Loading...
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