08/28/2001 Planning Commission Agenda August, 2001, 08/28/2001, Planning, Commission, Meeting, Agenda, 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 The 08/28/2001 RPV Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission Agenda August, 28 2001

August 28, 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, August 28, 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. 2001-27


CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • Excerpts from the City Council Minutes of August 7, 2001

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR


1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2001

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 the changes 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)

    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.

6.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.

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 the prospective motions, 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 was a concession agreement and the land would not be given away.

Commissioner Cartwright reviewed public input on the project from those for the project and those opposed to the project. He did not think golf was the issue, as that 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 is very little public access to the property now. He felt the issue was what was best use for Upper Point Vicente Park for the City. He felt Long Point would be a resource for the City and the Planning Commission should approve a portion of the property at Upper Point Vicente for the project, but only approve that which is absolutely essential for the project. He stated the project would eliminate some of the eyesores at Upper Point Vicente, generate revenue, create employment opportunities, as well as significantly increase the public access to the land. He wished he had more information on the potential alternatives and had a better feel for how essential golf was for the viability of the project. However, without the information, he felt the best use for Upper Point Vicente Park was to use a portion of the land to make the project successful.

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 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, 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 public land and reshaping the project on the Long Point property.

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. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL ADDRESSES

    Requested Action: Discuss the alternative for allowing the public to contact the Planning Commissioners through e-mail.

    Recommendation: Provide Staff with direction.


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

PUBLIC HEARINGS:


3.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176 – REVISION ‘C’: John and Judy Ernst – Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes, (applicant), 32201 Forrestal Drive. (ES)

Requested Action: Allow an extension and update the current conditional use permit at the Ladera Linda Community Center to allow the continued operation of the Montessori School. The request is also to increase the enrollment limit to a total of 112 students.

Recommendation: Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__; approving Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision ‘C’, subject to conditions.


CONTINUED BUSINESS:


4.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/DS)

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 Upper Point Vicente Area and determine whether the plan is acceptable to the Commission and consistent with the August 14th motion; 2) Discuss the various improvements on the Resort Hotel Area, such as the golf course, hotel building, casitas, villas, parking, and public parks and trails; 3) If deemed appropriate, review the preliminary findings and draft conditions of approval for the project applications; and 4) If deemed appropriate, forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at their September 18th meeting.


5.HEIGHT VARIATION 920, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2274, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 320, and FENCE/WALL & HEDGE PERMIT NO. 36: Mr. & Mrs. Kiger (applicant), 30357 Diamonte Lane. (GP)

Requested Action: Allow the construction of a new 26’ high 8,006 square foot two-story single-family residence, and various other site amenities on an existing 83,639 square foot lot. Proposed grading on the site includes 2,228 cubic yards of cut and 939 cubic yards of fill. A Minor Exception Permit is request for a proposed 6’ high fence within the front and street side yard setbacks. A Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit is requested for a proposed 6’ high fence along the rear property line.

Recommendation: Table this item until a new application is submitted and a new public hearing is noticed.


NEW BUSINESS:


6.GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT: City (ES)

Requested Action: Review the City’s Annual Report to the State regarding the status of the City’s General Plan.

Recommendation: Direct Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the City’s Annual Report to the City Council regarding the status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 2000 calendar year and through June 21, 2001.


ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff


7.PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.

AGENDA

RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY, August 28, 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. 2001-27


CALL TO ORDER:

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:


COMMUNICATIONS:

Council Policy Items (Excerpt Minutes):

  • Excerpts from the City Council Minutes of August 7, 2001

Staff:

Commission:


CONSENT CALENDAR:


1.MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2001


2.PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL ADDRESSES

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:AUGUST 28, 2001

SUBJECT:PLANNING COMMISSION E-MAIL POLICY

RECOMMENDATION

Provide Staff with direction regarding any changes to the Commission’s established method for receiving e-mail information from the public.

BACKGROUND

At its July 24, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission established a policy for receiving e-mail correspondence from the public (excerpt minutes attached). 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.

DISCUSSION

Since the Commission’s last discussion of this item, a central Planning Commission e-mail address (pc@rpv.com) has been established. Although the Planning Commission e-mail address is not being advertised on the City’s website, the e-mail address is operational. A new page devoted entirely to the Planning Commission that will describe the website along with other links to Commission related matters (agendas, minutes, etc.) is currently under construction.

All correspondence related to this topic, including the last Staff Report and Minutes and letters to the editor that have appeared in the Daily Breeze, are attached.

Attachments:

July 24, 2001 Staff Report and Minutes

Related correspondence


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

PUBLIC HEARINGS:


3.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176 – REVISION ‘C’ John and Judy Ernst – Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes, (applicant), 32201 Forrestal Drive. (ES)

TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:AUGUST 28, 2001

SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176 –REVISION "C"

PROJECT

ADDRESS:32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE – LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER

(THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823, D-5)

APPLICANT:MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, C/O JOHN AND JUDY ERNST

32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE, ROOM A

RPV, CA 90275

PHONE:(310) 541-0444

LANDOWNER:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES

STAFF COORDINATOR:EDUARDO SCHONBORN, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION:RENEW THE PREVIOUS CITY APPROVALS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, AT THE LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER.

RECOMMENDATION:ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-__, THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 176 – REVISION "C".

REFERENCES:

ZONING:I (INSTITUTIONAL)

LAND USE:ACTIVE/COMMUNITY PARK

CODE SECTIONS:17.60

GENERAL PLAN:INSTITUTIONAL

TRAILS PLAN:N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN:N/A

CEQA STATUS:EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE:SEPTEMBER 30, 2001

BACKGROUND

In 1985, the City purchased the Ladera Linda site from the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. The City and other organizations have since used the site for various recreational, educational and commercial/utility uses. On June 15, 1993, the City Council initiated contract negotiations with John and Judy Ernst, owners of the Montessori School, for purposes of locating a Montessori School at the Ladera Linda site. On August 3, 1993, the Council reviewed and approved a contract for the school. Subsequently, on August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 176 for the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes for pre-school age children. CUP No. 176 allowed the use of two classrooms, the adjoining playground area, and a fenced parking area at the Ladera Linda Community Center.

On June 13, 1995, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision "A", allowing an expansion to the School to accommodate elementary school age children, with separate building, playground, and bathroom facilities. A new lease agreement was implemented by the City to account for the additional area utilized by the Montessori School. Lastly, on April 23, 1996, the Planning Commission approved CUP No. 176 – Revision "B", allowing the expansion of the Montessori School into additional classrooms. Subsequently, the lease agreements were combined and a 5-year term was established. Thus, the approvals have allowed the Montessori School to operate within Room J of Building A, including the adjacent fenced area to the north; all rooms of Building B, including the adjacent playground area to the south; and Room A and the bathrooms of Building E, including the adjacent playground to the south.

Although there were two revisions to CUP No. 176, a condition for the original CUP validated the permit for five (5) years, and allowed the Planning Commission to grant an extension of the use permit. Since the two subsequent revisions were for expansion of the school and no extension was granted, the conditional use permit expired on August 24, 1998.

Staff became aware that the permit had expired when the Montessori School approached the Department of Recreation and Parks for extension of their most current lease agreement in March 2001. This occurred because the term of the lease agreement was different from the terms of the CUP, and there was no cross-reference between the two. Subsequently, Staff worked with the Montessori School officials to submit the necessary information to request an extension to Conditional Use Permit No. 176.

