PC RES 2007-001 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-01
RESOLUTION THE PLANNING ISI F THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALPALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING I CE AND GRADINGPERMIT
(PLANNING CASE NO. N200 -0 11) FOR AFTER-THE-
FACT
TE -THE®F CT APPROVAL OF T (2) UPSLOPE RETAINING
WALLS IN THE E YARD ONE (1) DOWNSLOPE
RETAINING ALL WITH 3-FOOT-TALL BALUSTRADE I
THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTINGI L -F IL
RESIDENCE, LOCATED T 3 042 AVENIDA TRANQUILA
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2003, the City received a complaint about non-permitted
construction of two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard of an existing single-family
residence at 30042 Avenida Tranquila; and,
WHEREAS, upon further investigation, on July 13, 2003, the City determined that
the existing retaining wall and balustrade in the front yard was also non-permitted; and,
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2003,the applicant, Shapour Razipour, submitted an
after-the-fact grading permit application (Planning Case No. ZON2003-00611) to the
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, requesting after-the-fact
approval of all three (3) existing retaining walls; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10,2003,the applicant was advised that an after-the-fact
variance would be required for the front retaining wall and balustrade because their
combined height exceeded the 42-inch height limit; and,
WHEREAS,the applicant submitted the required after-the-fact variance application
on August 2, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2003-00611 was deemed
complete for processing on October 20, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2006,the City and the applicant mutually agreed to a
30-day extension of the decision deadline for this application, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65957; 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 the approval of the requested variance and
grading permit would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the
proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303); 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 December 12, 2006, and January 9, 2007, at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a variance for a combination retaining wall and balustrade
with a maximum 11 Y2-foot overall height in the front yard area of the subject property:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply
generally to other property in the same zoning district. The applicant asserts that
the increased combined height of the retaining wall and balustrade is warranted out
of concern for his family's safety, and that this constitutes an exceptional or
extraordinary circumstance. He correctly notes that his house is built on an upslope
lot, which limits the useable yard area at the rear, and necessitates the use of the
side- and front-yard areas as the primary outdoor living areas. This differs from
most of the other, deeper upslope lots on Avenida Tranquila, which have more
useable rear yard area behind the homes.
B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners
under like conditions in the same zoning district. The applicant again asserts that
the increased combined height of the retaining wall and balustrade is warranted out
of concern for his family's safety, and that he is otherwise deprived of this basic
property right without the approval of the requested variance. He states that
removing the balustrade would expose his family and guests to a safety hazard.
Although the City's Building Code does not require the balustrade, its removal could
expose residents and guests to a potentially hazardous condition, and relocating it
further back from the face of the retaining wall reduces the applicant's useable
outdoor living area. This would deprive the property owner of the right of safe use
and enjoyment of his yard, which is a right enjoyed by other similarly-situated
property owners.
C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located.
Although it is not clear exactly when the existing retaining wall was extended to it
current configuration, the action that triggered the need for the variance was the
applicant's addition of the balustrade atop it. The Planning Commission finds that
the wall and balustrade are not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. In
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 2 of 10
addition,foliage will be provided in front of the retaining wall to screen and soften its
appearance as viewed from the street.
D. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or
the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The General Plan land
use designation for the subject property is Residential 2-4 IDU/acre. The
development and improvement of single-family residences and related accessory
structures—such as the proposed wall and balustrade—are among the primary
permitted uses within this land use designation. This is also reflected in Housing
Activity Policy No. 3 of the General Plan (p. 78), which calls upon the City to
"[encourage] and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing
residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing
quality and design." The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project
implements this policy. The property is not located within the City's coastal zone.
Section 2A The Planning Commission considers the following criteria with respect
to the application for a grading approval for two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard
area and one (1) downslope retaining wall in the front yard area of the subject property:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. Based upon the underlying RS-3 zoning designation, the primary
permitted use of the property is for single-family residential development. The
construction of retaining walls is commonly associated with residences on sloped
lots, such as the subject property. It is estimated-that only one hundred eighty-four
cubic yards (184 CY) of grading—mostly fill—has been conducted for the
construction of all three (3) retaining walls.
B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the "viewing area" of
neighboring properties. The retaining walls do not affect the height of the existing
structures, nor do they alter the grade of the property in such as way as to alter the
measure of the height of the house. The retaining walls themselves are not visible
from the viewing area of any upslope property.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The pre-existing "natural"contours of the
project site were largely the result of past grading for the development of the Monte
Verde neighborhood and the construction of the existing residence. Although the
former slope at the northwesterly corner of the property has been partially altered by
the front-yard retaining wall, a sloped lawn area remains below the wall that
separates it from the sidewalk by at least ten feet (10'-0"). The rear-yard retaining
walls are only visible from the subject property.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 3 of 10
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slope into the natural topography. As mentioned above, the pre-
existing "natural" contours of the project site were largely the result of human
alteration in the past. There is no evidence of any significant natural topographic
features that have been disturbed by the grading.
E. Since the proposed project is not a new single-family residence,the required finding
that, for new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, is not applicable to the
proposed project.
F. Since the proposed project is not a new residential tract,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 the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, is not
applicable to the proposed project.
G. Since the proposed project does not involve modifications to streets or other public
infrastructure, 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 the proposed
project.
H. Since there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the subject
property, 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 the proposed project.
I. The grading conforms to certain City standards for grading on slopes, creation of
new slopes, depths of cut and fill, and maximum driveway steepness. Specifically,
new slopes will not exceed 35-percent steepness; grading has not occurred on
slopes steeper than 50-percent steepness, the depths of cut and fill have not
exceeded five feet (F-O"); and the maximum driveway slope will not be changed.
