PC RES 2002-022A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION N0. 899, GRADING PERMIT
NO. 2151, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 573, AND
VARIANCE NO. 488 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW 5,409 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3787
COOLHEIGHTS DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1999 the subject applications, Height Variation No 899,
Grading Permit No. 2151 and Minor Exception Permit No 573 were submitted to the Planning
Department by the property owners, Mr and Mrs. Joe Nassin, to allow the construction of a new
5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with 819 cubic yards of associated grading,
and,
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2000 the City's Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and
conditionally approved the applicants' geotechnical reports and studies, and,
WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their
architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on September 26,
2000; and,
WHEREAS, during the public noticing period for the November 14, 2000 Planning
Commission, the City received several comment letters from surrounding property owners
expressing concern regarding the proposed project and its impacts to neighboring views, public
trail access, brush clearance, habitat, and street turnaround improvements In light of the public
comments letters, Staff determined that additional information and studies needed to be
completed in order for the Commission to consider the project's merits; and
WHEREAS, at its November 14, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the
public hearing for the proposed project in order to allow Staff and the applicants ample time to
complete the necessary information needed to process the project applications; and,
WHEREAS, as a result of the Fire Department's requirement to clear brush on the
slopes that extend beyond the building pad, it was determined that the project would result in
potential impacts to protected habitat and could therefore not be processed as a Categorical
Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project required the preparation of an
Initial Study, thus requiring that the applicants submit new information at which time the
applicant also submitted revised plans that constituted revised applications, and,
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2001, Environmental Assessment No 745 along with revised
plans were submitted to the Planning Department on behalf of the property owners for the
preparation of the appropriate environmental documents, and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS on October 9, 2001, the revised project applications were deemed complete
for processing, and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 5(F) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that, by
incorporating mitigation measures into the Negative Declaration and project approval, there is
no substantial evidence that the approval of Height Variation No. 899, Grading Permit No 2151,
and Minor Exception Permit No. 573 would result in a significant adverse effect on the
environment Accordingly, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice
of that fact was given in the manner required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed on April
10, 2002 and distributed for circulation and review on April 11, 2002 through May 13, 2002, and,
WHEREAS, Notice of Intent to Adopt and Notice of Availability of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration was sent to responsible agencies and interested parties on April 11, 2002, and
notification of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided by publication
in the P V Peninsula News newspaper on April 11, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, after issuing notices pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission held a
duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2002 at which all interested parties were given the
opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, at the May 14, 2002 meeting, the Commission unanimously moved to
continue the public hearing to its May 28"' meeting so that Staff may further research the
concerns raised at the public hearing. Specifically, the Commission directed Staff to consider
alternatives to the applicant's hammerhead turnaround, including the design of a cul-de-sac, at
the terminus of Coolheights Drive; and,
WHEREAS, at its May 28, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to its June 11th
meeting in order to allow Staff additional time to complete its analysis of
the outstanding issues, including the turn -around design alternatives, and,
WHEREAS, at the June 11, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing discussion on the project, and after hearing public testimony, the Commission
unanimously moved to continue the public hearing to its June 25, 2002 meeting, so that Staff
could meet with the applicant and the neighboring property owners to address issues pertaining
to the proposed design of the turn -around, potential view impacts, brush clearance, and the
public access trails; and,
WHEREAS, at the June 25, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing to its July 9, 2002 meeting so that Staff could continue its analysis of the issues
identified at previous meetings, and,
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-15,
which in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 2 of 7
IA \
f
a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed project.
The Planning Commission also unanimously moved to continue the public hearing discussion
on the merits of the project applications to the July 23, 2002 meeting, and
WHEREAS, at the July 23, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to its August 13, 2002 meeting so that Staff could present the Commission with a
protect summary update and continue its analysis of the issues identified at previous meetings;
and,
WHEREAS, at the August 13, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission received and
filed a project summary update on the contemplated street turn -around design alternatives, and
continued the public hearing to its August 27, 2002 meeting; and,
WHEREAS, at the August 27, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission re -opened the
public hearing discussion at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS
Section 1: That in regards to Height Variation No 899,
A The applicants have successfully complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation
process established by the City by obtaining 17 signatures (60%) out of the 28
properties within the 500' radius, and 5 signatures (83%) out of 6 properties within the
100' radius.
