to motorists and cyclists on Palos Verdes Drive South.

Commissioner Cartwright stated that one of the speakers had voiced their concerns about dust during construction and he asked staff to make sure that issue was covered in the conditions of approval.

Vice Chairman Clark stated he would like a report at the next meeting regarding staff’s interaction with the resource agencies relative to their concerns regarding the project.


ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Lyon adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.




3.AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 901 and SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8822: Jack & Irene Hung, (applicant), 27856 Longhill Drive.

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 901 & SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8822 (SITE ADDRESS: 27856 LONGHILL DRIVE; PROPERTY OWNERS: JACK & IRENE HUNG

Staff Coordinator: Gustavo J. Romo, Contract Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Amend Condition of Approval No. 7 of Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822, which were approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2000 per Resolution No. 2000-13.

BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822 for the subject property by adopting Resolution No. 2000-13. The approval was for 1,368 square feet (SF) of additions to a two-story, single-family dwelling. The Height Variation application was requested to allow the second-story additions to exceed the 16-foot height permitted by right.

As a standard condition of approval for Height Variation applications, ridge height certifications are required from the applicant to ensure that the additions do not exceed the approved maximum heights. Upon completion of the certification for this project, it was discovered that the ridge height at framing already exceeded the maximum ridge height spelled out in the conditions of approval. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the discrepancy was because the original plans, as approved by the Planning Commission, contained an error. The height of the proposed second-story addition was shown on the plans as 22’-5" from the highest existing grade to be covered by structure. However, the certification indicates an actual height of 23’-0" without finished roof material. Another six (6) inches are added for the finished roof for a total height of 23’-6" from highest existing grade to highest finished ridge. Since Condition of Approval No. 7 for the subject applications specifically indicates 22’-5" as the maximum height allowed, this correction is being brought before the Planning Commission to amend the condition of approval.

DISCUSSION

In approving Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822, the Planning Commission found that the proposed addition would not cause significant view impairment to adjoining properties and would result in a home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. By allowing the amendment to the conditions of approval, the design of the project and its appearance from the public right-of-way and surrounding properties will not change. The requested amendment pertains solely to correcting the height dimension shown on the plans, which was incorporated into Condition of Approval No. 7. According to the applicant, the existing residence was incorrectly measured at the time the plans were being prepared. As approved in May of 2000 by the Planning Commission, the addition was to be no higher than the ridge elevation of the existing second story. This was verified by Staff to be the case during a recent site visit. As such, this correction has no effect or negative impact on the subject property or its surroundings.

Staff proposes that Condition of Approval No. 7 of Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822 be amended as follows (refer to strike-through and bold text):

7.The applicant shall provide to the Building and Safety Division a certification that the proposed ridgeline for the second story addition above the garage does not exceed 20’7" 21’8", as measured from the highest existing grade covered by structure (elevation of 102.6’) to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 123.3’ 124.3’, including finished roof material). Also, certification shall be provided that the ridgeline for the addition at the rear of the residence does not exceed 22’5" 23’6" in height, as measured from the highest existing grade covered by structure (elevation of 102.6’) to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 125.10’ 126.10’, including finished roof material). RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

At the time the original Height Variation application was being considered by the Planning Commission, Staff received four letters of concern from the surrounding neighbors. All of said neighbors have received notice of the amendment request and no letters, calls, or other forms of inquiries have been received or submitted to Staff.

The Height Certification (a.k.a.- Building Heights Survey) is attached with this report. The applicant is currently working on obtaining revised elevations with the corrected heights. These elevations will be presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Condition of Approval No. 7 of Height Variation No. 901 and Site Plan Review No. 8822 with all other conditions of approval remaining in full force and effect.

Attachments:

Copy of Original Elevations

Building Heights Survey (Certification)

HV-901 & SPR-8822 Original Conditions of Approval


RECESS/COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items) at APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.:

 


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


4.VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294 and ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34: William Urso, (applicant), 3825 Crest Road. (ES)

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENTDATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:VARIANCE NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294, & ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34

PROJECT

ADDRESS:3825 CREST ROAD (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823, F-4)

APPLICANT:WILLIAM URSO & ASSOC.
640 BYNNER DRIVE
SAN PEDRO, CA 90732

PHONE:(310) 519-7234

LANDOWNER:PETER SHAW
3825 CREST ROAD
RPV, CA 90275

PHONE: (310) 548-7043

STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHONBORN, aicp, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION:ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 355 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE WITH A 5-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES 20 FEET; CONDUCT 60 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION; AND CONSTRUCT A 6-FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE WITHIN THE CITY’S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING

VARIANCE NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294, AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34

REFERENCES:

ZONING:RS-2

LAND USE:RESIDENTIAL 1-2 DU/ACRE

CODE SECTIONS: 17.64, 17.76.040, & CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 31

GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL

TRAILS PLAN: N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A

CEQA STATUS: EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE: OCTOBER 2, 2001

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2001 Variance No. 485 and Encroachment Permit No. 34 were submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The applications were deemed incomplete by Staff on June 13, 2001, pending the submittal of additional information. On August 3, 2001, the applications were augmented with the submittal of Grading Permit No. 2294, and the applications were subsequently deemed generally complete. The applications request approval for a 355 square foot expansion to the existing residence, with a 15-foot reduction in the 20-foot front yard setback, 60 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the addition, and construction of a 5-foot high wrought iron fence within the public right-of-way that will replace an existing chainlink fence.

On August 24, 2001, the City mailed notices to 47 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 25, 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 1 – Existing Structures; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Class 1 exempts projects that consist of the minor alteration of private structures and expansion of uses beyond that previously existing. The proposed project involves an addition to an existing split-level, two-story, single-family residential structure. Therefore, Staff has made this determination because the proposed project consists of a minor alteration to an existing residential structure.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject property is located at 3825 Crest Road, a down-sloping lot on the north side of Crest Road. The parcel measures 23,960 square feet in area, and is developed with a 3,900 square foot split-level, two-story residence with a swimming pool and pool house at the rear of the property. The lot is zoned residential, RS-2, and abuts other residential lots that are currently developed with split-level two-story, single-family residences. The terminus of the Crest Road right-of-way is located approximately 400-feet to the west, which is the City’s border with city of Rolling Hills; thus, there is no through traffic.

The front yard slopes gently down towards the existing residential structure, which then drastically slopes down to the rear of the property at a slope between 35- and 50-percent. The residence currently maintains a 21-foot setback from the front property line, and a 56-foot setback from the curb line of the street. Lastly, the eastern area of the property contains a slope easement, where development is prohibited.

The proposed 355 square foot addition will be located at the front of the residence and will encroach 15-feet into the required front yard setback, thereby maintaining a 5-foot setback from the front property line and a 40-foot setback from the curb line of the street. The area in the front of the addition will be graded to accommodate a level and usable front yard for the residence. The area to be graded is in the public right-of-way, where a 3-foot high planter wall will be located 17-feet into the public right-of-way and a 5-foot high wrought iron fence will be located approximately 25 feet into the right-of-way, which will replace an existing chainlink fence. The grading and the wall and fence will not encroach into the street and will be wholly located between the curb and the front property line, and will maintain a minimum 10’-6" setback from the curb line of the street.

CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Variance:

Pursuant to Section 17.02.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, all structures must maintain a minimum front yard setback of 20-feet from the front property line. Since the applicant is requesting a five (5) foot front yard setback for the expansion of the residence, a variance application is required. In considering a variance application, Section 17.64.050 of the Development Code requires that the Planning Commission make four findings in reference to the subject property and the project under consideration (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal type):

1.That 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 subject property is an RS-2 zoned lot, which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Due to the extreme down-sloping topography towards the rear of the property, the configuration of the residence, and the slope easement on the north side of the property, the only feasible location to construct an addition to the residence that does not encroach into extreme slope areas and easements is at the front of the residence, which is currently a landscaped front yard. In addition to the extreme sloping topography of the rear yard, the rear yard area contains a pool house and swimming pool that limits further development into said area. Thus, the only area to construct an addition to the residence is at the front of the property. Further, Staff has found that the adjacent residence to the east was approved with a variance, grading permit and encroachment permit, which allowed no setback from the front property line for the residence and various improvements within the public right-of-way. This adjacent property contains similar topographical constraints, as it is an extreme down-sloping lot. Therefore, Staff believes that the topography and existing structure configuration limit the area in which an addition to the structure can be accommodated, and are not conditions that are prevalent throughout the zoning district. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

2.That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.

The subject property is currently improved with a residential structure, an attached two-car garage, a swimming pool, and a pool house at the rear. The expansion of the residence cannot be accommodated within the standards of the Development Code requirements due to the topographical and physical constraints of the property. The area to the rear is constrained by the existing pool house and the extreme sloping topography of the area, which is an extreme slope between 35- and 50-percent; and the area to the west side contains a slope easement that cannot be constructed on. Unlike other parcels in the same zoning district, many parcels contain a pad area or other area on the lot that can accommodate development without encroaching into setbacks or extreme slope areas of the site, and thereby do not require a variance application. Due to the physical constraints of the subject property, the only feasible location to provide for an addition to the residence is towards the front yard area, which results in an encroachment into the required front yard setback. Therefore, Staff believes that the variance is necessary to allow an addition to the existing residence, which right to construct an addition is possessed by other property owners. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

3.That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public’s welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.

The granting of the variance to allow a five (5) foot front yard setback will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the area. The adjacent property to the east was approved with no setback from the front property line and allowed improvements within the public right-of-way, and has not created a material detriment to public welfare. The addition will contain a gable roof design that will tie into the existing roof design of the structure, but at a lower height. Although the proposed addition will maintain a 5-foot setback from the front property line, the addition will be located 40 feet from the curb line of the street. The structure will be sufficiently setback from the street, thereby not resulting in a material detriment to public welfare.

Staff has forwarded the requested proposal to the Department of Public Works for comment, which has indicated that there are no concerns or issues regarding impairment or obstruction of vehicular visibility resulting from the addition and the fencing in the public right-of-way. Further, there are no plans to widen the Crest Road street. Lastly, the addition will not reduce the available off-street parking because the location and size of the driveway is not changing. Therefore, Staff believes that granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and this finding can be adopted.

4.That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan.

The General Plan land use designation for the neighborhood within which the subject property is located is Residential, 1-2 DU/acre. The development of accessory structures and additions for single-family residences is consistent with this underlying land use designation. The improvement is consistent with the General Plan’s goal to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community (Land Use Plan, Page 192-193), which is supported in Finding No. 3 above. As concluded in Finding No. 3, the room addition into the required front setback will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the area since it will be located approximately 40 feet from the curb line of the street, which mitigates concerns of dominance of the structure and mitigates impairment and obstruction of vehicular visibility. As such, Staff believes that granting the variance will not be contrary to the City’s General Plan. Further, the subject property is not located within the City’s Coastal Zone, and is not subject to the goals and policies of the Coastal Specific Plan. Therefore, this finding can be made and adopted.

Grading Permit:

Pursuant to Section 17.76.040 of the Development Code, the City requires a major grading permit for grading activity that will involve the following:

  • excavation, fill, or both, in excess of 50 cubic yards in a two year period; or
  • cut or fill more than 5' in depth or height; or
  • excavation or fill encroaching in or altering a natural drainage course*; or
  • excavation or fill on an extreme slope (35% or more)*.

*notwithstanding exemptions in Section 17.76.040.C

Since the applicant is proposing 60 cubic yards of grading, a major grading application is required. Section 17.76.040.E of the Development Code establishes criteria that the Director uses to evaluate, review and act on major grading permit applications. The following Development Code criteria are discussed below (Development Code criteria are indicated in bold type, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type).

E.1.The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot.

The subject property currently contains a single-family residential structure that was constructed prior to the City’s incorporation. There have been no additions to the main residence, and the maintenance of a single-family home is the permitted primary use of the subject lot as established by the City’s Development Code. The grading will facilitate the construction of an addition to the existing residence. The grading will also create a level area to the front of the addition to allow for additional usable area for private recreational opportunities, and greater opportunity to enjoy use of the lot since usable areas on the lot are limited due to the topographic conditions and development. Although the majority of the excavation will occur in the public right-of-way, Staff believes that the 60 cubic yards of grading is not a significant amount of earth movement. Furthermore, the area is not readily visible from the public right-of-way, and will continue to not be visible from the street. Therefore, Staff believes that the amount of grading is not excessive and can be justified. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

E.2.The grading and/or related construction does not significantly affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties.

As mentioned above, since there is a slight downward slope in the front yard area from the street to the residence, the area is not readily visible from the street right-of-way. The grading will not be visible. Further, the 3-foot high garden wall will not be visible to pedestrians or motorists, and will allow for a landscaped area that will create a landscaped buffer. The grading will be conducted to create a level area for a usable front yard area and will not raise the topography of the site. As indicated above, the grading will not be visible from the street, and due to the orientation and development pattern of the neighborhood, the area is not readily visible from other properties in the immediate neighborhood. Thus, the grading impairs no views, and this finding can be made and adopted.

E.3.The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural.

The slight slope from the street to the residence was created with the development of the area and construction of the residence. Since this area is not readily visible from the street, and said slope was created, the grading will not cause any disturbance to the natural contours and will not significantly alter the current appearance of front yard area from Crest Road. As such, Staff believes this finding can be made and adopted.

E.4.The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography.

As concluded above, the created slope is not visible from the street, and contains no natural contours, due to the development pattern of the lot and the area. Thus, the proposed grading will not impact the current appearance of the slope since the area is not readily visible from Crest Road. Thus, Staff believes this finding can be made and adopted.

Note: Findings E5 through E8 are not applicable to the subject parcel due to the proposed project. The project does not involve the construction of a new residence (E5); or a new tract (E6); and the proposed grading does not involve street construction, although all work in the public right-if-way will require Public Works Department approval (E7). Lastly, no wildlife habitats have been identified on the subject property (E8).

E.9.The grading conforms to the following applicable standards: height of cut/fill, grading on slopes, and number of retaining walls.

The Development Code permits grading on slopes equal to or greater than thirty-five (35%) percent if the lot was recorded and legally subdivided as of November 25, 1975. The subject property was a lot of record legally existing as of November 25, 1975. No finish slopes greater than thirty-five percent shall be created, except at the point of vehicular access adjacent to driveways; the depth of cut shall not exceed 5-feet; and one downslope retaining wall not to exceed 3’6" in height may be used. The grading conforms to the grading criteria, as the proposal includes a 3-foot high retaining wall, no grading is proposed into an extreme slope, and no extreme slopes are being created. Therefore, the proposal is consistent and complies with the standards within Subsection E.9. Further, Staff finds that all applicable finding can be made in the affirmative to warrant approval of Grading Permit No. 2294.

Encroachment Permit:

The applicant has also submitted an Encroachment Permit request to allow for a new 3-foot high retaining wall and 5-foot high wrought iron fence to encroach into the public right-of-way. Pursuant to Encroachment Permit Policy Statement No. 31, as amended by the City Council on April 18, 2000, the Planning Commission depending on whether the encroachment meets specific review criteria may grant Encroachment Permits. In reviewing and granting an encroachment permit for walls and fences, the Planning Commission must use the following criteria (the Policy Statement language is boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal type):

1.The encroachment is not detrimental to the public health/welfare, and that the Public Works Director has made a written determination that the encroachment does not pose a hazard to vehicular traffic, pedestrians, or equestrians; and further that all other requirements for issuance of a Public Works Department encroachment permit are met.

The proposed 3-foot high retaining wall, located downslope from the street, and the 5-foot high wrought iron fence will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. The new wall will be located downslope from the street and will not be visible from the street, while the new wrought iron fence will replace an existing chainlink fence. Further, the new wrought iron fence will be located 10’-6" from the curb line and will not encroach into the vehicular passageway. Lastly, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and has made a written determination that the retaining wall and wrought iron fencing present no hazards to traffic safety and visibility. Therefore, Staff has determined that the wall and fence will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare, and this finding can be made and adopted.

2.The encroaching structure can not be reconfigured or relocated due to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship, including economic hardship, so as to either:

a.locate the structure on the applicant’s property in accordance with [the] provisions of the Municipal Code; or,

b.adhere to the criteria set forth for a Planning Director Level Review.

