CC RES 1998-039 RESOLUTION NO. 98-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL,
THEREBY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 68-REVISION 'D' AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1931
FORA 1.1-FOOT REDUCTION IN THE NORTHERLY SIDE-
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, AN INCREASE IN THE
42-INCH SIDE-YARD WALL HEIGHT LIMIT, A 2-FOOT
INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM RIDGELINE HEIGHT AND
ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE CUBIC
YARDS (1,535 YD3) OF GRADING FOR A NEW, 7,798-
SQUARE-FOOT, 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
ON A BLUFF-TOP LOT IN THE LUNADA POINTE
COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 19 MARGUERITE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on November 10, 1981, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 81-57, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 68 and thereby establishing
certain development standards for Tract No. 40640 (Lunada Pointe), including the project
site at 19 Marguerite Drive; and,
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1997, the applicants, John and Madonna Beal, submitted
an application for Grading Permit No. 1931 to allow the grading of an existing bluff-top lot
in Lunada Pointe community for the construction of a new, single-family residence; and,
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1997, the applicants amended their application to
include Conditional Use Permit No. 68-Revision 'D' in order to request a reduction in the
northerly side-yard setback requirement and an increase in the side-yard wall height limit
for the proposed project; and,
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1997, the applications for Conditional Use Permit No.
68-Revision 'D' and Grading Permit No. 1931 were 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 68-Revision 'D' and
Grading Permit No. 1931 would have a significant effect on the environment and,
therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section
15303(a)); and,
WHEREAS, on January 13 and February 10, 1998, the Planning Commission
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 68-
Revision 'D' and Grading Permit No. 1931, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 98-06
approving the project on February 10, 1998, with the further modification to increase the
average pad elevation and the corresponding maximum ridgeline height by two feet (2'0")
in order to reduce the amount of grading export associated with the project; and,
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, less than fifteen (15) days following the Planning
Commission's decision, the appellant, Raymond Newby, filed an appeal to the City
Council, requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 68-Revision 'D' and Grading Permit No. 1931; 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 April 21,
1998, 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 site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and
for all of the yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required by
Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC) or by
conditions imposed under Conditional Use Permit No. 68 as modified herein, to integrate
this project with adjacent development in the neighborhood because the proposed project
complies with the front-, southerly side- and rear-yard setbacks established for Lot 2 under
Conditional Use Permit No. 68; and, because the property owner is confined to a
wheelchair and requires a continuous, flat area around the house to assure wheelchair
accessibility, and the buildable area of the lot is constrained by the close proximity of the
coastal setback line to the front property line, the proposed modifications to the maximum
ridgeline height, side-yard wall height and northerly side-yard setback for Lot 2 are
warranted in order to more readily accommodate the property owner's needs and the use
of the property for a single-family residence.
Section 2: The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient
to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use because Marguerite
Drive is a residential street and the development of a single-family residence on the site
is consistent with this type of street.
Section 3: In approving the subject use at the specific location, there would not be
a significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof because the
increased ridgeline height, increased side-yard wall height and reduced northerly side-
yard setback for Lot 2 would be consistent with the intent of Conditional Use Permit No. 68
as originally approved; and, based upon a view analysis, these modifications would have
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 2 of 10
no adverse impacts upon protected views from adjacent properties, or affect visual
relationships with neighboring properties because the incremental 2-foot increase in the
maximum ridgeline and 1.1-foot decrease in the northerly side-yard setback will have no
impact upon views from adjacent public properties and rights-of-way; and the impact of
these proposed modifications upon views from adjacent private properties will be negligible
because:
a) a structure which complied with the original maximum ridgeline and northerly side-
yard setback requirements for Lot 2 would obstruct much of the whitewater view of
Christmas Tree Cove from adjacent private property, and since this portion of the
view would be obstructed by a structure which is permitted "by right" under the
current provisions of Conditional Use Permit No. 68, that portion of the view is not
protected, as defined in the City's Development Code; and,
b) as viewed from adjacent private property, the 2-foot increase in the maximum
ridgeline and 1.1-foot decrease in the northerly side-yard setback would create only
minor encroachment beyond this non-protected portion of the view, while the
panoramic ocean, Channel Islands and Malibu coast view to the north and west
would be unaffected by the proposed project, and, therefore, the impairment of
protected views from adjacent private properties is not significant.