B. The proposed structure has been designed in a manner that does not result in impacts
from public views and vistas from the trails located within the City owned Forrestal
Property because the residence is significantly lower in elevation than the trails, which
maintain views in the opposite direction from the project site. Furthermore, the project
does not significantly impair a view from public property, as identified in the City's
Coastal Specific Plan, since the subject property is not located within the City's
designated Coastal District.
C. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory in that the project site is
located on a graded lot that was created when the surrounding neighborhood was
developed and is at the same general elevation as the other lots that are located on
Coolheights Drive.
D The proposed residence has been designed to minimize any view impacts that may
occur from surrounding properties by sitting the proposed residence off the building pad,
on the northern slope located between the building pad and the lower drainage swale
Furthermore, the quantity of grading has been limited to the area needed to prepare the
site for the proposed residence, and restricted from altering the height of the building
pad for yard improvements
E. The subject property is located in an area that consists of unique topography that has
characterized the existing development within the neighborhood. As such, "protected
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 3 of 7
views" as defined by the Development Code, vastly vary between lots since the majority
of the existing homes within the immediate neighborhood are currently developed as
two-story residences on lots that may be classified as "view" or "non -view" lots.
Therefore, due to the character and topography of the immediate neighborhood coupled
with the City's height requirements for "building pad" lots, future development projects
involving a new second story within the immediate neighborhood will be limited
Furthermore, although some second story additions may result in potential view impacts,
the impacts may not be from "protected viewing areas" due to the "by right" height
requirements for the varying lot classifications nor considered a "significant" view impact.
Therefore, the Commission finds that in terms of cumulative view impacts, the granting
of the proposed project will not cause a significant cumulative view impairment
F The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly
impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel because the structure is designed
and plotted in a manner that does not result in a significant impairment of a view from
neighboring properties Furthermore, the portion of the proposed structure that complies
with the Development Code's permitted height limit already impairs views from the
neighboring properties. Views that are impaired by the permitted height limit are not
considered by the Development Code as protected views Therefore, the proposed
second level does not create a significant view impairment beyond that which would
result from a structure built to the maximum permitted height limit of 16 -feet.
Notwithstanding, the applicants have agreed to move the southern facade back by 2 -feet
to mitigate potential view impacts from the neighboring residence and a condition
requires all landscaping, south of the southern most building facade, to be limited to a
height that will not cause a significant view impairment from the neighboring property.
G The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, as it pertains to the
RS -1 zoning district's residential development standards for lot coverage, setbacks,
parking and other code requirements stated in the Development Code. As for those
components of the proposed project that the Development Code does not permit "by
right," the respective applications have been requested and reviewed according to the
appropriate guidelines, as discussed in subsequent Sections of this Resolution
Additionally, further approvals must be obtained from the City's Geotechnical Consultant
in the building stage, and building and grading permits must also be obtained for
compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the Development Code and the City's
Municipal Code Additionally, the applicants are required to obtain approvals from Local,
State, and Federal Agencies, as identified in Exhibit "A", project Conditions of Approval.
Further, the proposed project complies with the standards of the applicable Overlay
Control Districts
H Although the proposed structure is 2,210 square feet larger than the largest home within
the ten (10) closest homes on Coolheights Drive, the structure is designed in a manner
that resembles the character of many of the recently remodeled or renovated homes
within the immediate neighborhood. Such elements include integrating architectural
features such as clay tile roof, smooth stucco finish, vinyl doors and windows, and
wrought iron throughout the residence Additionally, in order to balance the weight of the
structure's visual appearance, architectural features have been integrated into the
design of the residence and its footprint, such as an entrance rotunda that offsets the
structure's geometric form, thereby softening the structure's massive and bulky
appearance Furthermore, the proposed residence is located at the terminus of
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 4 of 7
Coolheights Drive and is aligned with the neighboring residences on the "non -view" side
of the street, thereby limiting its visibility from neighboring properties.
