Loading...
CC RES 2000-063 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH CONDITIONS, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 905, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2195, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 567, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8839, AND COASTAL PERMIT NO. 164 TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 5,283 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL/SPA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 9,244 SQUARE FOOT (GARAGE INCLUDED), TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT A HEIGHT OF 24'-9" AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST FINISHED GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (196') TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (220.75'), AND 19'-9" IN HEIGHT, AS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST NATURAL GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (201') TO THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST ROOF RIDGELINE (220.75'). ADDITIONALLY, SAID APPROVALS INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SWIMMING POOL/SPA, 12' HIGH PATIO TRELLIS, 250 CUBIC YARDS OF ASSOCIATED GRADING, AND A NEW 6' COMBINATION FENCE/WALL ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY'S DESIGNATED APPEALABLE COASTAL DISTRICT, AT 42 SEACOVE DRIVE. WHEREAS, on March 16, 2000 the subject applications, Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29, were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Carl, of 42 Seacove Drive, to allow the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and swimming pool/spa for the construction of a new two-story, 9,244 square foot, single-family residence with a new pool/spa, 12' high patio trellis, 250 cubic yards of associated grading, a 6' high combination fence/wall along the front property line within the City's designated Appealable Coastal District. Additionally the applicants request include a Zone Change to amend the City's Zoning Map with the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, on April 13, 2000 Staff conducted an initial review of the applications and the architectural drawings submitted to the Planning Department and deemed them incomplete for processing, identifying concerns with the proposed development as it relates to the size of the structure and its overall mass and bulk; and, WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000 the City's Geotechnical Engineer reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants' geotechnical reports and studies; and, Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 1 of 11 WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete for processing on June 26, 2000; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2000, the required public notices for the August 8, 2000 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was published in the Peninsula News on June 27, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notice was given pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 8, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the subject development applications and said amendment to the City's Zoning Map as it pertains to the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California 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), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation No. 905, Grading Permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, Coastal Permit No. 164 and Zone Change No. 29, would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(a)); and, WHEREAS, at their August 8th meeting, after hearing public testimony the Planning Commission adopted a motion, with a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Paulson and Long dissenting, forwarding a recommendation of approval, pursuant to Staff's recommendation, to the City Council, as it pertains to the applicants' Zone Change request and related development applications; and, WHEREAS, on August 30, 2000, the required notices were mailed out to property owners within a 500' radius of the subject property informing them of the proposed project and the scheduled City Council public hearing on September 19, 2000. Furthermore, a notice was published in the Peninsula News on September 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on September 19, 2000, at which all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 2 of 11 WHEREAS, the City Council approved Zone Change No. 29 by introducing Ordinance No. 360 on September 19, 2000, amending the City's Official Zoning Map for the seaward adjustment of the Coastal Setback Line to the top of the bluff, and directed Staff to bring back a Resolution to the October 3rd Council meeting, conditionally approving the development applications. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Height Variation No. 905: A. The applicants have successfully complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City by obtaining fifty-seven (57) signatures (34%) out of the one hundred seventy (170) within the 500' radius, and three (3) signatures (100%) out of three (3) properties within the 100' radius. B. The proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City's General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan, since the subject property, although located within Subregion 4 of the City's Coastal District, is situated in a neighborhood developed with single-family residences and is not near an area designated as a public "viewing area." Therefore, the proposed project will not impair views from public property and the City Council can make this finding. C. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory in that although the project site is considered a "bluff top" lot located between the first public road and the mean high tide line, the lot does not meet the Development Code's definition for a ridge or promontory since it does not overlook a body of water or lowland from two sides and is not located on a crest. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. D. The structure is designed and situated in a manner as to minimize impairment of a view from surrounding properties by situating the majority of the proposed residence within the existing building footprint, and maintaining two distinct grade elevations supported by a four (4) foot high retaining wall between the motor and entry courtyards. The existing site consists of two distinct building pads, therefore, the structure's garage is situated at a higher grade elevation than the remaining portion of the proposed structure, and the structure was designed so that the proposed upper level is predominantly hidden behind the roof ridgeline of the lower level garage, which is designed within the Development Code's "by right' height limit of 16'/20'. Furthermore, the structure was designed so that the proposed upper level is along only the western portion of the residence, as opposed to being over the entire lower level, especially the portion that Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 3 of 11 runs parallel to the street. Additionally, the applicants redesigned the residence so that the roof of the lower level, which is within the Development Code's "by right" height limit, was lowered, thus minimizing the roof volume and further mitigating any impacts to the neighbors "unprotected view." Additionally, the redesigned structure also addresses concerns pertaining to mass and bulk by minimizing the roof volume and incorporating articulation with the structure's design. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. E. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting this application, as analyzed by the Planning Commission and Staff, because the lots in this existing neighborhood on the seaward side of Seacove Drive are significantly lower than the lots on the landward side, so that the height of the proposed building will not cause a cumulative view impact, due to the grade difference. It is possible that future projects involving second story additions on the seaward side of the subject street could result in view impacts on an individual basis depending on the height of the structure, the design of the second story and the site specific grade elevations. However, because any future second story additions also would be reviewed through the Height Variation process, those projects also would be required to minimize view impacts so that cumulative view impairment can be avoided. Accordingly, City Council can make this finding. F. The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel since the majority of the proposed structure is designed within the Development Code's permitted "by right" height limit, except for 4'-9" of the proposed upper level that is located only along the western portion of the residence's lower level. Nonetheless, in order to assess potential view impact concerns, a view analysis was conducted from several properties, including the property at 31 Packet Road and several units within the Palos Verdes Bay Club. Based on the site visits conducted, the Planning Commission determined, and the City Council concurs, that the proposed second level does not create a significant view impairment beyond that which would result from a structure built to the maximum permitted "by right" height limit of 16'/20'. Therefore, the main impact is to "unprotected views," with only insignificant impacts to "protected views." As such, this finding can be made. G. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, as it pertains to the RS-2 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 No. 2000-63 Page 4 of 11 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. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. H. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Although the proposed structure size of 9,244 square feet is approximately 1,946 square feet larger than the largest home on Seacove Drive, it is designed so that the majority of the square footage is not visible from neighboring properties and the public right-of-way. According to the architectural plans, 6,871 (garage included) square feet is located on the lower level, and 430 square feet is located entirely under the building footprint in the form of a basement, which will not visible from surrounding properties, while 1,943 square feet will be located on the upper level. The upper level has been designed so that the floor area is located only along the western portion of lower level footprint, as opposed to being constructed within the center of the home, thereby reducing the bulk of structure when viewed from Seacove Drive. Since the majority of the proposed floor area will be located on the lower level, which is approximately five feet lower than the street level, and since the subject site is a "bluff top" lot and is not visible from the south, nor from the properties to the immediate west or east which are at a similar elevation, most of the proposed square footage will not be visible from the street. Furthermore, the mass and bulk of the structure has been designed based on the existing site topography and therefore from the street, the structure gives the appearance of a single-story structure. Additionally the proposed structure utilizes design elements that reduce the mass and bulk of the structure. Such elements include notching portions of the structure into the terrain behind retaining walls, using similar materials and earth tone colors similar to the surrounding neighborhood, varying the outline of the building footprint that articulates the building facades and by maintaining a height and front yard setback that is comparable to the neighborhood on the seaward side of Seacove Drive. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy from the immediate neighboring properties since they are developed lots at a similar grade elevation to the subject property and are separated by privacy walls. However, since the proposed upper level has the potential to create a privacy infringement from further properties to the west, such as the Palos Verdes Bay Club, conditions have been imposed that limit the number of windows along the west facing facade to four windows, of which three (3) shall be no lower than five (5) feet above the finished second floor in the form of clerestory windows. The fourth (4th) window, located within the master bathroom, is also conditioned to consist of opaque glass material with a louvered awning that allows light to Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 5 of 11 penetrate, situated over the entire window area. Furthermore, the outdoor "roof deck" off the master bedroom is conditioned to require a five foot high fence, along the west facing facade, consisting of opaque glass. Section 2: The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Grading Permit No. 2195: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot in that the proposed 250 cubic yards of associated grading is necessary to prepare the project site for the construction of a single-family residence, which is considered the permitted primary use of the property. As proposed, the grading is to accommodate the demolition of an existing single-family residence to allow the construction of a new single-family residence. The applicants' grading request consists of 250 cubic yards of combined cut and fill, 210 cubic yards will consist of cut and 40 cubic yards will consist of fill, resulting in an export of 170 cubic yards of earth off the subject site. Furthermore, the grading proposed enhances the structure's overall appearance in terms of mass and bulk by creating a building pad that is approximately five (5) lower than the street elevation of Seacove Drive. Therefore, the proposed grading is not excessive for the permitted primary use of the lot and the City Council can make this finding. 