According to the Encroachment Permit Policy Statement No. 31, as revised and adopted by the City Council on April 18, 2000, the City may permit encroachment of walls on an individual basis, based on certain criteria. The Policy allows the Planning Commission to review encroachment permits if the encroachment is located more than 6-feet within the public right-of-way. The proposal includes a 3-foot high retaining wall with a maximum projection of 17-feet into the public right-of-way. As indicated above in the Variance discussion, the property contains physical constraints that necessitate a reduced front setback for the addition. Since the addition will be constructed into the existing front yard area, the new retaining wall will allow for the replacement of the flat area that will be lost due to the addition. Further, the new 5-foot high wrought iron fence will replace an existing chainlink fence and will not intensify the existing situation, since it will be located at the 10’-6" setback from the curb line of the street. Although the retaining wall and fence could be located wholly on private property, this would be an unnecessary hardship because limiting the wall and fence to areas outside of the public right-of-way does not increase safety, since the situation has existing for a number of years and the requested application does not propose to intensify the existing situation. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

3.The encroaching structure is not inconsistent with the general intent of the Development Code.

The general purpose and intent of the City’s residential zoning districts is to allow for the development of individual, single-family residences, and to provide for the various other accessory uses and structures which are generally associated and compatible with single-family residences. Fences and walls within the front yard area are common accessory structures throughout the City that are allowable up to 42-inches in height, "by-right". Fences and walls typically delineate the property line and typically follow sidewalks to ensure that pedestrian traffic is not impeded. The subject property and the Crest Road right-of-way have no sidewalk, and according to the Public Works Department, the City has no intention of providing sidewalks in the future, nor widening the street. Since the fence and wall will not project into the street and does not intensify the existing situation, the new fence and wall will not create an adverse impact upon surrounding properties nor create an impediment to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Further, the fence and wall are consistent with the intent of the Development Code and with other similar structures evident within the neighborhood. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

4.Illuminating elements of the encroaching structure are configured in a manner that minimizes impact to neighboring properties or vehicular traffic, and prevents direct or indirect illumination of a property other than the applicant’s, as determined by the Director of Planing, Building and Code Enforcement.

The proposed wall does not involve the placement of lighting fixtures; therefore, there are no impacts resulting from illumination. As such, this finding is not applicable.

5.The encroaching structure does not significantly impair a protected view from any surrounding property.

The encroaching structure will not significantly impair a protected view. The topography of the area and the orientation of the residences result in no residences maintaining a view that is in the direction of the subject property. Rather, the properties on the south side of the street are sufficiently higher in elevation that the views are over the existing residences on the north side of the street. As such, this finding can made and adopted.

CONCLUSION

Staff believes that all the applicable findings can be made to warrant approval of the variance for the 355 square foot addition to the existing residence that encroaches 15-feet into the front yard setback, thereby maintaining a five (5) foot front yard setback. Further, Staff believes that the all applicable findings can be made to warrant approval of the proposed grading and the encroachment permit to allow for a retaining wall and fence within the public right-of-way. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 485, Grading Permit No. 2294 and Encroachment Permit No. 34, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A".

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the Planning Commission:

  1. Provide feedback to the applicant regarding re-design of the proposed project, and continue the project to allow the applicant time to revise the proposal; or,
  2. Deny Variance No. 485, Grading Permit No. 2294, & Encroachment Permit No. 34, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution for consideration at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

  • P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__
  • Site Plan

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294 AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 355 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE THAT WILL ENCROACH 15-FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AND MAINTAINING A FIVE (5) FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, 60 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, AND A 3-FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL AND 5-FOOT HIGH WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3825 CREST ROAD.

WHEREAS, on May 14, 2001, the applicant, William Urso, representing property owner Peter Shaw, submitted applications for Variance No. 485 and Encroahment Permit No. 34 requesting approval for a 355 square foot addition to the front of the residence with a 5-foot front yard setback and a wall and fence within the public right-of-way, for property located at 3825 Crest Road; and,

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2001, the applications were deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information; and,

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2001, the applications were augmented with the submittal of Grading Permit No. 2294, and subsequently deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Variance No. 485, Grading Permit No. 2294 and Encroachment Permit No. 34 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Structures) since the project involves an addition to an existing residential structure; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11, 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;

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

Section 1:The project site is subject to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions which do not apply generally to other properties in the RS-2 zoning district, and the project site is different from other properties in the same zoning in a material way; since the property contains an extreme down-slope at the rear of the property, the area to the rear is currently improved with a swimming pool and pool house, and the area on the west side of the property contains a slope easement that cannot be constructed upon. Thus, the only feasible location to construct an addition is at the proposed location, which is currently landscaped and utilized as a front yard area.

Section 2:The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is possessed by other property owners in the same zoning district. Unlike other parcels in the same zoning district, many parcels contain a pad area or other area on the lot that can accommodate development without encroaching into setbacks or extreme slope areas of the site, and thereby do not require a variance application. Due to the physical constraints of the subject property, the proposed addition cannot be accommodated within the standards of the Development Code requirements, and the only feasible location for an addition to the residence is towards the front yard area, which results in an encroachment into the required front yard setback.

Section 3:The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. The location of the addition will continue to maintain a 40-foot setback from the curb line of the street; the Public Works Department has indicated that there are no concerns or issues regarding impairment or obstruction of vehicular visibility resulting from the addition.

Section 4: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 addition will not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property and improvements in the area. Further, the addition will be located approximately 40 feet from the curb line of the street, which mitigates concerns of dominance of the structure and mitigates impairment of vehicular visibility.

Section 5:The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, since the grading will facilitate the construction of an addition, and will create a level area to the front of the addition to allow for additional usable area for private recreational opportunities.

Section 6:The grading does not significantly affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The area between the street and the residence is not readily visible from the street, and the new 3-foot high retaining wall will not be visible to motorists or pedestrians. Further, the grading will create a level area and will not raise the topography of the site.

Section 7:The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours since there are no natural slopes at the area to be graded.

Section 8:The grading takes into account the natural topographic features and appearances since the area was created when the residence was originally constructed, and there are no natural contours.

Section 9:The grading conforms with all other applicable grading standards, since the grading will not create a retaining wall that is higher than 42-inches, no grading is proposed into an extreme slope, and no extreme slope will be created.

Section 10:The encroachment is not detrimental to the public welfare since the wrought iron fence will replace an existing chain link fence and the new wall will be located between the new fence and the addition. Further, the Director of Public Works has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the retaining wall and fence present no hazards to traffic safety and visibility.

Section 11:The new wrought iron fence will replace an existing chainlink fence and will not intensify the existing situation, and limiting the wall and fence to the subject private property does not increase safety since the situation has existed for years prior, and the Director of Public Works has determined that there are no safety risks.

Section 12:The wall and fence are not inconsistent with the general intent of the Development Code, since fences and walls within the front yard area is a common accessory structure found on residential properties throughout the City. Further, since the city has no intention of providing sidewalks, the fence and wall will not create an impediment to vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Section 13:There are no impacts resulting from illumination since the proposed fencing does not involve the placement of lighting fixtures.

Section 14:The encroaching fence and wall do not significantly impair a protected view from a surrounding property due to the topography of the area and the orientation of the surrounding residences. The wall and fence will not project up into any view.

Section 15:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Variance No. 485, Grading Permit No. 2294 and Encroachment Permit No. 34, for a 355 square foot addition to the front of the residence with a 5-foot foot front yard setback, 60 cubic yards of grading, and a fence and wall within the public right-of-way, subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

Section 16:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 11, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September 2001, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_______________________
Frank Lyon
Planning Commission Chairman

_____________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and,
Secretary to the Planning Commission


EXHIBIT 'A'

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

VARIANCE NO. 485,

GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294,

&

ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34

3.Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.

Variance:

4.Variance No. 485 allows a 355 square foot addition at the front of the existing residence, encroaching 15-feet into the required 20-foot front yard setback, and thereby maintaining a 5-foot setback from the front property line. SUBMITTAL OF SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER PRIOR TO POURING OF FOUNDATION.

Grading Permit:

5.Grading Permit No. 2294 allows for a total of 60 cubic yards of grading in the front yard area and into the public right-of-way, at the location of the new addition to create a flat/level front yard area.

6.A maximum 3-foot high retaining wall is approved, down-slope from the street. The retaining wall shall not project more than 18 feet into the public right-of-way, and shall maintain a 17-foot setback from the curb line of the street.

Encroachment Permit:

7.Encroachment Permit No. 34 allows the construction of the 3-foot high retaining wall within the public right-of-way. The retaining wall shall not project more than 18 feet into the public right-of-way, and shall maintain a minimum 17-foot setback from the curb line of the street.

8.Encroachment Permit No. 34 also allows for the construction of a 5-foot high wrought iron fence to replace an existing chainlink fence, at the same location within the public right-of-way. The new wrought iron fence shall not project more than 24’6" into the public right-of-way, and shall maintain a minimum 10’6" setback from the curb line of the street.

9.Prior to construction of the fence and wall, the owner shall submit to the City an "Indemnification and Hold Harmless" agreement for recordation, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney.

10.Prior to construction of the fence and wall, the owner shall submit to the City a Use Restriction Covenant for recordation, agreeing to remove the encroachment within ten (10) days of notice given by the Director of Public Works, except in case of an emergency where less notice may be required. the owner shall also acknowledge that failure to remove the encroachment within the specified time will result in removal of the structure by the City, and that the owner shall be billed by the City for the costs of removal of the encroaching structure.

11.Prior to construction of the fence and wall, the owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Department of Public Works. The owner shall be responsible for any fees associated with the issuance of said permit.

12.The encroachment shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the approved plans, and the owner shall comply with all conditions and requirements that are imposed on the project.

13.Prior to construction of the fence and wall, the owner shall submit to the City a covenant, subject to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, which records these requirements (of the encroachment permit) as conditions running with the land, and binding all future owners of the property which is benefited by the encroachment (i.e., underlying right-of-way, adjacent property, or common area owned by a homeowners association, if any) until such time as the encroaching structure is removed from the right-of-way.

14.The owner shall comply with all recommendations and requirements, if any, required by the City’s Planning Commission, Traffic Committee, or Traffic Engineer.

15.No lighting fixtures may be affixed to the encroaching wall without the approval of a revision to this Encroachment Permit.

16.In the event that a Planning requirement and a Public Works Department requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

General Condition:

17.The maximum height of the addition shall not exceed the height of the existing residence (12’9"), as measured from adjacent grade to top of ridgeline.

18.The addition shall maintain the setbacks illustrated on the approved plans, but in no way shall be less than the following:

Front: 5’0" (Certification Required) Side: 5’0"Rear:15’0"

19.No grading or construction is allowed within the slope easement at the west side of the property.

20.Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.

21.In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

22.The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.

23.The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

24.The maximum eave projection allowed into the required setback areas shall not exceed 6-inches for each 1-foot of required setback.

25.The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.


5.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231: Focus on Learning Center / Shiuling Huang, (applicant), 500 Silver Spur Road. (BY)

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231

PROJECT ADDRESS:500 SILVER SPUR SUITE 105

APPLICANT:FOCUS ON LEARNING
SHIULING HUANG
28104 RIDGEFERN COURT
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275

PHONE:310-377-2728

LANDOWNER:PV OFFICE PARTNERS, LLC
3029 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 202
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

PHONE:310-829-1223

STAFF COORDINATOR:BEILIN YU, ASSISTANT PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION: A REQUEST TO ALLOW A TUTORIAL CENTER SERVING UP TO 48 STUDENTS PER DAY IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING.

RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-___; APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231

REFERENCES:

ZONING:CP – COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL

LAND USE:COMMERCIAL BUILDING

CODE SECTIONS: 17.20.030 and 17.60

GENERAL PLAN:COMMERCIAL RETAIL

TRAILS PLAN:N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A

CEQA:CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE:OCTOBER 19, 2001

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2001, Conditional Use Permit No. 231 was submitted to the Planning Department by Shuiling Huang of Focus on Learning, on behalf of the property owner PV Office Partners, LLC. The applicant’s request is to establish a tutorial center in an existing office building. Staff deemed the subject application incomplete on July 20, 2001 due to insufficient information. Additional information was submitted to the Planning Department at different dates and Staff deemed the subject application generally complete for processing on August 22, 2001.

On August 23, 2001, the required public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on August 25, 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 1 – Existing Facilities; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Class 1 exempts projects from the preparation of environmental documents when a project involves negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. Since the proposed project consists of a tutorial center serving up to 48 students a day, which will not increase the intensity of the use of the existing structure, the proposed project complies with the provision set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Silver Spur Road and Crossfield Drive. The subject property is surrounded by office buildings to the east, by residential lots to the north, and by shopping centers and commercial buildings located in the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the west and south. The subject office building is approximately 35,397 square feet in size located on a 2.5 acre lot, located in an area designated by the City’s Zoning Map as a CP (Commercial Professional) zoning district. According to the applicant, the subject site contains a total of 161 parking spaces.

The tutorial center is proposing to locate into a vacant office space that is approximately 947 square feet in size. The space consists of two offices in addition to an open reception area (please refer to the attached floor plan for more details).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of the establishment of a tutorial center for a maximum of 48 students per day. The tutorial center is geared toward high school students. During each session, the applicant is proposing to conduct three classes at the same time, with a maximum of 24 students at any given time. In addition, during each session, there will be a maximum of four staff members, one teacher for each class and one administrator. The applicant is proposing to conduct two sessions per day, with each session being one and one half-hour long with a time separation of one half hour between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session. The hours of operation for the tutorial center are proposed to be from 3:00pm to 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday.

CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

In considering a conditional use permit application for a tutoring center, Section 17.60.050.A of the Development Code requires that the Planning Commission make all six (6) findings in reference to the property and project under consideration. The following discussion will consist of Staff’s analysis of the required findings. The City’s Municipal Code language appears in boldface type, followed by Staff’s analysis in standard type.

1.The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood;

As proposed, the project complies with all of the setbacks and height standards in that the proposed use will not modify the footprint or the exterior of the existing building and therefore, not encroach into any of the required setback areas or exceed the height of the existing building. Furthermore, the subject property contains adequate existing off-street parking to meet the requirement for the proposed use. The existing office building contains a total of 35,397 square feet of leasable area. The proposed use will be located in an office space, which is 947 square feet in size. Therefore, the remaining leasable area of the office building would be 34,450 square feet. As summarized in the table below, Section 17.50.020 of the Development Code requires that professional office uses provide one (1) parking space for every 275 square feet of gross floor area, and that commercial schools provide one (1) space for every three (3) students (based on capacity) plus one (1) space for every employee.

Table 1

    Type of Use

    Parking Space Requirements

    Remaining Gross Floor Area / Student capacity plus employees

    Required Parking

    Professional Offices

    1 parking space for every 275 square feet of gross floor area

    34,450 sq.ft.

    126

    Commercial Schools

    1 space for every 3 students (capacity) plus 1 space for every employee / faculty

    947 sq.ft. /maximum of 48 students plus 4 employees

    20

    Total required parking (office and school)

    146

    Total available parking

    161

According to the table above, the total number of parking spaces required for this office building with the proposed tutorial center is 146 parking spaces. As mentioned above, according to the applicant, the subject site contains 161 parking spaces. Therefore, the subject site contains adequate off-street parking for the proposed use. Additionally, to ensure that not all 48 students are in the building at the same time, and to minimize the demand for available parking space, the applicant is proposing a time separation of a half hour between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session. This will give enough time for the students from the first session to leave the building before the students from the second session arrive. As such, Staff believes that the subject property is adequate to accommodate this use, with the appropriate conditions of approval.

2.The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use;

The subject property is served by Silver Spur Road, which is a public street that is fully improved with curbs and sidewalks. The additional traffic expected to result from the proposed use is from students driving to the center, students being dropped off, and from the four staff members working at the center. The center is located approximately 1/5 of a mile from the Peninsula High School. Therefore, the possibility of some students walking to the center is also very likely, minimizing the quantity of traffic being generated from the proposed use. Additionally, to mitigate any safety and traffic flow issues associated with student pick-up and drop-off, Staff is requiring that the applicant designate and provide at least three parking spaces for student pick-up and drop-off. Furthermore, students may not be picked-up or dropped-off in the parking isles. Cars picking-up or dropping-off the students must either park in a parking space or in one of the designated pick-up and drop-off spaces. A condition to this effect is being proposed. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project would relate to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.

3.In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof;

The proposed use is a use permitted by the City’s Development Code with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. As mentioned above, the proposed project does not involve any exterior modification to the existing building, the subject site contains sufficient off-street parking spaces to accommodate the proposed use, and the existing street is sufficient to carry the quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. The proposed tutorial center is not proposing classes that would generate noise (i.e. music classes or classes held outside), and therefore Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use will not generate noise levels detrimental to the existing tenants in the building or neighboring properties. To minimize potential noise impacts to the other tenants, Staff is requiring that the students not be allowed to wait or linger in the interior hallways. Students may wait for their parents in the center or in the parking lot. A condition to this effect is proposed. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed use will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing uses in the building or adjacent properties.