The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy from
the immediate neighboring properties because the residence is designed and plotted on
the project site so that neither the windows nor the balconies will look onto a neighbors
yard nor into the interior of a neighbor's home.
Section 2: That in regard to Grading Permit No 2151.
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot in that the proposed 819 cubic yards of associated grading is necessary to
prepare the protect site for the construction of a single-family residence, which is
considered the permitted primary use of the property As proposed, the grading is
necessary to accommodate the construction of a new single-family residence
B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect visual
relationships nor the views from neighboring properties since the proposed grading will
not raise the height of the existing building pad, but rather will cut into portions of the
slope to the north of the existing building pad to accommodate the proposed residence
The applicants have plotted the residence into the slope in order to minimize potential
view impacts from neighboring properties
C. The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural in that the proposed grading is to occur on a portion of
the project site that was previously graded to accommodate the existing residence The
proposed grading improvements will occur on a slope that was created at the time the
neighboring tract was developed and is less than 35%. Furthermore, the proposed
grading will not require further disturbance to the site's natural contours or finished
contours, which are considered reasonably natural
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slopes into the natural
topography in that the majority of the grading requested will be conducted under the
existing building footprint, by notching the structure into the slope located to the north of
the existing building pad, to create a similar finished floor elevation to the existing pad
Furthermore, the proposed grading does not include any modification to the natural
topographic features so that land sculpturing is required
E The grading will not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation in that the proposed grading
will be located on a portion of the 2 30 acre lot that was previously disturbed at the time
the neighboring tract was developed, and is therefore devoid of native vegetation.
Therefore, the project related grading activities would not significantly impact any natural
vegetation or wildlife habitat
F The grading conforms with the Development Code's standards pertaining to grading on
slopes, height of cut/fill and retaining walls in that the grading requested is necessary for
the development of the subject property and complies with the Development Code's
criteria in that no earth movement will occur on slopes equal to or greater than 35% nor
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 5 of 7
will the grading result in slopes exceeding a 50% gradient. Furthermore, the excavation
required for the proposed structure will not exceed a height of five (5) feet.
Section 3: That in regard to Minor Exception Permit No 573
Pursuant to the Development Code, a Minor Exception Permit may be requested to allow the
construction of a six (6) foot high fence within the required front yard area provided that one of
the following findings can be made
1 The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by practical difficulties, or,
2. The requested Minor Exception Permit is warranted by an unnecessary hardship, or,
3 The requested Minor Exception Permit is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the
general intent of this Title
In order to physically identify the property lines while maintaining a level of security from
potential trespassers seeking use of the public trails located within the Forrestal Property, the
construction of a five (5) foot high wrought iron fence with six (6) foot high pilaster in an area
that the Development Code currently restricts the height of a wall or fence to forty-two (42)
inches is warranted, since prohibiting the proposed fence would be inconsistent with the general
intent of the Code to protect and enhance health and safety Furthermore, the proposed fence
will be constructed from wrought iron that will allow the fence to remain predominantly open,
preventing a fortification feeling from the street. This is achieved since the design of the fence
is approximately eighty (80) percent of it is open/permeable, which allows ocean views to be
enjoyed from the neighboring property Additionally, landscaping located along the fence is
limited to a height not to exceed one (1) foot above grade
Section 4: That in regard to Variance No 488
A. The project site has exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in that the property
has a limited building pad area and that pursuant to a Settlement Agreement, the
development of the project site requires the construction of a street turnaround at the
terminus of Coolheights Drive As such, the construction of a turn -around occupies a
significant portion of the building pad area thereby requiring the proposed residence to
be built off the building pad In order to minimize impacts to abutting slopes that contain
protected Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, it is in the interest of the surrounding environment
that the proposed residence be plotted as close to the street as possible These factors
result in a unique situation that does not generally apply to other properties within the
RS -1 zoning district.