On May 4, 2001, the applicant submitted CUP No. 176 – Revision "C", an application requesting an extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 176. The application was deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information. Upon submittal of the requested information, the application was deemed complete on August 1, 2001. On August 10, 2001, the City mailed notices to 100 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the Ladera Linda site. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 11, 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

The two previous conditional use permit revisions have been determined to be categorically exempt. Staff’s previous, and current analyses have concluded that the use is significantly less intense than the original functions of the site as a public school with a maximum peak enrollment of 338 students in 1963. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined the proposed project is also categorically exempt under Class 1 – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exempts projects that consist of operation, repair, maintenance or interior alterations to the existing structures from the preparation of environmental documents. Staff has made this determination because the site is developed with classrooms, offices, and other structures and facilities relevant to school and educational purposes, and the proposed project consists of utilizing the school site with a less intensive instructional use. Therefore, no further environmental review is required

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject property is directly accessed via Forrestal Drive. The site is bounded on the north and west by natural open space areas, and on the east and south by residential properties. The site is known as the former Ladera Linda Elementary School, which was utilized as an elementary school for 338 students, until the District closed the school in June 1980. The site was subsequently purchased by the City in 1985, and named the Ladera Linda Community Center. The Ladera Linda Community Center is an 11-acre site that is currently designated and utilized as an active/community park. Since an elementary school previously occupied the site, classroom, offices and restrooms remain on the property in five "bungalow-type" structures. Recreational facilities on-site include a playground, tennis courts, basketball courts, and soccer and softball fields. Parking on site includes 18 spaces (including handicapped spaces) in the entry lot off Forrestal Drive, and 57 spaces in the middle, unpaved lot. Further, there is the capacity for several hundred additional spaces on the Portuguese Bend Fields, a 21.9 acre parcel located further to the north, which is still owned by the School District.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is requesting an extension to Conditional Use Permit No. 176, for the continued operation of the Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes. The School will continue to utilzie Rooms A, D, E and J as classrooms for children; Room F as a combination office and lounge; the playground areas behind Buildings A and B; the fenced area behind Building A for staff parking and the restrooms in Building E. The revision also requests approval to increase the maximum student enrollment that was originally capped at 28 students in 1993. Although Revisions "A" and "B" were approved for expansion of the Montessori School, the conditions of approval did not address extending the permit time limit, nor an increase in the maximum student enrollment. With the approved expansions, the Montessori School has steadily increased its student enrollment from 55 in 1996, to 112 in 2000. Lastly, the Montessori School is proposing to utilize the area between Building A and the staff parking for a performance area for the children. Until recently, the area had been utilized for commercial satellite antennae, which have been removed. The School will place concrete in the area, and is proposing to utilize it for a performance/playground area with associated equipment.

CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

When the original Conditional Use Permit No. 176 was approved on August 3, 1993, the conditions of approval validated the permit for five years, with the opportunity for extension by the Planning Commission. Further, the original approval limited the maximum student enrollment to 28 students. However, although the subsequent revisions allowed the expansion of the Montessori School into additional classrooms, the revisions did not specifically extend the permit nor increase the maximum enrollment limit. As such, the student enrollment has increased over the years, and has recently operated with a maximum of 112 students. The Montessori School and the City did not realize the five-year time frame had expired until the Montessori School requested an extension to their lease agreement with the City’s Department of Recreation and Parks. Staff believes that the intent of the five-year time limit was to review any significant impacts to the surrounding residences that resulted from the private school at the campus, and incorporate conditions to mitigate those impacts as part of any extension proceeding.

In considering a conditional use permit application, Development Code Section 17.60.050 requires the Planning Commission to make six findings in reference to the property and use under consideration. The Planing Commission was able to make equivalent findings for the original approval of the Montessori School, so the discussion that follows primarily addresses the incremental effects of the proposed renewal of this approval, the increase in the enrollment limit, and the additional playground area. (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 Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes has operated from the subject property with City approval since 1993. The existing structures and facilities on the site continue to comply with the development standards of the I (institutional) district, as established in Development Code section 17.26.040. The School has not modified the physical characteristics of the existing site. The Montessori School continues to be less intense than when the site operated as an elementary school. When the District operated the site as an intermediate school, the peak enrollment was 338 students when the City incorporated in 1973. With approval of the various use permit revisions since 1993 to enlarge the school, the Montessori School steadily increased the number of students over the years. The original application was capped at 28 students and according to the applicant, the School has operated at a maximum student enrollment of 112 students since 2000. Although student enrollment increased since 1993, City Staff has not received complaints regarding noise or traffic. Therefore, since the original public elementary school accommodated substantially more students than what the Montessori School operates, there has not been and will be no significant impacts.

    The applicants also propose to utilize the north area between Building A and the staff parking for a performance/playground area for the students. Until recently, the area had been utilized for commercial satellite antennae, and the School is will concrete the area to provide for a performance/playground area with related equipment. Staff believes that improving and utilizing this area will enhance the appearance of the site, and will not result in negative impacts to the surrounding area. As indicated above, there are no residences to the north of the facility, and the closest residences are located over 500 feet to the east. Thus, Staff believes that the site and the existing facilities continue to be adequate in size and shape to allow the continued operation of the Montessori School, an increase in the enrollment limit, and allow a performance/playground area for the students between Building A and the staff parking.

  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. The school site, including ingress and egress, was designed to accommodate a maximum capacity of 338 students. The Montessori School that currently operates at the school site is significantly less intense in terms of traffic generation and noise, since the increase in the student enrollment limit (maximum of 112) would continue to be substantially less than the enrollment of the previous public school. Therefore, Staff believes that the proposed project relates to streets and highways that are sufficient to carry the type and quantity of traffic expected to be generated by the 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 Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes has been in operation on this site with City approval since 1993, and although student enrollment has increased with the expansion of the school, Staff is not aware of any complaints or adverse impacts associated with its operation. Parking, noise and traffic have not been identified to be a problem. Parking has been accommodated by the various parking lots on the site. Noise from the site has been directly attributed to the predominantly educational use of the site, and Staff believes that sounds of children at play have not significantly impacted the surrounding area. As such, Staff believes that approval of this project will have no significant adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the permitted use thereof.

  7. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
  8. Laderal Linda School was built in the 1960s and was specifically recognized as an institutional use by the General Plan upon its adoption in 1975. At that time, the General Plan also recognized that additions and/or expansions of schools would be necessary if increases in population were realized. However, student population decreased over the years, which resulted in the closure of the school in 1980, and subsequent transfer of the property to the City. The number of Montessori School students has not reached the number of the previous use as a public elementary school. For this reason, and because the private use is educational and community service oriented, Staff believes that the Montessori School is consistent with the goals and policies 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 subject property is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the project.

  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 indicated in previous analyses, Staff believes that the safeguards were met during the design and approval process for the original school, which continue to comply with the City’s current standards. As mentioned above, revisions to the use permit were approved that allowed expansions of the Montessori School, but an increase in the maximum student enrollment limit was not explicitly approved. Nonetheless, Staff has not received complaints regarding the Montessori School at the Ladera Linda Community Center. Therefore, Staff believes that the project (as conditioned before and modified for the increase in the enrollment limit) and the design of the original school have provided and will continue to provide the necessary safeguards to protect the health, safety and general welfare. Further, Staff recommends that all conditions placed on CUP No. 176, and subsequent Revisions "A" and "B", that continue to be relevant, remain in place as part of any extension approval.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On August 10, 2001, the City mailed notices to 100 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the Ladera Linda site. Subsequently, a notice of public hearing was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on August 11, 2001. As of the date this report was completed, Staff had not received any correspondences in opposition to this application.

The Montessori School of Rancho Palos Verdes has entered into lease agreements with the City for utilization of the classrooms at the Ladera Linda Community Center. The first lease became effective in September 1993 for 5 years. A second lease became effective in 1995 when the Montessori School was enlarged under Revision "A". When Revision "C" was approved in 1996 for another expansion, the two leases were combined and amended to a 5-year lease. This 5-year lease agreement expired in May 2001, at which time it was discovered that the conditional use permit had expired in 1998. This oversight can be attributed to different expiration dates for the CUP and the lease. To avoid this oversight in the future and have similar expiration dates, Staff recommends incorporating a condition of approval that links approval of Conditional Use Permit – Revision "C" to the lease agreement. Further, Staff will coordinate with Department of Recreation and Parks Staff to ensure that the conditions of approval associated with Conditional Use Permit No. 176, and the subsequent revisions are incorporated into the lease agreement. In this manner, the use permit would be referred to the Planning Commission if the Montessori School proposes to increase the maximum student enrollment limit, lease additional area, or any other similar request.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the discussion presented above, Staff believes that all applicable findings to grant approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision "C" can be made in a positive manner. The continued operation of the Montessori School, the increase to the maximum student enrollment limit, and the new performance/playground area will not adversely affect the neighboring properties, nor be detrimental to public safety, since the Montessori School is less intense than the previous elementary school. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached P.C. Resolution, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision "C".