Section 4: The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan because the use
and development of the property for a single-family residence is consistent with the
Residential <1 DU/acre General Plan land use designation for the site; and, through a view
analysis which determined that the proposed 2-foot increase in the maximum ridgeline
height of the structure would not create significant impairment of protected views from
surrounding public and private properties and rights-of-way, as described under Section
3 above, the p roposed project is consistent with several General Plan housing policies in
"[requiring] proposals for development of areas which impact corridor views to analyze the
site conditions and address the preservation of such views" (Housing Policy No. 13);
"[prohibiting] encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring
residents" (Housing Policy No. 14); and "[enforcing] height controls to further lessen the
possibility of view obstructions" (Housing Policy No. 15).
Section 5: The site of the proposed use is within the Urban Design Overlay Control
District OC-3 established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of Title 17
"Zoning" of the RPVDC; and, based upon a view analysis, the proposal to increase the
ridgeline height, increase the side-yard wall height and reduce the northerly side-yard
9 g
setback for Lot 2 is consistent with the purpose of the OC-3 district to "[p]rotect, preserve
and maintain significant views of and from slope areas within the community which
characterize the City's dominant landform appearance" because these modifications will
create only negligible encroachments into any protected views from surrounding private
properties, as described under Section 3 above.
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 3 of 10
Section 6: Conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph,
which the City Council finds to be necessary to protect the health, safety and general
welfare, have been imposed [including but not limited to]: setbacks and buffers; fences or
walls; maximum grading quantities; maximum ridgeline elevation; maximum driveway
slopes; geotechnical review and approval; drought-tolerant landscape requirements; and
such other conditions as will make possible development of the City in an orderly and
efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this title [Title
17 "Zoning"].
Section 7: The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the
permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development
Code, because grading outside the footprint of the structure has been minimized and the
net export of material from the site has been significantly reduced by raising the average
height of the building pad by two feet (2'0") and placing fill material on site within the
building setback area at the rear of the house.
Section 8: The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties because,
based upon a view analysis, the additional height of the retaining walls and the 2-foot
increase in average pad elevation will not create significant adverse impacts to protected
views from surrounding public and private properties and rights-of-way, as described under
Section 3 above.
Section 9: The nature of the proposed grading minimizes disturbance to the
natural contours because it minimizes grading within existing extreme slope areas of the
site and proposes no modifications to the bluff edge or any other natural features of the
site.
Section 10: The proposed grading conforms with all the minimum standards for
finished slopes established under Section 17.76.040(E)(8) of the RPVDC, with the
exception of the proposed grading within an extreme slope area at the front of the lot which
is necessary to accommodate the driveway and turnaround area for the garages, to
provide a flat surface for wheelchair access around the front of the house, and to reduce
the slope of the driveway in order to allow the property owner to safely negotiate the
driveway with his specially-equipped, hand-controlled vehicle; but the grading proposed
in the extreme slope area qualifies for an exemption from these standards under Section
17.76.040(E)(9) of the RPVDC in that:
a) all of the other findings and grading criteria under Sections 17.76.040(E)(1) through
(E)(7) are satisfied;
b) the approval of the grading in the extreme slope area is consistent with the intent
of the Section 17.76.040(A) to permit development in a manner which minimizes
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 4 of 10
risks from flooding, erosion, earth movement, siltation and similar hazards because
complete soils and geotechnical review of the project will be required prior to
building permit issuance; preserves the scenic character of the area while allowing
reasonable economic use of property because the project creates no significant
impairment of protected public or private views, as described under Section 3
above; and encourages development which is harmonious with its surroundings
because the project complies with all other setbacks and other development
standards for the Lunada Pointe community and the City as a whole.
c) the departure from the standards of Section 17.76.040(E)(8) will not constitute a
grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity because the subject property is uniquely constrained by the small
buildable area of the lot and the close proximity of the coastal setback line to the
front property line; and the encroachment into the extreme slope area allows for
vehicular access to the garages in compliance with the Development Code; and,
d) the departure from the standards of subsection (E)(8) will not be detrimental to the
public safety or other property because the project will require the approval of soils
and geotechnical reports and plans by the City's geotechnical consultant prior to
building permit issuance.
Section 11: The required finding that the grading takes into account the
preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpting
so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography is not
applicable to this project because there are no natural topographic features which will be
disturbed by the project.
Section 12:, The required finding that, in new residential tracts, the grading
includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect
slopes from soil erosion and slippage, and minimize visual effects of grading and
construction on hillside areas is not applicable to this project because it does not involve
grading for a new residential tract.
Section 13: The required finding that the grading utilizes street designs and
improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural
contours and character of the hillside is not applicable to this project because it does not
involve the creation of new streets.
