PC RES 2013-023 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
REVISION TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT AND
COASTAL PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,382
SQUARE FOOT,TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 977 SQUARE
FOOT GARAGE ON A VACANT DOWNSLOPING LOT. THE
PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,884 CUBIC YARDS
OF CUT, 96 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND THREE (3)
ASSOICATED RETAINING WALLS ON A PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST (CASE NO ZON2012-
00141).
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2012, the property owner, Ravi Khosla, submitted applications for
Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for
approval to construct a new home on a vacant residential property: and,
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which
time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and,
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 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 the approval of the requested applications 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, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on August 14,
2012, at which time the public hearing was continued to September 25, 2012 to allow Staff and the
Applicant time to research any benefits of reducing the proposed ridgeline by 11-9" and any
reduction in overall grading; and,
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Case No.
ZON2012-00141 and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2012-16, conditionally approving a Site Plan
Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit for the construction of a new 10,382 square foot, two-
story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, a total of 2,988 cubic yards of excavation, 218
cubic yards of fill, and four(4) retaining walls associated with the development of the property; and,
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2012, a City "Notice of the Decision" memorializing the
Planning Commission's decision was mailed to the applicant, all interested parties who submitted
comments or attended the September 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, and the Coastal
Commission. The Notice of Decision described the approved project and applicable Coastal Permit
findings, and noted a fifteen (15)day appeal period for any interested party to appeal the project to
the City Council. The appeal period expired on October 10, 2012. No appeal was filed with the City;
and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
1 of 15
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, after all City appeal periods were exhausted and pursuant
to RPV Municipal Code Section 17.72.070(E),the City provided a notice of its final action("Notice of
Final Decision") by first-class mail to the Coastal Commission and interestedA arties. The October
16, 2012 Notice of Final Decision concluded that the project was in the non-appealable area of the
City's Coastal Specific Plan District, pursuant to the maps available at City Hall; and,
WHEREAS,on October 29,2012,the California Coastal Commission sent the City a "Notice
of Deficient Notice,"noting that the subject property was located in an appealable area of the City's
Coastal Specific Plan District, not a non-appealable area, and notified the City that its action was
suspended and the Coastal Commission's appeal period would not commence until a sufficient
notice of action was received; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012,following multiple conversations between the City Staff,
Coastal Commission Staff, the City Attorney and the Applicant, the City reissued a Notice of Final
Decision noting that the project was located within the appealable area of the City's Coastal Specific
Plan District. The notice included the procedures for appeal of the City's local decision (Planning
Commission approval)to the Coastal Commission. Subsequently, the Coastal Commission provided
a "Notice of Appeal Period" (attached) which noted that the Coastal Commission appeal period
expired on December 27, 2012; and,
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2013, the City received notice that the proposed project was
appealed within a timely manner, on December 27, 2013, by two (2) Coastal Commissioners
(Commissioner Brennan and Commissioner Shallenberger) noting concerns that the proposed
project raises an issue as to the consistency with the visual resources protection policies of the
Rancho Palos Verdes certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP). Specifically,the Coastal Commission had
concerns that the approved project would have a significant adverse impact on existing protected
ocean views available from Palos Verdes Drive West across the vacant, residential project site.
Additionally, the Coastal Commission opined that the City did not consider other feasible design
alternatives to reduce potential visual impacts as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West; and.
WHEREAS, between January 2013 and September 2013, the applicant discussed potential
design modifications to the project with the Coastal Commission Staff which would address the
Coastal Commission's view impact concerns raised in the appeal.As a result of these discussions,
on September 16, 2013,the applicant submitted a request for a Revision to the approved Site Plan
Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit(Case No. ZON2012-00141).
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2013, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a
500-foot radius of the subject property, interested parties and the Coastal Commission, providing a
15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was
published in the Peninsula News on September 19, 2013. Other than a letter received from the
Coastal Commission Staff supporting the proposed revisions (attached), Staff did not receive any
public comments as result of the public notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
2 of 15
Section 1: The Planning Commission does hereby find that a Revision to the Site Plan
Review can be approved as the revised 10,382 square foot residence, 977 square foot garage, pool,
spa and other ancillary improvements (trellis, firepit, BBQ, and covered entry) comply with the
required residential setback standards, lot coverage and maximum allowable heights as presented
in the Development Code for the RS-1 zoning district. Specifically,the proposed improvements will
meet the required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard
setbacks, as well as the 16'130' building height and maximum 25% lot coverage.
Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact in order to
approve the Revision to the Grading Permit to allow the construction of a new residence and other
ancillary improvements because:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is considered necessary for the permitted primary
use of the lot, The underlying zoning district is single-family residential. The proposed
grading is necessary and the best alternative to accommodate the proposed residence and
improvements on the 1-acre vacant lot.A total of 3,884 cubic yards of cut will be conducted
on the property along with the construction of retaining walls in order to construct the
residence with a lowered finished grade and level the front and rear yard areas. More
specifically, 1,737 cubic yards of cut will be conducted beneath the entirety of the new
residence, 679 cubic yards of cut for the construction of a driveway,237 cubic yards of cut to
create a level courtyard at the front of the residence, and 1,231 cubic yards of cut at the rear
of the residence for the new pool and landscaped rear yard. As there is a gentle slope on a
majority of the existing property, the applicant will be filling a nominal amount of dirt(96 cubic
yards)within the formal courtyard at the front of the residence and a small portion of the rear
yard. Based on an aerial survey of other homes within the immediate neighborhood, it
appears that a majority of the homes utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate
a home and useable yard area.
B. The grading would not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor views
from the viewing area of neighboring properties as the proposed retaining walls will follow
the existing contours as seen from the street and neighboring properties.A total of three(3)
retaining walls are proposed around the property, in addition to other garden walls that are
below 3'-0"in height. Two(2)of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not
be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A third retaining wall will
reach a maximum height of 3'-0" in the rear yard of the property. Although the height of the
retaining wall is minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added
to provide landscaping along the west side of the rear yard wall to adequately screen the
appearance of the retaining wall as seen from residences within the Lunada Pointe
community. With regard to the finished grade beneath the structure, due to the fact that the
applicant is excavating beneath the new residence, the finished grade will ultimately be
lowered. As such, the height of the residence will be lower than a residence that could have
been built in the same location.
C. The proposed grading which accommodates the new residence and development of the
single-family residential lot minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively
minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence, vehicular access, and
useable rear yard area.The existing contours outside of the graded area and retaining walls
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
3 of 15
will be maintained. Further, the vacant lot is zoned for residential development, and can
accommodate a new single-family residence.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured
slope into natural topography. The majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new
single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. The grade elevations and
natural topographical contours surrounding the proposed retaining walls will be maintained
to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is
located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope(greater
than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and hillside
surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of
the existing sloping lot.
E. The grading and related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character. The new residence will be proportional to the neighboring residences, therefore
keeping with the original character, style and setting of the neighborhood.While the square
footage of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes,the square
footage of the new residence will not exceed the largest existing home(12,819 square feet)
and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet).
With regard to bulk and mass, the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to
the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West
and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side of Marguerite Drive. The
orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other
residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, although the neighborhood does not reflect
one consistent architectural type/style, the proposed architecture and materials proposed
would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. The
applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth
stucco finish across the structure fagade. The applicant has also included a number of
architectural accents, such as multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies,
wrought iron balustrades, and first and second story accent molding, to break up the
potential impacts of a large home. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also
display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the
appearance of bulk and mass.
a) The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, as there is no evidence of
natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the property.
b) The grading conforms to the City's standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill and
height of retaining walls for two (2) of the three (3) proposed retaining walls. More
specifically, no finished slopes that exceed 35%will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-
contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope
percentage below 35%. The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds
50%. The construction of the residence and the lowering of the finished grade on the
downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'--12 in order to accommodate the residence
which is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
4 of 15
on a downslope lot that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and protects views
of the ocean from Palos Verdes Drive West.
c) Although a 6'-O" tall upslope retaining wall exceeds the allowable heights for upsiope
retaining walls on a single-family residential lot, the Planning Commission finds that the
south side yard retaining wall would provide a reasonable development of land as noted in
Section 17.76.040 of the Municipal Code.Approving the deviation to the grading standards
allows the applicant to provide a retaining wall that would help support the rear and side yard
of the property. Further, retaining walls are commonly found within the hillside neighborhood
and approval of the retaining wall which exceeds 3'-6" would not constitute a special
privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity due to the hillside
topography.Additionally,the retaining wall cannot be seen from other neighboring properties
or the public right-of-way. Lastly, the retaining wall and grading would not be detrimental to
the public safety, nor to other property as the City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed
and approved a soil engineering report,
d) Pursuant to Section 17.76.040(E)(10)(e) of the RPV Municipal Code, the City is required to
notify all owners of property adjacent to the subject property whenever a grading permit is
granted for development in excess of that permissible under Section 17.76.040(E)(9)of the
RPV Municipal Code. As such, a Notice of Decision will be sent to the following adjacent
property owners: 1) Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association / 60 Laurel Drive I Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275, 2)Stiassni Family 13400 Palos Verdes Drive West/Rancho Palos
Verdes, CA 90275, 3) Marcel and lrmgard Bond/3333 Palos Verdes Drive West/Rancho
Palos Verdes, CA 90275, and 4) Marcos Ehab/7416 Via Lorado/Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275.
