PC RES 2002-012P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE
REQUEST FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 AND
GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286 FOR A NEW, 3 -STORY, 4,257 -
SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND 2,131
CUBIC YARDS OF RELATED GRADING ON A VACANT
LOT IN THE MIRALESTE HILLS COMMUNITY, LOCATED
AT 3261 CROWNVIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2001, the applicant, Samuel Iskander, submitted an
application for Grading Permit No 2286 to allow the construction of a new, single-family
residence on Crownview Drive in the Miraleste Hills community, and,
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for Height
Variation No. 941 for the same project to allow the proposed house to exceed the City's 16 -
foot height limit; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2002, the applications for Height Variation No 941 and
Grading Permit No. 2286 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 Height Variation No 941 and Grading Permit
No 2286 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed
project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, 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
April 9, 2002, May 14, 2002 and June 11, 2002, 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 height variation to allow a 4,257 -square -foot, 3 -story single-
family residence in excess of the 16 -foot height limit:
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City
B. The structure does not significantly impair a view from public property which has
been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan as a City -
designated viewing area because there are no designated public viewing areas that
overlook the subject property.
C. The proposed structure is located on a ridge. However, this ridge is the only portion
of the site that is developable, once the setback areas and open space hazard (OH)
areas of the lot are excluded. The subject property is a legally subdivided lot—
created prior to the City's incorporation—and all proposed development will occur
within the portion of the lot zoned RS -2
D. The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The two homes
that directly overlook the subject property and have the greatest potential for view
impairment are at a significantly higher elevation than the roof of the proposed
residence at 3261 Crownview Drive Both homes have northeasterly views of the
inner harbor area and Los Angeles basin, and the proposed project has no impact
whatsoever upon these views
E. The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment
of a view. The design of the project helps to accomplish this by grading down into
the site, rather than building the structure up from the existing grade.
F. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application because there is no view impairment as a result of this project.
G. The proposed structure complies with all other RS -2 development standards from
the Development Code.
H. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character
In terms of the scale of surrounding residences, the size of the proposed home is
about average for the surrounding neighborhood. Although ,there are no other 3 -
story homes in the immediate vicinity, the slope of the lot allows for the garage level
to be tucked under the two floors of living area so that it is partially subterranean In
terms of architectural styles and materials, the applicant proposes a contemporary
architectural style for the proposed home. The surrounding homes display a wide
variety of architectural styles, including Mediterranean, traditional and contemporary,
which is typical of the Miraleste Hills community. Finally, in terms of front -yard
setbacks, the proposed project complies with the required 20 -foot front -yard
setback.
The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the
privacy of the occupants of abutting residences The nearest abutting residence is
the Wan residence at 3249 Crownview Drive The proposed project will be at a
P C Resolution No. 2002-12
Page 2 of 9
significantly higher elevation than the Wan residence, but there are no windows on
the portions of the Wan residence closest to the side property line and facing the
subject property.
Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a grading permit to allow 2,131 cubic yards for a single-family
residence and access driveway.
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use
of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Development Code Approximately
one-third of the proposed grading would occur within the building footprint. This
grading allows the house to be set down into the slope, which in turn minimizes the
potential for view impacts. The remaining two-thirds of the grading would occur
outside of the building footprint, mostly for the grading of the access driveway and
turnaround. The quantity of grading attributable to the driveway is comparatively
large because a long "switchback" driveway is necessary in order to ensure that the
driveway does not exceed 20 -percent slope.
B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties, as discussed
under Height Variation Findings D, E and F above.
C The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural The front portions of the existing site were
modified as a part of the original mass grading of this area of Miraleste Hills
community and the construction of Crownview Drive. Although the grading for the
house and driveway will alter portions of the existing 11/2: 1 front slope, the final grade
of these slopes will resemble the current existing conditions. The natural portion of
the site—which is also the portion that is zoned OH—will not be altered by this
project.
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 The natural portion of the property
will not be altered by this project.
E. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter 17 02
of the Development Code, as discussed in Height Variation Finding H above.
F. 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
P C Resolution No 2002-12
Page 3 of 9
on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project because it does not
involve the development of a new residential tract.
G. 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 because it does not
involve the creation of new streets.
H 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 because there is no natural landscape or
wildlife habitat in the area of the lot proposed for development.
The grading conforms to the Development Code standards for creation of new
slopes, depth of cut and fill and driveway slopes, as specified in Section
17.76 040(E)(9) of the Development Code.
J. The grading does not conform to the Development Code standards for downslope
retaining wall height, as specified in Section 17.76.040(E)(9) of the Development
Code. However, the increased wall height—from 3Y2feet to 7 feet—is warranted
because:
1. All of the grading criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of Section
17.76 040 are satisfied.
The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of
Section 17.76.040 because among the stated purposes of the City's grading
regulations are "[ensuring] that development of each parcel of land ... occurs
in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands...", and the increased retaining
wall height is needed in order to provide an access driveway to the subject
property, which is necessary for its development with a single-family
residence.
iii. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9) of Section 17.76.040 will
not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity because over -height retaining walls are
not unusual in the Miraleste Hills community or in other similar hillside
neighborhoods in the City, where they are frequently necessary due to steep
topographic conditions, both natural and man-made.
iv Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9) of Section 17.76.040 will
not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property because, prior to
building permit issuance, the proposed retaining walls will be reviewed by the
City's building official and geotechnical consultant to ensure that they are
P.0 Resolution No 2002-12
Page 4 of 9
constructed in a manner that protects the safety of the subject property, as
well as adjacent private properties and public right-of-way.
