PC RES 2021-012 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
A SITE PLAN REVIEW, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, AND MINOR
EXCEPTION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,350 FT2
(GARAGE INCLUDED) SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE AND
ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH 1,049 YD3 OF
ASSOCIATED GRADING ON A VACANT LOT AT 30504 PALOS
VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO. PLGR2019-0025).
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2019, Luis De Moraes, on behalf of property owner
David Hass (collectively, "Applicant') submitted Site Plan Review, Major Grading Permit,
and Minor Exception Permit applications, requesting approval to construct a new
residence and ancillary site improvements with associated grading on a vacant lot located
at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, staff completed an initial review of the
application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing
information on the project plans. The Applicant submitted additional information on several
occasions, including revisions to the plan and the silhouette to address concerns raised by
the neighboring properties, and on January 8, 2021, staff deemed the application complete
for processing,setting the action deadline to March 9, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, a public notice was published in the Palos
Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from
the project site, providing a 15-day time period to submit comments; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2021, a courtesy notice was sent out to all property
owners within a 500-foot radius from the project site to extend the commenting period for
an additional 15 days as the project silhouette required adjustments to repair the posts
and flags due to adverse weather conditions during the original commenting period;and
- WHEREASron February-18, 2021, a-subsequent notice waspublishedin-the-Palos -
Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius from
the project site as staff became aware of additional grading noted on the geology report
that was inadvertently missing from the proposed grading plans that will result in over
1,000 yd3 of associated grading,which requires review by the Planning Commission;and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing, at which time the application was continued to a date uncertain, to provide an
opportunity for the Applicant and staff to address the concerns raised by the Planning
Commission related to Neighborhood Compatibility, privacy, grading, drainage, potential
wildlife habitat,and foliage analysis;and
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2021, a public notice was mailed to property owners within
a 500-foot radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News,
providing a 15-day time period to submit comments and con cerns in relation to the revised
plans;and
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
reconsider the proposed application, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section
15303(a) (new construction of a single-family residence) of the CEQA Guidelines: the
project involves the construction of a single-family residence in the RS-4 zoning district,
which is a residential zone;and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 4,350 ft2
(garage induded) split-story residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of
associated grading on a vacant lot.
Section 2: The Planning Commission is required to make findings for the Site
Plan Review, Major Grading Permit, and Minor Exception Permit to construct a new 4,350
ft2 single-family residence and ancillary site improvements with 1,049 yd3 of associated
grading.The Planning Commission finds that the requested entitlements are not warranted
as the extent of proposed grading on an extreme slope (>35%), which includes slopes
over 50% steepness, to accommodate construction of a new residence is excessive and
beyond what is necessary to reasonably develop the project site. While §17.48.060(G)and
§17.76.040(E)(9)(a) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Muniapal Code (RPVMC) allows the
con stru ction_of new residences on _extreme_slopes under certain_condition s_su bject to the
Planning Commission's discretion, the Planning Commission finds that a project such as
this one, that would be built entirely on an extreme slope, does not comply with the intent
of the code.
More specifically, while subsection (E)(10) of Section 17.76.040 of the RPV Muniapal
Code allows for a Grading Permit to be approved for development in excess of the limits
set forth in subsection (E)(9) (which provides that "[g]rading on slopes equal to or
exceeding 35 percent shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdivided lots existing as
of November 25, 1975 or if within Eastview, existing as of January 5, 1983, which are not
currently zoned open spacelh azard, if the director or planning commission finds that such
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12
Page 2 of 4
grading, as conditioned, will not threaten the public health, safety and welfare"), the
Planning Commission does not find that erecting an entire building on a slope exceeding
50% in steepness is consistent with the intent of the Municipal Code.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission cannot affirmatively make the following
Major Grading Permit findings setforth in §17.76.040(E) below:
(1) The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary maty use
of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96(Definitions)of this title.
(9)(d) No fill or cut shall be permitted on a slope exceeding 50 percent gradient, unless
the grading is on a 67 percent slope, allowed pursuant to subsection (E)(9)(f) of this
section.1
Next, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings at Section
17.76.040(E)(10) including subsection (E)(10)(d) which requires that the Planning
Commission find that departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of this section will
not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. To the contrary the Planning
Commission has found that the proposed project would be detrimental to the public safety
or other properties.
Issues have also been raised and testimony offered by neighbors and other interested
parties related to concerns over privacy, bulk, and mass. The scope of work under the
Major Grading Permit is dosely related to the Site Plan Review and Minor Exception
Permit. Because the Planning Commission has denied the instant application based upon
the reasons set forth above, it does not reach these subsidiary issues and has not made
specific findings applicable thereto.
Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the
grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal
letter must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday, July 29, 2021. A$3,100.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no
appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's deasion will be final at 5:30 p.m. on
Thursday, July 29-2021.- - - - - -
Section 4: Any challenge to this Resolution and the findings set forth therein, must
be filed within the 90-day statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6
and§17.86.100(B) of the RPVMC
I 17.76.040(E)(9)(f) relates to driveways and is therefore inapplicable.
P.C. Resolution No. 2021-12
Page 3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS CHURA, JAMES, SANTAROSA,
CHAIRMAN PERESTAM
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS: COMMISSIONERS HAMIL AND LEON
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER SAADATNEJADI
4Step en Perestam
Chair of the Planning Commission
// / •
Ken Rukavina, PE
Director of Community Development; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.0 Resolution No. 2021-12
Page 4 of 4