B The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a right that is
possessed by other property owners under like conditions The project site is currently
an undeveloped lot that is zoned for the use of a single-family residence However, the
applicants are required to improve the project site with a turn -around at the terminus of
Coolheights Drive Since the property has a limited usable building pad area due to the
unique terrain and the abutting slopes, the property owners are deprived of a privilege
that is possessed by other property owners within the same zoning district and citywide.
Therefore, in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment while permitting
the construction of a new single-family residence, a reduction of the required front yard
setback is warranted since it would not provide the landowner a special privilege that is
not currently enjoyed by other property owners in the area
P C. Resolution No. 2002-22
August 27, 2002
Page 6 of 7
C. Granting such a Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare since
the reduction of the required front yard setback allows the proposed residence to be
plotted in a location that can accommodate the required turn -around at the terminus of
Coolheights Drive, which is to enhance public safety by allowing vehicles, including
emergency vehicles, adequate maneuverability Furthermore, the reduction of the front
yard setback for the proposed residence will not be detrimental to the public access, as
an appropriate trail easement will be conveyed to the City providing access to the City
owned Forrestal Property. Therefore, granting a Variance would not increase the
impacts of the existing condition on the lot or be detrimental to the public welfare.
D. The requested Variance to reduce the front yard setback requirement is consistent with
the General Plan since the project will not change the existing residential condition of the
lot
Section 5: A Notice of Decision shall be given to the applicant, to all property owners
adjacent to the subject property and any interested party informing them of the Planning
Commission's decision
Section 6: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this
decision to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17 02 040(C)(I)(j) of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the city, in writing, and with the
appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following the date of the Planning
Commission's adoption of this resolution.
Section 7: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No 899,
Grading Permit No. 2151, Minor Exception Permit No. 573, and Variance No. 488 thereby
approving the construction of a new 5,409 square foot, two-story, single-family residence at a
height not to exceed 26', as measured from the highest pre -construction grade (752 00') to the
top of the highest roof ridgeline (778.00'), subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27 th day of August, 2002, by the following
vote:
AYES: Chairman Cartwright, Vice -Chairman Long, Commissioners Lyon, Cote, Tomblin,
Duran -Reed, and Mueller.
NOES: None
0*11 11*1
ABSENT: None
Joel Kojas, Al P
I
ec i n )i�
- J
irec r of Pla ni g, Building
a� ode Enforcement
`7
J& Cartwright
Chairman
August 27, 2002
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 899, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2151,
MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO 573, VARIANCE NO 488,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 745
GENERAL
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or
property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read,
understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void
2 The approval shall become null and void after one (1) year from the date of approval by
the City, unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to
initiate the "plan check" review process
3 The proposed project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans
approved and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date of this
approval
4 All mitigation measures contained in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (P C
Resolution No 2002-15) shall be incorporated into the implementation of the proposed
project and adhered to, and are incorporated herein by reference
5 The applicant shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the review of plans or
monitoring of construction related activities, as described herein
6 The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and
conditions.
7 All future modifications to the building footprint approved herein shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing Such review
shall ensure that no new additional floor area, consisting of combustible material, results
in the need for additional fuel modification that will adversely impact Federal and State
protected habitat.
8 In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply
9 The hours of construction shall be limited to 7.00 a m to 7.00 p m., Monday through
Saturday No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.
10 The construction site and neighboring public and private properties shall be kept free of
all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes Such excess material may include, but is not limited
P C Resolution No 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of 7
to the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of
earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other
household fixtures
11 The project site shall be securely enclosed with a temporary construction fence, not to
exceed six (6) feet in height, during the duration of construction Said fencing shall be
removed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety
12. No construction activity or staging shall be permitted on the slopes located off the
building pad, including the slopes above the existing upper most drainage swale, unless
otherwise a part of the proposed residence
HEIGHT VARIATION
13 The proposed structure shall not exceed 26 feet in height as measured from the highest
pre -construction grade (752') to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (778') A BUILDING
HEIGHT CERTIFICATION, PREPARED BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER, SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, PRIOR TO THE FINAL
FRAMING INSPECTION.