4.The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan;

The Urban Environment Element of the City’s General Plan (pp. 56 and 85) contains the following goals and policies:

The City shall discourage industrial and major commercial activities due to the terrain and environmental characteristics of the City. Commercial development shall be carefully and strictly controlled, and limited to consideration of convenience or neighborhood service facilities.

The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social, and cultural needs of its citizens.

Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.

Study parking areas as to the degree of use for the total area.

These goals and policies acknowledge the need for institutional facilities for the City’s residents, such as the tutorial center being proposed, while simultaneously calling upon the City to balance these community needs with the preservation of the quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, with careful control of commercial developments. As discussed above, Staff has attempted to balance the need for this institutional facility and any impacts it might have on the adjacent properties by mitigating any parking, traffic and noise impacts the proposed use might generate.

The subject property is designated Commercial-Retail in the City’s General Plan, which states that "[commercial] uses tend to have environmental impacts unless they are small in scale and very carefully designed" (p. 196). The commercial building on the property is consistent with this land use designation, and the establishment of a tutorial center serving up to 48 students per day does not significantly intensify this use. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

5.If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts), the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter; and

The subject property is not located within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project.

6.Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed:

a.Setbacks and buffers;

b.Fences or walls;

c.Lighting;

d.Vehicular ingress and egress;

e.Noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;

f.Landscaping;

g.Maintenance of structures, grounds or signs;

h.Service roads or alleys; and

i.Such other conditions as will make possible development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in the City’s Development Code.

As previously mentioned, to mitigate the traffic flow and safety related to the pick-up and drop-off of the students the applicant is required to designate and provide at least three parking spaces for pick-up and drop-off. Additionally, to minimize the quantity of traffic generated at any given time and to minimize the number of parking spaces required at any given time, the applicant is proposing a time gap of at least one half-hour between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session. This will ensure that not all of the 48 students are at the subject site at one given time. Additionally, to minimize potential noise impacts on the existing tenants located in the building, Staff is requiring that the students not be allowed to wait or linger in the interior hallways. Students may wait for their parents inside the tutoring center or in the parking lot. All of the above-mentioned issues will be address by specific conditions of approval for the project. Therefore, Staff believes that the project’s approval has been conditioned to protect the health, safety and general welfare.

For all of the above-mentioned reasons, Staff believes that the proposed establishment of a tutorial center serving up to 48 students per day is consistent with the provisions of Sections 17.60 and 17.20.030 of the Development Code.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On August 23, 2001, the required public notices were mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and on August 25, 2001, a public notice was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had received no written comments regarding this application.

Upon a site inspection, Staff found that the designated pick-up and drop-off spaces, as shown on the site plan, are not suitable due to safety reasons. Specifically, the designated spaces are located at the entrance of ramps which lead to the upper and lower level of the parking structure. Staff is of the opinion that the location of the proposed pick-up and drop-off spaces is where there is the most traffic flow because the upper and lower levels merge into the single level at that location. Additionally, the configuration of these parking spaces makes the cars traveling eastbound in the parking lot not very visible from these parking spaces. Staff is of the opinion that since these spaces are designated so they will be frequently used, the spaces should be located in a safer area. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the pick-up and drop-off parking spaces should be relocated to a safer location. As such, Staff has proposed a condition requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing the designated pick-up and drop-off parking spaces for the review and approval of the Director prior to the commencement of the operation of the tutorial center.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above discussion, Staff believes that all of the applicable findings for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 231 can be made for the proposed project. Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, conditionally approving Conditional Use Permit No. 231.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission's consideration:

1.Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 231 with further modifications, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution and conditions of approval for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting.

2.Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 231 as proposed, and direct Staff to prepare an appropriate P.C. Resolution for Planning Commission consideration at the next meeting.

3.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project and/or conditions of approval, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.

ATTACHMENTS

  • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__
  • Conditions of Approval
  • Floor plan and Site Plan

M:\CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT\CUP231\CUP231.staffreport.doc

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231 TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TUTOIAL CENTER, FOCUS ON LEARNING, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550 SILVER SPUR ROAD

WHEREAS, on June 21, 2001, the applicant, Focus on Learning, submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 231 to allow the establishment of a tutoring center serving up to 48 students per day; and,

WHEREAS, on August 22, 2001, the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 231 was deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 231 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 11 2001, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1:The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 231 or the establishment of a tutoring center:

A.The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood because the proposed project will not alter the exterior of the existing building and therefore will not encroach into any required setback or exceed the height of the existing building; and that there is adequate off-street parking to meet the requirement set forth in Section 17.50.020.

B.The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the subject property is served by Silver Spur Road, which is a public street that is fully improved with curbs and sidewalks; and the only additional traffic expected to result from the proposed project is the traffic from a maximum of 24 students at any given time and the 4 staff members/instructors.

C. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because the proposed project involves no physical modifications to the existing site; the site contains adequate number of off-street parking; the applicant is required to provide at least three student pick-up and drop-off spaces; and the students are not allowed to wait or linger on the hallways.

D.The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because the subject property is designated Commercial-Retail, which states that "[commercial] uses tend to have environmental impacts unless they are small in scale and very carefully designed"; and the implementation the traffic flow conditions (i.e., the time gap between the sessions and the required pick-up and drop-off spaces) is consistent with the Commercial-Retail land use designation and with other General Plan goals and policies calling upon the City to "encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the political, social, and cultural needs of its citizens, while maintaining the quality of the environment" and "make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles."

E.The subject site is not within any of the overlay control districts established by RPVDC Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts).

F.Conditions of approval, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed and include limiting the maximum number of students allowed per day to 48, the hours of operation to be limited to 3:00pm to 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday, the classes being offered shall not generate any noise, the time gap between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session shall be at least one half-hour, and at least three parking spaces shall be designated and provided as student pick-up and drop-off.

Section 5:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.60.060 and 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 11, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action.

Section 6:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 231 thereby approving the establishment of a tutoring center serving up to 48 students at 500 Silver Spur Road, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of September, 2001, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_______________________
Frank Lyon
Chairman

_____________________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission


EXHIBIT ‘A’

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231


GENERAL

  1. Within ninety (90) days following adoption of this Resolution, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said statement shall render this approval null and void.
  2. This approval is for the establishment of a tutorial center serving up to a maximum of 48 students per day. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change shall require approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 231 by the Planning Commission and shall require a new and separate environmental review.
  3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the CL district development standards of the City’s Municipal Code.
  4. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter.
  5. If the proposed facility has not been established (i.e. building permits obtained) within one (1) year of the effective date of this resolution, or if construction has not been completed within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of building permits, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Planning Commission. Otherwise, a conditional use permit revision must be approved prior to further development.
  6. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendation and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City Department, the stricter standard shall apply.
  7. Unless otherwise designated on these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted and stamped with the effective date of this approval.
  8. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.
  9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 231

  10. This approval shall be valid until the time that Focus On Learning vacates the site or their lease is terminated.
  11. Focus On Learning shall be limited to utilizing and operating within suite 105 of 500 Silver Spur Road.
  12. The applicant shall be responsible for verifying that all requirements from other Departments and agencies are complied with.
  13. The maximum enrollment allowed per day shall be 48 students. The maximum number of students allowed per session shall be 24.
  14. The maximum number of instructors allowed per session shall be 3, and the maximum number of administrators allowed per session shall be 1, for a maximum of 4 staff members.
  15. The applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement an official enrollment list by December 15th of every year demonstrating the monthly enrollment for the calendar year. The official enrollment list shall demonstrate that the enrollment of the students does not exceed 24 students per session, and 48 per day; and that the number of staff members does not exceed 4 per session.
  16. The hours of operation shall be from 3:00pm to 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday.
  17. The time between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session shall be at least one half hour. A maximum of two sessions is allowed per day.
  18. The classes being offered shall be academic classes, and not recreational classes that will generate noise. No instruction shall be allowed to occur outside of suite 105.
  19. The applicant shall submit an official schedule of classes by December 15th of every year demonstrating the schedule of classes for the calendar year. The official schedule of classes shall demonstrate that the end of the first session is at least one half-hour before the beginning of the next session, and that only two sessions are being offered per day. The official schedule of classes shall also demonstrate the hours of operation and that the classes being offered are academic classes and not recreational classes, which will generate noise.
  20. The applicant shall ensure that students do not wait or linger in the hallways of the building or disturb the existing tenants located in the building.
  21. The applicant shall designate and provide at least three parking spaces for pick-up and drop-off of students. Prior to the commencement of the operation of the tutorial center, the applicant shall submit a plan showing the pick-up and drop-off parking spaces for the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
  22. The approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 231 is granted to the applicant (Focus On Learning), and shall not be transferred to another organization, group, etc.
  23. If the applicant wishes to modify the number of 48 student enrollment number, or the number of staff members, or the hours of operation, or the time separation between the two session, or the type of classes being offered, a revision to this CUP shall be required.

No signs are approved with this permit. Any request for signage shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prior to the installation of any sign.


6.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 – REVISION ‘A’: Compass Telecommunications, representing Cingular Wireless, (applicant), 500 Silver Spur Road. (ES)

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 –REVISION "A"

PROJECT ADDRESS:500 SILVER SPUR ROAD (THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 793, B-7)

APPLICANT:CINGULAR WIRELESS
C/O COMPASS TELECOM
17870 SKYPARK CIRCLE, #102
IRVINE, CA 92614

PHONE:(949) 475-8950

LANDOWNER:PALOS VERDES OFFICE PARTNERS
3029 WILSHIRE BLVD., #202
SANTA MONICA, CA 90403

STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHONBORN, aicp, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION:ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THREE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS (PCS) PANEL ANTENNAE ON THE FAÇADE OF A THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING, AND INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT CABINETS INSIDE A SUITE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 – REVISION "A".

REFERENCES:

ZONING:C-P (COMMERCIAL-PROFESSIONAL)

LAND USE:RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING

CODE SECTIONS:17.60, 17.76.020, & WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

GENERAL PLAN:COMMERCIAL

TRAILS PLAN:N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A

CEQA STATUS:EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE:SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

BACKGROUND

On May 13, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 198 for L.A. Cellular (presently known as AT&T Wireless), allowing the installation of eight (8) personal communications services (PCS) panel antennae on the roof of an existing office building located at 500 Silver Spur Road.

On June 14, 2001, Conditional Use Permit No. 198-Revision "A" was submitted to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The request was for the installation of three (3) personal communications systems panel antennae on the existing three-story office building for Cingular Wireless (formerly AirTouch). The application was subsequently deemed generally complete for processing on July 14, 2001. Staff mailed notices of public hearing to 82 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Further, a notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 25, 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 1 – Existing Facilities; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Class 1 exempts projects that consist of alterations to existing structures from the preparation of environmental documents. The proposed project does not involve significant expansion of use beyond that previously existing. Staff has made this determination because the site is developed with 3-story office building and the proposed project consists of mounting antennae panels on the existing façade of the building and utilizing an interior suite for the mechanical equipment, with no additional site disturbance.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is a 2.5-acre parcel, containing a three-story office building, and parking lot. The property is located at the southeast corner of Silver Spur Road and Crossfield Drive. The property is zoned Commercial-Professional (C-P), and is surrounded by a landscaped slope to the north that transitions to single-family residences, an office building to the east, and commercial buildings in the City of Rolling Hills Estates to the west and south.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant proposes to install three (3) personal communications systems (PCS) panel antennae at the top of two corner facades of the existing three-story building. According to the applicant, the proposed location of the antennae will adequately provide the necessary coverage, and is not necessary to locate the antennae on the rooftop of the building. One panel will be mounted at the southeast corner of the building, and two panels will be mounted at the northeast corner of the building. Each panel will be flush-mounted on the existing parapet wall façade of the building, which is currently stuccoed and painted to match the existing building. A canister will screen the panels, which will also be painted to match the existing building. Each panel will measure 5’6" in height, 10.6" in width, 4.5" in depth, and will be mounted to the top of the parapet wall, but will not project above said wall. The panels will be powered by one cable tray mounted on the roof and behind the parapet wall, and constructed through the parapet wall. Lastly, the equipment cabinets are proposed to be located inside the existing building, occupying a suite on the first floor.

CODE CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS

Conditional Use Permit:

The establishment of a commercial antenna in a commercial district is permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Development Code Sections 17.04.030 and 17.76.020. In considering a conditional use permit application, Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires that the Planning Commission make all six findings in reference to the property and project under consideration. In addition, Development Code Section 17.76.020(A)(12) requires the Planning Commission to make at least one of two additional findings regarding the siting of commercial antennae. (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal type):

  1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by this title [Title 17 "Zoning"] or by conditions imposed under this section [Section 17.60.050] to adjust said use to those on abutting land and within the neighborhood.
  2. The proposed Cingular PCS panel antennae will not modify the height of the building or the height of the existing parapet wall, since the panels will be flush-mounted on the parapet wall no higher than said wall. Further, the screening canisters will also not be mounted higher than the parapet wall, and will appear as architectural accents to the building corner façades. The screening canisters will be painted to match the building so that they integrate into the appearance of the building. The related antenna equipment will be placed within a leased suite inside the building, and will not be visible. The cable trays will also be flush mounted to the roof of the building, behind the parapet wall and will also not be visible. Thus the antenna panels and the related equipment will be adequately screened and will not be visible to the public.

    Pursuant to Section 17.76.020(A)(7), two off-street parking spaces are required for a commercial antenna installation. The site currently has a 161-space parking lot for employee and customer use, which complies with the minimum parking requirements for the office building. Service vehicles are expected to visit the site infrequently on a monthly or bimonthly basis, and the existing parking situation and configuration will be adequate to serve the needs of the employees, customers and the occasional service vehicles. Further, the types of service vehicles tend to be small trucks and/or vans with equipment on the roof of the vehicles that can easily park within a standard parking stall. Therefore, Staff believes that the site is adequate in shape, size and other characteristics to accommodate the proposed use.

  3. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.
  4. Access to the project site is served by Crossfield Drive, which is via Silver Spur Road. Aside from normal commercial traffic associated with the existing office building and the other commercial uses along Silver Spur Road, the only additional traffic expected to result from the proposed project is an occasional service vehicle (i.e., vans) for the commercial antenna on the site. These visits will be infrequent and will rarely involve large trucks or other equipment that would adversely affect local traffic for any extended period of time. Therefore, Staff believes that the project will not result in any significant change to the existing level of service, and are sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use.

  5. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof.
  6. The stated purpose of the City’s regulations for commercial antennae (Section 17.76.020.A.1) is "[to] minimize visual impacts of towers through careful design, siting and vegetation screening; [to] avoid damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of structures; [and to] to minimize the need to construct new towers."

    Since the use of the existing building negates the need to construct a new tower, use of the existing building for a wireless antenna facility is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Commercial Antenna Section of the Development Code. Additionally, the screening canister for the antenna panels, and their placement and height on the parapet wall of the building mitigates the visual and aesthetic impacts from the public right-of-way and the adjacent land uses. Further, the cable tray will be mounted on the rooftop behind the parapet wall and will not be directly visible from the street nor from residences.

    In addition, as discussed on page 7, the project is consistent with the adopted development guidelines for wireless communications antennae that impose additional requirements upon conditional use permit applications for commercial antennae. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Staff believes that there will be no significant adverse affects to adjacent property or the permitted use thereof, as a result of this proposed project.

  7. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
  8. The City’s General Plan states that "[it] shall be the goal of the City to ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment" (page 100). The unique topography of the peninsula limits the number of sites available to meet all of the technical specifications for providing services. However, many of the potential sites may be designated for residential land uses by virtue of the predominance of this type of land use in the City and on the Peninsula as a whole. Thus, the City must balance the need to accommodate wireless communications coverage in the community with the need to protect and maintain the quality of the environment for residents.

    The subject property is designated Commercial in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation is intended to accommodate commercial uses and structures, and the existing office building is consistent with this land use designation. The proposed project would not change the existing, overall land use for the site, and would be clearly subordinate to the primary use of the property as an office building.

    Infrastructure Policy No. 8 of the General Plan "[requires] adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks, in order to reduce the visual impact of many infrastructure facilities and networks" (page 138). The proposed antennae and equipment are designed to ensure that the project integrates harmoniously with the building with the use of appropriate color and exterior finishes. Since the project will provide the community with improved wireless communication services, would not alter the primary use of the subject property, and would not result in any significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties, Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan.