Section 3: The revision to the Coastal Permit to allow the construction of a new single-
family residence within the Coastal Zone can be approved because:
A. The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which
contains Policy No. 8 (pg. S1-11) that "[requires]proposed developments on land affected
by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific
Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the
Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos
Verdes Drive West and the ocean,for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed
buildings should be designed so as to not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from
horizontal as measured from the viewing station(PVDW).According to the applicant's plans,
the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West,
adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. When implementing the
guidelines of the Coastal Specific Plan, the applicant would be limited to constructing a
residence with a ridgeline just above the 268.0 curb elevation, and would require over 3,000
more cubic yards of grading. The Corridor Element Policy(p. C-16)of the Coastal Specific
Plan, "require[s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to
analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts..."The subject property is located on
a downslope lot, whereby the Development Code allows a residence to be constructed at
16'-0"as measured from average elevation of the setback line(elevation 263.0')to the top of
the highest ridgeline. This would allow a home to be built"by-right"with a ridgeline elevation
of 279.0'. As a result of a Coastal Commission appeal, and subsequent to project
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
5 of 15
modifications reviewed and agreed to by the Coastal Commission, the applicant has
proposed a number of minor revisions to reduce impacts related to ocean views as seen
from Palos Verdes Drive West. Specifically, the applicant has increased the front yard
setback by over 17'-4", to 59'-13/s", and reduced the main ridgeline to 272.5'. Additionally,
conditions of approval were added to the project to limit the height of landscaping,structures
and fences located outside of the building footprint so that they do not impair views of the
ocean from the public right-of-way.As a result of these revisions, the views of the ocean, as
seen from Palos Verdes Drive West are protected across the sides and top of the residence.
Furthermore, a condition was added to ensure that the final ridgeline will be lower than the
horizon line, pursuant to a photograph submitted as part of the record and attached hereto.
B. The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the
sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area.
Section 4: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the
performance criterion listed the Natural Overlay Control District(OC-1)of Chapter 17.40 of the RPV
Municipal Code and the application can be approved because:
A. The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable
land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has
been found on the subject property. The proposed residence will be located on a lot that was
previously developed with a single-family residence prior to the City's incorporation.As noted
in the grading findings, the proposed grading outside of the construction of the residence
and access is minimal and will follow the contours of the existing land,with the exception of
one small area (less than 10% of the lot area) in the south side yard where a 6'-0" tall
retaining wall will be located.
B. The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES approval prior to
issuance of a Building Permit,thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control will
not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies.
Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the
performance criterion listed in the Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District(OC-2)of Chapter 17.40 of
the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because:
A. The subject property was previously developed with a single-family residential dwelling and
ancillary improvements prior to the City's incorporation and is not known to have any
significant historical, scientific, educational or cultural importance, and is zoned for
residential use. The property is listed as a potential area for archaeological and
paleontological significance. As such, the property owner will be required to submit to the
City a Phase 1 archaeological study and retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to
be on site during all rough operations. In the event undetected buried cultural resources are
encountered during grading and excavation, work will be required to stop, or be diverted
from the resource area, and the archeologist and/or paleontologist will be required to
evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation measures. All "finds" will be
required to be reported immediately to the Community Development Director and are to be
first offered to the City for preservation.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
6 of 15
Section 6: The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project complies with the
performance criterion listed the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District(OC-3)of Chapter 17.40
of the RPV Municipal Code and the application can be approved because:
A. The proposed residence is located on a legal,downsloping single-family residential lot which
can accommodate the construction of a home with a 16'/30' building height envelope. The
project is not located within a view corridor as designated by the Coastal Specific Plan of the
City. Furthermore, the project has been designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from
Palos Verdes Drive West by providing a large front yard setback and ridgeline below what
could be building "by-right" on a downsloping lot. Furthermore, the property is located just
south of a large open space area that provides ocean views for pedestrians and drivers
along Palos Verdes Drive West. Construction of a new home on the previously developed
property would not significantly affect the ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive
West. Furthermore, the applicant is grading down to accommodate the construction of the
residence and following the natural contours to grade the yard areas within the front and rear
yard of the home.