14 The project silhouette shall be removed no later than seven (7) calendar days after the
expiration of the appeal period, unless an appeal if filed with the City
15 The southern facade of the proposed residence, located at the southwestern most
portion of the building, shall be setback at least 2 -feet from the datum point depicted by
the certification of the project silhouette pole, as shown in Exhibit "C", prior to "plan
check" submittal with Building and Safety
GRADING PERMIT
16 The project related grading shall not exceed 819 cubic yards of earth movement,
consisting of 668 cubic yards of cut and 151 cubic yards of fill All excess cut (517 cubic
yards) shall be exported off-site.
17 The maximum depth of cut/fill shall not exceed 5' in height, except for the excavation
required for the retaining walls integrated with the building footprint.
18 The retaining wall located along the driveway shall not exceed five (5) feet in height, as
measured from the lowest finished grade. When a retaining wall is combined with a
fence on the top of the wall, the maximum height shall not exceed six (6) feet, as
measured from finished adjacent grade Furthermore, the retaining walls shall maintain a
minimum separation of three (3) feet, as measured from the interior of the walls.
19 The City's Geotechnical Consultant shall review the project in the "plan check" stage to
determine whether further reports and investigation shall be required prior to issuance of
grading or building permits
20 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Director of Public Works shall review and
approve a haul route for all exported earth
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 2 of 7
21 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Director of Public Works shall review and
approve any improvements within the public right-of-way
MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT
22. The proposed fence/wall located along the front property line shall not exceed six (6)
feet in height, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the wall and shall
be eighty (80) percent open to light and air
23 No architectural elements shall be permitted on the fence/wall that exceeds the
permitted height of six (6) feet, as defined in the above condition
24 No lighting may be permitted on the proposed fence/wall that is located outside the area
designated as the turnaround
25 The area located immediately adjacent to the proposed fence/wall shall be landscaped
with vegetation that does not exceed 42 -inches in height, as measured from adjacent
grade, except for the area located between the neighbor's front yard fence post (3778
Coolheights Drive) and the neighbor's dining room window edge (3776 Coolheights
Drive) closest to the public street, where the plantings shall not exceed a height of 6 -
feet.
MISCELLANEOUS
26 The residence shall not exceed 5,409 square feet, of which 680 square feet will be in the
form of a three car attached garage, 2,243 square feet will be situated on the lower level
and 2,486 square feet on the upper level
A SQUARE FOOTAGE CERTIFICATION PREPARED BY A REGISTERED
SURVEYOR INDICATING THAT THE NEW RESIDENCE DOES NOT EXCEED 5,409
SQUARE FEET, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY
DIVISION, PRIOR TO A FRAMING INSPECTION.
27 The lot coverage requirement for the subject property located in the RS -1 zoning district
shall not exceed 25% The proposed Lot Coverage is 5%
28 The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained for the proposed residence
Front Yard 18'-0" minimum (as approved herein under Variance No 488)
Rear Yard 20'-0" minimum (proposed 220')
Side Yard 10'-0" minimum (proposed 78')
A SETBACK CERTIFICATION SHALL BE PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR
AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, INDICATING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED FRONT YARD SETBACK PRIOR TO A
FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
29 A minimum of a two car garage shall be maintained at all times with a minimum depth of
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 3 of 7
twenty (20) feet, a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet and a minimum vertical
clearance of seven (7) feet, as measured from the interior finished walls (proposed
three car).
30. The proposed spa shall be maintained a minimum of five (5) feet away from the top of
the slope.
31 The proposed spa area shall be enclosed with a minimum 5' high fence, with a self-
closing device and a self -latching device located no closer than 4' above the ground.
32 All ancillary structures, including, but not limited to decks, gazebos, walls and fencing
shall be constructed of non-combustible materials.
33 The proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum gradient of 20%, as required by the
City's Development Code.
34. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicants shall convey, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the City
Attorney, a public trail easement for the Ganado (A16), Pirate (A15), and the Flying
Mane (1-4) trails. The required trail easements shall be recorded with the Los Angeles
County Recorders Office prior to issuance of grading or building permits Except as
required by Condition 36, the required trail easements shall be limited to the areas of the
project site that are outside the "residential" portion of the lot, as identified in the
attached Trail Zone Exhibit "B".
The alignment of said trails, including, but not limited to the Ganado (A16) trail segment,
shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Forrestal Steering Committee Said review
shall involve the participation of all interested parties, including, but not limited to the
project applicant The placement of said trails shall not result in impacts to plants
protected herein, as stated in Condition No 48
35. Access to the trails on the Forrestal Property shall not be restricted dunng construction
of the proposed residence The location of the temporary trails shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Public Works. The placement of said temporary trails shall
not result in adverse impacts to the protected plants that are discussed in Condition No
51.
36 The applicant shall construct, at his expense, a cul-de-sac turn around as depicted as
Alternative No 5, which was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at its
August 27, 2002 meeting. The final plans for the cul-de-sac, which shall include an
easement on a portion of the applicant's driveway for turn around purposes, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the Los Angeles
County Fire Department In addition, the applicant shall dedicate to the City a 5 -foot
strip running along the boundary that abuts Mr Ortolano Jr's property so that 5 -feet of
the existing 10 -foot wide City Trail can be relocated onto the applicant's property, with
the remaining 5 -feet of the trail remaining on Mr. Ortolano Jr's property The applicant
shall also dedicate to the City the area between the cul-de-sac and the relocated trail,
subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, for the location of a
trailhead connection between the cul-de-sac and the City's trail easement
P.C. Resolution No. 2082-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 4 of 7
37. If the adjacent property owners (Dr and Mrs Farooq, Mr. and Mrs. Ortolano, Sr. and
Ortolano, Jr.) do not execute agreements conveying to the City the rights-of-way that are
necessary to construct the cul-de-sac that is discussed in Condition No. 36 within sixty
(60) days of the date of this approval, then the applicant shall construct, at his expense,
the hammerhead turnaround that is depicted as Alternative 1, instead of constructing the
cul-de-sac that is specified in Condition 36 and satisfying the other requirements of that
Condition.
38. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicants shall convey, to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department, Director of Public Works and the City Attorney, a
public street easement for the turnaround Said easement shall permit public use of the
turnaround at all times by motorists and pedestrians
39 Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the specifications for the required
turnaround shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and the Los
Angeles County Fire Department.
40. The applicant shall adhere to all applicable conditions set forth by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department, including, but not limited to, the installation of a new fire
hydrant on the North side of the street
41 The required turnaround shall match the surface of the adjacent public street, as
deemed acceptable by the Director of Public Works
42 The area located within the turnaround shall be red -curbed with a sign stating, "no
parking at all times," as recommended by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
Said sign shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and installed
at the time of the final inspection of the street improvement
43. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the turnaround, as described in the
above condition, and the Ganado Trail link from Coolheights Drive, shall be posted with
a sign, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney, that
ensures public access at all times
44 The proposed residence shall be finished in an earth tone color, as deemed acceptable
by the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, prior to the Certificate of
Occupancy by Building and Safety
45. The applicants shall visually screen the trash enclosure from neighboring properties and
the public right-of-way prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and
Safety
46. All mechanical equipment, including but not limited to the spa equipment and air
conditioning condenser units, shall be no closer than three (3) feet from the interior side
property line and shall not exceed 6' in height Said equipment shall be adequately
screened from the neighboring properties and the right of way.
47 No mechanical equipment shall be permitted on the roof
P.C. Resolution No, 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 5 of 7
48 A Landscape Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of
Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and a qualified botanist prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety. The Landscape Plan shall indicate
the location and type of vegetation proposed for the subject property, as well as
proposed irrigation An annual pruning/thinning schedule shall be included in the
Landscape Plan that is designed to avoid impacts during the nesting season of the
Californian Gnatcatcher and to prevent detrimental impacts to the protected plants that
are mentioned in Condition 51, which would be caused by the required Fuel
Modification. Additionally, the landscaping that is proposed in the area located south of
the southernmost facade shall not significantly impair a view from the neighboring
property (3777 Coolheights Drive), as determined by the Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement.