  9. If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title [Title 17 "Zoning"], the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of that chapter.
  10. The City has established a Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) for biological resources within the community. The project site does have this overlay zoning designation in addition to the commercial land use and zoning. The overlay control district limits future development as it provides performance criteria and guidelines to ensure that any new development will not create significant impacts to the natural resources found within the area. Staff believes that the proposed project does not constitute a type of development intended to be subject to said performance criteria and guidelines, as the project and improvements will be wholly located and conducted on the building and will not enlarge the building. Thus, Staff believes that the performance criteria and guidelines are not applicable to the proposed project.

    The City has also established an Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) for the physical appearance within the community. The project site does have this overlay zoning designation in addition to the commercial land use and zoning. The overlay control district limits future development as it provides guidelines to ensure that any new development will not create significant impacts to views from major public view corridors. Further, the intention of the overlay is to ensure that the site planning, construction, grading and landscape techniques preserve, protect and enhance the visual character of the City’s predominant land forms and vegetation. As indicated above, the project will not enlarge the building. However, the proposed screening canisters will be mounted on the parapet of two corners of the building. The canisters will be painted to match the color of the building and will be constructed so as to integrate with the existing horizontal accent of the building. Thus, Staff believes that the canisters will appear to be architectural accents to the building and will appear to be part of the building design. As such, the proposal will comply with the intent of the Urban Overlay Control District, and this finding can be made and adopted.

  11. Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph, which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed [including but not limited to]: setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular ingress and egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions; landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title [Title 17 "Zoning’].

As discussed above, the proposed antenna panels and associated equipment comply with both the development standards and the special standards for commercial antennae in Section 17.76.020. Screening of the antennae will be achieved by flush-mounting the panels to the parapet wall covered by a screening canister that will be painted to match the appearance of the building, thereby reducing the visual impacts. Further, neither the antenna panels nor the screening canister will extend higher than the parapet wall of the building.

During construction, the applicant will be required to abide by the City’s standard days and hours for construction activity (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday only). All of the above-mentioned issues will be addressed by specific conditions of approval for the project. Therefore, Staff believes that the project, as conditioned, will provide the necessary safeguards to protect the health, safety and general welfare.

Pursuant to Section 17.76 (Commercial Antennas) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the following additional findings must be made by the Planning Commission when reviewing a conditional use permit. (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staff’s analysis in normal type):

  1. That no existing or planned tower approved after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter (Chapter 17.76 "Commercial Antennas") can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antenna and/or proposed service area; or,
  2. That the proposed tower cannot be located on the site of an existing or planned tower approved after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter (Chapter 17.76 "Commercial Antennas).

The proposed project does not involve a new antenna tower; rather, it proposes to utilize the rooftop of an existing 3-story office building, located on a commercial corridor of the City. Use of the building is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City’s Commercial Antenna Ordinance "…to minimize the need to construct new towers". As such, these findings are not applicable to the proposed project. However, the intent of these two findings is to encourage the co-location of antennae on a few sites, rather than having a large number of antenna sites scattered throughout the City. The placement of the antennae on the rooftop of the existing 3-story office building is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City’s Commercial Antenna Ordinance and with the intent of these findings since a new tower is not needed, and the proposed antennae are co-located on a building that currently has other antennae.

Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines:

On May 27, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted the Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines (attached) to assist in the review of applications for commercial wireless communications facilities. The Guidelines are intended to supplement the standards of Section 17.76.020(A) and provide guidance to applicants for commercial antennae to assist in developing wireless communications facilities that will be sensitive to the unique visual and aesthetic conditions in the City. Below, Staff has identified the nine adopted Guidelines and provided an analysis of how each Guideline has been addressed.

Guideline 1: Expeditious Processing of Applications – The application was submitted on June 14, 2001, and deemed complete on July 14, 2001. The application is being heard within 60 days from the date that it was deemed complete for processing, which is consistent with State Law.

Guideline 2: Preference for Existing, Non-Single-Family Structures as Antenna Sites – The existing 3-story office building is a non-single-family use.

Guideline 3: Encourage Co-Location – This application is for the co-location of an additional wireless communication provider on a single building. Therefore, it is consistent with the Commission’s guidelines.

Guideline 4: Preservation of View Corridors – The proposed antenna panels will be mounted on a parapet wall at the corner of the building, and will be screened by a canister that will be painted to match the existing building color and will appear as architectural features. Further, the antenna panels and screening canisters will be mounted no higher than the parapet wall and will not project higher than the building. Thus, they will have no significant impact upon existing view corridors.

Guideline 5: Balance of Public and Private Costs and Benefits – The approval of the proposed project benefits the property owner by providing additional income and benefits the public through increased wireless coverage. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would have no significant adverse effects upon the public that would be disproportionate to the property owner’s benefit from the project.

Guideline 6: Submittal of Network Master Plan – The applicant has submitted an updated Network Master Plan of proposed antenna sites for the City and the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The 500 Silver Spur Road office building is one of several sites under consideration in the City. Additional sites are under consideration in other areas of the peninsula.

Guideline 7: Photographic Simulations and Full-Scale Mock-ups Required – The applicant has provided photographic simulations, and mock-ups of the proposed panels.

Guideline 8: Periodic Updates on Wireless Communications Technology Required – The proposed project is reflective of the evolving PCS technology. Currently, Cingular Wireless (formerly AirTouch) provides service on the Peninsula from various locations, and a network of small antennae attached to existing overhead power lines. This new network, that includes building-mounted antenna panels, is strengthened with microcell antennae on existing power poles and streetlights within the public right-of-way throughout the Peninsula.

Guideline 9: Screening of Support Equipment and Structures Required – The proposed equipment will not be visible, as it will be located inside a leased office suite within the building.

Based upon the summary above, Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with all of the Guidelines.

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7))

The provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 established limitations upon the City’s authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial antenna applications:

  • Subsections 4747 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) and (II) state that the City’s regulation of commercial antennae "shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and…shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." In approving the proposed project, the City would be fostering competition between wireless service providers, without discriminating against any particular service provider.

  • Subsection 4747 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) requires the City to "act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request." This application has been processed in a timely fashion and in accordance with the time lines established by the State Permit Streamlining Act and CEQA.

  • Subsection 4747 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) states that "[any] decision…to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record." Staff does not recommend the denial of the proposed project. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to deny this application, such action would be supported by a written record, consisting of this Staff report, the Minutes of these proceedings, the project plans and applications, public correspondence and testimony, and a final Planning Commission Resolution.

  • Subsection 4747 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) prohibits the City from "[regulating] the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions." Although radio frequency emissions are identified as an environmental effect, they are not within the City’s purview to consider or regulate.

Based upon the foregoing discussion, Staff believes that the City’s review of Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision "A" is consistent with the local zoning authority reserved to the City under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On August 24, 2001, Staff mailed notices of public hearing to 82 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 25, 2001. As of the preparation of the Staff Report, Staff received no written correspondences regarding the proposed project.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, Staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made to grant approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision "A" for the co-location of three wireless antenna panels and related equipment at the office building at 500 Silver Spur Road. Staff believes that the panels will be adequately screened by canisters that will be painted to match the building and will appear as architectural features on the corners of the building. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision "A", subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit "A".

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s Recommendation, the following alternatives are available for consideration by the Planning Commission:

  1. Identify any issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain; or,
  2. Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 198 - Revision "A", and direct Staff to prepare and return to the next Planning Commission meeting with an appropriate Resolution.

 

Please note that in the event that this item is continued beyond the September 12, 2001 action deadline, the applicant must agree to a one-time 90-day extension of that deadline, and waiver of the time limits of the Permit Streamlining Act.

ATTACHMENTS

  • P.C. Resolution No. 2001 - __
  • Wireless Communications Antenna Development Guidelines
  • Photograph Simulations
  • Project Plans


P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001--

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 – REVISION "A", THEREBY APPROVING THE CO-LOCATION OF THREE CELLULAR PANEL ANTENNAE ON THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF THE EXISTING THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING SCREENED BY ARCHITECTURAL FAÇADE COVERINGS, AND RELATED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT INSIDE AN OFFICE SUITE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 SILVER SPUR ROAD.

WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97-27, approving the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 198 by L.A. Cellular (currently known as AT&T Wireless) for the installation of eight personal communications services (PCS) panel antennae on the roof of the office building located at 500 Silver Spur Road; and,

WHEREAS, on June 14, 2001, the applicant, Cingular Wireless (formerly AirTouch), submitted applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 198 - Revision "A" to install three (3) PCS antenna panels on the northeast and southeast corners of the office building located at 500 Silver Spur Road and install the related mechanical equipment within an office suite of the building; and,

WHEREAS, on July 14, 2001, the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 198-Revision "A" was deemed complete by Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Conditional Use Permit No. 198 -- Revision "A" would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301); and,

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision "A".

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

Section 1:The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and for all the features required by Title 17 and by conditions imposed to ensure that the proposal does not negatively impact abutting land uses and those within the area. The location of the proposed antennae and related mechanical equipment comply with the CG District Zoning standards, including setbacks, adequate parking for the antenna facility is provided in compliance with the minimum required; and screening for the antennae and equipment will be provided in compliance with Section 17.76.020(A)(8).

Section 2:The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because the site is served by Crossfield Drive via Silver Spur Road, which is identified as a major arterial street. The proposed use will generate negligible additional trips to and from the site, and there will be no adverse effect upon existing levels of service for abutting public streets or nearby intersections.

Section 3:There will be no significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use because the antenna panels and the screening canisters will not project above the parapet wall, and the related mechanical equipment will be located within an office suite inside the building. Further, the proposed screening canisters will appear as architectural features that will be painted to match the parapet wall and building. Thus, the antenna and equipment will not be visible by the general public.

Section 4:The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because, as proposed and conditioned, the project implements goals and policies of the General Plan to "ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment" and "[require] adequate landscaping or buffering techniques for all new and existing facilities and networks"; and is consistent with the existing use of the site as an office building, the underlying land use designation of Commercial, and the surrounding residential and commercial uses.

Section 5:Although the site is within the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1), the performance criteria and guidelines are not applicable since the project and improvements will be wholly located and conducted on the building, which is the portion of the property that is currently developed. The site is within the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3). The project will comply with the intent of the OC-3, since the antenna panels will be flush mounted to the building’s parapet wall, and screened by canisters that will appear as integrated architectural features of the building, as they will be painted to match the existing structure.

Section 6:Conditions have been imposed to protect the health, safety and general welfare, which includes buffers and landscaping, maintenance of structures, and other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in the City’s Development Code, as identified in Exhibit "A" hereto.

Section 7:The City’s review of Conditional Use Permit No. 198 – Revision "A" is consistent with the local zoning authority reserved to the City under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Section 8:Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.60.060 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following September 11, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission’s final action.

Section 9:For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings contained in the Staff Reports, minutes, and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 191 - Revision "A", subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 11th day of September 2001 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

_______________________
Frank Lyon
Chairman

_______________________
Joel Rojas, aicp
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission


EXHIBIT 'A'

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 198 – REVISION "A"

General Conditions:

  1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
  2. This approval is for the co-location of three (3) additional personal communication services (PCS) antenna panels on the existing three-story-high office building at 500 Silver Spur Road. Specifically, two panels will be mounted at the northeast corner of the building, and one panel will be mounted at the southeast corner of the building. Canisters that cover the panels and blend into the building’s façades will screen the antenna panels. The related mechanical equipment will be located inside an office suite within the building.
  3. The mechanical equipment shall not be moved to the exterior of the building without prior approval from the Planning Commission.
  4. The screening canisters and the antenna panels shall not extend higher than the parapet wall.
  5. The screening canisters shall not project more than 18-inches from the façade of the parapet wall.
  6. The cable tray shall be flush-mounted to the roof, and shall be mounted behind the parapet wall and not exposed to the public.
  7. The wires and cables to the antenna panels shall not be exposed or hang over the parapet wall.
  8. This approval does not include the use or installation of a permanent back-up generator for the antenna support equipment. Any future request for a permanent back-up generator will require the approval of a conditional use permit revision by the Planning Commission. However, the use of a temporary back-up generator during emergencies or extended power outages is permitted, provided that the generator does not exceed 65 decibels as measured from the closest adjacent property line.
  9.  

  10. Failure to comply with and adhere to these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter.
  11. If the PCS facility has not been established (i.e., plans submitted for "plan check") within one year of the approval of this permit by the Planning Commission, the approval shall become null and void, unless a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Planning Commission. Otherwise, a conditional use permit revision must be approved prior to further development.
  12. No grading is approved under this permit.
  13. The applicant shall obtain all required permits, including demolition permits, building permits, electrical permits, etc. from the Building and Safety Division.
  14. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter shall apply.
  15. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.
  16. All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 198, as adopted by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1997 as P.C. Resolution No. 97-27, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
  17. Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
  18.  

    Prior to Building Permit Issuance:

  19. The applicant and landowner shall agree, in writing, to cooperate in possible future co-location of additional PCS and other wireless communications facilities on this building. Under the terms of this agreement, the applicant and landowner shall be obligated to:

    1. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential shared-use applicant; and
    2. Negotiate in good faith for shared use by third parties.

Copies of said agreements shall be provided to the City.

Prior to Building Permit Final:

45.The exterior finish material and color of the screening canisters of the antenna panels shall be consistent with the exterior material and color of the existing building upon which the antennae and screening canisters are mounted.


CONTINUED BUSINESS:


7.PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL POLICY

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL POLICY

RECOMMENDATION

Review the draft e-mail policy and provide Staff with direction.

BACKGROUND

At its July 24, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission established a policy for receiving e-mail correspondence from the public. At its August 14, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with correspondence from the public regarding the policy, including two requests to re-agendize the item. The Commission agreed to re-agendize the item and therefore the item was placed on the Commission’s August 28th agenda for discussion.

On August 28th, after much discussion (excerpt draft minutes attached), the Commission agreed to: 1) continue to retain the centralized Planning Commission e-mail address (pc@rpv.com) for use by the public; 2) allow each Commissioner to decide what information he would like to have on the public roster; and 3) direct Staff to prepare a draft e-mail policy for the Commission’s consideration. The draft policy is now being presented for the Commission’s consideration.

DISCUSSION

After discussing the Commission’s technical questions with the City’s computer network managers, Staff has drafted the following e-mail policy.

1)The official e-mail address for the Planning Commission shall be pc@rpv.com. This e-mail address will be advertised on the City’s website and any other public documents as being the e-mail address for each Planning Commissioner. Each Planning Commissioner has the individual choice to also place their personal e-mail address on any such public documents.

2)All e-mail messages received at pc@rpv.com will be automatically forwarded to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, the Deputy Planning Director and each individual Commissioner that possesses an individual e-mail address.

3)All e-mail messages received by Staff from the pc@rpv.com address will be handled similar to all other Planning Commission related correspondence received by Staff (i.e. regular mail, faxes, hand deliveries) and distributed to the Commission as follows.

a)Hard copies of e-mail messages, along with any other written comments, that are received at City Hall by 5:30 p.m. on the Wednesday before a scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be transmitted to each Planning Commissioner as part of the agenda packet. The submitted comments will be included with the Staff Report (for agenda items) or with the agenda packet (for non-agenda items).

b)Hard copies of e-mail messages, along with any other written comments, that are received at City Hall after 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday but before 12 noon on the Monday before a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting.

c)Hard copies of e-mail messages, along with any other written comments, that are received at City Hall after the Monday noon deadline will not be delivered to the Planning Commission, but will be distributed to the Commission at the next meeting, only if the item is continued.

 

If any Commissioner wishes, the City will be able to set up a special e-mail address for each Commissioner and have all e-mail messages received at the pc@rpv.com address forwarded to this address. This special address can then be accessed from home.

Attachments:

August 28, 2001 Minutes

Draft August 28, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes

Without objection, the minutes were continued to the meeting of September 11, 2001.

1.Planning Commission e-mail addresses

Chairman Lyon stated that the Commission and staff had received several letters from the public regarding the Planning Commission e-mail policy. He clarified that when there is an item before the Commission, any information received by one Commissioner must be shared with all of the Commission. He stated that there must be a procedure guaranteeing that any correspondence received by one Commissioner will be received by all.

Vice Chairman Clark stated that he absolutely wants public input and the Planning Commission needed a policy to ensure that it happens most effectively.