Section 14: The required finding that the grading would not cause excessive and
unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of
vegetation is not applicable to this project because the vegetation on the project site has
already been disturbed by the previous grading of the lot which occurred when the tract
was originally developed.
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 5 of 10
Section 15: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought, if available, is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 16: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, and P.C.
Resolution No. 98-06, which are attached hereto by reference, the City Council of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning
Commission's decision and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 68-Revision 'D' and
Grading Permit No. 1931 for a 1.1-foot reduction in the northerly side-yard setback
requirement, an increase in the 42-inch side-yard wall height limit, a 2-foot increase in the
maximum ridgeline height and one thousand five hundred thirty-five cubic yards (1,535
yd3) of grading for a new, 7,798-square-foot, 2-story single-family residence on a bluff-top
lot in the Lunada Pointe community, located at 19 Marguerite Drive, subject to the
conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May 1998.
41.4. •
May./
ATTEST:
e /ip
A.Atip
fy Clerk
tate of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 98-39 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on May 19, 1998.
4. 14?ALJi!
City C14
City of 'f-ncho Palos Verdes
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 6 of 10
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 68-REVISION 'D'
AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1931
(19 Marguerite Drive)
1. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the
property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read,
p
understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution.
Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days of the approval date
shall render this approval null and void.
2. This approval is to allow one thousand five hundred thirty-five cubic yards (1,535
yd3) of grading for a new, 7,798-square-foot, 2-story single-family residence on a
vacant, bluff-top lot in the Lunada Pointe community, located at 19 Marguerite
Drive. In conjunction with this approval, the provisions of Conditional Use Permit
No. 68 have been modified to permit the maximum ridgeline height to be increased
to 228.0', the northerly side-yard setback to be reduced to fifteen feet (15'0"), and
the side-yard wall height to be increased to exceed forty-two inches (42") as
measured from grade on the lower side. Any additional change shall require
approval of a revision to Conditional Use Permit No. 68-Revision 'D' and Grading
Permit No. 1931 by the Planning Commission and shall require a new and separate
environmental review.
3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS-1
district development standards of the City's Municipal Code.
4. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after
conducting a public hearing on the matter.
5. If the project has not been commenced (i.e., grading and/or building permits
obtained) within one hundred eighty (180) days of the effective date of this
Resolution, or if construction has not been commenced within one hundred eighty
(180) days of the issuance of grading and/or building permits, approval of the
project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written
request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement, and is subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 7 of 10
6. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
7. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted to the City on
January 8, 1998, entitled "Beal Residence, 19 Marguerite Drive, Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA 90275", prepared by Russell E. Barto, AIA.
8. The structure shall comply with the following setbacks as indicated on the grading
plan:
Front: 20'0"
Sides: 10'0" South and 15'0" North
Rear: Coastal Structure Setback Line
The applicant shall provide certification of these setbacks at the time of foundation
form inspection by the Building and Safety Division.
9. A total of one thousand five hundred thirty-five cubic yards (1,535 yd3) of grading
is allowed under this permit, consisting of eight hundred eight-five cubic yards (885
yd3) of cut and six hundred fifty cubic yards (650 yd3) of fill. The maximum depth
of cut shall be thirteen feet (13'0") and the maximum height of fill shall be two feet
(2'0"). The placement of fill seaward of the proposed residence is permitted only
within the 25-foot-wide storm drain easement and coastal structure setback area,
and shall not extend seaward of the coastal setback line.
10. The maximum ridgeline elevation shall be 228.0'. Ridge height certification shall
be required prior to building permit final inspection.
11. The project shall maintain ninety percent (90%) open space coverage on the lot.
12. Side-yard retaining walls shall not exceed an individual or combined height of three
feet six inches (3'6") as measured from grade on the higher side (i.e., facing toward
adjacent properties or rights-of-way), and seven feet six inches (7'6") as measured
from grade on the lower side (i.e., facing toward the proposed residence and the
interior of the subject property). There shall not be more than one retaining wall per
side yard.
13. The driveway shall maintain a maximum slope of fourteen percent (14%).
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 8 of 10
14. No new slopes exceeding fifty percent (50%) may be created, except adjacent to
the driveway, where slopes up to sixty-seven percent (67%) may be created.
15. Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits by the Building and Safety
Division, the applicant shall obtain approval of the proposed structure, grading and
site drainage by the City's geotechnical consultant. In the event that the project
requires significant modifications as a result of the geotechnical review, the
applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a revision to this permit by the
Planning Commission.