Section 7: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this
decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) 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 October 8, 2013,the date of the
Planning Commission's final action.
Section 8: 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 Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and
Coastal Permit(Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141)to allow the construction of a new, two-story
single-family home and associated grading and retaining walls, located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive
West, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of October 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Lewis, Nelson, Tomblin, and Vice Chairman Leon
NOES: Commissioner Tetreault and Chairman Emenhiser
ABSTENTIONS: None
RECUSALS: None
ABSENT: None
4011011tri;!::.L.1.71.(-4411.11111"
David Emenhiser
lir)? Chairman
J•- .jas, A CP
Community Development Director
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
Page 7 of 15
EXHIBIT'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2012-00141
(Khosla, 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West)
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 the date of this approval shall
render this approval null and void.
2. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters,
temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the applicant shall obtain an
encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works.
3. 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.
4. The Community Development Director 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 by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and
separate environmental review.
5. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in
these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential
development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height,
setback and lot coverage standards.
6. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be
cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures
contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
7. If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved
project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the
City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, 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 Community Development Department and approved by
the Director.
8. 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
8 of 15
apply.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
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 in this condition.
12. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall
maintain a maximum of 25% lot coverage (24.9% proposed).
13. The approved residence shall maintain setbacks of 20' front (59'-13/4" proposed to
residence), 15'rear(71'-73/4"proposed),5'north side(21'-53/"proposed to residence)and 5'
east side (10'-0" proposed). BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be
provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection.
14. Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed
50%.
15. A minimum 3-car garage shall be maintained, with each required parking space being
individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9'in width and
20'in depth, with minimum 7' vertical clearance.
16. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the
light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or
properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located.
17. All grading, landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control
techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
18. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner.
Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the
City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's
Building Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the
surrounding property owners.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
9 of 15
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate the project's
compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 and the City
Municipal Code requirements regarding wood-burning devices.
24. This approval is for a 10,382 square-foot, 2-story single-family residence and a 977 square-
foot 4-car garage. BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a
licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to building permit final,
25. The maximum main ridgeline of the approved project is 272.50 . BUILDING HEIGHT
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer
prior to roof sheathing inspection. The peak of the two circular covered patios at the front of
the residence shall not exceed an elevation of 272.85' Additionally, prior to the framing of
walls, a FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION CERTIFICATION shall be provided by a licensed
land surveyor or civil engineer, showing the lowest finished floor elevation of 247.239' and
lowest finished grade elevation adjacent to the structure elevation as 246.90'.
26. The proposed chimney(s) may project a maximum of 2'into any required setback, and shall
not exceed the minimum height required for compliance with the Uniform Building Code.
27. All utility lines installed to service the building shall be placed underground from an existing
power pole or other point of connection off-site prior to certificate of occupancy.
28. This approval includes a total of 3,980 cubic yards of grading (3,884 cubic yards of cut and
96 cubic yards of fill.
29. The following three (3) retaining walls are approved:
a. A downslope retaining wall located in the rear yard ranging in height from 2'-0"to 3'-
0" in overall height.
b. A 5'-O"tall upslope retaining wall located adjacent to the proposed driveway
c. A 3'-0" to 6-0" tall upslope retaining wall located along the south side property line
All other planter walls shall not exceed a maximum height of 2'-11" and shall be located at
least 3'-0"from any other walls.
30. The applicant shall provide and maintain landscaping to screen the 3'-6" tall downslope
retaining wall.All landscaping shall be installed and approved by the Director prior to final on
the building permit for the residence,
31. The property owner shall comply with Chapter 15.34 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the
City's Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit and
obtain approval of a Landscape Documentation Package as defined by Chapter 15.34. Said
package shall be reviewed by the City's landscaping consultant and approved by the
Community Development Director. The Landscape Documentation Package shall be
prepared and signed by a landscape architect, landscape designer,or irrigation designer,as
appropriate, except that the soil management report shall be prepared by a qualified soil and
plan laboratory. The applicant is responsible for paying for the review by the City's
Landscape Consultant.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
10 of 15
32. The property owner shall be prohibited from the use of herbicides to control or kill vegetation.
33. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall conduct a Phase 1
archaeological survey of the property.The survey results shall be provided to the Community
Development Director or his/her designee for review prior to grading permit issuance.