ALTERNATIVES

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

  1. Identify any areas of concern with the requested extension, and continue this item to a specific hearing date; or
  2. Approve CUP No. 176 – Revision "C", subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "A", for a set term; or
  3. Deny the applicant's request, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate P.C. Resolution for consideration at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

Please note that in the event that this item is continued beyond the September 30, 2001 action deadline, the applicant must agree to a one time 90-day extension of the processing deadline imposed by the State's Permit Streamlining Act.

Attachments:

  • Draft P.C. Resolution No. 2001-__, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 176 – Revision "C"
  • Exhibit "A" – Conditions of Approval
  • Site Plan

CONTINUED BUSINESS:


4.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/DS)

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The City encourages incorporation of a marine theme into the project, and if feasible, the utilization of some of the existing Marineland facilities.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Hours of Operation

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with RPVMC § 17.56.020(C).
  14. Plan Check and inspection costs shall be provided through the use of a trust deposit established with the Director of Public Works.
  15. 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.
  16. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 166

  17. 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.
  18. 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).
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 215

  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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).

  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. Public Trails and Parks

  35. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the hotel, casitas, spa, villas, or clubhouse, the applicant shall submit and receive approval for a Public Amenities Plan which shall include specific design standards and placement for all trails, vista points, parking facilities 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.
  36. 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.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.
  42. The applicant shall construct class I and class II bikeways along Palos Verdes Drive South to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  43. 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

  44. 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.

  45. 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.
  46. 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

  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. 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.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. The applicant shall replace all damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project’s Palos Verdes Drive South frontage.
  56. 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.
  57. 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.
  58. Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards approved by the Director of Public Works.
  59. 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.
  60. If any streets are cut they shall be overlaid with asphalt from gutter line to center line or median curb line.
  61. Prior to commencing any excavation within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director Public Works.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. The design of all interior streets shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
  65. 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.
  66. The applicant shall pay the Environmental Excise Tax in accordance with RPVMC Section 3.20.
  67. 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.
  68. Traffic

  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. 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.
  74. Landscaping/Vegetation

  75. 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.
  76. 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.
  77. 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.
  78. 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.
  79. Lighting

  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. 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.
  84. Building Design Standards

  85. The maximum heights of the buildings approved on the Resort Hotel Area shall not exceed the following criteria:
  86. 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 adjacent finished grade.

    Bungalows - Maximum height of the bungalows shall not exceed 26 feet as measured from adjacent finished grade.

    Clubhouse – maximum height of the clubhouse shall not exceed 20 feet as measured from 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 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 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.

  87. The overall hotel building shall not exceed five stories in height at the critical section of the southern elevation.
  88. 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.
  89. 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.
  90. Signs

  91. 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.
  92. 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.
  102. Fences, Walls, and Gates

  103. 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-___.
  104. 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.
  105. 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.
  106. No safety netting for the golf course shall be permitted.
  107. GRADING PERMIT NO. 2229

    Grading

  108. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. All on-site improvements ( Parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the grading permit.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. The applicant’s project geologist shall review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign such plans and specifications.
  13. An as-graded soils and geologic report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. The project stall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.
  17. Grading activity on site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards.
  18. 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.
  19. All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. The use of a rock crusher on-site shall be conducted in accordance with the project’s mitigation measures.
  23. 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.
  24.  

     

    Drainage

  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. NPDES

  34. Prior to acceptance of the storm drain system, all catch basins shall be stenciled with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.
  35. 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.
  36. The applicant shall prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan.
  37. 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.
  38. The applicant shall be responsible for obtain all required permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  39. The applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan in conformance with the City standards and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  40. 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.
  41. Sewers

  42. 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.
  43. A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of Public Works and the County of Los Angeles.
  44. If it is found that the requirements of the Plumbing Code cannot be met, no building permit will be issued for construction.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.
  49. 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.
  50. Water

  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26073

  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. Development shall comply with all requirements of the various municipal utilities and agencies that provide public services to the property.
  63. 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.
  64. The applicant shall be responsible for repair to any public streets which may be damaged during development of the subject parcels.
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. Prior to Submittal of the Final Map

  69. 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.
  70. Prior to Approval of the Final Map

  71. Prior to approval of the final map, any off-site improvements, such as rights-of-way and easements, shall be dedicated to the City.
  72. Prior to approval of the final map, all existing public or private utility easements shall be shown on the final parcel map.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. The proposed parcel map shall adhere to all the applicable dedications and improvements required per Chapter 16.20 of the RPVMC.
  76.  

     

     

     

     

    LONG POINT RESORT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

    UPPER POINT VICENTE AREA

    (Conditional Use Permit No. 216 and Grading Permit No. 2230 )

     

    GENERAL CONDITIONS

  77. 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.
  78. This resolution shall not become effective unless and until the proposed amendment to the Program of Utilization for Upper Point Vicente, as
  79. referenced in Section __ of this Resolution, has been adopted by the

    National Parks Service.

  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. 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-__.
  83. 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.
  84. 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
  85. 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.

  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. 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.
  89. Any and all operators of the golf course shall participate in the City’s recycling program.
  90. 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.
  91. All golf facilities shall be open to all members of the public regardless of age.
  92. 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.
  93. 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.
  94. Hours of Operation

  95. 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.
  96. 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.
  97. Temporary construction fencing shall be installed in accordance with RPVMC § 17.56.020(C).
  98. Plan Check and inspection costs shall be provided through the use of a trust deposit established with the Director of Public Works.
  99. 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.
  100.  

    CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 216

  101. 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.
  102. 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.
  103. 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.
  104. At no time may the use of golf carts or other related vehicles be permitted on City streets.
  105. 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.
  106. The golf course shall contain the following ancillary structures and uses, as shown on the site plan reviewed and approved by the City Council:
    1. Public Trails
    2. Public Parks
    3. Public Viewing Pavilions
    4. Golf Maintenance Facility

  107. 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 Deprtment.
  108. 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.
  109. 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.
  110. 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.
  111. 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.
  112. 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.
  113. Public Trails and Parks

  114. 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.
  115. 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.
  116. 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.
  117. 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.
  118. The developer shall construct class I and class II bikeways along Palos Verdes Drive South to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
  119. 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.

  120. 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.
  121. Street and Parking Improvements

  122. 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.
  123. 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.
  124. 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.
  125. 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.
  126. 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.
  127. 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.
  128. 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.
  129. The applicant shall replace all damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks along the project’s Palos Verdes Drive South frontage.
  130. 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.
  131. 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.
  132. Any raised and landscaped medians and textured surfaces shall be designed to standards approved by the Director of Public Works.
  133. 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.
  134. If any streets are cut they shall be overlaid with asphalt from gutter line to center line or median curb line.
  135. Prior to commencing any excavation within the public rights-of-way, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Director Public Works.
  136. 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.
  137. 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.
  138. The design of all interior streets shall be approved by the Director of Public Works.
  139. 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.
  140. 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.
  141. Traffic

  142. 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.
  143. 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.
  144. 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.
  145. 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.
  146. 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.
  147. Landscaping/Vegetation

  148. 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.
  149. Where practical, landscaping shall screen all ancillary structures as seen from surrounding properties and/or public rights-of-way.
  150. Lighting

  151. 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.
  152. 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.
  153. 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.
  154. Building Design Standards

  155. The maximum height of the lookout pavilions shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, as measured from adjacent finished grade.
  156. The maximum height for the Golf Maintenance Facility shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, as measured from adjacent grade.
  157. 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.
  158. Signs

  159. 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.
  160. Utilities/Mechanical Equipment

  161. 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.
  162. All utilities in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Upper Point Vicente Area property frontage shall be placed underground by the applicant.
  163. 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.
  164. 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.
  165. 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.
  166. 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.
  167. 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.
  168. 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.
  169. 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.
  170. Fences, Walls, and Gates

  171. 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.
  172. 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.
  173. No safety netting for the golf course shall be permitted.
  174. GRADING PERMIT NO. 2230

    Grading

  175. 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:

    1. Maximum Total Grading (Cut and Fill): 180,760 cubic yards.
    2. Maximum Cut: 90,380 cubic yards.
    3. Maximum Fill: 90,380 cubic yards.
    4. Maximum Depth of Cut: 20 feet (located in the Hole 6 fairway area and in the area of the tee-box for Hole 2).
    5. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. All on-site improvements (Parking lots, sidewalks, ramps, grading) shall be bonded for with the grading permit.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. The applicant’s project geologist shall review and approve the final plans and specifications and shall stamp and sign such plans and specifications.
  13. An as-graded soils and geologic report, complete with geologic map, shall be submitted and reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.
  14. 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.
  15. The project stall comply with all appropriate provisions of the City’s Grading Ordinance, unless otherwise approved in these conditions of approval.
  16. Grading activity on site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety standards.
  17. 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.
  18. All manufactured slopes shall be contour graded to achieve as natural an appearance as is feasible.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. The use of a rock crusher on-site shall be conducted in accordance with the project’s mitigation measures.
  22. 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.
  23. Drainage

  24. The irrigation, area drain, and any lake system proposed shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geologist and Director of Public Works.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. NPDES

  33. Prior to acceptance of the storm drain system, all catch basins shall be stenciled with a water quality message in accordance with City Standards.
  34. 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.
  35. The applicant shall prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan.
  36. 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.
  37. The applicant shall be responsible for obtain all required permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  38. The applicant shall prepare an erosion control plan in conformance with the City standards, and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
  39. 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.
  40. Sewers

  41. 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.
  42. A sewer improvement plan shall be prepared as required by the Director of Public Works and the County of Los Angeles.
  43. If it is found that the requirements of the Plumbing Code cannot be met, no building permit will be issued for construction.
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. Sewer Improvement plans shall be approved by the County of Los Angeles, the County Sanitation Districts, and the Director of Public Works.
  48. 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.
  49. Water

  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.

TO:HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:AUGUST 28, 2001

SUBJECT:LONG POINT RESORT PROJECT – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

Staff Coordinators: Ara Michael Mihranian, AICP, Acting Senior Planner

David Snow, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Discuss the revised site plan for the Upper Point Vicente Area and determine whether the plan is acceptable to the Commission and consistent with the August 14th motion; 2) Discuss the various improvements on the Resort Hotel Area, such as the golf course, hotel building, casitas, villas, parking, and public parks and trails; 3) If deemed appropriate, review the preliminary findings and draft conditions of approval for the project applications; and 4) If deemed appropriate, forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration at their September 18th 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 meetings, and most recently to August 28, 2001. At the August 14th meeting, a motion was adopted by the Commission, with a 4-3 vote, to allow the developer to use City property for golf related activities. The adopted motion specifically pertains to the use of the Upper Point Vicente Area and is summarized as follows:

Conditionally approve only the eastern and lower portions of the UPV 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;
  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 area) with passive and/or active public recreational amenities;

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 UPV land for golf is denied.

Based on the adopted motion, the Commission agreed to consider a revised site plan’s acceptability to the motion at their August 28th meeting. In response to the Commission’s direction, revised plans were subsequently submitted to the Planning Department on August 17th. In order to adequately address the Commission’s concerns pertaining to habitat and public safety, as expressed in the motion, 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 and biological resources. A detailed analysis is provided in the next section.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion encompasses an analysis of the revised site plan for the Upper Point Vicente Area, as directed by the Commission.

Revised Plans For The Upper Point Vicente Area

Based on the adopted motion at the August 14th meeting, the project plans for the Upper Point Vicente Area (UPVA) were revised by the applicant. The following is a brief summary of the revised plans and a comparative analysis with the original proposal for the UPVA. Additionally, Staff, in its analysis, will include comments received from the City’s EIR sub-consultants on public safety and biological resources. Public Golf

Under the original proposal (as shown in the project’s EIR as Exhibit 3-5) 4 out of the proposed 9 golf holes, plus the practice facility, were located on the UPVA. The total linear yardage for the 4 golf holes equated to 1,355 yards. In response to the Planning Commission and public input on March 14, 2001 regarding the practice facility’s close proximity to the Villa Capri Townhomes and St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, the applicant revised the golf layout proposed on the UPVA, similar to Alternative 7.5 Option ‘B", by relocating the practice facility to the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) and relocating two golf fairways to the UPVA. This resulted in a total of 6 out of the 9 golf holes being proposed on the UPVA. Pursuant to the Commission’s direction at the May 17th meeting, the golf layout on the UPVA was further modified by implementing the recommendations made by the City’s Golf Safety Sub-consultant, Kipp Schulties, along with other physical improvements to enhance public safety, playability and public access.

According to direction received by the Commission at the May 17th meeting, the UPVA golf revisions included the following:

  • Switching the direction of play for Holes 3 and 4 to minimize hole to hole safety conflicts;
  • Locating bunkers along various golf holes in order to minimize stray balls from interacting with other golf holes and pedestrian traffic;
  • Utilizing grading and sand features along Hole 5 that deter golfers from playing towards the northern property line for a shorter approach; and,
  • Shortening the length of Hole 6 to (179 yards) by approximately 149 yards, thus eliminating side hill tees and enhancing golfer safety between Holes 5 and 6.

More recently, in response to the Commission’s adopted motion at their August 14th meeting, the site plan for the UPVA (see attachment) was further modified to include the following revisions:

  • Removing and replacing Hole No. 5 and replacing with approximately a 9.3 acre open space area;
  • Reducing the number of golf holes from 6 to 5;
  • Reducing the golf course acreage on the UPVA from approximately 35.6 acres to 20.3 acres;
  • Eliminating the Point Vicente Overlook Park
  • Realigning public trails
  • Reducing the linear footage of public trails from 14,860 linear feet to 14,176 linear feet.
  • Reducing the linear footage of golf cart trails from 8,540 linear feet to 5,643 linear feet.
  • Increasing habitat (protected and re-vegetated) from 26 acres to 32 acres.

In addition to the above changes made to the UPVA, the design of the golf course on the Resort Hotel Area (RHA) has been revised to include an integration of Hole No. 8 with a golf school/practice facility. This operation is discussed in more detail later in this Staff Report. No other site plan modifications to the RHA are proposed under this submittal.

In addition to the Commission’s adopted motion to remove Hole No. 5 from the UPVA, a concern was expressed that the revised plans should be designed in a manner that does not adversely impact habitat and public safety. As such, Staff referred to the City’s EIR sub-consultants for their expertise.

Biological Resources

At the time the Commission adopted the motion to remove Hole No. 5 from the UPVA, the Commission directed the applicant to revise the site plan in a manner that protects important habitat and bird nesting areas. As such, according to the revised site plan submitted by the applicant, the plan before the Commission now results in an increase of habitat by approximately 6 acres. According to the March 14, 2001 site plan, the proposed project on the UPVA would result in approximately 26 acres of habitat, combined restoration and revegetation. Under the current proposal, there is less grading proposed between Hole No. 4 and the cul-de-sac adjacent to St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, along south portion of Hole No. 2 and the northern portion of Hole No. 6. The reduced site grading enables the applicant to further enhance the UPVA with increased habitat restoration and revegetation, thus resulting in 32 acres of native vegetation on the UPVA.

Notwithstanding, the 32 acres of native vegetation that would result, Staff sought to analyze whether the revised site plan would create any new impacts to existing habitat. To further understand the potential impacts to existing native vegetation, Staff referred to the City’s Biological Resources Sub-consultant for the project’s EIR for comments on the revised site plan. According to the City’s sub-consultant, it appears that the revised site plan will impact approximately 14.79 acres of existing habitat, which is a net decrease of approximately 4.75 acres from the March 14th proposal. It should be noted that the impact reduction is primarily to annual grasses. Furthermore, according to the City’s Sub-consultant, the proposed pedestrian trail, located between the Coast Guard property and Hole No. 2, actually results in an increased impact of approximately 0.12 acres to existing Coastal Sage Scrub. In order to minimize impacts to existing native vegetation, the City’s Sub-consultant recommends that this pedestrian trail be relocated along the golf cart path, at its original location.