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits by the Building and Safety Division, the
applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan for the review and approval
of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Said landscape and
irrigation plan shall incorporate water-conserving features and shall utilize drought-
tolerant and native plant species, and shall also be designed to protect views and
solar access for adjacent properties. No landscaping or hardscaping is permitted
within the coastal setback zone, and only limited landscaping and hardscaping is
permitted within the coastal structure setback zone, pursuant to Chapter 17.72 of
the Development Code.
17. Prior to grading permit issuance by the Building and Safety Division, a plan for haul
routes and staging of trucks and vehicles must be submitted to and approved by the
Director of Public Works.
18. The hours of grading and construction shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,
Monday through Saturday. No grading or construction shall be permitted on
Sundays or on legal holidays.
19. All grading activity, including compaction, shall be conducted in accordance with
the applicable requirements established by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Building and Safety Division.
20. 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 not be limited to: the accumulation of debris,
garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials,
abandoned or discarded furniture, appliance or other household fixtures.
21. There is no existing foliage on the subject property that impairs views from any
nearby residences. Therefore, none of the vegetation on the subject lot needs to
be trimmed or removed prior to Building permit issuance. However, this
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 9 of 10
determination does not preclude or prevent a property owner from filing for a view
restoration permit against the subject property at a future date.
22. Condition No. 3E of P.C. Resolution NP . .:i7 :.7 for Conditional Use Permit No. 68
shall be revised as follows (additions rc�li` , deletions strack=out):
All structures, accessory structures and other improvements shall conform to
applicable district zoning standards and general development standards as
established by the City's Development Code, unless approval is granted in writing
by the City or unless superseded by this permit. All future structures, improvements
and landscaping shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning. Sideyard
setbacks shall conform to the City's development standards except for lots 2-9. On
lots 3-9 the sideyard setback shall conform to the City's development standards if
the building height is sixteen (16)feet or less; but if the height exceeds sixteen (16)
feet, the combined setback shall increase by six (6) inches for every one (1) foot of
building height above sixteen (16) feet. On lot 2 the southern sideyard setback
shall be ten (10)feet and the northern sideyard setback shall be fifteen (15) feet-if
••• •• • -'• -•• V - -- • -- . The front and rear yard setbacks shall
conform to the approved Tentative.Tract..Map,.,,.Walls:sha.11..be._(imited._to.forty-two,(42) inches in the side .ard.setback��g� r��ggt����[ ror� rgd� i�r�po�i��itlgs
wigiolgoiltigtowoolOg000giiiiim:$10090001:000§goggogottigiiigt.::::01001
00003iggiogivigotoggptool;;I:ggoOgoolgootiotogiokmonongigpoiMpto
thotomiimoiffototokolgyogtoo:::::::otwoottOpottgo0.,06 otwootaimpowgiv
r gjtow§ ..ond tho..tj.. hoMw wts tojor*§ .§tti§0::::or>tjbht*:§f.... .......n
ogigqt.............�y�{�t...........�J..................�1..�..�.j.�.y.�................ y1�.......�....,�4...�...y1�....................................�.F...�L ................... �Y.......................�!...............................
�:.�i:::.�'A�iA �'.�`7:::��..::..A.1.►.4/:..:.4�.::�7:1�0.{�V.�7::'.1�.:�1":��:::��::: ::�.':::�:�.•:�1�:11'�I•' �:::����'47::i� �:::��'...L�'/.•'' ':::'.i�'..�::'.�.
fi::::::i: i::i::i::i::::::::5.: i.i::::::�:::::::: � ::: .: ::: : .�: ::� :::::.:: om:.� :::::::::::::.:::::: ::: : ::: : :::::: :�: : :�::
:W.i{:t:4iiiiiiiiX'
� If��� t �r<�tar� r�s<. .:>� ��<! ;It:;:>�>:: �v��� :t��r��:: �d�<::�r�:::;t��t:::Qr::: tdt#�:c�r��l
thotelottomitogifttolooluthot.
All other conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 68 remain
unchanged, in effect and valid.
23. The approved maximum ridge height for Lot 2, as specified on Tentative Tract Map
No. 40640, shall be increased from 226.0' to 228.0', and the average allowable
building height (measured from the existing pad elevation of 204.0') shall increase
accordingly from 22.0' to 24.0'.
M:\USERSUtITF\WPWIN60\COUNCILWIARGUERI.TE\CUP68RD.RES
Resolution No. 98-39
Page 10 of 10