34. If the results of the Phase 1 archaeological survey identify the potential existence of
archaeological and/or paleontological resources, prior to the commencement of grading, the
applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist and archeologist to be on site during all rough
operations. Qualifications of the archaeologist and paleontologist shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. In
the event undetected buried cultural resources are encountered during grading and
excavation, work shall be halted or diverted from the resource area and the archeologist
and/or paleontologist shall evaluate the remains and propose appropriate mitigation
measures.All"finds"shall be reported immediately to the Community Development Director.
All archaeological and paleontological finds shall be first offered to the City for preservation.
35. The applicant shall not use any portion of the proposed residence as a second dwelling unit
without obtaining the appropriate Planning and Building Permits. Prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the construction of the new residence, a covenant shall be
recorded with the country recorder as a covenant running with the land prohibiting the use of
a second dwelling unit without further planning review and approval. Said covenant shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation, and shall prohibit
the use of more than one cooking facility on the property unless approval of a Second
Dwelling Unit is approved by the Community Development Department. A cooking facility
includes a stove, oven, range, or any other built-in appliance related to food preparation.
36. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall provide a hydrology study
prepared by a qualified civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The report shall
include a detail drainage conveyance system, including applicable on-site, off-site, and
street flows, which will allow the building site to be safe from inundation by rainfall runoff
from the roadway which may be expected from all storms, up to and including the theoretical
100-year flood.
37. All damaged curb and gutter, sidewalk, trails, and asphalt in front of the proposed home
must be removed and replaced in kind to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
38. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the City's NPDES consultant shall review and
approve the project to ensure that the project will comply with all applicable requirements for
the control and treatment of erosion and run-off from the project site.
39. All lot corners shall be referenced with permanent survey markers in accordance with the
City's Municipal Code.
40. Subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, prior to final certificate of
use and occupancy, the following items shall be addressed:
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
11 of 15
a) All existing improvements in the PROW adjacent to the subject location (Coastal
Trail Improvements)must be protected in place and/or restored to a condition of new
as a result of the project.
b) Any other requirements made by the Public Works Department in reviewing the
construction plans and issuance of a public works encroachment permit.
c) No above-ground utilities permitted in the Public Right of Way
d) All utilities must be outside of the driveway approach(minimum 2 feet away from the
driveway edge)
e) Only cement concrete allowed for driveway extension into the public right of way.
f} Proposed driveway approach must be constructed in accordance with APWA Std.
Plan 110-0 and the City's requirements.
41. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval of
the Community Development Director of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, final landscape
plans for the subject site that shall demonstrate the following:
a. Within the property's side yard corridors, defined as the first 10'-0", measured from
the south side property line, or the first 15'-0", measured from the north side property
line,for the entire length of the lot, all landscaping shall be composed of low-growing
plants which do not exceed an elevation of 270.0'. In the side yard corridors and rear
yard area, all landscaping, walls, and structures shall be in compliance with the
Development Code heights, but in no case shall exceed a maximum elevation of
270.0', in order to preserve views from the street toward the ocean;
b. All landscaping located between the residence and Palos Verdes Drive West. not
including the side yard areas defined in "a" above, shall be composed of species
which do not exceed the ridgeline of the house, which is a maximum elevation of
272.5', and shall be maintained at that maximum height to preserve views from the
street toward the ocean.
c. All fencing located throughout the subject property, shall comply with the following:
Fencing within the side yard corridor, defined in "a" above, may be allowed
above elevation 270.0', provided the fencing is limited to visually permeable
designs and materials, such as wrought iron. New fencing shall be limited to
the height limits defined by the City's Development Code and be consistent
with this condition. All bars, beams, or other non-visually permeable
materials used in the construction of a fence above elevation 270.0'shall be
no more than one inch in thickness/width and shall be placed no less than 12
inches apart in distance. Alternative designs may be allowed only if the
Community Development Director determines that such designs are
consistent with the intent of this condition and serve to minimize adverse
effects to public views of the ocean.
ii. The existing 0'-0" tall, legal, non-conforming wrought iron fence along the
front property is permitted to remain. In the event the existing front property
line fence is removed (including the replacement of 50% or more of the
existing structure or as defined in the Development Code, whichever is more
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
12 of 15
strict), the new fence would need to comply with the City's Development
Code, and the property owner will be required to obtain the appropriate City
approvals.
iii. The required pool fencing shall be located outside of the side yard corridors,
as defined in "a" above.
42. This permit is only for the development described in Case No. ZON2012-00141. The
exemptions to Coastal Development Permits otherwise provided for by the Development
Code shall not apply to the development governed by Case No. ZON2012-00141.