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 cut into portions of the existing building pad to maintain a lower overall building height. The subject property is approximately five (5) feet lower in elevation than the street elevation, and even lower than the properties to the north. Furthermore, the applicants' request is to add a second story only over the lower level living area that is nearest to the western property line, as opposed to across the center of the structure. By isolating the location of the second story to one side of the residence and conducting grading that will maintain a building pad that is approximately five (5) feet lower in elevation than the street, the proposed grading reduces the bulk of the structure's overall appearance from the street and the properties to the north, while also enhancing views from properties to the north. Therefore, by expanding the building pad that is lower in elevation than the street elevation, the proposed structure is thus lowered, minimizing any potential visual impacts from neighboring properties. Additionally, the proposed grading for the residence will not be noticeable by surrounding properties since approximately 157 cubic yards out of the proposed 250 cubic yards of grading will occur entirely under the proposed building footprint. Furthermore, 127 cubic yards of excavation is used to create a cellar which is not visible from surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed grading will not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships from neighboring properties and the City Council can make this finding. Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 6 of 11 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 defined building pad that is relatively flat and will not require further disturbance to the site's natural contours or finished contours, which are considered reasonably natural. As proposed, the majority of the grading will be conducted entirely below the building footprint, and within the existing flat portion of the lot, the proposed grading will not significantly impact any natural or finished contours. Furthermore, the amount of grading proposed is limited to approximately 250 cubic yards, which is considered minor in nature because it will not drastically alter the topography of the site, but rather will further improve the existing contours, and no proposed grading will occur within natural undeveloped areas of the site. Therefore, the City Council finds that the nature of the proposed grading minimizes the disturbance of the natural and finished contours and therefore makes this finding. 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 to create a cellar and to further improve an existing pad elevation for the proposed exterior motor courtyard, by making that pad more level to match the grade of the finished floor of the existing garage. Furthermore, the proposed grading does not include any modification to the natural topographic features, such as the bluff, so that land sculpturing is not required. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. 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 lot that was disturbed at the time of the development of the original tract when the original residence was created on this lot, and is therefore devoid of native vegetation. In addition this project will not impact the bluff where native vegetation may exist. Therefore, the proposed grading will 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 will the grading result in slopes exceeding a 50% gradient. In regards to the depth of cut or fill, other than the excavation required for the proposed cellar, no cut or fill on the lot will exceed a height of four (4) feet. with Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 7 of 11 regards to the excavation required to create the cellar, which will exceed a height of five (5) feet, Section 17.76.040.9.c of the Development Code exempts the earth excavation for a basement or cellar from the depth of cut or fill requirements. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. Section 3: The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Minor Exception Permit No. 567: A. The Minor Exception Permit is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the Development Code in that fence heights within the required front yard area are limited to a height of 42" and the applicants desire to construct a 6' high combination fence/wall along the front property line similar to other fences and walls located on the seaward side of Seacove Drive. Although the intent of this code requirement is to prevent the fortification of residential neighborhoods, to regulate the aesthetic value of walls or fences, as seen from the right-of-way, and to maintain a feeling of openness between the front yard and the residence, the Planning Commission has determined, and the City Council concurs, that the subject lot, which is located on a "bluff top", is similar to the other "bluff top" lots in this neighborhood because they are larger and deeper, which allows development to occur further away from the right-of-way, than the other lots that are located on the landward side of the street. Because of the unique lot depth, many of the homes on the seaward side of Seacove Drive are setback greater than twenty (20) feet from the street. In order to physically identify the property lines while maintaining a level of security, many of these lots are enclosed with 6' high fences or walls along the front property line. As proposed, a 6' high combination fence/wall will replace an existing 42" high wall along the front property line. The proposed combination fence/wall will not exceed the Development Code's height limit of 6' and will be 80% open/permeable to allow light and air to penetrate. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. B. The height of the proposed fence, wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public's safety or welfare in that it will be located along the front property line and will be aligned with other walls and fences located on Seacove Drive. As for the public's safety or welfare, the subject property is not located on a corner lot where the proposed fence would impair the line of sight of on-coming vehicles nor will the proposed fence obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic since a side walk does not exist along this side of the street and the street is at an adequate width to safely accommodate vehicular movement and parking. Furthermore, the applicants propose to landscape the area adjacent to the proposed combination fence/wall to soften the overall appearance of the fence from the public's perspective. Therefore, the City Council can make this finding. Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 8 of 11 C. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel in that the proposed combination fence/wall creates harmonious connection with fences along Seacove Drive, conforming to the appearances of other existing fences and walls. Furthermore, in regards to potential view impairments from surrounding properties, these views are laterally over the subject property and will not be impaired by the proposed fence/wall since the lots to the immediate north are higher in elevation and maintain "unprotected views" laterally over the subject property. Additionally, the proposed fence will be lower in height than the structure's roof ridgeline. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed combination fence/wall complies with this finding. Section 4: The City Council finds that the proposed project complies with the Residential Development Guidelines for the RS-2 zoning district in that the required setbacks for the front, rear and side yards are adhered to and that the proposed lot coverage, at 37%, is 3% less than the Development Code's 40% maximum requirement. Additionally, the Development Code requires that structures with habitable floor area exceeding 5,000 square feet maintain a minimum of a three (3) car garage, and according to the plans, a four (4) car garage will be constructed. As proposed, the interior dimensions exceed the Development Code's minimum 9' x 20' per stall requirement, because they will be 11' x 30'. Therefore, based on the residential guidelines set forth in the Development Code for the RS-2 zoning district, the City Council finds that Site Plan Review No. 8839, which allows the construction of a new swimming pool/spa and 12' high patio trellis, complies with the Development Code. Section 5: The City Council finds the following findings of fact for Coastal Permit No. 164: A. The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan in that the subject property is located in Subregion 4 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which is an existing residential area predominately developed with single-family dwelling units, as stated in the Existing Activities Section of the Specific Plan. This area is bordered on the west by an existing multiple family residential complex (Palos Verdes Bay Club) and on the east by Abalone Cove. According to the Potential Activity Section of the Coastal Specific Plan for Subregion 4, residential activity is considered the most compatible land use designation for the area, and that the introduction of nonresidential uses in this area would disrupt the existing community. In compliance with the Specific Plan's recommendation, this area is designated by the City's Land Use Policy Map as a residential land use and is predominantly developed with single-family residences. Therefore, since the proposed project consists of the reconstruction of a single-family residence in an area designated for such a use, the City Council finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 9 of 11 B. The proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreational policies of the Coastal Act in that the subject property is a "bluff top" lot located on the seaward side of Seacove Drive, and although the subject property is located between the sea and the first public road, the site does not provide public access to the shoreline or to recreational areas because of the extreme slope that exists between the top and toe of the bluff. Furthermore, according to geologic studies conducted for the proposed development and zone change request, improvements to the "bluff top" are strictly prohibited because of potential geologic hazards. Therefore, improvements to the bluff, such as a coastal access trail, may be unsafe for human activity. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act since the subject property does not currently provide public access to the sea. Section 6: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion of this decision to the California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Section 17.72.100 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed no later than ten (10) days following the final date of the City Council'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 City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No. 905, Grading permit No. 2195, Minor Exception Permit No. 567, Site Plan Review No. 8839, and Coastal Permit No. 164, thereby approving the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence and pool/spa for the construction of a new 9,244 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with a pool/spa, at a proposed height of 24'-9", as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure (196') to the top of the roof ridgeline (220.75'), and 19'-9" in height, as measured from the highest grade covered by structure (201') to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (220.75'). Additionally, said approval allows 250 cubic yards of associated grading, a 12' high patio trellis, and a 6' combination fence/wall along the front property line, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A". Section 8: This Resolution shall not be effective until Ordinance No. 360 becomes effective. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2000. Lt_tyk Mayor Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 10 of 11 ATTEST: cio,f,„}„&c. City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2000-63 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on October 3, 2000. I. City Cler Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 11 of 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 905, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2195, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 567, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8839, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 164 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 29 GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans'into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall become null and void after one (1) year from the date of approval by the City Council, or final action by the California Coastal Commission, if appealed, unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process. 