With regards to impacts to biological resources, the Commission may recall receiving public testimony at the last meeting pertaining to Resource Agency (California Department of Fish and Game / United States Fish and Wildlife Service) concerns with the proposed project. The Agencies’ concerns with the project’s potential impacts to native vegetation and habitat have been presented to the City in written correspondence which is included in the Response to Comments, Volume III of the Final EIR. Staff has attached the Agencies’ letters to this Staff Report for further review by the Commission. It should be noted that although the agencies believe that the project may potentially impact existing habitat, the project’s EIR states that with appropriate mitigation measures, the impacts may be reduced to a level of insignificance. Furthermore, as indicated in previous Staff Reports, the applicant proposes to restore and revegetate native vegetation under a Habitat Conservation Plan (see the April 10th Staff Report). Furthermore, the City is currently coordinating a meeting in early September with the Resource Agencies and the applicant to further discuss Agencies’ concerns with the proposed project.

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 the May 17th Staff Report, 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. 2 – In general, this hole remains the same with the exception that the sand bunker down the left side of the hole is continuous from the landing area to the green. According to the Golf Safety Sub-consultant, this will only aid in the containment of errant balls.

A safety concern has been identified with the location of the pedestrian/golf cart path to the right side of the back two tees. It is recommended that to avoid having players hit shots over the pedestrian/golf cart path, that the path be relocated between the back tees for Hole Nos. 2 and 6. This recommendation may require additional grading and should be reviewed by the applicant’s engineer to determine its feasibility.

Hole No. 3 – With the implementation of the recommendations made at the March 17th meeting, this hole works fine as designed from a safety stand point because of the steep natural grade on the right side of the hole and the native area that separates this hole from Hole No. 4.

However, a safety problem may exist with the grading of the tee area. As proposed, the back tee area is substantially lower than the forward tees, which results in a visibility impact. Although the tees are not aligned, but rather sit out towards the left, the Golf Safety Sub-consultant recommends re-grading the tee area to improve visibility and maintain adequate playability, in terms of site lines.

Hole No. 4 – No problems from a design safety point of view.

Hole No. 5 – As designed, this hole works fine. However, it appears that the location of the green is fairly close to the 2nd tee. With existing vegetation, there should be an adequate buffer to capture errant golf balls.

Hole No. 6 – No problems from a design safety point of view.

In addition to revisions on the UPVA, the proposed golf course layout on the RHA has also been modified. According to the applicant’s recent site plan submittal, the public practice facility/golf school would be shared with the new Hole No. 8.

According to the applicant, the operation of the golf school/practice facility consists of more than a driving range. It includes instructional facilities (classrooms) within the clubhouse, putting greens and chipping areas. Therefore, the applicant believes that although the revised plan creates a challenge by having Hole No. 8 co-exist with the golf school/practice facility, its operation will be based on daily demands and flexibility. According to the applicant, the golf amenity may be operated in a number of ways, such as:

  1. A "super school" where currently proposed Hole Nos. 8 & 9 are used for golf instruction and practice, while the "students/customers" play 7 holes of golf.
  2. An "unlimited play" concept (e.g., current Ocean Trails).
  3. A concept where the driving range would operate principally in the first three hours of the morning (possibly 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) before the course opens (7 a.m.) and while players are working through the first seven holes. As play arrives at Hole No. 8 the driving range component would cease until late afternoon/evening and practice would be reduced to the classrooms, putting greens and chipping areas.

Aside from the operation of the golf course, the following discussion encompasses the City’s Golf Safety Consultant’s analysis of the revised site plan, as it pertains to the golf course on the RHA and potential public safety impacts:

Hole No. 1 – No additional comments.

Hole No. 7 – This hole, which used to be called Hole No. 8, situates the green location too close to the resort entry driveway. It is recommended that the green be moved back 150 feet away from the road.

Hole No. 8/Golf School – From a safety stand point, there appears to be no concern with the design of Hole No. 8 since there is adequate separation between the entry road and Hole No. 9. However, since this hole will also be used as a golf school, it is recommended that additional attention be given to the design and shaping of the hole in relation to site grading to prevent errant golf shots from affecting players using Hole No. 8. Otherwise, the design does not pose any problems from a safety stand point.

It should be noted that although the sub-consultant has not been asked to review the operation of the current golf course, he has noted that it is uncommon in the industry, especially for high-end golf courses, to share a golf hole with a golf school/practice facility.

Therefore, based on the above discussion and the Commission’s August 14th motion, if the Planning Commission finds that the revised plan is not acceptable because it is not consistent with the Commission’s adopted motion, then the use of the UPVA for golf is denied. However, if the Planning Commission finds that the revised plan is acceptable and consistent with the Commission’s adopted motion, the Commission may then wish to consider the project components proposed for the Resort Hotel Area.

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:

  • Golf course layout
  • Operation of the combined Hole No. 8 and the Golf School/Practice Facility
  • Hotel Architecture
  • Public Parks and Trails
  • The use of the Villas
  • Casitas
  • View corridors

Conditions of Approval

If the Commission determines that the revised site plan is acceptable and is consistent with the Commission’s August 14th motion, and further finds that the proposed project on the RHA 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. Staff will be providing the Commission with draft conditions of approval on Friday August 24th. The draft conditions of approval have been separated into two documents, one for the UPVA and the other for the RHA. Furthermore, the conditions have been categorized according to the development applications requested by the applicant. Since the conditions of approval are in a draft format, after reviewing the revised proposal and the findings that have been provided in past Staff Reports, the Commission may find it suitable to add, modify, or delete conditions.

Resolutions

In addition to the conditions of approval, if deemed appropriate, Staff will provide the Commission with the project’s resolutions the night of the August 28th meeting, for consideration that evening.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Environmental Impact Report:

As indicated in the August 14th Staff Report, the updated Biological Assessment and Technical Appendices, Volume IV of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is currently being re-circulated for public comments until August 31, 2001. The re-circulation of Volume IV provides 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 prior to the conclusion of the re-circulation period, 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.

Representatives from the City’s Environmental Consultant team will be in attendance at the August 28th meeting if any Commissioners have questions regarding the environmental component of the project.

Traffic Committee

In addition to the Environmental Consultant’s attendance at the August 28th 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

The FAC continues to meet and discuss the financial aspects of the proposed project, as directed by the City Council. The most recent FAC meeting occurred on August 22, 2001 and the members of the FAC continued their discussion on City Council’s direction to August 29th. As previously noted, it appears that recommendations from the FAC to the City Council will be forwarded sometime in September.

Public Comments

Attached to this report are all public comments received by the City since the August 14th 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.

ATTACHMENTS:

  • Draft Conditions of Approval
  • Draft Resolutions
  • Revised Site Plan
  • Revised Habitat Areas
  • UPVA Acreage Summary Table
  • Conservation Map (prepared by applicant)
  • Applicant’s Letter
  • Golf Safety Sub-consultant’s Letter
  • Public Comments
  • Resource Agency Letter


5.HEIGHT VARIATION 920, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2274, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 320, and FENCE/WALL & HEDGE PERMIT NO. 36: Mr. & Mrs. Kiger (applicant), 30357 Diamonte Lane. (GP)

TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission

FROM: Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

DATE: August 28, 2001

SUBJECT: Height Variation No. 920/Grading Permit No. 2247/Minor Exception Permit No. 320 and Fence/Wall and Hedge Permit No. 36 - 30357 Diamonte, Kiger Residence.

Staff Coordinator: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Acting Principal Planner

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission table this item until a new application is submitted and a new public hearing is noticed.

DISCUSSION:

The Applicant is withdrawing the application as the proposed project is being revised. Subsequently, once a completed application is submitted for the revised project, a new public hearing will be scheduled and a new public notice will be released.

ATTACHMENT:

Letter from Applicant


NEW BUSINESS:

6.GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT: City (ES)

TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNINNG COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING & CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: AUGUST 28, 2001

SUBJECT: 2001 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES GENERAL PLAN.

Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Direct Staff, via Minute Order, to forward the City’s Annual Report to the City Council regarding the status of the General Plan and the progress on its implementation during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001.

BACKGROUND

The City’s General Plan is a statement by local citizens of what is in the best interest of their community. The General Plan has functioned, and continues to function, as a guide to the future desires of residents. It provides the means by which the desired future can be obtained through specified goals and policies. Such goals and policies are implemented in conjunction with the City’s Development Code. To assess the progress of implementing the General Plan, Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, requires that each city "provide an annual report to the legislative body on the status of the [general] plan and progress in its implementation."