Accordingly, any future improvements to the development authorized by this permit,
including but not limited to additions to the residence or installation of landscaping not
identified in the approved landscape plan, shall require the approval of an amendment to
Case No. ZON2012-00141 from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or shall require the
approval of an additional coastal development permit from the City, unless the Community
Development Director determines that the proposed future improvement is consistent with
the terms and conditions of this permit and would not obstruct views to the ocean.
43. Prior to installation of roof sheathing, but after installation of roof framing,the property owner
shall contact the City to conduct an inspection of the ridgeline of the residence to ensure that
the final constructed ridgeline (excluding chimneys, vents or architectural accents) will be
below the horizon line and extend no higher into the ocean view as depicted in the
photograph attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Said inspection of the ridgeline height
shall be performed while standing in the center of the public trail at a location that
corresponds to the midpoint of the subject property's front property line. The observation
level shall be 5 feet 7 inches above the level of the public trail surface. If it is determined by
the Director that the finished ridgeline will extend higher than the level depicted in the
photograph attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, the property owner shall take whatever
steps necessary to reduce the ridgeline to the level depicted in Exhibit B as viewed from the
viewing location described above.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
13 of 15
Exhibit B
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-23
14 of 15
x
......::.:
.. .. ...... ...... ................}......... .......................................,.....t........................... K•}:::i#:ice`i`^:�::i::'.i>:n;::{i�;>.j....
... ....�.:.::::::::.::n•::::;•::::;•::.. ............................ .......................................................................................,.......... ... :.:i::::'•::kkk2};:}+k>::::'::�'k:::;kk`•:k::::::;:}k>:.>.::;�<:`;:s'::•:;:::;:k:;:}::
,•:.1„f.I*' ;',.1 ':::'''''.....
::,:'.':'.',,,;,..ii,,:q:4,::::.::,,,,,-.:::::-......'....:
.. ...... ... ..........:.♦:..............n..r..............n.........v............. ......... ...+....r.:::.v..n..nn..:::.w:rn..n.n...n•, a 5..,n. .....n.:::}Y};:•}}}:.}}}}:}}.:::.}:.;:i:ii i::i};<?i i}::i:.:;.:i:':
..,...
....:......... ...:...:....:..::..:.:::... .:.:: n:;•:.t•.:�,a•::.t•.n:+.n:::•.....:;:..a .r....:.:..,.t:}•a..,.....r,,...............,.....r.:::::::.:::::i 3;•;•.:•.3:.;-;r`:.`.<.::::.}}:�:•;}}}}}••>:.+}}.}:•>}:::::;':`:s:
...........................................:.......:.:....::.:..: ,......l.......}.........................................................:........................................,......................,...n.... .. ...:n:•:::: :;.}t:.J:•o,}:•>:o}}:•:>:•}}:,
.... .+ ............a..,....,....t..r....... ......,a,n...♦..... n♦t tw .t..♦ .,:v:..::: :v:Sv::::.:..L...�a.............:..........a. ::{:4`ti•}'?<:.}}}:}::<<}:}}:<•}•.'.<.
t
........}..:....rrr.. r:.a..a..ra ..4.r... .3:t•:::::::::: t..:-x:.:3:}: ::.::..
.. ..a .... ................. .......t.t n.r.t... .. �{� .n a +v.•........h.h:. ..:.:•.....\•:v:}:}i:i3>:v'v:r::++:'::i`i'i}}
....................t...v..r............... .... .va•.v:.:.a.....n:...:....n::::.w.v::n::w:n..... .......::::n:::n:•:+
}:..:::.:•::w::;:::•:::}f..:::•.v.:;•.v r!.a.r:::::..:.:::n••..,:Sn.,.rv:,.............:....n................a.:......a........................ vk ti
... ........,.,...............n......h.....♦.............,.$x.. .t....... .x........... •::•,4;{•.. T4•r!.v4'}'3:n;•}}:::{:.;{:r� {
... ...............r...........t n...................,..........L......:......r......K•.., ...:.: ,.n...\::•}:v'3••ii}}}}}:3}:.i.::...:<t{v}i:+F<•:}}:i-':r';i:\v:{i<i:-.:•}+}}}}}:Si:}}
.......... .... .... , +.n.,..S.t.}.x..w...Ynt,..ann 4„..v , v.,..rv.:.., , •''
:. ...a..... ... n.....�tl::.va., .;..♦:}`...♦n ,t .`v .n.r,.} v.3:..v::v.:::..v.�:}::..
