PC RES 2007-016 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 007-16
RESOLUTION F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE
APPLICANT'S PAL AND OVERTURNINGTHE
DIRECTOR'S CONDITIONAL AP VAL OF AN AFTER-
THE-FACT GRADING PERMIT (PLANNING CASE
® 2005-00524) FOR NON-PERMITTED RETAINING
LLS AND GRADINGTHE SLOPE IN THE REAR
YARD OF AN EXISTING SI L -FA ILY RESIDENCE,
LOCATED T 20 MARTINGALE DRIVE
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005,the applicant/appellant, Danny Ray, submitted a
grading permit application (Planning Case No.ZON2005-00524)for after-the-fact approval
of three (3) non-permitted downslope retaining walls and grading on the slope in the rear
yard of his property; and,
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2006, the application for Planning Case
No. ZON2005-00524 was deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2007, the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement conditionally approved the requested grading permit with a condition requiring
the removal of one (1)of the three (3) non-permitted downslope retaining walls and partial
restoration of the pre-construction slope of the rear yard of the lot; and,
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2007, Mr. Ray filed a timely written appeal of the
Director's decision, accompanied by the required appeal fee; 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 grading permit
would have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore,the proposed project has
been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, 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 March 13, 2007, to consider the appeal, 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 11: The Planning Commission finds that the appeal is warranted and is,
therefore, granted. The applicant has provided additional evidence that requiring the
modifications of the existing retaining walls and grading, as conditionally approved by the
Director on January 25, 2007, would be unduly disruptive to the existing permitted
structures on the subject property, as well as to the surrounding neighborhood.
action 2p The Planning Commission hereby overturns the Director's decision in
conditionally approving the requested after-the-fact grading permit on January 25, 2007
with modifications requiring removal of one (1)of the existing retaining walls. Specifically,
the Planning Commission finds that the existing project satisfies all of the grading criteria of
Section 17.76.040(E) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, to wit:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot. Based upon the underlying RS-2 zoning designation, the primary
permitted use of the property is for single-family residential development. The
subject property was subdivided prior to the City's incorporation and had an average
pre-construction slope of thirty-seven percent (37%), which was an extreme slope.
Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E)(9)(a), grading and development of
residences on such vacant lots is permitted without the need for a variance,
provided that such grading would not threaten public health, safety and welfare. In
considering grading applications for similar pre-incorporation, extreme-slope lots,
the City has generally discouraged extending the limit of grading very much outside
of the building and driveway footprints so as to minimize the disturbance of extreme
slopes. The existing retaining walls and grading do not constitute an excessive
extension of the development footprint of the site.
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 grading and retaining walls addressed by this
application are all below the house on the subject property and below the viewing
areas of any nearby residences in the City. None of the grading that was conducted
resulted in raised topography that would interfere with views from neighboring
properties in the City.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural. The pre-construction contours of the
property were basically natural contours. The approved residence altered the
natural contours near the street(i.e. approximately one-third of the property), but left
the lower portions of the lot (i.e., approximately two-thirds of the property) in the
canyon in a natural state. While the non-permitted grading and retaining walls have
altered the natural contours of the central one-third of the site,they are terraced and
landscaped in a manner that is compatible with natural appearance of the lower
portion of the property.
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—particularly the central one-third—have
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 2 of 8
been altered by the non-permitted grading. However, the existing retaining walls
and grading help to blend the developed portions of the property with the natural
topography of the lower portions of the site.
E. The required criterion 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. The required criterion 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. The required criterion 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. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. There is no evidence of
natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the subject property,which is a developed lot
in an established single-family neighborhood.
I. The grading conforms to certain City standards for the creation of new slopes and
the maximum depth of cut and fill. Specifically, new slopes will not exceed 35-
percent steepness, the maximum depth of cut is five feet (5'-0") and the maximum
depth of fill is four feet (4'-0").
J. Deviations from certain City standards for the number of downslope retaining walls
are warranted. Specifically, although the Code permits only a single, 3"/2-foot-tall
downslope wall per lot, the three (3) existing 3'/2-foot-tall downslope retaining walls
will be allowed to remain. This deviation is warranted because:
L The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of RPVDC Section
17.76.040(E) are satisfied.