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Section 65400 of the State Government Code, Staff has prepared the City’s Annual Report regarding the status of the General Plan. The attached Annual Report illustrates the seven mandatory elements of the General Plan, and lists actions taken by the City during calendar year 2000 through June 31, 2001 followed by a reference to the appropriate policy that is implemented by the action. The full text of each policy and goal implemented by the action is also included in the Annual Report. Staff believes that the City’s General Plan goals and policies continue to be implemented by actions taken by the City that have balanced community needs, property rights, and the health and welfare of the general public.

The Annual Report is attached for the Planning Commission’s consideration, which will be subsequently forwarded to the City Council for review before it is delivered to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternative is available for the Planning Commission’s consideration:

  1. Direct Staff to modify the Report, and include additional information as directed by the Planning Commission, prior to forwarding the Report to the City Council.

Attachments

  • 2000-2001 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of Section 65400(b)(1) of the California State Government Code, which requires that an annual report be submitted to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The annual report must provide information regarding the status of the City’s General Plan and the progress on its implementation, including the progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs. The General Plan is a comprehensive planning document intended to guide development for the City.

State law requires that each adopted general plan address a minimum of seven issues (i.e., "elements"). Each element covers a certain aspect of the City’s growth and development, and must be consistent with the other elements. The seven mandatory elements include Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety (including Seismic Safety). Additional optional elements may be included, as deemed appropriate by each city, depending on the unusual characteristics or development concerns of the jurisdiction. In reference to the City’s natural scenic vistas, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan includes an optional Scenic Highway element. Although each of the mandatory and optional elements are contained within the City’s document, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan addresses each element in broader categories, where the discussions regarding each mandatory element are integrated (and may overlap one another) throughout the document, as opposed to separate headings for each mandatory element.

The broader categories adopted in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ General Plan include the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Conservation and Open Space elements; SOCIO/CULTURAL ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Conservation and Open Space elements; and the URBAN ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT, which includes the mandatory Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Open Space, Safety, Seismic Safety, and Noise elements, as well as the optional Scenic Highway element. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes a separate LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT that includes additional discussion regarding conservation, open space housing and seismic safety; and a FISCAL ELEMENT, which includes discussions regarding conservation, open space, and transportation (trails and bikeways). Finally, the City has an adopted HOUSING ELEMENT document, which was updated in 1992. However, in December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, and has been coordinating with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to certify the document.

The Annual Report individually illustrates each of the seven mandatory elements of the rather than the broader categories. Each element is provides a list of actions taken by the City during calendar year 2000 through June 31, 2001, followed by a reference to the appropriate policy that is implemented by the action. The full text of each policy and goal implemented begins on page 12 of this report.

STATUS OF THE GENERAL PLAN

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 in response to high-density development proposals along the scenic coastal bluffs that help define the character of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Subsequently, the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan was prepared and adopted on June 26, 1975. The adopted goals related to minimizing density along the coastal bluff areas, maintaining the rural character of the community, recognizing and managing unique resources, and identifying and protecting areas with significant development constrains such as sloped areas and areas of geologic instability. These goals of the City are the same today.

Although the General Plan has not been updated, a total of 18 amendments have been made, which are summarized on the following page. The General Plan has been implemented through the City’s Development Code, which was revised in May 1997. The revisions include stringent design review and neighborhood compatibility standards that are designed to serve as effective implementation tools for the General Plan. The revisions also incorporated provisions and criteria for the construction of second units on single-family residential properties.

The City’s population has grown by only 5,145 since incorporation 28 years ago. Further, the City’s single-family housing units have increased by only 241 units between 1990 and 2000, which demonstrates the consistency of development in the City with the low density and rural character goals and policies contained in the General Plan.

In December 2000, the City Council approved a Draft Housing Element in accordance with State requirements, which was forwarded to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and comment. After addressing HCD comments, on June 29, 2001, the City was notified that the revised Draft Housing Element "meets the statutory requirements of State housing element law" and thus will be in full compliance with State Law when formally adopted by the City and submitted to HCD for final review. It is anticipated that the Housing Element will be reviewed, adopted and certified by the City Council in August 2001.

The actions taken by the City during the calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001 are consistent with the goals and policies contained within the City’s General Plan. The City continues to implement these goals and policies with decisions that balance community needs, property rights, and the health and welfare of the general public. The City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff continue to adhere to a vision for the City: to promote a well informed educated public with regard to City issues, problems, and services; a friendly responsive and competent City government; a safe community in which to live and work; a community with a sound economic base; a sound financial base to support and maintain vital City services; reductions to long-term public infrastructure costs within the City; and, a well maintained, balanced, and aesthetically pleasing community.

 

ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

No.

Location

Description

Date

2

Tract 28750 – Peacock Ridge and Highridge Road

Change land use designation, from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 4-6 DU/Acre

10-4-77

3

Coastal Zone

Establish regulations for development in the Coastal Zone

12-19-78

4

Tract 27832, Lots 1-8 Indian Valley Road

Change non-conforming land use from Single-family to Multi-family

9-5-78

5

  1. Ave. Esplendida & Ave. Classica
  2. Indian Valley Rd. & Armaga Spring Road

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre on two former school sites

10-2-79

6

980 Silver Spur Road

Change land use from Commercial Office to Commercial Retail – remove Natural Overlay Control District

6-17-80

9

City Wide

Amend Housing Element Policies

9-23-81

10

Abalone Cove Shoreline Park

Change land use from Agriculture to Commercial Recreational & amend Coastal Plan to allow visitor serving uses in Coastal Zone

4-20-82

11

Paseo Del Mar at La Rotunda

Change land use from Institutional to RS 1 DU/Acre

9-7-82

12

(Golden Cove) PV Drive West at Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use from Commercial Retail to RS 6-12 DU/Acre

8-7-84

13

Ladera Linda

32201 Forrestal Drive

Change land use from Institutional to RS 2-4 DU/Acre

9-7-82

14

Eastview Annexation

Amend General Plan to include policies/land use designations for Eastview Annexation

9-7-82

16

28041 Hawthorne Blvd.

Change land use designation from Residential to Commercial

9-13-88

18

City Wide

Housing Element Update

9-18-90

20

City Wide

Amendment to the Housing Element

8-18-92

21

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to eliminate non-conforming auto service stations

11-3-93

22

City Wide

Amend the General Plan to incorporate the trail and bikeway policy from the Conceptual Trails Plan

11-6-91

23

3108, 6118, 6124 PV Drive South

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to Commercial Office

3-4-97

24

5325 Ironwood and 5303 Bayridge

Change land use designation from RS 2-4 DU/Acre to RS 1 DU/5-Acres

3-17-98

  • Notes:
    Amendment Nos. 1, 7, and 17 were withdrawn
    Amendment No. 8 was tabled in 1982 indefinitely
    Amendment Nos. 15 and 19 were denied

 

ACTIONS TAKEN THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001, TO IMPLEMENT GENERAL PLAN

Listed below are actions taken by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes towards implementation of the General Plan during the 2000 calendar year, including actions taken through June 31, 2001. Past implementation reports have reported on the actions taken during calendar year; however, the City will commence reporting on a fiscal year rather than a calendar year.

Although the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan contains broader categories, each of the required elements is contained within these broad categories. Page one of this report indicates where each mandatory element is included within the City’s General Plan. As such, the following information is intended to specify and highlight each mandatory element, with a brief definition and the actions taken to implement the General Plan. The applicable policy number and page number where each policy can be found in the General Plan follows each action. However, a list of each policy as specified in the General Plan and referenced in this document, begins on Page 12 of this report.

By mandatory element, the following actions occurred:

  1. Land Use Element

The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, businesses, industry, open space, natural resources, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal services, and other categories of public and private use. This element serves as the central framework for the entire plan and is intended to correlate all land uses into a set of coherent development policies.