49. The applicant shall incur all costs associated with the review of the Landscape Plan
The applicant shall establish a trust deposit account with the City prior to submittal of the
Landscape Plan.
50. The Landscape Plan shall use non-invasive plants that will not adversely impact the
abutting natural areas located on the City -owned Forrestal Property
51 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified botanist, at the expense of the applicant,
shall conduct a botanical survey of the project site to locate any special plants listed on
California Native Plant Society list, including, but not limited to Caiochortus Catalinea,
Dichondra Occidentalis, Dudleya Virens, and Castilleja Affinis Said survey shall occur
at a reasonable time when said plants are in bloom, but so as not to create delays in the
construction of the proposed project, as deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement The survey shall indicate the plants that shall not be
removed as part of the fuel modification requirements, and such plants shall be flagged
and avoided when fuel modification is to occur Said survey shall be subject to review
and approval by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and the Los
Angeles County Fire Department
52. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the property owner shall obtain approvals by the
City of an Urban Stormwater Plan that is in conformance with the requirements of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
53. If brush clearance for fire suppression purposes modifies drainage across the property, a
drainage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval by the Director prior to the issuance of grading permits
54 All future fuel modification and associated brush clearance shall adhere to the same
seasonal timing and requirements identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (P C.
Resolution No 2002-15) to avoid disturbance to protected habitat.
55 The applicant shall obtain approvals from the appropriate Resource Agencies (U S Fish
and Wildlife Services and/or California Department of Fish and Game) for all habitat loss
resulting from the required brush clearance, in the form of a Take Permit, prior to
implementing the approved Fuel Modification Plan.
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 6 of 7
56. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted that is directed towards a parcel of property other
than that upon which such light source is physically located. Additionally, no lighting
shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building, above the
line of the eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, more than ten (10) feet above
grade. Individual, non-reflector, incandescent light bulbs shall not exceed 150 watts per
bulb or an aggregate of 1,000 watts for a lot.
M:\HEIGHTVA\HV899\CONDITIONS.doc
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
Page 7 of 7
r —'•••••••"-- - ----- ' —''''''''' —---• •
-7
i
; w
,.,
,.„.,
7
/ i ::: . „.... , ..,,. ...... , .. .:,,.; ,,... _____...„.„,„ :. II ,......... ...
.0.
2,.,,.., ..., ., .„ 1• ,„,,, .,:, ...:.. ., ,... „.
„....,...) i. , i 1
, / / if
/ .,• / . .,,,:...,..... „„ „...... .„. \ ,,,, ::..„ \ \ „ „.. "..,... .........,......„,_______ vw.„.......... ... . _..-...................,...... .
.: ., , ; $ .
1 , / / . p,$ \ ,., , „ : „ .,......” . . ..,...,,. _„„„.........„_....„..........._. ,
....................... •
4.. / / / : ,,,,,..,,,, \..„:., \ \ ,.,„ ,... ..:\ ,,,..„ \ „...... .... , ow* 1"---,•,,-..,":
Iff
i , ,.. .„- '..,, --...,
/ 1 :I '.i 1 '', \ :\i, \.. \ \ ''',.• \,: '''', '''',,.\. ."...' , I.. rr- i
5...,.........-'"-- :,
/ ' ' I i i 1 tl. \ \
).\,. i i i 1 1 l", \\,..,.\ \ '.,, \ \ ,.., ',,,. ',., ',,,.:: ---,,...- f , ,----- .•
i ,' i I 1 \ \ .'. \ '•::, \ \ ''',.. \ ',„. ' 1. C ,-,„*, :/•11 c... :
1 1 f. \ 3„. \,.. \,. i , i/4.:/ i
ri 7
-V I i 1 f \ ., \ ..\. '''',. .."•-• ' t! 'I - /
1 I :, :: \ \\ \ •,,,,. ,4...,, ,,.... .., .,., ia‘ t.i. „........44.----- ,.. ..----------,_...../
„p) - ',. ..." ,.,.•.„.., //f i. ..----<-- ----- --------------....,_
. , t ...,..._,,t,, . .,
,...\2' TRAIL ZONE , \ \ '•-, s r• , /,-- ,,,,.' a ,..'?.,
•"t ... • • t ....,•• ..,./. ..,,,.....,,..1 , ,....ei . 4.
i
i /
i i i , \ , .... ', - ,. / , , A • , .