3. The project shall allow the demolition of an existing 5,283 square foot single-family residence to allow the construction of a single-family residence that shall not exceed 9,244 square feet unless otherwise approved by the City. The 9,244 square feet consists of a 7,893 square feet of habitable floor area and 1,351 square feet of non-habitable floor area in the form of a four (4) car garage. Of the 7,893 square feet of habitable floor area, 430 square feet will consist of a cellar, 5,520 square feet will consist of the lower entry level and 1,943 square feet will consist of the upper level. A certification prepared by a registered surveyor indicating that the new residence does not exceed 9,244 square feet, shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division, prior to a framing inspection. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Unless considered a minor modification, as defined in the above Condition No. 5, all modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approval set forth herein, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission using the Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2000-6 3 Page 1 of 5 same noticing and hearing procedures as the original application. 7. This approval shall become valid when Ordinance 360 becomes effective, unless an appeal has been filed to the California Coastal Commission. 8. The proposed project shall be conducted in full compliance with the conditions set forth herein. 9. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. 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. 11. The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. HEIGHT VARIATION 12. The proposed structure shall not exceed 24'-9" in height as measured from the lowest elevation grade covered by structure (196') to the top of the roof ridge line (220.75') and 19'-9", as measured from the highest grade (201') covered by structure to the top of roof ridge line (220.75'). A Building Height Certification is required. 13. The windows along the west facing facade located in the master bedroom and the office shall be clerestory type windows, located at least five (5) feet above the finished second floor. The window located in the master bathroom shall consist of opaque material and shall be screened from the outside with a louvered awning over the entire outside window area. 14. The "roof deck" immediately adjacent to the master bedroom shall include a five (5) foot high opaque fence along the west side. 15. The framing silhouette shall be disassembled and the subject restored to its original condition no later than seven (7) days after the City's final action, provided that no appeal has been filed with the California Coastal Commission. GRADING Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 2 of 5 16. The proposed grading shall not exceed 250 cubic yards of earth movement, as shown on the stamped and approved grading plans. Of the proposed grading, 210 cubic yards shall consist of cut and 40 cubic yards shall consist of fill. Of the 210 cubic yards of cut, 127 cubic yards will be under the building footprint for the cellar, and 83 cubic yards will be outside the building footprint. Of the 40 cubic yards of fill, 30 cubic yards will be under the building footprint and 10 cubic yards outside the building footprint. 17. The maximum depth of cut/fill shall not exceed 5' in height, except for the excavation required for the cellar. 18. The retaining wall located between the motor and entry courtyards shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, as measured from the lowest finished grade. 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 building permits. MINOR EXCEPTION 20. The combination 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/permeable to light and air. 21. No architectural elements shall be permitted on the combination fence/wall that exceeds the permitted height of six (6) feet, as defined in the above condition. 22. The area located immediately adjacent to the combination fence/wall shall be landscaped with vegetation that does not exceed 42" in height. SITE PLAN REVIEW 23. A minimum of a three car garage (four car garage is proposed and approved) shall be maintained at all times with a minimum depth of 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. 24. The lot coverage requirement for the subject property located in the RS-2 zoning district shall not exceed forty (40) percent (proposed 37%). 25. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained for the proposed Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 3 of 5 structure : Front Yard: 20'-0" minimum (proposed: 25') Side Yard: 5'-0" minimum (proposed: 5') Rear Yard: 15'-0" minimum (proposed: >15') 26. All exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in full compliance with Section 17.56.030 of the Development Code. 27. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and shall not be directed towards or result in the direct illumination of a parcel or property other than the subject property. 28. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a building, is above the line of the eaves, or if located on a standard or a pole, is more than ten (10) feet above grade. 29. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works for the required driveway curb cut. 30. All foliage located within the front yard area shall be removed except for the two (2) palm trees. All future landscaping shall be maintained at a height no higher than sixteen (16) feet or the highest roof ridge line, whichever is lower. COASTAL PERMIT 31. No structural improvements shall be permitted within the area between the adjusted Coastal Structure Setback Line and the building footprint approved herein. Furthermore, as such, the landowner shall execute and record a covenant on the subject property restricting future development within this area. Such covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and shall be recorded prior to the Certificate of Occupancy by Building and Safety. 32. 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 Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code may be permitted, provided that the appropriate approvals are obtained from the Planning Department. 33. Pursuant to Section 17.72.040.0 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, no new uses or structural improvements shall be allowed in the area seaward of the Coastal Setback Line including, but not Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2000-6 3 Page 4 of 5 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 or cut or fill. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 2000-63 Page 5 of 5