    • Continued implementation of the comprehensively revised Development Code through the processing of relevant development applications. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 1-5 and 10-18 on Page 78, and Policy Nos. 7 and 8, Page 175)

    • Allowed the keeping of four (4) horses and the operation of a therapeutic riding program on a 1.16-acre parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by Ride-to-Fly, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    • Allowed the keeping of up to 17 horses for a riding training and education for youths between the ages 8 and 20 years old on a 13.78-acre vacant parcel in the Portuguese Bend Equestrian Overlay (Q) District by the Pony Club, a non-profit organization. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 175)

    • Approved miscellaneous minor revisions to the Ocean Trails project consisting of 75 single-family residences and an 18-hole golf course. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13 and 15, Page 78)

    • Approved minor miscellaneous revisions to the Oceanfront Estates project consisting of 79 single-family residences. (Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 2, 13, and 15, Page 78)

    • Approved the construction of a new, one-story, 15,099 square foot Montessori School for preschool students and students in grades K to 6 for a maximum total of 240 students, 20 teachers (2 per classroom) and 6 support staff members. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1 and 6, Page 93; and Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    • Approved the installation of various antenna panels for cellular telephones and personal communication systems on property throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Goal on page preceding Page 101; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138)

    • Approved the construction a new 665 square foot hand car wash/vacuum area; a 600 square foot trellis seating area; a 180 square foot detail canopy; and a new 9 square foot car wash sign. (Urban Environment Policy No. 2 and 7, Page 85)

 

  1. Circulation/Transportation Element

The Circulation/Transportation Element serves as an infrastructure plan and must be correlated with the Land Use Element. This element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, trails, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.

    • Continued allocation of Proposition A funds for bus stop shelter maintenance and improvements, the PV Transit/Dial-a-Ride programs and the Municipal Area Express (MAX) Transit system. (Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55; Urban Environment Element Policy Nos. 4 and 5, Page 137; and Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Continued implementation of the City-wide Residential Street Overlay program to conduct studies to identify streets that require maintenance, upgrades and/or improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Allocated Gas Tax funds for street slurry seal, and street and sidewalk repair throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

    • Continued the construction of storm drain improvements throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112)

    • Commenced the construction on the Abalone Cove Sewer System project. (Urban Environment Element –Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112)

    • Completed the design on the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    • Constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West and a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)

    • Constructed improvements to the City’s arterial roadway network in accordance with the recommendations of the Pavement Management Program. (Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Goal, page preceding Page 101)

 

  1. Open Space Element, and
  2. Conservation Element

The Open Space Element is the plan for the "comprehensive and long range preservation and conservation of open space land…" (Govt. Code Section 65563). It must specify plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, for managing the production of resources, for outdoor recreation, and for public health and safety.

The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, forests, soils, waterways, wildlife, and mineral deposits. It may consider issues such as flood control, water and air pollution, erosion, conversion of farmland, endangered species, and habitats.

    • Entered into an agreement to purchase a combined total of 622 acres of open space land in Upper Filiorum and Portuguese Bend. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45, and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78)

    • Purchased 98 acres of open space land known as the Barkentine property, with Measure ‘A’ funds. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 7 and 14, Page 45)

    • Completed design of the peninsula-wide bikeway improvements. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137)

    • Continued participation in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program with the State Department of Fish and Game, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (Natural Environment Element Policy Nos. 4, 7, and 14, Page 45)

    • Continued use of recycling funds to allocate and implement the beautification grants and the "Recycler of the Month" programs. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    • Continued the installation of recycling containers at various City parks and facilities. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112)

    • Completed the approved development project of Lower Hesse Park. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99)

    • Co-sponsored various nature walks and hikes conducted by the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy at various locations throughout the City. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    • Monitored the development of the trails approved as part of the construction of the Ocean Trails and the Ocean Front Estates development projects. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99; Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    • Monitored the implementation of the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 78)

    • Implemented docent-led hikes through the trails constructed at the Ocean Trails. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99)

    • Accepted the equestrian and pedestrian trails constructed throughout the Seabreeze development project (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 7, Page 137)

    • The Recreation and Parks Committee, in conjunction with the Planning Department, continued the review of short and long-term improvements to trails on the City’s Forrestal Property. (Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6 and 11, Page 137)

    • Entered into a formal agreement with the Palos Verdes Land Conservancy to re-vegetate, operate and maintain the City’s Forrestal Property. (Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45; Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99; and Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 137)

 

  1. Safety/Seismic Safety Element

The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, floor, and fire hazards. The Safety Element may also contain a broader range of safety-related issues which may be locally relevant, such as the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, power failure, and vehicle accidents, and policing. The Seismic Safety Element establishes policies and procedures to protect the community from risks associated with earthquake hazards. State Law requires this element with the Safety Element.

    • Allocated General Fund revenues to public safety and road improvements, maintenance, and construction programs. (Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101)

    • Coordinated holiday sobriety checkpoints with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175)

    • Continued the services of crossing guards in neighborhoods surrounding schools. (Urban Environment Element – Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175)

    • Renewed agreements with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s and Fire Departments for law enforcement, fire protection and paramedic services. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 3-5, 11, and 13, Page 175)

    • Coordinated with the Los Angeles County Weed Abatement District for fire hazard and fuel management reductions. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy Nos. 2 and 6, Page 175)

    • Continued Risk Management Programs with the Emergency Response Team, which is consistent with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175)

    • Continued to enforce the City’s Development Code and the Uniform Building Code, which include detailed geologic review requirements. (Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175)

 

  1. Noise Element

The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution, including current and projected noise level calculations for major noise sources.

    • Continued the implementation of the Municipal Code regulating hours of construction and operation of mechanical equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187)

    • Reviewed truck-hauling routes for trucks transporting construction-related material and equipment. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187)

 

  1. Housing Element

The Housing Element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. This element identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs and contains a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. In adopting this element, issues such as economic, environmental and fiscal factors, as well as community goals set forth in the General Plan must be considered.

    • Continued the City’s formal Code Enforcement Program. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78)

    • Continued the implementation of the Home Improvement Program to provide grants and/or deferred loans to eligible low and moderate income homeowners for necessary minor home repairs, as well as repairs to correct building and safety code deficiencies. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78)

    • Approved a Draft Housing Element and forwarded the document to the State’s Housing and Community Development Department for comment (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78)

    • Purchased approximately 19-acres for potential new affordable housing units, using Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds. (Urban Environment Goal, page preceding Page 57)

    • Accepted $596,000 of in-lieu of affordable housing fees from the developer of the Ocean Front Estates development project. (Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241)

 

SPECIFIC PLANS

A Specific Plan is a tool for implementation of the General Plan and contains development goals and guidelines for specified areas and/or districts within the City. To date, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has adopted four Specific Plans, including the Coastal Specific Plan, which addresses land use and development within the City’s Coastal Zone (all land seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South), as well as three Specific Plan districts along the Western Avenue commercial corridor. Staff is in the process of combining the three specific plans that govern Western Avenue, into one reference document, which is expected to be more user-friendly. Since the text, issues, policies, and standards will not be changed, a specific plan amendment will not be required. Nonetheless, by Specific Plan District, the following actions occurred during calendar year 2000 and through June 31, 2001:

Coastal Specific Plan

Certified in 1981, the Rancho Palos Verdes Coastal Specific Plan provides specific development guidelines and standards for all land located seaward of Palos Verdes Drive West and Palos Verdes Drive South. The lands have been classified by Sub-regions (1-8), with specific development criteria provided, based on the unique character of each Sub-region.

  • Within Sub-region five, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive South, containing a parking area and signage pertaining to the immediate natural environment. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)
  • Within Sub-region one, constructed a scenic turnout along Palos Verdes Drive West. (Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192)
  • Continued monitoring the development of trails implemented with the construction of the Ocean Trails (Sub-region seven and eight) and the Ocean Front Estates (Sub-region one) development projects (Policy Nos. 1 and 2, Page U-28 of the Coastal Specific Plan).

 

Specific Plan District No. II

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 28821 – 28947 Western Avenue (southwest corner of Caddington Drive and Western Avenue) – The Terraces Shopping Center. Specific Plan No. II was adopted in 1985 by the City Council.

    • Updated the Sign Program for The Terraces Shopping Center. (Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85)

 

Specific Plan District No. III

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29505 – 29701 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. III was adopted in 1986 by the City Council.

    • Constructed the 4,000 square foot automotive use (tire store) and a 2,240 square foot retail/restaurant building at Western Avenue and Summerland Drive, and miscellaneous improvements to the public right-of-way, as approved by Specific Plan Amendment No. 10. (Policy Nos. 3 and 7, Page 85)

 

Specific Plan District No. IV

This Specific Plan area includes properties located between 29019 – 29421 Western Avenue. Specific Plan No. IV was adopted in 1987 by the City Council.