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 17.02.040(C)(1)(j) and
17.76.040(D)(1 0)(e) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be
filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15)
days following May 14, 2002, 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 approves Height Variation No. 941
and Grading Permit No. 2286 for a new, 3 -story, 4,257 -square -foot single-family residence
and 2,131 cubic yards of related grading on a vacant lot in the Miraleste Hills community,
located at 3261 Crownview Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit W,
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 11th day of June 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Long, Commissioners Cote, Duran Reed and Tomblin
NOES, Chairman Cartwright
ABSTENTIONS none
ABSENT: Commissioners Lyon and Mueller
Chairman
(oel'as, AICD
D irelcrof Plannng, uilding
-nd , ode Enforc �nt; and Secretary
to the Planning Commission
P.0 Resolution No. 2002-12
Page 5 of 9
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 941 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286
(Iskander, 3261 Crownview Drive)
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. This approval is for the construction of a 3 -story, 4,257 -square -foot single-family
residence and 2,131 cubic yards of related grading on a vacant lot in the Waleste
Hills community, located at 3261 Crownview Drive. 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 height variation and/or grading permit by the Planning
Commission and shall require 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 -2 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 established (Le , 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 height
variation and grading permit revision must be approved prior to further development
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 stamped APPROVED by the City with the
effective date of this Resolution
8. 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
9. 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
10. Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section
17 56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, and shall not exceed
1,700 W incandescent (or equivalent). No single lighting fixture may exceed 150 W
incandescent (or equivalent)
Height Variation No. 941-
11.
41-11. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed an elevation of 3' above the
highest point of existing grade covered by the structure (157') and 26' above the
lowest point of finished grade covered by the structure (134') The maximum
elevation of the finished roof surface shall be 160' ROOF HEIGHT CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED.
12. This approval is for a total of 4,257 square feet of enclosed area, consisting of a
917 -square -foot garage on the first floor, 1,187 square feet of living area and 244
square feet of decks on the second floor, and 2,153 square feet of living area and
377 square feet of decks on the third floor. The roof of the house may not be used
as a deck or other outdoor living area.
13 The garage shall maintain interior dimensions of at least twenty feet (20'0") in depth
and eighteen feet (18'0") in width. At least two garage spaces must be maintained
at all times for the parking of motor vehicles.
14. During and after construction, the applicant shall take all reasonable steps to avoid
adversely affecting the existing foliage along the northerly side property line (located
at 3249 Crownview Drive) so as to maintain the privacy of the residents of the
adjacent home.
P C Resolution No. 2002-12
Page 7 of 9
Grading Permit No. 2286:
15. The approved grading quantities are as follows:
Cut Fill Total Net
1,793 ±77 338 2,131 <1,455>
Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall provide dump receipts for the export
of 1,455 cubic yards of material form the site.
16. The maximum height of the downslope retaining wall at the northerly side property
line and along the front property line shall be 7'.
17. The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 20% (20% proposed).
18. The project shall comply with the setbacks depicted on the approved plans. In no
case shall the setbacks be less than.
a. 20 feet from the public right-of-way of Crownview Drive;
b. 5 feet from the southerly side property line;
c 52Y2 feet from the northerly side property line (except for the retaining wall
and driveway); and,
d No construction is allowed to encroach upon the Open Space Hazard (OH)
portion of the property.
BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED AT FOUNDATION FORMS INSPECTION
19. The approved project shall maintain a maximum of 25% lot coverage (23%
proposed).
20. During grading and construction, the applicant shall install and maintain temporary
construction fencing around the project perimeter, and particularly along the
northerly side property line so as to prevent construction debris from failing onto the
adjacent, downslope property.
21. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall obtain final approval of the
project from the City's geotechnical consultant. In so doing, the applicant shall also
comply with the following conditions:
P C Resolution No. 2002-12
Page 8 of 9
a. The applicant's geotechnical consultants, Applied Earth Sciences, shall sign
the final dated foundation/grading plan, thereby verifying the plans'
conformance with the consultants' original report and associated addenda.
b. All footing excavation and boreholes shall be logged to verify that the
appropriate geologic structural model was used to determine stability of the
subject site. If conditions are found to differ, appropriate analysis and
changes in recommendations shall be documented and provided to the City'
Building Official.
c Expansion potential and sulfate content should be determined through
testing, subsequent to site grading but prior to construction of the residence
22. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works
Department prior to any work within the right-of-way of Crownview Drive.
23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit by Building and Safety, the applicant shall
submit to the City a Certificate of Liability Insurance for the applicant's geotechnical
consultant and grading contractor, demonstrating that the applicant is listed as an
additional insured on general liability policies for the geotechnical consultant and
grading contractor in an amount not less than 1 million dollars per occurrence and in
the aggregate, applying separately to the project site, to cover awards for any death,
injury, loss or damage, arising out of the grading or construction of this project by
the applicant and his consultant and contractors Said insurance policy must be
issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California with a
minimum rating of A -VII by Best's Insurance Guide and equivalent or better ratings
from either Standard & Poor's or Moody's Said insurance shall not be canceled or
reduced during the grading or construction work and without providing at least thirty
(30) days prior written notice to the City. Said additional insured endorsement will
be on a form providing completed operations coverage such as Insurance Services
Office Form CG2010 10/93
M.\Projects\HV 941_GR 2286 (iskander)\PC Resolution 2002-12.doc
P.0 Resolution No. 2002-12
Page 9 of 9