Commissioner Paulson felt that the intent of the Planning Commission when this subject was originally discussed was to improve the methods of getting public input to the Commissioners. He felt the process agreed upon at the meeting would provide a better way of getting communications to the Commissioners. He discussed his concerns with getting e-mail directly from the public and noted that the public could not assume Commissioners would get their e-mail in a timely manner if they happen to be out of town. He felt that whatever approach was chosen, it must include timeliness and the ability to transmit the information that comes into the Commissioners wherever they may be.

Commissioner Cartwright emphasized the fact that he does not have access to a computer and therefore cannot receive e-mail from the public. He felt the system that was in place was working reasonably well.

Commissioner Long agreed that it was important that all of the Commissioners receive the same e-mail, they all receive them at as much the same time as possible, and they all have them in advance of the meeting in which they’re intended to relate. He stated that if it was easier to be centralized with the City staff it would be something that would assist all of the Commissioners.

Commissioner Paulson wondered if it were time to look at an overall City policy on how e-mail information should be handled. He was concerned that the City Council and the different Commissions and Committees all handled their e-mails in a different manner.

Chairman Lyon agreed but added that they were in a position only to recommend the City Council establish such a policy. He felt the best thing to do was clarify the procedure the Planning Commission would like to follow and present that to the City Council as a model that they may wish to emulate or change at their discretion.

Commissioner Long felt the Planning Commission should reconsider the previous directive to remove all personal e-mail addresses from the City roster. He stated there were several Commissioners willing to have their e-mail addresses available to the public.

Commissioner Cartwright clarified that the Planning Commission had directed the Planning Staff to collect all e-mail sent to the City and send the e-mail to the Commissioners in the most efficient manner possible. He emphasized that there was no direction to censor the e-mail and all e-mail was to be forwarded.

Chairman Lyon suggested reaffirming the existence of the central planning Commission e-mail address, which should be the main vehicle of communication with the Planning Commission. Secondly, on the website or City roster, add any information each individual Planning Commissioner would like to have shown. He stated the central e-mail received up to 5:30 p.m. on the Monday before the meeting should be forwarded to each of the Planning Commissioners. He stated that e-mail received after 5:30 p.m. should be treated as late correspondence. He stated that the e-mail should be automatically forwarded to all of the Commissioners who have an e-mail address and those who do not, it will be placed with the written material to be given to that Commissioner.

Commissioner Long asked staff if the City had the capability to digest the e-mail.

Director/Secretary Rojas answered that he did not know the answer and would have to check with the technical staff. He also stated he would have to check to see if a cutoff time of 5:30 could be set up on the e-mail system for the automatic forwarding of the e-mail.

Vice Chairman Clark was concerned that if staff did not present the Commissioners with a hard copy of the e-mail, there may be e-mails that Commissioners do not receive because of travel, etc. He asked Assistant City Attorney to comment on Mr. Freeman’s correspondence to the Planning Commission, if he had seen it.

Assistant City Attorney Pittman stated he had not reviewed Mr. Freeman’s correspondence, but did discuss the what e-mail is private and what e-mail is public. He stated that any e-mail received through city website became a matter of public record at that point. If the e-mail is sent to the Planning Commissioner’s personal e-mail address it is not public information until the Planning Commissioner discloses the e-mail, unless the e-mail is relative to a matter before the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Paulson moved to continue the use of the City website for e-mail directed to the Planning Commission, however Commissioners should put any information regarding personal e-mail addresses back onto the City roster if they desired. He stated that staff should return to the Planning Commission at the next meeting with a recommended procedure and policy for the Commission to consider, seconded by Commissioner Long. Approved, (6-0).


8.LONG POINT RESORT: Consisting of Coastal Permit No. 166, General Plan Amendment No. 28, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Conditional Use Permit No. 216, Parcel Map No. 26073, Grading Permit No. 2229, Grading Permit No. 2230, and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report; Destination Development Corporation, (applicant), 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (AM)

TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

SUBJECT:LONG POINT RESORT PROJECT – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

Staff Coordinators: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Senior Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Discuss the revised site plan for the Resort Hotel Area and determine whether the plan is acceptable to the Commission and consistent with the August 28th motion; 2) Consider the applicant’s request to introduce a modification to the Upper Point Vicente Area site plan; 3) Discuss the various improvements on the Resort Hotel Area, such as the golf course, hotel building, casitas, villas, parking, and public parks and trails; 4) If deemed appropriate, review the preliminary findings and revised draft conditions of approval for the project applications; and 5) If deemed appropriate, forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at their October 2nd meeting.

PROJECT BACKGROUND:

The project applicant, Destination Development Corporation, has submitted applications for the Long Point Resort. This proposal involves a mix of uses including a 9-hole public golf course and practice facility, a 400 room hotel (including some bungalow units), 50 casita units with a maximum of 3 keys per unit, 32 single key resort villa units, conference center, related commercial uses, restaurants, trails, public park areas, coastal access points and parking, and natural open space and habitat areas. The overall acreage of the proposed project is approximately 168.4 acres. This includes the privately owned Long Point site (old Marine Land site at 6610 Palos Verdes Drive

South) and the publicly owned Upper Point Vicente property (the areas surrounding the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall buildings at 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard).

The public hearing on the Long Point project was initially opened at the Planning Commission’s April 10, 2001 regularly scheduled meeting and was continued to a site visit held on Saturday, April 14, 2001. The hearing was continued from the April 14th meeting to the Planning Commission’s April 24th, May 17th, June 12th, July 10th, July 24th, August 14th, August 28th meetings, and most recently to September 11, 2001. At the August 28th meeting, a motion was adopted by the Commission, with a 5-1 vote, directing the applicant to bring back to the Planning Commission a revised site plan that retains a dedicated golf practice facility on the Resort Hotel property. Furthermore, the Commission directed Staff to modify the Draft Conditions of Approval and provide answers to specific questions raised during the public hearing. These items will be addressed later in this report.

In response to the Commission’s motion, a revised site plan for the Resort Hotel Area was submitted to the Planning Department on September 4th. In order to adequately address the Commission’s continued concerns pertaining to public safety, as expressed in previous discussions, Staff transmitted the revised site plan to the EIR Consultant as well as the City’s EIR sub-consultants for input on potential impacts to public safety. A detailed analysis is provided in the next section.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion encompasses an analysis of the revised site plan for the Resort Hotel Area, as directed by the Commission, as well as other project related items.

Revised Resort Hotel Area Site Plan

Based on the adopted motion at the August 28th meeting, the project plans for the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) were revised by the applicant. The following is a brief summary of the revised site plan and a comparative analysis with the original proposal for the RHA. Additionally, Staff, in its analysis, will include comments received from the City’s EIR sub-consultant on golf safety.

Public Golf

At the August 14th meeting, the Commission adopted a motion that required the applicant to remove Hole No. 5 from the Upper Point Vicente Area (UPVA). As a result, the applicant removed Hole No. 5 from the UPVA and modified the layout of the golf course on the RHA by integrating Hole No. 8 with the Golf School / Practice facility. In discussing the acceptability of the revised plans presented on August 28th, the Commission directed the applicant to retain a dedicated practice facility on the Resort Hotel Area and continued the public hearing.

In response to the Commission’s adopted motion at their August 28th meeting, the site plan for the RHA (see attachment) has been modified to include the following revisions:

  • Retaining a dedicated practice facility at 275 yards sloping uphill at a 7% gradient;
  • Reducing Hole No. 8 to an 111 yard, Par 3 hole (approximately 30 yards from the practice facility); and,
  • Reducing two of the proposed Villas to one-story structures.

As a result of the changes made to the RHA, Hole No. 8 becomes a Par 3 hole versus a Par 4 hole, under the previous proposal. This reduces the number of total strokes by one. No changes to the Upper Point Vicente Area (UPVA) and no other site plan modifications to the RHA are proposed under this submittal.

Golf Safety

In order to determine that the revised golf course layout will not create adverse public safety concerns, Staff referred to the City’s Golf Safety Sub-consultant, Kipp Shulties of Kipp Schulties Golf Design, Inc., to analyze golf course safety.

As indicated in previous Staff Reports, there are no laws that govern the profession of golf course architecture with regard to public safety. However, several standards and recommendations have been developed by golf course architects and landscape architects to minimize public safety impacts through the routing and designing of golf courses. These recommendations are considered guidelines by most golf course designers. The sub-consultant utilized these guidelines as the basis for his analysis of the golf course, realizing that they are general, and not mandatory. As such, the following discussion briefly summarizes the City’s Golf Safety Sub-consultant’s analysis of the revised site plan and recommendations (see attachment for detailed report):

Hole No. 7 – According to the Golf Safety Consultant, the 7th green has been moved further away from the RHA entry road, as recommended in previous analysis.

Hole No. 8 – As previously noted, this hole has been modified to be a Par 3 hole running perpendicular to the practice facility. According to the sub-consultant, from a safety stand point, this hole appears to work fine. However, it is recommended that the forward tees on the 8th hole be moved up and away from the driving range so that the tees are staggered off to the left from the back tee. This will lessen the potential conflict with long shots off the driving range tee.

Hole No. 9 – Since this hole was revised to accommodate the 8th hole green, it is recommended to move the fairway bunker on the left inside corner down towards the landing area. This will steer players away from the left side of the hole, which is in close proximity to the property line and pedestrian trail.

Driving Range – As proposed, the driving range is 275 yards from the center of the range tees to the back end of the range. Given the uphill nature of the range (7% gradient), shots should be adequately contained. However, to supplement the buffer between the driving range and Hole No. 8, the golf safety consultant recommends vegetating this area with low to medium height material (5 to 10 feet) that will help knock down any long shots without interfering with the view corridors. This vegetation buffer may also be applied between the entry drive and the driving range.

Therefore, based on the above discussion and the Commission’s August 28th motion, the revised layout of the golf course on the RHA appears to be consistent with the Commission’s direction to retain a dedicated Practice Facility and is designed in a manner that adequately addresses public safety concerns.

As the Commission may recall from discussion at the August 28th meeting, the City’s Golf Safety Consultant expressed a public safety concern with respect to the pedestrian path crossing under golf shots taken from Hole No. 2. The Consultant has recommended that the pedestrian trial, at the minimum, be re-routed between the back tees of Hole Nos. 2 and 6 located on the UPVA. However, the applicant had indicated that this recommendation may potentially impact pristine habitat as well as require substantial grading on steep slopes. As a means of addressing public safety concerns, the applicant suggested that a fence be incorporated along the edge of the pedestrian path that is designed in a manner to capture errant golf ball shots. As such, the applicant submitted sample cross-sections that represent specific designs schemes that potentially achieve a high level of public safety (see attachment). It should be noted that according to the grading plans, the grade elevation between the pedestrian path and the tee elevation is approximately 25 feet.

It should also be noted that the EIR analysis was based on a plan that contained no protective golf fencing or netting. However, Staff does not believe that the intent was to prohibit low fencing (6-8 feet) that does not create visual impacts. In the event that the Commission finds the fence design acceptable in achieving public safety, the Draft Conditions of Approval must be modified to allow fencing in specific areas deemed appropriate by the Commission provided that the fence does not create adverse visual impacts.

UPVA Alternative Site Plan

According to the applicant’s latest revisions to the RHA, the total par for the entire golf course has been reduced from 33 to 32. In order to retain the total par for a complete golf experience, the applicant requests that the Commission consider an alternative site plan to the UPVA, that would accompany the revisions made to the RHA described above. As such, the applicant has submitted a modified UPVA site plan, titled as Option C (see attachment). According to the modified site plan, the applicant requests to realign Hole No. 5 so that the tee is oriented uphill towards the proposed City Yard Facility. In comparing this alternative to the Commission’s motion on August 14th, Staff believes that the proposed modification to Hole No. 5 is inconsistent with the Commission’s motion in that the fairway would extend into the area the Commission eliminated from the golf course design (former Hole No. 5). The applicant has informed Staff that the total park area under this proposal will be approximately .55 acres less than the UPVA site plan deemed acceptable to the Commission’s August 14th motion.

Since this alternative is obviously not consistent with the Commission’s previous motion, and thus may be rejected outright, Staff has not analyzed its potential impacts to public safety or biological resources. However, it should be noted that the modified site plan for the UPVA was included in the transmittal to the City’s Golf Safety Consultant for the RHA site plan. The City’s Golf Safety Consultant completed a preliminary review of this option which is attached to this report for review by the Commission, if desired. Notwithstanding the lack of a formal review, Staff believes that the modified UPVA site plan may adversely impact areas dedicated for habitat restoration and re-vegetation. Therefore, considering the potential impacts that may result from the modified UPVA site plan, it is at the Commission’s discretion to reject the proposal and not consider discussing its merits or to allow the applicant to formally present this option for the Commission’s consideration.

Villas

At the last meeting, there was considerable Commission discussion on the feasibility of the proposed Villas. With respect to the Commission’s discussion on the merits of eliminating the Villas from the RHA, Staff has consolidated Staff findings related to the Villas from past Staff Reports to assist the Commission in its discussion of the merits of the Villas. Such issues include the following.

  • Since the Villas will eventually be sold to private entities as individual structures, the filing of a condominium tract map will be required by the applicant to subdivide the currently proposed Villa Parcel into separate parcels of ownership.

  • According to the Commercial Recreational (CR) zoning district, the proposed Villa Parcel does not meet the minimum lot dimensions as it pertains to minimum lot area as well as lot depth. Although the CR zoning district allows the Planning Commission to modify the minimum lot criteria through a Conditional Use Permit application, the required findings have yet to be made by the Commission to approve such a deviation.

  • With respect to the Villa’s consistency with the City’s Coastal Specific Plan, although Staff has indicated that with the incorporation of specific restrictions and conditions on the use and operation of the Villas they may be consider consistent with the visitor serving zoning designation, the Commission has not discussed this issue in great detail and may find the use of Villas to be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning designation.

  • As previously indicated by the Commission, as well as discussed in previous Staff Reports, certain Villa structures were originally proposed to exceed the permitted height limits in the Vertical Zones of the Coastal Specific Plan’s viewing corridors. Although the revised RHA site plan now indicates that two of the Villas will be one-story (16 feet in height), which complies with the height requirements for Zone 1, the Commission may wish to consider the aesthetic impacts of concentrating two-story structures around two one-story Villas. Staff has attached to this report the architectural drawings for the Villas which were previously presented to the Commission. Furthermore, Staff had indicated that within the City’s Coastal Zone, the measurement of a structure’s height was being taken from finished grade. Since the Commission meeting, Staff has learned from the Ocean Trails project that the measurement of height is taken from existing grade, as opposed to finished grade. It should be noted that under the current proposal, the applicant is lowering the building pad for the Villas. Therefore, if the height measurement was taken from existing grade, the heights of all the proposed structures will meet the required height limits.

Resort Hotel Area

In addition to the information provided to the Commission in previous Staff Reports, the Commission may choose to further discuss the following items that pertain to the Resort Hotel Area:

  • Hotel Architecture
  • Public Parks and Trails
  • The use of the Villas
  • Casitas

Findings

In the event that the Commission determines that the revisions to the RHA are acceptable and are consistent to the August 28th motion, and decides to open the discussion on the merits of the entire proposal, Staff has attached to this Staff Report the Findings of Fact previously provided to the Commission. The attached Findings are in a redlined format so that the Commission may see the modifications made to the project throughout the course of the public hearings.

Conditions of Approval

If after discussing the revised site plan the Commission determines that the plan is acceptable and is consistent with the Commission’s August 28th motion, and further finds that the proposed project is acceptable and that the findings of approval can be made, the Commission may wish to conceptually approve the application package and review the Draft Conditions of Approval. The attached draft conditions have been modified since the last distribution to include the Commission’s comments provided to Staff at the August 28th meeting. It should be noted that the Draft Conditions of Approval have been separated into two documents, one for the UPVA and the other for the RHA and are in a redlined format. Furthermore, the conditions have been categorized according to the development applications requested by the applicant. Since the conditions of approval are still in a draft format, after reviewing the revised proposal and the Findings, the Commission may find it suitable to continue to add, modify, or delete conditions.

Resolutions

In addition to the Draft Conditions of Approval, if deemed appropriate, Staff will provide the Commission with the Draft Resolutions at the night of the September 11th meeting for consideration.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Meeting with Resource Agencies

As indicated at the August 28th meeting, Staff scheduled a meeting with representatives from the Resource Agencies to provide them with an update of the Long Point project. As such, on September 5th, Staff met with representatives from the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game to discuss the project’s most current design and its potential impacts to habitat resources. According to the Resource Agency representatives, there is still concern that the current design creates too much fragmentation of habitat which decreases the viability of the habitat to support nesting Gnatcatchers. Although the Resource Agency representatives acknowledge that the new open space (former Hole No. 5) creates a non-golf corridor, there was concern that recreational activities within the open space area would negate its value as a habitat corridor. The Agency representatives did agree to study the plan more carefully to determine whether the plan would work from a biological stand point if most or all of the open space corridor is dedicated as a habitat preserve. They indicated that they would get back to Staff in a week or two on that issue. They also indicated that from a biological perspective, greater benefit would be achieved by creating a block of preserve, rather than a narrow corridor. To this end, the replacement of Hole Nos. 3 and 4 with habitat preserve, coupled with the use of the adjacent Coast Guard property (currently not part of the project), could achieve such a block of preserve.