1 . . r ... - t. k \ \ N,,,, ,,, ,.:„. i,..., s z
1 I % \ \ ",,, ',.. ..,,.. ,,
t\
/
••,..„, „, ,........
1 1 f 1 i \ \ N, \ '': .\ '• ! 1 I
it ; 1 ., \s, ""..,, •,,,,, \ \ i f, — \ . , / 1
1 1 '71\a:,-- -,41- \$1 I
I i f - I . \ \ \ ,.., \ \ ......, , t...., :.•, ...-.. ,..-----.;.,„ ,..
., :. ,„.. (z '':Mis- IT
I , ., ',„. ',. .•• -.. ,
i i 1 .. , ,.. ', , ',, , •,. •, , •
• t '••., , ..• ...„ , l-, f
riiit•-!'. •
:, ,,,, s.
I i i - 1 , /7
C----, i 1... i . i \ ,. , f it
\ f ! i. 1 ' t':\ \ ' ''''' .''''. '' , L'f,"'- . • '''' H' :,'',•':,.:—..... ' .': --'------Z.7.------„,___szfloisir
I 1,. ',\,, ."'..„,.. .,,..,.,.,.,, ,,,‘,., ,,.. ,,,,,,,..:.:_____,, ..‘ .'...''.,...:...•.:,-,::'...,,,:. , 1:..., ,..„:'..,I.i.'.''' -ri"-3-2,.--L...---
' , ..14ESIDENTIAL AREA
.' - '-------
N. \
lit , ,, -•„. ''••••,, ',. .,,,
, , 1 ; . ',.: ',,. ,, •,,,,, -,.. ., ‘.1-lii—: __!,
I1 I i ! \-•.. ''''',. ''''', '''.--.. ''''', '''''', .• 4, -' j .. ------------__.
\ i I 1 . '''. '''-•• '''''', ''', '"- '-• 4- \,„, 1. 7 ' , f \
,. :: t i ...s •••-.„, ..... •.....
'',.. '''•,-, "•••.., .L.' ''',•,.. i- ,„„,"
i :., i 4, 1 .--•.„ ''''•-., "',„, -,. • i — A il
\ ',. i 1 ':, •••. ' ..", ', ,
', '' t , . •... .. -. • '-',„,.
. ,.: ..-1.4,• ,i•
\ • • i 1 4:. , -- -
.._r.
•
i. \ i , 1 , ....:., _, •-..., ,.. 4kw...„, -.„ i '1 it'- -.7::-,'
.1 '1, l•-•,... Ii.. ',. .---....'•• '''''. '''‘ "' •••• ''., .. ,. '''..' ',. 'I
.7....r'' ' i: , .. A, 7. 1 1 11 4 N..,,- .••
. , 4 .
(--
CD
1 1„ , i. 1 , -,
I t '•: t 1 , '‘, ..,
t, -
,r 1.• , •, , 1,.. -., :',..: 'A.., I' A, -, Nr ':-.:::: -Taw '
. , N, -•,..,, 5 - ,, •
- CO
VC) \ / i 1 li .•-r. \\ , ,,,
r' ) .): 1 . lt, '. '-, 1,
i' ',: '4, .,'
t , ,,
,
N -''''''.7\::N f i
,
..... ..„ ..„
,,,. ,-----
.i.:,\,,,\ , '• zi,•1 -,... ',..1 0\,
—7 .„..,..
.. .
. .
.....
•'
i
/ i -1 • ' .."-
-
....
P.C. Resolution No. 2002-22
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "B"
Page 1 of 1