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 existing grading and retaining walls are consistent with
these purposes because they do not significantly increase the terracing of
the natural slope of George F Canyon. This is a pattern of development that
is evident on other properties on the canyon side of Martingale Drive, and is
consistent with the Residential 1-2 DU/acre land use designation for the
area.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 3of8
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. As discussed above, the significant terracing of lots on the
canyon side of Martingale Drive is not consistent with the current pattern of
development in the neighborhood. As such, the existing grading would not
constitute a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations imposed
upon other similarly-situated properties in the vicinity.
iv. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9)will not be detrimental to
the public safety nor to other property. The applicant will be required to
obtain a building permit to legalize the retaining walls and grading, subject to
the review of the City's Building Official and geotechnical consultant.
action 3n Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 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, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15)days
following March 27, 2007, the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
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 upholds the applicant's appeal
and overturns the Director's conditional approval of an after-the-fact grading permit
(Planning Case No. ZON2005-00524)for non-permitted retaining walls and grading on the
slope in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence, located at 20 Martingale Drive,
subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibits 'A' and 'B'.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 4 of 8
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this27 th day of March 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Karp and Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Perestam,
Chairman Gerstner
NOES: Commissioners Knight and Tetreault
ABSTENTIONS: none
ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis
00
Bill Gerstner
Chairman
Joel R ja , AICP
L
Direct r o Planning, uilding
and C Enforcement; and,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 5 of 8
EX I IT
CONDITIONS F APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2005-00524
(Ray, 20 Martingale rive)
General Conditions:
1. 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 after-the-fact approval is for six hundred twenty-seven cubic yards (627 CY)of
grading related to the construction of three (3)downslope retaining walls in the rear
yard, as depicted in the site cross section (Exhibit 'B'). 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 grading permit 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-2 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.
Otherwise, a grading permit revision must be approved priorto further development.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 6 of 8
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.
Grading Permit Conditions:
11. Within ninety (90) days of the Planning Commission's decision on this application,
the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the three (3) existing downslope
retaining walls and six hundred twenty-seven cubic yards (627 CY) of related
grading, subject to the review and approval of the City's Building Official and
geotechnical consultant.
12. Aside from the three (3) approved retaining walls, no new structures may be
constructed in the area of the rear yard formerly occupied by the extreme slope, as
depicted on the approved plans, without the approval of an extreme slope permit
and/or variance.
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-16
Page 7 of 8
1 ITS g
GRADINGSECTION
PLANNING E NO. ZON2005-00524
ay, 20 Martingale rive)
__-_..---..-.._-.__......_.._...._._.__.___....___._ ._...------.------._..__.__..__...._.._._._._......_.__.._ ____-_.__---_...__�._....._.__-____.._� ..._........-.. ._._....._..........
---
_....._..._......__................................_............._..�_-......__.__..__.___...._..___........_..._.__..__._.�.—..—_._._..__.____.._.__._._.__.;.._..___.._.T...—_.._...._....__ —__._..._.............�
_...._._........__.._....:.-::_...,'::.:_.'.'::.:_._'_—kIhAJ F E3F WORKI..._. :'__.::':_ - .. .^ .._..--
984_ —r -- T
I- APRFXnSE -,:-- _....... 3
-
[
970 ( _
-........_.........._
::_:. + ._...
-
GRADE ..._..._..-
960
.........................
._
�a
,
_ -
--------
-- —
Art-KtV z
- -__ —
_ --
-t>a �
850 ._......__. HQR
_...__.__.._.._._ -.. .....__ ---—-�_..
y — __� _::"�'.::::i- SCALE: VERT
0+00rte -------•1+00
SECTION A-A'
C2
(LVOT TO SCALE)
M:\Projects\ZON2005-00524(Ray,20 Martingale Dr)\PC Resolution 2007-16.doc
P.C. Resolution No. 2007-18
Page 8 of 8