Although the City (Planning Commission and City Council) has the ability to approve a plan which it believes adequately mitigates any biological impacts, in the end, the Resource Agencies will need to issue a "take" permit to allow the developer to implement the City approved plan. Therefore, ultimately Resource Agency approval of a plan for UPVA will be necessary in order for the proposed project to be developed. Staff intends to continue to work with the Resource Agencies on these biological issues.

Commissioner’s Questions

At the August 28th meeting, the Commission directed Staff to further investigate specific questions raised during the public hearing. The following discussion attempts to answer those questions.

  • Cal Waters Service Letter – According to the letter submitted during the Draft EIR comment period (see Response To Comment Volume III item No. 314), representatives from Cal Waters indicated that they are in need of a storage facility to address insufficient water storage capacity to the west portion of the Peninsula (predominantly within the City of Palos Verdes Estates). Representatives from Cal Waters are requesting to use a portion of City Property to accommodate a 5 million gallon tank at an approximate height of 30 to 35 feet and a diameter of 130 to 150 feet, which would require approximately two acres in area. In order to adequately serve the western portion of the Peninsula, the tank would have to be located at an elevation of 600 feet or higher. Since City property does not reach an elevation of 600 feet, the only viable location a water tank of this magnitude can be located at is near the entry driveway to the Salvation Army property, which is the proposed location of the City Yard Facility. Nevertheless, if the City opted to allow Cal Waters to locate such a tank at this location, visually screening the tank from neighboring properties as well as Hawthorne Boulevard would be considered inadequate because of the height of the tank. Furthermore, it should be noted that the EIR indicates that the project results in a less than significant impact to actual water capacity needs, therefore not warranting a storage tank.

  • Trails – According to Section 5.13 of the project’s EIR, the proposed trails vary in use between pedestrian, bicycles and equestrian. In compliance with the City’s General Plan and Conceptual Trails Plan, the only trails dedicated for multi-purpose (pedestrian, Bicycle and equestrian) uses are the Point Vicente Trail and the Marineland Trail. These trails run along the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive South / West. In regards to concerns raised by the Commission pertaining to bicycle safety with respect to errant golf balls, bicyclists and equestrians are not permitted to use trails on the RHA or the UPVA pursuant to the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, as identified in project’s EIR. The trails within the project area, exclusive of dedicated trails on Palos Verdes Drive South / West, are intended for pedestrian use only, unless otherwise noted for golf cart use.

Environmental Impact Report:

As indicated in the previous Staff Reports, the updated Biological Assessment and Technical Appendices, Volume IV of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) re-circulated for public comments from August 1, 2001 through August 30, 2001. The Comment period has now concluded. The comments received by the City are attached to this Staff Report for review by the Commission. In the event that the Response to Comments are completed by the City’s EIR Consultant prior to the Commission forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, Staff will provide the Commission with copies of the Responses for discussion. It should be noted that the re-circulation of Volume IV provided the public an additional opportunity to review and comment on this specific section of the EIR along with the additional biological studies that have been completed since circulation of the Draft EIR. As noted by the Assistant City Attorney at the July 24th meeting, the Planning Commission can still forward a recommendation on the Long Point project without reviewing the Response to Comments on Volume IV, in that the Commission is serving in an advisory capacity for the Long Point project. In other words, provided that the Commission has reviewed the re-circulated document, a recommendation as to the adequacy of the EIR may still be forwarded to the Council. It is the City Council who will then consider all public comments and information regarding the EIR and the re-circulated Biological Section prior to considering certification, which must be completed by October 17th.

Representatives from the City’s Environmental Consultant team will be in attendance at the September 11th meeting if any Commissioners have questions regarding the environmental component of the project.

Biology

As stated in the August 28th Staff Report, the City’s Biological Resource Consultant recommended that the pedestrian trail located between the Coast Guard property and the Hole No. 2 Fairway be re-routed along the edge of the golf cart path to prevent potential impacts caused by human interaction to established habitat conservation areas (see attachment). Staff recommends the Commission direct the applicant to re-route this pedestrian path accordingly.

Traffic Committee

In addition to the Environmental Consultant’s attendance at the September 11th meeting, a representative from the City’s Traffic Sub-Consultant, Urban Crossroads, will also be available to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the traffic analysis conducted for the project.

Finance Advisory Committee Status

It appears that recommendations from the FAC to the City Council will be forwarded sometime in early October summarizing their findings as directed by the City Council.

Public Comments

Attached to this report are all public comments received by the City at and after the August 28th meeting. The comments submitted were received either via regular mail, e-mail or hand delivery. Staff has separated comments supporting and opposing the proposed project. Furthermore, as previously noted, attached are comments received during the Biological Recirculation comment period.

ATTACHMENTS:

  • Revised RHA Site Plan
  • Modified UPVA Site Plan
  • Cross Sections for Pedestrian Safety Fencing
  • Architectural Villa Plans
  • Applicant’s Letter
  • Golf Safety Consultant’s Analysis Letter
  • Biological Letter
  • Application Findings (Presented in Exhibits A through G)
  • Draft Conditions of Approval
  • Draft Resolutions
  • Biological Recirculation Comment Letters
  • Public Comments

 


LONG POINT RESORT DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESORT HOTEL AREA (LONG POINT SITE)


(Coastal Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, 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, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073 shall be null and void and of no further effect.
  2. Each and every condition set forth in resolution No. 2001-__ which approved Conditional Use Permit No. 216 and Grading permit No. 2230 is hereby incorporated by reference and specifically made a part of the Conditions of Approval of this Resolution.
  3. 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 48 hours of City Council approval of this project. If required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish and Game.
  4. Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring program attached as Exhibit __ to Resolution No. 2001-__ 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, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073.
  5. The applicant shall fully implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached as Exhibit __ to Resolution No. 2001-__ 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. 2001-__.
  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 Resort Hotel Area, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise.
  7. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the project, the applicant and the property owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City pursuant the provisions of Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
  8. The Development Agreement shall address, at a minimum, the following:

    1. The protection of the City’s interest in the golf course operation in the event that the hotel should cease operation;
    2. Guarantee of minimum revenue generations as projected by the applicant in a form and amount acceptable to the City Council;
    3. The maintenance and financial responsibilities of both the City and the applicant with respect to maintaining the public improvements constructed as part of the project;
    4. The amount of compensation the applicant shall pay the City, to the satisfaction of the City Council, for the use of Upper Point Vicente as authorized by Resolution No. 2001-__ ;
    5. Provisions to dedicate or grant easements to the satisfaction of the City for all portions of the Resort Hotel Area dedicated to golf use, including but not limited to parking areas, the clubhouse, and all golf school facilities, to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to ensure that the entire golf course is maintained as a public facility;
    6. Tee time priority for Rancho Palos Verdes Residents over non-residents who are not staying at the hotel, and a significant fee discount for use of the golf facilities for Rancho Palos Verdes Residents;
    7. Payment of traffic impact fees in an amount determined by the Director of Public Works.
    8. The Developer shall contribute toward the development of the area excluded from the golf course (formerly Hole No. 5) with passive and/or active public recreational amenities.
    9. The Developer shall post a bond with the City in an amount acceptable to the City to cover costs associated with conversion of the golf course areas on the Upper Point Vicente Area to another use as determined by the City, in the event that the golf course fails and the City decides not to continue the operation of a golf course.

9.Six (6) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Commission shall review the Conditions of Approval contained herein at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of said review, the Planning Commission shall assess the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time, the Planning Commission 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 as a result of the operation of the resort hotel and golf course. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500’ radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090. As part of the six-month review, the Planning Commission shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns, lighting, and noise. The Commission may also consider other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties. The Planning Commission may require such subsequent additional reviews as the Planning Commission deems appropriate.

10.Any significant changes in the operational characteristics of the development, including, but not limited to, significant changes to the site configuration or golf course layout; number of guest rooms (increases or decreases); size or operation of the conference center, banquet facilities, spa, restaurants, or other ancillary uses shall require an application for revision to this Conditional Use Permit. The scope of any such review shall be limited to the request for modification and any items reasonably related to the request and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. At that time, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary upon the proposed use resulting from operations of the project. Further, the Commission may consider all issues relevant to the proposed change of use, including but not limited to whether the entire Conditional Use Permit should be revoked.

11.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.

12.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 Planning Commission, if requested prior to expiration.

13.Any and all operators of the resort, including the hotel, all ancillary amenities, and the golf course, shall participate in the City’s recycling program.

14.The City encourages incorporation of a marine theme into the project, and if feasible, the utilization of some of the existing Marineland facilities.

15.All Rancho Palos Verdes residents shall be given tee time priority over non-residents who are not staying at the hotel, and shall be eligible for a significant discount for use of the golf facilities

16.All golf facilities shall be opened to all members of the public regardless of age.

17.All golf facilities, trails, parks and public areas shall be designed to protect golfers and the public in accordance with common safety standards and practices in the industry, subject to approval by the City’s duly assigned Golf Safety Consultant.

18.The applicant shall provide new maintenance facilities as follows: An approximately 400' x 400' new maintenance yard. The yard shall have an asphalt surface. A new maintenance building with the following characteristics: 5,400 square feet of inside storage area which is easily assessable from the exterior, 1,000 square feet of office space, male and female restroom facilities with showers, five inside parking bays for trucks. The maintenance yard shall include both covered and uncovered storage facilities as approved by the Director of Public Works. The maintenance yard shall be screened from view from all public rights-of-way, public park areas, and the City Hall site with appropriate landscaping.

19.All 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 §17.96.920 unless a special construction permit is first obtained from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

20.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 5 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 admitted to do business in the State of California with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.

21.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 a Special Construct Permit is obtained from the City.

22.Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with RPVMC § 17.56.020(C).

23.Plan Check and inspection costs shall be provided through the use of a trust deposit established with the Director of Public Works.

24.This approval is conditioned upon the applicant entering into an agreement with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes within sixty (60) days of the date of approval of this project by the City Council to indemnify and defend the City against any and all damages, claims, judgments, and litigation costs including, without limitation, attorney’s fees, arising from the approval of the project and all issue related thereto. The indemnity agreement shall also hold the City harmless in case of injury or damage caused to persons or property by golfers. The indemnity agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

    COASTAL PERMIT NO. 166

25.No structural improvements shall be permitted within the area between the Coastal Structure Setback Line and the building footprint approved herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicant may remodel the existing Lookout Bar, including adding a maximum expansion of 250 square feet.

26.The expansion to the Lookout Bar shall not exceed 250 square feet of new building floor area, unless a variance application is approved by the City in accordance with RPVMC Section 17.72.040(C

27.Except as provided herein, no new structures shall be permitted in the Coastal Structure Setback Zone (the area 25’ landward of the Coastal Setback Line). Prohibited structures include, but are not limited to, pools, spas, vertical support members and chimneys. However, minor structures and equipment, as stated in Section 17.72.040.B of the RPVMC may be permitted, provided that the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Planning Department.

28.Pursuant to Section 17.72.040.C of 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. The "lower pool" and public restrooms included in the proposal could be pursued subject to separate approval of a variance and meeting the geotechnical requirements of the City.

29.All proposed structures shall be constructed in adherence with the height limitations for vertical view corridors (Point Fermin Vista Corridor and Catalina View Corridor) as identified in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan and the project’s EIR.

30.The Resort Hotel Area shall be improved with public access trails, public parks and other public amenities, as shown on the plans approved by the City Council and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.

    CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215

31.The main hotel building and the freestanding bungalow units shall consist of no more than a aggregate total of 400 rooms 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. Further, a bungalow unit shall consist on a single keyed accommodation with one or more bedroom areas and which may contain a living room area as shown in Exhibit 7.15 of the Long Point Resort Permit Documentation dated June 23, 2000.

32.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.

33.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 days per calendar year, and no more than twenty-nine (29) consecutive days at any one time. A minimum seven day period shall intervene between each twenty-nine (29) consecutive day period of occupancy by the owner. At all times that the owner is not occupying the unit, the unit shall be included in the hotel room rental pool and shall be managed by the hotel, and not a separate entity. Deed restrictions to this effect shall be recorded prior to any sale of any unit.

34.In the event that the resort villa units are not for sale, the units shall be included as hotel accommodations to be managed by the resort hotel management team and not as a separate entity.

35.Prior to construction or grading activity for the resort villas, 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, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

36.The resort hotel shall contain the following ancillary structures and uses, and shall substantially comply with the number and square footage identified:

    1. Conference Center / Banquet Facilities – 68,000 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, one for the West Casitas, and one for the East Casitas, and one within the spa facility
    6. Tennis Courts – Three Courts
    7. Golf School / Club house – 14,000 square feet (including 7,000 square foot golf cart storage and maintenance facility).

37.The Resort Hotel Building, ancillary structures, and all accessory buildings associated with the golf course shall substantially conform to the plans approved by the City Council and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval

38.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, casitas, banquet facilities, and the golf course.

39.In addition to the Coastal Setback line, as required by the RPVMC, all other building setbacks shall comply with the Commercial- Recreational zoning requirements. A Setback Certification shall be required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy

40.No heliport operations are approved or permitted for the Resort Hotel Area. If in the future such operations are desired, an amendment of this Conditional Use Permit shall be required. Any such amendment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission subject to the provisions stated in the RPVMC.

Public Trails and Parks

41.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 and park areas within the Resort Hotel Area. Additionally, the Plan shall include the size, materials and location of all public amenities. The Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.

42.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 all public trails to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

43.All trails and access ways 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.

44.Prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading permit the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, for his/her review and approval, a public trails plans which outlines the on-site and off-site trails proposed for the site. The plan shall include details regarding trail surface and trail width.

45.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate and construct the public trails described in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, Section 1, Trails C5, D4 and E2. Trail J2 shall be developed if a traffic signal is required at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and the main entrance driveway. Beach access at the southeast corner of the project site shall also be kept open to the public and shall be maintained by the applicant.

46.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate easements and construct two Public Vista Points along the Long Point Trail (Trail D4) in locations to be approved by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.

47.The applicant shall provide twenty-four (24) hour security surveillance throughout the entire golf course on the Upper Point Vicente Area and the Resort Hotel Area throughout the calendar year. Such surveillance shall include regular patrols through and around the access tunnel under Palos Verdes Drive South.

48.The applicant shall construct class I and class II bikeways along Palos Verdes Drive South to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

49.Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the following park areas, as identified on the Resort Hotel Area site plan approved by the City Council, shall be improved and dedicate easements to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes:

                1. 2.2 acre Bluff Top Overlook park,
                2. Bluff top Trails
                3. Coastal Access Trails

50.All trails 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.

    Where golf cart is parallel to pedestrian path, a 2 foot minimum separation between the two uses shall be incorporated into the design of the path in question and maintained at all times thereafter.

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

51.Wherever feasible and/or required by law, the applicant shall design, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, public trails and park facilities that are in compliance with the American Disabilities Act requirements.

52.Wherever 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.

53.The following improvements within the Resort Hotel Area shall be completed prior to the operation of the golf course or the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first:

                1. Public Trails to the satisfaction of the City.
                2. The coastal public parking area within the resort hotel project area serving the coastal access points.
                3. The Fishing Access Parking Lot Expansion.
                4. The 2.2 acre bluff-top park.
                5. The Palos Verdes Drive Trails Corridor / Flowerfield Trail Corridor improvements.

    Street and Parking Improvements

54.Emergency Vehicular access shall be provided to the site in general, and the hotel, casita areas, and club house specifically. Such emergency access shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, and shall be reviewed, approved and installed prior to commencing construction of the hotel, casitas, villas or clubhouse.

55.If the tunnel under Palos Verdes Drive South is constructed, the applicant shall install and maintain operable gates, controlled by knox boxes, at all points of entry to the access tunnel below Palos Verdes Drive South, which provides access to the golf course on both Upper Point Vicente and the Resort Hotel Area. The access tunnel shall remain closed from one hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise. The Los Angeles County Fire Department shall approve the installation and location of the gates and knox box.

