PC RES 2003-059P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A
REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT NO. 2286 (PLANNING
CASE NO. ZON2003-00497) FOR FOUR (4) UPSLOPE
RETAINING WALLS AND 676 CUBIC YARDS OF
ADDITIONAL RELATED GRADING FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A VACANT LOT IN THE
MIRALESTE HILLS COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 3261
CROWNVIEW DRIVE
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted P C. Resolution
No. 2002-12, thereby conditionally approving 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; and,
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002, the applicant, Samuel Iskander, submitted plans to
the Building and Safety Division to begin the plan check process leading to the issuance of
a building permit for the project, and,
WHEREAS, during the plan check process, it was determined that the approved
67% slope adjacent to the driveway could not be supported or built without the addition of
retaining walls, and the applicant was advised that these additional retaining walls would
require Planning Commission approval and the plan check for the project was put on hold;
and,
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2003, the applicant submitted an application for a
revision to Grading Permit No. 2286 (Planning Case No. ZON2003-00497) to allow the
construction of additional retaining walls and related grading for the project; and,
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2003, the application for Planning Case No ZON2003-
00497 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 Planning Case No. ZON2003-00497 would have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to
be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(x)); 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
November 25, 2003, 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 grading permit revision to allow four (4) additional upslope
retaining walls and 676 cubic yards of related grading
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. All of the
additional grading proposed would occur outside of the building footprint. This
grading is necessary in order to ensure that the slopes adjacent to the "switchback"
driveway do not exceed 67% and that the slope of the driveway itself does not
exceed 20%. The provision of access to the new house is a necessary component
of the project
B. The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties. The review of
the original applications for Height Variation No 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286
included analysis of the impacts of the proposed residence upon views from
neighboring properties, as reflected in P.C. Resolution No. 2002-12 Landscape
screening will be required in order to soften the appearance of the new retaining
walls on the slope The proposed additional grading and retaining walls will not
affect or alter the approved location, size, design or height of the residence
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 1.51 front slope, the final grade
of these slopes will resemble the current existing conditions Furthermore, this
approval is conditioned to require additional landscaping in the areas between the
three (3) retaining walls nearest to the driveway to minimize their appearance. The
natural portion of the site—which is also the portion that is zoned OH—will not be
altered by this project or the additional grading and retaining walls
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.
P.0 Resolution No. 2003-59
;Page 2 of 8
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. The review of the original applications for Height
Variation No 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286 included analysis of the
compatibility of the proposed residence with the character of the immediate
neighborhood, as reflected in P.0 Resolution No. 2002-12. The proposed
additional grading and retaining walls will not affect or alter the approved location,
size, design or height of the residence.
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
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.
I. The additional 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 additional grading does not conform to the Development Code standards for the
number of upslope retaining walls permitted, as specified in Section 17.76.040(E)(9)
of the Development Code. However, the increased number of walls—from one to
four—is warranted because
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 increased number of
upslope retaining walls is needed in order to provide an appropriate 67%
slope adjacent to the access driveway for the subject property, which is
necessary for its development with a single-family residence.
P C Resolution No 2003-59
Page 3 of 8
ill. 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 multiple, stepped retaining walls
are not unusual in the City's hillside neighborhoods such as Miraleste Hills,
where they are frequently necessary due to steep topographic conditions,
both natural and man-made. In this case, they are specifically necessary in
order to provide for the access driveway for the future house
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 and additional related
grading will be reviewed by the City's building official and geotechnical
consultant to ensure that they are constructed in a manner that protects the
safety of the subject property, as well as adjacent private properties and
public right-of-way
Section 2: 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(D)(10)(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
November 25, 2003, the date of the Planning Commission's final action.
Section 3: 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 a revision to Grading
Permit No. 2286 (Planning Case No. ZON2003-00497) for four (4) upslope retaining walls
and 676 cubic yards of additional related grading for a proposed single-family residence on
a vacant lot in the Miralesfe Hills community, located at 3261 Crownview Drive, subject to
the conditions contained in Exhibit'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area.
P.0 Resolution No 2003-59
Page 4 of 8
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 25th day of November 2003, by the followirfl*7
vote I
AYES Vice Chairman Mueller, Commissioners Cartwright, Duran Reed, Lyon
and Tomblin
NOES: none
ABSTENTIONS none
ABSENT Chairman Long and Commissioner Cot6
'o
jas' Al P
D1 ec )
r of PI ung, Building
an ode Enforcement; and Secretary
to the Planning Commission
Craig Mueller
Vice Chairman
P C Resolution No. 2003-59
Page 5 of 8
4N9.r--TiW-'1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2003-00497
(Iskander, 3261 Crownview Drive)
General Conditions:
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 four (4) upslope retaining walls and 676 cubic
yards of additional related grading for an approved but not -yet -built single-family
residence on a vacant lot in the Miraleste 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 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 (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 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
P C Resolution No. 2003-59
Page 6 of 8
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. Except as modified by this Resolution, all conditions of approval for Height Variation
No. 941 and Grading Permit No. 2286, as originally approved by the Planning
Commission on June 11, 2002 pursuant to P.C. Resolution No. 2002-12, remain
valid and in full force and effect.
Revision to Grading Permit No. 2286:
9. The approved grading quantities for the project are as follows:
Cut Fill Total Net
3261 Crownview Drive 2,302 223 2,525 <2,079>
3285 Crownview Drive 281 1 282 <280>
Total 2,582 224 2,807 <2,359>
Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall provide dump receipts for the export
of 2,359 cubic yards of material from the site.
10. The maximum height of the upslope retaining wall at the southerly side property line
shall be 8'.
11. The maximum height of the upslope retaining wall immediately adjacent to the
driveway shall be 5'.
12. The maximum height of the two (2) upslope retaining walls located in the middle of
the slope shall be 3'.
13. The maximum slope between the retaining walls described above shall be 67%(i.e.,
1.5:1).
14. Prior to building permit issuance:
a. The applicant shall obtain final approval of the revised grading from the City's
geotechnical consultant.
b. The applicant shall provide a copy of the approved plans to the owners of the
adjoining upslope property at 3285 Crownview Drive, and shall provide them
with forty-eight (48) hours advance notice of the commencement of grading
and construction.
P.C. Resolution No. 2003-59
Page 7 of 8
C The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the front slope area for the
review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement. Said plan shall include the use of vines and/or shrubs in front
of the approved retaining walls (except for the wall immediately abutting the
driveway) that will grow to sufficient density and coverage to screen the
appearance of the walls. Landscape screening for the walls shall be installed
to the Director's satisfaction prior to building permit final for the new single-
family residence
M \Projects\ZON2003-00497 (Iskander, 3261 Crownview Dr)\PC Resolution 2003-59 doc
P C. Resolution No. 2003-59
Page 8 of 8