, ,i...,,,,:!. .,....
.. .. ..... : .......t..,...t... k. .,Y}.4,t k : hK♦4 ,.,.,..♦ :k tt♦...♦. .......:.:.,.',",,,,,,,,,,A,„„',,,'„,,'''''''''''
f
a.,..........,•.♦........,................r......r...+.,.....n.......,...:,..n...x.,rr..r ....... r... ♦nkri , ,
,v, , ........,..v.v::;•:.v.n.iY:•}}}}}i:2}i:{}F-;.i:<:•}}:«:ii v::-3:{...:.:::::::: :::.n:. .:i}}:i:':
.... ..............n............... .... .'2. .n,n.S..n,..n.!'I t t-.ar..iR.!t x..P Jt.,.,
+.............v.........,............n....n.........4..n:..,.............r........n.......n....t..................a........... n..,.... n.
:..,.......................r.....r.....t..............n... .... .h... ..t..x`• ., .::.V.::{':::::5:.....it.:{.:{::::k2:3:}}•.%•}"r;;.n•}}%{+.CLi:S;{-}i}ii};.:4}}i}'f'::?•:}:i<- •••••••:...„,.....,.....,,,,,,,,.........
.}:..
... .......... .........,,........ r...... .. .. +� •,L,a Y „ti t..,n t.♦n:?.a t t\.+;,.+.4..,.a:..t
........ ... of...♦...a.,.....,.,....,. �... ...........:...................t......t .♦;•>:•+:3}?y#Y
.: ........v.........:...............:....♦. .h+'#k",� �^rt .n....x.r:.. .t .. x................,:.....:..::,.:•+, }..tt.:t•�r:..:h,••\.:}:.�:•Y:: ........
...... .............v..........t. ................,.. v ...::::•.v::;•.:.:•5.::•+•{y..v::..::v,-,..-:}3,{.:{'ti3:;<•}.}{'.}:.}i}:-}:"•}}}:}}}..}jn:':
.. ...... ....................+... ..r..........: ,......♦ .. .. ..t.'C n m.....�a. tv\a..3..x.v.4.x h.3.•:. ....:.a!;.,., ; ...:\..
.....n......,lr:..... 4j� ..., .x .. ..a.n.......tt•;..;a:...:Y::::::::::::,y::::.:.n..v2...�kr% v:h`t.
......... ..............................n...:....Y......... ... y .... ..t t.. , , ................................ i:;:f#iii:.Li�:;:s5:::....
.................................................. ...., a nkf.,.....♦.... 3} f\ ,.♦C•.t♦n\k,..Ct.. .h..+.xta+...}:,
.. .. .••••,„•.„:„...:„.. 4 ?r....a ...........a...t t..v...... .: .. c{` .. .:...r..::...:. ..:•:•::::.:...................r;:}.a}.2.%{3}v:•J:k.<:�i:•.
.........,,,.............t,.,....ht...t,. ......tt.♦. }\. CY?h...ta..Y.. �r::.::
all
.. .... .....r..n,.................................n..,......... .... ......}.. ..t t ,. n. a .n i:i�iiiiii'�i{T ii-:i...
....,....:.........,.....+..+.....a.............. .,. ♦ ....... �,+.. 3., .hV..xv.t .t ...•�`•. h,...',.4..t..h+.,. ..%k.,C�Y..
.... ..a.a.............t......n,.....,...................,.',..:..........f............... i4.v :. ,: .. ... ..• .v. .. ......t 'i:;<::zz:::-
..............a............. t.... .,!... . a�+..'°S..i.k:.: r•Y.t.t. a,.\+t...,.. ...... ..,....
r .x4., + : .. }i:3:3::..:.,ir:::{•:::.{-iii::::} ...
S .}...L.... .........a.{ .. x.....r. ..3: .t. �... ..tt. a Ki \n. ....a}..., ..:�..... a .�::; ::.w}.::::::::.;:,.}}}};}:: : ::
.. T. , .. .. .i. .Sn•., .v .. ... .t.. ,.\. t ...:r:. •:r:Yvtt:•-�v-. ♦.a• •: :v•.
s. R ... S..+ �... .. .. .t.,;4{•:y•.:c:s,.-::::>:.:t:-}:-}}}'.:....r....::.:
. .. ........ .,♦ 4n .... .n n 'C 3�.. - .„ t k .. 4... x \,... ..\ r:}..:kSt.Y:^...... 4f
....... ..<...♦.... ... ,:.+.k,:a. , :'♦.:. .. ., r. ..:-14:41,,,,,,,-:-',I-'14;,,,,k,„„,,,,'... .. : ,::, h x.,a .r\•:r.t ..t\.a,.'+'Ya-na .r..... .,.''.-.,aa.....x•':'o..t•
Y.,..{}. ...tn... .:--,;.r..;.- :: ... :�� �3� .. � .4\{� ...n....x :{.,��a ii:SSt,4:#:'r:�ii'...•. �.�..