    • No proposals for development were submitted to the City during 2000 and through June 31, 2001.

 

GOALS & POLICIES IMPLEMENTED DURING 2000 THROUGH JUNE 31, 2001

Below is a summary list of the General Plan Policies and Goals, and relevant Specific Plan Policies that were implemented during the 2000 calendar year and through June 31, 2001, as specified in the actions of the 2000-2001 Annual Report.

Land Use Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 78: Retain the present predominance of single family residences found throughout the community, while continuing to maintain the existing variety of housing types.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 78: Require all new housing developed to include suitable and adequate landscaping, open space, and other design amenities to meet the community standards of environmental quality.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 78: Prepare development codes with quality standards, but flexible new technology and techniques of building.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 5, Page 78: Support and assist in enforcement of "open housing" regulations to prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 10, Page 78: Require all developments which propose open space to be held in private ownership to provide legal guarantees to protect these areas from further development.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 78: Control the alteration of natural terrain.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 12, Page 78: Encourage energy conservation in housing design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No 13, Page 78: Require proposals for development of areas which impact corridor related views to analyzed the site conditions and address the preservation of such views.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 78: Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 15, Page 78: Enforce height controls to further lessen the possibility for view obstructions.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 16, Page 78: Require proposed housing to show how it ensures the existence of neighboring site privacy, while simultaneously providing privacy to the occupants of the proposed units.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 18, Page 78: Allow no further development involving human occupancy within the active landslide area.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 85: Make special efforts to ensure safe conditions on ingress and egress routes to commercial areas for both pedestrians and vehicles.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 85: Require the commercial activity, where a commercial area would be nonconforming with adjoining activities, to provide the necessary mitigation measures.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 85: Require commercial sites to limit the exposure of parking and exterior service areas from the view of adjoining sites and circulation routes.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining residential areas.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1: Locate schools on or near major arterials or collectors, and provide adequate parking and automobile access.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6: Review the location and site design of future institutional uses to ensure their compatibility with adjacent sites.

Urban Environment Element –Infrastructure Policy No. 8, Page 138: Require 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.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 7, Page 175: Implement reasonable house numbering and consistent street naming systems.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 8, Page 175: Coordinate with the Fire Department to determine the feasibility of providing emergency access to the end points of long cul-de-sacs.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 16, Page 175: Regulate the activities, types, kinds, and numbers of animals and balance the interest of animals owners and persons whose welfare is affected.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: The City shall encourage the development of institutional facilities to serve the needs of its citizens.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: To ensure adequate public utilities and communication services to all residents, while maintaining the quality of the environment.

Circulation/Transportation Element

Socio-Cultural Element Policy No. 2, Page 55: Act to enhance mobility within the neighborhood, mobility within the City, and on the Peninsula as a whole.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 4, Page 112: Require developers to install necessary flood control devices in order to mitigate downstream flood hazard induced by proposed upstream developments.

Urban Environment Element Disposal/Recovery System Policy No. 8, Page 112: Require the installation of sewers in existing development if alternative sewerage systems endanger public health, safety and welfare.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 4, Page 137: Encourage, together with other [entities], to improve public transportation on the Peninsula and to provide access to other destinations in the region.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 5, Page 137: Explore the establishment of an independent bus system or contact for service with an independent municipal transportation agency.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the increased mobility of residents through the development of an adequate transportation system.

Open Space Element, and

Conservation Element

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 45: Consider in more detail natural environment factors in subsequent factors in subsequent specific area studies as an integral part of these studies.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 45: Encourage study of and funding to preserve unusual flora and fauna.

Natural Environment Element Policy No. 14, Page 45: Maintain the existing natural vegetation of the City in its natural state to the maximum extent possible in all existing and proposed developments, to the extent commensurate with good fire protection policies and encourage the re-establishment of appropriate native plants.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 55: Develop recreational programs that will address the recreational needs of all citizens, both individually and in groups.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 17, Page 78: Make an effort through zoning, cooperation with other governmental entities, and acquisition to preserve the rural and open character of the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 99: Provide access to all public recreational land.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 2, Page 99: Continue to sponsor recreation programs within the City considering the diversity of needs.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 4, Page 99: Establish ordinances to require builders and developers to provide lands and/or funds for acquisition and development of land for recreational use.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 11, Page 99: Encourage public use of institutional recreation facilities, where possible.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 112: Take an active interest in waste management and recycling programs and offer assistance to groups attempting to offer solutions to the problem of waste.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 6, Page 137: Design path and trail networks to reflect both a local and regional demand, while maintaining the unique character of the Peninsula.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 7, Page 137: Require all path and trail networks to be in separate rights-of-way.

Urban Environment Element –Transportation Systems Policy No. 11, Page 137: Further investigate possible funding sources for acquisition, development and maintenance of paths and trails.

Safety/Seismic Safety Element

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 1, Page 175: Promote the education and awareness pertaining to all hazards which affect residents.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 2, Page 175: Adopt and enforce building codes, ordinances, and regulations which contain design and construction standards based upon specified levels of risk and hazard.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 3, Page 175: Encourage cooperation among adjacent communities to ensure back-up law enforcement assistance in emergency situations.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 4, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency and water company to ensure adequate water flow capabilities throughout all areas of the City.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 5, Page 175: Cooperate with the fire protection agency to determine the feasibility of utilizing the existing helicopter "pad" at the Nike Site for a water refueling location.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 6, Page 175: Develop stringent site design and maintenance criteria for areas of high fire hazard potential.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 10, Page 175: Ensure that local, County, State, and Federal health, safety, and sanitation laws are enforced.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 11, Page 175: Ensure that adequate emergency treatment and transportation facilities are available to all areas of the city.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 13, Page 175: Encourage the availability of paramedic rescue service.

Urban Environment Element –Safety Policy No. 14, Page 175: Be prepared to implement contingency plans to cope with a major disaster.

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 101: It shall be the goal of the City to provide residents with a safe and efficient system of roads, trails and paths.

Noise Element

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 1, Page 187: Mitigate impacts generated by steady state noise intrusion (e.g., land strip landscaping, site design).

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6, Page 187: Control traffic flows of heavy construction vehicles en route to or from construction sites to minimize noise.

Housing Element

Urban Environment Element Goal, page preceding Page 57: It shall be the goal of the City to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 3, Page 78: Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 6 Page 78: Cooperate with County, State, and Federal agencies, monitoring all housing programs offered, and studying their desirability of implementation in the City.

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 8, Page 78: Initiate strong code enforcement programs so that scattered housing problems are solved rapidly to prevent even small-area deterioration.

Fiscal Element Policy No. 8, Page 241: Encourage private contributions and donations to the City as alternatives to public funding.

 

Specific Plans

Urban Environment Element Policy No. 7, Page 85: Require adequate provisions be incorporated into commercial site design to reduce negative impacts on adjoining areas.

(Urban Environment Element –Sensory Environment Policy No. 5, Page 192): Develop well located vista points to provide off-road areas where views may be enjoyed.

Policy No. 1, Page U-28: Encourage future residential development to provide recreational facilities to meet the needs of their residents.

Policy No. 2, Page U-28: Encourage new developments adjoining public trails to design internal trails to link with the public trails.

Policy No. 4, Page U-28: Require all parks to provide adequate parking within their boundaries to meet their projected carrying capacities.


 

2000-2001 Annual Report Prepared by:

Eduardo A. Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Submitted for:

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

State of California



ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS:

Staff


7.PRE-AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

PLANNING COMMISSION

PRE-AGENDA

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001


CONSENT CALENDAR:

1.MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2001
CONTINUED BUSINESS:(NO ITEMS)


PUBLIC HEARINGS:


2.VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 485, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2294 and ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 34: William Urso, (applicant), 3825 Crest Road. (ES)
    A request by the applicant to construct 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.

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

A request to allow a tutorial center serving up to 48 students per day, at an existing office building.


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

A request to install 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.


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.

Date prepared: Thursday, August 23, 2001

Commission


ADJOURNMENT:

The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 11, 2001, 7:00 P.M. at Hesse Park.