CC RES 2000-088 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF NINETY CUBIC YARDS (90 YD3) OF AFTER-
THE-FACT GRADING AND A 6-FOOT-TALL RETAINING
WALL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF
GRADING PERMIT NO. 1928-REVISION `B' FOR
MODIFICATIONS TO AN UNDER-CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE PALOS VERDES MONACO
COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 30025 CACHAN PLACE
WHEREAS, on May 13, 1997, the Planning Commission conditionally approved
Grading Permit No. 1928 for seventy-seven cubic yards (77 yd3) of grading to construct a
5,715-square-foot, 2-story single-family residence on a vacant lot in the Palos Verdes
Monaco community; and,
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Grading Permit
No. 1928-Revision `A' to allow the approved balconies on the rear of the house to be
increased from four feet (4'0") to seven feet (7'0") in width; and,
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2000, in response to complaints that the house was not
being constructed in accordance with the approved plans, Staff verified that additional, non-
permitted grading had occurred on the slope below the house; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2000, the applicant/appellant, Arik Abdalian,
submitted an application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision `B' to allow fifty cubic yards
(50 yd3) of additional grading within the footprint of the house in order to increase the living
area by six hundred ninety-five square feet (695 ft2), and ninety cubic yards (90 yd3) of
additional grading and a 6-foot-tall downslope retaining wall on the extreme slope below
the house; and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000, the application for Grading Permit No. 1928-
Revision `B' was deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision `B' would have
a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found
to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)); and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on October 10, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
heard and present evidence; and,
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the Planning Commission conditionally approved
Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision `B' via Minute Order, but only for fifty cubic yards (50
yd3) of additional grading within the footprint of the house, not for the requested ninety
cubic yards (90 yd3) of grading and 6-foot-tall downslope retaining wall on the extreme
slope below the house; and,
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2000, and within the 15-day appeal period prescribed
by Section 17.76.040(H) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning
Commission's denial of the grading and retaining wall on the extreme slope area was
appealed to the City Council by Mr. Abdalian, the applicant and owner of the property at
30025 Cachan Place; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial, Mr.
Abdalian requested further modifications to the approved project, which had not been
presented to or considered by the Planning Commission as a part of its review of Grading
Permit No. 1928-Revision `B'; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
December 5 and December 19, 2000, at which time all interested parties were given an
opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
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 that the appeal is without merit, and that the
request for ninety cubic yards (90 yd3) of grading and a 6-foot-tall retaining wall on the
extreme slope area below the house should be denied for the following reasons:
A. The grading is excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the
lot. As originally approved by the City, there would have been only forty-two cubic
yards (42 yd3) of grading outside of the building footprint, but the grading of the rear
slope results in over three times more grading outside the building footprint, primarily
to accommodate the proposed pad behind the house. Given the extreme slope of
the lot prior to its development, the City Council believes that the applicant/appellant
had no reasonable expectation that this slope area could be developed further. In
addition, the Planning Commission's 1997 approval was largely based upon the
understanding that this extreme slope area would not be modified as a result of the
development of the lot.
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 2of7
B. The grading and/or construction significantly adversely affect visual relationships
with neighboring sites and rights-of-way. The creation of a pad on the extreme
slope behind the house is visually prominent, and will require the construction of a
6-foot-tall retaining wall at the toe of the slope. Such a retaining wall at this location
will be visually obtrusive and inconsistent with the existing perimeter fencing in this
area of the Palos Verdes Monaco community. The additional grading behind and
below the house also gives that appearance of a 3-story façade as viewed from
Hawthorne Boulevard, and has the potential to alter the benchmark elevations from
which the overall height of the house is measured. Therefore, the City Council
believes that visual relationships with surrounding properties and the public right-of-
way of Hawthorne Boulevard will be adversely affected by the proposed grading of
the extreme slope area. The City Council, therefore, directs the applicant/appellant
to modify this graded area to restore the building height benchmarks to the
approved elevations and to prevent the use of the remaining crawlspace area below
the lower level as a third, habitable story.
C. The nature of the grading does not minimize disturbance to the natural contours, and
finished contours are not reasonably natural. The City's original of this project in
1997 was based upon the assumption that the project would result in minimal
disturbance of existing contours, and that finished contours would appear
reasonably natural. The proposed grading on the extreme slope area significantly
alters the pre-existing slope condition at the rear of the property and requires the
construction of a 6-foot-tall retaining wall at the toe of the slope. The City Council
does not find that these modifications can be reasonably said to minimize the
disturbance of the slope or to result in natural-looking finished contours.
D. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding thirty-five percent (35%) poses a threat to
the public health, safety and welfare. Most of this grading has already been done
by the applicant/appellant, but without approvals or inspections by the City's Building
Official. As such, it cannot be verified whether the existing conditions on the site
may pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council,
therefore, directs that the applicant/appellant be required to restore the slope—to
its pre-existing condition and consistent with the original approval of Grading Permit
No. 1928 subject to the review and approval of the Building Official and the City's
geotechnical consultant.
Section 2: The City Council's action to deny the appeal is taken without prejudice
as to the applicant/appellant's right to request future revisions to the approved project,
including the project modifications proposed in conjunction with the appeal.
Section 3: The City Council hereby affirms and upholds the Planning
Commission's action on the application for Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision B', including
all of the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit `A' of this Resolution.
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 3 of 7
Section 4: The City Council hereby forwards to the Planning Commission the
additional project modifications that were requested in conjunction with the appeal of
Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision `B'. Said project modifications shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission as a new and separate revision to Grading Permit No. 1928, and the
applicant/appellant shall be responsible for the payment of any applicable permit revision
fee(s).
Section 5: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning
Commission's denial of ninety cubic yards (90 yd3) of after-the-fact grading and a 6-foot-tall
retaining wall in conjunction with the approval of Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision B' for
modifications to an under-construction single-family residence in the Palos Verdes Monaco
community, located at 30025 Cachan Place.
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 4 of 7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of December 2000.
/ jrA,
MA O" /
ATTEST:
I /
/ I
CI 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. 2000-88 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 19, 2000.
/,
City CIS
City of n'ancho Palos Verdes
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR GRADING PERMIT NO. 1928-REVISION 'B'
(30025 Cachan Place)
1. This approval is for an additional fifty cubic yards (50 yd3) of grading to convert the
non-habitable crawlspaces on the lower level (i.e., adjacent to the rumpus/family
room and the second master bedroom)to habitable living area. The proposal for an,
additional ninety cubic yards (90 yd3) of grading and a 6-foot-tall retaining wall on
the extreme slope area behind and below the house is not approved.
2. The maximum additional living area approved by this revision is six hundred ninety-
five square feet (695 ft2), consisting of a 535-square-foot living area (bedroom and
walk-in closet) below the garage and a 160-square-foot living area (walk-in closet)
below the upper-level master bathroom. These new living areas shall remain fully
accessible from the rest of the lower level of the house and shall not be used as a
separate dwelling unit. Similarly, the entire lower level of the house shall remain
fully accessible from the interior of the upper level of the house and shall not be
used as a separate dwelling unit. Prior to Building Permit final, the property owner
shall submit a covenant and agreement for recordation to the title of the property
that prohibits the use of any portion of the lower level of the house as a second
dwelling unit without prior City approval.
3. Unless specifically addressed herein or revised by this or subsequent actions, all
conditions of approval for Grading Permit No. 1928 (as approved by the Planning
Commission on May 13, 1997) and Grading Permit No. 1928-Revision `A' (as
approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2000) remain in effect and valid.
4. Prior to Building Permit final, the applicant shall modify the remaining crawlspace
below the lower level of the house so as to have only one (1) access doorway, which
shall not be a "full-height" door. The applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of City's Building Official, that the access and interior headroom in the remaining
crawlspace will not allow for its use as habitable space. Prior to Building Permit
final, the property owner shall submit a covenant and agreement for recordation to
the title of the property that prohibits the use of the crawlspace below the lower level
of the house for habitable purposes without prior City approval.
5. Prior to Building Permit final, the applicant shall restore the slope at the rear of the
house to its pre-existing condition, consistent with the Planning Commission's
original approval of Grading Permit No. 1928 to the maximum extent practicable.
This shall include the restoration of the benchmark downslope elevation of 980.00'
for the finished grade elevation adjacent to the lowest foundation of the house. In
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 6 of 7
restoring this slope, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations and
requirements of the City's Building Official and geotechnical consultant.
M:\Projects\GR 1928-Rev.'B'(Abdalian)\Resolution 2000-88.doc
Resolution No. 2000-88
Page 7 of 7