........ ... 'qtr ... , $�-:',:.r}. .. ...„,1,0„-
, .. } :Y.-:... }� } + .. v�. .•. t�xk <.' '•\v..... ..a`�. i::�LiriL.
':,6-
.�%..'. .. .. Q . + .. ' .. -. vl�'<v2:':x.. :. h. i:y 'KN$+' ;1141:1t.1,:''.
x^:+ `ry�.".... .7j'°v';k{.}•<} Y
,
: ,,,,:-.7::::.,:,.,,i,..,..".,.
.. 4..?�.x"' ..�'' [ta.. r, ��� r•: z.,,. .Y`\. •'.•: .{. '6 •:i•t } si•Si: }
..->.. .:.,...,... ..-. 4n �- .. ... .- L ...,..r zC.. Y.•• '.f `5'''?'::;.;;,r,s�: X:;`''r''•fq
ma N
!::1-.;111ii:
: :a ,. i�,:.�'.�.p. . : .,:y, ,. .:W {.%,::k•:. '� St+ $. .Y- rt#-+.{{. .. .. 4.}y<:. V .: ,. n ...2_ ,... .- :: .v,<. .,v,.. 33 'S %.Y i$4v:....:p.....�v ,
Olit
: ''''' •"--.: --: -::-'!'•-.....:•'..'!!:..-' :...........: .,..„.., : . ......_, ....s,...2 * .— . ?...: .
�yQ
) :: +S4r �. .v,4} .::.., ... +:{. ::: ... .. .. ...,! +4{+. J.# v1-•t i}S'- ?k'i�k}-'k::iC.
' am
,
..•,;.'Zi":-;:::::;:!:.,7,,,,i1,"
. . ., ,,,,,.:•..
,z�
, .•• , v
-
..:::.::.:--''''".:..-.7'.. .....'i..: ..... ' . ' ...."': .. ... ' .. ....
• .:.:.nes Y... tis
...... ,..: . .:„...........„...... ...,.... • ,
•,...,...... ..,,•
. .... ......,......
.... . .....• .,.••.,..,„„,:„,,,,,::::•::„. •••,..„:„.......• . ..,...„„..,.....,......:. .,„„..:..
x t 7"7„„'"'''''':
-.::.,-,..:,-.-.--....:..:::':',...::::'.. ::—-• -••••':.:—..- •:.....:7::......'....,„':'::,:.::'.'.:.... - ........‘.....:.,.....::::::,,:::::::::::.:.:.:....,..:,:„::,,,,,,,,.,::,,,,,,,:,........,:„:.............:11"'' .:::'........ .....*
{«3ee}T
:',-;:-.:1:,.;-.. .';':,.4'''''.......:;'''''''' '''...-.,,...,4,-... f,-,:a' ... :. :.,....•...,,...„. -.--r-,-.7.-:;.:-;i7; -.1-...::::.,.::-..--,.:-......•,:;,,::-,,,..:::.:,.....,. ,..::::,..•,..:...,:::,:,.,:,!..ift!... -.,,,..::::::::--:-•,;,:!;','-'':',::':'.-."''''''-...:. : .
,,,.:,...
...... ..... .............. ....p.�........:#...,......... ..4144 ..
.... .....,:::.„....:„..:::,.......„..,...,:::.:: :...:•..:::,,:„...:.....,....,..„.•:....:.,... .
...........................• ........„..„......,....s........ ....,.....................
t:. t
... .c.,,,,,., :
..., ''::{:vY{<•: :•%'•},y:{,,..kk..nS.to '. :::'1"...........-
:.:- :•.........:.. ;.{:YL$.}•>:S%} �
•
l. .::::1;:l‘l'ii.::::;:''''''''''''''''. ':-.....
Vis?!: ;x} �
.a ... ..:'. .,.;,?.+.:....A :K x, ..::.: i� :''
s
'''' ' ':::4:‘:' '
..;.., _. .
„......„......,,...„,...„...„::.,..„..,,,,,,•••••:,
{(�` . .. ::
.'- ..
•
P.C. Resolution No.2013-23
15 of 15