56.If the tunnel under Palos Verdes Drive South is constructed, the applicant shall install security lighting in the access tunnel to ensure the safety of golfers and the general public. Such security light shall remain on at all times to enable easy surveillance of the access tunnels by public safety personnel.

57.Prior to commencement of golf operations, the applicant shall submit a graffiti removal plan to the Director of Public Works for his/her review and approval to ensure proper maintenance for the access tunnel.

58.The Resort Hotel Area shall maintain no less than 925 parking spaces, of which 100 parking spaces shall be dedicated for public use during City Park Hours, one hour before sunrise until one after sunset. The dedicated public parking spaces may be used by the hotel to accommodate its overflow parking needs when the City parks are closed, as identified in the RPVMC.

59.An appropriate public access easement from Palos Verdes Drive South to the public parking area shall be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of grading permits.

60.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 Section 17.50.040 of the RPVMC. No more than 15% of the total parking spaces shall be in the form of compact spaces.

61.Prior to commencing the construction of the Fishing Access Parking Lot Expansion, and after approval of the Public Amenities Plan by the City, the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals and clearances from the County of Los Angeles.

62.The applicant shall replace all damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project’s Palos Verdes Drive South frontage.

63.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.

64.All proposed drives 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.

65.Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards approved by the Director of Public Works.

66.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.

67.If any streets are cut they shall be overlaid with asphalt from gutter line to center line or median curb line.

68.Prior to commencing any excavation within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director Public Works.

69.Prior to the recordation of a final map, or issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security guaranteeing the construction of the following public and/or private improvement in conformance with the applicable City Standards: Street improvements, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, bus turnouts, bikeways, street and 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 material. The amount of such security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works.

70.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 __ to Resolution No. 2001-___. 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.

71.The design of all interior streets shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.

72.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.

73.The applicant shall pay the Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with RPVMC Section 3.20.

74.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit detailed specifications for the structural pavement section for all streets, both on-site and off-site including parking lots, the Director of Public Works for his review and approval.

Traffic

75.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay 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.

76.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay for its fair share of the following improvements to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW): Re-strip south leg of Hawthorne Boulevard with two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

77.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay 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-strip south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

78.The applicant shall provide security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, in the amount of $100,000 to cover the applicant’s fair share of impacts to any new traffic signal that may be required along Hawthorne Boulevard or Palos Verdes Drive West. This security will be held by the City for a three year period after which any unused portion shall be returned to the applicant.

79.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.

Landscaping/Vegetation

80.Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the Resort Hotel Area, the applicant shall record a conservation easement covering the Bluff-face/Habitat Preserve 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.

81.A Landscape Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in RPVMC § 15.34. The Landscape Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of any building permits for any building in the Resort Hotel Area. In the event that the Director determines further review of the Landscape Plan by a qualified landscape architect is required, such review shall be conducted by a landscape architect hired by the City. The applicant shall establish a Trust Deposit account with the City to cover all costs incurred by the City in conducting such review. The Landscape Plan shall comply with the water conservation concepts, 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. The landscape plan shall incorporate the low water/natural landscape buffer requirements for the bluff area adjacent to the El Segundo Blue habitat.

82.All reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and replant existing mature trees at the direction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Any such replanted or retained tress shall be noted on the required landscape plans.

83.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.

Lighting

84.The applicant shall prepare and submit a Lighting Plan for the Resort Hotel Area in compliance with Section 17.56.040 of 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 Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building permit for the Resort Hotel Area.

85.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 issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of each component of the project (ie: hotel, spa, west casitas, east casitas, clubhouse, and villas) for assessment of the exterior lighting impacts shall be instituted. At the end of the ninety (90) day period, the City 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.

86.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.

87.No golf course lighting shall be allowed other than safety lighting for the use of trails through the golf course areas, and safety lighting for the tunnel areas under Palos Verdes Drive South.

Building Design Standards

88.The maximum heights of the buildings approved on the Resort Hotel Area shall not exceed the following criteria:

    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 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

    Casitas - Maximum height of the casitas shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from existing 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 existing grade.

    Bungalows - Maximum height of the bungalows shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from existing adjacent finished grade.

    Clubhouse – maximum height of the clubhouse shall not exceed 20 feet as measured from existing adjacent finished grade.

    Accessory Structures – Maximum height shall not exceed 12 feet, as measured from adjacent finished grade.

    Resort Villas – Maximum height shall not exceed 26 feet, as measured from existing adjacent finished grade for those villa structures located outside of the visual corridor of Vertical Zone 1. The Villa structures located in the visual corridor of Vertical Zone 1, as identified on the site plan, shall not exceed a maximum height of 16 feet, as measured from existing adjacent finished grade.

    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 Planning Commission.

89.The overall hotel building shall not exceed five stories in height at the critical section of the southern elevation.

90.All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six 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 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.

91.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.

Signs

92.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Resort Hotel Area, a Uniform Sign Program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval. The Sign Program shall include all exterior signage including resort identification signs, spa identification signs, golf course signs including routing signs and any warning signs, public safety signs for trails and park areas, and any other proposed project signs.

Utilities/Mechanical Equipment

93.All utilities exclusively serving the 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.

94.All utilities in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Resort Hotel Area property frontage shall be placed underground by the applicant.

95.No above ground utility structures cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed within the Public rights-of-way without approval of the Director of Public Works.

96.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 the overall allowed building height. 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.

97.Use of satellite dish antenna(e) or any other antennae shall be controlled by Section 17.76.020 of the RPVMC. Centralized antennae shall be used rather than individual antennae for each room, building or accommodation.

98.Mechanical equipment, regardless of 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.

99.All hardscape surfaces, such as the parking area and walkways, shall be properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris at all times. The hours of maintenance of the project grounds and landscape, including but not limited to the golf course, 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. No maintenance activities of any nature may be performed on Sundays and National holidays.

100.All deliveries of goods and supplies, such as, but not limited to, trash pick-ups, trash sweepers, and delivery trucks, shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Sundays.

101.The storage of all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies and other commodities shall be housed in permanently, entirely enclosed structures, except when in transport.

Fences, Walls, and Gates

102.No gates or other devices shall be constructed which limit direct access to the project site. 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 __ to Resolution No. 2001-___.

103.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.

104.The applicant shall install fencing, not to exceed 42 inches in total height, along the property line abutting Nantasket Drive. Additional, the fence shall provide continuos access openings for public use, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The design and materials of the fence shall be included in the Public Amenities Plan, as required herein.

105.No safety netting for the golf course shall be permitted.

GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229

Grading

106.The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the Resort Hotel Area, as shown on the approved grading plans dated August 17, 2001 and prepared by Incledon Kirk Engineers:

                1. Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 846,000 cubic yards.
                2. Maximum Cut: 432,000 cubic yards.
                3. Maximum Fill: 410,400 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 Planning Commission.

107.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 plans for the project.

108.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.

109.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 City Engineer.

110.All on-site improvements ( Parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the grading permit.

111.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 complies 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.

112.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan indicating to scale clear site 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.

113.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) Where determined necessary by the Director of Public Works associated public street and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City.

114.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.

115.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.

116.All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structure shall be prohibited.

117.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.

118.An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.

119.The applicant’s project geologist shall review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign such plans and specifications.

120.An as-graded soils and geologic report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.

121.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.

122.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.

123.The project stall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.

124.Grading activity on site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards.

125.Graded slopes shall be properly planted and maintained in accordance with an approved landscaping plan. Plant materials shall generally include significant low ground cover to impede surface water flows.

126.All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible.

127.Any water features (lakes, ponds, fountains, and etc.) associated with the golf course 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.

128.Should the project require removal of earth, rock or other material from the site, the applicant shall first obtain City approval of a revised grading permit. Further, the applicant shall prepare a hauling plan and submit the same to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.

1298.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.

130.Retaining walls shall be limited in height as identified on the grading plans 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.

Drainage

131.The irrigation, area drain, and any lake system proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical Engineer and Director of Public Works.

132. report shall be prepared indicating how the grading, in conjunction with the drainage improvements, including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expect from all storms up to and including the 100-year flood.

133.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.

134.All on-site drainage shall be directed away from the bluff top to minimize erosion and to protect sensitive plant habitat on the bluff face.

135.All storm drains will be transferred to the County of Los Angeles for maintenance. Accordingly, all plans shall be prepared in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards to the satisfaction of County reviewers. The County of Los Angeles and City shall inspect the storm drain construction.

136.Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits: A) Provide drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and dedicate and show easements on the Final Map; B) Eliminate the sheet overflow and ponding or elevate the floors of buildings with no openings in the foundation walls to at least twelve inches above the finished pad grade; C) Provide drainage facilities to protect the property from high velocity scouring action; and D) Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.

137.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a hydrology and hydraulic study of the project site to the Director of Public Works. The study shall address the project site and the offsite area immediately adjacent to the project site. The study shall include a preliminary improvement plan that identifies the configuration of the proposed storm drain systems. The proposed drainage study and plan shall consider all drainage deficiencies at the site as well as along Palos Verdes Drive South adjacent to the site.

138.The proposed site is adjacent to the bluffs which are a significant resource. The project’s storm drain plan shall assure that drainage shall be directed away from the bluff top to minimize erosion and to protect sensitive plant habitat on the bluff face.

NPDES

139.Prior to acceptance of the storm drain system, all catch basins shall be stenciled with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.

140.Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall furnish to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement a recorded copy of the CC&Rs or Maintenance Agreement outlining the post construction Best Management Practices.

141.The applicant shall prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan.

142.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.

143.The applicant shall be responsible for obtain all required permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

144.The applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan in conformance with the City standards and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

145.The Applicant shall submit proof that permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board have been received prior to the issuance of an grading plan.

Sewers

147.All sewer improvements shall be transferred to the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance. Accordingly, all plans shall be prepared in accordance with district standards, and the district as well as the City shall inspect construction.

148.A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of Public Works and the County of Los Angeles.

149.If it is found that the requirements of the Plumbing Code cannot be met, no building permit will be issued for construction.

150.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, a study analyzing the capacity of the existing sewer system and the impact from the development on the existing system.

151.Prior to issuance of 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.

152.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.

153.Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.

154.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.

Water

155.Any above ground facilities shall be placed on private property and screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In addition an easement to California Water Service shall be dedicated.

156.All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department.

157.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.

158.The development 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.

159.The applicant be 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.

160.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.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073

161.The proposed parcel map shall result in the creation of four (4) parcels.

162.The applicant shall supply the City with one mylar and ten copies of the map after the final map has been filed with the Los Angeles County Recorders Office.

163.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.

164.Plans for 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.

165.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.

166.Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property.

167.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 maybe 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.

168.The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public streets which may be damaged during development of the subject parcels.

169.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.

170.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.

171.All utilities to and on the subject lots shall be provided underground, including cable television, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All necessary permits shall be obtained for their installation. Cable television shall connect to the nearest trunk line at the applicant’s expense.

Prior to Submittal of the Final Map

172.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.

Prior to Approval of the Final Map

173.Prior to approval of the final map, any off-site improvements, such as rights-of-way and easements, shall be dedicated to the City.

174.Prior to approval of the final map, all existing public or private utility easements shall be shown on the final parcel map.

175.Prior to approval of the final map, parkland dedication fees and affordable housing fees, pursuant to Section 16.20.100 of the RPVMC, shall be paid to the City.

176.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.

177.The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the RPVMC.


LONG POINT RESORT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

UPPER POINT VICENTE AREA

(Conditional Use Permit No. 216 and Grading Permit No. 2230 )


GENERAL CONDITIONS

177.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, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26073 Conditional Use Permit No. 216 and Grading Permit No. 2230 shall be null and void and of no further effect.

178.This resolution shall not become effective unless and until the proposed amendment to the Program of Utilization for Upper Point Vicente, as referenced in Section __ of this Resolution, has been adopted by the National Parks Service.

179.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 48 hours of City Council approval of this project. If required, the applicant shall also pay any fine imposed by the Department of Fish and Game.

180.Each and every mitigation measure contained in the Mitigation Monitoring program attached as Exhibit __ to Resolution No. 2001-__ is hereby incorporated by reference into the Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 216, and Grading Permit No. 2230.

181.The applicant shall implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program and execute all mitigation measures as identified and set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project as certified in Resolution No. 2001-__.

182.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 Resort Hotel Area, unless a condition clearly indicates otherwise.

183.Six (6) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Commission shall review the Conditions of Approval contained herein at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of said review, the Planning Commission shall assess the applicant’s compliance with the conditions of approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time, the Planning Commission 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 as a result of the operation of the resort hotel and golf course. Notice of said review hearing shall be published and provided to owners of property within a 500’ radius, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to the property owner in accordance with Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.090. As part of the six-month review, the Planning Commission shall consider the parking conditions, circulation patterns, lighting, and noise. The Commission may also consider other concerns raised by the Commission and/or interested parties. The Planning Commission may require such subsequent additional reviews as the Planning Commission deems appropriate.

184.Any significant changes in the operational characteristics of the development, including but not limited to significant changes to the site configuration or golf course layout; number of guest rooms (increases or decreases); size or operation of the conference center, banquet facilities, spa, restaurants, or other ancillary uses shall require an application for revision to this Conditional Use Permit. The scope of any such review shall be limited to the request for modification and any items reasonably related to the request and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. At that time, the Planning Commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary upon the proposed use and may consider all issues relevant to the proposed change of use, including but not limited to whether the entire Conditional Use Permit should be revoked.

185.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.

186.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 Planning Commission, if requested prior to expiration.

187.Any and all operators of the golf course shall participate in the City’s recycling program.

188.All Rancho Palos Verdes residents shall be given tee time priority over non-residents who are not staying at the hotel, and shall be eligible for a significant discount for use of the golf facilities.

189.All golf facilities shall be open to all members of the public regardless of age.

190.All golf facilities, trails, parks and public areas shall be designed to protect golfers and the public in accordance with common safety standards and practices in the industry, subject to approval by the City’s duly assigned Golf Safety Consultant.

191.The applicant shall provide new the City with a new maintenance facility as follows: An approximately 400' x 400' new maintenance yard. The yard shall have an asphalt surface. A new maintenance building with the following characteristics: 5,400 square feet of inside storage area which is easily assessable from the exterior, 1,000 square feet of office space, male and female restroom facilities with showers, five inside parking bays for trucks. The maintenance yard shall include both covered and uncovered storage facilities as approved by the Director of Public Works. The maintenance yard shall be screened from view from all public rights-of-way, public park areas, and the City Hall site with appropriate landscaping.

192.All 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 §17.96.920 unless a special construction permit is first obtained from the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

193.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 a Special Construct Permit is obtained from the City.

194.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 5 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 admitted to do business in the State of California with a minimum rating of A-VII by Best’s Insurance Guide. Said insurance shall not be canceled or reduced during the grading or construction work and shall be maintained in effect for a minimum period of one (1) year following the final inspection and approval of said work by the City, and without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City.

195.Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with RPVMC § 17.56.020(C).

196.Plan Check and inspection costs shall be provided through the use of a trust deposit established with the Director of Public Works.

197.This approval is conditioned upon the applicant entering into an agreement with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes within sixty (60) days of the date of approval of this project by the City Council to indemnify and defend the City against any and all damages, claims, judgments, and litigation costs including, without limitation, attorney’s fees, arising from the approval of the project and all issue related thereto. The indemnity agreement shall also hold the City harmless in case of injury or damage caused to persons or property by golfers. The indemnity agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216

198.The golf course and support facilities shall substantially conform to the plans revised and approved by the City Council and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.

199.The operation of the golf course on the Upper Point Vicente Property shall not be permitted on July 4th, so that the entire property, including the golf course, may be used for the annual City-sponsored July 4th celebration event.

200.The City expressly reserves the right to use of the entire property, including the golf course, for future City-sponsored events provided that advanced notification is given to the operator of the golf course at least two months before any such scheduled event.

201.At no time may the use of golf carts or other related vehicles be permitted on City streets.

202.Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the construction of the golf course or any other facility on the Upper Point Vicente Area, the applicant shall execute a Concession Agreement with the City allowing for regulating the use and operation of the golf course and City property, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the National Park Service.

203.The golf course shall contain the following ancillary structures and uses, as shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by the City Council:

    a.Public Trails

    b.Public Parks

    c.Public Viewing Pavilions

    d.Golf Maintenance Facility

     

204.In the event it becomes necessary to remove the existing helipad on the Upper Point Vicente Area in order to accommodate the project, prior to destruction of the existing helipad, the applicant shall construct a replacement helipad at a location near City Hall acceptable to the Fire Department.