J. Deviations from certain City standards for the number and height of up- and
downslope retaining walls are warranted. Specifically, two (2) upslope retaining
walls—one 5-foot-tall and one 6Y2-foot-tall—are proposed in the rear yard and one
(1) 81/2-foot-tall downslope retaining wall is proposed in the front yard area. These
deviations are warranted because:
L The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of RPVDC Section
17.76.040(E) are satisfied.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 4 of 10
ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of the
City's grading regulations, which stated purpose is to "[permit] reasonable
development of land..."; to "[ensure] that the development of each parcel of
land...occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands..."; and to
"[ensure] that each project complies with the goals and polices of the
General Plan...." The proposed grading and retaining walls are consistent
with these purposes because they will allow reasonable use of the property,
will not adversely affect surrounding properties, and will be consistent with
the Residential 2-4 DU/acre land use designation for the area.
iii. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)will not constitute a grant
of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity. Two (2)upslope retaining walls are proposed behind the house,
although neither of these walls exceeds the maximum 8-foot height standard
for upslope retaining walls. These walls will only be visible from the subject
property. The front-yard retaining wall exceeds the 3Y2-foot height standard
for downslope walls by five feet (5'-0") at its tallest point. However, the
height of this wall tapers down to only six inches (6") above the 3Y2-foot
height standard near the driveway and front entry steps. This shorter portion
of the wall is the original planter wall that was constructed with the house in
1969. Although there are no other homes on the upslope lots on this side of
Avenida Tranquila with retaining walls of the height proposed by the
applicant, there are a few instances of retaining walls and/or planters that
appear to exceed the 3Y2-foot height standard for downslope walls.
iv. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9)will not be detrimental to
the public safety nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant
reviewed but has not yet approved a preliminary report for the proposed
retaining walls. The City's building inspectors also unofficially "inspected"
these walls several times when the Code Enforcement case for the property
was still open. Additional review and analysis by the City's geotechnical
consultant and Building Official will be required before building permits are
issued for these walls. In addition, the Planning Commission is concerned
about the aesthetic impacts of the tall front retaining wall upon the
streetscape of Avenida Tranquila, and conditions its approval to require the
planting of shrubs and/or vines to screen and soften its appearance.
Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.64.060 and
17.76.040(H)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed
with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions
requested by the appellant, no later than fifteen (15) days following January 9, 2007, the
date of the Planning Commission's final action.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 5 of 10
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a variance
and grading approval (Planning Case No. ZON2003-0061 1)for after-the-fact approval of
two(2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard and one (1)downslope retaining wall with a
3-foot-tall balustrade in the front yard of an existing single-family residence, located at
30042 Avenida Tranquila, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached
Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 6 of 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this fit" day of January 2007, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Karp, Perestam., Ruttenberg and Tetreault, Vice
Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Knight
NOES: Commissioner Lewis
ABSTENTIONS: none
ABSENT: none
im K
Chair an
JoelAICP
Dire to of Plan i Building
and C de Enforcement; and,
Sec9ary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 7 of 10
EXHIBITW
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2003-00611
(Razipour, 30042 Avenida Tranquila)
General Conditions:
I Prior to the 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, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this
Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days
following date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
3. This approval is for after-the-fact approval of two(2)upslope and one(1)downslope
retaining walls and 184 cubic yards of related grading. Also approved is a 3-foot-tall
balustrade atop of the downslope retaining wall. The Director of Planning, Building
and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved
plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve
substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans
and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require
approval of a revision to the variance and/or grading approval by the Planning
Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review.
4. 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-3 district
development standards of the City®s Municipal Code.
5. 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.
6. If the project has not been established (i.e., building permits obtained) within one
year of the final effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not
commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of 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 approved by the Director.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 8 of 10
Otherwise, a variance and/or grading approval revision must be approved prior to
further development.
7. 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.
8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed
in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of this Resolution.
9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets 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, appliances or other household fixtures.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday
through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal
holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development
Code. Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday
through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated
above.
Variance Conditions:
11. The balustrade atop the front-yard retaining wall shall not exceed a maximum height
of forty-two inches (42") above grade, including light fixtures.
Grading Approval Conditions:
12. The permitted grading quantities shall be as follows:
Area Cut Fill Total Earth Net Earth
Movement Movement
House Footprint 0 CY 0 CY 0 CY 0 CY
Outside Foot rint 28 CY 156 CY 184 CY 128 CY
Total 28 CY _J 156 CY 184 CY 128 CY
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 9 of 10
13. The maximum height of the two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard shall not
exceed 5 and 6'/ feet in height. The maximum height of the downslope retaining
wall in the front yard area shall not exceed 8"/2 feet in height at its highest point.
14. Priorto the issuance of a grading permit by the City's Building Official, the applicant
shall obtain final approval of the grading plan from the City's geotechnical
consultant. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal all
soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical
consultant in order to grant such final approval.
15. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action in this matter, the
applicant shall plant shrubs and/or vines in front of the front-yard retaining wall so as
to screen and soften its appearance from the street, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.
16. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action in this matter, the
applicant shall submit the necessary plans and reports to the City's Building Official
to obtain building permits for the three (3)retaining walls permitted by this approval.
Failure to do so shall cause this matter to referred back to the City's Code
Enforcement Division.
M:\Projects\ZON2003-00611 (Razipour,30042 Avenida Tranquila)\PC Resolution 2007-01.doc
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01
Page 10 of 10