205.In the event that the emergency ham radio station is disrupted, the developer shall re-locate said facilities in an area deemed acceptable by operators and the City.

206.Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the golf course 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, viewing pavilions, parking facilities and park areas within the Upper Point Vicente Area.

207.The public improvements, including but not limited to, trails, lookout pavilions, and public parking areas within the Upper Point Vicente Area shall be completed prior to the opening of the golf course/school.

208.The applicant shall provide twenty-four (24) hour security surveillance throughout the entire golf course on the Upper Point Vicente Area and the Resort Hotel Area throughout the calendar year. Such surveillance shall include regular patrols through and around the access tunnel under Palos Verdes Drive South.

209.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, casitas, banquet facilities, and the golf course.

Public Trails and Parks

210.All trails and access ways 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.

211.Prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading permit the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, for his/her review and approval, a public trails plans which outlines the on-site and off-site trails proposed for the site. The plan shall include details regarding trail surface and trail width.

212.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall dedicate and construct the public trails described in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan, Section 1, Trails C5, D4 and E2. Trail J2 shall be developed if a traffic signal is required at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and the main entrance driveway. Beach access at the southeast corner of the project site shall also be kept open to the public and shall be maintained by the applicant.

213.Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall construct two Public Vista Points along the Long Point Trail (Trail D4) in locations to be approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

214.The developer shall construct class I and class II bikeways along Palos Verdes Drive South to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

215.All trails 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.

    Where golf cart is parallel to pedestrian path, a 2 foot minimum separation between the two uses shall be incorporated into the design of the joint path and maintained at all times thereafter.

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

216.Wherever feasible, the applicant shall design, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, public trails and park facilities that comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

217.Wherever 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.

    Street and Parking Improvements

218.Emergency Vehicular access shall be provided to the site in general and the Golf Maintenance Facility. hotel, casita areas, and club house specifically. Such emergency access shall be to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, and shall be reviewed and approved and installed prior to commencing any construction on the project of the hotel, casitas, villas or clubhouse. The installation of the emergency vehicular access shall be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any structure.

219.The applicant shall install and maintain operable gates, controlled by knox boxes, at all points of entry to the access tunnel below Palos Verdes Drive South, which provides access to the golf course on both Upper Point Vicente and the Resort Hotel Area. The access tunnel shall remain closed from one hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise. The Los Angeles County Fire Department shall approve the installation and location of the gates and knox box.

220.Prior to commencing operation of the golf course, the City Hall Parking Lot shall be improved, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, with no less than 100 parking spaces which shall be made available for public use during City Park Hours, as identified in the Municipal Code. The City Hall Parking Lot shall also be used by City employees and City related business.

221.At the time the trails are opened, the developer shall construct 42 public parking spaces along the cul-de-sac street adjacent to St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. The applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals and clearances from the City’s Public Work’s Director prior to commencing the construction of the cul-de-sac parking lot.

222.A Parking Lot Plan for the required City Hall and cul-de-sac parking lots, as stated in conditions herein, 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 Section 17.50.040 of the Development Code. No more than 15% of the total parking spaces shall be in the form of compact spaces.

223.Prior to commencing the construction of the Fishing Access Parking Lot Expansion, and after approval of the Public Amenities Plan by the City, the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals and clearances from the County of Los Angeles.

224.The applicant shall obtain approvals from the City’s Public Works Department for improvements to the driveway curb along Palos Verdes Drive West for use by emergency vehicles or golf course maintenance vehicles.

225.The applicant shall replace all damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project’s Palos Verdes Drive South frontage.

226.Prior to the recordation of any final map on the Resort Hotel Area, 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.

227.All proposed drives 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.

228.Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards approved by the Director of Public Works.

229.Handicapped access ramps shall be installed and or retrofitted in accordance with the current Americans with Disabilities Act. Access ramps shall be provided at all intersections and driveways.

230.If any streets are cut they shall be overlaid with asphalt from gutter line to center line or median curb line.

231.Prior to commencing any excavation within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director Public Works.

232.Prior to the recordation of a final map, or issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall construct or enter into an agreement and post security guaranteeing the construction of the following public and/or private improvement in conformance with the applicable City Standards: Street improvements, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, bus turnouts, bikeways, street and 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 material. The amount of such security shall be determined by the Director of Public Works.

233.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 __ to Resolution No. 2001-___. 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.

234.The design of all interior streets shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.

235.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.

236.Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit detailed specifications for the structural pavement section for all streets, both on-site and off-site including parking lots, the Director of Public Works for his review and approval.

Traffic

237.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay 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.

238.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay for its fair share of the following improvements to the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard (NS) at Palos Verdes Drive North (EW): Re-strip south leg of Hawthorne Boulevard with two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

239.Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay 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-strip south leg with two left turn lanes, one through lane, and one right turn lane.

240.The applicant shall provide security, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, in the amount of $100,000 to cover the applicant’s fair share of impacts to any new traffic signal that may be required along Hawthorne Boulevard or Palos Verdes Drive West. This security will be held by the City for a three year period after which any unused portion shall be returned to the applicant.

241.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.

Landscaping/Vegetation

242.A Landscape Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the standards set forth in RPVMC § 15.34. The Landscape Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of any building permits for any building in the Resort Hotel Area. In the event that the Director determines further review of the Landscape Plan by a qualified landscape architect is required, such review shall be conducted by a landscape architect hired by the City. The applicant shall establish a Trust Deposit account with the City to cover all costs incurred by the City in conducting such review. The Landscape Plan shall comply with the water conservation concepts, 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. The landscape plan shall incorporate the low water/natural landscape buffer requirements for the bluff area adjacent to the El Segundo Blue habitat.

243.Where practical, landscaping shall screen all ancillary structures as seen from surrounding properties and/or public rights-of-way.

Lighting

244.Unless otherwise specified, no lighting shall be allowed on the Upper Point Vicente Area except lighting for the use of trails through the golf course areas, safety lighting for public park areas and the tunnel areas under Palos Verdes Drive South. The applicant shall prepare and submit a Lighting Plan for the golf course in compliance with Section 17.56.040 of 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 sign lighting. The Lighting Plan shall be submitted for review and approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of grading permits for the golf course.

245.Parking and Security lighting for ancillary structures, such as the golf maintenance facility, 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 issuance of the final grading inspection shall be institutes for assessment of the exterior lighting impacts. At the end of the ninety (90) day period, the City may require additional screening or reduction in the intensity or number of lights which are determined to be excessively bright or otherwise creating adverse impacts.

246.No golf course lighting shall be allowed other than safety lighting for the use of trails through the golf course areas, and safety lighting for the tunnel areas under Palos Verdes Drive South.

Building Design Standards

247.The maximum height of the lookout pavilions shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, as measured from adjacent finished grade.

248.The maximum height for the Golf Maintenance Facility shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade.

249.All trash enclosure areas shall be designed with walls six 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 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.

Signs

250.Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the Resort Hotel Area commencement of the golf operation, a Uniform Sign Program shall be prepared and submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement for review and approval. The Sign Program shall include all exterior signage including resort identification signs, spa identification signs, golf course signs including routing signs and any warning signs, public safety signs for trails and park areas, and any other proposed project signs.

Utilities/Mechanical Equipment

251.All utilities exclusively serving the 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.

252.All utilities in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Upper Point Vicente Area property frontage shall be placed underground by the applicant.

253.No above ground utility structures cabinets, pipes, or valves shall be constructed within the public rights-of-way without approval of the Director of Public Works.

254.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 the overall allowed building height. 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.

255.Use of satellite dish antenna(e) or any other antennae shall be controlled by Section 17.76.020 of the RPVMC. Centralized antennae shall be used rather than individual antennae for each room, building or accommodation.

256.Mechanical equipment, regardless of 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.

257.All hardscape surfaces project elements, such as the golf cart paths and the golf maintenance facility’s parking area and walkways, shall be properly maintained and kept clear of trash and debris at all times. The hours of maintenance of the project grounds and landscape, including but not limited to the golf course, 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. No maintenance activities of any nature may be performed on Sundays and National holidays.

258.All deliveries of goods and supplies, such as, but not limited to, trash pick-ups, trash sweepers, and delivery trucks, shall be conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Mondays through Sundays.

259.The storage of all goods, wares, merchandise, produce, janitorial supplies and other commodities shall be housed in permanently, entirely enclosed structures, except when in transport.

Fences, Walls, and Gates

260.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.

261.The applicant shall install fencing, not to exceed 42 inches in total height, along the property line abutting Nantasket Drive. Additional, the fence shall provide continuos access openings for public use, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The design and materials of the fence shall be included in the Public Amenities Plan, as required herein.

262.No safety netting for the golf course shall be permitted.

GRADING PERMIT NO. 223

Grading

263.The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the Upper Point Vicente Area, as shown on the approved grading plans dated August 17, 2001 and prepared by Incledon Kirk Engineers:

a.Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 180,760 cubic yards.

b.Maximum Cut: 90,380 cubic yards.

c.Maximum Fill: 90,380 cubic yards.

d.Maximum Depth of Cut: 20 feet (located in the Hole 6 fairway area and in the area of the tee-box for Hole 2).

e.Maximum Depth of Fill: 21 feet (located in the areas of holes 3 and 4).

Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above amounts shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the Planning Commission.

264.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 plans for the project.

265.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.

266.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 City Engineer.

267.All on-site improvements (Parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the grading permit.

268.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 complies 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.

269.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a plan indicating to scale clear site 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.

270.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) Where determined necessary by the Director of Public Works associated public street and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City.

271.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.

272.All geologic hazards associated with this proposed development shall be eliminated or the City Geologist shall designate a restricted use area in which the erection of buildings or other structure shall be prohibited.

273.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.

274.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.

275.An as-built geological report shall be submitted for structures founded on bedrock. An as-built soils and compaction report shall be submitted for structures founded on fill as well as for all engineered fill areas.

276.The applicant’s project geologist shall review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign such plans and specifications.

277.An as-graded soils and geologic report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.

278.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.

279.The project stall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.

280.Grading activity on site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards.

281.Graded slopes shall be properly planted and maintained in accordance with an approved landscaping plan. Plant materials shall generally include significant low ground cover to impede surface water flows.

282.The Developer shall landscape and irrigate the area of excluded Hole No. 5 which is to be used for future recreational uses, with interim landscaping consisting of hydroseed mix meeting specifications as set forth by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

283.All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible.

284.Any water features (lakes, ponds, fountains, and etc.) associated with the golf course 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.

285.Should the project require removal of earth, rock or other material from the site, the applicant shall first obtain City approval of a revised grading permit. Further, the applicant shall prepare a hauling plan and submit the same to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.

286.The use of a rock crusher on-site shall be prohibited conducted in accordance with the project’s mitigation measures.

287.Retaining walls shall be limited in height as identified on the grading plans 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.

Drainage

288.The irrigation, area drain, and any lake system proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geologist and Director of Public Works.

289.A report shall be prepared indicating how the grading, in conjunction with the drainage improvements, including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expect from all storms up to and including the 100-year flood.

290.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.

291.All on-site drainage shall be directed away from the bluff top to minimize erosion and to protect sensitive plant habitat on the bluff face.

292.All storm drains shall be transferred to the County of Los Angeles for maintenance. Accordingly, all plans shall be prepared in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards to the satisfaction of County reviewers. The County of Los Angeles and City shall inspect the storm drain construction.

293.Drainage plans and necessary support documents to comply with the following requirements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits: A) Provide drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and dedicate and show easements on the Final Map; B) Eliminate the sheet overflow and ponding or elevate the floors of buildings with no openings in the foundation walls to at least twelve inches above the finished pad grade; C) Provide drainage facilities to protect the property from high velocity scouring action; and D) Provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties.

294.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a hydrology and hydraulic study of the project site to the Director of Public Works. The study shall address the project site and the offsite area immediately adjacent to the project site. The study shall include a preliminary improvement plan that identifies the configuration of the proposed storm drain systems. The proposed drainage study and plan shall consider all drainage deficiencies at the site as well as along Palos Verdes Drive South adjacent to the site.

295.The proposed site is adjacent to the bluffs which are a significant resource. The storm drain plan shall assure that drainage shall be directed away from the bluff top to minimize erosion and to protect sensitive plant habitat on the bluff face.

NPDE

296.Prior to acceptance of the storm drain system, all catch basins shall be stenciled with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.

297.Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall furnish to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement a recorded copy of the CC&Rs or Maintenance Agreement outlining the post construction Best Management Practices.

298.The applicant shall prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan.

299.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.

300.The applicant shall be responsible for obtain all required permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

301.The applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan in conformance with the City standards, and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

302.The Applicant shall submit proof that permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board have been received prior to the issuance of an grading plan.

Sewers

303.All sewer improvements shall be transferred to the Countywide Sewer Maintenance District for maintenance. Accordingly, all plans shall be prepared in accordance with district standards, and the district as well as the City shall inspect construction.

304.A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of Public Works and the County of Los Angeles.

305.If it is found that the requirements of the Plumbing Code cannot be met, no building permit will be issued for construction.

306.Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works, a study analyzing the capacity of the existing sewer system and the impact from the development on the existing system.

307.Prior to issuance of 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.

308.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.

309.Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.

310.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.

Water

311.Any above ground facilities shall be placed on private property and screened from view from any public rights-of-way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. In addition an easement to California Water Service shall be dedicated.

312.All lots shall be served by adequately sized water system facilities which shall include fire hydrants of the size, type and location as determined by the L.A. County Fire Department. The water mains shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for a land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the L.A. County Fire Department.

313.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.

314.The development 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.

315.The applicant be 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.

316.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.


NEW BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff


9.PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001.

PLANNING COMMISSION

PRE-AGENDA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001


CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2001

CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


2.LONG POINT RESORT: Consisting of Coastal Permit No. 166, General Plan Amendment No. 28, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Conditional Use Permit No. 216, Parcel Map No. 26073, Grading Permit No. 2229, Grading Permit No. 2230, and the associated Draft Environmental Impact Report; Destination Development Corporation, (applicant), 6610 Palos Verdes Drive South and 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. (DS/AM)

A request to approve Coastal Permit No. 166, Conditional Use Permit No. 215, Grading Permit No. 2229, Conditional Use Permit No. 216, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26703, Grading Permit No. 2230 and General Plan Amendment No. 28 for the Long Point Resort.


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


3.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 158-REVISION 'E': Makallon RPV Associates llc, Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront) (KF)

    A request to modify Condition Nos. Q4 and Q5 of Resolution No. 92-27 to allow low seat walls and planters up to thirty inches (30") tall and built-in barbecues up to forty-two inches (42") tall within the rear-yard setback areas of all of the residential lots in Tract No. 46628 (Oceanfront).


4.VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 475, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT MO. 572, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2228, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8808 REVISION "A", AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 161 REVISION "A": 33 Marguerite Drive (AM)
    A request to allow the construction of a 3,795 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence. The proposed addition consists of a 1,431 square foot basement, a 1,438 square foot addition to the main residence and a 926 square foot four-car garage addition. Furthermore, the applicants request to relocate the previously approved 480 square foot guest house over the existing second unit. The Variance request is to allow construction in excess of 250 square feet within the Coastal Setback Zone and to allow the guest house to exceed the Development Code’s 12 foot height limit for a detached guest house (proposed 23 feet). The Minor Exception Permit is to allow a 6 foot high fence along the front property line. The Grading Permit is to allow 829 cubic yards of associated grading for the proposed basement and yard improvements. Since the subject property is located within the City’s designated Coastal Zone (Appealable Area), a Coastal Permit is required.

5.TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53305, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 228, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2242 and ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 738: California Water Service Company & JCC Homes, Inc., 5837 Crest Road (KF)

A request to subdivide the 4.99-acre California Water Service Company (CWSC) site into ten (10) lots for a single-family residential planned development (RPD). The proposed project includes seven (7) residential lots, one lot for a private street, one lot for the existing CWSC office and one lot for the existing underground CWSC reservoir. The CWSC office and reservoir will remain on the site. The homes proposed by the applicant include a mix of 16-foot-tall split-level and 26-foot-tall two-story homes, ranging from approximately 5,600 to 6,500 square feet of living area. The proposed residential lots would range from approximately 10,900 to 14,400 square feet. The proposed project would also require approximately 9,000 cubic yards of earth movement.


NEW BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)

*Please note that that the actual Agenda may well expand, or possibly contract, based upon conditions (such as Continuances of public hearings, Withdrawals, etc.) prior to this meeting.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday,

September 25, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.